To put it another way, the restriction applies only to placing (mobilizing) new units. It does not apply to moving existing units.

Re: Think K[G/J/I]F is over?

As a recent new player to AA50 I would respond to this old post with a nuanced strawman approach (heavily based on my pref for Allies) but useful for Axis. I have wrestled with the math optimization of how to win OOB as Allies no bid in 1942 with NO and tech both on. I have been pondering how much income to send from US in particular to either coast. I’ve read almost all of the posts under AA50 and a few revised. Some say to launch a dedicated SBR campaign against Italy or Ruhr. Others go into a crazy naval build in WUS and do an arms race with IJN. The one post talked about parking an attack fleet with subs and caterpillar from Iwo. Others use the money island gravy train with surprise optionality to attack the Italian boats via the Suez (or repair one of my newb blunders if losing India by a relief invasion from Nimitz).

Particularly for the Allies I have two ways to think about this.

Turn 1 Allies: What IPCs or No’s can I grab cheaply esp with US and UK. What scraps did the Axis leave in the rubble of my fleet on Turn 1? If the cheesy AI skips Pearl I roll into Solomon. No cost of new units. Got one of my NO. If Herr Donitz can’t sink my Brit cruiser or B.B. I am taking you to Casablanca with the Canadians. Play it again Sam, no cost of new units. If Burma or Manchuria is stupidly left open I walk in an Indian or Siberian picket for no cost except deadzoning the poor guy. Free or dirt cheap. if the Japs are steaming for Midway I sneak in with my scrappy little 2 US guys into Borneo. Japs can’t cover everything or even most anything in the PAC and I snipe and nibble and scrape. Anything I can take I snag with Us fleet.
So far I have spent 0 IPCs as US. I call this Kill cheapest first.

Turn 2+: What about when the subs chew apart my EUS DD and TRx2? Or smoke my Brit BB and I have to start building air and fleet from scratch? I use the other part of the strategy of not what to kill first, but when to kill it with US and UK. There is a delicate dance in build order for US against a good Axis. See what they give you and dance carefully. Maybe a sub and bomber campaign off WUS. Or run the torch playbook or just Bomb the tar out of Rome. My personal favorite.

As a newb I read the Essays. Shuck shuck is unfortunately no longer a viable option. I think the equation is now a generalized formula of a combination of pips per ipc, time needed to bring a given unit to a front, covering fleet per unit moved, and other considerations. Don Rae shuck shuck is like a limited form of a generalized cost benefit analysis including things like power projection and timing, and cost for the surface fleet needed to get that one guy from NY across to Eurasia. It’s just not as easy as inf push mechanic.

My Soviet strategy is again about timing with the timer being East Poland. Once I start seeing a given massing of tanks and inf I go turtle in an orderly and planned way, socking in spitfires and p51s in Moscow. Again it is a cool timing to the game that makes it fun. Where I see a lot of these posts go into a spin cycle is that they are looking at a static playbook that missing the point of when to make the important decisions
A. When to build pacific fleet
B. When to sbr
C. When to invade Norway and so on.
D. When to build the Indian IC. Or not at all. Or wait until Turn 3. Yes that once happened where it was best to wait.

@Panther said in Research and Development Clarification:

@sparky660 Welcome to the forum :smile:

In case of a sucessful roll you return all tokens to the bank. In case of a failure you keep them (rulebook, page 11).

HTH :slightly_smiling_face:

Thanks Panther. I read that last night and it didn’t register. I re-read it just now and it’s rather obvious, I don’t know how it confused me.

So I was wondering if it would be possible if there could be a 2 player game but only 2 countries would fight, and is it possible, if yes well are there ‘custom rules’ that could be implemented?

@axis_roll +1

@rookeries Welcome to the forum :slightly_smiling_face:

Moving the UK plane to SZ 5 to attack the German transports there indeed is a valid combat move. The battle will be resolved according to the “defenseless transports”-rules on page 19 of the rulebook, sometimes referred to as “autodestruction”.

Scramble is not part of the ruleset here (you might mix that up with the rules for Global 1940).
Also there is nothing in the rules saying that planes must be accompanied by attacking ships.
So never leave your transports unprotected :smile:

@Soviet-Steamroller said in Captured Industrial complex in China?:

So long story short it is better never to make any assumption when going back and forth from 1940 to Anniversary right?
If it is not clearly written down then don’t assume it!

Sounds good. However, there are many parallels in the rulesets. But not in this specific case - neither in other cases.
Better check the rulebooks/FAQ, as “assuming” or “believing” is sometimes misleading indeed. :wink:

In case of doubts just ask of course! :slightly_smiling_face:

Thanks for your reply. Makes perfect sense.

@Soviet-Steamroller said in New Industrial Complex placement.:

I always wondered why Borneo and/or East Indies where not seen that often with factory built as it looks like a great base of operation for Japan or even UK!

There is a fairly common house rule to not allow Industrial Complexes on islands, specifically targeting Japan, to keep such a strong/game winning move out of the game.

@Panther

Thanks for the clarification and quick response!

Heading back up to your logic up above–its not “units that can (in some situations) retreat”. It is units in this situation that can retreat (attacking tts yes defending ones no). That rule is written as it is to cover the situations where submerged subs, unhittable units (subs vs planes) or amphibious assaults where some units can retreat and others cant.

As a lawyer–I get what you’re trying to do and say that the rule doesn’t say what its supposed to say. As Krieg points out, that’s up for debate. Many lawsuits are about this kind of thing.

But that’s not because its dogma Canon law its because the other outcome is insensible, contradictory, gamey, requires a tortured reading of the language devised over multiple editions and revisons of the game to try and cover so many different situations.

there is no such thing as a perfect document try to write one

Well yes. If you get an account with mediafire, you wont get that. Everyone should have at least a dropbox account and probably Mediafire

Oh, ok. I didn’t realize that they went out of play immediately. Thank you panther!

@SS-GEN Mate I must be blind as a bat 😂

Thanks! 👍

Thanks for the info. Just got it for Christmas.

@Panther Perfectly yes. Thank you very much Panther. See you on the battlefront!

Splitting this Colonial Outpost idea out into it’s own thread.

Great thank you Panther!
It seems the answer was hiding in plain sight in those 3 words… “ending its movement”!

@Imperious-Leader Maybe you went this way since the original design does archetypally the same, but how about, in the land-to-land borders, colourizing the borders of the borders, while leaving the inside of the borders light grey?
This way, you could properly define the colours for the borders between territories with different ownerships (for example, having the border between Poland and East Poland grey on the west and red on the east).

The Soviet symbol in the turn order is different from the ones inside the territories.

The Azores are sometimes neutral and sometimes American (also probably it would make more sense as British than Americans, but debatable and pointless).

In the “AA50 Suplreme Edition” there are no territories for Azores and Malta, but only the roundels?

Just to add an extra comment here: I’m not sure I’m understanding the original question correctly, but if it means “what is the footprint (length x width) of every sculpt in the game?” my reaction would be that this information a) would take a lot of work to compile and b) is unnecessary for designing a custom map.  To make sure that a custom map is large enough, all that’s really needed are three measurements: the dimensions of the Anniversary game board, the dimensions of the largest naval sculpt in the game (which is probably either the Japanese battleship or the American aircraft carrier), and the dimensions of the largest sculpt in the game which can be positioned on a land territory (which I think would be the American B-17 bomber).  If custom map’s sea and land territories are big enough to handle those large sculpts, then they’ll be big enough to handle the smaller ones.