i believe the global setup adds
1. 1 anzac infantry to egypt
2. 18 total infantry in 3 seperate russian territory near manchuria
thanks dj for the pics, updates, and previews to the rules.
i feel i can play straight oob with the info you have provided. very clear and easy to understand. love the neutrals rules.
for the record i WILL play aae40 for the first few games before i try out the global.
I wonder: jensen did not say that the Soviets place the 2 units into Novosibirsk for free
when I read that I initially thought he meant that if the Soviets do indeed build/deploy units in a turn they must deploy at least 2 inf into Novosibirsk; in other words, if the Soviets build or deploy units thay have to buy units as usual, but at least 2 inf must go into Novosibirsk
I just thought it was clever way to not allow the Soviets to stack the borders in anticipation of the German attack they historically were indeed unprepared for.
So are those 2 inf units free or do they cost the Soviets but are still a mandatory placement?
Sorry if dj or Krieghund already answered this.
With Sardinia and Sicily both being in the same sz, are you allowed to scramble from them if you build an AB on either one?
If yes then it is possible for opposing powers to have scramble abilities in the same sz (provided they both build an AB).
@amittayal76:
djenson, would it be to much trouble to put together a chart showing all the neutrals (Europe, Mid East, Africa, and S America etc).
If possible list their starting alliance (pro axis, pro ally, or strict). The standing armies, and the value of the territory.These are sourced from DJensen’s photos of the map on the main page (and lots of squinting). I’m uncertain on a few; they have question marks.
Strict:
Afghanistan, 0, 4 INF
Angola, 1, 2 INF
Argentina, 2, 1 INF?
Bolivia, 0, 0
Chile, 2?, 2 INF?
Columbia, 0, 0
Ecuador, 0, 0
Liberia, 0, 0
Mozambique, 1, 2 INF
Paraguay, 0, 0
Peru, 0, 0
Portugal, 1, 2 INF
Portuguese Guinea, 0, 0
Rio de Oro, 0, 0
Saudi Arabia, 2, 2 INF
Sierra Leone, 0, 0
Spain, 2, 6 INF
Sweden, 3, 6 INF
Switzerland, 0, 2 INF?
Turkey, 2, 8 INF
Uruguay, 0, 0
Venezuela, 2, 2 INFPro-Allies:
Brazil, 2, 3 INF
Crete, 0, 0
Eastern Persia, 0, 0
Eire, 0, 0
Greece, 2, 4 INF
Northwestern Persia, 0, 0
Persia, 2, 2 INF
Yugoslavia, 2, 5 INFPro-Axis:
Bulgaria, 1, 4 INF
Finland, 2, 4 INF
Iraq, 2, 3 INFImpassable:
Pripet Marshes
Sahara Desert
Is Persia all together considered one or is it considered different?
When I play Germany I will bring Sweden and Spain into the fold, no matter what! :evil:
When I play Germany I will bring Sweden and Spain into the fold, no matter what! :evil:
You see thats a bully.
When I play Germany I will bring Sweden and Spain into the fold, no matter what! :evil:
your attacks on sweden and spain would have to be very strategic. it will give the allies a potenial 41 infantry in nuetrals that just sided with them. thats an extra 123ipc worth of units!
When I play Germany I will bring Sweden and Spain into the fold, no matter what! :evil:
your attacks on sweden and spain would have to be very strategic. it will give the allies a potenial 41 infantry in nuetrals that just sided with them. thats an extra 123ipc worth of units!
Germany needs its Lebensraum. :-P
I like the idea of Germany attacking Spain. That means that the US can land troops in Europe on the same turn they leave.
When I play Germany I will bring Sweden and Spain into the fold, no matter what! :evil:
Then you just gave Russia 8 infantry free of charge and 2 IPC’s a turn. Plus a new place to build ships safely.
Attacking true neutrals is a risk neither side should be willing to take unless a player feels they can break the game open by doing it.
Yuk - Sinai is still in Trans-Jordan! I’m sure I read somewhere that Larry had fixed this.
I don’t like Persia being pro-Allied: wasn’t it the Allies who invaded the place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
Also, the Baltic states seem to start as Soviet territory. This is not correct for the assumed starting date, robbing the Russian player of the chance for a quick land-grab before the Germans attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_states#Histories
Presumably the presence of “Military advisers” qualifies as full occupation.
But if so, shouldn’t that make Iraq British?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuri_as-Said#Coexistence_with_the_regent_in_the_1940s
Personally, I think Iran and Iraq should have the opposite polarities to what they’ve been given.
Gosh, I can be so haaaaaard…
Yuk - Sinai is still in Trans-Jordan! I’m sure I read somewhere that Larry had fixed this.
I don’t like Persia being pro-Allied: wasn’t it the Allies who invaded the place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
Also, the Baltic states seem to start as Soviet territory. This is not correct for the assumed starting date, robbing the Russian player of the chance for a quick land-grab before the Germans attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_states#Histories
Presumably the presence of “Military advisers” qualifies as full occupation.
But if so, shouldn’t that make Iraq British?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuri_as-Said#Coexistence_with_the_regent_in_the_1940s
Personally, I think Iran and Iraq should have the opposite polarities to what they’ve been given.
Gosh, I can be so haaaaaard…
Yeah, apparently this has been noted before.
On the issues of pro-one side or the other neutrals larry stated that this would have interesting impications in Finland and Greece
Danger Mouse….the Iran/Iraq thing confuses me too…
Germany sent something like 26 aircraft to Iraq to to try and support a coup against the British Appointed token government.And the UK and USSR invaded Iran in support of its people because of its Pro-Axis government was leening too close to joining the axis.
So Larry has them reversed. Iraq was a british possesion, its people wanted freedom, even if that meant siding with the axis.
And Iran’s government was all about the National Socalist Movement in the 30’s and even changed its name from Persia to Iran to more closeley associate itself with the term Ayrian
http://www.iranchamber.com/geography/articles/persia_became_iran.php
It would seem that Larry went this way with it because of the side to which the people of the country were leaning as opposed to their governments. Why? We don’t exactly know.
When I play Germany I will bring Sweden and Spain into the fold, no matter what! :evil:
your attacks on sweden and spain would have to be very strategic. it will give the allies a potenial 41 infantry in nuetrals that just sided with them. thats an extra 123ipc worth of units!
I don’t think it matters most of them are in South America.
quote oztea:
It would seem that Larry went this way with it because of the side to which the people of the country were leaning as opposed to their governments. Why? We don’t exactly know.
It seems so, but isn’t this in contradiction to the rest of the board?
Surely control in A&A is about military and government power, not the shifting sympathies of the proletariat.
You may as well make Egypt pro-Axis, as it was under a shaky and unpopular pro-British government.
@Dylan:
When I play Germany I will bring Sweden and Spain into the fold, no matter what! :evil:
your attacks on sweden and spain would have to be very strategic. it will give the allies a potenial 41 infantry in nuetrals that just sided with them. thats an extra 123ipc worth of units!
I don’t think it matters most of them are in South America.
Not at all true, there are only 3 that matter in South America. Assuming that you take Sweden and Spain as the Axis, that gives the Allies the two in Africa and Portugal (each with 2 inf and 1 IPC), plus Saudi Arabia (with 2 inf and 2 IPCs), Afghanistan with 4 inf(?), the two Mongolian territories with 2 inf each, and the big one is the Soviets can then walk into Turkey from Caucasus and get 8 inf and 2 IPCs. And those South American ones are each worth 2 inf and 2 IPCs.
So all in all you’re giving the US an extra 6 IPCs (since we’re assuming they’ll be taking Brazil anyway so they’ll have troops down there), the UK gets 4 extra IPCs plus 8-10 extra inf where they need them in Africa and the Middle East, and the Soviets get 2 extra IPCs plus 12 extra inf. Portugal would be a disputed territory with you taking Spain, but the UK just has to drop 1 inf in there from a transport to get 2 free infantry…
So… Germany gets Sweden for 3 extra IPCs per turn plus Portugal and Spain for 3 IPCs per turn and gets access to attack Gibraltar by land, but they lose however many troops fighting the national forces, the Allies get 12 extra IPCs per turn (plus whatever they get each time they retake Portugal and Spain since they are both within immediate striking distance of EUS) and 28 extra infantry for free. I’m not sure that’s worth it.
quote oztea:
It would seem that Larry went this way with it because of the side to which the people of the country were leaning as opposed to their governments. Why? We don’t exactly know.
It seems so, but isn’t this in contradiction to the rest of the board?
Surely control in A&A is about military and government power, not the shifting sympathies of the proletariat.
You may as well make Egypt pro-Axis, as it was under a shaky and unpopular pro-British government.
Yeah, same with India, as has been mentioned before, since a lot of the people there didn’t like the British government and viewed the possibility of Japan capturing India as a “liberation”. So as I said, “Why? We don’t exactly know.”
Could we see/hear about a playtest game djensen? That would be amazing.
Also, I’m so happy my local board game store allows for reservations! I reserved my copy today! I can’t wait!!
he already posted one on his twitter account.
It means he was a quarter jewish austrian who persicuted jews for personal gain.
(I think this reply was ment to have gone in a different thread, regarding Hitler, Whoops)
