Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)
-
Those emblems are there simply to honor Canada’s contribution to the Allied war effort. They have no significance in actual game play.
Here, Here.
-
Second why does China only come with 5 tokens considering they only have 6 territories to take over shouldn’t they come with 7 tokens (one for each territory and one for IPC tracking)
If you really want more Chinese control markers, you could get them at HBG. He has a lot of National control markers available in sheets of 20 and they are good thick ones like used in the 1940 games. He even has some for nations that aren’t represented in the 1940 games (Romania, Hungary, Dutch, Spain, Communist China, etc.) in case you want to try out the 1939 varient.
On occasion, we like to try out some weird varient where China can go outside of it’s own borders, so we then need more Chinese markers. -
National objective IPC bonuses for the United States. In global, does the United States continue to get the 40 IPC bonus for going to war that it gets in “Pacific” as a stand-alone. Without that bonus, it seems like it would get insufficient IPCs to balance out the IPCs that the axis powers are likely to have by that point. I know that there are “new” bonuses in the “Global” variant as stated in the Europe 1940 rules, but I am wondering of the United States would get that additional 40 point boost from the pacific game.
Thanks!
-
No, that is a pacific objective only.
-
According to the new rules, does the US start with minor or major industrial complexes for Global 1940 2nd ed?
Minor for Global (revisions to the setup and rules for Global are located in the rule book). Major for Europe only - which is the setup printed on the boxes.
I know this was in alpha 3, but I can’t find anything in the 2nd ed rules about starting the US with minor factories in G40.
-
According to the new rules, does the US start with minor or major industrial complexes for Global 1940 2nd ed?
Minor for Global (revisions to the setup and rules for Global are located in the rule book).� Major for Europe only - which is the setup printed on the boxes.
I know this was in alpha 3, but I can’t find anything in the 2nd ed rules about starting the US with minor factories in G40.
Look here:
@Europe:
Additional rules
The industrial complexes in Eastern United States, Central United States, and Western United States begin the game as
minor complexes. They are upgraded to major complexes at no cost when the United States enters a state of war and
may be used as such immediately. They may be upgraded prior to that time in the normal way. -
Thank you!
-
2. Can you use allied airbases to launch your attacks?�  So can the US launch from England AB? If you can’t use allied airbases than paratroopers is pretty much useless for the US.
No. The tech only applies to your own airbases. However, if the US has a forward airbase (a captured one or one built on captured territory), it can use them.
The rule just reads “Up to 2 of your infantry in each territory with an airbase…”. Â Unlike rocket tech, it does not specifically say it has to be one of YOUR airbases. Â I think it is valid for the US to use England’s AB. Â At least that’s how I read it.
-
Good catch - it does appear to be yet another ambiguous rule in the book :x
I was going to agree with Fortress, but reading the rules for bases again in the rulebook and also paratroopers, I think you have a good question and I don’t know the answer for sure.
Waiting eagerly for Krieghund’s reply
-
There is a forum debate based on this question:
If an Allied nation liberates a French territory while Paris is under Axis control, does that Allied nation collect the IPC value of the French territory they just liberated?
-
Yes. They would place their control marker on it. It’s theirs until Paris is liberated or the axis retake it.
-
@Young:
There is a forum debate based on this question:
If an Allied nation liberates a French territory while Paris is under Axis control, does that Allied nation collect the IPC value of the French territory they just liberated?
Yes, see
@rulebook:Liberating a Territory
…
If the original controller’s (the power whose territory
you just liberated) capital is in enemy hands at the end
of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated
the territory, you capture the territory instead. You adjust
your national production level, and you can use any
industrial complex, air base, and/or naval base there until
the original controller’s capital is liberated. The capturing
player can’t use these newly captured facilities until the
player’s next turn.
… -
OK, Thank you.
-
Good catch - it does appear to be yet another ambiguous rule in the book :x
What’s ambiguous about it? It means what it says. The infantry has to be yours, but the base doesn’t necessarily have to be.
-
Good catch - it does appear to be yet another ambiguous rule in the book� :x
What’s ambiguous about it? It means what it says. The infantry has to be yours, but the base doesn’t necessarily have to be.
Has there ever been a tech where you could directly use an Ally’s unit/facility before this?
Normally you can’t use an Ally’s units in attacking. Since we NOW know that you can use an ally’s airbase for paratroopers, this feels like an exception.Contrast the language for air bases and naval bases with the language for paratroopers:
Air bases: “When taking off from a friendly territory or island that has an operative air base, air units gain one additional point of movement range.”
Naval bases: “Sea zones serviced by a naval base confer the benefits of that base onto all friendly sea units in those zones.”
Paratroopers: “Up to 2 of your infantry units in each territory with an air base can be moved to an enemy controlled territory…”I understand why you would question my statement that the statement is ambiguous, but I think this is partly because you know what the intent is and never had to read it from our viewpoint - (that is, people who don’t know the rules until we read the rulebook).
I’m not the only one who thought you couldn’t use an ally’s airbase for paratroopers… it feels wrong because it seems inconsistent with previous A&A rules. But if the rulebook had said “in each territory with a FRIENDLY air base”, it would be abundantly clear.And without this clarification that we now have from you, I could definitely see arguments arising between players once someone takes advantage of this rule (like launching USA infantry into Europe from the UK) much to the surprise of the defender, and a spirited argument taking place after that. The defender could argue that if you could launch paratroopers from an allied base, that the rule would have specifically said so (and note the inconsistency with airbase and naval base rules). So no, I don’t think the paratrooper rule as stated in the rulebook is clear enough! Insert the word “friendly”!
-
Has there ever been a tech where you could directly use an Ally’s unit/facility before this?
Normally you can’t use an Ally’s units in attacking. Â Since we NOW know that you can use an ally’s airbase for paratroopers, this feels like an exception.Not really. It’s no different than using an ally’s base to extend the range of your attacking air units. The tech applies to the infantry, not the base. The base is simply a requirement to use the tech.
However, I see your point about the consistency of language issue.
-
Can Allied planes land on Chinese territories if they are at war?
-
@Young:
Can Allied planes land on Chinese territories if they are at war?
If the Ally is at war, yes!
-
If the Ally is at war with Japan.
-
If you have transports starting in a seazone that contains a surface ship belonging to a power that you are at war with, can your transports pick up units from a territory bordering that seazone for a combat move?
Suggested Topics
