Global Errata/FAQs???

I think four player is the best.  As the Allies it’s easier to be on the same page and everyone has a more to do. The setup I prefer: Germany & Italy Japan Russia, UK, France USA, China, Anzac The USA player should control Anzac since they’ll be working closely with them.

I really wanted to do the J3–take India & not have to worry about anything coming from there again, to be the proverbial—thorn in my side (thats what my original post for help with the J3 Crush thing was all about.  Then wanted to take DEI & start pushing the Anzac’s & US on my terms.  Not fighting this attrition battle & running for defense from behind with the Allies on the offense & pushing me. This is where I thought this was heading with this sort of offense from Japan–take out the Chinese & UK fronts while the US was out of it & the Anzac hadn’t had time or resources to do much, then only fight on my terms w/ the US & Anzac on two Pacific fronts & maybe chip away @ the Russians if I wanted to help germany a little? The way this has turned out, however, is by J2 I am now @ war w/all allies & have 5-fronts to still to deal with & fighting a war of attrition & defense.  Seems like the same ole Axis games where the Axis are always fighting a war of attrition & on defense.  I know this is the way it was in history, but I was hoping for a little different w/ a new game thats suppose to be slanted towards the Axis anyway, new rules that have been reworked 3-4 times & some killer new strategies that I hadn’t tried before? I’m just a novice that has been playing this game on & off, mostly off, for the past 25 years–so I haven’t had the dedicated time to work up alot of these 3-4-5 move strategies like some of the dedicated Veterans here.  So I guess forgive my poor applications of some of these strategies, they all seem good & I’m sure work w/ the right set of circumstances & responses.  I guess I’ll just have to play more to practice more. Boy, wont my wife like that one  :x  But I know my Kids & I will.  Thanx again all for help & posts & keep them coming. 

Yeah, I wish they put the couple of rules not in both books in the global section at the back. Europe has the straits rule. Pacific has Kamikaze and China rules. If you’re aware of that, it isn’t too much of a problem.

post on the tripleA forums any questions you have, Kev is pretty good about replying.

@Commando: @ghr2: @Commando: @ghr2: 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.

Anyone use War at Sea miniatures in the global game?

@17Mark71: Yes I know the rest of them surrendered, but if the Germans haven’t invaded France yet then Dunkirk hasn’t happened yet……right? look, dunkirk is some 10 or 20 kilometers from belgium. no real distance, though. and: IT IS JUST A GAME! (a really good one!)