After Action Report! Good News! and bad…

@americancyco:

I could have missed it but where does it say minor axis build there units for free?  We have never played that way.

page 25 says they are limited to producing 3 units per turn.

if they produce for free then there is no reason for them to collect their own income.

When I say for free what I meant is that Germany gets paid the income value printed on the map for the minor axis powers original territories, and each of them also gets a set income as well (they basically double dip). The later part is pretty much free income for the minor powers to build units IMO.

@Gargantua:

Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power.

Yes.  The rules are quite clear on that point.

The rules on page 31 that describes what a NB does could lead you to believe it is ok to have the NB in one territory, and the IC (adjacent) in another as long as the sz is adjacent to both.

“Newly built naval units may only be placed in sz’s containing a NB and an IC in the adjacent territory”.

Rules on page 12 for place new units goes the other way. It clearly say the IC & NB both need to be in the same territory.

“New sea units are placed in sz’s adjacent to a territory that contains both an IC and NB”

I have asked for clarification before, and they are looking at the function of both AB & NB. For now we will allow ships to be built as long as the sz has a NB servicing it, even if it isn’t on the same territory as the IC. It would strike me funny if after review they don’t allow it. Wouldn’t make sense to have to buy a second NB for the same sz for ship building, but you never know?

I also wanted to know if an ally’s NB servicing a sz next to your IC would allow you to build ships. You can use your partners NB for everything else (movement, repairs) why not his shipyard for builds, but that might be a stretch. I would be fine w/a ruling that the same power needs to own both the IC & NB servicing the adjacent sz (even if the NB is linked to another territory).

We played a good long game of Axis and Allies Global over the weekend.  I played the Germany and Italy.  The Axis lost on turn 9.  While the game was great fun, I experienced a number of frustrations and disappointments.  Do the game creators have any comments regarding the following?

I was barred from conducting amphibious assaults on Russian occupied Finnish territories while Russia was still neutral.  My opponents were adamant that this would be a declaration of war against Russia (I was out-voted).  My inability to conduct amphibious assaults into Finland with German troops was instrumental in my permanent loss of Scandinavia.  My understanding of the rules is that Germany and Russia may fight it out in Finland without declaring war on one another.  This includes being able to conduct amphibious assaults onto Finnish territories.  Since the Russian destroyer is neutral to Germany, the seazone occupied by the destroyer is considered neutral allowing any German ships to move freely within.  Thoughts please?

By turn 9, the allies had control of the Atlantic.  The Axis was in control of the Pacific and Mediteranean.  The Allies had bunkered up in Sidney, Calcutta, and Cairo, with significant armies of infantry, rendering capture of these key cities virtually impossible.  Likewise, Germany had effectively created Fortress Europe with huge armies easily able to repel any large scale amphibious assaults along any coast.  Russia was very close to being overrun as it was losing the war of attrition with Germany and was fighting Japan to a standstill in Western China (and had lost all Russian territories East of Novosibirsk).  Italy had a production of 51 and was transporting troops to Gibraltar to keep the American fleet out of the Meditteranean, and to conduct amphibious assaults on Russian territories around the Black Sea (Turkey was under Axis control).  With one strategic bomber and a commando (both flying from the Cairo airbase) the allies dropped a paratrooper on Rome, and landed in the only non axis-controlled island in the Meditteranean - Corsica.  I capitulated at that point as up to that point, the game was in the balance.  No Allied fleet was present in the Mediterranean.  Five axis destroyers and two axis transports were in the sea zone adjacent to Rome.  Over one dozen Italian troops were in Turin as the Axis preferentially built in Turin every round.  Were the rules designed to allow paratroopers to drop into enemy territory and capture a capital?  This does not seem reasonable, unless the drop is part of an amphibious or land assault on the capital.

Last question.  We had another disagreement in a naval battle.  Three destroyers and two strategic bombers attacked six axis submarines.  In the first round of combat, the allies scored four hits.  I argued that only three submarines could be hit as they were undetected prior to the first round of combat.  The allies disagreed stating that three submarines were initially detected.  When the first three submarines were hit, the allies argued that the destroyers could detect the remaining three submarines to allow further hits.  The allies also argued that the undetected submarines were unable to retreat from combat stating that only the attacker may retreat.  I believe the rules allow all undetected submarines the ability to retreat from a naval battle, regardless of whether they are defending or not.  Please clarify.

I still love this game!!!

I believe your friends are correct.  Germany may help defend Finnland against Russia while not at war.

Paratroopers must be dropped in the first enemy territory they fly over.  I’m sorry but I dont remember does Rome touch the sea so that the plane could fly over Rome without flying over an enemy territory.  Your discription doesn’t really explain where the bomber came from or flew over.

I dont think it actually counts destroyer to submarine on one for one bases.  But I could just be thinking of normal A&A rules on this one.  But that is how we play we use the normal A&A rules for destroyers.

Hey guys,

Thanks for being patient. We are working on the 6.0 rules as we speak and hope to have them out in the next 4 weeks.  I am reading all your questions so please don’t think I am ignoring you. I will also have a list of all the changes made from 5.1-6.0 when we make the revision official.

Moose, it sucks, but the best you can do for the Fins is help them defend.

The airbourne landing in Rome re-inforces the cardinal rule: Always have a garrison in the capital. Always. In the last few games I’ve been leaving elite units in my Axis capitals.

I think they were right about the destroyers and detection. Subs in a sea zone with destroyers can not submerge and once subs are destroyed, the remaining subs can be detected by the remaining destroyers in subsequent rounds of combat.

This is came is awesome and I play it at least once a month. The games are generally epic. A 5AM round nine finish doesn’t surprise me at all. Some of our games have taken twenty-four hours to resolve. I wouldn’t change it for the world.

@koba:

This is came is awesome and I play it at least once a month. The games are generally epic. A 5AM round nine finish doesn’t surprise me at all. Some of our games have taken twenty-four hours to resolve. I wouldn’t change it for the world.

This wins  :-D