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.
Rule changes from 1st edition?
-
I bought the 1st edition of E40 and P40, and so I have a slightly outdated global game. I know that AA guns were changed to AAA which are now colored for each power and aren’t captured anymore. Convoy disruption seems to have changed as well (rolling a die and planes counting instead of just 1 for warships and 2 for subs). What other rules have changed? And am I missing any pieces besides AAA?
-
And am I missing any pieces besides AAA?
In terms of actual unit types, no, but the 2nd ed has a lot more nation-specific sculpts than the 1st ed. Italy and ANZAC got a full complement of unique sculpts (including the infantry unit in the case of ANZAC). Most of the “foreign” equipment pieces that were used by various other powers in the 1st ed were replaced by “domestic” equipment in the 2nd ed; the only gaps that remain to be filled in this regard are the British naval transport and the Russian aircraft carrier (for which domestic units can be obtained fom the 1941 game) and of course the whole French non-infantry equipment set (a gap which, hopefully, will be filled either by HBG when its French set is finally produced or in a hypothetical 3rd ed of the game). In terms of map differences, the 2nd ed has a national production tracking chart aross the top (which personally I don’t like) and it treats differently the area just east of Alaska. In the 1st ed, this area consists of two territories (Yukon and B.C.), each marked with a Canadian roundel; in the 2nd ed this area consists of a single territory (Western Canada) that’s marked with a British roundel; the official errata for the game (http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AA_Pacific_1940_2nd_Edition_FAQ.pdf) states that “Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It is originally controlled by the United Kingdom.”
-
What other rules have changed?
Though you are by far not a beginner I would recommend you to read YG’s guide to be found here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34418.msg1324326#msg1324326You will get an impression on how much the game has changed from 1st to 2nd Edition.
Also you will find all the links to download the rules and FAQ you need to be up to date. -
@P@nther:
What other rules have changed?
Though you are by far not a beginner I would recommend you to read YG’s guide to be found here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34418.msg1324326#msg1324326You will get an impression on how much the game has changed from 1st to 2nd Edition.
Also you will find all the links to download the rules and FAQ you need to be up to date.Definitely not a beginner, when I make an embarrassing error during my youtube videos… CalvinHobbesliker is always there to let me know, I have been really lucky to have him help me in that regard.
-
Thanks, guys. I have played some G40 1st edition/Alpha a few years ago, but I haven’t played any A&A since then, so my memory of the rules is a bit rusty. Did subs have 2 attack, 1 defense in G40 1st edition? I recall that they used to have 2 attack, 2 defense at some point…
-
Thanks, guys. I have played some G40 1st edition/Alpha a few years ago, but I haven’t played any A&A since then, so my memory of the rules is a bit rusty. Did subs have 2 attack, 1 defense in G40 1st edition? I recall that they used to have 2 attack, 2 defense at some point…
They have 2A/1D in both editions.
Suggested Topics
