All right, who is getting AA50 for Christmas and how the heck do you know it?

@sensenschwarm thank you.Reprint.jpg

this rule was expanded in the reprint of anniversary edition - but not in the PDF Rulebook on axisandallies.com, and not in the FAQ/Errata, and in my physical copy of the original AA50, it is the version which I had quoted above.

The issue is resolved! Thanks alot! :-)

As far as I can tell it’s difficult for them to get the rights to get the games. Only so many for extended periods of time. Thus I doubt G40 or 42.2 will be added for a while since they are still being sold OOB.

If anybody is in CT and would like to get on a Double Blind games, contact me.  We’re going to try and get one going on Good Friday.

Where:  East Hartford, CT
When: Friday April 2
Time:  10am
Contact:  Brian  brian@thediceturret.com

Thanks,

@Flying:

I see no strategy evolving that includes fighting Japan with a large enough effort that simulates the real war. It will be KGIF. I do think KGIF can be defeated by Japan buying large quantities of bombers and using them to blast Russian ICs. This would give the Germans an opening to crush Russia.

Japan can make America fight.

@Black_Elk:

I just hope one of them is relatively well balanced.  :-D

I’ve been hoping all along that the 42 scenario would be better than the 41, with the Midway glory and such.
China looks a lot more interesting in 42, but in the end the 41 game might prove the closer match up Axis v Allies (without a bid) since Japan seems to be in a stronger tactical position.

I agree with you Black_Elk.  I think if China is going to be a “player” (very small player) in this game, it would be nice to have a chance to be a thorn in Japan’s side.  In the '41 scenario it looks like Japan could wipe out the entire Chinese force on J1 (of course one or two more Chinese would pop up after).

Thanks.

I was just looking over the new AA50 board image and it occured to me how arbitrary the geography is in this game.

Why is the Belgian Congo in this game at all?

Spain is off limits, even though certainly in the realm of possible history/gameplay Spain could have been a major player or battlefield of WWII; a lot more of a possibility than French Eq Africa or the Belgian Congo which are indeed in play.

Certainly Turkey could have been a significant factor in this alternative universe of a game we call Axis & Allies than ever could have would been French West Africa or Rhodesia.

Yet there they are: Belgian Congo, French West Africa, Rhodesia all open for invasion. Spain and Turkey and others are closed off.

This is so ahistorical, we disagree about countless other nuances and rules about being historically deficient. Yet without Spain and Turkey, we are are not even accorded the ability to play out WWII in ways which could have indeed happened a lot more probable than the invasion of the Belgian Congo and Rhodesia by the Nazi war machine.

Why of all the possibilities of the Axis and Allies timeline/universe are these 2 of the more likely ones that could have happend are indeed shut down?

@Imperious:

Larry has stated many times that the units don’t generally fit standard military models for classic formations (divisions, corps, army) and in some cases these are corps and others they are armies. They are not the same in every case, allowing for the corps in Africa to be symbolized as perhaps 2-3 units, while in the Soviet union one infantry may represent an army ( 3-5 corps).

Yes, IL thanks,
I have been reading those old posts.  I note he (Larry Harris) stated the Naval units abstraction was a greater dilution of unit strength, or a direct correlation to vessel numbers from standard representation of Classic fleet/squadron/Battle groups.  I am thinking more in chess terms, where tempo or position is sometimes of more value then individual pieces.