Can Japan or US build a factory in the Phillipeens?
Posts made by Defiance
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
-
RE: German occupied London and Moscow in 5-7 turns
Hey Grasshopper, when you do Sealion, is it rd 2 that you drop mostly transports? I would like an allies first option, but getting the build order right is kinda tricky.
-
RE: German occupied London and Moscow in 5-7 turns
I sent planes and my navy to destroy most of UKs Atlantic navy. For france, I sent all available army and planes, that could reach. For Russia, I moved everything up to the front, that could reach. Finland was occupied. Before the end of my turn, I placed a major IC in Romania. For what its worth, I borrowed some ideas from the original poster. Italy took southern France its first turn .
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
I have a few questions regarding Alpha 2 global.
Can France and Britan scamble at the same time to defend the same sea zone ?
What sea zone is the Turkish strait?
What do Kamakazees hit at? Does the defender get a defense for the Kamakazee attack?Can Britain move into US sea zones when not at war with Japan?
Can US move into Brazil if they are not at war?
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
The ships were in combat, so their movement stops there. Thats the strategic advantage of scrambling.
-
RE: In the same territory,can both Ics and bases be bombed in one bombing run?
Thank you Krieg. Iam getting some friends together to play our first global game. I have read the rules and alpha updates. The bombing was the last clarification I needed before we play . Thank again for the rules clarification.
-
RE: In the same territory,can both Ics and bases be bombed in one bombing run?
So when bombing, the player would announce which fighters and bombers were attacking each individual facility ? Thank you for the clarification.
-
In the same territory,can both Ics and bases be bombed in one bombing run?
When strategic bombing, can you asign bombers to each bases or Ic?
-
RE: Has anyone tried using the Revised board with global units?
The combat would look something like this:
1)combat move
A) Declare an Airborne assualt/ with or without supporting land units2)Conduct combat Phase
A) Opening antiaircraft fire: Remove any escort fighter/air transport(including air borne infantry loaded on transports) that were hit by the anti aircraft guns
B) Enemy aircraft in the territory being assualted may join the defense for 1 round(can only attack escort fighters/airtransport
3) Airborne Infantry attack phase
A) Surviving Airborne Infantry attack at a 2 in the first round of combat
B) Cassalties from the initail airborne assualt are removed
4) The supported land forces may join the battle(on the second fireing round)
A) Cassalties are removed as usual
B) The attacker decides to keep attacking or retreat(surviving Airborne Infantry retreat with the supported land forces) -
RE: Has anyone tried using the Revised board with global units?
Vertical envelopment would be the opening phase of a combined land/air battle. If any enemy planes are in the territory they get one round to neutralize the air transports. Anti aircraft may fire once,similar to strategic bombing. Cassalties will be removed before the land battle begins. Any air transports that are shot down lose the infantry aboard. The attacker may bring an escort of fighters, to provide defense for the air transports. If the airtransports survive and drop its cargo, the airborne infantry begin their attack phase. After the opening fire phase of the airborne infantry,the attackers may bring in the second part of the land invasion. If the attacker wants to retreat or stop the attack, all land units(including the airborne infantry) must retreat together. The airborne assualt must be decleared during the normal combat phase of the game. The airborne may also be used to reinforce during the non combat movement phase.
-
RE: Has anyone tried using the Revised board with global units?
I was thinking of using the tactical bomber as the airborne transport. This way the transport plane is identified as its own peice,and Germany maintains its Stuka national advantage. The goal of this experiment is to open up new strategies,while at the same time; providing a few new purchase options.
Ps. I type this as new ideas enter my mind. Please bear with me,lol. If anything it will provide an interesting discussion.
-
RE: Has anyone tried using the Revised board with global units?
I had another wacky idea. What if bombers could drop 1-2 infantry, each attack at a 2 in the vertical development. After the first round they go back to attacking and defending as normal infantry. This vertical development would be treated similar to how amphibious landings. I have stuggled with the earlier AA games lack of airborne infantry. I could be biased, since I spent 4yrs with the 82nd Airborne. However, it would take a few games to see what changes need made. But, it could provide an incentive to revisit older games. Anyhow, let me know what you guys/ladies think.
-
Has anyone tried using the Revised board with global units?
I was thinking of combining the revised board with the newer units of recent Axis and Allies games. Just for the sake of fun, I wanted to use AA’s 42 optional rule for defense of strategic bombing and national advantages from the tournament rules of the revised set. Has anyone tried this combination or modified the Revised game? If you have already tinkered with this,how did it go?
Ps. I got the idea from a reply to one of my old posts.It wasnt till a disussion with a freind of mine that we wanted to see it in action.
-
RE: Report playtest thread for TOTAL PACIFIC US strategy
If the links were posted the entire community could playtest the US strategy. More importantly, Larry and the playtesters would be in a better position to determine what changes they should or shouldnt make. The main goal here is balance afterall.
-
RE: How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
I understand what you are saying. If Japan fails to convince US from committing forces, Germany will have a harder time. I have read most of the posts presented in this discussion. It seems to me everyone here is very knowlegable regarding AA. Jen has broken it down very well. Thank you for repling to my post.
-
RE: How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
With the balance changes of Alpha 2, is it a fair assessment that Germany/Japan must use there momentum in the earlier rounds to gain an advantage? If for whatever reason Germany/Japan stalls or loses a battle,due to poor purchases,dice rolls,etc. The Allies begin to even up the odds. If the previous statements are correct, time is on the Allies side. Which brings me to wonder if this AA Global game follows historic outcomes to some degree. Example, Hitlers best chance at Sea Lion was in the early years of WW2. So this translates to rd 1-3(4?). The war with Russia was intended to be quick. If Germany goes Sea Lion it will face a much stronger Russia. At the same time, if US builds right, the odds seem to favor the Allies. I am very inexperienced at AA Global, so you guys/ladies would know best. I appologize if this has been addressed, or is common knowlege. I am simply tring to understand the dynamics of Alpha 2, and its changes.
-
RE: Does Alpha 2 replace oob Pacific/Euro for a global game?
Thanks for the heads up Noll. I figure its going to take atleast a week or so to learn the rules. The first AA game I played was in Iraq,and we didnt have much time to learn the game. However, now that I am out of the service, I can learn properly. This site has opened up my eyes to proper build orders and strats. Thanks again for repling to my post.
-
RE: Does Alpha 2 replace oob Pacific/Euro for a global game?
Thanks Krieg. You are a life saver. My sets arrived today and I was scratching my head thumbing through the books. I gotta say, the effort that was put into the creation and playtesting of this brand is trully emense. I will start downloading the data from the links you suggested. I look forward to future games both online and offline.
-
RE: Is the following possible?
The next game we play I will use your advice. Thank you for repling to my post Hobbes.