From a custom Europe map I got off the internet a few years ago, there were only allied convoy zones in the atlantic where part of the US income and most of England’s income were spread out there. There was also 1 Russian convoy. You had to have a transport in each one to get the income or if you were the axis you just moved an attack vessel into them to deny the allies the cash while not taking it yourself. The US could put transports in the allies zones to keep them going so the UK and Russia could use their transports for other things. One exception being that when the US entered the Russian convoy, they gave an IPC for each transport in that zone, up to a total of 4 bucks which was the worth of the convoy. In the Med. there was an Italian and a few UK zones to fight over. I liked playing with convoy zones like this because it made it more fun to build ships and do naval engagements cause there were essentially sea zones of monetary worth now instead of just wide open nothingness.
Posts made by Gharen
-
RE: Italy sub heavy. Speculation
-
RE: Russia
I bet it will having some sort of variation of a custom Europe map I got off of the internet a few years ago. Basically it was just before Germany invaded Russia and on the first turn, every territory that Germany hit, they got the first round of combat done freely. Meaning that Russia could not fire back on the first set of dice rolls and would lose them as old fashioned bombards. As for this new Europe map, I assume Russia is not at all strategically or tactically set up to start a war with Germany where as Germany is set up to probably go either east to Moscow or west to Paris. If you went east to Moscow then you would keep France in the game longer and vice versa. I just bet Russia is really weak and spread out and will use those beginning turns as a crucial build time to be ready for war. The bigger question is, do you go for broke on pumping out armor and aircraft or do you begin the steel curtain by mass producing infantry?
-
RE: Do you want europe NAs like in AAR??
I think the NOs were their attempt to replace NAs but it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see them in globabl game, not just europe. And as for complicating the game more, once you wrap your head around all of the rules it just adds more to the richness and depth of the game. I say bring on more unique things to make it an even more insane board game.
-
RE: Big News!
Just amazed they didn’t think of sending it in a box, I always assume worst case scenario when I do things, I guess they don’t.
-
RE: National income question
It is usually the best plan to try and spend every possible IPC each turn but it doesn’t always work out that way, so saving a few bucks here and there allows for bigger buys later on! :-D
-
RE: Rules are pretty confusing
Thank you for catching my mistake, I had myself mixed up there. Yeah it was the factory on island rule that I was thinking about. If UK is split in half then it wouldn’t have the scramble ability.
-
RE: Rules are pretty confusing
1.) China doesn’t surrender its IPCs if it is taken over by Japan, nor will it collect more income once its territory is completely taken over. You don’t get more cash just sitting around doing nothing while occupied.
2.) Scramble only works on islands, exceptions being Japan and England in the Europe board.
3.) There are fighter escorts in this game for the strategic bombing and there are also fighter defenders, the defenders can only come from the territory being strategic bombed. Fighters attack at 1 and defend at 2 for one round of combat.
4.) Each side can take the DEI for more income while the UK and ANZAC can noncombat move planes to these islands without recieving their bonus if they haven’t taken them with ground troops.
5.) The US enters war at end of 3rd turn or if Japan declares war on UK and ANZAC before the 3rd turn then the US is at war with Japan on their turn of the round.
-
RE: Russian Strategy
Thats what I love about forum surfing on this website, it gives me more insight into playing this game and being able to win with the Allies. A bomber first turn would make Japan sweat a bit on rushing headlong into India with unprotected units and the same with leaving anything in the Med. open for bomber sniping. I don’t want to give up on the 41 scenario cause I think Allies can win, just that their mistakes are more costly if made where as the Axis just have to take ground and not give up big IPC gains for Allies while waiting on the Japan war machine to come rolling in. Russia has always been the key to winning and losing in this game. I am starting to wonder if instead of walls of infantry in the east, why not put one per territory after you put a few dudes in bury. You could effectively stop a blitz and make it like 5 turns to go north, and make it another turn or so through China as well. But of course, how do you stop the southern thrust?
-
RE: An Allied strategy
Sorry about not spacing that last post and for not including this in there as well. I really think a KIF could be the most viable way to go for the Allies. Strat bomb Germany and Italy and just bet the bank on UK assisted by US forces on taking Rome and holding it. You could contest Rome faster than Japan could contest Moscow.
-
RE: An Allied strategy
Well my opinion is somewhat skewed on this strategy. I have only played it out twice, by myself on tripleA with no low luck, just normal dice. And the outcome was still pretty similiar with Russian being able to hold out for 5 rounds or so, successfully countering Germany attacks and with her NO, netting around 30 IPCs a turn. With the UK I did the fleet build up and pipelined me through Algeria to the middle east to halt the Japanese southern thrust. I stacked the Russian infantry in Bury and keep some Japan units tied down for a few turns but I took them out later on after Japan had all but crushed China and had taken India. With the devastated UK fleet having to recover, I never actually took out the Italian fleet in the 6 rounds I played because from the Italian players perspective, I bought as many land units I could buy each turn and kept invading/bombarding anywhere and everywhere in the Med. while keeping troops in France for defense and tanks rolling east to back up Germany. The US I went probably 80-90% strength there and kinda regret not doing 100%. I decided after a turn or 2 to start moving a transport and 2 land units to Europe each turn and the rest in the Pacific. I even played this round with Turkey being an inpassable seaway and yet still Italy took Persia, Eukraine, East Eukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia. They basically had attacks set up to clear some road blocks for a German thrust to Moscow which was retaken by Russia then lost for good, barely, to Japan. With Japan getting so much money extremely fast playing with the NOs, I just don’t see a way around stopping them from getting to Moscow. I feel I played pretty sensible on both sides, basically doing my normal strong axis buys while doing this new allied strat. Each turn with Germany I was producing a plane of some sort then a host of tanks and infantry. Even with no navy, the stacks of infantry and a few fighters would be more than enough to ward off the UK from having an effective landing. This is a solid strategy but I just personally feel that NOs unbalance the game.
-
RE: Do you want canada as a power
I think UK will have split income as well with it broken up between England and India. I really do believe Canada will be in the game as an ANZAC type power with 10ish IPCs to spend on stuff, kinda what Omega said. I really think they wouldn’t bother with putting unique icons on the board for Canada if they didn’t intend to make them playable. Only exception to that statement is the DEI for the sake of having more territory to fight over in the Pacific board. Canada won’t be a battlefield that is fought over like the DEI, I think it will be a separate entity played on the UK turn. Hell in the global game all of the commonwealth could very well act on the same turn. Kinda scary to think about when playing the axis. My biggest concern is that they don’t flip the advantage back to the allies in this game since axis have the edge in anniversary.
-
RE: TripleA info
I am having trouble connecting to the online lobby server for playing games on tripleA. It says the connection was closed by a remote host. I already restarted my computer and its still coming up with the same errors. I was online the night before playing a game online just fine. Any help on how to fix this would be awesome, thanks.
-
RE: Russia
I would suspect a siberian railway on some sorts to be put in to make it viable to stall Japan in the global game. I really do think this will be the greatest game they will have ever come out with, even able to usurp anniversary edition from the top spot.
-
RE: Kamikazes for Japan, what for Germany???
Well the original Europe board gave Germany better tank defence which everyone has now and 1 sub free each turn. Would not be surprised with the free sub a turn thing in this new board.
-
RE: Another question
The only time you can chose to ignore naval units to bombard land for an invasion is either transports or submarines. If any surface ships are there that aren’t transports, then all naval attack vessels are involved in killing them before you can invade the island in that sea zone. You can’t divide your fleet to hit multiple targets, like some killing the DD and others for bombarding.
-
RE: AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A
Kwangtung which has Hong Kong in it I believe will go back to England and count for their IPC total. China doesn’t get any benefit from it, they just simply liberate it for the UK. As for the fighter question, yes you can do that. You just simply end their non combat movement into a seazone that is adjacent to a factory where the carrier will be produced from.
-
RE: Do you want canada as a power
I don’t think it would really hurt the Allies by having more nations that take turns on their side. Yeah there is some adjustment in the IPC total and TUV as well but you can never underestimate the 1-2-3-now 4? punch that the allies could do any one of the axis powers. I truthfully could go either way on this issue and seeing how ANZAC is a faction, and France got thrown in, it is possible to see Canada as a power of some sorts. I think adding more factions to play adds more diversity and complexity to the game without having to drastically overhaul the game. I think the Pacific 1940 board did give it away that they will be in the Europe counterpart map. Yes, bogging down the game with 9+ players would slow it down but also make it more fun than the usual 1v1 games you see. Its always cool to see new strategies develop from having several people stare at the same board.
-
RE: Counting zones for aircraft movement
Like Krieghund said, capturing forward islands for future landing sights of aircraft is important to the Pac40 game. Just like in the real WW2, we couldn’t bomb the coast of Japan from west coast US.
-
RE: New National Production & National Objectives Chart
Yeah printing these new charts on glossy photo paper and mounting them on the foam is a great idea. Just gotta do some trim/smoothing of the edges of the foam but sure beats the junk that came with the original game. I mean seriously, just a tiny strip to put units nearby for fighting cause they sure as heck wont fit on there. Thanks a million Bob, everyone appreciates your hard work and dedication that you have put into this project thus far. I tip my hat to you sir!
-
RE: Rules question
Oh wow I overlooked that :-o and will definitely remember that from now on. My group and I never played it correctly then even though it probably would have only mattered like twice. Usually we had allied units in originally controlled Russian territory then it was obvious. Thanks for the heads up.