I guess I kinda’ think that; if you went down, what would be the St. Laurence that (based on the map) looks like it stops there. So to me it looks like you can go form East US to Nova Scotia or Quebec and from Zone 106 to Nova Scotia or Quebec. But you cannot go from East US to zone 106 or from Nova Scotia to Quebec.
Posts made by GrayBlaZe
-
RE: Nova Scotia to Quebec via US?
-
RE: Nova Scotia to Quebec via US?
I’m confused as to what you are saying, . I assume you are referring to the mistaken line in sea zone 5 that should have lined up to the Amur Soviet & Korean border not allowing sea zone 5 to boarder Korea. However, I see sea zone 106 boarders Nova Scotia and Quebec possibly Newfoundland (but I think that not suppose to be). It doesn’t boarder Eastern US. Are you saying this was a mistake too?
-
Nova Scotia to Quebec via US?
Hey I know ther’s a lotta’ Canadians on here Aye’ so I wondering if’n ya’ll noticed that you can’t get form Nova Scotia to Quebec by land lessen’ ya go through the Eastern US. Kidda’ weird even for my Tennessee country thinkin’
-
Completed turns equal how many years?
Was it ever determined how many completed turns (Germany, first to France, last) it takes to equal one scaled down year? I thought I’d seen it once before but have know Idea where.
Was it 2 completed moves, 6 months per completed turn?
Was it 3 completed moves, 4 months per completed turn?
Of was it 4 completed move, 3 months per completed turn?
-
Picture of US & Sea Zones together, West meets East
I did this once but didn’t strighten it out very well. This one looks better. I’m going to print it and have it as a reference in the back of the rule book for when/if the question arises.
-
RE: Preview of Axis & Allies Europe/Global 1940
Hey djensen,
First off, great job.
I got a question on the Political Situation. In AAP40 the US could not enter any allied countries territory until at war (whereas UK and ANZAC could, with each other). I would assume that this is also the case in Global and further assume this would also apply to the Soviets having the same restrictions. I didn’t see this in your post. Do you know if they (the US & USSR) have the restrictions?
-
RE: Greatest NFL Team in History?
There’s only one team in the NFL that ever proved it was perfect, the 72 Dolphines. There have been many other great teams but only one perfect in modern times.
-
RE: US starts at 52 IPCs, goes to war - 92 IPCs, chart goes to 72 ???
No, quite far from a newbee, been playing since the beginning, back in 81’ and before that I was playing Risk in the air tower of the Naval Base I was stationed on, in 74’. Actually, I was just being facetiuos, I make my own charts and battle boards and stuff. I like to add more props to the game like smoke markes for BB & AC hits to the game and I’m sure that most people on here would probably find my extra stuff over the top and ridicules, but it’s what I like to do.
-
What constitutes an unescorted transport? Detailed question
It is still not clear to me when referring to submarines firing on unescorted transporters. What constitutes an unescorted transport? This is a question that affects all three games (Pacific, Europe and Global). I posted in Europe because this is where everybody is now. I apologies upfront if this topic has been beat to death already in the Pacific thread; I couldn’t find it and can no longer use the search feature.
In the rule book of AAP40 on page 30, under Submarines, under Does Not Block Enemy Movement, it stats that “There is and exception to this rule, however. A submarine can attack any transporter that move into or though its sea zone unaccompanied by surface warships, in either combat or non-combat movement.” Nowhere does it explain the definition of unaccompanied. It is not addressed in the Errata except in the Q&A section where it stats;
Q. Submarines can attack transports that move through their sea zone “unaccompanied by surface warships”. Under exactly what conditions do surface warships prevent sub attacks on moving transports?
A. In order to prevent sub attacks, a transport or group of transports must make its entire move accompanied by a specific surface warship or group of surface warships. Each transport or group of transports that is not escorted will be fired upon once by each sub in the sea zone.In example 1; Battleship in zone 10 (A) moves to zone 9 (B). Both battleship and transport move form zone 9 to zone 14 © were enemy submarine waits. Then both battleship and transport move form zone 14 to zone 25 (D) ignoring the sub.
In example 2; Transport in zone 10 (A) moves to zone 9 (B). Both battleship and transport move form zone 9 to zone 14 © were enemy submarine waits. Then both battleship and transport move form zone 14 to zone 25 (D) ignoring the sub.
Here are the three possibilities:
a. Both these example constitute an escort since both battleship and transport are together in zone 14 at the same time where the enemy Sub waits, resulting in the transport not taking fire from the submarine? From the sub perceptive they are traveling the same rout in and out of its zone ©.
b. Only example 1 counts as an escorted move since the transporters entire move was escorted by the battleship (as stated in the Q&A), it did not state they had to start together. Then the sub would only be able to fire on the transport in example 2 because that transport was not escorted its entire move therefore in example 1 the transporter should be safe.
c. Neither counts as escorted since the battleship and transporter in each example did not travel the entire rout exactly together thereby each is considered a separate moves and the sub will fire at the unescorted transport.
I think the first one of these (a) is the simplest way to keep track of during a game; however the second one (b) does technically fit the explanation in the F&Q section. But, is that reading too much into it, and we are left with the entire rout being together as listed in ©. I would just like to know the official answer, the way it was designed by Larry and crew to be played.
-
RE: True Neutrals question
What am I doing wrong? I count 48 “True Neutrals” and everybody else is saying 41.
Angola - 2
Mozambique - 2
Mongolia, Olgly - 2
Mongolia, Dzavhan - 1
Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar - 1
Mongolia, Buyant-Uhaa - 2
Sweden - 6
Spain - 6
Portugal - 2
Switzerland - 2
Turkey - 8
Saudi Arabia - 2
Afghanistan - 4
Argentina - 4
Chile - 2
Venezuela – 2TOTAL = 48
-
RE: True Neutrals question
If it’s true that all true nutrals become your enemy all over the world cause of one incident in one small part of the globe, then I totally agree with finnman and will delete this rule. But surely this couldn’t be the case, something has to be misunderstood, cause that is to strange, even in this fanasy world where men are larger than tanks!!!
-
RE: US starts at 52 IPCs, goes to war - 92 IPCs, chart goes to 72 ???
That make sense Kriehund. I was having a brain cramp. While I playing AAP40 I was doing that; tracking the income only on the chart then adding the NO value, except for the US. I was marking/adding it all on the chart.
-
RE: US starts at 52 IPCs, goes to war - 92 IPCs, chart goes to 72 ???
Yes, Western US goes from 10 to 50 IPCs when at war.
-
US starts at 52 IPCs, goes to war - 92 IPCs, chart goes to 72 ???
I’m confused, if the US in a global game starts out at 52 IPCs and gets the 40 bonus when at war, that will make 92 IPCs already and the IPC chart only goes to 72.
Maybe this was brought out “globally” already and I didn’t see it. I know the charts were to small in AAP40 and it was talked about then, however, now it’s seem a little worse, that you can’t even start out on the chart as soon as US goes to was.
-
RE: Moving (wrapping) by sea from one side of the board to the other.
Thanks Megaeinstein. I didn’t realize that it was addressed already. I read your post and also seen where it was brought up again at Emperor_Taki’s post while at Gencon. So maybe a more refined answer is yet to come or it will be the rules. Anyway I’m fine with the rule going either way, based on my two choices. I understand why each was map was designed for each side to work within its own board and know the US, Canada & Mexico do not need to line up together to work. However, I just want to find the official way based on the game design.
-
Moving (wrapping) by sea from one side of the board to the other.
I have a question about wrapping around the board. Traveling by land it’s obvious that going east to west, Yukon Territory and British Columbia both boarders Alberta, Western US borders Central US, and Mexico borders Southeast Mexico.
However there are two ways you can look at the sea zones; 1st, you can assume that (from bottom to top) that zone 52 goes to zone 66, then zone 51 goes to zone 65, zone 28 goes to zone 64 and zone 11 does not cross over (or possible could go to zone 64 also). However if you draw straight horizontal lines then (from bottom to top again) zone 52 still goes to zone 66, zone 51 would then be able to go to zone 64, 65 & 66. Then zone 28 would still go to 64, and zone 11 would still not cross.
So the question is; do you follow the horizontal lines like the one depicted all over the map or do we distort the boarder and assume an artificial line up as the land (US, Canada & Mexico) does? And does zone 11 cross over to zone 64?
If anyone knows the correct answer please advise. Hopefully it will be addressed the rules.
-
RE: Who are we, that wait for a game like a child on Christmas morning?
So most of you were not born yet or to young to play when AA came out in 1981. What I wanna know is; what happened to all the people who bought the game and played back in the 80’s? Did they grown up and get to old for games? That’s a shame.
-
RE: Who are we, that wait for a game like a child on Christmas morning?
I find it interesting that 300 people have viewed this but only 56 have replyed to the poll. Does anyone know if the count of people veiwing counts everytime the same person visits or just the first time you do? If just the first time you visit then it appears that most people who view, five out of six choose not to poll there age. :?
-
Who are we, that wait for a game like a child on Christmas morning?
Been curious as to how old we are? I was wondering, I’m almost a senior but act like a kid when I talk about the game and my lack of patience I have of waiting for August 24th. It’s like waiting for December 24th…. 45 years ago. And that’s the wonderful thing about this site and AA…