Posts made by gtg21

As someone who almost always ends up playing as Japan - I would have to agree with the earlier poster who said he welcomed an R1 attack against Japan.

The notion that depriving Japan of its AAP40 J1 attack I think overlooks the very real possibility that in AAG40 Japan may be better served on a J2 or J3 attack instead - if only to prevent the US from entering the European conflict early.  Remember, a Japan DOW on UK/ANZAC essentially frees the US to DOW Germany/Italy.  Why would a prudent Japanese player do that in round 1?  I’m not certain its worth getting the US in the game that quickly.

Divide and conquer seems a more prudent approach - and if Russia wants to serve its Asian territories up early, then as a Japanese player, Im happy to take them on, while also reducing the Chinese threat all the while positioning for the inevitable strike against the UK/ANZAC.

So having the opportunity to permanently remove the USSR infantry threat early on, seem to me may actually free Japan  to expand farther and in stronger force in subsequent rounds than they otherwise would be able to if they had to garrison forces on the defense in the north.

From another thread:

@WILD:

Thanks Krieghund, Russia being able to invade neutrals (and how to do it) before its at war w/Euro axis will be a great tool.

One other thing, is Russia (when not at war w/Euro axis) able to pass through Denmark straight?

@Krieghund:

Yes, if Germany gives its permission.

Interesting.  I wonder if the game comes with pre-printed permission slips.  :-D

See thread here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19609.15

So where would you advocate placing the Azores on the current AAG40 map?   Im thinking perhaps SZ103?

While we’re on the subject of missing islands, adding Diego Garcia into SZ75 could also make things interesting, particularly considering the new minor IC in South Africa.  Having a naval base there could theoretically open a lifeline between Africa and Australia - and would almost certainly open up an area of the board that sees little to no action in most games (Central and Southern Indian Ocean).

Also - having a Diego Garcia with a naval base in SZ75 would also complete the naval base chain from South Africa to Malaya allowing the UK/ANZAC two turns to shuttle forces from one end to the other - instead of 3.  And if India falls, it gives the UK/ANZAC players a platform for retaking that doesnt rely solely on a slow slog land based recapture.

@Flashman:

I’ve always believed that a number of purchased infantry should be allowed to be placed in any home area up to the IPC value of the area, without a factory needing to be present.

Under this system, Romania would function as a vital forward infantry recruiting area for the Axis in a way that would be roughly accurate (assuming you treat assimilated pro-neutrals (as opposed to conquered territory) as home areas).

Pretty good idea, but think of the havoc it would wreak on the Allies in the Pacific theater if Japan could simply place infantry in “home area” tts they start with on mainland Asia.  It would spare the Japanese player of the need to develop ICs and almost certainly the number of transports purchased over a game.

I can see some serious balance issues arising if the rule isnt restricted in some manner - perhaps tts with a value of 2 IPCs or more?

@WILD:

My first instinct is neutrals can’t pass through a straight

Thats what my thinking is as well - based entirely on the requirement that you (or an Ally) need to control the governing tt.

@Flashman:

Romania and Bessarabia should be an independent neutral.  Under terms of the Hitler-Stalin pact Bessarabia was assigned to Russia, so the USSR can occupy this territory without declaring war on Germany BUT it turns Romania proper into a pro-Axis neutral.

Good points Flashman - though in regards to the one I quoted above, Im not sure I agree.  I don’t really have a problem with Bessarabia being assigned to the Russians to start.

Given the way the game is structured and tt’s divided, Im doubtful whether under your scenario (which I agree - is a more accurate situation) a Russian player would have any real incentive to ever occupy a neutral Bessarabia - particularly given that the tt has no significant IPC value, and whose occupation would result in the Axis gaining however many Romanian infantry.

In which case, the core problem I was concerned about (a shorting of the Axis of infantry they should be assured of by operation of a pro-Axis neutral Romania) wouldnt really be solved.

@Driel310:

The Russian declaring war on Germany if attacked by Japan thing is not quite clear to me. The text can be explained in two directions.

I absolutely agree.  Its not clear to me either - in fact when I first read it, I came to the opposite conclusion as the earlier posters.

When I read “May not declare war on an Axis power in Europe until turn four unless an Axis power declares war first”  I read that as saying if Japan (an Axis power) declares war on Russia, then Russia is then free to declare war on any remaining Axis power (Germany or Italy) - in effect, circumventing the 4 turns rule.

I do not read it to mean a that Japanese DOW on Russia means that Russia is automatically at war with the other Axis powers.  Just that Russia is free to then DOW the remaining Axis powers in Europe if it chooses.

Maybe this is incorrect - but the way this was worded in the preview definitely leaves the issue ambiguous.

If this set up is indeed correct - so much for the much vaunted Luftwaffe!  I count just 4 fighters and what appears to be a tactical bomber (though maybe its a bomber?).  That can’t possibly be right considering what Japan alone starts with.

Understanding that the Germans need to start the game with some territory all their own, I do however wonder why Romania (who didnt formally enter the war on the side of the Axis until Nov. 1940) wasn’t made a pro-Axis neutral territory in the game.

Romanian forces made up a large part of Axis eastern front forces and it seems to me that by not having them as a pro-Axis neutral that spawns at least 5-6 infantry, that the Axis is deprived of additional infantry that should in fact be represented.

The result is that the Axis end up having to produce through their own IPCs more infantry than they realistically should when you consider the manpower contributed by Axis satellites - of which Romania was the largest contributor.

Even the initial setup doesnt account for this since Germany starts the game with just 2 inf and 1 armor in Romania.  Assuming those intial set up forces are intended to represent a Romanian contribution, there’s no way the starting forces in Romania should be fewer than those generated by operation of the Axis entering Bulgaria or Finland (each of which spawns 4 inf).

Just a casual observation - Im sure there’s a good reason Romania was made a German tt - but I do think the initial set up for that tt should be boosted by at least 2-3 infantry.  Particularly when you consider Russia gets to generate 4 free inf per turn while at peace - a production level that in just 2 rounds negates the infantry the Axis gain through Finland and Bulgaria.

@SAS:

I wasn’t referring specifically to you, Dany, I just don’t understand why everyone thinks this is such a big mistake.  Someone earlier referred to Crete being part of Greece just like Hawaii is part of the US.  However, if Japan invades Hawaii, they don’t receive control of the Eastern US; and even if they invade the Eastern US and take the capital but don’t invade Hawaii, they don’t automatically get control of Hawaii.

That was my quote - but again - I wasnt referring to issues regarding “control” or occupation, merely when and where related forces are activated.  For sake of clarification, I was looking at the issue from the perspective of an Axis attack on Crete - not from the perspective of an Allied player sending forces to Crete in order to bring Greece into the war.

The analogy was simply intended to illustrate that when Japan attacks Hawaii on J1,2, or 3 - Japan and the US (i.e. ALL territories of the US) are at war.  In my mind it seems to follow that if the Axis attack a portion of Greece (be it Greece proper or Crete) then all territories part of the Greek state are at war - and so any troops so designated on the board are activated.  I certainly wasn’t getting “bent out of shape” - I was simply offering what I thought was a plausible explanation of what happens - understanding official clarifications will eventually come from those positioned to do so.

But I also understand (based on the earlier poster’s Mongolia clarification offered by Krieg) the idea that Crete and Greece are treated as separate and distinct tt - and not part of the same greek  nation-state so to speak.

@panzerjager:

If you remember in AAP1940 Mongolia is a strict neutral and it has 6 differently named territories.  I would assume that if I attack Mongolia, then all of Mongolia would be activated against me, so by that logic if Crete is attacked or occupied it would activate Greece too.  That’s my opinion.  As for colonial empires like Portugal and Mozambique I’m not sure, but probably not.

The Mongolia example is actually an excellent point - and one I had overlooked.  That would seem to cut in favor of Greece entering the war by virtue of Crete being occupied/attacked.  Because, as you stated, I dont think people would argue moving into just one Mongolian territory would mean the others remain neutral while one part of the country is occupied.

Using the same analogy, it would seem the Greek infantry activation would have to take place in Greece (and not Crete - or a split between the two), as that is the space where there infantry graphic appears.

Afterall, I dont think if you move into Central Mongolia the 2 infantry from Buyant-Uhaa (or any other Mongolian territory) would be allowed to activate in Central Mongolia to oppose the move.  Or would they?  All best guesses on my part.

@Dylan:

Well look at Greenland it was Denmark colony, but it’s not with the UK, it’s American, shouldn’t it join the allies, the US wasn’t and ally!

Well actually Greenland being assigned as a US territory is fairly accurate.  When Denmark was overrun by the Germans Greenland effectively established self-rule and relied on trade with the US (and Canada) to remain supplied.   The US actually acted against a UK and Canadian plan to occupy the territory, which was supported by the Danish authorities still in Greenland at the time.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland_during_World_War_II

@Flashman:

I assume the same thing applies to Spanish colonies (Rio de Oro I assume is treated as such) and those of Portugal (Angola & Mozambique).  Or are these too treated as independent neutrals?

Thats actually a really good question - I’d definitely like to have a definitive answer on that - as well as an explanation on the mechanics of scrambling by two opposing powers from two different islands in the same SZ.

Looking closely at the high rez picture of the board posted in the other thread, it appears certain “true neutral” territories are shaded differently from others.  Compare Spain with Argentina and Chile. One has distinctive vertical line shading (which appears on other “true neutrals” like Turkey, Sweden, etc.), yet the other appears to be all white with no line shading.   Rio de Oro and other west coast African colonies are similar, and have no line shading.)  I wonder if its just the picture not being in focus, a printing error, or has some significance under the rules.

EDIT:  Looking more closely on a higher zoom and it looks like there are vertical line shading those territories. Nevermind!

I wasn’t talking about “occupying” Greece as a whole - and perhaps I misread the initial question - but I thought the question was whether a landing in Crete would bring Greece into the war - and therefore activate the 4 Greek infantry.

Seems to me a landing in Crete by the Allies would: 1) bring Greece into the war on the Allied side, and 2) the 4 Greek infantry would be activated in Greece (not in Crete).

Mechanically, that seems to make sense since Crete is (and was) in fact part of Greece (i.e. the Greek state).

That doesnt seem to make much sense considering Crete is part of Greece as a whole. Like Hawaii is a part of the US as a whole.

It seems to me that a landing on Crete would effectively bring Greece into the war.

Definitely Japan!  Being the trigger man on when the US enters the war should make for some interesting leverage over my Axis “partners”!  :wink:

I honestly think G40 is going to completely re-work the way you play the Pacific compared to how its currently played in the standalone version.  That - for me - is pretty exciting considering I nearly always play as Japan anyway.

Im also anxious to see just how the non aggression rules with the USSR play out on other fronts.

Nevermind - the answer is on pg. 16.  Looks like attacking air units can either be chosen to defend against the scramble (i.e. participate in the sea battle), or can ignore the scramble and assist in the amphib assault - but cannot do both.

So what about air units that are already in a sea zone?

Example: If at the beginning of a turn there already a Carrier w/ air units on it in a SZ with an island that is enemy occupied w/ airbase and air units.

If loaded transports move in for an amphib assault, and the attacker also wants to send in air units that are on the carrier - if the defender scrambles, do the carrier air units get to defend against the scramble AND also participate in the amphib assault (assuming they survive)?

Or do they only get to defend against the scramble?  Or do they only get to attack the island?

Intended solely as a discussion - but does anyone think the scrambling rules as they currently stand (i.e. unlimited scrambling of fighters & tacs located on an island with airbase) is too strong?

It doesnt seem to make sense that an airfield on an island (for example - Wake) could feasibly scramble - say - the ENTIRE Japanese airforce (or US airforce for that matter).   Aside from being logistically impossible, it seems to be very  heavily skewed in favor of the defender.

Im not proposing limits on units allowed in a single space - but maybe limit the number of planes you can scramble to the IPC value of the island, with zero value islands considered a value of 1 for scramble purposes.  Or perhaps a 2 planes per IPC scramble rule considering how many islands are valued at 1 or 0.

It just seems odd to me that airbases can be limited via damage - but they aren’t limited in terms of max capacity for scrambling purposes.  Or that the island of Japan can effectively scramble as many planes as Midway.  It just seems strangely off scale.

Does anyone else think the unlimited scrambling of planes seems a little out of whack?

These are fantastic as-is!  Thank you so much!