@taamvan OK, I’ve discussed this with Larry. I have apparently erred on the side of “realism”. While my answer made sense from that point of view, it over-complicates the rules in play. To keep the rule simple, moving units using an ally’s transport is in effect the same as moving them with your own, with the exceptions that a) they must be offloaded on a later turn than when they were loaded, and b) the transport moves on its owner’s turn, if at all. I will amend my answers above accordingly.

I have uploaded the FAQs for all of the OOP games (Classic, Europe, Pacific, Revised, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Guadalcanal, 1942 1st Edition) in their appropriate forums. Could someone please “sticky” them?

@the_good_captain You may withdraw some or all of them. If a group withdraws together, they must all withdraw to the same sea zone.

@contango said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Question: During the same UK non-combat phase, can the UK land unit starting in United Kingdom load onto the US transport whilst the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into Normandy Bordeaux?

The rules say that allied units must remain on the transport for a round before offloading, even if the transport doesn’t have to move, strongly implying that the transport “moves within the sea zone” during the ally’s turn between the moving power’s turns. Applying that principle disallows a move such as this.
Yes, but loading must occur before offloading, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.

Bonus Question 1: If the answer above is “yes”, would it still be “yes” if the UK land unit starting on the US transport offloads into United Kingdom?

While the above answer is “no”, it would be “yes” in this case. Since the two units loaded from and offloaded to the same territory, it would be OK. Of course, the only reason I can think of to do that is to trade an infantry for another unit type (or vice versa). Needless to say, the unit not on the transport must load before the unit already on the transport offloads, as offloading disallows any further activity on/by the transport during the turn.
Yes.

Bonus Question 2: If the answer to the first question is “yes”, would it still be yes if neither of the UK land units were infantry? (is the spirit of the rules that loading always happens first and hence would not be allowable because two non-infantry units would be aboard the transport together, or could the offload be seen as happening first?)

This would not be allowed at all, as loading must occur before offloading.

@The-Lone-Wolf Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It’s in the FAQ, also available at Panther’s link above.

@the_good_captain You have it right.

Unfortunately, it’s very common to run into people who have something wrong but insist they’re right. Misconceptions can be very deeply ingrained. When they concern game rules, I’ve often found they come from being taught the game by someone else who got it wrong without ever really reading the rules for oneself.

The first time I ever played Risk (in the 1970s), I was taught by an older boy at a community center. I enjoyed the game so much that I soon bought a copy for myself. After reading the rules, it was a very different (and better) game than I was taught.

There must be a certain amount of historical accuracy in order for the game to “feel like” the subject matter. Axis & Allies has always dealt with this accuracy at a macro level, striving for “feel” rather than simulation, and thus not dwelling on minutiae. It’s a fine line to walk, but some historical realities must be observed in order to maintain the ambiance. In this case, the restriction presents the feeling of threat without overly burdening the Japan player, as forcing avoidance of all USA territories would.

I won’t pretend that there aren’t game play reasons why this restriction is in place. If there weren’t, why burden the game with it? However, any such rule must be grounded in historical events and realities in order to not come off as “gamey” and ruin the feel of the experience.

All of that being said, the USA did rather famously (infamously?) allow the IJN to get within striking distance of Hawaii, as well as several other of its Pacific possessions, without raising much of a fuss until it was too late. I doubt the same would have been true if the mainland had been so threatened (my original post did make this distinction). In game terms, the “threat zone” of the mainland extends two sea zones out. Since the Hawaiian sea zone is outside of that radius, and since Hawaii could just as easily be attacked from Japanese-held territory (Marshall Islands), there was little point in game terms of excluding Japan from that sea zone.

@chaikov Yes, you’re interpreting the rules correctly.

However, WWII submarines didn’t “block” convoys. They attacked them, causing significant losses, but not stopping them altogether. Submarines were given the ability to pass through enemy units (countered by destroyers) in order to give them better survivability so they could live to attack on their own turn. This works both ways so that players can’t flood the board with cheap blockers and slow down game play.

I hope this helps.

I think IL is on the right track, but some iterations are left out (even though they are not popular, they do exist). A complete list of grand strategic games would be:
Nova
Classic.1
Classic.2
Classic.3
E
P
Revised
Revised LHTR
50
E40.1
E40.2
P40.1
P40.2
G40.1
G40.2
41
42.1
42.2
14

While I agree that “.0” and “.1” might be more accurate from an academic point of view, it’s just confusing that the numbers don’t line up with the edition numbers. Also, having no number after games that have no second edition differentiates them from games that do.

The site is down for maintenance. I have no word yet on how much longer this will take, but it will return.

@cojoh said in US airplanes and chinese infantery:

@andrewaagamer Until now, I didn’t use any CAP. I find it too risky to sacrifice a fighter in order to try to keep a seazone under your control during the enemy’s turn.
Maybe together with some own naval units it could be interesting to be stronger against an attack but I didn’t had that opportunity yet.

You will find that it’s essential to keeping Japan’s fleet alive in the late game.

@andrewaagamer said in US airplanes and chinese infantery:

Pacific has a HUGE learning curve. Very complicated with the CAP, sub-stalling and VC conditions. I went 2-8 my first 10 games at Days of Infamy before I got the hang of it.

In my first games, I lost as the Allies to capital capture a few times before I learned to defend them properly.

I remember Saburo Sakai and something like tdjkorslend were both good Players. Lionheart (SP) too?

Yes, I remember Saburo and Tordenskjold, not sure about Lionheart. We may have played there at different times. I was only there for about a year, starting in late 2001.

@andrewaagamer I saw in your recent interview that this game was one of your favorites. It’s one of mine as well, though I haven’t played it in many years. I also used to play on Days of Infamy a bit, but I don’t believe you and I ever crossed swords.

US and Chinese forces can attack together, as they move at the same time. The reason British, Australian, and Indian units are all the same is because there is no reason to be able to tell them apart once they are on the board, hence the page 10 reference. In contrast, US and Chinese units do have to be differentiated for the purpose of determining control of captured territories based on which country’s land units participated in the attack.

@largowin said in Rockets have a firing range of 3 or 4?:

Thanks for the link to the latest rules. If I understand correctly, can I use these rules with my 2004 version of the game?

No, use the ones you already have. The rules I provided the link for are for newer games.

@largowin You do have the latest version of the rules, for this game. There are, of course, later A&A games, the latest rules for which (those still in print anyway) can be found on Renegade Game Studios’ Axis & Allies page. Which versions do you have?

@Panther Please move this topic to the correct forum.

@largowin Despite its name, that’s not the official site. Renegade Game Studios’ Axis & Allies page is now the official site.

Again, while the game you’re talking about is an anniversary game, it’s not the anniversary game that this forum is about, and that everyone knows as the “Anniversary Edition”. (You can even see a link called “Anniversary Edition” on the site you linked that refers to that game.)

@largowin The Rulebook you linked above is for the 2004 Revised Edition, not the 2008 Anniversary Edition.

@largowin Sorry, but you’re in the wrong forum. This one is for the 50th Anniversary (of Avalon Hill) Edition. You want the Revised (20th anniversary of A&A) Edition forum. I know, it’s confusing, as they’re both technically anniversary editions, but no one refers to Revised in that way anymore since the other came out. In order to avoid more confusion, please post your question there.