Posts made by Ruanek

I’d just go straight to A3.  Most of the changes are setup changes so it’s not difficult to adjust to them, and A3 seems to be the most balanced.  Really, I don’t see why going from OOB to A3 would be any harder than going from OOB to A1 or A2.

@Larry:

I know it was probably covered but when London falls and US is still not at war, it says they can declare war on any or all the Axis. Does this come at the collect income phase or can they begin combat operations immediately upon the turn following London falling?

If London falls their normal DoW restrictions are removed and they can declare war at the beginning of their conduct combat phase.

Yes.  For example, I believe the UK starts with 4 in London.

@Juhlius:

@Ruanek:

@garett:

Can you move 2 (with mech or tanks) onto a transport?

Can you move 2 (with mech or tanks) off of a transport?

I’m not really sure what your question is.

A transport can hold 1 of any land unit, plus one (non-mechanized) infantry.  So it can have a tank/mech. infantry/artillery/AA gun/infantry and an infantry.  It can’t hold both a tank and a mechanized infantry.  If they’re being loaded in the same turn, it has to be in the same phase (both during the combat phase or both during the non-combat phase) and they have to be offloaded in the same phase as well.  If they’re being loaded and offloaded in the same turn it has to be within the same phase (you can’t load in the combat phase and offload in that turn’s non-combat phase).

Edit: It seems that your post may be better answered below, depending on what exactly the question was.

Does this mean that a transport can hold 2 artillery? or is it 1 infantry and 1 tank/artillery/mech./AA gun/infantry?

No.  It can hold one unit of any type plus one infantry.  So it could have 2 infantry, an infantry or an artillery, an infantry and a mech. infantry, an infantry and a tank, or an infantry and an AA gun.

@knp7765:

@Clyde85:

@Gargantua:

The next question….
do the National TURN orders change as well? :P  I mean. France in Japan??

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I LOVE this idea!!! I think it would be kinda neat to see Japan try to fight a war with China while over in Rome HAHA! Or Watch as the French try to rush forces over to Europe to save the British forces in Moscow!!  :lol: Lets see if the Germans can hold the Soviets at bay in Canada!! Oh this is just too much fun!! I think my head is going to explode!  :-D :lol: :evil: :-D

I live for this kind of stuff in games!!

WOW!  I hadn’t even thought of playing it like that.  What a trip.  One problem though, just about everyone’s capitals are in unfriendly hands so technically, no one would be able to produce units or collect IPCs.

And if they were in friendly hands they’d automatically be liberated.

Cairo is probably a lost cause if Germany is going Sea Lion, but it doesn’t always do that.  If you wait to build the minor on UK2 you can more easily prevent Sea Lion (because at that point you’ll probably know if Germany is going to attempt it) and with it there it’s a lot harder for Italy to take it.

@Gargantua:

By adding the dutch capital… you add them to the GAME.

They wouldn’t have to be added as a nation.  It wouldn’t make sense, anyway.  I do agree, though, that the original territories thing is a bit skewed in the case of German conquests.

It’s often a good idea to leave a blocker (generally 1 infantry) in the Russia border territories, because then Germany can’t blitz through.  Italy might attack “can-opener style”, but it can still be helpful.

Except that most VCs didn’t have too many collaborators with their conquerors.  Warsaw, for example.  And I don’t see too many Russians helping out Germany if they take Stalingrad or Leningrad.  I think Paris is the exception rather than the rule.

Is this a trick question?

How did you get from 8 infantry to 48 IPCs?

@MightyPol:

Hmmm… What’s the whole point?

Just buy an artillery for 4IPC and it will attack at ALL time with 2.

Why would anyone even bother to buy Marine?

I guess the marine would be able to fill the infantry slot on a transport, so that another non-infantry unit could be used.

Ok, so the USA had better landing craft.  But other nations had better equipment in other areas, too.  Why include something like this for only one nation?

If we start making different units for different countries, then we’re making a fundamental change to A&A.  I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be good as a house rule or something, but it adds a lot of complexity to the game that really isn’t necessary.

If we include marines, then how would we justify not having all the other nations’ elite units?

@Gargantua:

Ok Yes they did, and I did read that.

But still, WTH,  France???

Why not just write Russia?

I’d assume it’s because the way he/she plays Russia and France are controlled by the same player.

@Gargantua:

France requires an experienced player to defend wisely or the game could end early

LOL What?

They said Russia/France.  Not just France.

Of the smaller nations, the only one I’d be comfortable letting someone play independently is Italy.  China and France are way too small, and ANZAC goes with Britain.  Plus, if one of those nations is being played it’s probably a 3v3 or larger game and I prefer even teams.

It’s a lot harder to say which nation is easiest in AAG40, since all the nations are more complex and have more options and things to react to than in previous versions.  I’d say the Axis in general is a bit harder, because they need to have a plan right from the start and be prepared to adapt it to whatever the Allies are doing.  So that would rule out Germany and Japan.  Italy isn’t on your list, but I’d say that it has a fair shot at being the easiest power just because it’s smaller, relative to the other nations, so it doesn’t have to worry as much about different options and such.  The UK is also a bit complicated, with the split income and units all over the map and having to deal with such possibilities as Taranto and Sea Lion.  The USA and USSR have the advantage of being able to watch for a few rounds without having to make too many important decisions, though that can make them a bit boring at the start as well.  Countering Barbarossa can be intimidating, though, especially if Japan jumps in, so I’d go with the USA.  It’s not too difficult to reach fleet parity with Japan and gradually get involved in Europe, especially with the help of Britain/ANZAC.  The USA is also generally connected to the easier minor nations, though that can vary.  Putting a new playing in charge of France, ANZAC, or China could be a good way to keep them from getting to bored if they start as a neutral nation.

The Alpha rules help to fix some flaws in the game (such as only being able to scramble to protect sea zones around islands, but not Britain, fixing/improving some national objectives, balancing the game in general).

Sorry, I should have clarified.  OOB means “out of box” - the rules in the box itself.  Alpha + whatever means the new rules hat are a work in progress (but there isn’t a version specific to the Europe board yet, so you’d have to adapt them a bit).  From what you said you’re doing OOB.  And tech generally isn’t a huge factor anyway.

Your Axis strategy seems pretty good.  What are the Allies (particularly the USA) doing?