When it comes down to it the restrictions on war declarations last for a very small part of the game. If you’re already familiar with A&A then this shouldn’t be a difficult game to pick up. The one thing you should know, though, it that it’s much larger scale. More nations, more units, longer game, etc. As other people said, the split Europe/Pacific economy only applies to the UK.
Posts made by Ruanek
-
RE: Global 1940 Review?
-
RE: Germany v. Russia –who wins?
I thought this meant no Sea Lion, because it specified an all out attack on Russia by Germany (though Sea Lion certainly does help Germany against Russia in some ways). Also, the general consensus on this forum seems to be that in the first few turns at least the USA should focus entirely on Japan, though there are obviously people who disagree with that. I’ve seen some good statistics for a German victory attacking Russia turn 1. I’ve also seem some statistics saying the Axis has a better chance attempting a Sea Lion (takes England out, forces the USA to focus on both boards, etc.). Japan attacking Russia definitely would have an impact on a potential German win (or loss), as well. Statistically speaking the game isn’t perfectly balanced yet (though it isn’t as bad as OOB) and different people lean different ways in what they think are the best strategies. It’s a tough question to answer.
-
RE: Germany v. Russia –who wins?
Who do you all usually find that wins, if Germany is all out on Russia and Russia all out on Germany.
Russia’s usually going to be all out on Germany, and Germany usually can’t afford to go all out on Russia (since it has to deal with the UK, USA, etc.). In a straight fight Germany would always win because of its superior economy. With the other factors involved (mainly the other nations) Russia’s still more likely to lose in the long run unless a second front is opened (France, probably).
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
So here is my question. Since all factories and bases have AA capability, when you send in air units, do all units fire for each plane? I tried to find it in the rules and I can’t. I know its probably in there and I am just not reading well enough. Anyways whats the verdict?
Only the AA gun involved fires. If the planes are attacking land forces, then the generic AA gun fires at them. If they’re attacking a factory/airbase/whatever then only that AA gun fires at them. If they split up and attack different targets then each AA gun fires only at the planes attacking it as described above. Basically, no plane can be fired on by more than one AA gun per turn.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
Ok. this friday I was going to try with the US to capture a potential major IC that I supsect Japan will build in Asia in our upcoming game.
I know majors that are captured become minors in capitols. but does it apply to all. Just doublechecking since it isn’t in a capitol. Since US couldn’t build a major under A2+ rules in a non original territory is it possible for the US to capture one that isn’t in a Capitol built by an Axis power.
It would be cool if you could.
Any major IC captured gets downgraded to a minor IC. Basically, if the nation can’t build its own major IC there then it can’t have a major IC there even if it captures it.
-
RE: What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?
Yes Clyde, the game gives you choices.
Choices like attacking Russia, which was very much an ideological enemy of Japan.
Japan doesn’t abandon its own objectives by attacking Russia. It simply realizes a different option available to it.If you want so much historical accuracy, why do you say -
It may need a few tweaks here and there, such as having the Italian navy start the game all deployed in the same sea zone
When the Italian navy in reality did employ a strategy that required it remain at harbour, very much vulnerable to the British Med carrier-based forces that did effectively cut the strength of the Italian navy in half with one fell swoop? Why are you against this option?
or-
or changing the Japanese NO that gives them money for not invading FIC
Like how America did place stronger trade sanctions on Japan for the forceful occupation of the Indo-China region? Why are you against this very real and historical parallel?
I apologize if I seem rash, but I really don’t understand your qualms with this game.
It’s a game, naturally there are superior and inferior strategies.Ideologically, yes, it made sense for Japan to attack Russia. From any other standpoint it made no sense. Japan had no desire or ability to slog through thousands of miles of land that was far less valuable than land to the South. The Soviet Far East isn’t exactly a rich territory. I’m not saying Japan shouldn’t have the option of attacking Russia; I’m just saying it should be more inclined to actually want to follow its own goals instead of essentially being a German puppet (which is certainly was not in real life).
There’s also a difference in allowing for different broad strategic options (like Japan attacking Russia, or Sea Lion) and having an opening situation that makes a specific tactical option (e.g. Taranto) very preferable to one side and devastating to the other. Hence the problems with the Italian fleet and, to a lesser degree, the FIC NO. I don’t like a situation where a nation should always do a certain option or never do another (in this case always Taranto, never FIC).
When it comes down to it A&A is about historical plausibility, not historical accuracy. If it went for accuracy the Allies would always win, after all. But it really isn’t plausible at all for Japan to divert tons of resources into attacking relatively poor territories in the North when it can go for richer territories in the South. It is somewhat more plausible for Japan to actually benefit a bit from taking FIC, and for the Italian navy to not be in such a bad strategic position at the beginning of the war.
-
RE: What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?
I think there really isn’t enough reason for Japan to go into Russia rather than going South unless it wants to completely abandon trying to achieve its own victory. Maybe that means that Japan should generally attack Russia anyway, but i think it means things should be changed to make Japan want to be more independent.
-
RE: What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?
The thing with mobile units is it’s not too hard to block them from blitzing. Sure, they can still use their mobility in other useful ways, but not as much.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
Honestly though, how often do you buy a mech. infantry instead of a normal infantry?
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
As long as we are discussing changes…
1. I think there is something wrong with the fact that a maximum damage (6) minor IC can build one unit after 4 IPCS of repair while a maximum damage major IC (20) needs to spend 11 IPCS to do the same. A heavily bombed player may even wish they could replace their own majors with minors under the current rules if the game is not going well for them. It just seems to not mesh with the idea of the territory being more heavily industrailized. Or maybe it was intended to go with a “The bigger they are, the harder they fall” philosophy.
2. I haven’t tested this yet, but I’d like to try counting mech inf as the same as an inf for transport purposes. IE, a transport can carry any 2 units as long as at least one is an inf or mech. The reason for this is simply because in the european theatre the USA and Commonwealth (except for a few early war units in the mid-east) infantry were fully motorized. I’d like to be able to replicate that without being penalized by having half empty transports, but maybe every trans carrying a tank and a mech is just too much.
1. You have a point there. SBR isn’t too popular in this game, though.
2. That’s why I prefer to have mechanized infantry as a technology rather than a separate unit.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
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.
-
RE: Discussion for new A&A40 rules thread
I was thinking of typing up an actual FAQ, but 90% or more of all rules questions can be answered by looking in the rulebook or in the Alpha + .2 additions, at least from what I’ve seen. What does surprise me, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be a sticky with the Alpha + .2 setup. If there is, it isn’t marked as such.
Alpha +.2 and any changes made to it are sticked at Larry Harris Games, which is where the rule set is posted and where any changes are officially made. It’s hard enough to track the changes of one posting, but two, on two separate sites (and one being official while A&A.org is a fan driven site) would be a recipe for confusion.
Speaking of my inaccurate post, most of it was still correct.:)
Yes, that’s why I only highlighted the part that wasn’t. You could always edit your post to correct it - that’s usually what I do if I stated something false. If you do, I can delete my correction and all will be well in the world.
Well, I think there should a least be a sticky here with a link to either the Larry Harris Games site or just directly to the Alpha + .2 setup.
And I did edit it.:)
I was thinking of typing up an actual FAQ, but 90% or more of all rules questions can be answered by looking in the rulebook or in the Alpha + .2 additions, at least from what I’ve seen.
And the other 10% can be found in the Official Rules Clarifications and Pacific FAQ.
What does surprise me, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be a sticky with the Alpha + .2 setup. If there is, it isn’t marked as such.
It’s in the same sticky as the rules.
None of those are referenced in stickies in this forum (at least this AAG40 subforum, I didn’t check the Europe or Pacific subforums) unless I’m completely blind.
-
RE: Discussion for new A&A40 rules thread
I was thinking of typing up an actual FAQ, but 90% or more of all rules questions can be answered by looking in the rulebook or in the Alpha + .2 additions, at least from what I’ve seen. What does surprise me, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be a sticky with the Alpha + .2 setup. If there is, it isn’t marked as such.
Speaking of my inaccurate post, most of it was still correct.:)
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
i have a question, this has always bugged me. if you move into a hostile, but unnoccupied terrtitiory with a tank, can you then move to a freindly territory. because previously it was said you cant do a combat move and a ncm
Yeah, that’s the tank’s special blitzing rule (it can also bring a mechanized infantry on a 1:1 ratio). It’s all a combat move, though - not a combat move and a non-combat move.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
So, what I am reading is that Air units can make a combat move up to four zones there and back and then a non-combat move of up to four zones?
No. When you move an air unit you cannot exceed its movement (4 for fighters/tactical bombers, 6 for strategic bombers, more if certain technology is researched). If it is meant to participate in a battle (limited to one) in that move, then you move it there for its combat move. After all combat is finished you move it the remainder of its flight (remember, you can’t land planes in territories you have captured on that turn except for onto carriers in sea zones, and if there’s nowhere for the plane to land you can’t send it in the first place unless it was caused by the destruction of an aircraft carrier).
Edit: removed inaccurate information
-
RE: Discussion for new A&A40 rules thread
@Young:
Well, that’s what the FAQ thread basically was. And it was 122 pages long, and a pain to search through.
Ya, but this thread promises to be cleaner with more relevant content, and I can find what I’m looking for fine through 100 pages on page one rather than 100 pages on page whatever.
What do you mean?
-
RE: Discussion for new A&A40 rules thread
Well, that’s what the FAQ thread basically was. And it was 122 pages long, and a pain to search through.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
@i:
in combat move phase could a mehcanized infantry move trough an allied teritory and then into an enemy teritory?
IE an italian mech moves from south italy trough north italy to attack france.also in noncombat move can ships leave a sea zone they just fought in IE germany attacks 1 uk destroyer with 2 crusiers and wins would they then be allowed to move in noncombat move?
Yes, any unit with a movement of two can go through an allied territory to attack an enemy territory.
Units cannot do both a combat and a noncombat move, so no.
Edit: Air units are a separate case.
-
RE: Alpha + .2 question about SBR
According to the Alpha + .2 rules:
Strategic Bombing Raids procedure:
• Escorts fire @1, and interceptor casualties are immediately removed.
• Bombers fire @ 1 and interceptors fire @ 2. Remove bomber and interceptor casualties (escorts may be taken as casualties only after all bombers are eliminated).
• Surviving bombers are assigned a specific target (IC, airbase or naval base) if more than one type is in the territory.
• The target fires its AA defenses at the attacking aircraft - @1
• Surviving bombers attack their target, looking for the highest number possible.The escorts can try to shoot down the interceptors, reducing casualties when the interceptors fire back. So they are useful. The interception rules do make SBRs less useful, though, because there are generally other places you want to use your fighters but nowhere else for the defender to use their fighters.
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
@Young:
So if I have 20 ships and 1 fighter scrambles, I can’t choose to ignore the fighter with half my fleet, but rather I must deal with it with my whole fleet and relinquish all bombardments. Is that what you 're saying?
Yes. If you could ignore it with 10 out of 20 ships then you could ignore it with 1 out of 2 ships, which might make the rule make a bit more sense.