Thanks again!!

@SgtBlitz:

HAHA big whoop for you.  At least YOU get to display a .gif avatar, the rest of us only get crappy .jpgs now.  Not even fair, we couldn’t display something like this even if we wanted to.  More like gloating that you can display it while we peons can’t.

Don’t listen to this guy Bob, he’s just butthurt that they outlawed tortilla throwing in Lubbock.

Thanks for the speedy reply!

@special:

That’s indeed weird!

(and if something inapproriate appeared there, i’d guess single posts would be deleted, not a whole topic)

…
I think the japanese did it  :-D

Yeah. In the “Italy a bad design” thread, miamibeach and I were having a political argument, so IL deleted our posts ABOUT POLITICS. The thread was left intact besides those posts

The important thing to understand about mechanized infantry movement is that they move in exactly the same way that tanks do, except that they can’t blitz without a tank.  In most cases, the confusion on this issue comes from the definition of the term “blitz”.

Many people define “blitz” as any two-space movement by a tank, but that’s incorrect.  A blitz movement is a combat movement through an unoccupied, enemy-controlled territory and into another territory.  Only the first territory is “blitzed”.  The second one is not, regardless of its status.

So, mechanized infantry may only make a combat movement through an unoccupied, enemy-controlled territory and into another territory when paired with a tank.  Any other two-space movement that a tank can legally make can also be made by a mechanized infantry without an accompanying tank.  This means that mechanized infantry may always move two friendly spaces alone in noncombat movement, and they may also move two spaces alone in combat movement if the first territory is friendly.

While I would enjoy an Axis & Allies 1940 version or setup that was more historically accurate, it would be extremely difficult to win as the Axis.  Particularly as Japan.

GDPs:
Wartime GDP of the Great Powers
1938 to 1945 in International Dollars and 1990 Prices (billions)*
Country 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
USA 800 869 943 1094 1235 1399 1499 1474
UK 284 287 316 344 353 361 346 331
France 186 199 164 130 116 110 93 101
Italy 141 151 147 144 145 137 117 92
USSR 359 366 417 359 274 305 362 343
Germany 351 384 387 412 417 426 437 310
Austria 24 27 27 29 27 28 29 12
Japan 169 184 192 196 197 194 189 144
Allied/Axis GDP 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.3 3.1 5.0

Take 1941 and divide by 10, you get IPCs of:
USSR: 27
Germany: 57 (41.2 Ger, 13 Fra, 2.9 Aus)
Italy: 15
UK: 35
Japan: 20
USA: 124

Thanks Spartan!  Found it. Very helpful.

on G1, However no one starts with NO income

Well, the movement of the 18 inf may depend on Germany’s move

just printed mine out and they look great.  thanks again!

only the income is kept seperatly.  everything else is treated as one single power.

No. It just stays there.

(Unless it is in a Chinese territory… then it is removed.)

@Frank:

But I have to say I like the Alpha set up much better.

It is incredible how much better it makes the game from both sides.

I am having a good game against the allies as they have been splitting their points in the Alantic and Pacific.  That being said I don’t know how I could have stopped them had the gone all in the Alantic.  I seems to me Germany and Italy need time to prepare for that sort of thing.

I was Japan - went in with a plan and then almost immediately shelved it.

Aimed to set up a shuck to FIC and enter the war as late as possible to do maximum Russia and China damage and keep USA income down - not sure it would have worked as a strategy tbh - but then oddly aggressive USA leaving Philippines and Hawaii LITERALLY open led me to going J2.

Played cat and mouse in the Pacific, always looking to be under the cover of fighters on airbases if in range of US fleet, or sacrificing smaller units to keep ANZAC down or take/retake the Carolines.

My usual plan is to get an IC down J1 and flood China, decided this time for tanks from FIC, next time not sure - for me I spent the game bullying ANZAC, bottling up India, stood off Russia until they attacked then walked across Siberia. My plan was to keep the USA distracted in the Pacific and try to keep parity with their fleet while flooding troops into Yunnan - took the last of the DEI late as a result, but kept suicide transports to a minimum.

The ANZAC landing on the Philippines was a mistake by me - I had blocked the routes to my new Malaya Major IC with the cruisers Japan starts with between New Guinea and Oz, and had meant to land my fighters on Japan on the Philippines. I wanted to keep the ANZAC TPs and the US killer fleet off the Oz naval base occupied. In the end it was fine - by building 3 CVs off FIC was able to pour so much air power into the US fleet that everything died leaving the ANZAC Expeditionary Force trapped on the Philippines.

Great game, mistakes all round, can’t wait for my next game and really can’t wait for next time I play as Japan.

I’ve been lurking on the boards for a good while now and been trying to figure out different strategies that would make the game fun. I’ve only played a half game and against myself at that. I’m still in the middle of that game and I’ve noticed the following thoughts:

It seems like Germany almost always has to build a CV, a TT, and likely a sub. I feels like if one doesn’t then the Taranto attack will occur and Italy will be in a bad position.

As a tangent: What comprises this Taranto attack and what does it attack exactly? I see that 4-5 air and sea units are available to attack the Italy navy, but is the intention to simply kill both italy navies or just the western one? Likely I think it means smiting the Italy BB because that really hurts Italy in Africa.

Otherwise, the above attack really hurts Italy to the point where it has a hard time competing effectively. I realize this is intended but it almost forces the G1 player to always invest in a sea and destroy the British navy if they want Italy to grow quickly. An effective sea force is necessary to even add the treat of Sealion as Germany can toss down 10 AP the next turn and smash England G3. If Germany ignores sea units then England can do other things like do the Taranto attack and build units in South Africa. All things bad for Italy.

The thing only reason I could see to ignore the above is if one plans a G2 attack on Russia and use plane to wipe out France while moving units east enmasse. (I would suggest killing the British APs though). It does seem like Germany’s first turn feel scripted but maybe I’m not thinking outside of the box.
–----

Regarding the 18 USSR units in eastern Russia. It seems to me that its best choice is to pull back near Yakut and hold position there. If one stacks the units in Siberia or the one to west of Siberia then it can be trapped by a move north with the Manchurian army (which ironically is even stronger in Alpha). A counter attack by those 18 units is going to get them wiped out and and if no matter where that stack goes unless it retreated back on the first turn then it’s likely dead (if that’s what Japan wants to spend it’s resources on)

Mind this is Global and I don’t see much benefit for Japan attack any earlier than J2 or J3.

I like the game quite a bit otherwise though will be interested to see if there will be a need for a Alpha setup for AAE40 too.

@Gargantua:

Why Romania?  Why not just spend the 30 on extra ground units?  Or make up for it by buying extra armor in later rounds?

Like the concept though… the invincible army :D

building the forward factory does a couple of things. One it allows for Germany to build those cheap infantry and artillery combos that give maximum offense and defense. It also allows you to push into the south very easily once Leningrad has been secured. Lastly it allows for (against the less experienced British generals) a false sense of security for the British, if they go heavy in Africa or Canada and do not base their strategy on heavily defending London for the first 1-2 turns (one being the most important) then you can take London from them with ease and lose no steam against the Soviets. This however leads to a whole other strategy that I use against such an unsuspecting UK player.

Does anyone have the dimensions of the setup boxes that come with the game(the ones that store units and have setup charts on the lid)?

If it is an axis win….my money is on Japan…

well, if russia buys three art turn 1 and saves the rest and collects the same turn 2, that would be a turn two buy of 25+37= 62 to spend in 16 slots. which is either 9 tanks and 2 mech inf if Germany is going sea lion, or 14 art + 1 tank if Germany is going for russia. so your save idea seems to have some merit.