Answer is no!

Just remember only the Europe rule book has the rules about straits.
Only the Pacific rule book has the China and Kamikaze rules.

Can’t think of any others. You would think both rule books could insert those sections into the global rules section at the end.

Ok thanks Simon33. This is in the global europe rules which I found.

@Caesar:

@oysteilo:

That was a lot of questions!

for point 4. Why Yunnan, because it is the most important chinese territory. If China holds Yunnan at the start of their turn they can build artillary. If China does not need to fight Yunnan they will fight you everywhere else, such as up north and press towards the coastline. Yunnan is in fact one of the key allied “strongholds” comparable to sz 110, bryansk and later in the game, the middle east. It means the Axis should meet significant resistance here

I disagree with this. While it is important to keep it Chinese for the Burma Road, Japan can easily by pass it if it’s end goal is India. It is tactical but it doesn’t break the Axis.

Ignoring China can definitely break Japan!  Even if you take India early you will still have to invest in ground forces to get back the VC’s you lost to China and now you have no infrastructure to do it effectivley.  Its better to tame China early set up a supply line and get factories going on the mainland.  Its hard enough to maintain island dominace and you can’t afford to lose your income core as well ,China is that core especially the coast line.  Japan is a ripe fruit but if you let it rot from the inside out you are doomed.  I have seen it happen too many times and its what I try to do as the allies against Japan.  Having a big navy for Japan and controlling the DEI as well as getting calcutta are all good things for Japan but ignoring China can negate those advances.  Just my two cents from extensive game play face to face and league play.

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/AA_europe_1940_rules.pdf
This is the most updated g40 rule book. Posted 2015.

@taamvan:

The carrier “swap” would only work if the carriers started in SZ 38, the other distances are too far to “shuttle bomb” (my name for that swap).  Unless you have the air base, or more carriers.

So J1 you move your carriers to 36, J2 to 38/41 to block 37 getting blocked :) Both of those SZs support a swap on J3.

@taamvan:

With no mobile units to start, how could UK take Yunnan?  It just cant get there until later in the game to threaten it.

So if UK moves its initial units to Berma on UK1, and then Japan is taking Yunnan on J1 and retaking it on J2, those Berma units would be easily enough to take Yunnan on UK2, right?

@taamvan:

The J2 is what is stopped by the blocker.  On J2, Japan can move to SZ 39 at peace, so it just ignores the blockers.  Then you’d use the UK/ANZAC trick, we hope.  J3 is impossible to stop, but it just wont work because there is no landing place (Burma, Ceylon) for the bulk of the fighters.

J3 is impossible to stop if you do this, but the 3 TTs you build on J1 will be at your SZ36 Naval Base on J2, and rely on SZ37 being open to participate.  And if UK is at peace UK2, there’s nothing stopping him from moving a DD to SZ37.  Isn’t the point of the initial transports that you’re hitting Calcutta with 12 land units instead of 6 in front of all of that air power?  Seems like a much more IPC-favorable battle.

@taamvan:

The best move is to get 6 men into Burma, in a way that UK wont attack (because he is afraid of defending short), then get 6 MORE men the next round, so you double the transports ability too.  This only works 1 time because of the limited number of ground troops the Japanese have in that area to start, unless you slow down the whole plan in general to a J3.

I didn’t quite understand the part about doubling the transport ability, but I think you’re referring to using the initial TTs to take Burma J2, right?  That move puts pressure on Calcutta while making sure you keep the Yunnan landing zone.  How can those TTs be reused though, I only see the 2 units in Siam that can get in position for that?

What if the US Navy backs off Hawaii.

It’s great to get ANZAC in the beginning of the game, however, what are the disadvantages? How much does India or China grow. Obviously other factors come into play in such a dynamic game as G40.

I think liberating ANZAC is much harder for the US to do than the UK, but it’s easier than say India or Moscow.

@larrymarx:

It has occurred to me that a good way to balance this game would be to simply remove the Chinese movement restrictions. It would allow more options for the Allies to reinforce Calcutta or Moscow or to refocus on the European theater sooner.

And it would give good reason for Japan or any Axis force for that matter to destroy China since China is the only nation that cannot be truly destroyed.

@Cow:

^ I do this often, I prefer as USA, to send help faster with handful of bombers to Russia, since it makes it in time to defend against a big showdown… Sometimes Japan is crazy enough to attack into it because they know those forces are what holds Russia.

Yea Germany will be in the Japanese players ear to hit that $hit asap. Taking out 4-5 Russian planes and a few UK planes would lead to a much easier and earlier conquest of Moscow. Yea Japan would take a hit but once that multi national force is off the board Japan can refocus taking the rest of China and threaten India by land and sea. They could even skip India and threaten Persia/Egypt/S Africa helping w/Euro win.

Ichabod; I mean G40, my point is that the split income and large scale of Global makes 28$ a smaller amount than ever before–-smaller relative to the Axis (70! 60!)  in this version and smaller than the effective and actual income of UK in other versions (30!)

Cow;  Yes, as many as possible.  If you can fuel that.

@BillyMack57:

The Norway IC supplies its own troops to fight off nasty incursions from east and west and
bringing pressure on northern USSR while the airbase brings extra scramble ability to SZ112 fleet and the ever hopeful Sealion - admittedly not turn 3-4 but maybe later. Still thinking it through.

You will have no choice but to reinforce it sometime by sea or air because once all three allies come down on it and they will, I promise you ten infantry per turn is nothing.

Climbing Mount Kinbalu?  Isnt that an old Russian expression?

Great advice.  Once the Japanese form up with everything they can in range, the fighters have to fly the coop.  You already lost your TTs most likely, and 4 infantry isn’t a strongpoint.

@larrymarx:

Europe rulebook, page 9, paragraph 2, sentence 3:

“You can�t move sea units through a canal or narrow strait that is controlled by a neutral territory or by a power with which you are at war.”

And besides, why would a nation at war even allow its enemy to cross and even for that matter, why would you even let them get close AND why doesn’t the enemy just take the straight or canal?

I think you’ve got the right idea.

You might remember my “11 conclusions” thread from a few weeks back, where I explained I thought we should develop a “strategic framework”. My thought is essentially that we should push the meta-game to a final state of maturity by determining what the best Allied response is to the rapid Axis push, and use our conclusions to help support a theory of the board.

The strategy I described earlier (combining the Russians in Africa, the Canadian / U.S. push for the money islands and concentrated British support of Moscow) is the best I can come up with for an Allied response. I am interested to see if you agree or would be willing to test it in your games as well, or if you have any objections that I should consider.

I am buying the following units as part of this strategy:

Russia:
7 artillery, 4 mech on turn 1 followed by straight infantry unless special circumstances demand a fighter or some artillery. I am sending 6 mech, 2 tanks to Africa. Remember the idea is that these forces will be replaced by the British in short order.

America:
4 bombers turn 1 (for Europe) followed by fleet for the foreseeable future (carrier, loaded transports, assorted warships but very few aircraft as ANZAC will provide these).

UK Europe:
6 infantry, 1 fighter turn 1; minor IC’s in Persia and Egypt turn 2; mech infantry turn 3 followed by fighters and mechs 4+

UK Pacific:
3 infantry, 2 artillery turn 1; continue building infantry and artillery until Japan is thrown back, then switch to mechs and fighters to support the defense of Moscow.

ANZAC:
Straight fighters unless Japan is doing some crazy kill Australia first move. These fighters will land on American carriers and/or journey to Moscow.

The general strategy begins by coordinating Russian, Chinese, British and American stacks so they are all hurtling towards China and the money islands at once. Japan can annihilate one or maybe two of them, but then they’re stuck just trying to hold on to their gains. At that point Second Russia is born and the tan blob can begin to move on the Germans. America sends fleet to blockade Italy and/or provide cover for a Grecian beachhead using Egyptians and Brazilian-American forces, who have been marching across Sub-Saharan Africa this whole time.

I’ve only played one game where Italy raged, it was glorious.  No Taranto I believe.  Axis win in Europe

My group usually uses control markers for 10, especially in stacks that won’t be splitting up anytime soon (like in Moscow)

What an excellent report, you are a grear story teller!

@Leatherneckinlv:

Tobruk should have a land value of 2

That would change the dynamic a lot, because you could build an IC there. I don’t think that would be a change in the right direction either.

@Zhukov44:

I don’t do this move as the Soviets because Japan starts with too many units in Korea/Manchuria and too much aircraft in range of Amur.

I think it’s a mistake for Japan to use its fleet/transports to attack Amur J1–they can still attack without any transports and divert a strategic bomber to Yunnan and still have 100% odds with an average +25 tuv swing.  If they send their fleet and transports south they’ll be in good position for a J2 or J3 declaration, but if Japans’ transports/fleet are stuck in sz6, Japan will have to put off its declaration till J3.

But I’m uncertain about it because however good this attack looks for Japan on paper, it will divert alot of troops from China.  The extra 6 inf in Mongolia help make up for the Allied tuv loss.  But the Soviets will also lose out financially because Japan will conquer Siberia quickly.

Massing Amur on R2 seems like the better move because the bulk of Japan’s airforce is usually out of range of Amur on J2.

Agree