Koba,
Lot’s of info there.
I might suggest that in the “standard” A&A rules the U.S. (while it is still neutral) can take control of a Friendly Neutral country because friendly neutrals are moved into in the
NON-COMBAT movement phase. Thus it is allowed to do so while still being nuetral.
Think Brazil. I hope this helps.
“Tall Paul”
Hi Koba,
Humm, not sure you have the latest rules. The ones I got are 4.1v. And on section 6 for naval units, the battleship are on subsection C and there is no mention of repairs. The rules before 4.1v had them though, repairs and carrier instead of battleship and on 6b.
Also with the older rules, there was a suggestions page and on it it was mentionned to add a minor industrial complex to all of the Minor Axis country. there was like 7 suggestions on that page.
Ref to France, it uses to be with #4 U.K. and Minor Allies, then moved to #2 spot with Russia & com. China, and the Free French are with #4 Uk,Dutch.
I agree with your suggestion of distinction/clarification about France though.
I don’t think the USA can take over Allied neutral while still itself neutral.
Fortification are taken out like IC upon occupation, that’s how I played it.
I will wait and see/read the official replys before going on.
J. 8-)
Radar231,
YES, the U.S.A. can take over Friendly Neutrals, but can NOT approach the coasts of Africa or Europe while it is still neutral. That’s why I said “think Brazil”. I’ve called and confirmed with 4 different W.of T.C. “Rules Hotline” people. I invite you to call them yourself. The number is on the back page of the rules booklet.
“Tall Paul”
Hi Tall Paul,
That’s how I played the USA, activating Brazil, while playing Global 1940. But with Global 1939, I let the Anzac activates Brazil and most of the territories in south america, more $ to Anzac, + the neutral territory in africa while going towards s-a. :wink:
J. 8-)
Hi Radar231,
Thank you for the information regarding the latest rules revision. I downloaded a rule-set from Boardgamegeek a couple weeks ago (file named v34.). I just went back to the site and found revision 4.1 and will review.
The other old revision I have is 3.5. Neither include suggestions.
I will see what Coach and Co. have to say about Brazil. As I mentioned, we let the U.S. player get them before being at war.
I forgot to mention that we had to make up a battle board relfecting the 12d scheme. It is REALLY rough, but serves the purpose (at least until I figure out how to develop one which looks better).
Koba,
Read through the latest rule revision and see if they clear up any questions you have. We playtested the latest version of the rules back in November and made very few changes! Let me know if you have any more questions
Tigerman77
Radar231,
That’s a really logical and fascinating idea of yours to let the ANZAC player take Brazil and others as it really needs the income to be “involved” in any way in the game.
Hat’s Off to you, Sir.
The only games that I’ve played the ANZAC forces were when I also had to play the U.S.A., China, an U.K.(both sides) all at the same time. As we’ve been plagued with a pausity of players recently I didn’t have much time to spend on “Digger” strategy.
“Tall Paul”
Koba,
I think most of the things you are refering to have been corrected or a clarification given in the 4.1v of the rules.
1. France moves with the UK and commonwealth. All IPC’s are captured……III additional Rules. 9.
2. Minor Axis have to follow the rules set forth for them in the political rules…They may move in non combat!
**As far as IC’s for the minors, we had them for a test game and then took them out. We felt that if Germany wanted to build units in the minor axis countries they could build IC’s. I do like the idea of pooling the money together!! These rules arent above being improved by house rules.
3. Argentina is treated like the other Minor Axis, not pro axis countries!
4. When Holland is captured all the DEI become Pro Allied
5. Battleships and AC’s are capitol ships.
6. China gets 3 IPC per turn and purchase infantry only.
7. Fortifications are destroyed after a territory is captured.
8. No limit to German or US airborne
9. Minor axis building navies! If you have a Naval base and an IC then I say no problem!!
Hope I helped you out!!
Also make sure you have the latest setup charts…4.1v
Tigerman77
Thanks Tigerman,
I have the latest rules now and the set-up charts.
More observations/questions after we resume playing.
Everyone’s help and advice is really appreciated.
One problem I have with the 39’ map is the fact that japan can reach the NW US in one turn from the home island. Alaksa yes. Hawaii yes. Washington, Oregon and northern Cali, now that’s a streach.
Sim- it’s not a game changer or a game breaker! This map has been played numerous times and is very sound! I would agree with you if Japan could hold NW US after an invasion. I rhink most playing Japan dont even consider this move because the longer the US is not in the war the better , for the axis!! If we ever make another map we will keep this in mind, thanks for bringing it up!!
I don’t think it was a problem that Japan could land in the states, more the other way around. It is to quick for the states to land in japan. We actually added sea zones by drawing a line through a few to better represent what we felt was more realistic and cohesive to the game we were playing. House changes ftw :)
States masses up on the coast, and wham they in japan mainland right at the onset of combat. Why piddle with the islands when you can take away all their money with a lot less chance of losing it back to them.
I do not think you understand, U.S. is now at war and Japan is not ready or secured enough money or built their Army. I am pretty sure Japan has lost because of this move.
