AA42 Questions & Answers

Cheers, thanks very much for the answers, clears things right up for me.

Still a bit unsure as to why I would use Artillery. A 2/2 unit for 4 IPCs versus a 3/3 unit for 5. Artillery may support infantry but Tanks have got 2 move and Blitz, which more or less cancel each other out. Using Artillery as the Soviets to help Infantry take and hold WR or something along there makes sense, but other than that I don’t see why I would ever build them instead of tanks, as I’d have to invest a fairly hefty amount of IPCs to get a significant numerical advantage.

That being said, I’ve only had this game for a day or so, so I’m sure there’s something I could be missing out on.

Thanks. I skimmed through the book one more time before asking, but couldn’t find anything.

Thanks.  I have this one.  I didn’t know if anybody had one that Wizards put out or anything.

Maybe I’ll scan a color one tomorrow and pass it around.

Okay that will make me think about my plans a bit.

Thanks

Thx very much for your quick answer.

The off/unloading in one movement gibts especially japan and britain more possibilities then in the games we did so far.

The game is so great !!! Can’t believe it took me so long to find it ;)

@DougR:

Another difference: the lower cost of bombers combined with the defenseless transports. If Allies go KFG then Japan should buy 1 bomber each turn and send it to Europe in two turns (using conquered Egypt or Trans-Jordan). A large japanese airforce in Europe can make it really hard for the Allies, because Japan plays between UK and US and can take advantage of any openings left after the UK fleet has moved.

You know, I had to laugh at this.  I had posted the subject of limits on cooperation b/w the Western Allies and Russia.  Being the history nerd that I am, it never would have occurred to me to send Japanese bombers to Germany (and now that I know, I still couldn’t get myself to do it)!

Historically it might make no sense for this to happen (although there were examples of German/Italian subs/surface raiders operating on the Pacific and Indian oceans) but the game isn’t meant to be a faithful representation of WW2 (if so the starting production levels would be grossly unbalanced towards the Alllies).

You may choose to play it so and create your own house rules to approximate it as close to reality as possible but with out of the box rules there’s nothing to stop you or your opponents to do so.

@TG:

@marechallannes:

@TG:

When I was at the Eindhoven Board Game Con, I came across the most remarkable facsimile of Axis and Allies.  It was a Euro-game depicting World War II in Europe.

What’s the name of the game?

Actually, I intentionally left out the name because I’m not 100% sure on it.  It was a German game and I think the title roughly translates in “Europe at War” – but don’t quote me on that.  Maybe our German fans here can help us out on that. ;)

This was at the Eindhoven Gaming Con three years ago.  You might be able to find pictures of the game at the Spellenspektakel website: http://www.spellenspektakel.nl/Home/1/SPELLENSPEKTAKEL.html

@Col.Stauffenberg:

I find it laughable that people think revised and now 42 is some simplistic kids game compared to AA50. So there’s less pieces and territories. Is Chess just a simple game? AA50 is cool but a lot of it is just needless bells and whistles.

Okay, I’m going to have to call you on this one.  Exactly what parts of AA50 did you find “Needless Bells and Whistles?”  Technology?  National Objectives?  Printed Currency?  Because the only missteps I can think of is the placement of the Chinese Fighter and the lack of a Victory City in Cairo.  Other than that, I thought AA50 was a superbly crafted game.

Mainly the extra territories and NO’s. Printed currency is redundant but the Technology was awesome. I’m not bad mouthing AA50, just defending Revised and 42 as no less difficult. (I think AA50 is pretty easy since it tells you what you’re supposed to do with the NO’s)