AA42 Questions & Answers

Makes sense now, I appreciate it. :-D

@Der:

I guess I get it but don’t like it.  :x

What about the loaded transports - can they be held back or are they forced participate in the sea battle before offloading?

All combat moves are made at the same time and are considered simultaneous for game proposes. So they are forced to participate on the battle as well.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Dan, did the Russian build of a bomber on R1 cause you not to attack Sz2 in G1 for some reason?  If so, was the reason because it could hit Norway and perhaps the german fighter would be lost as you used those troops against Kar in G1 there would have been no defense for the surviving bomber?

No, it wasn’t the bomber build that stopped the attack on z2. For other readers, here’s the situation. R1 build is 4 inf, bomber. Russia takes West Russia with 7 inf, art, tank and takes Ukraine with art, 3 tanks. For the precise move: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19028.0
In short, I wanted a Karelia stack on G1. Germany couldn’t afford to defend Norway if I did this. I would be more afraid of surviving German planes on Norway being attacked by the UK’s potential inf, tank, 2 fighters, and bomber. Realistically, if the German planes are naked, the Allies don’t need to commit so much. Also, the German destroyer to z3 could force the UK to peal off a plane from the ground attack. Any time a Russian plane dogfights an Axis plane on fairly even odds is a good day for the Axis. I’d invite that bomber versus fighter battle.

@Veqryn:

can you move a submarine into (not through) and stop in an enemy controlled sea zone during combat move, and choose not attack?

No, you can’t.  However, in AA50 and AA42 if there are no enemy destroyers you can submerge at the beginning of the first combat round, effectively avoiding combat.

@Veqryn:

can you move a submarine into (not through) and stop in an enemy controlled sea zone during Non-combat move?

In Revised, no.  In AA50 and AA42, yes, regardless of the presence of enemy destroyers.

followup on question #2:
It appears that sea vessels can choose to engage the Sub, but it can just submerge and immediately disengage at the defender’s option (unless there’s a destroyer present, natch).

That would mean that the attacker was denied both an opportunity on the sub, but since they attempted to initiate a sea battle they also couldn’t do a bombardment.  Right?  So if you want a guaranteed chance on a sub, you need to have a destroyer accompany.  Or ignore the sub altogether, and suffer their attacks next round-which would be brutal, because a sunk defender couldn’t respond.

good deal, that’s the way we played it, but the way the printing actually worked out overlapping it coulda helped the German defense of the Med, as would have that UK sz3 thing to protect Karelia.
thanks Krieg.

Therefore Saltz, keep that in mind in your strategies.  Always, I MEAN ALWAYS, have enough infantry fodder to bring to battle.  This is an economic war as much as anything.  If you keep losing tanks and planes on hits because you don’t have enough ‘fodder infantry’ to throw to the wolves you will surely lose your battles.  Unless of course your opponent’s buys are the same as yours.

Hey, there’s an idea.  Have a war with no infantry or artillery.  See how that works out.  Might be fun, never know.

@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)