Bob_A_Mickelson's Complete AAP40 Charts and Aids [1st Ed.]

Sadly no, because I only own pacific at the moment.

When I change this fact in the future, there will be most certainly one for europe and one for the global map, too.

Till then here is an updated version squeezed to four pages.
ht tp://files.simon-lenz.de/aa_1940pa_2nd_reference_2016-04-06.pdf (/e most up to date link in first post)

It is intended to fold the whole thing on the columns, so it fits in the Game boxes. If everything works the turn sequence should be on top of that pile, and every player should have its own copy.

regards

@CWO:

@John:

I think my first edition Anzac Cruiser is the Kent Class and the other is the County Class for the second edition. Is this what you were saying?

That’s the most likely hypothesis, using the nomenclature of the rulebooks.Â

Ok, cool, so it is the British Class Cruiser. Good to know!

Thanks again! :-D

There are tons of people for the J1 attack.  However we have played our last 6 games with Japan attacking on the 4th round.  Even though the UK gets extra money from the islands it doesn’t compare to the USA’s bonus money.  last 6 games Japan has taken India in round 5 every time.
  Now we have played multiple games with the J1 attack and are about 50/50 on who wins.

@brisco:

We also need to remember that a single battleship piece does not represent a single ship, but a group of ships primarily composed of battleships.

Yes, that seems to be being forgotten, if I would of remembered that I wouldn’t of posted this (maybe.)

@SAS:

NOs represent political/economic conditions that have no strict military basis and so don’t “naturally” fit in the military game mechanic of A&A.  The Japanese people would have gotten a great morale boost from taking over a critical Allied city like Calcutta, Sydney, or Honolulu.  The Allies don’t get a boost from holding them because that doesn’t boost morale or give any sort of economic or political advantage from keeping those cities that they already had.  The Japanese would have had a great political playing card if they had been able to capture any of these cities.

Exactly.  What he said.

There are rules that list what happens when a facility becomes inoperable. losing their AA ability isn’t on the list, they still have it.

@ksmckay:

On page 20 under restricitions on placement it says “You cannot have more than one industrial complex per territory”

D’oh. Must have missed that one then…Sorry. I will try not to read the rulebook drunk anymore  :roll:

That’s workable. Anything would be better then 1 DD see’s everything right out of the box. You could even house rule something like that into AA50, just make it part of the radar tech. 1 for 1 until you get advanced radar(tech) then 1 DD see’s all subs. Its even kinda how the radar tech works. You fire AA guns @ 1 until you develop radar giving your AA guns a kill @ 2. Early in the game subs could easily out number DD’s, but you would still get limited detection. I might have to try this next game.

This would also work when air units & DD attack subs. Matched up 1 for 1. Excess subs would be allowed to submerge, unless the power w/DD & air units also has radar. At that point subs could not submerge til the DD is destroyed, just how it is now

Come on give subs more bite! :evil: