Bob_A_Mickelson's AAG40 National Production/Objectives and Setup Charts

I always treated starting money as separate from income in my head. In this game the rules states that you should use the “starting income list” to take starting money. If i remember correctly, there have been versions of axis where some powers have started with less money than their starting income.

@Young:

@Nippon-koku:

Japan has to almost have a perfect game to take India round 4 by not losing any land units on the islands and taking out ANZAC’s DD + TT round 1.�  There are no guarantees in a dice game.

Exactly.�  On top of that, even if Japan does take India round 4, how does it look on the rest of the board?�  Japan can’t take India round 4 AND dominate the waters AND completely wipe out China AND take care of the Siberian troops (most games I’m using those units to attack Manchuria or Korea) AND completely control the money islands.�

If Japan goes all out to get India by round 4 the Allies can cause them a lot of headaches elsewhere.�

I think new players favor the Calcutta crush, while experienced players understand other priorities.

And I’ll fully admit that Calcutta crush can appear unstoppable to new players who find themselves on the receiving end

@Cow:

Tell you what if 5 inf central, 1 armor egypt, 1 sub sz 98, 1 inf new guinea, 1 bomber archangel is not to your liking…

Then you can have allies at 18 ipc 1 unit per territory.

So you can choose either one of the above two conditions  8-). By ‘central’ Cow means Central USA.

@Cow:
Looks like you’ve got enough challenges now ;-).

Little_Boot,

––If you want an longer A&A game with expanded unit types, new countries to play, and some additional land & sea zones I suggest you check out HBG’s Global Warfare 1939. It has been play tested for approximately two years and is quite balanced now.
––IMHO,…it is just what you have described. You can use the A&A units you already have and just add the new countries units and the new unit TYPES for the ‘standard’ countries.
----I have no doubt that HBG’s Global Warfare 1939 is to be the future of our A&A gaming experiences. They are already planning to release a 1934/36/39 version later this year(2014).

“Tall Paul”

So, is thing balanced or does it favor one side or the other?

Also, how does it play?  Fast?  Slow?  Confused?

Looking forward to some reviews!

Thanks

Karl

:mrgreen:

K, thanks for your answer!

France surviving the first round attack by Germany puts up a very interesting rest of the game. Various things can happen.

1. Italy takes France on their turn making Italy a very rich country. 30+ IPCS gives them a strong I2 purchase letting them destroy the British navy in the Mediterranean Sea, fulfil their NO’s, take over Africa and the Middle East and most importantly open a new front for Russia and survive whatever America can throw at them. This makes Italy more powerful than Germany so there should be Italian intervention going on in Russia and the French coast.

2. The French open a land campaign against Germany and Italy causing trouble. Creates an opening for British and eventually American troops to land and land fighters. More importantly it takes Germany’s attention off of Russia and Italy’s off of Africa and the Mediterranean Sea. This almost gaurentees that America will invest in Japan.

3. France can build a fleet with England to land troops early in the game. This can in turn put more heat on England as Germany may build a navy as well. Puts alot of heat west and off of Russia. The Navy can later help Germany and attack Russia in two places. This navy that France and England builds may make America fully invest in Japan as well.

The last 2 of these these seem to ask for a German capture of London as a German capture of Moscow doesn’t seem possible at that point. The first looks like America will invest in the Europe side. This begs for the capture of Moscow.

In conclusion I think that the French surviving the first attack doesn’t make the Axis lose but it limits their choices.

@Maddog77:

What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile. Do some of you need a time out? Or do I have to get the belt out?  :-D

As far as the “rule” goes, I like the current 3-3-2-6. Only for the defense factor. But when I play the original, it’s 3-2-2-5. So I don’t rely on tanks for defense as much as I do a stack of Infantry.

Amazing! when tanks defend at three I use them for defense
when tanks defend at two I use infantry for defense