Where Can I Order Game From California?

@Oyvind:

Could someone explain the “bid” in the first question?

It is a way of evening up the playing field when it is generally considered that one side has an advantage over the other. Using this as an example:

@Colt45:

Personally, i take Axis with a 3 bid otherwise il take Allies.

Colt45 554 has said that they’ll take Axis if they are given a bid of 3. This means that at the start of the game before the first turn they either get to put down units to the value of their bid, 3, in any of their territories, or accept 3 bonus IPC into one of their countries for spending at a later time.

In a general bidding arrangement, the opponent would have the opportunity to take the Axis for a bid of 2 if they thought they could win with that and that process repeats until a bid has been determined and teams are set.

A bid of 3 is considered a pretty well balanced game. I believe the current bid for 1940 Global is sitting between 20-30 for the Allies. We can read into that that people think that playing the game without bids leads to many more Axis wins than Allied wins by evenly matched players.

Yeah, I kind of agree with you Variance. Europe is where most of the action is. Plus, if you just play Europe, it takes up a lot less space on the table.
Yet, every time I think, let’s just play Europe, I already start to miss the Japanese. I just can’t seem to get into a game without the Japanese making trouble on the other side of the board.

I recently played my first alpha 2 game, and it did at much needed balance too the game buy lessening of the American war time economy. Also with the addition of infantry and fodder to the german war machine. Anyways, in a regular A&A Europe 1940, if the axis don’t have the game won on turn six is practically impossible. This is because on turn seven, even an incompetent USA player will have enough amassed force to destroy a province and gain a foothold in europe which is the end. The only chance Germany would have is if they control russia and have all their forces in france and central europe.

@eddiem4145:

I want information. Information as to why or where the rule came from and information I do not already know as to what would make it impossible, unlikely, or overly dangerous to fly over the sahara. If there is no info to give, then oh well. My supposedly frustration, (remember, its written, you can’t see my emotions or facial expressions) is from people giving house rules as suppose to the info i was requesting, that is all

I believe it originates between the Classic Map and the Revised Map.  In the classics map, only Neutral Territories were represented, and due to the small number of territories and adjacencies, there were balance issues (I’ve seen arguments either way, but in general the smaller number of territories was a problem).  In the Revised map, with the addition of more territories, there was probably also a desire to represent more historically accurate unit movements (and reduce axis advantage in snagging parts of africa and vice versa later in the game).  The Himalayas isolated India from China, and the Sahara created a buffer between the axis mediterranean territories and british territories directly south.

In Classic, Germany had multiple routes to Africa (go south!). In Revised, there is only one (short of transports) - egypt.  The benefit to this was to force egypt to become a back and forth battle between britain and germany as they vie for a strategic advantage.

In order to create a simple rule that aligned with previous mechanics (impassible neutrals), I would imagine that they simply desired these territories to follow the same rules and not allow flyovers either.  After all, while it was possible to fly over the sahara and himalayas, it was very dangerous and hardly the preferred route.

As the game map has grown (classics - revised - AA50 - AA40), it has clearly remained a desire by the designer to maintain the strategic route through egypt.  And because at the outset of the game allowing flyovers would favor the Axis (far more planes available in close proximity), I would imagine it’s a balance issue as well (at least, early game).  Removing the restriction dilutes the value of Egypt.

Satisfied?

@i:

If I can work with the game using a german AA gun as artillery

you know the 88mm gun was a good aa gun anti armor and artillry so why would you not be ok with that? it was the best anti tank gun in ww2. so really it should get plus 1 attack or defence if the enyme force is all vehicles.

It was a great AA gun and a tip top AT gun (and was purpose built in both roles).  It was an ad hoc artillery gun.  Still good, but a 105mm would have been more appropriate.  I guess my point is it’s not necessary to use stuff that “kind of” works when there are so many choices that were a perfect fit.  It just strikes me as odd that there were so many complaints about the stuka being used as a fighter but few about this.  On the other hand, perhaps the 88 was chosen as it had a more distinctive look than a 105 would have.  The distinctive look was the reason Rob Daviau gave me for using the stuka, so I’m guessing this is it.  My favorite A&A odd choice though is the German tank on the cover of the original AAE.  It’s the 3 turreted prototype tank.  Only 3 were made and they saw action only in Norway and were not considered successful.  Didn’t take away from the game at all, but I guess the art department folks are not WW2 buffs.

The “can opener” tactic has always been part of AA. The UK opens doors for the US all the time on land or at sea in both theaters. It wasn’t until Italy became a power that it became more prominent (axis vs Russia). Russia gets beefed up a little to compensate, and it has allies to bail them out.

Make_It_Round has a great point about countering week Russian advances w/UK or US air (or ground forces) to force Italy to think twice about attacking in the first place (or at least cost them if they do). If both euro axis want to play in Eastern Europe then you have to get UK/US in there as well. A strong UK/US naval presence heading toward Italy will also turn those Italians around (love to see them waffle).

Another thing would be to close the Black Sea (errata/faq option in AA50). Don’t allow Italy to use its navy to aid in taking key tt. We at times have not totally closed the Black Sea, but axis would need to hold all 4 tt that boarder Turkey in AA50 to enter (we call it political pressure). In AA 40 global you will need to invade Turkey (new straight rule) to gain access to the Black Sea, so this should slow them a bit.

As we add more minor powers there will be more double teaming going on by both sides. UK (India) and Anzac both go before US in global, you only think Russia has problems. You have to be aware and see at least into the next round of play so you can prepare.

@skinny1:

@Brain:

@molinar13:

I would buy it but I would also be upset and feel like WOTC is cheating me out of my money because they should already have this included for a $70.00 BOARD GAME.

I agree with this statement and I will buy all my extra stuff from FMG.

Any news on when FMG will start selling the pieces?

Check the thread in Other Axis and Allies Variants