AA Poll

Thank you

Bomber in Moscow, possible 1 more fighter or Fighter-Bomber but near manchuria
Remove some Japanese planes, but replace them with another ship(s), probably combination of transport ( AP) and more infantry
Add BB in Hawaii
Combine the Italian fleet so it cant be wiped out
Possible add 1-2 infantry in or near Egypt for UK

I was inspired by this thread….

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29383.msg1050367#new

spendo is right.

@Ohmss:

If a new territory is taken during combat phase can AA move to it during noncombat phase of that same turn?

(1940 alpha rules please)

Thanks in advance.

yes, and this is valid for OOB or really all versions previous.  The only exception would be if the AA gun was on a transport that was used for an amphibious assault that turn (can’t use a transport during both combat and noncombat and AA guns can only move during noncombat).  In previous versions AA guns that had been used for rocket attacks would prevent movement during noncombat, but as Airbases have taken that tech niche, I can’t think of any other way an AA gun would not be allowed to move during noncombat.

The only units that cannot end their noncom move in a newly captured space are aircraft.

OK I cast my second vote for R&D.

One more vote is needed for Alpha3 AA to beat “none of the above”.  COME ON AA GUNS!!

@elque:

London’s 5 AA guns should be able to role once against each of three attacking German fighters in an amphibious assault then for a maximum of 15 die rolls. 5 AA guns each firing 3 times against each of 3 attacking air units.

the 5 London AA guns  could generate no more than 3 die rolls against the 3 German airplanes.

So … which is the correct interpretation?

In the Alpha+3 rules, London begins the game with 4 AA guns ( not sure if your scenario had the UK purchasing one or not, but just wanted to point that out)

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.