Flak towers…

Considering house rules for China in G40. In the event they capture an industrial complex built in China. Should they be able to produce any unit?

@tmartin

you know, on second thought, I’m not entirely certain of that. Will ask @crockett36

Do you know if Oz’s 42 uses the same turn order as Larry’s 42 ? Or stay the same as 1940 ?

Would you ask him ?

Thanks

Edit
Just read through the thread again.

Screenshot from 2025-12-27 08-38-49.png

I don’t think I ever asked him though. I just went with how he listed the players starting units. I’m leaning towards it’s the 1940 turn order.

@The-Captain

Right arm

I will go ahead and add them with the above parameters. The number and date of entry are easily changed.

I will wait for the final test results before putting them in the update.

The scale of which A&A G40 is designed to represent must be taken into account.

We assume that the original A&A Classic rules concerning AAA are more or less represented in the A&A G40 version.

We have devolped an Expansion rule for AAA: Flak Tower (see pdf file below).

5. G40 Flak Tower.pdf

You can find more inspiration in the G40 Expansion rulebook: Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion.

Captain

Update 19th December 2025: Total number of recorded Axis & Allies games in 2025 played by The Captain: 35

2025: Axis & Allies Global 1940:

The Operation Felix-Steiner Expansion rule has been revised.

Due to the Revised SetUp for Strict Neutrals, the Felix-Steiner Operation has been revised accordingly.

At this point, the Felix-Steiner Expansion rule is not part of the Tournament rules.

@crockett36

Awesome Game Report.

It was fun to watch the game all the way.

Great game guys!

Merry Christmas :-)

@Cobert:

It’s like when people try to incorporate the rules from Europe involving bomber escorts into Revised or AA50 - with each turn representing a period of several months and each territory representing miles upon miles of land or entire countries, I think it’s insane that they want a rule that makes a unit shaped like a fighter accompany a unit shaped like a bomber to actually mean that there are fighter escorts with the bomber.

Well I can see your point ref scale of the action and so I’d support the geographic boundary with no house rule for CAP or any FTRs defending adjacent space etc.

But otherwise, I’m leaning towards the optional escort / interceptor rule as it reflects the operational decision on whether you use your fighter resources defensively or base them forward to project air cover.