Mixing units?

Jonas, looks like you left after seeing some spam. No need to worry, it’s only spam and we cleaned it up. There have been no data breaches and everything is good. So please come back and rejoin our community!

@Caesar:

It may be a rule in 1941 as I swear I read it there saying that if you refuse to place units that turn, you must be refunded.

All the rules for all the editions are archived here, if you want to check:

http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/

@Maddog77:

I actually put Japan markers (roundels) on the Chinese territories that Japan starts the game with. That way if those territories are liberated, we can remove the Japan marker and see the Chinese logo which indicates it is owned by China. Makes for an easy quick visual when counting IPC tally.

I do the same thing.  I just think it is easier marking the enemy controlled territories.  In this case, Japan just captured these territories before the game starts.

@Darby:

Ran into the question

Thought about reducing Bombers vs Naval Units
( I thought hitting on a one was good )
but should they still cost 12?

It did not seem right …but selling them for Tac Bomber or fighter cost seemed wierd
So rather then reducing price I thought about augmenting something else.

Came up with:

Cost: 14
Attack: 4 / 1 vs Naval units
Defense: 1
Range: 6
Takes 1 hit to reduce attack by 2 / and cannot proceed with an SBR
Takes 2 hits to destroy

The whole idea of limiting bombers to a one against ships at sea is to be a little more realistic. With bombers leaving an air base they have seven moves. With the limited number of sea zones on AA maps the bombers destroying fleets in the middle of the ocean just does not work. My thinking is the OOB rules for bombers attacking everything on the map at a four are broken. Just tweaking the rules a little makes the game a little better and no change in the cost is needed. The bomber is still a valuable asset at twelve IPCs.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Japan only has 5 more planes than at start

Yes because they have used what they had effectively and have other large naval presences. For instance a 7 strong destroyer fleet and haven broken through China, Russia and India… It has been a pain to be sure.

Despite having ‘guards’ units from missouri or nebraska the united states was probably more united in 1940 than the united kingdom.

Knowing where we are now politically makes that :lol: obvious. India does not have much to say in british elections where soith carolina has yet to declare independence again.

Then again Tata motors owns Jaguar……

the 2 extra infantry does not appear on the list of national objectives and bonus income on page 23
i assume that page lists the NO’s for europe, since japan is not on the list.

for sovjet union it only says:

+5 ipc if there are no axis warship on seazone 125, SU controls archangel and no other allies present on SU ground
+3 for any original german territory and sovjet controls its own.

Most of the NOs in Anniversary were simply dependent on a territory (or territories) being held by one side, so UK often gets a NO for the US controlling the Carolines in the Pacific, or the US getting a NO for the UK controlling France, or Russia getting a NO for the UK controlling Norway, Finland, and Poland.  It’s basically the same thing; ANZAC was closely connected to the UK still, having been colonies/territories in the British Commonwealth/Empire up until just before WW2, so a good deal of British economics was affected by the status of Australia and New Zealand, just as it was with Canada (which is recognized in the game as an independent nation with their own roundel, but controlled overall by the UK player).

You don’t have to have the same person control ANZAC and UK for the NO to make sense, just like you don’t have to have the same player control the US and UK in Anniversary.