FLYER FOR 2ND EDITION E40 AND P40 IS OUT- SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2012

@always-wanderer

Great!

OMG! :) Thx all for the replies. I didnt know there were that many differences. Gonna send the new 2nd edition gameboard for enlargement too then! ASAP!
:runner: :upside_down_face:

Jonas

Kamakazes require the Allies to initiate combat in that zone. You get the option to deploy them at the end of an Allies combat move, before combat is resolved, and only then.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

You’ll need a dd G1 or G2 if you want to attack G3.

Normandy G1 is not part of my Sealion plan, especially when you won’t be able to swing the 10 tt cause you’ll need to buy a dd.

Think about Scotland landings on G2 and G3.  To do this safely, occasionally additional AC or dd purchases are necessary.

Don’t stake everything on a G3 landing with less than 90% odds.  You can land Scotland and take it G4.

Is there any changes to the rules and/or setup in the 2nd edition reprint from the current 3.9 if so can they they be posted please. I dont want to pay £100 for bits of cardboard and plastic if i dont need too.
many thanks in advance.

Cool shit.

The problem with that is if the US took Manchuria, it would revert to Chinese control so the US would not be able to use a factory there or even build one itself.  Also, US would not get the 3 IPCs for Manchuria either. 
However, USA could take Korea and put a minor there.