2nd edition Gobal

@Patchman123 said in EXACT pieces count for Pacific/Europe 1940 Second Edition:

@Midnight_Reaper said in EXACT pieces count for Pacific/Europe 1940 Second Edition:

@Patchman123:

What am I looking for is NOT a combined count for Pacific and Europe 1940 put together as one whole game, but rather, how many infantry there are in Pac. 1940 Sec. Ed? Not just infantry, but ALL pieces.

How many pieces for all the games? PER GAME, NOT combined.

Question already answered: @Midnight_Reaper:

-Midnight_Reaper

Where is it exactly? I notice that there are pieces with nummeration on the bottom for sorting them out all by country, minus ANZAC, which has none on any of its infantry pieces in Second Edition.

The change of forum software has borked some of the old links to on-site posts. Here is a link to what can be found in a copy of Europe 1940, SE and a copy of Pacific 1940, SE: read for yourself.

-Midnight_Reaper

No problem. I dont own it and havent played it. I did take the time to post the links (found them in my travels) and read them…to help you AND others that may be asking similar questions.

I’m happy to have been of service.

Awesome, thanks Krieghund… while you’re here, any chance we can get a brief explanation why this and the London NO for Germany were dropped in 2nd Edition?

Thanks again.

@calvinhobbesliker Japan_1942_NO.png Germany_1942_NO.png Russia_1942_NO.png Italy_1942_NO.png UK_India_1942_NO.png France_1942_NO.png China_1942_v1_NO.png ANZAC_1942_NO.png US_1942_NO.png

Great, thanks for the info! I thought I was missing some information.

Thanks again!

@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.

Wilk,

I read through some of your posts. You seem to have a lot of questions. We’re happy to help, but I have to ask what materials you have for AAG40?

Do you have the actual game to reference or are you part of a group and there’s only one copy you guys are sharing?

One answer that might help is that the second edition of Axis&Allies Global 1940 has the most up to date official rules set. The alphas were for the first editions.

If you have the manual you will want to read the rules very carefully and thoroughly.  Its easy to miss things in this edition.

As for a picture I don’t know of one available that will suit your needs. Even if there was one, because the game is so large your avaerage sheet of paper is too small to see enough detail to use as a handout most likely. CWOMarc’s suggestion of taking a picture would be your best bet.

I hope this helps.

So why dont’t we got the Russian Bomber ? I sure could use it, would have given Russia more options. I dont care about the UK inf in Egypt, but no Russian Bomber makes me sad. Now I have to buy it turn 1, what a waste man