Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived

@Cornwallis

Nice. I’ll try it out by myself sometime.

@krieghund said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

@andrewaagamer said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

Two ways to look at this:

Reason A is dominant and supersedes and cancels any other Reason. (Which leads to your ruling) Reason A is limited to the Soviet/Japan conflict and does not override Reason B which leads to my statement.

The first way is correct, as indicated by the phrase, “In all other respects and for all other purposes”.

Ahhh, I didn’t put enough emphasis on “In all other respects and for all other purposes”. That makes more sense to me now.

The tipping point for me is if Reason A is dominant than if any other Allied Power rather than Russia, (US, UK, ANZAC or France), attacks Mongolia, Mongolia WOULD NOT turn Pro-Axis. This goes against every other instance regarding Neutrality in the rules. A standard is if a Neutral is attacked it becomes Pro to the opposing factions.

Yes, that’s true, but Mongolia is an exceptional case. Its ties to the USSR against Japan are so strong that an attack upon it by another Allied power would not change its stance to pro-Axis, and it would remain strict neutral. The same is true if an Allied power attacks another strict neutral.

Wow - that’s cool. THANKS for explaining that!!!

@Channel_Three Anytime, you are welcome.

@Saber25 said in 1940 Global: Can you place a minor production facility in a territory the same turn you capture it?:

The US has captured Norway, and then the next turn placed a factory. Is it legal for the US to deploy ships into seazone 113, which is inside of the Danish straight? Clearly they could not pass through without holding Denmark itself, but it seems to me that there is no reason that the US could not deploy to that zone for additional pressure on Germany!

You are correct. Since the ship is being built it does not have to pass through any strait. A minor factory in Norway may build up to 3 ships per Turn in either SZ126, SZ125, SZ112 or SZ113 or any combination thereof.

@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.

Okay +3 more ipc to the usual 12 allies bid. Makes no difference to me. Kind of lame because that 3 more ipc would go to a more strategic spot like right below it to smack ethiopia with better odds.

mmm, that is fine. I might see more crazy korea attacks.

I wish the developers would post some of their games if they are doing it online. I really want to see the logic in -1 inf for egypt in an already axis stacked game. Too many people complained about Italy sucking I guess, but they never hear the tears of UK hitting the floor. London should start with more money to defend itself, 37 starting income seems more reasonable. 9 inf fighter.

Yep. Global has issues.

I wish the allies had more NOs and japan too, but it would make things more complicated. Maybe just nix a germany or italy NO.

Sending Japanese units to Western US is wasteful.

Without Germany, they’re crushed.
With Germany, they’re essentially stuck doing nothing overseas for a few turns.