Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived

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

Yes, sure.  Its just usually not a good idea (since tacs are poor defenders and are usually being lost without replacement, they need another source of fighters to shine).

Little more clarification on #4–when you liberate a capital (lets use Paris), all of the territory that the allies recaptured from the Axis immediately become French again, blowing off the other Allied markers and all going “blue” except for land that the Axis was holding.  So if we say that the Axis owned Southern France and Syria upon liberation, France’s new income at the end of that turn would be 15, but there would be no building or placement of units until the next round (if they live that long).

As you probably read, the Allies can only “liberate” other Allied land if it has been taken by the Axis first.  The only exception to this is the Dutch territory, and if you read the rules carefully, only ANZAC and UK can activate these, USA cannot.  However, in another twist, all Allied planes can land on these whether they are activated or not.

In practice what this means is that taking Moscow or Paris back just tosses a ton of money back into Axis hands, while taking away the income from USA and UK (primarily) that they fought so hard to liberate.  This creates a problem, because the Allies will actively avoid liberating capitals and handing so much cash to the Axis since in most cases, the Axis can easily recapture the key capital zones and control of it would just trade back and forth.

As a result, one sort of universally accepted house rule is to destroy the money rather than give it to the capturing player, after the first capture.

The Allies rarely benefit from capturing a capital, because the Italy economy is usually decimated before the Allies invade, and if you were able to capture Berlin or Tokyo, that’s usually endgame for the Axis if they don’t want to fight on.

I view the essays as para-historical entertainment from someone who contemplates the board waiting to find an opponent.

Welcome to the forum and try the game online. It’s much more interesting than writing and speculating about the game. :wink:

@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

Good looking sheets Alpha, not bad at all… sorry I haven’t made my card deck available, but it’s coming soon.

Cheers

@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.

@Ashenduke:

@Young:

@Variable:

@spartan:

on the mediafire download for the complete rulebook the 3 player setup does not include France :?

Sorry about that! I must have done something screwy there…

No, That was my bad. I left it off the original. If it turns out that thats the only mistake on the whole document…… not too shabby.

It looks like a mixup of the 3 & 4 player setups. France is listed for the Russian player and British for 4 player.
“Three Players: Player 1: Axis powers / Player 2: United Kingdom and ANZAC / Player 3: United States,
Soviet Union, and China
Four Players: Player 1: Axis powers / Player 2: United Kingdom, ANZAC, and France / Player 3: Soviet
Union and France / Player 4: United States and China”

Fixed it, can anyone spot any other errors?

Ok settle down folks.