Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived

@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.

Exactly, knp.  Someone once asked me why I bothered to DOW Japan as France.  On rare occasions it has proven useful as a blocker.  Why give up something from your bag of tricks out of laziness?

@CWO:

@knp7765:

Yes, the Pacific 1940 2nd Edition uses the thick, heavy duty cardboard like Europe 1940. Not that thin stuff like in Pacific 1940 1st edition.

And as I recall, the roundels in the 2nd edition of Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940 are both printed on thick, black-backed cardboard.  In the 1st edition, I think one of the games had white-backed roundels.

You’re right Marc.

I was inspired by this thread….

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29383.msg1050367#new

Yea, that would help.

I’m not thinking it possible to take England with Germany.  Not early in the game anyway. (Defined = First 5 rounds of play.)

I am currently in the middle of my first game of Global using Alpha. It is going really well actually. We have played 6 games of global in our group (this alpha game is our 7th). Initially we certainly believed that there is a distinct allied advantage, and I still do. I believe that only very skilled players playing as the Axis have a chance of winning with them, and that is if they play against mistake prone allied players. If you have skilled allied players against equally or even more skilled Axis players, the Allies seem unbeatable barring extreme luck or blunders going in Axis favor.

We have 1 victory for the Axis, and that actually came down to our two best players who are much better than the rest of the group playing Axis, and the allies were made up of our third best player and two totally new players. America’s player was playing for the first time ever. And the Axis just barely won due to a 1/36 tech miracle and botched allied play (poor use of transports).

There were also 3 allied victories, and 2 games we called draws, but the allies would have won if we decided to play for weeks longer…

We are currently on J3 in our latest game with our first go at the Alpha setup. We also have the same two players as Axis, only this time switching powers. I have to admit that I think I like this setup better as Germany because our UK player is infamous for bringing the whole british empire into Egypt and holding Africa with overwhelming force while threatening Italy all game long. Less planes and ships and initial transports makes this harder for him and makes Italy more viable. Also we started with a G2 DoW on USSR. Things are going very well for them with the USSR’s hardware in dead zones, so by R4 they will be down to only Inf.

Japan is doing very well also in China and with the sizeable Manchurian land force nipping at the retreating Russian’s heels in Siberia. The lack of planes certainly is putting a cramp in Japan’s game play in the Pacific itself, and in its Caroline/Hawaiian posturing against the Angloish-Allies, but they are still in a solid position. I the new naval base in NSW is a very interesting double edged sword. It makes Australia very happy that they can move around a bit easier, and can claim DNG on ANZAC1, but they have to be careful because it no longer is a dead end for the IJN, which makes ANZAC a viable target for Japan.

Allowing a brief digression, if we were to compare AA50 to AA42, we find AA50 adds:

[liA nicer looking larger board[/li]

AA50 is a better game with more bells and whistles, but some might prefer the relative speed and simplicity AA42 has to offer.

Back to the topic at hand,  if we were to compare AA50 to AAG40, we find AAG40 adds:

More board spaces

A nicer looking larger board

Additional powers

Much better rules for China

Cool new factors such as Politics, bases, neutrals, and convoy disruption

Tactical bombers and mechanised infantry

New rules for ICs

expanded rules for 2 hit warships

AAG40 has more features above and beyond AA50 than AA50 has over AA42.  Some people still might prefer the relative speed and simplicity of AA50, but you have to decide if you think you’ll be one of them.

Me, I think AAG40 is the best A&A game ever!  It obsoletes AA50 more than AA50 obsoletes AA42 (though all three are highly playable solid games).

One more thing, although AAG40 is new and optimal strategies are nowhere near having been refined, it looks like AAG40 has more viable strategic options than previous versions of the game.