Preview Copies of 1940 Second Edition Arrived

@always-wanderer

Great!

Kamikaze are a defensive weapon, which are resolved at the beginning of the combat phase, so the attacking air units have already launched from their carriers are not in danger (unless they are “guest” air units). As such, they will participate in combat even if their carrier is hit, and will have the remainder of their movement to land as normal afterwards.

@aequitas:

@knp7765:

Or how about Germany? In our game, it’s 1 battle and done. In reality it took the Allies on both sides from December 1944 to May 1945 to conquer all of that single country and that was with their main thrusts involved for the US/UK and USSR.

That was because the Americans dragged it out because of the good Food here in Germany.
Name one american who can resist Bratwurst and  Sauerkraut or Schweinsbraten??

Oh and 'mericans love Castles so there you go, they got a lot of them here.
(Not to mention the good beer,though)

Well, I do like a good Bratwurst. Don’t care for Sauerkraut (although I loved it as a kid) and I don’t even know what a Schweinsbraten is.
I must admit, castles are pretty cool too. And who doesn’t love a good cold beer (especially if it’s served up by a lovely blond fraulein)?

@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.

Thanks! And yes, I’m ready to change with the setup. This is version 6 of the file. :P

Thanks for the excellent work on the charts, they’re really good. My favorite is the 2.2+ style.

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.