Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

@ShadowHAwk:

@Kreuzfeld:

@seancb:

Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.

I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships  than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.

The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D

which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.

What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.

I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.

Thanks……will definitely be ordering them.

@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.

@wittmann:

I believe there is room for two U-Boat commanders.

The more the merrier! We’ll form a wolfpack and rule the North Atlantic!

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.

In practice, a global domination variant is one where the sides ignore the official victory conditions, which are based on controlling a certain number of victory cities for a turn, and instead play until one side concedes.  You could play until all territories are controlled, but that outcome is usually determined well before the last enemy territory is captured.  Typically, experienced players can decide if a game is worth continuing after one of the major capitals falls.

As some have pointed out, this type of game can be less interesting because the Allies’ economic might encourages them to grind out a longer game until they can pour all their resources into crushing Germany or Japan.

Conversely, it presents a greater challenge for the Axis while also making the Allies less defensive as Cow mentioned.  The problem as I see it is that any game that lasts longer than 10 turns becomes a de facto Allied victory because of the economic imbalance.  Consequently, we’ve been trying to formulate a bid to help even things out, but not break the game in the first 3 turns.  It’s a bit of a round peg/square hole problem, but it’s good to get people talking about it for those of us who cling to the old “global domination” victory rule.

There has been another update yesterday:

11/17/11 US NO change: 5 IPCs for each turn that the US has at least one land unit in the territory “France”. Theme: Great Alliance collaboration

@Strikers:

If you do not attempt sea-lion then Germany should not buy a carrier or pretty much any other surface warship except maybe a destroyer. An air base is the way to protect any vulnurable transports. Though I think one in Norway (if you can hold norway) is a better spot than one in Germany.

The problem is holding Norway.