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

@Kreuzfeld said in Why is Global better than Revised?:

@SS-GEN It is a very good game. At least 40% of the rules are relating to optional units. Most people play with most optional units, but a lot of people play the vanilla version.

:+1: :+1: :+1:

I picked up another copy of 2nd edition from Amazons boxing day sale for &30 CDN.
You might keep an eye out for sales on major holidays like Memorial Day/the 4th of July/Thanksgiving/…

Thrift stores are also good places for deals as are local conventions.

@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.

Real simple, what are the ‘tweaks’ between the 2nd Edition and the latest Alpha rules?  Thanks.  Is it just the setup changes?

The problem with adding units to Russia is that America/England have been made virtually impossible to kill.  So we either make the game more fun for Russia AND weaken USA/UK to make it possible to beat them again, or we don’t do anything and leave it a monochromatic game (attack Russia being the only viable strategy.)

I, for one, seriously miss being able to do KEF.  I’m not saying it was an “I win” button, because it wasn’t.  But I miss the OPTION.  At least KCF (Kill Calcutta First) is still very viable.

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

@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?