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

@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.

FYI Adobe Lightroom will compress the pics but still keep best possible resolution. There are other tools but this one is straightforward to use and the full version is free for 30 days. I’m a creative photographer and use it all the time.

To change picture size - import pics first. Then select pics to change, click Export (bottom left corner) and under File Settings / Limit File Size To, put in the size you want. You can also clean up the white balance and tone to take out that yellow tint.

Thanks for the post, Frank.  Yep, you pretty much summed up a few of the many reasons why OOB is fatally flawed, and you have the 30-35 games to back it up.

I get the feeling from my few games of Alpha2 so far (not going too crazy playing it - just a couple games at a time because it will probably be changed anyway) that the Allies still have a significant advantage in Alpha2.  But I have to admit none of the games have lasted even more than a few rounds (with the Axis getting obliterated each time) so maybe those oil field NO’s could really come into play sometimes I suppose.

To me, Russia and USA have suffocating power (Russia is very deep, and as Larry himself acknowledged - he wondered if it was 1 territory too deep), and the UK can be very powerful as well.

No.

Any of them will do (including France).

It modifies the rule on page 30 of the Europe Rulebook that allows subs to shoot at enemy transports as they move by.  It changes nothing about how subs behave in combat.

They have not changed from Alpha+.1.

It’s per turn.

Thanks very much.
Cheers!

E_D

I finished a global game yesterday. I was Ge and It, a friend was Ja, another was UK, ANZAC and FR and another China, US and SU.

Even though my Italian fleet was left alone and a I1 where I lost nothing and gained 5 territories, followed by another couple of good turns for the Axis the Allies won.

The moment the US and SU were at war the megafleet of the US moved to the most eastern territory of the SU and landed 10 land units there, while their bombers took care of the transports and small ships at the Japanese coast (and after that landed next to the land forces in the Soviet Far East). Yes, US bombers can take of from San Francisco, attack the Japanese Sea and land in Soviet Union. Japan had to pull its navy back and with that the game was over. No more expansion for Japan, a couple of relatively bad rolls from Germany and Soviets pumping out hordes of infantry and it was all over.

To balance things a bit more we are going to use the Italian Fix (we thought up that rule and then read in on here too) and use the Japanese extra NO of 10 IPC while not at war (except with China). I don’t think it will be enough so maybe we will even consider super subs for Germany, Warbonds for Italy or Super Factories (what’s the name?)for Japan.

Mind you, we used the new set up as described in Canucks post (less aircraft in the Pacific). The naval base in NSW is logical, but extremely powerful for ANZAC. They get both NO’s on turn 1 and can reach almost everywhere that’s important for them.