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

@Sgt-Mclusky Unlike previous renditions of A+A I find that AA40 has so many options and paths to victory that were still playing it and seeing new strategies in my group. Granted I was late to the party with this version so I don’t have years of experience, but we do play an awful lot, and almost never see the same game twice.

@calvinhobbesliker Japan_1942_NO.png Germany_1942_NO.png Russia_1942_NO.png Italy_1942_NO.png UK_India_1942_NO.png France_1942_NO.png China_1942_v1_NO.png ANZAC_1942_NO.png US_1942_NO.png

@Patchman123 said in A&A Global Setups & Components (under construction):

@Young-Grasshopper said in A&A Global Setups & Components (under construction):

50th ANNIVERSARY EDITION COMPONENTS
…

Where’s France’s total number of pieces?

This is the setup for the Anniversary Edition. France is not a player power in that edition.

-Midnight_Reaper

Is there any changes to the rules and/or setup in the 2nd edition reprint from the current 3.9 if so can they they be posted please. I dont want to pay £100 for bits of cardboard and plastic if i dont need too.
many thanks in advance.

With the relative ease of taking London and Calcutta (in opposition to Sydney and Muskva) it seems better to go after England

But beyond that, if you take London, you negate all of England’s income, even if you cannot take the territories!  Worse yet, Calcutta can take stuff and can liberate stuff on the Atlantic map, but can never collect for it, so you’ve effectively, permanently ended England.

Just my current thoughts, I reserve the right to change my mind with little to no notice and for whatever reason I so choose. (Woman’s perogative.)

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I want to clarify.
The rules say that an “allied” destroyer in the same sea zone that you attack will not cancel the abilities of enemy subs since any force attacks alone, Allied forces can only defend together.  I assume this applies to scrambling as well.  Here’s my situation:
The US has a large fleet occupying SZ 6.  Japan has fighters on it’s airbase.  ANZAC wants to amphibiously assault Korea.  If the Japanese fighters scramble, will they only be fighting the ANZAC ships?
Even though the US and ANZAC are Allies, since ANZAC is on the attack, the US ships are basically idle during this action, is that correct?

it is better.

ANZAC and UK should be allowed to fight together anyways.

Just jumping in, since the water seems warm enough.

Are people trying to win as the axis militarily(meaning conventional forces/economy shifting) or by victory cities?

Just curious, cause if you don’t have to worry about future turns(by ending the game early through cities), you may be able to afford to give up certain ground and take unusual risks or losses to secure the cities in question and then see if the allies are in position to liberate one in time.

I’ve drafted and posted early ideas on unconventional strategies. One designed for Europe with a goal of 5 cities in 5 turns seemed plausible. My first live try failed, based on one particular allied response and a close battle being not close after dice were rolled. Am I giving up? Nope. I’m refining the strategy. (In this example, it is clear I must take Normandy if I permit France to produce units, as 3 carriers for the allies proved to be “a bridge to far” for the German air and naval forces.)