What is happening with global? Are there more changes?

@tchenao

Gotcha.

Most players consider the game to be quite unbalanced in favor of the Axis. So the two sides will bid (in terms of IPCs) before the game and the lowest bid team will play the Allies. The bid can be used to place additional units before the game starts.

Sea Lion is definitely a much riskier strategy than just going straight for Moscow. Most people only go through with it if London is not well protected after the first round. A failed Sea Lion is pretty much a game ender.

@rjkesq82:

A&APlayer - that would be awesome! (PBEM) I am very interested. Thank you for such wonderful insight as well!

After playing a few more times, we have seen Axis 3 wins Allies 3 Wins…lol…

I think being the allies is soooooooooooo much harder simply because of execution. It’s easy to SAY what to do and KNOW what to do…but man, with 3 people all needing to work 100% in sync and not much room for error; that is easier said than done.

That being said, I have now seen Japan play VERY good games, but because of a misplayed Germany, the axis still fall. Kinda stinks for Japan…that they can play near flawless but if Germany collapses or plays bad, it won’t even matter. Lol.

The allies have several advantages over the axis countries, but you hit the nail on the head  . . . they have to mesh well together in order to win. And that seems to be a major hurdle for Japan. It’s very rare to see a Pacific win for the axis. I don’t know how much of it’s because the allies usually target Japan first or because there’s just a natural plateau once they get too spread out.

Usually it’s either both axis sides are rocking early and the allies surrender in the first couple of rounds or Germany is the one that gets the win. Japan just seems to reach that point where they just can’t quite get there. Too easy for the allies to stop Japan, even if India falls. A strong Japan might not win the game, but they can do wonders for taking the heat off Germany.

Shoot me a PM and I can help you get started on a PBEM game.

@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.

Meh…I think that goes both ways.  As to whether the bomber would be too strong, I think it might be good for the game now.  On the other side, if I had a bomber, I would immediately buy another one.  Lots of creative things to do with that bomber…I think it could prove to be pretty strong…but that’s just my opinion.

Hehe - great posts, Sarge.  Good thoughts.

Turn 3

Japan captured India successfully with no airplane casualities!  However Germany failed their SeaLion and lost all their planes on turn 3.  UK built sea fleet in the Med. and Germany is going to have to build everything he can to survive Russian/UK front.  Russia doesn’t have a frontline though and built infantry in Moscow, they have some 60 sitting there lol.

A Question did come up though regarding Russia and the USA.  If Japan and USA are at war, and Japan/Russia are Neutral…. can USA land troops on Russian soil?  I said no because USA can’t land on Neutral countries.  Hope thats right ???

Russia declared war on Japan Turn 3, and sadly I have nothing to stop his 18 Infantry from coming into Manch./Korea Turn 4.  Should I take out ANZAC or focus my attention on Russia and USA?

Allowing a brief digression, if we were to compare AA50 to AA42, we find AA50 adds:

More board spaces

[liA nicer looking larger board[/li]

An additional power Better rules for China Cool new factors such as NOs and technology

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.