A/C & FTR retreating options?

@greyleaf3

Don’t confuse yourself by introducing the term “retreat” to the situation you describe.
The decision to retreat occurs during conduct combat phase (Step 6 of the General Combat Sequence).

Your scenario is at the beginning of the Combat Move Phase - and the “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones”-rules (rulebook page 12) apply. So this is about combat movement, not about retreating.

And in this phase sea units can move their full range.

The enemy destroyer of course has no effect on the submarine’s movement here - as the submarine is already there - and does not enter or move through a hostile seazone containing an enemy destroyer.

@noblerare Moved from “Spring 1942” to the correct category.

nice!

plus the ships tend to get re-knocked back over when you re-org them, which causes some confusion

also we tip pieces over that are allocated to NCM early (usually infantry/destroyer placeholders/blockers, to avoid moving them twice) so tipping would mean two different things…

I agree the problem is a very weak middle for the Allies. Have to play with the Bosporus Strait closed. Generally I like a bid of around 12-17, although I have sometimes beat my friends at 9.

A Russian fighter for the bid helps a lot, you can attack Baltic States and West Russia, and then land them in Egypt, Transjordan (with a tank) and Evenki. You get a pretty big opening, hold the Suez canal, put yourself in position to counter Japan for a single crucial turn, and lay a trap in the Caucasus while stacking W. Russia to receive British fighters. This is nice because it lets you help the British in the beginning but you end up with a Russian fighter, which is the unit which gets the most action in any game, making or breaking a lot of trades and adding a lot of defensive power. Also if you convince Germany to buy navy round 1 then you at least spare Russia through round 5.

Once you get over 15 with the bid you can start doing stupid stuff that totally changes the game… which can be very fun.

I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)
1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with
AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)
1942.2:  Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into
AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into
1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)
1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8
AA50: Moscow 6
1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)
1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)
1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)
1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs
AA50:  Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)
Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3
AA50: Philippines 2
1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1
1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?

I noticed, yeah. Pretty cool indeed.

Ok I just found the answer in the FAQ post! Thanks for posting the link!

@CWO:

@toblerone77:

Sounds cool. I just hate separating up my games to do so. I thought about cannibalizing my AAP40 first edition for Canadians. … then again there’s alaways HBG

When Pacific 1940 2nd edition came out, with its distinctive sculpt shapes for the ANZAC forces, I took the nation-specific storage box in which I had stored the 1st edition’s “ANZAC” sculpts (the butternut-grey British units) and I changed the box label to “Canada”.  The single change I made to the box contents is that I transferred a few of the 2nd edition ANZAC anti-aircraft guns to the Canadian inventory since that sculpt type wasn’t in the 1st edition.  The colour matches, so they don’t look out of place.

TY Marc! I have no hope of ever getting an AAE40-1stEd so your idea sounds great! Thanks Brother!