A Beginners Guide to A&A Global 1940 2nd Edition

@shadowhawk I can’t argue with that.Take out india 1st and then go toward Egypt and middle east to obtain victory on the Europe side.

@Patchman123 said in EXACT pieces count for Pacific/Europe 1940 Second Edition:

@Midnight_Reaper said in EXACT pieces count for Pacific/Europe 1940 Second Edition:

@Patchman123:

What am I looking for is NOT a combined count for Pacific and Europe 1940 put together as one whole game, but rather, how many infantry there are in Pac. 1940 Sec. Ed? Not just infantry, but ALL pieces.

How many pieces for all the games? PER GAME, NOT combined.

Question already answered: @Midnight_Reaper:

-Midnight_Reaper

Where is it exactly? I notice that there are pieces with nummeration on the bottom for sorting them out all by country, minus ANZAC, which has none on any of its infantry pieces in Second Edition.

The change of forum software has borked some of the old links to on-site posts. Here is a link to what can be found in a copy of Europe 1940, SE and a copy of Pacific 1940, SE: read for yourself.

-Midnight_Reaper

@Azpathfinder:

Has anyone ever tried 1940 rules/units on the 1942 map?

We have a group that enjoys to play, but 1940 is a serious time commitment that we just can’t schedule, and it seems to be taking the fun out of it (for us). When we played 1942, we could set up and play a few rounds in one night and while not always finishing, we could get a good enough sense in how the game was going to declare a victor.

We do enjoy the new pieces and rules (scrambling, tac bombers, convoys, air fields, kamakazi, shipyards) from 1940 … has anyone ever tried to use them on the older, smaller, more manageable 1942 board? any tips? any existing transfer rules? any thoughts?

Thanks everyone!

I would stay away incorporating air bases, shipyards due to number of spaces on the 1942.2 map.

Kamikazis and scrambling although fun, they will drastically change the overall strategy and dynamic of the game.

Now when it comes to mechanized infantry and tactical bombers that’s something that can be integrated with success. I haven’t done it yet but will start trying it out now that my brother and I have about 20 games under our belt and can call ourselves intermediate players. I will post results and overall outcome. In my opinion it will slightly benefit the Axis thus making it even harder for the Allies.

If you need any rule clarifications feel free to ask us!

@cyanight:

I found you… Im SteelerLou, lol… I had made an account for a Steeler give-away sometime ago, lol.  Actually plan to use a couple of your house rules this weekend.  The NO’s, Strategic Bombing from AB, Neutral Blocs and Groupings of minor countries with majors.

Awesome, I see you, and if you’re not on twitter often I can always come here and inform you of scheduled game days so you can get the in game updates. Thanks for trying my house rules, the best one of all is the Strategic Bombers needing to leave from an Air Base in order to get the +2 damage bonus… I can see a rule like that fitting in nicely with the official rules.

Thanks.

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.)

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

[liA nicer looking larger board[/li]

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.