G40 2nd-edition National Objective tracker sheets

I am in your same situation, getting back to the game after a while.

One thing I notice about Italy (which seems to be the country that you are having most trouble with) is that if they are not dealt with early in the game, they can be a huge help to the Axis powers.

I see a lot of discussions about doing or not doing the Taranto raid. For me it is a must. Otherwise the Italians can get a very comfortable position in the Mediterranean and be a headache for the rest of the game. It happened in the last two games I played.

Specially if the get their hands in Gibraltar and Cairo. Then they effectively block the Allies from getting in the mediterranean and get a lot of IPCs from their national objectives.

What I could not find yet was a solution if I am the Italian player and I get “tarantoed”. It basically keeps me off for the rest of the game.

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris
Yep - that Yunnan stack can be a pain.

I’ve noticed one response to a common variation of a J2. Situation:

SZ36/20 have 2-3 transports and/or marines on board BB/Cruiser (if you are playing Balanced Mod) There are no Japanese naval bases usable in those SZs.

Strategy:
USA DD to SZ43 (Off Borneo)
UK DD to SZ37
UK land on Sumatra
Anzac land on Java

Result:
Allies are secure on Sumatra and Java through turn 2. Some possibility of convoying off income but unlikely to get it all and some of the fleet might be exposed if they try to convoy both. Every bit as important: Japan doesn’t get the money on turn 2 which slows them down a fair bit.

Just tried this against one player and he avoided the DOW J2.

Downside: Losing two DDs. Doesn’t seem like a big problem. The UK one can be replaced turn 3 with the one starting off South Africa.

@P@nther:

@MagnuZealot:

When does the US collect the extra 30 IPCs and do they collect them every round of play Including their National Objectives?

The “extra 30 IPC rule” applies only for the Pacific theatre game:

@FAQ:

Page 9, The Political Situation, The United States: This paragraph should read “The United States
begins the game neutral. It may not declare war on Japan unless Japan first declares war on it or makes
an unprovoked declaration of war against the United Kingdom or ANZAC. Following any such unprovoked
declaration of war by Japan, the United States will receive an immediate one-time bonus payment of 30
IPCs, representing the total mobilization and transfer of military assets within the continental United
States. However, if the United States is still not at war with Japan by the Collect Income phase of its third
turn, it may declare war on Japan at the beginning of that phase. This is an exception to the rules for
declaring war (see “Declaring War,” page 11), which may normally be done only at the beginning of the
Combat Move phase.” (Note that this change applies only to the Pacific rules, and not to the Global
rules.)

So the USA “only” get their bonus for their NOs (see Global Rules) during every Collect Income Phase.

HTH :-)

Panther thank you so much for that clarification!
I thought it wierd that it did not say in the Global rules.
Now my mind can rest easy.

@CWO:

@Whitshadw:

Again I love the idea but the way they set it up looks like a 8 year old picked the colors and the map needs a incredible update.

I have a copy of Superpowers, and frankly the only thing about it that I really like are the little white missile sculpts, which I use as A&A atomic bombs.  (I put them horizontally in small plastic stands that I pulled from a different game.)  There are just eight of them, and considering that they came as part of a whole game with lots of other sculpts (none of which I use), this reflects nicely the rarity and high cost of WWII atomic weapons.

Back around the 1980s or so, there was a WWIII-themed global game called Supremacy.  It had some cool features, but it eventually faded from the scene, apparently because of two flaws: a simplistic economic model that could easily be manipulated, and a tendency to “go nuclear” that would end the game (the same kind of problem mentioned by rjpeters).

Funny. I too pretty much bought the game for parts originally and I thought of using the map for my own game idea.

@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.

You can only take control of an ally’s territory if it has already been captured by an enemy

Look over the stickied thread - they’re pretty much in there, but I haven’t heard anyone who’s 100% sure of every single NO down to the last detail.