A Good, Correct NO Chart for 2nd Edition?

@akreider2 it might give you a certain flexibility you may need or it hinders you to grow with euro Axis.
It depends much likely on how you play Japan.
Fir a J1DoW I personally would not recommend it, since you are boosting the US in no time.

There were no changes to the treatment of neutrals in general, but the Soviet-Mongolian Defense Pact was added in the 2nd Edition.

My own version. Feel free to correct and commentSetup Charts A&A 1940 2nd edition.pdf

Interesting analysis to share.
I will certainly add this opening post to one or another HR thread on Cruiser and BB.

Hey… Basic question…just need a clarification!

On Page 17 of Europe,2nd paragraph.

Any number of defending fighters based in a territory that is about to be strategically and/or tactically bombed
can be committed to participate in the defense of that territory’s facilities as interceptors, whether or not there
are attacking fighter escorts. The number of defending fighters that will intercept is decided by the owning
player(s) after the attacker’s Combat Move phase is completed and before the Conduct Combat phase begins.
These fighters cannot participate in other battles during that turn, including a battle in the territory in which
the bombing raid is occurring.

I Bolded the part I would like to make sure is right.

If you are the player who has in coming SBR, can you choose to use Friendly fighters too in your territory? If so, you as the team decide who to kill off if the enemy Escorts hits any of the defending fighters?

If you can use your friendly Fighters in No.1 example, your friendly fighters can still be used in the future turn of that Round?

Thanks BH

@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.

The problem with that is if the US took Manchuria, it would revert to Chinese control so the US would not be able to use a factory there or even build one itself.  Also, US would not get the 3 IPCs for Manchuria either. 
However, USA could take Korea and put a minor there.

@Meethos:

@Get:

I would also like to make a request to anyone that has a scanner: to scan the pages of the Europe rule book which contain the unit profiles & stats, i believe they’re located way in the back of the booklet.

upload them in .PNG format

Thank you!  :-D

Meethos if you’re reading this, hopefully you can help me out one last time  :-)

Do you mean the Game Piece Directory which shows the silhouettes of each nations units or the profiles that describes the rules for each unit? If its the later then they’re the exact same as the ones in the Pacific manual w/ the excpetion of the air base scramble rule saying that the UK isn’t an island. FYI the Game Piece Directory doesn’t contain any stats.

yeah the Game Piece Directory.  :-)