ANZAC Navy vs ANZAC Island Trading

@Krieghund Understood. Great discussion, and thanks for the background information! I think it speaks to the greatness of the Global 1940 game that, ~10 years after publication, we can still have these types of philosophical debates about it.

Now, we can move on to addressing the flawed rules for AAA units… :grin:

@ShadowHAwk:

@simon33:

@thespaceman:

But remember any destroyers built in japans turn are attacked in the US turn. Only 3 scrambles can join battle. Destroyers must be taken as casualties because subs cant hit planes. Once no destroyers left planes cannot attack.� �

Us can also add in planes flying out of Aleutian islands or russia in order to keep the seas clear of destroyers.

Unless you’re talking about bombers, they can’t fly out of the Aleutians. You can fly off CVs though.

Still, if the USA are dominant enough to pull this off, I feel like it’s a missed opportunity to not take Korea. Unless there’s tonne of units on it I suppose.

You build the destroyers slightly out of range, now the subs stay out of the convoy zones or you just kill them.
If you place only 1 sub in SZ6 i can ignore it if you place 2 then ill sink them at maby the cost of 1 destroyer

1. The deal with the subs vs destroyers. Its not going to be 1 or 2. If US commits to building 2-4 per round then by turn 3-5 when the attack goes in its going to be 5,10 or even 15 subs. 1-2 subs is a minor nuisance for Japan and can easily be defeated. 10 subs is another story.

2. If Japan is using its mainland factories to relieve its home Islands then this has already achieved the purpose of the blockade which is to shut off Japanese production of ground units and shift their focus north away from Anzac and UK Pac. It also has stopped transports shuttling troops between Japan and China.

3. The Korea factory as opposed to taking money islands allows US + Russia working together to start to rebuild China. Once China can start to regrow its units safely in the north Japan is now under attack from 5 directions

1. UK-Pac in Burma/Yunnan
2. China
3. Russia from west and north
4. US from North East
5. Anzac from South East.

Japan no longer has a safe area and the mainland factories will soon be under attack.

@ShadowHAwk:

It isnt as bad ad the 1914 game that you cannot even set-up apparently because it is lacking stuff.

I think you’re talking about 1941?  1941 barely ships with any units out of the box.  I would hope 1914 ships with enough considering its hefty price tag.

@taamvan:

Even with 24 income for 4 or more turns, they don’t need to produce more than 3 units.   a battleship and a strategic bomber cost 32 and that’s only 2 units….

If the Aussies are buying battleships, they’re either doing something terribly wrong or they’re doing something terribly right.

shove a carrier in 109

@ItIsILeClerc:

@theROCmonster:

Don’t know why anyone would play a game in revised to 8 VC’s. This seems impossibly easy for the axis to do.

How big of a bid do you think the axis would need in a world domination game? maybe a bid that keeps the Italian fleet alive?

Don’t think the axis need a bid for this in 2nd edition.
IMHO: with the other axis strategies not so much (a VC-hunt from the start), but definately with an economic  domination strategy, the axis are very hard to defeat already! In game turns anyway, because this kind of strategy requires 20+ turns to beat (if at all possible). During the first 10 turns or so, the axis at least equalize in economy and TUV on the board but more likely will leave the allies far behind in both aspects.
AFAICS, the only way the allies can maintain rough economical parity with the axis is to go KJF and this will cost them Moscow big time, seriously endangering Cairo later on (or London, or both for that matter).

Because I don’t like the fact that the majority of the axis strategies already require the allies to resort to this ‘KJF thing’, I have never explored this beyond my typical J1DOW response (which indeed already is very Japan heavy).

I’m not saying that the axis will actually win if they leave the allies behind both in income and TUV on the board, because there is also something like where all that TUV is positioned. Are the allies able to once again stabilize the economical imbalance and if yes, will that be lasting…

…Anyways, for me personally, about 15 turns of playing A&AG40 is my tolerance-limit for this game. So with this kind of axis play we always end up with calling it a draw unless the majority agrees that the situation is easy enough to predict a winner.

Ya, that is the problem with a really competitive global game. Most of them go over 15 rounds, at least in LL. In a game where VC’s don’t matter it would take forever to win as allies. You are right that the axis will be ahead, or even, after the fall of Moscow if you are going KJF. The thing is once US gets a large enough fleet majority over Japan the TUV swing will be massive. It would be something like 700 in TUV lost with Japan if you completely defend against US. Even with a KJF you should still be able to easily hold Moscow till turn 9. Also in a game where VC’s don’t matter I think it is always best for Japan to attack T3, unless the allies leave it open for a turn 2 attack. This is because Japan needs to kill china and set up in a better position against US. Also US is down 40 IPC’s if you wait till T3.

It would be interesting to see what would be best for allies. KGF or KJF.

Going KGF would leave a super Japan, but he is really out of position. Russia would be immensely powerful because he would be able to get Iraq, Italian somali land, Tobruk, and Libya. This would mean Japan would have a hard time taking Russia, and Germany has no chance to do it. US would be a lot weaker because of all the NO’s he looses in the pacific, and he would have to keep at least 10 infantry in western US to keep Japan honest. Britain would be weaker as well because he wouldn’t have India for very long. Anzac becomes a worthless country that is only building infantry to defend.

Going KJF would leave a super strong Germany that would have a lot of options open to him. Japan would eventually die, but not before doing serious damage. He can still take out India and China and survive till around R10 or so when US’s fleet just becomes too much for him to handle. US would be way more powerful than in a KGF, so when he switched to going against Germany he would have a ton of fleet and would only need to build transports and infantry. He should be making 90+ vs a Germany that is making the same. It would come down to US/UK/Anzac vs. Germany and Italy.

I would probably lean towards going KGF because it allows you to keep Russia, and even if Japan is making 120 PU’s, he is so out of position it would take him forever to take Russia, and by then Germany should be dead.

I don’t think the axis would stand a chance in hell if VC’s were taken off the table, but the problem is what would a fair bid be? Because allowing the axis to bid ships would be too powerful, especially with Japan. That is why I think a fair start would be to allow Italy to have their entire fleet merged to start the game.

What do you guys think?

Hitting Turkey turns all true neutrals pro-Allies.  Not sure if it is worth it when the allies are already making SO MUCH MORE per round than the Axis.  Not saying it is not worth it, just wondering if it wouldn’t be better to go around via transport instead, since it also secures the med and n. Africa.

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.