AA50 Alternate Set-up

Re: AA50 National Advantage Cards

On this post, Many interesting national advantage. Some new. Unfortunatly, the 12 first Links are missing.

Correct. While we all know the outcome of Axis forces in USSR, I am just pointing out here that the Just Cause for invading USSR heavily favored the Axis forces. And remember when Hitler gave the orders, the Heer was basically doing nothing but waiting to see if the air and naval power of Germany could contain UK so the army was doing nothing and neither the navy or a large air force was needed to invade USSR so why not? Personally, I would have waited for Stalin to make the first move.

@drummerinheat:

where can i find it? :?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30919.0[]]http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30919.0](]]http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30919.0[url][/url])

Awesome! thanks a lot!

I’ve only played Global 1940 about 5 times but i’m looking forward to play this setup! Lots of new options to try!

Flashman, can you be a little more specific about what you mean by “a nation is defeated?” Does that mean all of the nation’s pieces are immediately removed from the map when it loses its last production center? If not, are there any practical consequences to being “defeated” other than not being able to produce new units? And by “nation,” do you have in mind something like “France,” or more like “the Allies?”

If you treat production centers as victory cities, then how many victory cities do you think each side should have to control in order to win? Would you have any victory cities that are not also production centers?

Finally, would you agree that banning the creation of new factories takes some of the variety and surprise out of the game? Off the top of my head, it seems like Japan is more or less required to try to conquer India (since Japan can no longer build a factory in Manchuria or Kazakh), and the USA is more or less required to try to conquer Italy or Tokyo (since the USA can no longer build a factory in France, NW Europe, or Norway). I would also be sad to lose the option of having the UK build a factory in South Africa, having the USA build a factory in Sinkiang, having the UK (or Germans!) build a factory in Egypt, having Japan build a factory in Alaska, and having the USA build a factory in Borneo or the Philippines. No one of these options is really part of ‘orthodox’ play, but collectively they spice the game up quite a bit, and often players will adjust their moves to make sure that these builds don’t become optimal. For example, the US might leave a significant garrison, including a tank and a fighter, in Western USA / Western Canada to guard against a Japanese Alaskan factory, but if Japan can’t build in Alaska, then the USA can make do with a much smaller, cheaper, more passive defense of the homeland.

@Chicago:

China receives special treatment in the Chicago Rules Anniversary Edition.  China begins the game with an IC and has different rules while China controls the IC and different rules after the axis take control of and destroy the Chinese IC.

China and its units are controlled by the U.S. player, but for game purposes it is considered a separate power and its resources cannot be mixed.  Chinese combat and movement are done separately from the U.S. forces.

Chinese units have a limited range of occupation, displayed by the colored border.  They can also be moved into the Japanese occupied territories of Kiangsu and Manchuria.  China can take control of these territories and have them count toward their new infantry placements.  Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.

Kwangtung is a special case.  While it is not a Chinese territory and cannot be controlled by China, Chinese forces can attack Axis units there and occupy it, but the IPC’s generated, go to the United Kingdom.  This is the only non-Chinese territory that Chinese units may occupy.

Before the start of game play China places their IC in any Chinese controlled territory. The IC works like the mobile industry National Advantage (for Revised edition): the IC can move one territory per turn and place units there (no unit limits on placement of Chinese units).  Since, the IC has unlimited production it is not subject to axis strategic bombing.  
Before the start of game play China may also move their fighter to any Chinese controlled territory. The fighter represents the American volunteer group- the Flying Tigers. This fighter is considered part of the Chinese forces for purposes of movement and combat.

While the IC is in play, China collects income at the end of a turn just like any other country.  China starts the game with $7 IPC’s.  China may purchase infantry for $2, other unit costs are unchanged.  China can save unspent IPC’s and spend IPC’s on technology research if the optional rule is agreed upon.

After the Chinese IC has been captured  The Axis power that takes control of the Chinese IC must destroy it immediately.  The Chinese player must also surrender all of their IPC’s to that Axis power.  China no longer receives IPC’s for income and can no longer purchase units. China may never rebuild this IC.

Instead, China gets one new infantry unit per turn for every two Chinese territories that are not under Axis control during the Purchase Units phase of the U.S. player’s turn. The U.S. Player places the new Chinese units on any Chinese- controlled territories. However, those units cannot be placed on any territory that already contains three or more units.

Excuse my old eyes.  :wink:

Yea,  they are great replacements.  Snipers, or like you said, just a cool pose.

if i had nukes tech i would build a stack of bombers and nuke every opposing territory within range,
for 45 - 50 I.P.C. i could build 3 -4 bombers and nuke territories with no opposition with the superfortress tech,
getting nuke tech needs a twist because of the damage that it can do,
simply getting lucky by rolling a tech that has nukes tech combined would be a game killer, i think that a cost for nukes that would force a player to factor the cost of nukes into the I.P.C. spend would make nukes plausable within a set of house rules,

yea i added in planes as attackers but if non transports are in the sea zone, they must attack as normal as per OOB.