Topics created by Adalwolf

@manincellv Yes they become KMT.

This example is covered in the « Dual Terrains » rule 1.24 (v.3). The city gives +1 only to the defenders, but the attacking units still suffer a -1 penalty (unless they are Mountain infantry).

This is why, in our games, most of our lend-lease to Spain consists of Mountain infantry, as almost all of Spain is mountain terrain.

I should note that I have units from Classic, Revised Edition, 1941, & 1940 with some significant color variations. So in some cases I may be matching a different edition. So for example, I think the early UK units are darker than my 1940 versions explaining why I choose a darker color. Plus with the cheap paint, I worry that the color consistency is less consistent bottle to bottle.

When I indicate A + B paint colors, I mix then 1 to 1.

FAQ (Bottom of page 2, top of 3) is pretty clear on this http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AAEurope1940_2ndEdition_FAQ.pdf

As someone who has had to read a LOT of pages of rules related to AAG40 (but WHAT a fun game!), the answer to your question is referenced here, in the AA 1940 Pacific Rules FAQ (page 4):

"Q. Let’s say I’m doing an amphibious assault and there are no enemy ships in the sea zone
around the island I’m attacking, but the island has an airbase and enemy fighters. Can I move
extra ships and planes into the sea zone along with my transports that won’t support the
assault just in case my opponent decides to scramble the fighters to defend the sea zone?
What about if there’s only an enemy sub in the sea zone? Can I move a destroyer in along with
my transport just to keep the sub from getting a free shot at it, even though the destroyer will
not participate in the assault?

A. Yes, in both cases. You may move units into a sea that presents a danger to your units during
combat movement, even though they may not actually end up fighting. Just the chance that there will
be combat is enough to allow it."

Attached is that FAQ for your review, and happy gaming!

AA 1940 Pacific Rules FAQ.pdf

I think it’s still 8–you need Paris, the 3 Red cities, and Cario IIRC.

3 subs a turn with a fighter now and then isn’t hard, and it should be enough if Japan looks threatening and SBR’s do well.

@manincellv:

What is the current rule on this?

If damaged lets say to 3 markers and I repair 1 marker, can it still function?  Or does all the damage need to be repaired to get the AB/NB back to functioning?

Thanks.

Bases may only be damaged for a maximum of 6 points.

Bases are……

Operational with 2 or less points of damage

Inoperative with 3 or more points of damage

So no, you don’t need to fully repair bases in order to use them.

@JimmyHat:

best counter is an easy Sealion.

Agreed, if you built a Carrier with Germany on round 1, and the UK either buys units in S Africa or builds an IC somewhere, the Germans need to go all in on Sea Lion.  As Germany, launch your attack on London on G3 and you should win with acceptable losses.  Situations like these are what Sea Lion is all about :)

Yes.

It is an interesting idea, but your explanation points to why your solution may not work.

Here is the jist of your suggestion, I think.

The USA has lots of CVs and BBs because they can afford it.  They are using them to soak hits because they have so many, so lets add a modest repair cost to stop that.

Here are my thoughts:

The problem is that the USA is the only power in the game (most of the time) that will shrug off the repair costs.  So you may actually make things worse for Japan in particular who would be much more affected by paying those costs.

Also your suggestion that a 1 IPC will deter a player from willingly taking hits from their capital ships right away is a bit confusing.  The next cheapest option is to lose a 6 IPC sub.  So a 1 IPC cost isn’t really going to change things.  But as was pointed out earlier, Naval bases are quite pricey as is and the need to pull back a damaged fleet is still a bit of a deterrent.  I think I’m OK with the rules as is.

@Peck:

How does the fighter in Malta get too London in time, is it not attacking with the UK fleet on Italy

You have two rounds to move a fighter from Malta to England.  That’s only 7 Territories, realistically 8 (since you have to land enroute) but that is perfectly within the limits.

Yes, I count the Inf, Arm in Quebec because its the worst case for Germany.  I always judge from worst case scenarios for an overall opinion. When playing a game, I look at realistic and worst case, but this isnt a real game, its a theoretical one.

Anyway, one could run the odds without the inf, arm from Quebec to see what would happen.  I doubt it would be much different, but it may be, it’s 2 units that you can lose and 5 defensive punch, so it may shift things 7% (just a mental guess).

And yes, you give up the Med to Italy, but you keep London so you can continue to fight.  Right or wrong move, I don’t know.  All I know is if England doesn’t go “balls to the walls” defending England on round 1, I assume it will fall on Germany 3, in which case, I use Japan 1 to cripple the American fleet, sink the British transport and stage an invasion of Australia to press the advantage.

Germany declares all combat movement…puts whatever they want in the sea zone…then Brits decide what, if anything, to scramble.

Those are mine, they are in a thread up above this section, on a sticky.

From play experience, what it does is allow the germans a viable southern campaign, and also - the Russians, the ability to fight a souther campaign, instead of the traditional - Germany to moscow from Novisibirsk approach.

@manincellv:

Alpha +2.

If Japan takes FIC, they lose there 10 IPC bonus, Correct?

Yes.

Does that bring USA into the war?

No.

Does it bring UK/ANZAC into the war?

No.

@Black:

Does Germany has to pay the 17ipc to upgrade the IC again? or does that happens automatically?

Germany must pay.  The cost is 20 IPCs.

@Black:

btw: Paris becomes a Minor IC as soon is taken by Germany, right?

Yes.

@manincellv:

WHy in ALPHA +2 are there 11 German infantry in Germany?

There was some concensus among LH and those playtesting Alpha +1 that Germany was underpowered in the land attack into Russia and ran out of steam before capturing the victory cities more often than not or attaining economic parity (also why Germany and Italy got more NOs).  The desire was to provide some additional land units that could keep up some momentum.