How exactly do artillery outfight armor? I’m confused, they attack and defend at 3, with a cost of 6.Artillery attack and defend at 2, while costing 4. Yet armor can blitz and allow mech. infantry to blitz with it as well.
I would say it depends who is buying armor and for where.
Armor are better for Europe and Asia, but not for Island hopping.
Give cruisers resilience and they will be bought to soak up hits. Destroyers will be bought to do anti-sub and AA dice. Battleships will not be bought. Subs will be bought in a small qty to do comerce raiding and soak up some hits from navy attacks. Carriers will be bought to carry airplanes. It all sounds right to me.
Would changing the cruiser shift most of the complaints to Battleships then?
CAs aren’t my first choice, too.
But there are situations you will buy them, or cut one infantry from your production to upgrade a DD to a CA.
The true strength of the CAs lies in the combination with other ships.
Many people seem to think all the units should have the same worth!
I agree with Marechallannes.
In 2nd Edition many wished for middleweight naval units, and now we have 2 to choose from.
Sure 1 might be better, but the cruiser has its place.
Some seem to think, “I would rather have 12DD vs. 8Crz.” But how many times does a player buy just 1 type of naval unit and in that volume.
It’s not like all of our naval units are rolling every turn. Some times there is one epic battle, 1shot that makes all the difference, one roll of a 3 instead of a 2.
In one game of AA50 I only had IPCs left (after my only must have buys) for 1 cruiser and not 2DD.
Did this purchase change the buys, attacks, or plans of the other player?
This type of strategy CANNOT be valued by math.
I think the cruiser @12ipc is fine. If you think you forced your opponent to buy and cruiser, then sit back and smile. As for myself, I am glad the unit is there when needed.
This debate will rage on, but let’s see what this week’s opinion is.
AA 1940 Pacific has been released for 18 Days (Not 1 month as someone said, closer to a 1/2 month).
Let’s see if this question changes over the weeks/months.
It might help to clear up some of the confusion by stepping though an example.
Assume Japan meets the requirements on a previous turn to allow Kamikaze attacks.
Assume sz17 has 1destroyer and Iwo Jima has 1inf.
Lets say the US attacks sz17 with 1CRZ, 2AC (1AC has an ANZAC 1fighter on it as cargo because nations may NOT attack together, only defend together.) and 1trn with units for the Iwo Jima assault.
Lets say the US declares an amphibious assault on Iwo Jima with 1 transport w/2inf, 3ftr which all have 1 movement point left to move in noncombat and land on 2AC in sz17 during Mobilize New Units Phase.
In phase 2 (Combat Movement) of the US turn, the US moves his units and declares his amphibious assault.
When phase 2 is done, and before phase 3 starts, Japan announces 2 Kamikaze attacks on 1Ac, 2 Kamikaze attacks on the other 1Ac with ANZAC 1ftr as cargo on it.
Phase 2 for the US is done, over with; the US player may NOT change their moves.
Japan must declare how many Kamikaze attacks they will roll for. They can’t roll, then check for hits, and roll some more.
Fighters are already flying at the start of Combat Movement, they do not move with the AC, they move separately, and land on the AC at the end of noncombat.
Before phase3 for the US starts, the 4 Kamikaze attacks are rolled.
Let’s say Japan gets 1 hit on each AC. (if there were 2 hits on 1 AC, then the AC would be removed at this time.)
Now start phase 3…Conduct Combat!
US attacker rolls for 1CRZ @3,2 damaged AC @0, 1 loaded trn @0
US gets 1 hit.
Japan chooses 1DD as a casualty, and rolls @2 for a miss.
With the sz17 now clear, it is now amphibious assault time and the US wins that battle and takes control of Iwo Jima.
Phase 4 Noncombat.
Oh no! The US has nowhere to land 3ftrs, the 2AC are damaged, and the fighters are lost to the sea and removed from play.
On the ANZAC turn, his 1ftr may not leave the damaged AC.
On Japan’s turn, aircraft are sent to easily destroy the stuff in sz17 (1Crz@3, 2damagedAC with a fighter that is stuck below deck @2, 1trn @0), the 3ftrs from before are no longer there and 1 is stuck below deck.
Conclusion, the only planes involved with Kamikaze attacks are planes from other Allies below deck as cargo. The rest of the planes have to deal with whatever happened.
Japan would have loved to Kamikaze attack the transport, but the rules do not allow that.
Japan could have Kamikaze attacked the 1CRZ and, if successful, prevented the amphibious assault because there would be no way to clear the seazone (AC attack @0, transports attack @0).
Why did the US bring in the 2AC, when it could have moved them there during noncombat? I don’t know. Rules do not prevent bad play. This was an example of what happens, not how one should play.
Thank you very much.
I don’t know how you do it! Amazing, you keep track of some 10 different rule books with another one on the way.
In a different thread this was talked about UK taking a Dutch territory.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16048.45
Yes, this is not considered to be an attack, and should be done during noncombat movement.
Krieghund,
Why in noncombat?
Is the purpose for noncombat move/take territory because Japan may have surface warships in the seazone of the Dutch territory UK and/or ANZAC is trying to take?
I thought I read somewhere (rule Q&A’s are long and spread out on the forum): Does UK/ANZAC have an agreement with the Dutch AND the French to take their territories? (Whereas Japan does not have that type of agreement?)
Your reply was:
It’s done in noncombat movement simply because it isn’t an attack. The Dutch and French are Allied powers whose capitals are held by the enemy (Germany). As fellow colonial powers, the UK and ANZAC are simply taking taking guardianship of the territories. The US may not take guardianship of these territories, as it has an isolationist policy and doesn’t want to get involved. Japan, on the other hand, is an enemy power (allied with Germany), so it must attack these territories to claim them, and it must do so before UK/ANZAC units arrive if it doesn’t want war with the remaining Allied powers.
I highlighted the words above, in red, and this is where my question is.
The Errata (and rulebook Page 8 ) states:
"Page 8, The Political Situation: The last two sentences of the first paragraph should read “Japan is free to attack China and invade unoccupied French territories without provoking war with the other Allied powers. However, any combat movements against British, Dutch, ANZAC, or American territories, troops, or ships, or disruption of their convoys, by the Japanese (unless they are attacked by that power first) will bring all of the Allied powers into the war.”
By you statement (in red), can Japan attack the empty Dutch territories without bringing the US into the war?
I assume Japan can attack the empty French territories without bring the US into the war. Is this a correct statement?
Yes, this is not considered to be an attack, and should be done during noncombat movement.
Krieghund,
Why in noncombat?
Is the purpose for noncombat move/take territory because Japan may have surface warships in the seazone of the Dutch territory UK and/or ANZAC is trying to take?
I thought I read somewhere (rule Q&A’s are long and spread out on the forum): Does UK/ANZAC have an agreement with the Dutch AND the French to take their territories? (Whereas Japan does not have that type of agreement?)
I see a lot of people mentioning the british taking the Dutch East Indies while they are still “neutral.” This is not allowed as per the errata that is currently posted. No neutral countries can attack other neutrals until japan attacks them.
UK and ANZAC may take Dutch and French terittories.
From the Errata:
Page 8, The Political Situation: The first sentence of the second paragraph should read “If not yet at war, Britain and/or ANZAC are free to take control of Dutch and French territories (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into those territories, as long as those territories have not been captured by Japan."
Started played a AAP40 ABattleMap game.
Would you please change the National Objectives to the ‘Oil’ on the Income chart? (Instead of being grouped in with the IPC line)
It’s a big help during game play to list incomes, then add together.
Example:(Territories+NOs+old cash=$Total at the end of turn.)
Income:
10+5(NO)+1=$16
Can a newly captured AA gun be moved on your noncombat move?
No.
AAP40Rulebook>page25>Antiaircraft Guns>Paragrapgh4>
“Their new owner is the player controlling the territory at the end of that turn, and that owner can use those antiaircraft guns in future combats.”
Since your turn is over (way past the Noncombat phase) you may not move a newly captured AA gun (because it is not yours yet! :-D).
Can an AA gun be moved in the noncombat movement phase if it where involved in combat during the combat phase?
No, planes may move in both combat and noncombat but not AA guns.
However, because there is no rocket tech how can an AA gun be involved in a legal combat move?
One may not load 1AA gun and 1inf during combat movement. AA guns may only be loaded in noncombat. A transport with an AA gun already on it may load and unload 1inf as a combat move, but the AA gun move stay onboard until noncombat.
If the AA gun fires, you are on defense and it is not your turn.
@RogertheShrubber:
The AA gun is critical. I also buy an AA move it to China, and place the second AA in Burma. The Burma AA makes it tough for any SBR on India, meaning you get three sets of AA roles if they conduct SBR on the mainland. My oponnent the other day recognized this and tried to set up shop in Sumatra to SBR.
AAP40Rulebook>page25>Antiaircraft Guns>paragraph2>
“Air Defense: An antiaircraft gun can only fire at an air unit when that unit attacks the territory containing that antiaircraft gun. It does not contribute to the defense of industrial complexes, airbase, or naval bases. These facilities are considered to have their own built-in antiaircraft defense system.”
Only 1 die for each strategic bomber.
@Craig:
@Brain:
@Imperious:
This came in my email this morning:
This email is a comminication with Wizards of the Cast support. You may reply to this message, or follow the link below and provide your Wizards account login credentials.
The suppport insident that has been created will remain open in our systam for the next 500 days.
Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.
To update this qustion by email, please reply to this message. Bekause your reply will be automatiically processed, you MUST enter you reply in the space below. Text entered into any other part of this message will be discarded.
[===> Please enter your riply above this line <===]
[===> Please enter your riply below this line <===]
Subject
Axis and Allies: Euuropee 1940 Battle Strap and Japanese FeicesDiscussion Thread
Responce (Support Agent) 12/28/2009 12:47 PM
Hi Imperious,The Axis & Allies: Pasific 1942 game has a known issue where the Battle Strip is misprinted. Some of numbers are wrong or missing. While we don’t have any correct Battle Straps available for replakement at this time, we do expect to reseive them by February. Per our phone conversition, please reply with the following information so we can make sure to send you a correct Battle Strap when we get them in:
First Name:
Last Name:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Phone Number (with area code):In the mean time, the corrict information is the provided in both the rulebook and the game board itself.
We wery much appreciate your patence and understanding in this matter.
We would apreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Cal Moore, WOTC
Is this e-mail a joke? Cause if it’s not the spelling once again is shameful.
I must agree. What a spelling mess!
How can anyone with this kind of misspelling be in charge of any kind of Editing? Wow!!!
This does not bode well for Europe. :x
Of course it is a joke by IL.
I have 21inf for the US.( The only extra piece I have. None missing)
Looks like I got your missing US 1inf. :lol:
The bag stuffer for the US inf was having a bad day. :-(
Let’s say I build an airbase on Ceylon (it can be landed on as it is named, and nothing I’ve seen limits where airbases can be built) and support it with fighters.
That is a legal play.
I was wondering why Ceylon was there (with no IPC value). Good insight EGG.
It is tough to get ANZAC and/or US planes there, but it could be done. (Air base in Western Australia anyone? Or Island hopping?)
Try playing both here with AbattleMap.
I think 1940Global will be the way to go, but it will take much longer to play. Who are you playing face-to-face games with? That might help you answer.
Nice catch Butcher. Here is the new Start.AAM file. Just drop this into the .gim folder and over write the old .AAM one.
On the lattest setup from reply #29–-the income for Countries in the lower right seazone (sz52) is gone.
Nice work!
+many to Stoney229 and pitheist314!
We tend to keep our airgroups as 1 Fighter and 1 Tac unless we KNOW the CV is only intended for defensive work.
I find this in my case, too.
When when I need to lose a unit, the fighter goes before the Tac bomber. Then I need to replace the fighter to match up with the Tac bomber that is on the gameboard. OR….I need the defense power of the fighter, and I already have enough Tac bombers to work with.