Posts made by brettstarr4

@Funcioneta:

If Spain is neutral, the strait should be opened taking both Morocco and Gibraltar

But if Spain is not neutral (I mean, after is attacked by someone), the strait should be opened taking Spain and Morocco (because Gibraltar garrison will have then a very hard time trying hold the rock, for not talking about blocking ships, and south edge of Spain is nearer to Morocco than Gibraltar)

You could say the same for Kattegat (or whatever name has Danish strait): if Sweden is still neutral, the combo is Denmark+Norway, but if Sweden is at war, the combo should be Sweden+Denmark (and this is even more clear than Gibraltar)

Let’s hope that Larry gives to the neutrals a proper treatment or we are going to have a fantasy scenario again

No, Gibraltar is the nearest point at which Spain comes to Africa.  Closing Gibraltar should require both the closest African territory and Gibraltar.  I think closing the strights between the Baltic and the North Sea, whatever they are called, should require both Denmark and Sweden as well, or even all 3 between Denmark, Sweden and Norway.  But I’m not so sure this straight should even exist to start with.  I guess its ust a way to let the German player biuld a navy in the Baltic if he wants.  It would be more fun that way, albeit, probably not smart.

Yea, but don’t you have to own Gibraltar or Denmark from the beginning of your turn in order to pass through in your noncombat phase.  So that, even if Britain captures Gibraltar on their turn they can’t pass through till next turn.  I don’t think Britain will own Gibraltar, personally.  I can’t see why Germany wouldn’t invade Spain as soon as France is conquered.  Once Spain falls there should be a steady stream of troops to replenish Gibraltar and keep the straight closed.  If not, Italy will have to land a  transport.  Either way, I don’t see Britain keeping control of Gibraltar unless the Axis are losing badly elsewhere.

Britain can pass through both Gibraltar and Denmark even if they own neither, but Germany can’t pass through either unless they own them?

What about Italy and Japan, same as Germany?
What about US and other allies, same as Britain?

Yea, Denmark’s protecting the Baltic will enable Germany to build a navy.  But that doesn’t make it a smart move.  Gibraltar closing the Med might help more though, becuase there are many games where transports are within reach of Italy or the Balkans and Germany has to keep a small force in those territories to rebuff an allied landing.  But now those troops will be free to guard the northern borders of Europe.

wait, what! Denmark closes the Baltic Sea?  Ok, I need some new clarifications on what countries close what bodies of water, because apparently I’ve missed some of the updates.  Here is a list, correct me where I’m wrong and add to it if I’m missing anything.

1.  Egypt -The Suez Canal which closes movement between the Red Sea/Med.
2.  Panama - the Panama Canal which closes movement between the Carribean/Pacific Ocean.
3.  Turkey - The straights of Dardanelles close movement between Med and Black Sea.
4.  Gibraltar AND Morrocco or whatever the other African territory will be close movement between the Med and the Atlantic?  Or will Gibraltar alone close movement b/n the Med and the Atlantic.
5.  Denmark - now you’re saying Denmark closes movement between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea?  Do you have to own Sweden AND Denmark or just Denmark to close the straights there.
6. Anything else?

+1

It will kill this forum, but 1 forum is better than 2

I think Japan should be able to attack the USSR for the sole reason that if the Axis were to win the war, this would have had to happen.  The US would’ve been bearing down on Germany at some point. But the US was perfectly happy to watch the commi’s get killed by the millions at the hands of the Germans.  The US would’ve landed Greece or Yugoslavia behind the German front lines if the Germans continued to advance against the USSR.  This would’ve been ideal for the US, because then we could’ve liberated Eastern Europe and converted all of those counties to strong democracies with pro-capitalist puppets, of course.  But instead the USSR beat the Germans on their own and the US launched DDAY to make sure WEstern Europe stayed capitalist.  Anyway, my point is, the US wasn’t going to let Germany capture Russia.  The only way it would be feasible is if the Germans had managed to fight the US on their own, with Italian help and Japan chewed up massive amounts of the USSR very quickly, which it easily could’ve done, assuming Germany won the battle of Stalingrad.

I actually played a game to a draw where Germany knocked out Russia quite a few turns before Japan was conquered by the US.  Germany troops actually reached the Pacific the same turn Japan fell. 
Then the US got all of Africa and the islands in SE Asia.  The US was a huge juggarnaught and so was Germany.  Germany had well over half the IPC values under their control, but the IPC’s split about even because Japan had conquered the Asian territories first, so Germany didn’t actually collect revenue for them.  The US and Britain owned the seas so we called the game a deadlock.

I think if Germany captures two of France’s 3 territories, the third should just surrender and their units should disappear from the map.  This would make the game more historically accurate.

The Japanese shouldn’t be allowed to attack the USSR until Germany or Italy does.  Is this going to be a rule?  It would at least make a nod to the fact Japan never violtaed the Russo-Japanese peace.  But I dont think AA would be the same without the possibility of Japan attacking the USSR, that has to be possible.

@calvinhobbesliker:

If Germany attacks the US(unlikely, since there’s nothing near germany to attack unless the US is stupid enough to put ships off the UK), do you think this would lead to war with Japan?

This is a very good question.  Historically its hard to venture a guess.  The tri-partite pact did say that the 3 powers would declare war on anyone who declared war on them.  However, Japan refused to open up a seocnd front against the USSR, blaming Hitler for bring them into the war to start.  They might treat the US the same way.  But my guess would be that since Japan was supposedly at war with teh USSR, they should be at war with the US if Germany were to attack the US (or Italy, for that matter).

I assume a Japanese attack on the US would trigger war with Germany and Italy in Europe because this is what happened, historically.  Which is interesting because, from what I gather, Japan’s smartest move is to attack the US on turn 1.  If that’s the case, then Japan should consider Germany and Italy’s best interest before attacking the US.  Then maybe Japan doesn’t attack the US turn 1, which would negate most of the starting strategy I’m hearing.  That or the US just enters the war on turn 1, which would probably be more fun anyway.

However, this scenario would also lead to the anomaly that the US is in the war before the USSR.  Unless Germany were to attack the USSR on turn 1, which, I woudl imagine would be strongly discouraged by the starting setup.

Yea, moving 2 spaces could be a bigger advantage on the bigger board, because it will take infantry a long time to get to the front and to maneuvre based on your opponents moves.  But still, I don’t think moving 2 spaces justifies twice the price of infantry.  The tactical bomber die point might be enough to put it over the edge, but idk, that depends on how many tactical bombers Germany can attack with.  If thats only 3 or 4, then maybe Germany only needs a few tanks at the front… Idk… I see your points, that tanks will be more valuable for new reasons in this edition, thus justifying the extra IPC.  I just hope that is how it works out in reality, becuase everyone building infantry every turn will get very boring, very quickly.  (plus i haven’t played the original AAE so I miss the reference).

I don’t like that tanks are 6 IPC’s in this edition of hte game.  I liked them better at 5, because they were a reasonable buy.  Tanks were still the less efficient buy according to precise mathematical calculations, but reasonable.  Now are we going back to the earlier editions of AA where everyone just builds infanry every turn and the person who gets sick of building infantry and goes with tanks eventually loses??

All other true-neutrals shouldn’t switch to pro-other side.  I like the idea, but it should be grouped together by contintent or something, that would be better.  Like, if you Germany invaded Spain, all European neutrals become pro-allied (assuming Spain were a true-neutral, when it might be pro-axis).  This would be more historically accurate, since, I doubt Iraq or Mongolia would suddenly become pro-ally because Spain got invaded.

@maverick_76:

Well both boards are 35"x32", so either that 60"x32" is a misprint or the boards are 30"x32". When I get home tonight I am going to measure the board and get to the bottom of this.

Yes I did notice the measurements seemed off.  I would like someone to get to the bottom of this haha… But I just assumed it was 70" by 32" and the statement intended “over” 5’, since 70" isn’t quite six feet, and it doesnt read well to say the board will be 5.833 feet by 32 inches.

I don’t like the coloring of the board.  I wish it were all Earth-shaded, like Google Earth or whatever.  I think that would be best.  Experienced players would know which countries were neutral and etc., and the ones owned by hte powers will have troops or decals on them anyways.

Or I wish the board were colored for teh sake of being colored, like AA Revised was.  At least there you could tell they didn’t try to make it look like the Earth.  Here they mix the two themes and it doesnt look good to me.  Small critique though, it won’t stop me from buying the game.

What is the order of turns in AAG?

@calvinhobbesliker:

Brett
Unfortunately, Russian ships can’t exit the Black sea because Turkey is neutral and thus the Dardennelles are close. Besides, since the Germans and Soviets are neutral, the Italian or German ships can go through the Russian ones.

UN Spacey
It’s a rule. Control of Gibraltar closes the strait

OK, I’m still a little confused on some of the rules.  I only own AA Revised so I haven’t dealt with neutral countries yet.  I plan on buying AAE and AAP at the same time but don’t care to play AAP by itself.
   So how does a neutral US work, Japan can pass through their ships in the Pacific too?  I thouhgt you wouldn’t be able to pass through a neutral countries’ forces??  So you can pass through their SZ, but not their territories? Also, are you sure you can’t pass through the Dardenlles if Turkey is neutral?  Why couldn’t everyone just pass through there.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Yes, they can, but then Russia will easily destroy them with its massive army.
As long as the UK controls Gibraltar, Axis surface ships can’t go into or out of the Med that way(or any other way since the UK controls the Suez Canal)

Don’t forge the possibility of a Russian ship or two in the Black Sea.  If Russia has a factory in the caucuses and they are still enjoying neutrality, it might be an interesting strategy to try to add to the Russian navy (probably stupid).

However, a smarter move might be to position the Russian ships between Axis forces and the British ships to tempt the Axis into breaking neutrality.