Posts made by Col. Flagg

Capturing capitals was almost always the primary goal: it’s a symbolic act, and they are typically the centers of power, either economically, culturally, politically, etc.  The reason the Europe board is set up the way it is now is because Hitler ignored the more strategic goal of crushing the UK at Dunkirk and instead went towards Paris (no UK troops in the Normandy territory).  After the mistaken bombing of London, Hitler continued because he thought it would wear the British down, and England retaliated by sending a bombing mission to Berlin, even though it was mostly useless.  The invasion of Poland was focused mainly on capturing Warsaw, and the Polish fought very hard to defend it.  And I thought it was common knowledge that if Hitler had not called off the Moscow offensive to divert to Stalingrad, the Germans would’ve triumphed because of how the Russian society, military, communication network, etc was set up (all centralized to maintain control).

So, I have no problems with how capitals are set up now.  Is it a more interesting goal to capture all the useless East Russian territory?  I don’t think so.  And as others have said, you don’t need a capital capture to win the game.  Maybe it’s more efficient in terms of number of turns to destroy the enemy, but it’s always the most heavily defended territory and requires the most IPC investment.

So it would save the Italian fleet for you?  Yes, in my current scenario the 2 destroyer/transport fleets would survive (subs have to be used elsewhere to make up for the missing aircraft) but I don’t think Germany should ever let a battleship live, or else they’ll join up and never be sunk.

Use a roundel on the IPC chart that you adjust as you spend your cash?  I never thought of that…but there’s no difference between the two so you could mix them up.

If there isn’t an Axis declaration of war on the U.S, the U.S isn’t allowed to go into any neutrals, p. 15 Movement.

I believe you use one of them for the IPC chart to mark your UK Europe income (distinct from your UK Pacific income), and they gave an extra in case you lose one, I guess.

A few posts I’ve seen have stated that only threatening a G2 Sea Lion saves the western Italian fleet because the UK carrier and destroyer would then have to be diverted to England’s coast.  Otherwise, the carrier will protect itself with the French fleet and send its tac with a fighter and a cruiser to sink the Italian fleet.  But, as a UK player, if the French fleet was destroyed, would you still make that attack?  Germany would only need to send a tac and 1 or 2 fighters to accomplish this: the consequence would be that the destroyer group off of England’s west coast would survive (use subs and planes in attacks on other fleets).

Any other details on the win?  Was delaying until G4 to build up and attack Russia the deciding factor?  Did you put an IC in Yugoslavia to get units to Africa?  But that is definitely not a normal odds roll.

I’m aware that it’s part of the rules, I’ve been playing since the 1980s edition.  However, it usually only ever comes up in naval combat.  But in this case, those 6 inf and 1 art stationed in Romania are much more powerful compared to being stationed in Hungary/Slovakia on G2 because they can attack both Bessarabia and Eastern Poland, thus forcing the Russians to either stretch out their defenses or retreat.  Bessarabia is already the weakest point on the Russian line with only 2 starting infantry, so those 6 inf and 1 art can make a much stronger push towards Stalingrad 1 turn earlier.

Since this is the first Europe game with an enemy territory in Eastern Europe, Germany on turn 1 can send its army from S. Germany into Yugoslavia and 1 infantry from Romania.  It can then strafe it once, weakening it for Italy to take (who needs it more), and retreat the whole attack force into Romania.  On average, Germany will lose 1 or 2 infantry, but in return have that whole army on the front line ready for G2 (if you want to go for an early Barbarossa).

Is this a problem?

Then why word it that way at all?  There’s nothing to work out: there’s only two places Russia can attack (Manchuria and Korea) and 3 places for Japan to attack (Amur, Siberia, and Soviet Far East).  And it’s at least three territories to get through China, so no one will be surprised there.  Since there is an expectation of shipping Russia’s Asian troops west (due to the Novosibirsk rule in just Europe rules), Russia will most of the time weaken that front, and Japan will quickly exploit it for free IPC’s and a diversion from the Eastern Front.

True, 18 infantry over there is a force to be reckoned with, but diverting from the Eastern Front is always Japan’s relationship with Russia.

I don’t think anybody enjoyed the Japanese Tank Drive to Moscow mechanic that was present in the other global games because it was too powerful and not fun.  The game of Go has been around for thousands of years and giving handicap stones to the weaker player is common practice there in order to balance the game and make it enjoyable for both players: I don’t think progressives caused that mechanic to appear.

@Koningstiger:

On the one hand I agree, but on the other, as the initial poster said; in all the games I’ve played so far (3), the Russians withdrew from the border territories on turn 1, thereby consolodating their forces, while the Germans are losing theitrs in France, at sea and in Yugoslavia. It’s certainly worth a try to try and attack Russia on G1, I assume… At least it will cost Russia too and they start off very weak.

From this Axis and Allies version of the European front, I can see why Stalin ordered “Not one step back!”  If Russia gives up all their border territories, the Germany has “airbases” (not literal) that are only 3 moves from Moscow, so now it can be strategically bombed (Leningrad and Stalingrad are already in range).

I’m not sure the pact would EVER be broken if IPC’s were paid from their supply directly.  If Japan breaks it, then Russia gets 15-20 IPCs to use on the more important German-Russian Front, and if Russia breaks it, it’s 15-20 IPC’s away from that front.

It also makes sense to me because if Japan invaded Russia, local militias/partisans in the East Asian territories would be called up to defend their homes.  But really the only place for Russia to invade is Manchuria, which is originally a Chinese territory and not loyal to Japan, so they wouldn’t receive infantry.  But, getting “free units” is not much different from a bid like in the other Axis and Allies games: it balances how much weaker Russia is to Japan on that front.

From my initial look at the board, I don’t think Germany should attack until G3.  On G1, Germany can activate Finland with an infantry and artillery on the transport (and the transport will be safe because UK can’t land planes in Russia (from movement rules and major power neutrals) and can’t send ships through the strait, and activate Bulgaria.  Then on G2 the transport returns to 112 (I think) and the Bulgarian infantry move 1 territory into position.  Thus for G3, the transport can be used again to amphibiously assault Russia and the Bulgarian infantry can be used in the first attack.

The 6 free infantry can be deployed in any original Russian territory in their eastern provinces (i.e. the two Pacific boards) at the beginning of Japan’s Combat Move when they declare war (although I don’t know why Japan would declare and not attack).

But it is so interesting that Larry left it up to the players to decide what the terms are, so it can be different every game (though a standard will probably emerge, especially for tournaments).  Heck, you can choose off-the-board terms if you want, I guess: if Japan breaks the treaty, they have to take a shot of vodka, and if Russia violates, they take a shot of sake, thus impairing them for the rest of the game.

I was gonna make a thread on this, but luckily it’s already here.  Anyway, I thought free infantry units was the intent of “working out the details of such an agreement,” since that is what was used in previous versions.  Since Asia is so huge now (long way from Moscow to there), I would think maybe 6 infantry units for Russia if attacked (also based on how many they set up there in those territories).  I wouldn’t give Japan anything since their production facilities are so close to that front.

I was extremely excited today because my AAE40 was supposed to come on Sept 2, but it’s already here!  Woohoo!  After setting it up, I was pretty overwhelmed by how awesome it is: the Eastern Front (and Asia) is phenomenal (4 territories to Moscow, that’s huge!), I really like the French blue and the infantry mold, the Russian mech inf cracks me up for some reason (but looks awesome), the board is perfectly flat and the crease isn’t too bad and the 2 boards line up well, the U-boat screen looks really intimidating, and the neutrals are really interesting (Turkey effectively solves the Italy invasion, sweet).  There are plenty of gray chips left and the dice are very nice, and it’s hilarious to me that Germany, the territory with Berlin in it, only gets a minor IC (I suppose the major IC in West Germany is supposed to represent the Ruhr industrial district).

Unfortunately, I was extremely pissed about the French destroyer and cruiser: I thought WOTC were geniuses for making all destroyers have flat sterns and cruisers have pointy ones.  Then I set up France’s navy, and I thought I was missing all the cruisers, but no, they look exactly the same!  Why, oh why…it was almost perfect.

Then I set up Pacific next to it: wow, the sheer scale amazed me.  But, how can two games with vastly different quality come from the same company?  In Pacific, the boards don’t line up straight and bend upwards, some Japanese destroyers have severe bends on them, not enough Japanese tac bombers, and I run out of gray chips in the set up.

But now I get to do my favorite part of getting a new A&A game: sitting and staring at it, coming up with first turn moves and planning strategies.  Woohoo!

Edit: while I have a post already up…the British and US NO’s for taking Normandy, Holland, and West Germany: is that 5 IPCs once per game for each territory, or once for any of them?  In other words, if the UK takes Normandy, it gets 5 IPCs.  If it takes Holland the next turn, does it get another 5 IPCs?  And I assume that it’s only once per game, so if Germany retakes a territory and either US or UK takes it again, they don’t get the extra 5 IPCs again.  But I love how it sets up US/UK competition, Patton/Montgomery style…maybe it should be extended to Sicily also.

The final wording of the Submarine question from the 8 page long thread is not the wording in the PDF FAQ (doesn’t include the 2nd sentence about shooting at a group of transports)

I’m glad I came back to this…one shot per GROUP?  Ok, wrap my head around another new concept.  Does the submarine pick its target or does the defender (needs to be asked since I thought it was like an AA gun)?  And just to clarify, the wording in the FAQ does NOT say to me a sub can fire once on a GROUP of transports, but that a GROUP of transports can be protected by one surface warship.

And I would think a group would be defined as a group of transports that crossed a common border.  So, if 2 transports enter the sub’s zone from the north and 2 enter from the south, that is two groups of 2 each.

“However, if the transports original move was a combat move nothing is stopping you from moving that final seazone separate from the transport in noncombat if there was no naval battle in that final zone”

That’s against the rules, I believe.  Combat moves must result in combat, so if the transport is moving during the Combat Move Phase, it must be either performing an amphibious assault (which ends its movement) or there must be combat in the sea zone it moves to, which ends its movement.

It just seems a lot of power is being given to a 6 IPC unit: to be able to control what a unit does outside of the zone it is occupying (because no one will risk a free shot at 2 on a loaded transport).  Battleships and cruisers can bombard into adjacent land zones, but that is little compared to restricting movement all around its sea zone.