I am still confused. This is the for the global 1940 game that is not out yet. Yet all the posts are about how to play a game not even out yet. They even appear to be about games that have been played. So I am assuming people are posting about AAE, the old version. But tanks were still 5IPC. I could be wrong. Also I didn’t know you could put AAE AAP the old versions together.
If not, I seems people are talking about the Anniversary addition. Not sure why that is on this post.
The Alaska sea zone 1 is blocked from sea zone 2. The space between the Aluetian islands force you to make an extra movement. Is this just an error in the way it was drawn. If you are on the far west end of sea zone 1, can you move one space to sea zone 2. If you can that would mean you are traveling between islands and are traveling along the territory line, kind of crossing it.
The last point by Calvin just gave me a “huh” moment. All these post make absolutely no sense. The global or AAE game is not out yet. What the $#%^ is everyone talking about.
Some please explain.
Now I agree with the idea that tanks at 5 would make armored inf. pointless. However, maybe mech infantry should defend at 3, or maybe attack at 2.
Where I think tanks might make sense in the global game is this. The areas are so spread out, that being able to move an attacking power of 3 two spaces may make a huge difference requiring the buidling of some tanks. Movability may be that much more important. And may be more historically accurate in terms of cost structures for tanks to be that much more expensive. I do not know. Hopefully the manuever aspect of the global game, since it is so spread out, is so important, planes, even at the cost of 10 many make sense. As before, buying aircraft for most of the powers was ridiculous and inefficient. I have played AA40. I buy very few tanks for Britain. But that is only when they go on the offensive whick means the Japan player made some big mistakes. Otherwise, with Japan I do not buy them. The war is decided in the Pacific with the Dutch Indies and the solomon island areas. Once I take those and get the bonuses, the game is decided and we don’t drag it out once I begin invading Australia and pushing against the Chinese.
Caveat: we just started playing with China going first plus getting 1 extra infantry per territory in exchange for Japan getting a double impulse attack on the islands only. I have played with these new rules as the allies only. It seems to make for a much more balanced game, (China was way to weak) and inserts some historical accuracy. I will play Japan with this alternative our next game. I can see how I might buy tanks under this scenario. However, my opponent never bought 1 tank. Although I did win, I am not sure him buying tanks would have made a difference. If I cannot win with Japan when I paly, we will slightly tweak the rules, but probably not by mich. We are considering limiting placement of artillery when purchases at the burma road entrance to China. Only placing infantry on territories Chaina had at the beginning of the turn and placing the US navy in Hawaii except the carrier which cannot move until th eUS is at War.
OK, i have an issue with this, Germany just buys tanks thing and glitches the game. Especially with IL. Although I was glancing through all the posts and it may be very old. I have not played the newest AA42, but have played revised and normal AA for 18 years or so. With the introduction of artillery in the revised, as far as pure fire power went, men and artillery are by far superior to tanks.
Understand, it is just the math. Nothing else. With the spaces being so close, if Germany just bought tanks, it would be a disadvantage. Russian buying all men and artillery versus Germany buying all tanks, Germany is at a disadvantage.
Again, I have not played the newer 1942 version, but if the set up allowed Germany to win to easily with buying all tanks at 5IPC, then the problem is not with tanks at 5, but with the 1942 setup. Tanks at 5IPC are at a disadvantage in fire power. Although the 2 movement provides some advantage, the lack of fire power is significantly lower. 5 artillery and 5 men buy far massacre 7 tanks. Not just by a little, but by a lot. If you play the odds in different ways, they come out the same. Every time a tank is lost at a attacking or defending power of 3, they get even more disadvantaged compared with an artillery or man loss of 2. The battles starts out with almost even fire power, tanks 21 versus arty’s and men at 20. I have done the probability tests over and over again using different methods. And I don’t mean rolling the dice over and over again.
I meant Germany slamming thier heads against Russia
That is an awesome rule. That is perfect. Historical and accurate.
One idea about IL’s reasoning that makes sense that he has not to my knowledge expressed. I am a history buff. I read a lot and watch the History Channel and Military Channel. I have always had the sense that Japan, after 1939 did not want war with Russia. It needed the resources of the islands. Oil, rubber, ect… Without that it could not take out China much less Russia. The traditional axis and allies starts out with Japan having those resources. Once it got them, they might have decided to invade Russia. But why didn’t they. They spent huge resources attacking the US, when they could have assitted the Germans invading from the rear. Why didn’t they.
How about this. Germany was to Japan what Russia was to US. The enemy of my enemy. Nothing more. They wanted Germany to slam thier head against Japan while they grew stronger and stronger. So they hoped by attempting to take the entire Pacific. Invading Russia from the rear risked Hitler being successful and getting to Moscow first making him King of the Land. Like all dictators and thieves in an enemy of my enemy alliance, each tries to play it out so they end up on top.
Japan wanted the west to be in a protracted war while they prospered in an “Asia co-prosperity something or other”.
Just my take on all the facts and opinions on the facts I have heard throughout my time.
The rule makes sense period. The fact is the decision to attack south won. So that is how the game is played.
It represents what was at a specific time chosen to represent the best balance of play. If you started the game at the end of 1944 and kept it historically accurate with the political and strategic forces in place, the Allies would win every time. If you start it at 1939 and ignore only the political forces in place, the Axis loses every time as the USSR, France, Britain, and the US could all declare war on Germany in 1939.
The policital will to invade Japan on turn 1 when this game begins does not exist. A decision was made to go south and the game begins after that from what I understand. I understand that the arguement that the game was structure to make this a fools errand concludes that the rule is not necessary. I also understand that if by chance it has an unrealtic effect on the game if done demands that rule.
But for all of those arguing the need or sense for that rule, just do it. Who says you can’t. If you want to suppose that the decision to try north again won out, go ahead. Who is stopping you. If you want to suppose that FDR was able to muster support for war without Pearl Harbor, or the moment France was invaded, go ahead. Who is stopping you.
I do not agree however with the tone of IL or comparing the idea of Japan attacking Russian right away with giving Germany the A-bomb or flying saucers right away.
As a moderator, I am assuming part of his role is to moderate and to stay moderate and not go to extremes. It only encourage others to be more so. It is like the pastor of a church using foul language. It would only cause the flock to do it more often.
or flying saucers. I am not sure what is setting hi off
or 1940, Germany would have lost quickly.
The soviets are not in AAP40. Letting China go first might be the equivelant and was also an option but didn’t seem to be enough, though we hadn’t tried it. We just finished a game where besides doing thier normal buys in the normal way, they recieved 1 additional infantry to be placed in each territory they controlled.
That worked great. We may try China going first instead to keep it more KISS.
I have to say, I have been playing AA for over 20 years. Since the first edition when Russia went first and was allowed to attack first, to the second addition where they were allowed to go first but not attack first, to the revised additon ect… it seemed that with each addition they fixed major problems that were obvious. Well from the first edition, all the problems were obvious, yet they fixed each one, one at a time, and very slowly.
Who play tests these things. And they should all be fired. Though China being to weak and Japan being to strong has been improved, I had to only play test it once to see they bungled it. To level the playing field, all they had to do was make the US weaker. I mean, in the global game, thier is no way the US is going to put 57 IPC of resources towards Japan. They may have to pay attention to the Japs finally, but thier is no way they are going to be able to mostly ignore the Germans.
It is really dissapointing to have to alter the rules to make it make sense and have some historical value.
Why can’t they play test it right the first time and fix all the problems.
Can you allies use your airfields and can they use them to create a multinational defense force.
So if I have 1 carrier in Hawaii and ANZAC has two planes on it, and I have two US planes on the island with an airbase, and Japan attacks, the US and ANZAC can defend together.
So wouldn’t it be the same the other way around. The US planes are on the carrier, and ANZAC is on the island. They still can defend together, right?
I have to agree with Empori. It seems IL making strong arguements as to why the rule is not needed. As far as someone gaming the system and figuring something out that was not caught, I don’t know, that reasoning doesn’t set well.
Although, I believe in rule are rules, I am finding it hard to understand if someone does not like that particular rule, then don’t play with it. Why waste your time arguing such a thing,
Unless you are at work like me just wasting time and are entertaining yourself until it is time to go home.
I think I have a pretty good understanding of the Chinese efforts against Japan. The premise of my idea was simplicity. KISS!!!. Then, didn’t do all that much, is a reference to the idea you can place your infantry anywhere, even territories occupied by Japanese troops. Unless I misunderstood, placing 4 infantry on Kwantung and taking over a factory with say only 2 Japanese infantry, and being able to do that anywhere, justifies the comment, “they didn’t do that much”.
So my idea was to place and infantry in unoccupied areas. Much like the French resistance, I am sure china’s guerilla efforts behind enemy lines had an effect but not the effect of placing all available infantry anywhere in Japan occupied China. The partisan idea would be really great.
My son and I have institued placing an extra China infantry on each territory and the end of the turn for play balance. I am not sure how you would split Kashicheks (forgive the spelling) forces from MAO’s, but that would be interesting.
Then USA should only be 2 spaces away from France
I am not sure if I am looking at the newest map IL, but I have a major gripe.
How can the distance from Japan to the US be the same as the US to France. With a 6 foot map, and those spaces so big, I would have thought of all people you would have hated that idea. It just seems such a given. It was such a delight with I bought AAP40 and saw 5 spaces between Japan and US. (if you look at an actual round globe, and position it just right, you can barely see Japan on one side, and barely see the US on the other, and all you see is the ocean in between)
But to my horror, I realized if you leave Japan, and instead of going in a straight line, which is the shortest route to anywhere, but instead travel up north/east, to Alaska, then back down south/east, the US is only 4 spaces away. And with thier Naval base rule, in one turn you are 1 space away from the US. That is crazy.
Your thoughts.
Eddie
To complicated. I also don’t think it is historical. Shagki Shek, (forgive the spelling) never did to good against Japan and his forces often retreated. MAO on the other hand, after the war was well under way did give Japan a run for its money, but they didn’t do all that much deep behind enemy lines.
It might make more sense to force Japan to Garrison all thier territory. So any space not occupied, China may place one infantry their. That would make more sense. Leveling the play. I would say either China inf. cost only 2 IPC’s, or they get to place an extra infantry in each territory besides what they purchase.
Eddie
Me and my son are in the middle of modifying China for better play in AAP40. Will let you know how it works out.
Have you posted your updated overall house rules for National Objectives/National Advantages/Techs.
I down loaded your KISS AA50, but copies and pasted what I saw for National Objectives and Techs with the tier 4 stuff. Is that all there is, or is there an updated final version somewhere.
Eddie
Nuts!!!
Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. Especially in the older versions. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.
under normal circumstances i would die for something like that, however, I am playing WAW with my son a lot and am curretnly working on the perfect set of house rules. I am then going to buy AA Pacific in anticipation of AA Europe so we can try the truly global master piece. If it is a disapointment, then I probabbly would. I like complicated, as long as it makes sense and historical, so its easy to understand.
I would be interested in a file as well. If anyone has IL’s rules for advanced WW2 I would love to see that as well.
elvism4145@yahoo.com