Posts made by MEGAEINSTEIN

Talking about ifs, if the spanish and the portuguese did not colonize the american continent, teaching how to read, developing the continent…

If Hitler did not decide to invade SU the last 60 years would have been very different.

Europe would probably has become a german territory, with perhaps Great Britain independent, Portugal, Spain and Swisss half independent and the east controlled by SU (Lituania, Letonia, Estonia,Finland, half of Poland).

The cold war would have been between USA and Germany with two other smaller players: China and SU.

And lets say things as they are: in 2010 the two nations that in terms of economy rule the world are USA and Germany.

So if i play for Germany and i enter a proaxis neutral that has lets say 2 infantry printed on the territory, those two infantry become german infantry and i can move them to other territories?

Many people is saying that it is too expensive to attack true neutrals because suddently 41 armies become against your side and that is worth many IPCs.

But correct me if i am wrong: neutrals cannot leave their own territory, so if you attack a true neutral and if you have no intention to occupy any other true neutral, the only armies effectivelly against you are the ones in that territory, right?

It is not a theory but a historical fact. Germany and Russia were allies at the begining of the war and they had a pact to divide Europe in two. Due to this pact while Germany was invading Austria and other countries, Russia was trying to invade Finland with no declaration of war from France or England. This declaration of war was made by France and England only when Germany invaded Poland, and the pact between Germany and Russia was on. Some time later Hitler made a terrible mistake, he decided to break the pact and invade Russia. But even when german troops were increasing number on the border of Russia, Staline did not believe that Hitler was going to break the pact.

Another error years later was Churchil and Roosevelt supporting too much Russia with military planes, tanks and weapons and Russia became too strong. When the war was over, Russia was the new menace to Europe and the cold war begann.

Russia and Germany were allies during the first years of war until Hitler decided to invade Russia.

If Hitler did not take that bad decision, they both would have won the war

the truth is that germany and Soviet Union were allies during the first years of war and had a plan to divide Europe in two. And if Hitler did not take the decision to attack russia they both would have won the war.

Can Krieghund or other master player answer how we can move naval units from the aap40 side to aae40 side of the map?

AA42 is a really good option to get more pieces, but has no tactical bombers or light infantry. There are also only five armies: USA, UK, SU, Germany, Japan

This could become a very usefull topic to future developments/versions of the game in years to come.

I will start with some opinions:

colors:

• France soccer national team is known as the blues and Italy national soccer team has squadra azurra (blue squad). The french blue is darker and the italian blue is lighter. The blue used in french sculps is more alike the italian blue.
• Brown for italian sculps is too similar with the red/brown from SU. What color could the italian sculps have?

Sculps:

• the next step i think is combining diferent models in a country. For example why not using the two diffferent USA fighter sculps at the same time?

map:

• the first thing that comes to mind is that the map should be even wider with 5 board parts instead of 4 so that pacific and atlantic could be wider and though more realistic.

What is your opinion?

This is making less and less sense to me. If I had to guess why this error is so pronounced I would say (this is pure speculation):

• The pacific map was developed 1st. The main objectiv was to give the feeling of lots of sea zones because the Pacific is huge. One way to obtain this effect was printing North America smaller on the map.

• When developing Europe, a brilliant idea came to reality - increasing the size of Mediterrain Sea with two rows of sea zones instead of one. This allows much more deph in naval battles in Mediterain. The problem was that this to be achieved Africa had to went down on the map and, consequenttly, North America had also to went down on the map. The consequence is that Western America and the sea spaces in AAP40 do not fit with with Central America and sea spaces in AAE40.

Tereme I have started a topic about that - is called mega error with the global map.

A guy from PORTUGAL will never full understand you guys.

One thing i know: the two most brilliant countries in the world are Germany and USA.

Germany because of BMW and USA because of AA.

I am refering to the map posted by Captain Beremir

Re: My review copy of Axis & Allies Europe 1940 has arrived
« Reply #110 on: July 31, 2010, 08:12:17 pm » (page 8)

This brilliant map junction made by Captain Beremir proves what i was saying.

And to you “Proud American” i would like to point out that this game is not a Bible, but a working project that is improved in future versions, and pointing mistakes is somehow contributing to future developments and to the success of aa in future generations.

The global map does not wrap around. USA west from pacific 1940 does not fit with central USA from europe 1940!

Lets face it guys: some players prefer tanks and these are the only land units they buy. Other prefer infantry.

Talking about naval units some players buy only submarines, other only battleships.

Consequence: a players army has only some types of units.

That´s not real.

A possible solution is to give bonus to variety. For example an attack using all types of land units would recieve a bonus (a little bit like combining infantry with artillery in actual rules).

A naval battle using all types of naval units would recieve a bonus.

Combining naval and air units would recieve a bonus.

Combining land and air units would recieve a bonus…

This way we would be tended to use multiple types of units.

Tnaks guys…

Let´s face it.
We that love axis and allies have bought lots of the previous games, so we have lots of spare infantry, tanks, bombers…

So Avalon Hill should include in the aapacific1940 and in aaeurope 1940 extra number of pieces of tactical bombers and armoured infantry, so that with the spare parts of the other units that we already have, nobody would complain about lack of pieces of a specific unit.

Thanks guys.

whe are at year 2012 and AA has a new version called AA100.

what are the major improvements?

1st: your planes to attack enemy ships (including transports) have to satisfy one of two conditions:
      - you also have at least one of your ships there.
      - you attack only with planes but the sea square is adjacent to a land controlled by your faction (axis or allies)

comments: this is great! during wwii the radar was very basic (the axis didn´t have radars and the ones belonging to allies were weak), so the only way to spot ships in open sea was with the presence of ships of your one (transport ships were good for this) or in the case of carries you would send 1 or to planes to try to find enemy ships.
This rule makes impossible to destroy enemy ships in the middle of the atlantic using a bomber that then lands at the other side of the atlantic.

This change in rules is as good as the other one 4 years ago in aa50 in 2008 saying that transports have no longer an attack value. Congratulatios guys.

[[color=red]font=Verdana]2nd: if there is another round of combat, planes to keep fighting must spend one extra space

for example, a fighter to fight travels one space and to land will need one more space. So has two spare spaces to participate in round 2 and 3 of the battle

comments: fantastic guys, this is a major improvement.
We all know that during long battles the planes didn´t have enough fuel to stay fighting the whole battle. This is very realistic.

well guys, we are not in 2012. Would this become true? i don´t know. It seems that aa takes many years to bann less realistic aspects (the transports with a fire power was one of the bad examples)

AND OPINION 2 IS THE MOST LOGICAL ONE.

During the WWII the subs tech was not very developed.

a sub to launch a torpedo had to surface or to be really near the surface, so could be spoted by other ships and planes.

So, when participating in a battle, a sub could be destroyed by other planes and destroyers.

When the sub decided to submerge, then the only ship that was able to detect the subs was the destroyer.

Why only the destroyer? because the kind of tech necessary to detect subs (a kind of sonar at surface) was a really heavy equipment, difficult to handle and needed lots of space inside the ship.
So, the logical option was to produce a ship specialist in detecting subs with some fire capacity also.

(making a comparison to computers, in the 50s a computer processor that today is smaller than a square inch would be the size of a big room)

There are two total different understandings about the new sub rules:

subs can´t be attacked by planes and other ships if there is not an enemy destroyer present.

OPINION 1: This is correct in every situation.

OPINION 2: ONLY SUBS THAT USE THE SUBMERSIBLE OPTION CAN NOY BE ATTACKED. So if the sub wants to be in a battle for several rounds, can be attacked by planes and ships until it uses the SUBMERSIBLE option. When is a destroyer present the sub cannot use SUBMERSIBLE so can always be attacked.

I am one of the guys who thinks that opinion 2 is the correct, and if you read carefully the rulebook is the only one that does not contradict even 1 sentence from that book.