Posts made by oklahomasailor52

I can tell you that at least in the games we’ve played it has made a huge difference at crucial moments, playing a big part in helping to turn the tide of the war. For the Axis, being able to do an SBR on the UK or India is almost necessary to facilitate their capture - more IPCs spent on repairs to ICs means less infantry available for home defense. Same idea applies to a Russian invasion, especially once you get close to Moscow. On the other side, it can cause Germany to have fewer units at hand during an Operation Barbarossa, and it’s useful for the U.S. to use on Japan as well. To those powers starting off with relatively weak economies, such as Italy and ANZAC, being victim to a successful SBR is often the second to last nail in the coffin for them.

Notice that I’ve just been referring to SBRs on ICs. To be honest with you, in my personal experience I haven’t had many instances in which I would rather dedicate one of my stat or tact bombers to a SBR on a sea or air base instead of using it in general combat. At most, you can do 6 points of damage to a base, and since they are considered operational at up to 2 points of damage, you can only hope to make your opponent pay 4 IPC per turn to get them back up and running.

So, at least in my mind, SBRs are definitely worth it if you are using them on ICs, and are most effective on major ICs. However, when considering using them to hit bases it’s probably more worth your while to commit the rest of your strat and tact bombers to general combat. That’s my 2 cents.

Spendo02 - Appreciate the feedback. I honestly never even took the US disrupting my convoy zones into account!

Vance - sent you a message if you don’t mind checking it.

That’s seems like a pretty sound strategy - I appreciate you taking time to write it all out for me. Would it be worth landing at least one infantry on maybe New Britain or the Solomon Islands in order to deny ANZAC its NOs? Or is it really not going to matter much since New South Wales can only produce 3 units per turn?

In your personal opinion, am I better trying for India instead?

In the event that one of the Dutch territories is taken over by one of the Allies through noncom, then later captured by Japan, whose control would they if they are liberated by a different Allied power? For instance, Java is ANZAC, then captured by Japan, then liberated by the UK. Would the 4 IPCs now be part of the UK or would they return to ANZAC?

Vance, Gargantua, ghr2 - I appreciate the feedback. This gives me a lot to mull over before the game tomorrow. I’ve decided to focusing on taking out India. Vance - I really like the idea of massing around the Caroline Is. on J1. ANZAC will probably feel compelled to build land units, and I might be able to lure that British battleship out of sz 37 if he feels an Australian invasion is imminent.

In fact, I feel like if the UK and ANZAC start preparing for an Indian invasion I might be able to change course and just take Sydney on J2, especially if some of the ANZAC planes move to the East Indies. Does that seem unrealistic?

Agreed - I’m a little hesitant to actually make the changes at this point until everything seems a little more finalized.

So my friends and I are starting up a 5 player game the day after tomorrow using the regular Alpha +3 rules plus the recent “Sea Lion” changes made by Larry and Krieghund this past week. I’m playing as Japan for the first time in AAG40 - I played as them a couple of times before in the 2nd Edition and original Pacific games but it never went very well for me.

Is it better to focus on taking as much of China instead of making a b-line for the East Indies? I’ve heard people talk about a “Kill India First” strategy but I never quite figured out how that plays out. Should I attack the US preemptively or keeping them out of the game as long as possible? Is it better to draw all of your ships and planes into the sea zones and territories near Japan, or is it worth trying to maintain a strong defensive perimeter? Is it futile to attempt an invasion of Australia?  I feel like there are just so many things to take into consideration with Japan - at least for me, they’re the most challenging to play.

I’m open to any suggestions!

To be clear, an Allied power can only take control of a French territory by recapturing it from the Axis while Paris is held by an Axis power.  French territories get no special treatment.

So that I understand: While Paris is under Germany’s control, I could land American units in Morocco but would only control the territory (i.e. acquire its IPC value) if Morocco was under Axis control. FIC would be the same situation. So the rule is that, assuming their capital has been captured, I can’t just move Allied units into French territories (or any friendly territory) and acquire them. I can only control the territories if I liberate them from Axis control.

The exception to this is rule would be the Dutch territories, correct? As the UK or ANZAC, I could just move into Java during noncombat movement and acquire them? Or, is it the same situation as above where I must first liberate them?

Cool - straightens that all up for me. Here’s another one: French Indo China’s IPCs constituent a part of the French economy at the start of the game. I know that Japan or an Allied nation can move in and take control of it. As I understand it, this would be the same as any territory being temporarily controlled by a friendly power while the original owner’s capital is under enemy occupation.

So my question is this: in the event that Paris is liberated, French Indo China would then revert back to French control as long as an Axis player hasn’t captured it, right? I assume this is the case, but just wanted to make sure there wasn’t some unique about FIC that I wasn’t aware of.

Also - for Japan to occupy FIC would technically require a declaration of war by Japan against France, wouldn’t it?

Could anyone state this Alpha +3 changed sub rule in a different way? I’m having a difficult time understanding exactly what it means:

“Also note that transports are not allowed to unload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing an enemy sub(s) belonging to a power with which they are at war unless at least one of his warships was also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.”

Does this mean that I can only do an amphibious assault if one of the sub owner’s warships was in the sea zone at the end of Combat Movement, or if one of MY warships was present then? I’m just very confused!  :?
Moreover, why even change the rule?

That’s what I figured - thank you!

I keep thinking that I’ll run out of questions for this game, but a new one always pops up…

According to the Alpha +3 details Larry published: “Major industrial complexes can only be built on originally controlled territories (this includes upgrading minor ones). Likewise they may not be upgraded when captured. Major industrial complexes are reduced to minor when captured.”

My question is this: Both Manchuria and Kiangsu are technically Chinese territories under Japanese control at the start of the game, and they both have an IPC value of 3. Is Japan allowed to build a major industrial complex on either of these territories since they are “originally controlled territories”, or is it prohibited from doing so since the territories are Chinese?

Kept looking around the forums for this question and never found it - I apologize if it has already been resolved.

I’m a tad confused about the Kwangtung/Burma exception for the Chinese. I understand that they are able to attack and occupy these territories, never allowed to build infantry/artillery in them, and only receive an IPC income boost for as long as Calcutta is under Axis control. My question is this: is there anything prohibiting Chinese units from moving into these two territories during noncombat movement to reinforce them? Stated another way, can I move Chinese units into them regardless of whether they are under China’s temporary control or under their original British ownership? Thank you!

Thank you all so much for the quick responses! It’s great to know that A&A has such an active community behind it.

I just meant that the original theater game rules and the 1940 rules contradicted each other in the sense that they are different. Bad choice of wording on my part…. Is there a Europe 1940 FAQ at wizards.com? I couldn’t find one.

And I definitely agree with you on one thing: I never really bothered to build more subs as Germany in the original Europe because they were so easy to kill. The updated rules are a welcome improvement.

Another quick one: can fighters that are scrambling (in order to protect a sea zone or to stop an amphibious attack) belong to multiple powers? For instance, if Germany attempts an amphib. assault on the United Kingdom (the territory) would the Allies be allowed to scramble both British and American fighters based there? Or, in the event that Italian ships were being attacked in SZ 97, would Italian fighters be able to scramble from, say, Northern Italy while German fighters scrambled from Greece (assuming that Germany had captured Greece and built an airbase there)?  :? I realize these examples would only apply to the Alpha scrambling rules but I figure the principle would be the same in the Europe 1940 OOB rules too.

Here are the contradictory statements:

“Q. When attacked, can submarines submerge immediately or do they have to survive one round of fire from attackers?
A.They have to withstand at least one round of fire. Otherwise they would be practically indestructible.”

Source: A&A Europe FAQ at wizards.com

“Q. Can a defending submarine submerge before an attacking sub fires on it?
A. Yes. The decision whether to submerge is made before any dice are rolled, and the submerging subs
are removed from the battle immediately. Of course, if the attacker has a destroyer, the defending
sub may not submerge at all.”

Source: A&A Pacific 1940 FAQ at wizards.com

So the sub rules have changed between the original theater level games and the 1940 versions? Wow, seems like the 1940 subs are a way better unit: even if they defend on a 1 now they cost 2 IPC less and are apparently impossible to attack without a destroyer…

One last rules question I forgot to include here: is it possible to call off an amphibious assault in the 1940 rules? I know that you can retreat from a sea battle, but let’s say the following occurs: I win a naval battle and have a surviving transport and a couple cruisers left in a sea zone adjacent to the land territory I want to attack. I had already declared that I wanted to do an amphib. assault and had moved some land units into the enemy territory from a friendly adjacent one. Now (for whatever reason) I decide that I want to call off the attack. Because I won the naval battle and had already declared an amphib assault, am I now committed to carrying it out? If I must, can the land units that moved in from the adjacent territory retreat before doing any attack rolls?

I appreciate the feedback - I’m a huge rules stickler and this game seems to generate a lot of rules questions among my friends and me.

Not sure if this is the best place to keep posting game play questions - if there is a better place in the forum please tell me and I won’t be offended.

When exactly are subs able to submerge? I know they can do it before they attack or anytime they would have the option of firing back (enemy destroyers disable this). Today however I noticed on the Pacific 1940 FAQ (the one off of the Wizards website) I noticed this:

“Q. Can a defending submarine submerge before an attacking sub fires on it?
A. Yes. The decision whether to submerge is made before any dice are rolled, and the submerging subs
are removed from the battle immediately. Of course, if the attacker has a destroyer, the defending
sub may not submerge at all.”

I thought that defending subs had to survive at least one round of fire from an attacker before it could submerge; otherwise, they would be practically indestructible. Does this answer mean that defending subs can submerge before any combat begins only when being attacked by other subs? Or does this apply to all naval combat? Either way, do these rules apply to Europe 1940 and the Global game too? Is there any chance it was a misprint?

Question 2: This one is short and sweet: Can aircraft ever fly over the impassable regions on the map (Sahara, etc.)? I think this is in the Europe rulebook somewhere but mine is currently on loan with a friend.

Thank you in advance for responses!

You may want go to a Wizards Asylum and see if the general manager would be able to locate a copy of it in one of the stores in his region. I called the Wizards hotline basically asking if any plans were in the works to reprint the game and the representative said he hadn’t heard any information about doing so, but recommended contacting the WA in my city. Turns out I was able to get the last copy their stores had in a four state area.

The manager told me that a few years back people kept expecting the 50th Anniversary Edition to be reprinted and it never was, so you might want to throw down the $200 now and keep from being disappointed in the future.

Thanks for making these! They’re a huge help setting everything up and keeping track of NOs.

Noticed one additional (albeit small) error: The order of play is correct on all of your charts with the exception of the tech research one. ANZAC is still before Italy.

Once again, very nit picky detail. Thank you again!