Posts made by PGsquig

@bratcher You must right click the transport, then right click the units you want to load, then right click the sea zone you want the transports to move to, then right click the territory you want to unload units into. Hope it works for you.

Just put in for Gold. Thanks Dave!!

@thethedew I don’t own the game, but I think the main point of it is that it is not WW2 based. This way the game has appeal to people who aren’t that interested in WW2.

Let us know what you think after you’ve played a couple of games.

@dazedwit
Your faction must control Turkey at the start of your turn to allow passage through the Turkish Straits.

It would make no sense whatsoever for Turkey be attacked (but not conquered) by Italy, and decide to reward that behavior by opening the straits to Germany.

@cmmiles I think it’s fantastic! Stack limits and supply really creates a whole new way of thinking. You can’t simply stack 25 infantry, instead you must be creative and figure out the best unit combinations for any given situation.
I also think the fight for control over the Med/ convoy raid system is really cool. It’s all on a knife’s edge for the first few rounds in my experience- very well balanced.

@simon33 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@PGsquig said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

@simon33 Just to clarify, you mean yes it is legal to do a combat move that is dependent upon landing fighters on a newly purchased carrier? I thought I remembered reading something in the rules that specifically prohibits this but I can’t find it now.

Yes.

Pac rules, p13 “A fighter or tactical bomber can move its full 4 spaces to attack in a sea zone instead of saving movement, but only if a carrier
could be there for it to land on by the conclusion of the Mobilize New Units phase.”

@gamerman01 said in Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2):

Is page 14 in Europe 2nd edition

Thanks for the quick replies guys!!

@simon33 Just to clarify, you mean yes it is legal to do a combat move that is dependent upon landing fighters on a newly purchased carrier? I thought I remembered reading something in the rules that specifically prohibits this but I can’t find it now.

Hi all,

Here’s my rules question:
Is it legal to declare an attack with fighters that depends on a newly placed carrier for its landing zone?
For example, say Italy has two fighters on Rome, and there’s a UK destroyer in SZ 98. If Italy buys a carrier at the start of their turn, can the fighters do combat in 98 and land on the newly purchased carrier in SZ 97?
Thanks

@Glamorboy A big load of subs can definitely be useful, and if you aren’t trying to protect transports at all, it is a good option. True, one carrier and 2 fighters loses to 5 subs. Typically though, your navy will be much more expensive than $34 and the fighters are also relevant on land. Also, subs are not good at defense while fighters defense kings.

When I play against friends who are new, I just give them a bid. If they win, their bid goes down and if they lose, their bid goes up. I never spend money on both coasts as US because I feel like I can never get anything going at all and it seems like all the money is wasted. Also, I think it is more helpful to use viable, typical strategies against new players so that they know what to expect. I have learned a lot more about the game through losing than I ever have by winning.

@Glamorboy Cruisers and Battleships aren’t worth the cost. Certainly you should use the ones you start with, but I have literally never bought a cruiser or a battleship.

For a defensive fleet, focus on carriers with fighters and destroyers. For a more attacky fleet, use subs as well. You are correct that fighters and bombers are fantastic, especially for Japan. The range of bombers is unbeatable.

When you are playing US and going after Japan, be careful to not buy too many transports too early. Your first priority should be building up a navy that Japan absolutely cannot mess with. Once you have a large enough navy to crush the Japanese navy and withstand any attack from fighters/bombers that might be within range, you can control the Pacific- you’ll have a free hand to ferry men on transports anywhere you wish.

@cmmiles Yes, units can move after unloading from convoy in phase 1

@dazedwit When Calcutta falls, there is often no naval battle whatsoever. You would be better off spending the money on more infantry which will help your land defense rather than investing in infrastructure which will likely not be used. Any Anzac fighters can be used to defend the land territory of Calcutta and will have much more utility than if they were used in a sea battle.

Even if there were a naval battle before an amphibious assault on Calcutta, only if the UK Pacific’s navy is large enough to nearly win a battle against the Japanese navy would a second airbase be useful. If your UK Pacific navy is strong enough to stand toe-to-toe with the Japanese navy, either something disastrous has happened to the Japanese navy (in which case the Allies probably have the game in the bag) or you have nearly no UK Pacific land units (in which case the Japanese army will walk their way to Calcutta and ignore your boats).

@dazedwit
One time I was playing my roommate, who was playing the Axis. At the end of his turn, he had two giant German stacks next to Moscow. If I did nothing but buy and place units with Russia, he would have a 90% win on Moscow on his next turn.
I strafed one of his stacks with a huge stack of infantry and got super lucky dice. Then with UK I did a nearly suicidal run into his barely protected German air force.
On his next turn, he had only a 25% chance on Moscow. The game went on for a long time after that, but his troops never recovered, and his morale was crushed entirely.

@Tamer-of-Beasts I totally agree. If France is buying units, Germany has already lost.

Hey everyone, good news! Renegade are releasing a new Stalingrad game!

Here’s the link to the video announcement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jWRGFMx7hQ

It is meant to release in August of 2025.
I am a fan of North Africa, so this is has got me really excited.

They are also reprinting Battle of the Bulge.

@SuperbattleshipYamato I believe it is important for us to support Renegade so they can continue to reprint old A&A games and make new A&A games. The best way to do that is to pony up and spend the extra $10 to get it from them.

@Imperious-Leader
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you are trying to say that you don’t like these house rules or that you don’t think they are well thought out because they place an Italian infantry in Italian East Africa.

Regardless of the historical reality, don’t you think that, if you were playing with these house rules, the game would only become more interesting if you give Italy “Italian East Africa”?

Adding an Italian infantry there only serves to give both sides more interesting options and keeps an entire continent in the game as a theater of war.

We shouldn’t throw out house rules because they aren’t completely historically accurate. Even the OOB setup isn’t completely historically accurate. This mod for 1942 SE isn’t trying to nail everything exactly as it was on a specific date. In fact, a completely historical setup would be incredibly boring as the Allies would win 99% of the time.

@SMichael23 even put in the second line of their post that the aim of this setup is to encourage players to fight over Africa. That is what the Italian infantry in Italian East Africa does.

@cloud7707 I dig this. I like how you added it on the real rulebook, that makes it so legit. I definitely want to try it out, but gosh darn it Russia deserves that bomber!

In your games, do the Allies still generally do KGF?

@SMichael23 I wonder how it would go if Italy focused all its income on building an epic navy- just try to shut the Allies out of the Med entirely. Like you said, that 3 production limit makes it so tough to crank out infantry.

Does the German player ever complain about having to give up the income from converted Italian territories? I know the guy who always plays Germany in my group hates Italy in g1940 and always wishes he had that income as Germany haha.