Topics created by robbie358

My alt. Chinese set up was
2inf in Siuyan
3inf in Hopei
2inf in Anhui
3inf in Hunan
1inf in Kewchiow
4inf and 1ftr in Szechwan
3inf in Yunan
3inf in Kwangsi

The only major major change comes in giving Chinese control of the originally Japanese controled Kwangsi tt. All Japanese units remain in play but get moved up by 1tt. So what was in Kwangsi moves to Kiangsi, what was in Kiangsi moves to Kiangsu, what was in Kiangsu moves to shangdong. This dosnt effect Japanese strenght and they can still use their overwhelming air power to advance, pretty much, at will in China. What it dose is give China one full turn to collect its NO and makes Japan a bit more wary about striking south on J1.

Our group was wondering the same thing and came to the same conclusion.  In the new 1942 game I had a massive multinational allied fleet in SZ 12 including 3 russian subs of all things.  Facing it was a fleet in SZ 14 consisting of a Jap and german battleship/loaded carrier combo along with 6 u-boats.  It was in interesting situation, neither could attack the combined enemy with a divided attack force.  From SZ 14 the axis could hit Moscow  landing on an occupied eastern province with air power or SZ 17,18, 11, 9, 8 with the assumption the fighter(s) would land on a victorious carrier that single handedly destroyed a fleet of 4 CV, 8 FTR, 4 DD, 6 SS, 1 BB and  2 CC.  It meant using a fair bit of capital ship resources to escort straggling/special mission transport fleets or hoping in vain he would trade a ftr and cv for 1 or 2 transports.

I could have used the Yanks earlier to clear the enemy in SZ 14 but early I required a long shuck train starting on the US seaboard, Canada, algeria and across the top of Africa into persia to guarantee control of africa and to overwhelm the 2 german transport shuck operation into Africa.  I had enough fleet to defend, the Japs were trapped and would have put my america to africa shuck out of position.

So I’ve stepped away from the game for about 2 1/2 years now and I just found someone to play War At Sea with the other day.

I think before I get back into it (because it is expensive) I’d like to see if we can get people together to play it, or at least if anyone could point me in the direction of the local War At Sea group.

If anyone lives in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, stop by Fantasy Flight Games Event Center on Tuesdays… that’s where I’ve met the only other two people who play this game. (in person I mean, obviously if you’re on this site you play)

In fact, if anyone knows anyplace in Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Illinois with serious War At Sea gamers, let me know!

okay so Portugal actually sucks, Agreed

I use the P-40 from Brookhurst Hobbies (6 for $3.28):

http://www.brookhursthobbies.com/Product-Detail.cfm?P=TMDISA248&N=10

It looks pretty good when spray painted olive drab green.

For a slightly larger plane, you can use the SBD Dauntless:

http://www.brookhursthobbies.com/Product-Detail.cfm?P=TMDISA243&N=10

i go for italy, but only when i am going usa atlantic 100% with intent to land in italy.
one of the downsides of bombing italy, is that they usually only produce 2-3 units per turn.  so to make your bombing effective, you have to deal at least 6 damage, since they can just shrug off the first 4 damage.
however, if you have 3-4 or so total bombers between the usa and uk (easy if none get shot down), then italy is in a world of pain and can only build like 1 infantry per turn.
do a turn 4 or 5 landing with 4 or so transports full of american guys, and well… thats basically my allied strategy right there.

@SAS:

NOs represent political/economic conditions that have no strict military basis and so don’t “naturally” fit in the military game mechanic of A&A.  The Japanese people would have gotten a great morale boost from taking over a critical Allied city like Calcutta, Sydney, or Honolulu.  The Allies don’t get a boost from holding them because that doesn’t boost morale or give any sort of economic or political advantage from keeping those cities that they already had.  The Japanese would have had a great political playing card if they had been able to capture any of these cities.

Exactly.  What he said.

@Veqryn:

oh, and i forgot to mention, not only are kamikaze’s never seen, but America’s 2 okin/iwo NO is also never seen.  For the same reason.  You will never see either of these two things happen until the game is already lost for the japanese.

You never see US take Oki/Iwo because your buddies dont play USA correct, and this is also the reason nobody here know how to stop the J1 attack on India. Listen dude, in the real war USA never bothered to take Caroline nor DEI. US went directly for Oki/Iwo and build airbases on them, and they won the war. So that is why Larry made them NO island, he wants you to do the same, if you want to win.

The reason I feel it is only once per game is to make it so that the Allies can’t overpower Japan by making a few easy attacks and holding them the rest of the game while milking the “cash cow” of national objectives.  Besides a 20+ IPC a turn ANZAC can be quite the nasty little thorn when backing up 2 powerhouses.

I think that you shouldn’t have to separate out your defending fighters from the SBR.  The entire escort rule is there to make it harder to SBR someone.
The only reason that I could see to NOT send your fighters up to intercept would be that you don’t want them getting shot down… but realistically they’d get shot down on the airfields anyways.
My point is that in order to SBR somebody you should really need to be in a perfect position to do so (i.e. have fighter cover) but having to select which fighters intercept the bombers and which defend the zone i think detracts from that alot.  Just because you can bring some ground forces with you to attack shouldnt mean that you can SBR at will.

I assume airbases and naval bases stay.
It only says china destroyes any industrial complexes it captures.

The “can opener” tactic has always been part of AA. The UK opens doors for the US all the time on land or at sea in both theaters. It wasn’t until Italy became a power that it became more prominent (axis vs Russia). Russia gets beefed up a little to compensate, and it has allies to bail them out.

Make_It_Round has a great point about countering week Russian advances w/UK or US air (or ground forces) to force Italy to think twice about attacking in the first place (or at least cost them if they do). If both euro axis want to play in Eastern Europe then you have to get UK/US in there as well. A strong UK/US naval presence heading toward Italy will also turn those Italians around (love to see them waffle).

Another thing would be to close the Black Sea (errata/faq option in AA50). Don’t allow Italy to use its navy to aid in taking key tt. We at times have not totally closed the Black Sea, but axis would need to hold all 4 tt that boarder Turkey in AA50 to enter (we call it political pressure). In AA 40 global you will need to invade Turkey (new straight rule) to gain access to the Black Sea, so this should slow them a bit.

As we add more minor powers there will be more double teaming going on by both sides. UK (India) and Anzac both go before US in global, you only think Russia has problems. You have to be aware and see at least into the next round of play so you can prepare.

Okay, I have started the typing project on this. For now, it will be a plain white background until I can insert something “pretty”. To start, I’m typing the Pac40 book verbatum with all the new errata included where appropriate. At least we’ll have an “updated Pac40 book” to start with. I would also like to include a popular “house rule” section at the end. Let’s work on a list most of like and I’ll put that in too.

Yoper:

“But spelling mistakes are different from people actually having troubles understanding certain ideas or concepts in the rules.”

Yes, they are different, but both fall under the jurisdiction of the editor(s).  That being said, I agree that “Trying to put forth a rule (like the political rules in AAP 40) in a way that is clear to all is a tough task.”

From what I’ve read, it seems that people should also apply some common sense - especially those who’ve been playing A&A games for many years.  I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve read of someone wanting a clarification - only to wonder why it needed to be clarified in the first place.

As to the spelling mistakes… well that’s just plain shoddy workmanship.  No, it doesn’t effect gameplay, and I’m still going to have fun playing the game. But if people are shelling out a fair amount of money for a game - they expect a higher quality product, one that doesn’t have spelling errors (which is something that might be expected from a garage based game publisher - not a major manufacturer).  And there is the element of presentation as well, in this kind of medium, it’s important.  And c’mon, consider the demographic of your buyers… we’re talking about guys (mainly) that go through great lengths such as painting the pieces, inventing pages of optional rules, making new maps etc.  Of course spelling mistakes are going to leap out at the average A&A enthusiast!

You stated, “I would like you (or anyone else) to give me a list of all the spelling mistakes in the rulebook.”  I’m not about to be an unpaid editor/proofer, but the point is that if there is one… that’s one too many.  It’s not that difficult to publish something without spelling mistakes - its done everyday.  And a lot of these publications don’t even have the benefit of more than one editor. Perhaps I’m a bit retentive in regard to the spelling issue, but I am obviously not alone in this stance.

BTW - I too don’t think anyone should be pointing fingers at the wardog or Larry Harris, it’s not like they design and produce the whole game themselves…