Posts made by Ruanek

When it comes down to it this is a game based on a historical event, so there’s nothing wrong with trying to be historically accurate.  I mean, that’s why the unit stats are the way they are, for example (to a degree, at least).

@kcdzim:

@Ruanek:

@Gargantua:

No.

Because they have the Chinese symbol, they are originally Chinese - by technical definition.

You could also way they are originally Japanese, because that’s how they are when the game starts.  I always thought the Chinese symbol was there only to show that if the Allies get it it goes to China, not the conquering player.

But that would be wrong.  I believe this goes back to AA50, when there were two starting setups but there needed to be a definition for “original owner” because it wasn’t as if Japan or Germany suddenly became the original owner of the occupied territories they started with in the different setups.

AAP1940 begins after Japan started their war with China, thus the coast is ORIGINALLY Chinese territories with a Japanese occupation force.  With Alpha rules, Japan can no longer build MAJOR ICs in the territories marked by the Chinese Roundel.

Of course, it would make even more sense if the setup had Japanese Roundels marking the territories Japan is “occupying” at the start and they hadn’t been colored orange….

The problem with that is most of the Axis’ territories technically didn’t originally belong to them.  Granted, most of those nations aren’t represented in the game, but Holland actually is to a degree.  But we don’t see restrictions to their other territories even though those aren’t “originally controlled”.

@Gargantua:

No.

Because they have the Chinese symbol, they are originally Chinese - by technical definition.

You could also way they are originally Japanese, because that’s how they are when the game starts.  I always thought the Chinese symbol was there only to show that if the Allies get it it goes to China, not the conquering player.

Well, I think the main difficulty behind the USA strategy is deciding how much to focus on each theater, and I like that.  I think the US player should be forced to spend of both sides, because that’s historically accurate and makes the game more interesting.

The problem with requiring one capital in each theater is it means if Japan falls, Germany and Italy can never win.  In real life Europe and the Pacific were separate theaters, so a victory in one and a defeat in the other could have happened.  It makes sense from the Allied perspective, though, for them to only win if they stop the Axis in both places.

Of course, there’s also the problem that this rule would allow the US to dump all of its economy into the Pacific, grab Japan, and make it impossible for the rest of the Axis to win (while they may have taken most or all of Europe due to no American help).

Do you really have to bump your polls so much?

@Black:

@marechallannes:

3. Collect 10 IPCs, once, for Soviet capture of Berlin (Germany). Theme: National prestige.

If Zhukov takes Berlin is game over. Why even bothering about collecting 10ipc for the USSR? Building up for the Cold War?

There could be a situation where Japan has decimated all enemies in the Pacific but the USSR took Berlin (possibly with the USA focusing on the Europe board).  In that case it could make sense.

@strategic:

I have thought up a new way for this to happen-Italy is neutral until its turn and all axis get all of their nat’l advantages.

How will that balance everything?

@Gargantua:

That makes it obviously quite difficult to persuade other people to play with me…

Lie.

It’s only that long now, because people are still JUST starting to play.

I think that he said his group hadn’t played it before, so I think it would still take a while.  And even if all the players are used to the game, it is much longer than previous A&A games.

Random note: a lie is to deliberately mislead someone.  That’s not what polybios is doing, so you shouldn’t accuse him of it.

@General:

@Krieghund:

These questions have already been asked and answered.

Sorry, but I dont see the answers to my questions in this thread.

The answers aren’t in this thread; they’re in the FAQ and probably a couple of other threads.

Edit: I actually didn’t look through the thread, but apparently they are here (as per Krieghund’s post below).

@General:

WHats happened to the US NO of boosting income at war?  And what are the new starting incomes?  Are they the same?

If the US doesnt get its extra IPC’s, isnt it a huge nerf to the allies?

Also,  If german naval units are moving into the channel, and germany attacks uk navy, can planes scramble to assist from uk?

The US still gets boosted income - it’s just spread out a bit to make it easier for the Axis to disrupt.

1. Collect 10 IPCs per turn for complete control of the continental US (WUS, CUS, EUS). Theme: Basic national sovereignty.
2. Collect 5 IPC per turn if the Allies control 5 of the 7 following islands. Midway, Wake, Marianas, Iwo Jima, Caroline, Solomon Islands and Guam. Theme: Islands considered to be vital strategic forward bases.
3. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling the Philippines. Theme: Center of American influence in Asia.
4. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Hawaii, Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, Line Islands, and Johnston Island. Theme National sovereignty issues.
5. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling, Mexico, Southern Mexico, Central America (Panama) and the West indies. Theme: Defense treaty & trade obligations.

It’s not a nerf, considering the US still gets the full 30 IPCs.  It makes the game a bit easier for the axis (compared to OOB, which was unbalanced towards the allies).

And yes, UK planes can scramble to assist a naval battle in the channel.

Well, the OOB rules made it near to impossible for the axis to win.  I don’t see any problem with giving the Axis a better chance.

Yeah, the Axis didn’t win in real life.  But ultimately for me the game is more fun if both sides have a good chance to win.  Then it comes down to strategy more.  If the Allies can afford to make a lot of mistakes and still win, it’s not fair to the Axis player.

Some people don’t play this game to recreate WWII.  You can do that, but I think most people play this game to have fun, and that’s easier when both sides have an approximately equal chance of winning.

@cminke:

@Idi:

Question: Will Italy be able to compete going 8th? Now that USA goes 4th Rome is that much more at risk. Germany has to take Southern France and fill the Med with Naval units to have any hope of stopping Rome from falling.

what are you talking about?
is this an alpha setup?

The latest Alpha +.2 changed the turn order.

My understanding is that air units can only scramble to help out a naval battle already in progress.  I could be wrong, though.

@FieldMarshalGames:

8. Thou shalt have thy Purchase ready when it is thine turn

That’s a bit iffy.  It’s great for a fast game, but with newer players or with a nation that’s greatly affected by the nation immediately before it it’s impractical.  And the only way it helps is to keep the game shorter, which doesn’t affect victory.

@Lord:

Kinda a random question, but was ramming ships really a tactic in WW2?

I seriously doubt it.  I’ve never heard of it.  And given the current rules suggested by Gargantua, the ship can only attempt to ram if it isn’t damaged, which violates the main premise of turning a ship into a kamikaze unit (they’re too expensive to do something that could seriously damage them unless they’re already lost).

That’s completely intentional.  Previously the USA could dominate whichever side of the board it chose.  Forcing it to play on both sides makes the USA a bit less of an unstoppable juggernaut.

Yeah, that is correct.

The fighters move independently of the carrier (unless they belong to another nation, in which case they’re just cargo).  So they would generally be brought in to attack.  When defending all fighters can participate regardless of nationality.

Russia especially needs to play defensively.  As Russia you generally shouldn’t attack unless the German counterattack wouldn’t take out more than you can afford to lose.  Large infantry stacks at key points can hold the line for a while while help comes (probably from the US).  The UK should play defensively too, trying to slow down the Axis wherever possible, especially if it can eliminate the German navy (destroying the Luftwaffe would help, too, but it’s generally not as easy to do so).  The USA should reinforce wherever needed (possibly northern Russia) and try to open another front with Germany (such as in France or Africa).  If I remember correctly in this version the US can get away with focusing mainly on Europe, but I could be wrong (though they should try to slow Japan too if possible).

@The:

You should also have captured leader rules where the leader is moved to another tt if they have been captured by an opponent and then they should have to be rescued

If you do that you may want a requirement for the captured leader to have to stay in their own country (under foreign occupation) or the USA could ship Mussolini off to the US and make it difficult to free him.

@cminke:

i did not see the transport in the mass of ships

What do you mean?