Posts made by SilverAngelSurfer

@finnman:

@Gwlachmai:

Germany and China should go together then.

there still on different sides
the only axis nations are Italy Germany and Japan

He’s messing with you, finnman, it’s not a serious suggestion.

@Brain:

@Gwlachmai:

I have to admit I’m terribly curious as to the meaning of the Canadian insignia. Euro40 can’t come out fast enough.

Are you also curious about the Dutch insignia?

The Dutch roundels on those territories are for the purpose of those territories not counting toward either the Axis’ or Allies’ income initially and they have to actually occupy those territories.  I imagine this is because the Dutch were at war with the Axis, but had been conquered in May 1940, which seems to be before the approximate start date of 1940 (which kinda looks like somewhere around June 1940 just before Paris was captured), so they couldn’t be specifically neutral (at least as far as we understand neutrals at this point) as I assume whatever other rules that apply to neutrals that we will learn when Europe 1940 comes out would be applied to them.  They are treated sort of like territories that are left over after a power’s capital has been captured, though if the Netherlands are liberated they don’t become another Allied power like France will, and because of this any other Allied power can take control of them also.

I don’t see Canada being treated the same way (completely empty until someone walks in), so they should (in my mind at least, I may very well be wrong :|) serve some purpose other than simply being fancy decoration to make Canadians feel better. :-P

Well, we’ll see what happens, but I still think the UK split income being Canada/UK makes the most Larry-Harris-sense, and since Canada would be completely controlled by the British player it doesn’t contradict what he says there.

I hadn’t really considered 7 players…  :-o

@Brain:

@mike55:

I obviously didn’t figure out the “quote thingy”.  My post was a reply to BD’s comment. Now, I’ve doubled my number of posts!

Click on the word qoute at the upper right of the post that you want to quote.

And you can’t give karma until the 100th post, oh never mind, bad joke :-D

I agree however with your ideas about Canada.

Well, I’m well past 100 posts and I can’t do anything with karma yet…  So it must be higher.

@Brain:

@finnman:

but before the US declare war they only have like 20 ipcs. Why would they want to there little ipcs on the UK when they have to get ready for war

USA and UK are on the same team, so if you can get pieces into the action sooner by lending them to those already at war, why wouldn’t you?

Exactly.  Good point, BD.

I was assuming the maximum number of players, assuming that’s 6.

I can see what you mean, Omega, about pairing based simply on what fits your group.  I can see a lot of people going with a traditional UK/ANZAC, US/China, and France with whoever since a lot of AA50 strategies could easily be adapted to a spread like that.  For my group I was looking at the regional idea because, as Functioneta pointed out, it’s easier to be able to have all your pieces in one general area as a player, plus my group doesn’t seem to get a whole lot of cohesion going together and can end up screwing each other’s strategies up.  But for a good group that likes diversity the split groupings might be good.

Definitely the online setup should be as streamlined as possible…  I agree with you there, Functioneta.

Another interesting grouping might be to have one player be the UK/US to be able to coordinate the battle of the Atlantic better, while another controls ANZAC/China in the Pacific, and France could go to either of the last two depending on whether the USSR player wants another power or is willing to give the ANZAC/China player a third for the lack of a “major” power.  UK/US would have UK immediately in battle with US building up, ANZAC/China would immediately be in the fight, but would have the challenge of low income vs. Godzilla Japan, and USSR would have France for a little bit while they’re still preparing.

@Make_It_Round:

Of the options presented, I actually prefer the ‘oddball’ option, for two reasons:

(1) ‘Geographical’ distance. Each Allied player gets a power on a different continent, which means a fuller involvement in the unfolding of developments in secondary theatres of combat. This also ensures a diversity of strategic options and input in a given area, making Allied moves less predictable for the Axis player.

(2) Balance of unit types and purchasing options. UK, ANZAC, and US all need to buy naval units to participate fully in the war. Russia, France, and China, on the other hand, will largely be buying infantry and trying to check aggression on the mainland. So distributing the partnerships between these two sets ensures that each player has access to buying and using the full range of land, air, and naval units, resulting in a more satisfying play experience for all.

The other options are all playable, of course. Ultimately, we’ll just have to do some field testing to resolve this question… literally dying for this bloody Europe game to come out!

That’s a good point as far as diversity goes; if each player has a power in each of the regions, it keeps everyone involved in the big picture possibly providing for better teamwork.

I also realize there are other combinations other than these three, but those combinations would have to involve some “mash-up” of these three I guess you could say “themed” groupings…

@finnman:

Or in the global game Germany could control Italy while UK gets Anzac and possibly Canada, the US would get China leaving France and Russia alone.
What do you think.

That sounds like my “traditional” pairing, but I was assuming 3 Axis players. Of course, if there are only 2 Axis players, it makes the best sense to have one player play both Italy and Germany.

So I know most of the games online here are 1 on 1, but for those of us who still play in real life and play with multiple players, what do you think about who should control what powers since the Allies will now have 6 to choose from?

I know Revised had rules concerning which player controlled which powers (4 players = 1 to each w/ 4th player getting US/USSR), and AA50 stated that China was controlled by the US player, but 1942 doesn’t have rules regarding who controls which, and as far as I can remember Pac40 says that China can be controlled by whichever of the 3 (possible) Allied players.  I’m assuming Eur40 will be similar with 3 possible Allied powers plus France being controlled by whoever wants to control it, in which case it doesn’t matter so much who controls it.

However, I anticipate the Global Game will probably be 2-6 players as AA50 was, since I imagine anyone just playing ANZAC in the Global Game would be kind of bored (though 7 players may be possible), so you have a balance of 3 Axis players max (one each controlling Germany, Italy, and Japan) with 3 Allied players max.  The question is, which 2 powers should each player control?

One could go with the “traditional” pairings of China/US-ANZAC/UK, leaving France/Russia as the third (rather strange bedfellows, but France should usually be out of the game r2 at latest…).

A second option could be a “regional” pairing of European France/UK, Asian China/Russia, and Pacific ANZAC/US (a set I tend to prefer as of now).

The third option would be an “oddball” pairing of China/UK, ANZAC/Russia, and France/US.

What do you think?

@Stoney229:

@Spade632:

I came across this at Boardgamegeek - it’s a mid-game recording sheet.  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/50674/aap40-mid-game-recording-sheet

You simply jot down the unit dispositions and other info and then you’re good to go after a few minutes of setup to continue your game.

Hope you find it useful.

Alternatively, you could use ABattlemap to record your mid-game information.

That’s what my group has done in the past when leaving the board up is impractical (i.e. not being able to get back to the game within a day or two).

I’m guessing that most of us are guessing about most of the rules about this game since it hasn’t come out yet and all Larry said that I know about ends in “Get my drift?”, but other than that, you’re right. :roll:  It only seems logical, but I’m not claiming that my logic will be followed.  If you have a better idea, be my guest to share it; or if you want an “official” answer, try Larry’s own board (Flashman provided the link) or just wait for the game to come out, since most of the stuff on Larry’s board seems to be speculation as well. :-P

I agree with you, Flashman, that it would make more sense to put some kind of limit on where you can place ICs, that India should be more valuable that it already is, and that income for the UK should be dependent upon open sea routes, which would put more value on the Suez and on clearing the Atlantic of Axis ships, but that would up the complexity level in a huge way, and with all the additional complexity already being added, I can see why Larry would be hesitant to add even more.  I think we just have to be content with the income system as it is with the addition of convoys.  :|

@Flashman:

By all means allow the UK to fight on from Canada, but not with Indian and African money!

If I’m correct about Canada, if London falls Canada would only continue with the income from the territories with a Canadian roundel, so the UK/Canada combined power would not be able to collect any income from India or Africa until London is liberated.  In fact, I think that the UK split income means that income from Canadian territories will only ever be able to be spent at a Canadian IC in the first place.

@Brain:

Okay so Larry said this:

You can invade Sweden or any neutral country frankly. There will be three types of neutrals… True neutrals, Pro-Axis and Pro-Allies. Their standing armies will be listed on the map and appear should they be attacked. Invade Sweden, a true neutral, and perhaps all the other True neutrals become pro-something else. Get my drift?

And what does being pro-something mean? What benefit is it to have a neutral Pro-Axis if you are Axis?

Putting all this together I’m guessing the benefit will be that you can just move 1 infantry into that territory and the pieces become yours, just as you stated.

I’m guessing that some territories, such as Romania (which I’m pretty sure I heard somewhere will start as pro-Axis neutral), will start pro-one-side or the other, but that most (like Sweden and Switzerland) will be “true neutral”.  The purpose of having territories like Bulgaria start as pro-Axis neutral when all Germany or Italy has to do is move 1 infantry in is that Bulgaria is a border territory on Russia, so Germany will not be able to attack Russia first turn because first it will have to secure pro-Axis neutrals like Romania before it can attack, see the picture?

However, if Germany were to attack a true neutral like Switzerland, other true neutrals like Sweden would become pro-Allies and all UK or USSR would have to do is drop 1 infantry into Sweden and they get more pieces for free too.  I think it’s actually quite an interesting concept.  8-)

That’s the idea.  :-D

I don’t think Canada will be a separate power for the reasons previously stated, but I do think that Canada will be represented in Europe 1940 and the global game as the other half of the UK’s split income we’ve been told about.  My post in the other Canada-related thread explains in detail.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17683.msg584488#msg584488

One of the things that Larry seems to have been doing with the game recently is expanding from the initial simplified setup of combining the whole English commonwealth into the UK, lumping China in with the US, and packaging Italy into Germany that we had with all the versions so far except AA50.  Now we know we already have a separate Italy, China, ANZAC, and all the neutral countries actually being represented on the board; so the other obvious sovereign nation that should receive separate representation is Canada (hence the “do you want canada as a power?” thread)/  India and South Africa were still more or less colonies of the UK at the time, but Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were independent nations, so it makes some sense that colonies would still provide income to the Mother Country, but independent nations wouldn’t provide income directly, even with trade and such (which isn’t represented in A&A anyway).  Separating Australia/New Zealand from the UK as ANZAC works for gameplay by putting more into the Pacific theater, but separating Canada from the UK wouldn’t serve much purpose historically or gameplay-wise as they worked so closely together and there are already enough European-focused Allied countries.

If you combine this “expansion” idea with the information we know about Canada having different roundels on its territories and the hint about UK (presumably) having a split income, I think I’ve come up with another scenario that Larry could be doing with Europe and the Global game: UK/Canada as a combo “power”!  Canada has its own separate income from its own territories that it spends at its own IC (indicative of an independent country), but Canada and the UK fight together with conglomerate troops (indicative of their military cooperation).  No messy “joint-strike” rules.  The UK/Canada team can build its navy in Canada safely away from any German planes and could defend Canada better in case of a KAF attack by the Japanese.  There won’t be any cardboard roundels for Canada because any new territories captured would go to the UK, as is more accurate historically.  This would be waaay less messy than trying to figure out whether a captured territories’ income goes to India or Great Britain and would fit with a power’s income not being forced to go specifically to one theater or the other.

I don’t think Larry is ready to go to the level of complexity necessary to account for transportation of income across oceans, I think he’s leaving it the same it has always been except for adding convoys, and this explanation accounts for Canada being the other “semi-major” power of the UK commonwealth along with ANZAC, the Canadian roundels, and the split income hint: everything!

@adam.hall:

@SilverAngelSurfer:

I don’t think Larry is ready to go to the level of complexity necessary to account for transportation of income across oceans, I think he’s leaving it the same it has always been except for adding convoys, and this explanation accounts for Canada being the other “semi-major” power of the UK commonwealth along with ANZAC, the Canadian roundels, and the split income hint: everything!  :mrgreen:

Your lengthy but well written post is the best I’ve read so far about all this Canada as a power business…though, just for fun, I will likely use those mint green units for Canada  :-D

Well, thank you for the vote of confidence.  8-)  Assuming that I’m correct, I figure that the “Canadian” troops will be the same tan color as the UK (if Italian pieces aren’t important enough, no way Canadian pieces would be), especially if they’re playing as a single “power”.  I think it’d be cool to use different colored pieces for those that start in Canada or are produced in Canada.  Others have suggested using white pieces from the old Europe game I believe.

The scenario of the UK government moving to Canada in the event of a Sea Lion invasion of Great Britain could also easily be incorporated into this setup as if London falls (especially before the USSR or the US declares war), the UK income would go to the captor and nothing could be built at India either, but the Allies wouldn’t completely lose a nation or a turn, as Canada would be able to fight on during that turn and build units at their own IC in an attempt to free Great Britain; just as would have happened historically.

I think everyone here might like this idea that just struck me…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17683.msg584488#msg584488