Posts made by The Fire Knight

@Croesus:

Aha! But would Croatia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania, together form an “Axis Support” power.

Sorry. but that would just be stupid and corny.

i think that it would be awesome in future games for more historical rules and more individuality of powers. But I want none of this to happen until Canada gets autonomy. They deserve to be a power in the global game and definitely contributed as much worldwide as ANZAC did.

@allweneedislove:

i really like the uk objective, but wish they would have put a caveat in there. germany could sneak a sub into a far flung location and still deny the objective.

i guess germany’s objective means that the ussr can not declare war untill germany has first(limitation is probably lifted on round 3 like usa)

at first i thought russias objective was extremely powerful, but then remembered that the game starts in 1940, so there will not be many original g territories and they will be very far away from ussr.

Plus, it will be almost impossible to get. As soon as that beastly bonus begins to occur, Japan will be in weakly defended Siberia in no time. I don’t even really no why that’s included (although there could be more to the picture obviously) b/c if Russia is ever able to get that bonus the war will already be over b/c Japan obviously won’t have anybody on the mainland and Germany will be loosing as well. That’s kind of disappointing to me.

@Brain:

@Admiral:

The soviet union’s NO is amazing, the German’s NO might want to make the soviets attack early

There should be a rule against Russia declaring war on Germany.

I disagree. They were both evil and treacherous governments and should be presented as so.  :wink:

@oztea:

why was france even added if they arent capible of doing their part in history
Change sides frequently and to the detrement of their allies

There is definitely need for improvement in this “King of A and A games”. Oh well. At the rate they’re churning them out, we should see the next one by like 2012 (of course, that’s when the world will be ending apparently so we’d better get it right this time.)

@Brain:

There was an Advanced Europe game that gave Spain and Sweden IPC values. See for yourself here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/68400/axis-allies-europe?size=large

Interesting. AAE1940 will dominate trump that 10x over though. I can’t wait. Although, will anyone play AAE1940? Once if any? I know that I will almost definitely go straight to global.

@idk_iam_swiss:

Why spain? arent they spent from their own civil war?

People wise that’s a maybe at best. Resources would be pretty much unaffected though. And from the history that I’ve had, I think that Spain should be a pro-axis neutral (correct me if I’m wrong) b/c the side that the axis supported won the war.

@katfishkris:

my guess is marines will be a tech in the global game

I would bet no. How is that a research? That’s more like a national advantage which we thankfully won’t be seeing that in the game (it would be fine if they could make it fair but they sadly failed in revised)

@finnman:

I don’t just want to invade neutrals I want to get there ipc’s and there empire to go to war with my enemy.

Speaking of… Mongolia being worth nothing was just an exception right? It was b/c something about not really worth much, and their troops can’t attack b/c they’re just tribes right? But for countries like Sweden and Spain, they will actually fight and be worth something, right?

@Brain:

So you are saying that China and France will be played by an existing power?

Almost definitely. 6 players would probable be the max # used in a game of this. Unless you have a good group that can have fun and participate actively even if only given a power that dies after the first turn.

@Razor:

A typical J1 attack looks like this.

Japan take Phillipines with 2 loaded trannies from Japan, and Celebes with the Caroline tranny. As fleet protection Japan use a carrier, a cruiser and a destroyer. The rest of the fleet are elsewhere.

A typical J1 purchase will be an Airbase in Kwangsi, because Japan land a lot of planes there, and next turn the fighters/Tacs can reach India and bombers reach the seazone in case UK buy surface ships to use as blockers.

To purchase an UK Airbase on Ceylon is lame, since the J Airbase in Kwangsi will cover the seazone.
But if UK purchase 2 subs T1, then UK can threaten the Japanese fleet nearby DEI with 2 subs, 4 ftrs and 1 Tac. The Jap fleet is bound for the bottom.

A typical move and purchase? That’s the least common possible moves and purchases. U.K. fleets? Kwangsi airbase? Moving only like 2 ships towards India? Try typical being 3 transports for Japan, moving most of fleet towards India, and India purchasing infantry.

@Brain:

I would like resources to be added to the game. Oil in particular. IPC’s and Oil.

No way. Definitely not. I would be fine with resources. As in oil, steel, wood, food, labor, and what not. But all or nothing. I don’t want some random stupid oil rule thrown in with ipcs if all the other resources used are not included as well (and they won’t be).

@Brain:

@squirecam:

@idk_iam_swiss:

so when will get get info now that our one source of previwing the game is gone now

The day it comes out.  :roll:

A month later there will be an official post on the AH boards announcing the game as an “upcoming product”.  :x

Truer words were never spoken.

Maybe a month after will be the announcement of it’s release. But you can bet the errata will be out the day of.

I movement means one movement. They can not land unless on an island or coast in the same sea zone, or an adjacent carrier.

If I ever play more than a two-player game (which sounds like a ton of fun but the first and last time i did it we only finished one turn and then everyone got distracted and it dissolved. It being one players first time did not help either.) then i will group it like this assuming six players…

Player 1- Germany
Player 2- Italy
Player 3- Japan
Player 4- U.S. and China
Player 5- Russia
Player 6- U.K., Anzac, France, and Canada (with whatever individualness it has or does not have)

I will do this for playability and historical accuracy. Each player will receive a power to play that will have plenty to do but not too much (Italy might be the weakest but there always fun to play and they will definitely help out with Germany who will have the most to do). Also, it makes sense (at least to me) when you think about influence. the U.K. was very closely tied with Canada and Anzac, and with France also (they were the first to declare war together against Germany). They may seem like they have a lot of countries, but the U.K. quickly becomes very weak (I find) if Germany begins to win. The U.S. gets China because (they always have) and although I suppose you could make a claim for Russia, it just makes more sense this way since the U.S. player will be far more bored (if you ever get bored playing a and a) than the Russian player who will be trying to frantically set up his defenses against the upcoming onslaught. Thoughts?

@Make_It_Round:

In every game I’ve played as the Allies, when the US takes and holds Korea, it’s game over for Japan.

Every time.

US builds a Major Industrial Complex there, then uses its economic might to build a fleet on the spot, blockading Japan and, if necessary, pumping out land units to retake the Asian mainland and/or invade Tokyo if a concession is not forthcoming.

Don’t see what all this fuss about SuperJapan is about.

Seriously, folks.

I think that this is the mark of a great game. The fact that each of us thinks that one side or another has an unbeatable advantage that needs house rules. The challenge is creativity in overcoming old strategies with new ones, and then overcoming those, and then overcoming those… truly the most versatile game of them all. Global will be ten times better and more versatile.

@Frontovik:

we did j1 al the time, and japan almost never won
yes, it might get slim overproduction than allies, but allies can easily block convoys, while japan needs a 8 dollar ship to free them, while it only cost 6 to jam them
simple math, and japan ain’t in position to take australia or hawaii

Elaborate on easily block convoys. Did your Japanese fleet just sit in the Arctic ocean and do nothing? Or perhaps they took a vacation in Samoa? Or did you just scuttle them all in the beginning in favor of world peace?  :-D And the math clearly favors a J1 attack. I’m just not sure that it’s unbeatable.

@Gharen:

Basically making everyone wait around to fight, other than Japan and China, could be a quick fix to the problem.  But sersiously, what is everyone doing with the US, are you guys just trying to get forces into central and south Pacific ASAP?  Have you guys tried out muscling the defense force around Japan herself and go for the win?  Just curious if everyone playing the USA is more worried about getting everything down to India instead of going for the win and making Japan call units back to defend its homeland.

Yes, I agree. With me ANZAC from the beginning makes all infantry and artillery until they have a ton (usually like 9 inf and 3 art, maybe a tank) then they start building fighters to help out. Fleets never work b/c they get destroyed to easily at a bad exchange rate (they usually don’t even take out a Japanese ship) but i suppose you could get a fleet if you had a big enough airforce by like round 100 to sit them on a New Zealand ic to protect your fleet. Bottom line though is that Anzac should be pretty much able to cope for a while. The U.S. should try for Korea. If they can secure naval dominance in the SoJ then Japan has lost b/c they will have a ic in korea, china loose in the north, and will earn significantly less. I think that this is a pretty even game. In one game I played, Japan didn’t declare war round 1, but i declared war as britain on round 1 (stupid but i was sleep deprived). That’s a major mistake for the allies and Japan had it pretty good. But in the end, after about 20-30 rounds of play, it was just a cat and mouse game in the Pacific. We both had big fleets and were avoiding game ending defeats. Dead even in ipcs, I had a chance to win it. I attacked with like I think 6 transports fully loaded. I lost the sea battle though and all transports died (forgot that i could retreat them) The U.S. was back on its feet in no time though (on the defensive though) and it was just cat and mouse. It was called a tie. It became quite a boring game actually with no action but floating back and forth all over the board. I think this game is pretty even. You just have to learn a new allied strategy. Spend your time doing that rather than making up house rules. Also, this quote just cam up before i posted…

“I’m a little pissed that this got away from the play testing”

I’m pretty sure little miss Gravy that Larry Harris and the play testers have played a bit more of this game than you have.

@Omega:

20 ipc? No, probably around 30

Remember, they have 17 in the Pacific. If CUS and EUS, I would expect at least 10 more ipc.

And Including Brazil, panama, the west indies? change that 10 to like 22-25 bringing the U.S. to about 40 plus national objectives. That’s pretty hefty for a neutral power.

@anderb:

an original japanese territory, well look for the symbol. when you manage to hold a japanese territory at the end of your turn, you get 5 ipc. but that doesnt mean that u get 5 ipc\territory that way. only the first.

So that does not include say Manchuria?