Posts made by The Fire Knight

um. no.

@Krieghund:

@The:

And also, that is not true about china taking control of the british territories. They can occupy, but not control. Even if india is japanese.

Knp7765 is right.  China can control those territories if India is held by the Axis.  The wording is a bit ambiguous in the Rulebook, but that’s the intent.

Ah, thanks. And yes, this needs rewording. It says…

“Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. While they are not Chinese territories and cannot be controlled by China, Chinese forces can attack axis units there and occupy them, but the ipcs generated go to the United Kingdom (unless India is under Axis control). These are the only non-chinese territories that chinese units can occupy”

This specifically states that china can’t control them, only occupy. I inferred that the place where it says (unless India is under axis control) simply meant that the ipcs obviously wouldn’t go to india in this case. In fact, this whole paragraph can be boiled down to simply…

“China can defend/take kwangtung and Burma.”

And then obviously you would know that they couldn’t take it unless india was axis controlled.

@knp7765:

Actually, the Chinese territories that begin the game under Japan control already have a Chinese control marker on the board itself (Manchuria, Shantung, etc.)  You are supposed to put Japanese control markers in those territories at setup along with the military units.
According to the rules, Chinese forces are not allowed to go outside Chinese territories (those on the map with a Chinese symbol on them) with the exception of Burma and Kwangtung.  China can fight Axis forces in those two territories outside of China and if India is under Axis control, they can even control and get IPC income from those two territories.  Thus, you would need Chinese control markers for those two territories to show that China controls them.  Of course, if India is liberated, control of those territories reverts back to India so you would remove the Chinese control markers to show that they were British again.
So, basically, to play this game you really only need 3 Chinese control markers:  One for Burma, one for Kwangtung and one for the Production Chart.

Actually not true. although it might be a good idea to do that with the japanese markers, that’s not the official rule. And also, that is not true about china taking control of the british territories. They can occupy, but not control. Even if india is japanese.

Yea, i really think the scale of units and sculpts (like sherman vs. whatever, france having own tank and stuff) are relatively insignificant. they are nice, and could be improved, and I would like to see a bit of improvement every version, but nothing to fuss about. Except for maybe the amount included in each set. Any one else find it funny that china has more infantry than it can possibly use (one for every territory) yet they managed to give them one less marker than they need? I know that no power has enough markers to conquer the world, but China can only get 6 places. So they give us 5.  :lol:

Explain that the creator of A and A made it, and therefore the original is officially obsolete.

The colored major and minors are people’s own creations. And I find either 2, 4, or 6 players is best (6 is a stretch b/c of you could get knocked out). And, for example, if i play a 4 player game i divide the powers

Germany and Italy
Japan
US and Russia
UK, Anzac, France, China

6 players
Germany
Japan
Italy
US China
Uk France
Russia Anzac

If you’re new i would either recommend the allies for a two player, probable UkAnzacFranceChina for 4 player and either italy, USchina, or UKFrance for a 6 player. Whatever you do, don’t play as Japan (and probable not Germany either). I’ve played my fair share of new players and Japan is disastrous. At least with Germany they know to go in the general direction of moscow. But with Japan i’ve seen people ignore the DEI. Game over.

@Peck:

Vote please.  To clarify I’m not trying to quash someones freedom of speech I would like the forums here to retain some semblance of substance.

Here’s some “semblance of substance”… shut up. If you don’t care about his polls, don’t post or vote.

I vote Imperious Leader

@Funcioneta:

@Gargantua:

What’s the hope you guys are looking for?  Add 10 inf to England to make sea-lion TOTALLY impossible?  Wow thanks for reducing the game options.  That’s what makes global great,  the Axis can go in whatever direction they like to shoot for the win,  not engage in a scripted out roll fest.

I agree that the game should allow Sea Lion, but not one that means the end of the game. By now, G1 AC + dd purchase is good for your general strat, doesn’t forces you to go Sea Lion but can be the start. This means that UK MUST buy many infs to hold England just because of the fantasy world capital rules. As UK, I would like have the option of risk a bit, like say, buying enough to defend against a G2 attack but not enough to a G3 Sea Lion … the germans could try Sea Lion or not, but any case, UK could still build from Canada and SAF if things go bad… as it would be in real life. Also, multiplayer games MUST be taken into account, because this is a game too big to be played 1 to 1 many times

The worst decisicion that Larry taken in alpha series is get rid of the exilied capital rule that he gave to UK.

I definitely agree. Ahistorical rules will give the game ahistorical results. He refuses to take that next step though and keeps trying to come up with artificial fixes.

And Gargantua, Canada is not the same as Romania and hungary and the china’s. If we have australia, no Canada is ridiculous. The only reason we have one and not the other is that some idiot had the marketing idea to make the game into two separate games released and made at different times (which is why we have so many problems b/c they didn’t work together). the thinking was that australia had more influence in the pacific than canada had in europe. But in terms of the world, they each had the same influence. Canada as a power would solve so many problems. And while you’re right that we can’t just make random divisions, that might result in bad game balance, we also can’t make random divisions that result in good, yet artificial game balance. Ex. India. Another crap example of the two separate games theory. Why is everyone ok with this? It’s total bs. We’ve never used India that way b/c it’s not historical. It wasn’t a separate power. India really didn’t care who won the war, they wanted independence. The U.K. was at war with the axis. Not UkE and UKP. They would have not fought on any more than africa after England’s capture. They would have fought some, just like the rest of the empire, but not more. They should stop producing income and be included with the rest of the U.K. in an exiled capital/ free British rule of some sort. This is the worst possible way to represent a divided income and fighting after sealion that Larry could possibly come up with. Ok, maybe not the worst, but it’s a half-ass cheap way that causes many problems. Kind of like our government trying to manipulate things w/o understanding the consequences.

For coaching i think that questions are the best way to do it w/o making your teammates pawns. This causes them to think for themselves and not only helps them not make stupid mistakes ("Is your capital defended?) but arrive at their own style of play.

Wait, is that even legal for china to move people into either hong kong or burma before the uk is at war with japan?

@The:

I wish we just played OOB and if it was not balanced just bid. I wish alpha never happened

Good for you. I really don’t see what’s wrong with revising a broken game but… if it suits you then go play the original with someone who agrees with you. It’s not like we’re forcing you to participate/improve/play it. However, some people, including the creator of axis and allies and this G40 don’t share you’re opinion, me included. If the game that i paid 150$ for isn’t balanced or perfect, i think it makes sense to revise it. And Gargantua, although i’m sure you’re an axis and allies balance genius and although you put in soooo much effort to create alpha +.2 (didn’t see you there making it till now) what you fail to realize is that the same people who made alpha 2 would still make alpha 3. So since it obviously wouldn’t de-prove I’m not sure what problem you have with it. It doesn’t look like larry is going to be doing an official alpha 3 anytime soon, if ever. But that doesn’t mean that the game is perfect, or that people can’t suggest changes and post their ideas. Blind posts of “perfection” and “let’s just balance this with a bid” are stupid, pointless, and really don’t help

I like them. One thing i did notice though is that your conduct combat and noncombat move are both listed as step # 4, meaning all of your steps from then on need to have one added to them.

@Uncle_Joe:

I think with the split victory conditions, the Brits spending NOTHING in the Pacific would quickly lead to an Axis victory via Japan.

I dunno, to me it just feels like a ‘cheap’ way out (as in, we couldnt balance the game ‘globally’, so we put an artificial ‘crutch’ in to force the Brits to spend in the Pacific).

It definitely is a cheap way out. Just like the huge imbalance of the original game. What sucks is that, although Larry has fixed the balance, he hasn’t fixed this. The U.K. is a huge part of the game and they are not being represented nearly well enough.

To fix this, the game should have a separate Canadian Power to depict the ipcs spent in canada as well as fighting on after London’s fall. The game should have a rule that says Commonwealth powers (Canada, U.K., and ANZAC) can attack together. The game should have a capital in exile rule that represents continued resistance (like being able to build inf w/ half of your remaining production). The game needs revised capital capture rules that limit the attacker to only taking half of a powers ipcs. And the game needs to differentiate between building infantry and industry. There should be a building piece that allows the building of only inf (conscripton).

If you want to try merging the U.K. income, then create a separate Canadian economy of 7 ipcs. And then possibly change the major in india to a minor and add a minor in west india.

You can move there, but you don’t start disrupting convoys until at war.

@Tigerman77:

Went back through posts… figured it out (D12). Still would like to see the rest of your rule ideas!

Yeah a D12 combat system works really well, allows for more special units!

So… is this a work in progress? With only the map being concrete? For rules, maybe consider railroad rules. Neutral blocks (mongolia don’t care about turkey). Tech obviously. Possibly create mech artillery units at 5 ipc and 2 attack two defense. Capital conquest rules changing so that victors only get half ipcs. And if capital taken, countries can produce inf with half of their money. And Since you’re using d12 units, why not make some of the power units different b/c you have more room? like italian and french and jap tanks worse. German better. stuff like that. And then have techs to increase. You could even consider using 24 sided dice for more disparity. National objectives. Remember, only the super crazy will play and buy your game anyways it looks like. So make it as good and as realistic as possible (while still fair). Those are just some ideas off the top of my head right now. Just saw this and am amazed. great work :).

no.

“Collect 10 IPCs each turn that Japan is not at war with the United States and has not invaded French Indo-China or made an unprovoked declaration of war against United Kingdom/ANZAC.
When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union.”

It wouldn’t be unprovoked.

Why not? ;)

You guys are looking at it wrong. Who cares if they need it? The fact is, they had it. Anzac? Australia New Zealand? Units came from both islands. And the restricting ic’s to not be built on ic’s is bogus anyways. No majors definitely. But minors should be allowed.