Posts made by zooooma

@Imperious:

I thought China was under US control?

China is a pro US neutral.  USA collects money from China, but still can’t occupy without violating neutrality (by moving units there and paying a fee).

I think the best spot for a US factory is in Africa.  This is right on Europe’s doorstep, but easy to hold because it’s not subject to significant Axis counter attack.  From there America can build a fleet in the Mediterranean or begin funneling tanks towards Caucasus.

Russia’s in a tight spot with a maximum of twenty infantry on the board at once (and none to buy round one).  I think those Germans might have a very good chance!  Obviously this projects be a shorter game, but it should be an interesting challenge nonetheless.  And it’s so clolourful!

@Imperious:

You left out one major thing…

It does not say the Americans cant build a factory in China and chug out enough units to bust the game.

I did mention that newly built factories do not have production limits, but USA cannot do this because China is neutral in Nova’s edition.  It looks to me like it could take several turns for America to establish a foothold on the mainland - I think they could build in East Africa by turn four.  By the time America hits the front lines Russia may have fallen (she’s limited to twenty infantry at once and can’t buy any on turn one) and USA won’t be any match for the Axis.

UK on the other hand can build an untouchable IC in India, and that can produce all the British units.  But Japan can build an IC in Asia right away too, so I think they might end up merely holding each other at bay while Germany races for Moscow against the American onslaught to come.

I just set it up and looked at it though - I haven’t played yet.

@finnman:

What is different in this edition from 2nd edition.

The biggest differences:

• Units are limited to the number which come with the game - there are no chips!  This has drastic effects.  USSR, for instance, starts with all 20 infantry on board and has to buy tanks on turn one.

• All factories produce unlimited units, even those captured or newly built.

Other differences:

• IPCs collected from newly conquered territories are paid by the former owner.

• It costs one move for a transport to load.

• AA guns fire only once (and hit on three or less).  Go SBR!

• Subs only ambush - they do not block or participate in sea battles.

• Amphibiously assaulting ground forces hit one one or less round one.

• Battleships cannot bombard.

• A transport can carry two tanks.

• A carrier can load planes (or one bomber) for one movement point.

• Planes can be carried on a carrier and still move.

• Planes on a carrier immediately sink with it.

• Land units attack only adjacent territories, then may occupy on the movement phase.

• Neutrals are handled differently.

• Techs are different.

• National advantages.

• Planes can land in newly captured territories.

• Factories can be built in newly captured territories.

• Against multinational forces, the other side chose which power takes losses first.

• The map has more territories and sea zones.

That’s all I can think off off hand.  I haven’t actually played yet, my opponent had to postpone.

Can we combine this with A&A on a Colonial Diplomacy map and play global?

@Brain:

Did you get those French and Chinese pieces?

No, without rules they’re not worth it to me.  I bought the base game for about $16, and an extra 50 is too much for a nonfunctional expansion.  It’s too bad this was never finished.  :(

@Viracocha:

Excellent!  You’re going to love your first nuke…

I don’t expect to see nukes developed.  Technology doesn’t look like a very good buy in this version.

If the game lasts long enough I can see buying tech when someone is running short on conventional units, but even then there is no guarantee to actually develop nukes.  Besides, I expect this game to be short with unlimited IC production everywhere and a maximum of twenty infantry per nation.  Also, with AA50, AAP40 and upcoming AAE40 It’s going to be hard to get a lot games of Nova played, but I guess that’s a good problem.

I used to play Supremacy, and I certainly love nukes in war games.  Maybe we’ll get lucky and somebody will roll them!

@Make_It_Round:

In any game I’ve played where the US has made a dedicated push for Korea, it’s never been denied them.

Just to be sure, you are using the board errata:

The Map: Sea zone 5 should not be adjacent to Korea. The border between sea zones 5 and 6 should
meet at the border between Amur and Korea, leaving Amur still touching only sea zone 5 but Korea
touching only sea zone 6.

Stalingrad please!

@Brain:

I would buy an AA Star Wars game.

I’m quite fond of Star Wars: The Queen’s Gambit, though it’s a bit more like Battle Cry than A&A.  There’s a lot more to the strategy than one would think given what people have written about it.  Someday I’m going to write a detailed Queen’s Gambit strategy article.

The Question is does it come with rules and set up charts or just pieces?

I’m looking at an auction for Chinese and French counters for the original A&A by Nova Games.  I vaguely recall being under the impression that the pieces were made but the rules and set up charts were never completed.  Does anybody know for sure about this?  I don’t think I want to spend money on pieces I can’t play with.

I finally got a copy on eBay last spring.  I’d wanted one for years by then.  It’s not in shrink, but it’s in very good condition.

I don’t need it shrink wrapped anyway - I plan to play it!  I’ve secured an opponent, so I should hopefully be playing in the next couple weeks.  I can hardly wait, wish me luck.

@kaufschtick:

Awe, come on now fella’s, this wasn’t supposed to be a serious thread, just having some fun.

Fun or otherwise, this is the best idea I’ve seen yet for the Allies against a devoted India crush.  Of course it needs some testing to determine the best execution and the overall viability…

And I’m delighted to find another fan of Doctor Strangelove!  I’ve seen that movie dozens of times and I never get sick of it.  You must like that old war game Supremacy?

Is this discount still available?

My bad.  I was confusing offshore bombardment with strategic bombardment.  :oops:

@SilverAngelSurfer:

I’m not exactly sure how you’re planning on using AA guns, but first off, you can’t scramble a fighter from India to stop a bombardment.  The rules clearly say that you can only scramble planes from an island airbase.

You can scramble against a SBR anywhere.  The island base is needed to scramble into the sea zone.

The more I think about this, the more I think the India crush should be unstoppable.

How could Japan ever win tis game?  It seems unlikely to me that Japan could take and hold Hawaii and Queensland - especially without losing Kwangtung.  That means for Japan to have any chance, India must fall, and fall early enough That Japan still has a decent shot vs ANZAC and USA.

If the game is balanced, there shouldn’t be any way to stop the India crush, but there also shouldn’t be any obvious easy counter strategy.  India should fall , and from there it should be a struggle.  If the game is not balanced, it will need optional rules or a small bid (but not enough to outright thwart the India crush - only enough to fight on After).

@Brain:

I see where you are going but it would be no good if it destroyed the game balance. Definitely play testing would be needed. Have you tried these out yourself.

Affecting game balance is not the same as destroying it.  Assuming NAs would be optional (and independently selectable), they should be capable of tipping the balance - either to correct a preexisting imbalance, or to create a handicap.

That said, it would be nice if including all of them results in a balanced game - or at least as balanced as A&A games usually tend to be (as this is really the only fair standard).

@Gwlachmai:

A naval base in Wake or Midway brings very little to the table. Even if you build it on turn two and move your fleet there the India crush happens on turn three and Japan can easily build nothing but navy to defend their home sea zone.

@Razor:

Are we playing the same game ?

Do we play by the same rulebook ?

My game box says Axis & Allies Pacific 40, please check your box  to see if it is the same box.

Hey razor, perhaps you could elaborate on this strategy:

• Which turn do you build the naval base, and in which island?

• How much of what do you figure you’ll have there?

• How much money do you expect Japan to have for defense?

Certainly pressure on japan by USA is worthwhile to explore as a response to the J3 India crush, but I think we’ll need specifics if we’re to be sure it will work, and to explore defensive measures for Japan which may still allow them to crush India early.  Maybe Japan can spar three destroyers (two can be built J2) to block the invasion till they have India’s money to spend?

@Vareel:

I disagree, if India falls J3 or J4 the allies have yet to get into position in sufficient force to overcome Japan’s starting naval advantage, and they have not yet had enough time with economic superiority to have a unit advantage in general.  And if India has fallen, with a major IC that close to the DEI, the DEI is lost to the allies as well.

The trick is that Japan still needs to capture Sydney or Honolulu to win, and those cities are closer to the Allies than they are to Japan (especially with Japanese forces diverted to India).  By the time Japan reaches these cities, the Allies may have had a chance to catch up.

I haven’t played enough A&A: Pacific 1940 yet (who has?), and may well never before switching to mostly A&A: Global 1940, but I think the issue is still open at this point.

Nothing will be wrong with A&A:Eurpoe 1940.  It will combine with Pacific 1940 to create the best version of the best hobby game ever.  It will be gorgeous and well supported with a concise FAQ.

@gredert:

I should be set for that type of game and can move 100% to fantasy flight who make games that are good, seem to be correct out of the box most of the time, and have real support.

@Brain:

Yeah, Fantasy Flight Games would make a great A&A type game. I wonder why they haven’t.

FFG are my favourite hobby game company.  They are supposedly working on a Supremacy inspired game, Reigns Of Power:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/22824/reins-of-power
I wait with baited breath.

That said, they are not perfect either.  There have been complaints that the Cosmic Encounter alien sheets from the expansion are larger than those that came with the original.  The figures from Frostmarch are out of scale with the other expansions and base set (the cards from this set are also mis-cut), and the Talisman FAQ took over a year to be released and still leaves many unanswered questions.  My Middle Earth Quest figures are brittle and many have snapped.  Marvel Heroes is often said to have power balance issues.  Those are the games I own (along witnh Conan, which I haven’t played yet).  I’m sure there are problems with the games I don’t own too.

Again, I love FFG, but I think the attitude towards AH is a bit unfair lately.

Ideally the game would be balanced OOB.  But it’s never happened.

Playtesters are dealing with more then one variable at a time, and have time and human resources in which to figure it all out.  It’s commendable the games come as closely balanced as they do.

Anyway, every A&A game ever has required a bid (adjusting the starting forces) to level the field.  This will always be the case.  NAs and other optional rules provide an alternative to the standard bid, and some people love the extra flavour.  Best of all, being optional means nobody has to use them.  In this way they can only enhance the game but cannot spoil it.  Those who don’t like them can simply ignore them; playing with a bid or straight OOB.

There is a Trans-Siberian railway represented in Colonial Diplomacy.  I highly recommend that game!