AAG40 FAQ

Does Ontario boarder CUS, meaning we can pass over the Great Lakes?

@cond1024:

Does Ontario boarder CUS

Yes

There is an airbase in Sicily and the italian player puts 2 fighters, then the german player another two.

When an american fleet lands in South Italy, can scramble only italian fighters or all fighters (included the two of German player)?

@calvinhobbesliker:

Here are some borders questions
Does Ontario border EUS?
Does Quesbec border New Brunswick/Nova Scotia?
Does Alberta border CUS?
Does Venezuela border Central America?

The answers to these questions haven’t changed since the last time you asked them.  If they do, I’ll let you know.

1)  Yes.
2 & 3)  Probably.  I don’t have final confirmation yet, though.
4)  No.

@cond1024:

Does Ontario boarder CUS, meaning we can pass over the Great Lakes?

Yes, it does, and you don’t have to.  There are shared land borders between Superior and Huron and between Huron and Erie.

@Stefano1189:

There is an airbase in Sicily and the italian player puts 2 fighters, then the german player another two.

When an american fleet lands in South Italy, can scramble only italian fighters or all fighters (included the two of German player)?

The German fighters may also be scrambled, if the German player wishes.

Is Colombia supposed to border Z89?

@gamerman01:

Colombia does not border Z89 (meeting at a point is not a border - Colorado does not border Arizona, though they meet at a point, IIRC)

As for Ontario, I see it now. I really wish the current Battlemap showed these connections.

Yep, they border for sure, and ABattlemap does need to be drawn to make borders clear (they did a good job for the most part).

Is Z85 supposed to border Argentina?

Definitely.  It’s plain on the game board.

Does Z64 border Peru? The board would say no but Func’s Battlemap says yes.

I agree - looking at the board, they don’t.  They meet at a point.

Is Z72 supposed to border Mozambique?

Absolutely.  No doubt.

Correct on all counts.

@gamerman01:

Anyway, the map is drawn the way it’s intended to be played.

unless there is a problem in the transfer of the drawing to the print and Krieg has to fix it in an errata… :roll:

@Krieghund:

@Autarch:

In Global, do you still remove a Japanese built industrial complex when liberating a Chinese territory or just knock it down to 3 if it is a 10?

It is eliminated.

If American troops land in Kiangsu (in japanese’s hands), an iphotetical 3 or 10 complex would it be removed? In simple words, when american occupies an “original” Japanese with a Chinese roundel, the territory goes to American or Chinese? I have this doubt from Pacific 1940.

Another relevant question:

• If an AC, during defense, take an hit, the 2 fighters on it (they fights in the sea battle), can they land on AC as cargo ( so they can’t fight in the next Sea battle, until the AC will be repaired), or they must land elsewhere?

• If an AC, during an attack on another SZ, take an hit, the 2 fighters which fly from the original SZ from which the AC moved, can land on the AC? From Europe manual it seems to be “No”, and the fighters must land elsewhere or they will be removed ( they crash on water).

Thanks in advance, i’m a bit confused.

@Stefano1189:

@Krieghund:

@Autarch:

In Global, do you still remove a Japanese built industrial complex when liberating a Chinese territory or just knock it down to 3 if it is a 10?

It is eliminated.

If American troops land in Kiangsu (in japanese’s hands), an iphotetical 3 or 10 complex would it be removed? In simple words, when american occupies an “original” Japanese with a Chinese roundel, the territory goes to American or Chinese? I have this doubt from Pacific 1940.

Sadly for the USA, the territory goes back to being Chinese (as it is liberated, it’s japanese “occupied” at the beginning)

@Stefano1189:

If American troops land in Kiangsu (in japanese’s hands), an iphotetical 3 or 10 complex would it be removed?

Yes.

@Stefano1189:

In simple words, when american occupies an “original” Japanese with a Chinese roundel, the territory goes to American or Chinese? I have this doubt from Pacific 1940.

Special forces is correct.  The original owner of a territory is determined by the roundel printed on it, not by who controls it at the beginning of the game.  Kiangsu is an original Chinese territory.

@Stefano1189:

If an AC, during defense, take an hit, the 2 fighters on it (they fights in the sea battle), can they land on AC as cargo ( so they can’t fight in the next Sea battle, until the AC will be repaired), or they must land elsewhere?

They must land elsewhere.

@Stefano1189:

If an AC, during an attack on another SZ, take an hit, the 2 fighters which fly from the original SZ from which the AC moved, can land on the AC? From Europe manual it seems to be “No”, and the fighters must land elsewhere or they will be removed ( they crash on water).

No.  They must land elsewhere.

Got Global two days ago! :-D
But scheduling a day where I can invite friends over to play it. A couple questions need to be answered however.

Ive asked this similar question but I will reword it - Is A@A Revised IPC’s Enough for global? Depending if everyone spends their money right away or do big powerhouse ipc power’s just deplete the bank.

2.For China the NO is totally all Burma road open for the IPCS. But for artillery purchase do you just need one territory with Burma road under Chinese control, or the whole road?

3.What do you do with the Kamikaze punchouts for Japan do you just surrender the card to the bank once you use it or what, and are they treated like units?

4.Did they change the ruling where Islands are just combined with the sea zone =1 space altogether?
Or it takes two moves to move across the sz and the island?

@Benerfe:

Is A@A Revised IPC’s Enough for global? Depending if everyone spends their money right away or do big powerhouse ipc power’s just deplete the bank.

2.For China the NO is totally all Burma road open for the IPCS. But for artillery purchase do you just need one territory with Burma road under Chinese control, or the whole road?

3.What do you do with the Kamikaze punchouts for Japan do you just surrender the card to the bank once you use it or what, and are they treated like units?

4.Did they change the ruling where Islands are just combined with the sea zone =1 space altogether?
Or it takes two moves to move across the sz and the island?

1.  Probably not, as the combined income for all powers at one time is much higher and varies with National Objectives being met, while the total combined never varied (until someone lost a capital) and was far lower.  Use a paper and pencil, you can’t lose cash that way.

2.  Entire road under allied control at beginning of China’s turn.

3.  6 kamikaze attacks total, no more (you can’t buy them like units), no less (you can’t lose them for any reason).  Each piece is worth one roll.  You can do as many or as few as you want in a turn, provided the conditions are met for using them (refer to rules)

4.  Movement rules have not changed, although you may not have understood them in previous games?  Everytime a boundary (land-land, land-sea, sea-sea) is crossed, it counts as a movement point.  To move a plane from a seazone to an island, it counts as a movement space, and when you move back to the seazone, it’s another movement space.  You are not obligated to cross the island boundary if you’re simply passing through the seazone, but you must count every time you move over a boundary.

In order to attack an island, the aircraft MUST have at least one point of movement remaining for Non Combat to make it back to the seazone and it MUST have a valid landing space (carrier in that seazone the island is in OR more movement spaces to get back to a valid landing space).  Suicidal plane moves are not allowed but you are allowed to move planes to a space under the assumption that IN THEORY a carrier could reach them to land in non combat after a highly unlikely combat cleared the way for the carrier.

If a plane takes off from an island in a seazone to attack a territory the same seazone it takes 1) crossing to the seazone, 2) crossing to the territory to attack, 3) crossing back to the seazone, and 4) landing in the original island space.

That’s how it’s always been as far as I know, which is since revised rules.

@kcdzim:

That’s how it’s always been as far as I know, which is since revised rules.

It goes all the way back to Nova.

If a Chinese territory is liberated, and had an air/naval base in it, would it be removed like an IC would?

Russia may enter Chinese territory after declaring war on the Axis Powers correct?

Do heavy bombers roll 2 dice for SB raids? if so, do you use the sum of both dice, or just the highest of the two?

@warwinner:

If a Chinese territory is liberated, and had an air/naval base in it, would it be removed like an IC would?

Russia may enter Chinese territory after declaring war on the Axis Powers correct?

Do heavy bombers roll 2 dice for SB raids? if so, do you use the sum of both dice, or just the highest of the two?

China keeps the air and naval bases, which can be used for the Flying Tigers and allied planes/ships.

Russia must declare war on JAPAN

Take the highest roll

<whew!>OK, just read through all 35 pages in anticipation of my first game tomorrow and have a couple questions. Hopefully, I didn’t miss answers to them in my scan.

1. Other than an oblique reference by gamerman01, I can’t find anything that explicitly states whether air units find ‘impassable’ terrain (eg Sahara, Pripet marshes) impassable. It seems to me they should be able to ignore the impassibility, but gamerman’s post indicates otherwise.

2. Is there a gameplay reason for splitting the UK in half? There is obviously no historical reason…otherwise, why did Axis try to close the Suez? (to stop UK from building up the Indian Army?!?) I’m just curious about this as it seems to add unnecessary complication to the game and, as one of you aptly put it a few pages ago, A&A usually errs on the side of simplicity over historical accuracy. Here we could be more historically accurate AND simpler.</whew!>

@defoliant:

<whew!>OK, just read through all 35 pages in anticipation of my first game tomorrow and have a couple questions. Hopefully, I didn’t miss answers to them in my scan.

1. Other than an oblique reference by gamerman01, I can’t find anything that explicitly states whether air units find ‘impassable’ terrain (eg Sahara, Pripet marshes) impassable. It seems to me they should be able to ignore the impassibility, but gamerman’s post indicates otherwise.

2. Is there a gameplay reason for splitting the UK in half? There is obviously no historical reason…otherwise, why did Axis try to close the Suez? (to stop UK from building up the Indian Army?!?) I’m just curious about this as it seems to add unnecessary complication to the game and, as one of you aptly put it a few pages ago, A&A usually errs on the side of simplicity over historical accuracy. Here we could be more historically accurate AND simpler.</whew!>

1. Air units can’t fly over impassible territory.
2. UK income is split so they don’t spend 45 ipcs in india or 45 ipcs in Europe. It’s historical because communication and transport was stretched. The axis wanted to close the Suez to prevent allied ships from reaching the Med.

Calvin-Thanks for the quick response. I don’t see the reason why air units can’t fly over the Sahara or the Himalayas (they certainly did!) but it’s good to have a (semi  :wink:) official answer.

As for the split, I feel you made my point. The Axis tried to close Suez to prevent UK ships from reaching the Med because they were bringing valuable supplies (ie IPCs) from India, Burma, and Borneo that the UK used to build tanks, ships, and aircraft in the European theater. I still argue this is neither historical nor simple.

You did give the answer I expected in terms of a gameplay reason for dividing resources in that this way the UK can’t spend all of its money in one theater (even though that’s exactly what it did, historically - well 90%, anyway). Having not played the game yet, I intend to follow rules exactly but it seems to me this is ripe for a houserule. The game could get much more interesting if the Allies are given more degrees of freedom in choosing between a KGF/KJF strategy. That being said, the forums seem to indicate that the game is already a bit unbalanced toward the Allies so such a change could push things too far in the Allies favor.