Who wants Roundels like AAA Europe/Pacific 1940 ?

We play Afghanistan as a Strict Neutral. Only Russia in game can influence.
But we do have an event card if drawn the Afghanistan’s become hostile Guerillas ( Japan Influencers ) like they did in WW 2 and attacked UK/FEC/Indian ground troops.

Have 4 inf there.

This rule is part of the Axis & Allies Global 1940 2E, House Rules Expansion.

The increased IPC values in the Pacific Theatre (which reflects both strategic importance as well as oil resources - see Topic that describes the Expanded Pacific Theatre) makes this Battlefield crucial for both sides - in order to turn the tide of War to their own favor.

The Increased Ship Building rule helps both sides to perform major offensives and create multiple Naval Task Forces.

G40 Increased Ship Building.pdf

You should make one, I don’t have a 1940 copy but have friends who do and would love to have one. Still I always like to put in a Bismark no matter what time period, just to stress Britian because they have vast, if thin superiority in the Atlantic ocan.

Hey guys this is just my idea on elite infantry. Also check out my forum on a simple way to add troop quality to the game here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34219/infantry-idea. Anyways, here’s how I think elite infantry should work:

they are a separate unit they are available to all countries Attack 3, Defend 3, Cost 4 When attacking they get a preemptive and any hit they get defend at one less
What do you think?

(updated 1/05/17) Lend Lease:

The US player can build units for Russia, UK, and ANZAC.  The units that can be built are; tanks, mech, and aircraft.  There are separate Lend Lease IPC pools that are allocated by the US player during each turn.  
Procedure: While US NOT AT WAR, can spend 2 IPCs to roll 1d6 for each leasing player and add that number to the LL IPC pool for that power.  WHEN AT WAR, the US player can spend an additional 2 IPCs for another dice roll for each power and add that to their LL IPC pool.  During the lending player’s turn, they may spend these pools to build units in the US, and get them transported to a territory under their control.

1. The leasing player purchases and builds the units in either SZ10 or SZ101.  Place the unit with a LEASE marker.  
2. Movement is done by the US player.  Transport destination SZ is; UK: SZ109 or SZ119;
RU: SZ127, SZ5, or SZ80; AN: SZ62 or SZ63.  Once in the destination SZ, offloading is done by the leasing player, and cannot move any farther that turn.  Offloading is a non-combat move.
3. Movement is a 2 or 3 sea zone step process.  2 step movement to UK is done via SZ106;
to RU-SZ127 is done via SZ123 or SZ119; to RU-SZ5 is done via SZ8; to AN is done via SZ48 or SZ50.  3 step movement to SZ80 is done via SZ88 and SZ71.
4.  If there are screening defensive warships, any number of the attack dice can be pre-allocated to rolls against the lease units.  However this will incur a defensive dice roll of 1d6 with hit on 1 for each lease unit.  If there are NO screening warships, the is still a defense roll of 2d6 with hit on 4 for each.

@CWO:

I’m not sure I understand the concept of a Pearl Harbor attack involving no Japanese ships, since the whole operation revolved around the use of a Japanese carrier strike force to bring the attacking aircraft into range of Pearl Harbor.  Japanese aircraft in 1941 didn’t have the range to fly all the way to Hawaii from Japan and all the way back again.  The closest that Japan ever came to doing anything like that were one or two very small bombing raids carried out against Hawaii by (if I recall correctly) a couple of flying boats from Kwajalein Atoll.  These flying boats – Emilys, I think – were big and slow and clumsy, could hardly have done much damage, and would have had to fly unescorted since no Japanese fighters had the equivalent range.

As for the Doolittle Raid, it was carried out by B-25 Mitchell medium bombers, not by tactical bombers.  The rule section about these normally land-based planes being carrier-launched is correct (they used special training and techniques to launch from a flight deck), but the rule would have to be more precise than just saying that “The US player can launch 2 TB from 1 carrier” because it doesn’t restrict the location of the carrier and it doesn’t specify that the planes have to fly a one-way mission.  In the actual raid, Hornet had to get close enough for the planes to launch, hit their targets and continue to China.  The planes didn’t have the range to return to the carriers, and in any case could never have made a carrier landing; the techniques they used to launch from a carrier couldn’t work in reverse to land on one.

Also, the pearl harbor attack included Jaanese subs. It wasn’t a pure air attack.

Anyone given any thought to playing AA:Pacific and integrating the AA:50 ruleset?  By this I mean:

1. 1942/AA:50 unit costs and stats
2. 1942/AA:50 sub and transport rules

However the specific Pacific rules could stay in force:

1. USA Marines
2. Air Bases / Sea Ports
3. Japanese destroyers can transport 1 infantry
4. Unlimited builds in Hawaii and Japan

There is little conflict except in regards to SBR, where it would have to be decided which ruleset would be used for SBR, and if SBR would still affect the Japanese VP.

Any thoughts from you geniuses on how this would affect the Pacific game?  Better yet has anyone actually TRIED it?

I remember right after AAR came out, almost five years ago, playing a game of AAE with tanks that defend on 3. It was horrible, horrible idea. Germany just got too much out of that one. But reduced prices on fighters and carriers didn’t seem to break the game as much. Germany builds lots of fighters, but so do the UK and US. Nobody builds carriers in AAE unless something unusual has happened anyway.

At any rate for both AAE and AAP besides the reduced price on fighters and carriers to match AAR (and 24 VPs for AAP) my group plays with the rules as is. Transports are any land or one tank, tanks defend on 2, etc.
But now with AA50 there’s a lot of change. The problem with wholesale just changing the unit stats is that setups were designed for the original stats.

So I have a few questions:
Do you think fighters that cost 10 and carriers at 16 ruins or damages gameplay in either AAE or AAP? Especially considering escorts for SBRs it might be a concern.

Any consider going through and tweaking the setups for E and P to make them fair for the new unit stats? It might do good to freshen them up a bit. I think if well done it could further enhance the Pacfic especially. Convoy values, of course, are a concern.

What about tweaking setups to Europe to add Italy? Without Sub-Saharan Africa this might be pointless, but maybe the oil money alone would be enough.