Dumb Question about Rule

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.

@Funcioneta:

Oh, man, it does. When you are reduced to 2-3 territories you cannot trade one and build at the safer one as any other power does. Wait, you cannot trade territories because of no figs past Japan 1 and you cannot replace as any other power. Oh, wait! Japan anyway will kill all or most China J1. OK, at least we can try escape to USSR or Burma with our last inf … oh, wait! There is some odd invisible wall that prevents us escape but japs enter merrily. OK, but at least those Nissan tanks at Manchuria cannot blitz our mountains and non-industrial areas … oh, wait …!

It was so difficult make them a normal power?  :lol:

I don’t get your fascination with China. The Chinese were a bit players during the war and they’re represented as such in A&A. I just don’t understand why you go on and on about China being underpowered, restricted, etc., etc.

We used a red marker to paint the tips of some old AA guns to denote rockets. We did it mainly to remember you have rockets. It really sucks when you forget to fire them, it happens every now and again. You could also paint them another color to denote radar.

@Gargantua:

does this destroy the Entire attacking navy? or just 1 crs 1 dst 1 trn, allowing the other 3 trn’s to escape?

As these 3 surviving transports are attacking transports they can retreat. It would be different if they were defending transports… then they would be autodestroyed (p19).

HTH :-)

These answers are correct.

I think it’s pretty clear how AA guns work from reading their unit profile in the Rulebook.  However, I agree that the defense value listed could be a bit misleading.  On the other hand, this value has been in place since Revised (we playtesters are so awful that we can actually go back in time and screw things up in the past  :roll:), and to my knowledge this is the first time that this question has ever been asked.  Maybe it would be better if the defense value value were listed as “Special”.

As for ICs, they’re defense is “NA” because they never fire under any circumstances, which is not true of AA guns.

I do see why they didn’t want to complicate the sub rules w/exceptions and what not, sub rules are tough enough. It would have been easy to add transports must be escorted with surface war ships through enemy sub infested waters or they are lost however. This would have pacified some of us.

@Krieghund:

Yes, they do.

If the UK is still in control of France at the Collect Income phase of the US.