Destroyer Rules question…

In fact for the moment we still love the AA42 2d Edition for many reasons like the interception rules that is officially this way :

Both the attacking bombers and fighter escorts, if any, fire with an attack value of 1.
For each “1” rolled, a defending interceptor is immediately removed as a casualty. The surviving defending interceptors then fire with a defense value of 2.
For each result of “2” or less, the attacker chooses a casualty and removes it.
After the air battle is complete, or if there were no defending fighter interceptors, surviving fighter escorts are considered to be
retreated. They don’t participate in the actual bombing raid, are not subject to antiaircraft fire, and will remain in the territory
until the Noncombat Move phase. Any surviving attacking bombers carry out the bombing raid as described above.

Plus we ask the defending factory to pay directly in IPCs the bombing (max twice the value of the territory) like in the old versions!

Fast & Fun!

@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.

Splitting this Colonial Outpost idea out into it’s own thread.

@P@nther:

Guys, you have been misleaded … the OP thought it was a good idea to post his Anniversary-related question here in the Global forum.

@LHoffman:

Yes, I only posted it here because rules are similar and this board gets far more traffic than the Anniversary board.

It was fully disclosed as such when I posed it. If people read it before thinking they knew the answer, that would help.

@P@nther:

@taamvan:

You have 4 choices with every ship separately and independently …

This part is correct for every WWII edition at least back to and including Anniversary Edition.

Thank you. That is all I was asking.

The rules do not state this explicitly. Considering the naval retreat rule in which the attacker retreats with naval units and they all must go back to a single sea zone from which at least one ship came… I thought it plausible that a similar ‘all or nothing’ rule may apply here.

No.  Air units can never capture territories, or land in newly captured territories.

Although I have only played a few games of AA50 a few things seem clear regardless of the scenario:

1. Chinamen vaporize faster than the humans In War of the Worlds…for a 1940 population of 455mil you have a better chance of finding a brontosaurus on the map by turn 3, possibly by turn 2 with the 41 scenario. Perhaps the spawn policy should be changed…maybe 1 for every 2 terr rounded up.

2. He/she who controls the Gaza strip rules the world…the strip between Egypt and India plays a major role in deciding the game. If this is in allied hands the russians can usually hold the Caucases… if not their position is tenuous. conversely,

3. Germans cannot live on a diet of sauerbraten alone… a little linguini and sushi help the digestion (of Russia) If the russian player is good I think it is difficult to do it with Germany alone. Just as russia need to hold out until the allies arrive Germany only needs to hold the front with/without  Italy’s help until you can get double/triple penetration on cau/rus with Japan.  Italy can either support france freeing the huns for eastward movement or shuttle thru Istanbul  Btw, I think closed Dardanelles is for pussies.

4. NOs…I don’t know. The axis NOs are more easily obtained but I certainly like the extra 5 I get in russia for no foreigners as it lets me squeeze an armor in here and there.

5. Pocket change…whenever I have a few extra scheckles I find myself buying subs particularly in a no tech game.  Its like a boxer with a good jab. keeps the Japs out of the Americans face, also good for the Med.

6. Advantage who…are the axis really favored???  I am currently plaing a gencom rules game where axis recieved a bid. Maybe this is to offset the allied VC
advantage with an 8 turn / 6 hour limit  an no NOs    I’d like to know peoples thoughts on who is favored and why

No.  Loading and/or unloading from a transport takes a land unit’s entire movement allowance.  It may not move before loading or after unloading.

Yes, this is correct.  Having no destroyers is a pretty big mistake.