Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

@nzcamel

Yes, ignore that, as this is related to the forum software change that occurred in 2018. Some characters haven’t been converted correctly.

@krieghund said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

@andrewaagamer said in Mongolia again (groan) Global 2nd Edition:

Two ways to look at this:

Reason A is dominant and supersedes and cancels any other Reason. (Which leads to your ruling) Reason A is limited to the Soviet/Japan conflict and does not override Reason B which leads to my statement.

The first way is correct, as indicated by the phrase, “In all other respects and for all other purposes”.

Ahhh, I didn’t put enough emphasis on “In all other respects and for all other purposes”. That makes more sense to me now.

The tipping point for me is if Reason A is dominant than if any other Allied Power rather than Russia, (US, UK, ANZAC or France), attacks Mongolia, Mongolia WOULD NOT turn Pro-Axis. This goes against every other instance regarding Neutrality in the rules. A standard is if a Neutral is attacked it becomes Pro to the opposing factions.

Yes, that’s true, but Mongolia is an exceptional case. Its ties to the USSR against Japan are so strong that an attack upon it by another Allied power would not change its stance to pro-Axis, and it would remain strict neutral. The same is true if an Allied power attacks another strict neutral.

Wow - that’s cool. THANKS for explaining that!!!

I think you first need to decide what the ships are for. Then you can build accordingly.

Are you planning a full scale invasion of Japan or just trying to sink ships to stop japans expansion towards australia or hawaii. Another strategy might be convoy raiding or island hopping across the pacific.

Depending on your goal you will end up with very different patterns.

In my most recent games as us i have bought almost entirely subs and destroyers and very few capital ships. The subs convoy raid while the destroyers escort my transports. I try to avoid a full scale confrontation foe as long as possible

@SouthsideCH:

@ColonelCarter:

That assumption is wrong. While Germany starts the scenario controlling those territories, they are still original Russian territories, similar to how the Chinese territories controlled by Japan at the start of the games are still original Chinese territories, preventing Japan from building major ICs on anything but Korea.

Then why in the set up instructions does it say put a German control marker on the territory, as well as units? Just a unit on it should be enough. Every time you take an enemy territory do you put a control marker on it? I don’t.

You can play however you want of course. But the rulebook clearly states:

@rulebook:

If you have captured the territory, place your control
marker on the territory and adjust the national production
levels.

While the emblem printed on the map indicates the original controller of the territory
the control marker indicates the the actual controller of the territory - as ColoneCarter pointed out.

There are some rules where the distinction between original and actual controller is of importance.
The 3 IPC bonus for Russia is only one example. The territories you mentioned can never become
“original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls”.
When the scenario begins Germany has already captured some original Russian territories.
If Russia takes them back, they will be original Russian territories under Russian control.

So better avoid confusion.
HTH :-)

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

@CWO:

@knp7765:

Yes, the Pacific 1940 2nd Edition uses the thick, heavy duty cardboard like Europe 1940. Not that thin stuff like in Pacific 1940 1st edition.

And as I recall, the roundels in the 2nd edition of Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940 are both printed on thick, black-backed cardboard.  In the 1st edition, I think one of the games had white-backed roundels.

You’re right Marc.

You should give A2 a try and then A3 and then make a personal choice as to which you prefer, which version is more balanced for your playstyle.

For instance if you like to take risks than A3 is better because it rewards sloppy play more than A2(unstoppable sealion/IndiaCrush)

But it does cost you the 10 IPC NO, so until your planning to go to war with the US consider the IPC value of FIC to be -8