Confirming the new AA guns

@shadowhawk

oh boo. My computer is work laptop, and I don’t have privileges to install game.

@JPatrickRemiger

Welcome!

mainah covered most of the points, and I mostly agree.

TripleA is really good. I estimated it decreased the amount of time it takes for me to play a solo game (by myself, I do that a lot) by 50-90%. Playing by the board is fun though if you have the time.

Definitely play online against real humans. mainah’s right, I learned a lot more from those than solo games. Let me know if you want to play.

AI’s not great, they’re only useful after you’ve become moderately good for quirky projects.

For IPCs, I use the National Production Chart. It’s definitely prone to errors, hence why I like TripleA (computer does it for you).

Personally I started with one theater first to get a feel for the basic mechanics (I progressed from 1941, which I played a ton of), but progressed to Global quickly (possibly one or two games too quickly). If this is your first Axis and Allies game ever, if you want to take things slowly start with one theater.

Once I started Global 1940 I’ve never looked back (only a few times to test single theater strategies).

@aequitas-et-veritas said in New to G40...will not playing w/NOs break the game?:

@taamvan said in New to G40...will not playing w/NOs break the game?:

we are omitting that shutting off US NOs means they are at minimum income all game. A different game for sure…but probably not an Allied advantage

I agree on that.
The US needs any IPC they can get!
I played a few games with minimum income for the Allies. You will unlikely win. The Allies depend on the NO’s, so does the Axis powers.
You may experiment with diffrent NO’s or change them, but shutting them off is not a good idea Imo.

We play with NOs off except USA +30 when at war. It works great for us. Give it a try.

It projects a bigger threat by still allowing a destroyer and even a carrier if you want to reach 54 in case America or Anzac puts a blocker in 46.

I find this move allows more flexibility than keeping that carrier off Carolines.  Granted, it doesn’t allow me to move 2 carriers back to 6, but I’m never going to do that anyways; I want to bring them to the money islands to protect my transports.  And provided that I commit myself to taking at least either Indonesia, Celebes, or Philippines on J2 (a no-brainer), then that carrier off New Guinea won’t be out of position.

So the major advantage, besides the one I listed at top, is that it allows you to get 2 more planes into any fight off 54 without requiring you to leave a carrier out of position.  You just have to remember that you’ll be shuffling your planes all around on to different carriers when you plan out your J2 combat.  Planes from your carrier in 36 should land in Asia, making room for the planes from the carrier off New Guinea, which hop over to make room for the planes from Carolines.

@Tall:

Gentlemen,

––I think ya’ll are doing really well as far as the Coastal Guns rules go,…Well Done

@Razor:

The only allied ships that got sunk during D-day were sunk by German destroyers, not coastal guns. Come to think about it, I guess KM Blucher was the only ship sunk by coastal guns during WWII.

**––I just thought for Historical Accuracy I’d remind you of the U.S. Marine defence of Wake where they damaged and sank ships with Coastal Guns.

Tall Paul**

One thing to keep in mind when designing house rules for coastal guns is that “coastal guns” (a.k.a. coastal artillery) is a term that can refer to two very different things.  In the broad sense, it refers to any gun situated on a coast and intended to engage targets at sea.  By that definition, coastal guns don’t have to be very powerful weapons.  The coastal guns at Guam which Tall Paul mentions were 5-inch guns, which by battleship standards are regarded as secondary armament.  The narrower definition of coastal guns refers to very heavy artillery pieces (guns that would qualify as primary armament on a battleship) that are situated on a coast, sometimes set in very elaborate fortifications and sometimes mounted on railroad-track turntables.  Actual naval guns with large calibers were often used for this purpose; one example was the Lindemann Battery, which used 16-inch guns originally earmarked for the H-class battleships.

Coastal guns, as far as I know, weren’t responsible for sinking very many ships.  Their basic problem was that they couldn’t move, that their locations were generally known to the enemy, and that the enemy would try as much as possible to bypass them in favour of easier points to attack.  Japan’s conquest of Singapore from the landward side (rather than from the sea side, which was covered by British 15-inch guns) is one example of this principle; another is the choice of Normandy for the D-Day landings, one of its advantages being that it bypassed the powerful German coastal artillery located in the Pas de Calais area, for instance at Cap Nez Gris.

New sculps from aa 1940 second edition are ugly, bad builded, look like a really bad job.

But the 16 new scupls from aa 1941 are beautiful with lots of detail.

Can anyone explain to me this huge difference between the quality of the units?

I think UK should start with a fighter or Tac Bomber in Canada.
But we seem to be well beyond that.

…iff the US(not the UK) goes all into Europe