Ceding controlled territories to Friendly Powers

Ahhh okay thanks guys! Just clearing the air a bit due to my last game with a KGF. We were all a little unfamiliar about how that worked with transports and such so we went along with modified rules everyone thought was fair and afterwards we’d ask this forum for clarification. Thanks again!

I don’t think it matters all that much in a 4 man, it can work either way, with certain benefits and drawbacks to each pairing. Its kind of amusing on occasion to let the Allies choose whether they want to play the British or the Americans first, and then, if they can’t decide who will take the lead, flip a coin to see who gets to be “Supreme Allied commander!” (ie. take control of Russia.)
:-D

I agree that the UK/Russia combo is probably faster, and gives the Allies a stronger edge coordinating at the Center, Karelia/India/Caucasus etc etc. but then the USA can also be rather boring to play solo. A lot of waiting, with little action in early rounds.

In Classic and Revised, it was sometimes fun to encourage an Allied split with Churchill on one side and FDR/Stalin on the other (kind of mirroring the historical situation/mistrust between the leaders of the British and the Russians). In a Face to Face game, this could sometimes compensate for the Axis starting disadvantage on those boards OOB, just due to the difficulty of coordinating as Allies. This also worked better in PBEM play, with just one turn in the email exchange for USA/Russia.

But in AA50 and 1942.2 where the advantage is to Axis, I think it might be better to just pair Russia with UK, as others have suggested if your main concern is balance by sides among players of roughly equal skill. British fighters or tanks working with Russian stacks at the center, saves on the amount of time that the Allies will spend bantering and pleading with each other. USA starts way out, and usually their coordination with the Royal Navy Atlantic, or in a KJF, is pretty straightforward once the game gets to that point.

I like the Russian bomber for a number of reasons. But if you feel that the game still tilts towards Axis too heavily, you might enjoy giving any additional bid to USA, rather than UK. A bid of 5 ipcs to USA can be fun. This prevents a naval build, and instead puts the focus in China. This can be good for Allied center control, and alleviate some of the pressure on Allies, in a way that they wouldn’t usually adopt otherwise. At 6 ipcs or more, the USA can really disrupt Germany’s best u-boat option and make an Atlantic crossing much faster for the Allies. That has merit too, if the Allies really need a leg up, but I like sticking them with a 5 spot. This allows for a single extra infantry or artillery unit in China, with a remainder of either 2 or 1 ipc left over for more variety at USA purchase. Having one extra unit in Szech actually does a lot to free up the Russians, and it gives USA more power at the center, if that 3rd ground unit in Szech can be kept alive until American fighters/bombers start arriving mid-game.

The Russian bomber alone is pretty potent though. I think it probably makes the Russians more enjoyable to play in either pairing, but especially if your players decide they want to pair USA with Russia, rather than UK with Russia.

All right, thanks!

Hi wittmann,

I can tell your a question answering beast on this forum!

I thought this was the way it should work but wanted to be sure and figured why not ask.

Thanks for the help!

Note that under these circumstances UK cannot regain control of Karelia unless an Axis power takes control of it first and then UK retakes it from the Axis while Russia is still Axis-held.  A power can never take control of a territory directly from an ally.

I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)
1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards
AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with
AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)
1942.2:  Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)
1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into
AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into
1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)
1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8
AA50: Moscow 6
1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)
1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)
AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)
1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into
AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)
1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs
AA50:  Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)
Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3
AA50: Philippines 2
1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1
1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?

That is right.
Nice story. I started in 87 at university. I own most games. There are some here who hav every game(and doubles).
Glad you are enjoying it still. 1940 next….

@WILD:

Ok then 2 subs in 1942SE going after the Americans is lame then. So spiting the subs (keeping one in sz9, and the other goes to sz8), and removing one US tpt would be one solution.

What was lame was the way the USA let Germany trash our shipping right after we entered the war. I think letting 2 German subs come over and sink 1 US DD and 2 US APs for 0-1 sub is historically about right on.

Reference: www . uboat . net / ops / drumbeat . htm
Sorry, I’m not allowed to post links.