Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)

Instead of escort @1 and interceptors @2 is now in BM escorts @2 and interceptors @2 ?
Then I agree with that. Promotes more bombing

@barnee Thank you!

I took a look at the opening post. Although I do not agree with all points, it sounds quite solid in general and can function as some good common sense and/or as rule of thumbs for less experienced players.

@Sgt-Mclusky Unlike previous renditions of A+A I find that AA40 has so many options and paths to victory that were still playing it and seeing new strategies in my group. Granted I was late to the party with this version so I don’t have years of experience, but we do play an awful lot, and almost never see the same game twice.

Years ago chess was the G40 of it’s day. A beginners guide to analysis. Much as G40 lends itself.    It could be used by any military instructor of any nation.  And on a side note these United States are the freest states in the world for the individual. You can’t beat it anywhere.  This nation of United States is the “shake-n-bake” of nation building. If all nations followed the rule book we follow, might find that militaries are no longer needed but be prepared for possible interplanetary encounters.  So G40 will still be useful in planting seeds or new conscripts.

when UK needs USA to stave off Europe disaster or 2) once China and Aussie and UK-India are able to contain what’s left of Japan

zhukov sums up the KJF strat scenarios.

@Gargantua:

I was in a group game, where we were winning, and my “allied” UK partner, got wiped from the game, after the germans rolled a last ditch fluke shot on Paratroopers, and took the London Capital.

It was all downhill from there, as no one was in range of taking it back immediately (Blocked)  and he was able to build off of U.K.

But would you say that this actually enhanced the gaming experience?

This is exactly the reason I don’t like the R&D rules, it is a bit too much based on luck and once earned changes the entire (delicate) balance of the game.

I hear this from the previous posts, though I would be very interested in how and why R&D deserves a place in the game based on long-term strategies…

(I can remember from the original setup it made strategic sence to invest in developments, but the game back then was less complicated and less delicately balanced)

Your understanding is correct, MarkVIIIMarc.  However, in scenario 2 the UK player has no casualty options that won’t result in stranding the fighter.  Since sub hits must be taken on sea units, the only casualty options are the one you chose or taking both hits on the carrier, dooming both fighters.  At any rate, taking the hit on the carrier and stranding the fighter is always an option.