The last time I was caught up on this thread it was 87 pages.  Now it is 183 pages and I have read every single post as of today.  My brain hurts but I feel very informed.  Thanks to everyone for asking the questions that most of us probably hadn’t thought of yet or encountered in a game, but probably will someday.

@gamerman01:

For example, from Scotland you could potentially have a French, American, and British fighter each scramble to 3 different sea zones, and you could have those same 3 fighters go up to intercept an SBR on the airbase.

I believe your “and” (which I emboldened above) should be an “or”.  The same fighters can’t participate in the fighting over the sea zones and act as interceptors against bombing raids in the same turn.

Although I lurk and rarely post, I have to comment here…

According to my wife, being female not only gives her the right to be wrong but also automatically makes any “wrong” answer correct, thereby also making any male answers wrong.

Thanks to both of you for your quick replies.  The Pacific FAQ that Krieghund linked is what was missing from my reading selection.  Now I think I have read everything (box manuals, P40 FAQ, E/G40 Rules Clarifications, Alpha 2 changes, and this FAQ thread) and somewhat have it set in my mind how it all works.  If I have missed anything that I should read, please let me know.

The tricky part is being able to selectively remove the rules from my mind that have been replaced so as not to get confused.  I still have to stop myself when I see someone mentioning scrambling fighters from an airbase on a mainland coastal territory and remember that we can do that now instead of only islands or being able to scramble for an amphib assault without needing a naval battle to justify the scramble.  And other such similar situations.

A lot of stuff here to keep in mind but I’m sure after my 20th or so game it’ll start to gel :)

Thanks again!

I have spent the past three days reading word-for-word all 87 pages of this FAQ (and accomplishing very little at work in the meantime).  I now honestly feel that I know everything there is to know about A&A G40  :wink:

I do want to congratulate Larry (even though he doesn’t visit this site), Krieghund, and all the others on creating what appears to be an excellent successor to A&A Anniv.  I have only just acquired the two boxed games over Easter weekend and had time to sit down with a partial game.  It took us a several hours to go over the rules and set up the board.  By that point we only had time to run through a few rounds before we had to chock it up to just a “learning run”.  The US and USSR never even had a chance to declare war.

Most everything that I had wondered about after that partial game was answered somewhere in this massive thread.  It has been interesting seeing the flow of changes from the first page to the last.  However, there is one area that I/we still remain somewhat foggy on:

In regards to the Japanese and Soviet non-aggression treaty, the rules state that it is left to the Japanese and Soviet players to decide how this is worked out.  Or something to that effect (I don’t have the rulebook directly in front of me atm).  What is and is not allowed in this treaty between players?  When it states the details are left to the players, what can be involved in those details?  Surely not trading of IPCs, units, or any other game resource?  We are assuming the only real details that can be involved are ones of timing.  For example, “I will not [ever] attack you if you don’t [ever] attack me” or “I will not attack you for X turns if you do not attack me for X turns.”  After that it is simply an honor-bound treaty that may be broken at any time by either side.  This treaty cannot override any game rules, correct?  Eg., Japan cannot allow Soviet troops into Japanese territories or “ignore” Soviet troops in Chinese territories as part of the treaty as this would be in violation of the game rules, right?  Is there any conceivable detail outside of the timing examples I gave initially that could be used with a Japanese-Soviet non-aggression treaty?

Thanks in advance!

I’ll second what everyone else has said as well…very impressive indeed!

I have a question as well…is this sort of work something that is available for purchase?  What I mean is does anyone sell fully painted and historically accurate sets?

Even though I mentioned a moderate sub tactic for Germany (+1 sub at most per turn) I have to side with those against a heavy naval strategy for Germany, especially a heavy naval G1 build.  Just to reiterate what others have said or alluded to, the UK has the advantage of being able to spend 100% of its funds each turn to sinking any German ship in the water.  I have never seen a German navy survive against a capable UK player.  At most you might set UK back a couple turns in getting their own navy going but at what cost?  You’ve devoted at least 50% of your spending in the Baltic and allowed Russia time to either build a defense against Japan or push into German territories which probably also cost you some valuable NO’s.  The UK starts 1941 with 43 IPCs and the Germans have 31.  Considering Germany has to split their funds between Russia and this navy while UK can spend everything to build a nice anti-Kriegsmarine RAF, who do you think is going to win that battle for the sea?

As others have mentioned, use the Luftwaffe (and I recommend a few subs) to delay a UK fleet until you can take away their IPCs in Africa and the Pacific.  Their threat decreases significantly when they only have 20 or so IPCs to spend each turn.  You can’t stop it but you might at least be able to control when and where.

I’d be willing to go out on a limb and say anyone who has successfully used a strong G1 naval build probably has not played a very competent UK player or one that is using a KJF strategy.

Thanks, UDT.  Good to be here  :-D

I had to find somewhere to use it.  The rest of my post was just filler.

Seriously, I do think subs are a good purchase for the right moment and Germany (as in history) is in an ideal location to take advantage of their “complexity”, imho.  And I agree that UK rarely finds itself in a position to use subs in any game that I have played.  The US and UK tend to play brawny with their navy in the Atlantic while the Germans are usually forced to use more…well, subtlety.  The word really does work! ;)

I have followed these boards for a little while but never posted.  However, I thought I’d just throw in my two bits here…

I’ve never really liked naval builds for Germany in previous versions of A&A and still not a fan of heavy German naval builds in AA50 but I do usually add one sub to the Baltic each turn.  It costs me one extra tank or two Inf but I think it pays for itself over time.

In AA50 I am loving subs for Germany, US (in the Pacific) and Japan (again in the Pacific).  I don’t usually bother building them with any other power.  The reason I love subs is very little can touch them if they don’t want to be touched, if you position them well.  The main reason I don’t like most German naval builds is that UK often has enough air units to take out or severely reduce the fleet you just spent 2 rounds worth of IPCs on.  However, the RAF is no good against subs as long as you keep their DDs out of the water.  It turns into a game of cat-and-mouse with the subs…moving them through the North Atlantic, Baltic, and North Sea regions but if you can stay a step ahead then UK will never get to use any naval unit they put into the water.  All for the cost of 6 IPCs per turn (and the rest goes against Russia, of course).

This has been my experience at least.  And I play US in the Pacific in a similar way.  For Japan I don’t usually have to resort to subs due to the extreme number of capital ships they start the game with.  No need for subtlety there!