You can always build a second on IC on queensland, which helps you take Malay.
Also, saving up for a carrier to help defend your transports helps you get the DEI and precious funding.

What mechanic could cavalry have that would make sense in the game?
Attack on 3? Nah.
Move two spaces… meh
What other design space is there for a new unit representing cavalry?

I can see room for zeppelins. Might be cool. But there big uses were strategic warfare and naval support. They were really easy to defend against for strategic bombing, and naval warfare is really one sided in AA14 because the CP just don’t care about controlling the seas enough.

I agree with both responses. Railroad movement should allow greatly extended mobility when not attacking. Troops going from one front to the other should be able to do so fast. But troops should have to actually march to the enemy, not ride on rails. Makes sense both mechanically and in terms of what the game represents.

I agree about the caution in national advantages that cement strategies too rigidly.

Germany: Help Italy get to Egypt. Punch USSR in the face hard and grab factory territories. Use planes to keep UK from landing. Keep USSR on its toes until Italy and Japan open up extra fronts against the USSR.

Italy: Keep allies out of Mediterranean. Punch through into the middle east. Build factories in the middle east. Start a front from the south of USSR. Help Japan take India, sometimes.

Japan: Grab the DEI. Keep steady progress against China. Build factories on the mainland to funnel tanks into India. Use planes to stall US and ANZAC naval advances. Use your fleet on the offense very sparingly, it’s often more useful to keep your fleet in strongly defended positions and to threaten your opponent with it rather than commit to using it.

USSR: Build a catapult to throw men at the problem. Rifles optional. But seriously, stall the German advance with infantry. Gobs of infantry. You don’t necessarily want to win, you want to live long enough for the US and UK to save you. When the Germans start having to spread themselves thin, break through into Europe.

UK: Try to loose as slowly as you can in the pacific. Hold on to Egypt but don’t break the bank doing so. Get control of the Atlantic and the channel. Keep enough of a navy to defend against air raids. Then, use your navy in the channel as a bridge from England to Normandy (or elsewhere in Europe, Holland and Norway being good targets). Keep dropping men. Make the Germans fight a two front war. Hope ANZAC and US save you in the pacific.

USA: In Europe build lots of transports to funnel men to North Africa and Europe. Make sure you can survive German sub and air attacks on your transports by defending them. Using the UK fleet and UK airbases as cover for your navy can be helpful. In the Pacific, your basic goal is to pee aircraft carriers. Spray the Pacific with carriers like a dog marking it’s territory. Obviously not only carries, but they are much more cost effective than battleships as capital ships. You want to force the Japanese to commit to a naval battle then leave their navy on the bottom of the ocean. You can afford losses to your navy in a way they can’t. If you can get the Japanese fleet in range of an island with a lot of planes, that’s even better, planes are more cost effective in combat than ships. The Philippines and DEI are important targets. Take everything of value in the south pacific. Then, start landings in southeast Asia along with islands close to Japan like Iwo Jima. Strat bomb the living daylights out of them. Make sure the Japanese are too poor to even consider rebuilding a navy.

China: Die very slowly. Keep the burma road open when practical. Avoid big battles when practical. Keep the Japanese out of the USSR by being a thorn in their side. Make sure if you group your troops together there are enough to survive a big attack. The last thing you want is to huddle too closely together if the Japanese can win an attack against that stack, since you’ve lost everything at that point.

France: Use your troops in Africa to help Egypt live. Use your scattered fleet to try to harass Italy and Japan. Sailing the ship on the east coast of Africa to India is sometimes a good idea. If ever liberated, help push into Rome and Berlin.

ANZAC: Build a factory in Queensland.  Ensure you have your objective for the islands. Then, build a navy and try to land troops in the Philippines and DEI. You can move a transport from Queensland to Malay in a single move. Take advantage of that.

Game mechanics and real life sometimes line up in ways that don’t correlate one-to-one. I see the UK moving into Brazil to activate it as representing Brazil entering the war on the side of the allies and working closely with the UK to participate in the war effort. Rather than the UK colonizing Brazil, they are sending in advisers, training Brazilian personnel, and working so closely with Brazilian formations that on the grand strategic scale Brazilian troops are represented as UK pieces.

Remember, in some variants of the game Chinese troops and territories are represented as American, as French colonies in Africa represented as British. For the smaller scale of, say, Spring 1942 this is appropriate. This doesn’t suggest China is an American colony or under direct command of America, just that their military is working  closely with the US.

I just played my first game of G42 yesterday and was extremely pleased with it. It had been awhile since I had played A&A at all due to life circumstances. I was actually rather surprised by how much more I liked it than G40, which I do love.
What is your favorite of the official games in the 1940 family, that is Europe 1940, Pacific 1940, Global 1940,  and Global 1942?
Personally, I really enjoyed G42 but have only played it once. After that, I think my favorite is Pacific 1940 because it seems to have the most variety in how the game can play out and is the least likely to boil down to predictable battle lines. Global 1940 is fun, of course, as long as you can play it over multiple sessions it can really be quite epic. I haven’t played Europe 1940 in years, I found very little about the game unique when compared to other A&A games.

What seems to be the consensus about G42? What are your thoughts on G40 vs it’s single-theater halves?

House rule that US can build but not move until at war makes sense to me

Let’s do this by a combination of what makes sense thematically and mechanically.

Aircraft Carrier: T: While some experiments existed it feels way too early to see these on the board. M: Works well, obvious mechanics taken from WWII A&As

Airship/Zeppelin: I think a reasonable choice. I can see potential mechanics. Perhaps boosts naval ships?

Armored car: T: Armored cars were definitely used a lot in that war. These weapons were very useful only in very specific circumstances - with roads. They are powerful on roads, useless outside of roads. M: More problematic.  I can’t see how to model that in game. A unit that moves 2 spaces might be nice. Kind of Mech Inf for WWI?

Armored train: T: Makes me think of the Russian Revolution more than WWI. But yeah. Same era. M: How do you represent being restricted to rails in this game?

Askari: T: The game has never used national origin to affect unit type. The closest we’ve ever seen is ANZAC being its own power, but that was a difference in power, not unit type. M: An infantry built on colonies? Do we need a different unit for that as opposed to just allowing colony builds? What could possibly make them different.

Bomber: T: A little premature. While there were bombers, they were much closer in structure and performance to contemporary fighters than in WW2. Strat bombing was in its infancy. M: I don’t see any room mechanically.

Cavalry: T: Cavalry was on its way out, really were used as dragoon more than anything else. Yet, I still like the idea. Calvary was definitely used. M: Making cavalry move 2 makes little sense. So, then, what do they do? Attacking a higher number makes no sense. Their increased mobility would be hard to model, except by moving 2 spaces, but I dislike that idea.

Destroyer: An obvious choice, pretty much AA40 rules, but I think leaving them out was deliberate. Submarines are stronger without them, and I think this was on purpose.

Elite Infantry: T: Unit experience really isn’t modeled in A&A ever. M: Infantry that attack higher? Eh, bland.

Fortress: T: Fortifications were a big part of WWI. It feels a little too operational-scale for a strategic-level game though. M: A static unit built on location with high defense perhaps? I don’t like it. Would slow down the game, I don’t see too much benefit.

General: T: NO. Strategical level game. The generals are part of your infantry units, just like machine guns and mortars. M: What would they even do?

Heavy Artillery: T: I think the full spectrum of artillery weights are represented by the units. M: What would they do? Boost two infantry?

Railgun: I think a neat idea but one that would be too hard to do mechanics for. How do you represent what makes them different from artillery on a game of this scale?

Sea Mine: T: Already covered. M: You can move your sea mines? That’s… silly. When has anyone ever mined a harbor that’s not their own? A mine layer would make more sense, but only just a little. I don’t like it.

Antiair: T: Sure, yeah, makes total sense. M: The mechanics write themselves, from AA40 or other possible mechanics. Does the game need them, though? Air power is not nearly as powerful as it is in WWII games, and I think the decision to counter aircraft with aircraft exclusively was a conscious one on Larry’s part.

Flying boat: T: Were these really a major part of WWI? I don’t think so. M: I can’t think of what these would do.

Of these, Armored cars, Cavalry, and Destroyers are the only ones I would entertain. Perhaps you’d like to flesh out your ideas more, instead of just listing equipment used in WWI. Perhaps we’ll find an interesting mechanical space to make a new unit.

So, A&A takes place in an era where the locomotive is a mature and widely-implemented technology, even in remote regions like Africa. Why can infantry only move one space? For combat movement, this makes complete sense. The troops are moving in a hostile situation in which every mile can be a struggle. But, why couldn’t the USSR move troops from Vladivostok to Leningrad in a single turn? Turns represent a lot of time, plenty of time to shift all the resources that go along with an infantry unit. Trains are fast, when its simply a matter of moving men and equipment through friendly land.

Now, A&A is a game and is not always realistic. But, being able to move troops more fluidly within friendly territory could open up the game’s strategies somewhat. I think it makes an interesting thought experiment. I’m using AA40G to think this through - but it could be applied to other versions as well. Its particularly important for the AA40 series though because of the larger map size that can mean some land units move entirely through friendly land can sometimes take 5-6 turns to get where they are going - far too long. 4 Turns to shift infantry from Normandy to Poland. 6 turns from Korea to Burma. Russia’s Eastern Front to the west… etc. This unnecessarily ties game resources up.

Suggested rule:
All powers in possession of their capital may move land or units that have not moved in combat at all and are on a land friendly space (not on a transport) to any other friendly land space, as long as a path can be traced that only involves land spaces that started the turn under your control. Air units may then make an additional non-combat move as per regular rules.

Can you guys help me think this one through?

Problems:
The game is not designed around this, which means assured problems with the setup.  Is there any potential leapfrogging abuse? Say, my ally takes over a space, and then during my turn this paves the way for me to take some abusive path.
It also means the extra price of Mech and Armor is not as worth it. They are much more flexible on the front, since they can attack two spaces away, but it does boost the effectiveness of Infantry and Artillery which decreases Armor and Mech by comparison.

How it would affect powers:
Germany: I actually think this would add a lot to the game, since Germany’s troop deployment is more liquid. You still have to keep troops on the Atlantic coast to resist allied landings, but Germany can also react to these landings effectively. This also means that getting air units to Norway is easier.

The USSR has 18 infantry on its eastern front. If they are more easily able to send things between east and west, those 18 become a bit much. This seems solvable though - reduce infantry that start there and then add some in case of Japanese attack or some such. I think the change will make their front with Germany more interesting.

Japan is able to funnel troops into SE Asia much more easily. It presents an interesting dynamic where Japan could keep lots of transports in the sea of Japan to funnel troops into Manchuria, then from Manchuria to their destination the next turn. I like this dynamic, but this rule change seems like it could break an already troubled India.  Perhaps a reduction in starting units could offset the advantage that increased mobility gives them - they benefit from it more than any other Pacific power.

UK is now able to move troops from South Africa to Egypt very easily. This makes stopping Italy very hard. Other than that, so much of the UK is overseas that they benefit very little.

Anzac can move troops to Western Australia with ease. I think this is a good thing - it means if Japan invades they don’t invade lightly.

Italy is able to help Germany out on the eastern front more easily. They also are able to shuffle troops plunging into Africa back to defend Morocco.

United States: This makes it easier to shuffle troops between the east and west coasts. A plane built in Eastern US can make it to Hawaii. Which actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t view the decreased need to commit builds to one front or another as a major problem for the game - naval builds are still committed and other builds are committed the second they leave the continental US.

France doesn’t have their capital and can’t take advantage of this. This stops them from stockpiling their African troops in Egypt.

China doesn’t have a capital, can’t ever use this.

Anything I am missing? Thoughts?

@Flashman:

I’ve suggested that the Allies are not permitted to attack or annex neutrals. When they are “liberated” by the Allies, a joint Allied marker is placed there. The tt is friendly to all Allies, but nobody collects income from it. I think its reasonable to assume that local manpower was used up when the tt was mobilized by the CP attack.
This is partly to reflect the good/bad impression of the rival alliances, as well as balance the greater material resources of the Allies (the CPs are free to annex and exploit any captured tt; I suggest dividing up the map into three “spheres of influence” delineating which CP gets to control which tt.

Well, all the A&A games so far have ignored the good/bad dichotomy of WWII.
And not matter what angle you look at it from, Reich 2 was not Reich 3.