OK the US player should have 1 CV in the atlantic to be fair…but you see a carrier = 4-6 such units, and they really have 3.5 carriers representing ( remember the jeep carrier is a very small carrier)

For Japan: 13 carriers which makes 3 pieces (if using the 4-6 per guideline.) I remind you that a number of these carriers are escort class or seaplane carriers.

Shōkaku-class (2)
Soryu-class (2)
Ryujo
Akagi
Kaga
Taiyo
Chiyoda
Hōshō
Unyo ( which was available spring 42)
Zuiho
Shoho

that’s a good point, rockrobinoff. if there was some serious attempts at SBR’s on Italy’s already small economy, then the invasion through Italy becomes much more viable

Let’s do the numbers:

Bismarck class battleship armor: belt 145-320 mm, deck 110-120 mm
Deutschland class pocket battleship armor: belt 80 mm, deck 40 mm
Admiral Hipper class heavy cruiser armor: belt 70-80 mm, deck 20-50 mm

From this, it sure looks to me like the pocket battleship’s armor is a lot closer to the cruiser’s than the battleship’s.

LMFAO!!

…and although their displacement was that of a heavy cruiser, they were armed with guns larger than the heavy cruisers of other nations.

Yea lets do the numbers, except not compare a super dreadnought in the same navy with its own pocket battleship. Instead we compare the pocket battleship to normal warships that could be opposing it ( from England)

HMS Exeter ( Heavy cruiser)

* 3 in
   * 2½-1 in enclosing bulkheads

* 1¼ in over machinery
   * 1½ in over stearing gear

county class cruiser
Main belt:

* 4.5 in with 1 in closing bulkheads (Berwick, Cumberland, Suffolk, Kent & Cornwall only, from 1935-)

Lower deck:

* 1.25 in over machinery
   * 1.5 in over steering gear

Admiral Graf Spee:
belt:  about 3.937 inches–- compared to 3 inches for uk
deck:  1.5 inches-3.5 inches— compared to equal to double uk cruisers

King George V class BB…basically the top of the line Battleship for UK
Main belt: 14.7 in
lower belt: 5.4 in
deck: up to 5.38 in

Kongo Class battleship ( just for example)
deck: 2.3–1.5 in
belt: 8–3 in

OK based on this the German ships should be one hit, but at 4-4 and not 3-3

US starts low on troops and action, Japan has almost no effect (once had +70, but could harm moscow only a little bit, by SBR), chinese get wiped out

UK: has some good lookin ships
Germany: nice tanks, can i borrow them?
USSR: more inf!
Italy: small but fun

@LT04:

@Frontovik:

also: if your troops aren’t on the sohre, how could the battleships killed them?
a question i’m still wondering about
perhaps the battleships shoot birds, with bombs on them, the same way birds carry coconuts

They would have to be swollows.  Now are they African or Europian?

LT

I Don’t know that    waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!

actually, would be hilarious if defenders could fire back at ships who give openingsfire
‘oh no, i missed and that inf now killed our battleships!’
think it’s better now
in revised, japan landed 1 inf and killed 2 with openingsfire
and i also liek the rule : 1unit= 1 openingsfire, 2 units= 2 openingsfire

Perhaps a simple way to simulate an effective naval blockade against the UK would be for the Axis to block all direct sea routes to the UK with any naval units.  That way there is no one space that becomes all important but instead forcing the Axis to actually blockade the UK from the rest of the world.  So, if the UK can trace a sea lane from the US or its holdings in Asia or the Pacific then the Axis has failed to blockade the UK. Now as to the effect of such a blockade that is up to some speculation since who is to say what percentage of their IPC’s can be “blocked” in this fashion or are they just lost.

Perhaps you force them to seperate their income like in A&A Pacific.  In that case you could say these “blocked” IPC’s be spent only on colonial builds by IC’s built hopefully in India, Australia, South Africa, or Canada.  This could just complicate the whole thing which many ruin the fun and easy pace at which the game progresses though.

As to the original question I think that it is silly to have a nations Naval builds blocked by some naval units floating nearby.

We play with four,
hoping to add another.  We also speed up the game by going all Axis then all Allies.  We are going to add timers, to keep the game moving, we include a 6.5 hour time limit on our games, with pizza and beer, or in my case a shot of whiskey can not be with held.

I think the new turn (with J going before UK in both scenarios) order really works against a British Factory purchase.

An Aussie IC seems doable, but I don’t know, its still feels pretty shabby as an island at only 2 ipc. I mean if you have to buy a transport, that’s only one other ground unit in the first turn. Unlike India or S. Africa where you can eventually get those tanks to Russia, Australia requires you to transport everything. It seems safer in 42 than 41 probably (41 feels risky to me, unless your transporting units from India to Australia in the first round), but in 1942 you have the issue of no starting fleet in sea zone 42, which make the whole investment seem a lot less worthwhile.

If the UK was meant to have a second Factory they should have built the Colonial Garrison into the game. With all the other rules floating around, it would have been relatively simple by comparison. Its really the hefty price tag at 15 ipcs that kills it for me. If it was one extra factory for free, or all factories were only 12 ipcs, things would probably work out better.

The 2 best are either Italy or Russia

Italy because they are the smallest and don’t have to deal with a lot of logistics

The Russkies because you can follow 1 simple strategy ( go all out on the fascists) and still do fairly well

We found the ultimate gamebreaking tech when we played yesterday. My team-mate and I were in the lead with the Axis, and everything was going smooth. Germany had two bombers in Germany and UK only had two bombers and a few inf. in UK. The German player rolled the paratrooper tech  :-D

5 seconds later both bombers was shot down by AA-gun fire and we lost the combat, turning the tide of the battle and after 3-4 more rounds we lost…

after some thoughts, i kind of wished they had of done AA50 like a monopoly limited edition, as in metal pieces, wooden storage boxes, and so forth. if only there was an AA50 deluxe-ultra-mega-edition like that haha

Japan??? :-D

@Flashman:

Sorry, but the Italian roundel is TOTALLY inappropriate, as it was used only by the ALLIED Italian air force after the country switched sides in 1943.
It should be the fasces symbol beyond dispute.
However much of a git Mussolini may have been, his regime wasn’t in the same league of evil as Hitler’s and Stalin’s, so to ban the fasces and still use the hammer and sickel is just plain daft.
Or is it really all about who ended up on the winning side…

Well, the green outside/red inside roundel was used by the Italians in WWI (again, as part of the Allies/Detente). But it totally agree with you. I think if the hammer and sickle is used in the game, all historically accurate insignias should be used for what is an incredibly accurate WWII game. I know that this would hurt sales in places like Germany and Italy(due to banned party imagery), but its already pretty clear Avalon Hill doesn’t give a hoot about AA. This would not be a endorsement of the Nazi or Fascist Parties; rather it would be an honest reproduction of who was fighting in this war, and what idealogies were being  We can pretend Nazis and Fascists didn’t exist, but sadly many brave people died to stop their evil from spreading.

I am pleased to say, that today our beloved game is ranked # 2, with a 8,41 rating.

Hey, maybe “Alive chinese fighter” for the highest rank. It’s the more rare thing you can have after J1  :mrgreen:

Agreed, but about Europe, is there really absolutely no counter for the German tank stacks?

Agreed, its a guaranted win each time.

Axis, for the simple reason I like being evil.

Okay maybe not for that single reason.  Here are a few others.

1.  I love being the underdogs.  Always.  Whenever one side gets snubbed, or is at a gross advantage, that’s the side I’m going to pick.  People love lovable losers.  Me, I love lovable winners.

2.  It’s a chance to rewrite history.  We all know how fascinating alternate history theories can be.

3.  By nature I’m a proactive person.  I don’t like reacting to other people’s decisions.  Unless you’re the lead sled dog, the view from the front doesn’t change.  And I always enjoyed the view.

4.  Control Markers.  I love placing them on the board.  It’s not acceptable if the game ends and my control markers haven’t littered the world.  What can I say; I’m an expansionist.  That’s how I gauge progress.

5.  Initiative.  To me the Axis are who you should choose if you’re adventurous and believe bold strokes should determine the outcome of a war.  None of that attrition garbage, I fight wars of annihilation and total envelopment.

6.  I love seeing the Allied players whine and carry that doggy bowl expression on their face as they brace themselves for inevitable Axis tsunami.  It’s gorgeous.

7.  Did I say I like being evil?  The Axis should have won WWII and I’m out there to prove it.

8.  The Axis have the best toys.  Look at what units they start out with.  Seriously, does anyone want to be Russia in 1941?

9.  The pressure.  Having only two nations (sorry Italy), there’s so much more load to bear on the Axis’s shoulders.  Make one mistake and your side is toast.  I thrive under pressure.

10.  Hitler made me do it.

tin,

I don’t know if you can still find them, but back in the day when I was an uncouth savage still using a physical board and playing pieces, there were companies that sold plastic unit sets similar to Axis and Allies. (The color was slightly off, the models unperceptively different, just enough so they did not violate copywrite or something, maybe they were inept but had license to do it.)

Anyway, that’s how I got “half-battleship” pieces. (What you would call Cruisers today.)  Also got some destroyers this way too, though, it was hard to tell them apart from submarines, so we had to use control markers to help differentiate. (Hey, a bottle of vodka will skew anyone’s perspective of the board!)

I more than agree with templeton on the freedom to players idea. I appreciate the game offers a nice historical point of view, but it is the idea of being able to do the “what if” playing that makes it really exciting.