@LewisClark

Ah, okay. It misinterpreted it on my end. I thought you had another question. I didn’t realize that you were mentioning that it was already answered. Sorry about that.

@taamvan said in Is Australia an island?:

@Azpathfinder

Its an island in real life…

AxA defines it differently

It would cheese up some Global games, but except for cheese there isn’t a reason you HAVE to forbid this play, Phillipines seems like a good place for a factory

Its actually a continent so not an island. Else you could say that basically everything is an island. Just that some islands are shared between multiple nations.

@Gerry said in Strategic bombing and escorts. How does a raid work?:

@mainah Thx. But then these fighters cannot be deployed to another battle. The price difference seems small to me (10 vs 12 ipc). It seems more useful to use multiple bombers (as long as the possible interceptors are the same amount or less then the number of bombers). At what point should you refrain from strategic bombing with regard to number of interceptors? Interceptors are only fighters or also tactical bombers?

Same goes for the bombers as well. Doing strategic bombing removes them from other targets.
A strat bomber run only has an expected outcome of 3.5ipcs. In most battles it can make a much bigger impact.

@barnee said in Chinese fighter and burma:

@Panther

Just to make sure I have it right. China can land it’s Ftr in Burma and JPN can’t attack it unless they are at War with UK.

Correct. China’s fighter can land in (friendly) Burma due to the “China Rules”, and Japan can’t attack Burma, then, due to the “Powers Not at War with One Another” - rules, as long as Japan is not at war with UK.

@shadowhawk

Agreed.

@shadowhawk but then you would need to utilize more aircraft which you couldn’t use against the British navy and you would be more likely to lose more higher valuable units (mechs suck to lose more than infantry for example)

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Scamble and amfib attack:

@shadowhawk

I believe so.

@Krieghund @Panther

calling in the big guns :)

@squirecam
Its not if you win or lose a fight but how you win or lose a fight.
If germany does its normal france attack and wins with 1 tank left they got diced pretty badly.
But since they still won you dont consider it being diced?

But with dice the problem is that on average you get the right results but if you get an outlier on the wrong point in the game you will lose the game because of that. And there is nothing you can do about it.
Germany attacking moscow with 90% odds and losing, sure russia might have had bad luck before or you might have gotten lucky somewhere else but that 1 battle makes or breaks the game.

I dont like Low Luck because its basically deterministic to the point where you know the outcome of battles. Its 2 much like playing chess. But i dont like the idea of extreme dice as well. Ideally you want to cap the outcome of a attack/defence roll to like 30-50% of the bell curve of most odds. But doing that would require some app to calculate.

@shadowhawk

Hello. You can purchase a tiff file (not pdf) of the Bloodbath 1940 Global map from Siredblood. Check his map and contact him at the links below and good luck:

https://www.siredblood.com/community/index.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mabYTEqvzKc&ab_channel=siredblood

@Colonel-Mustard

Wanna play a game with me to try it again?

@surfer

Yeah, you’re right.

@Lousy-Lions

Please elaborate.

@MM1940

Well done!

@JPatrickRemiger

Welcome!

mainah covered most of the points, and I mostly agree.

TripleA is really good. I estimated it decreased the amount of time it takes for me to play a solo game (by myself, I do that a lot) by 50-90%. Playing by the board is fun though if you have the time.

Definitely play online against real humans. mainah’s right, I learned a lot more from those than solo games. Let me know if you want to play.

AI’s not great, they’re only useful after you’ve become moderately good for quirky projects.

For IPCs, I use the National Production Chart. It’s definitely prone to errors, hence why I like TripleA (computer does it for you).

Personally I started with one theater first to get a feel for the basic mechanics (I progressed from 1941, which I played a ton of), but progressed to Global quickly (possibly one or two games too quickly). If this is your first Axis and Allies game ever, if you want to take things slowly start with one theater.

Once I started Global 1940 I’ve never looked back (only a few times to test single theater strategies).

@AndrewAAGamer

Thank you for clarifying.

@barnee thanks let me check that out

If there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that for allies there are no half measures…

At least playing against equal or stronger opponents

In any case, Japan must be crushed (above all) as well as Italy.

If you aim for a KGF and let Japan rage in the Pacific there is always the risk that with a coup they will be able to take the 6 VC and the game is over… even if the Allies are close to taking Rome or Berlin

Of course if you only tighten up on the Pacific perhaps also using the Russians (right @MrRoboto? :))… you have to be very organized in Europe to avoid Hitler arriving in Cairo (or London)…

Very expert players are able to do this of course… but in my opinion there is always a percentage of risk that the game predicts (like all clashes on A&A) but which you can try to avoid.

And above all the Allies should fight in a more aggressive way (which I have not yet learned to do) but not recklessly… aggressive in the sense of making the Axis risk more than necessary in certain battles (land and naval) because otherwise the the outcome is almost always for the Central Powers of the board.

@AndrewAAGamer

Huh. I always thought the opposite. Thanks for letting me know.

A lot of Axis players do this, but I see it as a good development if I’m allies. Any left over French units could be annoying in the early rounds. You have to be sure you can counter France if they take it and get the bonus infantry.

Axis won’t get the +2. Just holding Normandy for 3 turns is 2 more infantry. Axis will need a larger force in France than otherwise to prevent Allies from getting a foothold because USA will be able land their planes in Normandy right off the bat. If you don’t contest the allied landing in Normandy, Allies will be able to trade for Southern France.

A combined Italian-German stack in Normandy is strategically preferable to a stack in France, provided you have the manpower.

If USA could concentrate all its resources on the Atlantic front it would be a different story. But dual victory conditions means that if USA invests enough to make Germany pay for taking Normandy, then they likely didn’t invest enough in the Pacific to stop Japan.

Bear in mind, the land units on the transport only act on their Turn.