I find it funny that so many people claim imbalance on the Allies side when I’ve seen just as many people talking about dominating as the CP’s. I know anecdotes don’t necessarily imply data, but c’mon. I’ve personally won twice as the Central Powers.

I think one of the problems with people’s perception is that (pre-tournament rules, I have yet to try them out) the game is slow and goes for so long that eventually one side just gives up, and this doesn’t give an accurate representation of whether the game is balanced or not.

Thank you for the help!

Yes but you know even they have ready a transport or 2 what they can do if you gonna leave on your territories 2/3 pieces of your troops boarding with capital.Navy strategy (with medium opponent) in this game is really difficult one.I tried with German and Austrian navy but no proper results.I think is just worth it when you want to make your opponent scared and reduce his spendings on land units.

Remember that also, for this reason, planes cannot participate in naval battles.

Treating USW as a strategic bombing attack? Simply rolling 1d6 per sub? That’s a pretty good idea, actually. I’d allow it over much of the north atlantic. The only limit to damage is that British always gets the IPC’s from the british isles, and the US always gets at least 10? IPC’s. And you couldn’t do it in a sea zone with hostile surface warships. It probably should be that way in Europe 1940 as well.

Also, perhaps the US enters the war after losing 15 IPC’s? And only cruisers can attack subs.

And yah, the ‘old’ Europe had the best treatment of convoys.

Thanks for sharing.  I’m always interested in new ways to improve this game while keeping it simple enough for a first or second time player to understand.  The CP’s are certainly in need of help.  But that help must not come at the expense of game play balance or time.  Most of my friends and family that I convince to play with me get “worn out” after a few hours.  We have waited so long for a A&A WWI game and now we finally have one, we just need to tweak it a little more to make it work the best.

Since the PTR the Centrals have won about 50% of our games, and we also have an impassable Switzerland. We don’t have the Italy rule however.

My strategy as Centrals is going after Italy from the start with as much as possible. But considering you dont do that, I have to tell you about my friends strats.

One of my friends buys quite a lot of ships. There are certain advantages, but I wouldnt do it too much. I tend to buy a sub with GE and AH every turn. That way every ally has to consider those subs. They are never really free to move whatever whereever without expensive escorts. And sometimes you can attack a small groups of ships which messes their plans of follow-ups, etc.

Another thing I do is keeping forces occupied by sending their unit count plus one to it. Just so you are sure that those, for example, four units in a Russian province are pinned down and the territory contested. This I do with just inf, which makes it quite expensive, as they don’t do much harm themselves, but this way you cut their supply lines and get one step closer to an economic collapse.

link for vote, do it today:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32108.0

Yeah, like I said, it was an unusual move and Italy didn’t get the help from the Allies that it should have.

As for moving your units to and from contested territories, I believe you can move them by transport as well. It doesn’t specifically state in the rule book, but it does say that you can move your troops from one contested territory to another contested territory IF you already have troops in the 2nd contested territory via land.
It also says you can move troops from a contested territory onto one of your transports.
So, you would basically just be putting those two statements together.

This map (in larger size than first edition !!) would be my favourite map for second Edition. (of course it would be in english  :wink:

All changes:

2 more tts for Russia: St.Petersburg and Kaukasus ( Starting Set Up for both were the additional 3 Inf from the Tournement Rules)

1 more tt for Turkey: Armenia (Prevents Russian Units from taking Bagdad in Round 1)

Germany looking like Germany in 1914 not in 1919. Bulgaria reaches the coast/Finland no more.

Switzerland with its formidable army and difficult mountaineous region worth 3 IPC.

4 more USW-Zones (historical)

Mexico as Minor Power to simulate the Zimmermann-Note, some Zones for the US.

Konstantinopel is handled like Suez Canal along with one more SZ in the Med.

In Africa some colonies allow to place 1 Inf. when mobilzing your troops (brown K). (Mexico also)

I kept the rest from original game although there were some things I still don´t agree with (you can check out some of my maps in the 1914 map tweaks in the House Rules)  but for the simplicity of the game I can live with it.

My wish would be that it is forbidden for AH in the first turn to attack Italy or Romania because these two were Central Powers when AH declared war against Serbia in 1914.

1914Alpha9 (1) (1) (3).png

@Jocher:

@Frontovik:

@Jocher:

Don’t consider an invasion of the British Isles…not going to work.��  Too many territories in the home island that the Brits can keep building upon in no time.��  Plus you have mines to face.��  The strategy doesn’t work.��  My advice, having played Germany a bunch now, is to destroy the Russian battleship and use YOUR waters as opposed to Britain’s waters.��  You can’t keep ferrying over troops to the western front with transports.��  you’ll keep facing mine dice.��  Better off using your navy (protected by 2 TT’s of mines) to ferry troops to the Russian front to make the Russies go down easier.�� 
Also, destroying the British home fleet isn’t such a bad thing.��  You’re right, it sort of leverages the Brits to building up India, becoming a pain for the Ottomans.��  However, as I discussed in my post at the top of the forums, the Ottomans are more than a match for a 100% British blitz in the middle east.��  Just keep retreating slowly, all the while piling up your forces.��  Better to have one huge clash 7 rounds in to the game, rather than have 7 smaller skirmishes that the Ottomans can’t keep up with.��  Fight in Constantinople…you will have accomplished taking the Brits out of the game almost completely, as they’re spending too much time chasing the Ottomans and not enough time where it matters…Europe and the Eastern front.

sounds like hitler luring the russians to berlin before beating them back to moscow and so winning world war 2…

not gonna happen; you can have your clash even later; but by round 9-10 constantinopel is in allied hands (unless the brits force that army up to sebastopol, which can be done if russia retreats from moscow to prevent RR)

Luring the Russians to Berlin?  This is a game bud.  Not real life.  So yes, the Germans could do what you are suggesting above and be successful sometimes and not successful other times, because we are playing a game.  Don’t confuse the two.  It’s silly that you are comparing a strategy in Axis and Allies to real history.

And yes, it is going to happen…I’ve already done it.  I might try another 10x only to fail 9x (or succeed), but the fact remains it is a viable strategy.  The money the Ottomans earn for their territories does not warrant a ‘stand your ground’…all that means is losing a lot of smaller skirmishes and having the territory taken from you anyhow.  I am not suggesting an immediate retreat.  I am suggesting that 4-5 turns in, when the Brits amass a large enough force to start taking Ottoman territory, that be the point where I suggest the Ottomans pull back some.  A Brit strategy to go all out in India means a good chance at conquering the Ottomans.  My suggestion is to pull back if the attacks are overwhelming and make your stand with a very large piled up Ottoman army in a territory closer to Constantinople.  Hopefully by then, Germany and Austria would have expanded because they haven’t had to fight the brits in Europe…only the weakened Russia ns and and the mighty French.  Austrians could, of course help the Ottomans if possible with reinforcements.

ok, now i understand; thanks. i use same strategy. but i’d add a tank to the force, for the small skirmishes that can’t be counterattacked. i think it saves a lot in a longer game. but face it, the ottomans will be overwhelmed and then the brits will start coming in the balkans.

and fun fact; india is as far away from vienna as berlin is from paris :p

Thanks again

@Jocher:

1 - Tanks.  Can someone explain tanks to us in detail?  They attack at 2, defend at 1?  They soak up hits?  How?  We didn’t understand tanks at all and haven’t used them yet due to this fact.  Please help if you can.

Tanks attack at 2 (3 when supported by artillery) and defend at 1.  When attacking (not defending), each tank cancels one hit scored by the defender.  However, tanks may not cancel hits scored by pre-emptive artillery strikes while performing an amphibious assault.

@Jocher:

2 - Army Movement.  Example -  I am playing as Germany, and I have let’s say 30Inf/20Art and I move them in to hostile French Territory which houses 30Inf/20Art themselves.  We duke it out for that round (Germany attacks, France defends) and the territory becomes contested.  After the initial attack, both Germany and France go down to, let’s say, 20Inf/10Art each.  Now it’s France’s turn.  #1 - Does France have the choice to NOT defend, and instead retreat all their armies and give the territory to Germany?

France has the option to not attack.  A power is never the defender on its own turn.

It may reinforce the territory with more units, or withdraw some or all of its units.  Any units in the territory may then attack, or they may do nothing.

@Jocher:

Now let’s say France decides to fight.  After France defends, the armies are both split evenly at 10Inf/5Art.  Territory is still contested.  Next turn is Germany’s.  #2 - As Germany, can I move my 10Inf/5Art closer to Paris?  Or must my army stay in the territory until no more hostile units are in it?

When units move out of a contested territory, they must move into a territory that either was controlled by their power or contained units beloning to their power at the beginning of the turn.  Germany may move its units closer to Paris only if those conditions are met.

@Jocher:

4 - If I am Germany and just took Rome, the next round am I allowed to muster units in Rome, or do the Allies/CP ONLY muster units in their capital and NOT in captured capitals?

You may only mobilize land and air units in your own capital (or in India if you’re the British Empire).  You may only mobilize sea units in sea zones that have a naval base located in a territory that you originally controlled (has only your power’s emblem) and was not under enemy control at the beginning of your turn.

These are estimates…
USA - 23
France - around 40.  France had taken Portugal and a bunch of territories in Africa.
u.k. - around 38 or so, from all the ottoman territories it took.
Italy - weak.  Around 6 or 8.
Austria - no territories gained and none lost, so around 25?
Germany - powerhouse…around 60 from all the Russian territory, and now Italian territory and very close to Rome.
ottoman empire - around 6 a round.

Causing the Russian revolution without many casualties on the CP side always outnumbers the IPC gained. For example you can send the remaining Austrian army to India to support the Ottomans. In general it is better to lose German armies than your Austrian or Ottoman army

I don’t agree with the two space rule change for land units. Land units in World War 1 were not mobile and if you are looking for a game with full mobility the original axis & allies WOII games are a much better choice.

However I do see the potential of limiting the capacity of producing units in India to 5. Playing UK is much harder as you have to keep producing units in India to keep the Ottomans away and also have to build a navy in the west to threat the Germans. The UK simply lacks the IPC to help the Russians in this scenario since a decisive victory against either the Ottomans in the East or against the German navy in the west is very hard to accomplish. In the two games we have played with this rule Russia Revolution has occurred.

You tell em P-Unit.

@KimRYoung:

even if 50+ brits are coming through sebastopol? and by then the french are also making a lot of IPC, from spain and such.

50+ Brits?? Never seen that many units on the board ever in the Mid-east. Not saying in your games that didn’t happen (unless your just talking theorectical), but if the UK sends NOTHING into France early on, then Germany and Austria can usually push on to Paris and if not capture it, severly weaken the Allies while increasing their IPC count enough to fight on two fronts.

We have found that the once the Turks and Austrians secure the Balkans, the Turks can either press into Egypt and or towards India. Britain can’t get enough troops into Egypt quick enough do to lack of transports in the Indian ocean and the Turks can push into Africa gaining vital IPC’s if things go well. Enough to pin down UK troops in India.

Don’t get me wrong, the CP has a tough road to victory in this game, but if the IPC count goes their way early on and Russia can be knocked out (revolution or capture) then the UK MUST send resources to France to assist (along with the US) or the French will get overwhelmed.

Have you tried the Tournament rules?

Kim

and IPC balance in france, even with entire western front taken that’s still like 8 IPC. important yes, but not life threatening. and it’s probably round 4 at least till you reach that.

@Tavenier:

With the OOB the centrals never won one game. With the tournament rules it is about 50/50. And the only house rule we use is impassable Switzerland.Â

Played a lot with the Tournament Rules and no one even bothered to go there as you can get around it with the 2-moves quite easy. Its not worth slowing down the offensive with the CP. Just an observation from my group.

FYI, we have had the CP get wins with OOB rules, but its a grind and that was WITHOUT using the RR rules too! 2-move rule makes for a more dynamic game.

Kim

That might make sense.  Either that, or have contesting the capital as a precondition to checking for them.  However, in all three cases, the situation was caused by sneaky moves of troops to places just big enough to cause them to be contested, which is why I suggested giving the country the entirety of its turn to try to correct the situation (like in WWII games of A&A when a capital is captured).  As it was, we sent armies on suicide missions right before the turn of the country in question just to trigger the collapse, even though the moves would otherwise NEVER have been made (like sacrificing a considerable army just to have 1-2 units survive, thereby contesting a territory).