Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

The Representational Scale on one Turn in Axis and Allies

House Rules

1.4k

S

spartan solider
last edited by

Hey does anyone know what the “Representational Scale” of one turn sequence in axis and allies is? :?
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
I

Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10
last edited by

4-6 months
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
S

spartan solider
last edited by

cool, thanks :-D
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
I

Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10
last edited by

I prefer the 6 month figure for all the global games.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
C

calvinhobbesliker
last edited by

@Imperious:

I prefer the 6 month figure for all the global games.

So it would take 1 year for ships off California to reach Japan?
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
I

Imperious Leader '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10
last edited by

So it would take 1 year for ships off California to reach Japan?

IN AA yes.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0

Featured Topics

League rules idea: mulligans for patrons

Guadalcanal Tournament at Strategicon (Los Angeles) Feb. 17, 2024

T-shirts, Hats, and More

global 1940

181

anniversary

1914

1942 2nd ed

tips&tricks

bm3

video

axis & allies

Suggested Topics

T

Axis & Allies Victories & Defeats

House Rules
• • • The Captain

33

5
Votes

33
Posts

3.2k
Views

T

Update 19th October 2025: Total number of recorded Axis & Allies games in 2025 played by The Captain: 30

2025: Axis & Allies Global 1940:
0 Defeats (Allies) 0 Defeats (Axis) 10 Victories (Allies) 20 Victories (Axis)
M

Axis American Cold War Final Copy

House Rules
• • • MonsieurMurdoch

48

3
Votes

48
Posts

3.1k
Views

M

Pro-Allied, Pro-FIL, and Strict Neutral powers have been added in to the posted setup.
A

[1942.2] Increase Allied territory values instead of bid?

House Rules
• • • Argothair

16

0
Votes

16
Posts

1.4k
Views

B

@Ichabod:

@Argothair:

Ichabod, your idea of boosting capital territories’ income is interesting and worth considering as an alternate way to balance the game, although if we only boost capital territory income, then the Axis will have no incentive to fight over peripheral territories, which will become even more irrelevant to the war. As I’ve mentioned on other threads, it bothers me that Australia, South Africa, the Urals, and Archangel wind up being so irrelevant to the game, even though in reality they were a major component of the Allies’ industrial and logistical capacity.

I agree with you that we should not be boosting any territories that would wind up just being a gift to the Axis, because the Axis have plenty of advantages already, but I think it is actually very hard for the Axis to stack Archangel in the early game – it’s three territories away from Berlin and its adjacent to Moscow, so if the Russians can’t at least trade Archangel (to share the extra income), then you’ve probably reached the endgame.

I assure you, that as the Axis I will be trying to take as many territories as possible to boost my income even if the value is still the original 1 or 2 IPCs. I’ve played 42.2 only a few times. I grew up on Classic/Revised and it’s basically just an updated version. The 2x I played 42.2 however were enough to demonstrate to me how ridiculously unbalanced it is, way worse than G40 (which is my go to game).

Start small, make the capital territories an increased value of 5 IPCs and see if it doesn’t unbalance the game.

I’m telling you if you make irrelevant territories like Archangel or South Africa, or Australia worth more, the Axis will just capture those places, and poof, there goes your game balance and it’s even more lopsided. Archangel was captured on round 2 or 3 of the 2 games I played. It’s easy for Germany to push Russia back in 42.2; heck a caveman could do it.

Axis can grab lands such as South Africa or Australia but I don’t think it might be optimal for Axis.
Such are out of position and, if Germany waste money in Africa, this is less units against Russia.
Same for Japan wasting resources against US instead of crushing India, then going Caucasus or Moscow.

I do agree about Archangel and Karelia, it is on the north way toward Moscow.
P

Minor Axis Powers

House Rules
• • • Pvt.Ryan

1

0
Votes

1
Posts

880
Views

P

So I’ve been reading on Wikipedia about the Minor nations involved in WW2. I mean we all know that just about every nation in the world sided with the Allies by the end of the war so I don’t really like reading about them. However I find the Axis cooperators facsinating.

So from reading about them I decided to add them to the game as a house rule. They include Finnland and the Minor Axis (Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria) for Germany and Manchukuo (yes it was a puppet state but it did have it’s own military) and Siam for Japan. Now these provide a boost to the Axis so only use them if they need a handicap or if you find a way to add some bonuses to the Allies.

I won’t post the rules yet because I’m not finished with them but give me your opinion. Also this will not effect the Major Axis income or troops placement. Also each nation will have two NOs and two NAs. Plus I will make rules for the Dutch Forces too and MAYBE the Communist Chinese for the Allies.

If you want to help with the project I am going to need some help. Go to my topic titled Minor Nations.
M

Minor Axis & Allied Powers meets AAG40 Map (1941)

House Rules
• • • Monroe

14

0
Votes

14
Posts

3.3k
Views

M

The Factories (As well as some of the Mnor Axis Units) came from “The War Game” (which is a great game).
A

Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 3

House Rules
• • • aethervox

9

0
Votes

9
Posts

1.8k
Views

F

The new map is an uneasy compromise, with some tts values reflecting oil wealth, others not.

Personally I prefer adding industrial base and mineral resources together to create a single economic index, but the separate oil values have been tried:

http://www.basesproduced.com/aaa.html

The big problem is that the Allies always have more than enough oil, the Axis hardly ever enough. Forcing the Axis to take oil centres to keep going makes their moves very predictable.
W

2 Turn Ship Construction

House Rules
• • • wodan46

28

0
Votes

28
Posts

4.1k
Views

M

For comparing out abilities, putting 600 subs vs 120 BB or 200 Cruisers vs the BB or whatever may help to show the statistical differences, but you’ll never have 600 subs or 40 BB in a real game. Usually you will have them in a combined fleet of ships or you would prefer them to be. They are often alone though.

I was thinking of the beginning setup of AAE. In the Gibraltar Strait you have a Destroyer, which for all intents and purposes has the stats of a Cruiser in AA50. To take that I have often see merely a fighter and a sub take it on, and the sub being sacrificed. Or the Italian fleet comes over and lands on Gibraltar at the same time, having the BB absorb any possible hits.
But at the outset of AAR, there is a BB in that strait and often a larger force is brought to bear, that because 2 hits are needed so the goal is to get them on the 1st round rather than give the BB 2 shots.

So there is a larger difference in the mental impact of a BB vs other ships. There is a thread in the AA50 section about how a Cruiser/Destroyer combo is always more useful and versatile than a BB for the same cost.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13648.0
Not advocating for/against on that, just pointing out the discussion at this point. But in that you are talking ship combos, not all BB vs anything else. For BB you get some additional mental agony for the opponent while you get some additional financial agony.
V

New Allies

House Rules
• • • Vasili Zaitsev

6

0
Votes

6
Posts

1.9k
Views

L

Another way to make it more fair. Give Japan all of the Western hemisphere US territories.

The way you have it set up is:

Ger + UK + 50 % of US.

vs the original setup of GER + Jpn.

In my estimation, Ger + (any other country) makes it an interesting and usually fair game. Adding any more to that will unbalance the economics and/or require a military offset. You may want to also shift the order of nations in the round to prevent the taking of capitals at the game outset.

38

Online

17.8k

Users

40.5k

Topics

1.8m

Posts