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 most dollars of units I have ever seen in ANZAC

Axis & Allies Global 1940

1.3k

M

MarkVIIIMarc
last edited by

That is three American Bombers and Three Tactical Bombers in New Zealand.

Whole thing turned into some strange standoff.

After Japan landed Australia moved their carrier to NZ and left my Indian planes open to amphibious assault. Interesting way to give Japan other targets besides their Sydney.

Of all things Japan backed out and took Celebes while America went to Hawaii to meet up with new naval units and threaten Japan.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
B

Bodeacious
last edited by

Nice.
1 Reply Last reply
Reply Quote 0
M

marechallannes '10
last edited by

Impresive!

Which turn?

Next turn was a japanese one?
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

179

anniversary

1914

1942 2nd ed

tips&tricks

bm3

video

axis & allies

Suggested Topics

J

Can scrambled air units fight in the land half of an amphibious assault?

Axis & Allies Global 1940
• • • jasonondesign

13

0
Votes

13
Posts

1.6k
Views

C

The confusion seems to be in you’re holding back naval ships for naval bombardment. The advantage about scrambling planes is that it forces the attacker to commit all their naval ships regardless if they want to or not. That’s why it is sometimes wise to scramble in a losing battle if the enemy is relying on bombardment for victory. The easiest situation would be when Japan invades the Philippine islands. If Japan was so aggressive that all they brought was two infantry with two cruisers as example. I would scramble the fighter in that situation because while I will lose the sea battle, if you choose to invade the island after the battle, you’re doing it without naval support which gives my defending infantry a better chance at winning.
C

What is your least-purchased unit?

Axis & Allies Global 1940
• • • Charles de Gaulle

29

0
Votes

29
Posts

2.7k
Views

M

@Karl7:

In some 300+ G40 games, I’ve never bought a battleship unless the game was already won I could do whatever I wanted.

I can’t remember the last time I bought a battleship in a game. If I am going to spend 20 IPCs on fleet, I consistently purchase a destroyer and a cruiser – this hits on average more often than a battleship, has the possibility of generating two hits on both attack and defense, and might increase the number of units required to successfully attack my fleet (the math on this one is a bit fuzzy since there are so many variables involved in fleet attacks), and gives me an extra unit that I can detach for a separate mission if necessary.

On the other hand, I have purchased AA guns occasionally, when I expect the number of planes attacking to exceed the number of AA shots I currently have available and/or when I need to empty the treasury because I know the capital is going to fall. Other than that, AA guns would be my second least purchased unit.

Tactical bombers are also rare purchases for me, but I do purchase them occasionally (more often than AA guns).

Marsh
B

Placing China units

Axis & Allies Global 1940
• • • Bravehart

8

0
Votes

8
Posts

1.3k
Views

K

@Maddog77:

I actually put Japan markers (roundels) on the Chinese territories that Japan starts the game with. That way if those territories are liberated, we can remove the Japan marker and see the Chinese logo which indicates it is owned by China. Makes for an easy quick visual when counting IPC tally.

I do the same thing. I just think it is easier marking the enemy controlled territories. In this case, Japan just captured these territories before the game starts.
B

ANZACS in European theater

Axis & Allies Global 1940
• • • Base02ball

12

0
Votes

12
Posts

2.6k
Views

O

@pokemaniac:

The big issue is ANZAC effectively producing at Persia. In any game ANZAC is extremely vital in wearing down Japan. The US can can-open destroyers screens and allow ANZAC to get through to take islands or attack small Japanese navies, and ANZAC ships and air are also crucial to the defense of the US fleet. Even if the US goes 100% Pacific, if it gets virtually 0 support from ANZAC (which will be the case if ANZAC is building in Persia) it will be hard pressed to advance on Japan.

Even ignoring the value of ANZAC’s units against Japan, the biggest problem is that ANZAC just can’t build well at Persia. If ANZAC is going for a Persia factory, they are going to be making 12 IPCs a turn after Japan declares war since they won’t be trading islands. That is 3 ANZAC mech in Persia. ANZAC units can only help to defend UK stacks, as opposed to UK units which can be used offensively as well. ANZAC also can’t afford to build 3 fighters in Persia ever, unlike the UK. Those fighter builds are often crucial to holding Moscow, while also giving the UK a lot of flexibility in the Mid East.

The UK can just build a factory in Egypt, but planes there take 2 turns to get to Moscow which can really be a problem.

In short I just don’t see any benefit in taking away a prime factory location from the UK and giving it to ANZAC who can barely make 3 cheap units a turn there. This also of course essentially removes ANZAC from the Pacific theatre, where it is sorely needed.

Brazil is the same concept. ANZAC Brazilians can’t really be used offensively anywhere, unlike a US or UK controlled Brazil. Plus it is sending ANZAC transports a long way from the front that they are most effective on.

ANZAC planes in Europe could be helpful, but by the time they could get to Europe it is unlikely that they’d have much to can-open and they would be spending a useless 3 turns or so in transit as opposed to 3 turns being used against Japan in some fashion.

Nice ideas, but I find ANZAC to just be best used to pester Japan and defend Australia if needed.

I completely agree with this, although I have never tried ANZAC in Persia. To me it seems like a hassle.
1. you need to protect UK transport from beeing blown up by italy 1. Does this imply no taranto?
2. ANZAC can activate Persia end of R2, This means factory R3 and units deployed end of round 4.
3. I like to have a UK factory there and shuffle UK fighters to Moscow easily if need be. Basically ANZAC units are not doing anything useful before R5ANZAC. Does not seem worthwhile to me. It is a nice noval, idea though
M

Simple Unit Charts

Axis & Allies Global 1940
• • • mattsk

4

1
Votes

4
Posts

3.2k
Views

M

Thanks !
W

Rule Clarification - AAA units

Axis & Allies Global 1940
• • • Westernian

6

0
Votes

6
Posts

1.3k
Views

W

wow~~ thanks guys for the quick reply~~
W

Global Unit Totals

Axis & Allies Global 1940
• • • Wasteland_Hero

1

0
Votes

1
Posts

802
Views

W

I’ve seen some threads with the question how many units does each country have? So I took my two sets and figured it out, the results are as follows.

–--------------------------------------------------- Allies –--------------------------------------------------

**US

Europe**
Infantry- 20
Artillery- 6
Mechanized Infantry- 6
Tanks- 6
Fighters- 7
Tactical Bombers- 6
Bombers- 6
Sub- 6
Transport- 6
Destroyer- 6
Cruiser- 4
Aircraft Carrier- 4
Battleship- 4

Pacific
Infantry-20
Artillery- 6
Mechanized Infantry- 6
Tanks- 6
Fighters- 8
Tactical Bombers- 6
Bombers- 6
Sub- 6
Transport- 6
Destroyer- 6
Cruiser- 4
Aircraft Carrier- 4
Battleship- 4
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**United Kingdom

Europe**
Infantry- 20
Artillery- 8
Mechanized Infantry- 6
Tanks- 8
Fighters- 8
Tactical Bombers- 6
Bombers- 6
Sub- 6
Transport- 6
Destroyer- 6
Cruiser-4
Aircraft Carrier- 2
Battleship- 4

Pacific
Infantry- 18
Artillery- 6
Mechanized Infantry- 6
Tanks- 8
Fighters- 7
Tactical Bombers- 6
Bombers- 6
Sub-6
Transport- 6
Destroyer- 6
Cruiser- 4
Aircraft Carrier- 2
Battleship- 4
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANZAC

Infantry- 20
Artillery- 6
Mechanized Infantry- 6
Tanks- 8
Fighters- 8
Tactical Bombers- 5
Bombers- 6
Sub- 6
Transport- 5
Destroyer- 6
Cruiser- 4
Aircraft Carrier- 2
Battleship- 4
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia

Infantry- 40
Artillery- 8
Mechanized Infantry- 8
Tanks-10
Fighters- 8
Tactical Bombers- 9
Bombers- 2
Sub-4
Transport- 4
Destroyer- 4
Cruiser- 2
Aircraft Carrier- 2
Battleship- 2
–--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
France

Infantry- 20
Artillery- 8
Mechanized Infantry- 6
Tanks- 10
Fighters- 8
Tactical Bombers- 6
Bombers- 2
Sub- 4
Transport- 4
Destroyer- 3
Cruiser- 2
Aircraft Carrier- 2
Battleship- 2
–--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China

Infantry- 30
Artillery- 0
Mechanized Infantry- 0
Tanks- 0
Fighters- 0
Tactical Bombers- 0
Bombers- 0
Sub- 0
Transport- 0
Destroyer- 0
Cruiser- 0
Aircraft Carrier- 0
Battleship- 0

–--------------------------------------------------- Axis –---------------------------------------------------

Japan

Infantry- 40
Artillery- 12
Mechanized Infantry- 6
Tanks- 12
Fighters- 16
Tactical Bombers- 6
Bombers- 8
Sub-12
Transport- 12
Destroyer- 12
Cruiser- 8
Aircraft Carrier- 8
Battleship- 8

–--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germany

Infantry- 40
Artillery-8
Mechanized Infantry- 9
Tanks- 12
Fighters- 8
Tactical Bombers- 9
Bombers- 4
Sub- 6
Transport- 6
Destroyer- 6
Cruiser- 4
Aircraft Carrier- 2
Battleship- 2

–--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Italy

Infantry- 21
Artillery- 8
Mechanized Infantry- 6
Tanks- 12
Fighters- 8
Tactical Bombers- 6
Bombers- 4
Sub- 6
Transport- 6
Destroyer- 6
Cruiser- 4
Aircraft Carrier- 2
Battleship- 2
G

Unit's cost: what's the criteria?

Axis & Allies Global 1940
• • • Gallo Rojo

6

0
Votes

6
Posts

1.6k
Views

F

@Darby:

Ran into the question

Thought about reducing Bombers vs Naval Units
( I thought hitting on a one was good )
but should they still cost 12?

It did not seem right …but selling them for Tac Bomber or fighter cost seemed wierd
So rather then reducing price I thought about augmenting something else.

Came up with:

Cost: 14
Attack: 4 / 1 vs Naval units
Defense: 1
Range: 6
Takes 1 hit to reduce attack by 2 / and cannot proceed with an SBR
Takes 2 hits to destroy

The whole idea of limiting bombers to a one against ships at sea is to be a little more realistic. With bombers leaving an air base they have seven moves. With the limited number of sea zones on AA maps the bombers destroying fleets in the middle of the ocean just does not work. My thinking is the OOB rules for bombers attacking everything on the map at a four are broken. Just tweaking the rules a little makes the game a little better and no change in the cost is needed. The bomber is still a valuable asset at twelve IPCs.

18

Online

17.7k

Users

40.4k

Topics

1.8m

Posts