• The Moscow push definitely can be countered by heavy spending by the Allies in the Atlantic, as you mention.  100% US build in the Atlantic for the first two turns, plus a large number of UK fighters in Moscow, is enough to stall a G6-G7 attack on Moscow.  That does give Japan a window to expand, requiring major US spending from turn 3 onward.  The returned focus of the Allies on the Pacific allows Germany options to push into the Middle East.

    At that point, the game requires both perfect Allied gameplay, and good dice rolls.  I find that the Axis has usually won if Japan still is swapping control of the Money Islands with the Allies when Germany has control of Persia & Iraq.  The economic output of Germany is just too large to counter.  Certainly a better player can pull out a victory against an inferior player a majority of times.  Nobody is questioning that.  The argument is that evenly matched players will not be able to achieve 50% win rates as Allies without a bid.  If the game really was balanced, I would expect that top players would gladly play Allies +20 and consistently crush their opponents.


  • If Japan does NOT declare war on W. Allies till J4, then US domination of Med and Norway is delayed 1 turn.
    That one turn is crucial, because , it buys time for Germany to buy 1 more turn against USSR.
    That is what usually tips the balance of power toward Axis for good, either,  through an Economic victory, by caging Moscow.

    Thus bringing in Japan to attack J2 or J3 allows for a more equitable game for Allies.

    Hence, the change in TR loading rule, in response to TMG, disturbs the balance of the game, hence must be reversed to allow for a non-bid, fairly playable game for both the sides.

  • '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @MeinHerr:

    Hence, the change in TR loading rule, in response to TMG, disturbs the balance of the game, hence must be reversed to allow for a non-bid, fairly playable game for both the sides.

    While it could very well be that it slipped by me, I don’t recall any official change to the transport loading rules.

    Marsh


  • I don’t know of any change of transport rules also.  I find that J4 is a very poor choice.  It gives three full turns of huge income for India, making it difficult for Japan to get to the capitol.  I have found that J1 is a great option if Russia doesn’t send reinforcements to stack in Yunnan. Sometimes I delay to J3 if I need two turns to beat back Russian + Chinese forces, but have never done a J4.

  • '19 '17 '16

    The reason to do a J4 is to help Germany in the Atlantic. Japan does take quite a hit from doing so though, as you point out.

  • '14 Customizer

    I think MeinHerr is referring to the ability of UK to block loading Japan’s transports by moving a surface warship into the seazone then having ANZAC declare war and thus making the seazone hostile with the transports.

    I don’t like this tactic but its not much different than something else that is allowed. This same ability can be seen when a power builds a warship in a seazone with transports.  This happens a lot with UK/USA transports loading/unloading in Normandy.

    I don’t think it should be accepted in either case but the rules support the later.

  • '19 '17 '16

    When does that cause an issue? English channel is normally the only time. Are you saying that you think the rule that you can’t load a TT in a hostile SZ should only apply when the TT has to move into that SZ or something?

  • '14 Customizer

    @simon33:

    When does that cause an issue? English channel is normally the only time. Are you saying that you think the rule that you can’t load a TT in a hostile SZ should only apply when the TT has to move into that SZ or something?

    Im not sure what is the best way to resolve it. At first I thought maybe you should not allow deployment into hostile seazones but then it would be easy to block sea production.

  • '19 '17 '16

    I don’t think the rule needs change.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    This isn’t a change, it has always been a latent exploit.

    The only thing you need to do to avoid the “UK/ANZAC” stub move here is to leave the units on their transports.

    Since you always have a substantial fleet in SZ 36 (for example) covering the TTs to prevent their destruction, there is not really a risk here.  The only opportunity lost is the option dumping the troops off in Kwangsi of using the transports to bridge/run up north on your next turn, rather than invade islands, Malaya, india etc.    But, since you moved the TTs down to SZ 36 in the first place, there is little reason to reverse this direction…

    Also, the UK/ANZAC early declaration of war “decouples” America from the alliance.  UK often does this in order to get NOs.  Once this occurs, there is no “tripwire” besides the fall of London to bring the US in.

    As you guys have discussed, Japan attacking early brings the US in big and early, and often 100% pacific, since many good J1 strategies involve intimidating and warding the US navy off.  Waiting till J3 or J4 seems unwise, unless you have some kind of gambit brewing, because

    1. you cannot reach threshold income during general peace
    2. UK and ANZAC should be quite tough by J3 or J4, with plenty of unabated income
    3. you only get to attack Russia and China in the meantime, which doesn’t advance goals except possibly the G2/I2/J2 Russia-crush.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 123
  • 13
  • 14
  • 94
  • 4
  • 9
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

22

Online

17.8k

Users

40.4k

Topics

1.8m

Posts