All Axis / All Allies turn order help.

Hello Zaibach,

Sorry for the late response.  Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system.  It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.

However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously.  It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.

We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.

Hello Kreuzfeld.

Thanks for the comments and interest.

Here’s what I’ve found in the 6 or 7 games we’ve played so far with this method.

@Aircraft Carriers: Actually, the games we have played so far did not have restrictions on what friendly nations planes could be on what aircraft carrier.  For instance, ANZAC could launch and recover combat move aircraft from a UK or USA carrier.  Carolina made this suggestion and we are going to incorporate it into our “Axis & Allies & Comintern” House Rules the next time we play in early May.  The reasons are the following:

Allies get a little too much of an advantage in the Pacific if they coordinate right.  ANZAC, being basically land-locked if Japan plays right and gets lucky, can just dedicate their IPC’s to pumping out Fighters and TAC’s …. This free’s USA up to just make CV’s and not worry so much about the planes.  …  Limiting CV’s to just being able to launch Combat Moves with their country’s plane balances this

It could also be argued that having carriers launch attacks with their own country’s planes is more historically accurate.  For sure, USA planes were used on UK carriers.  And I wouldn’t be surprised if USA crews even manned some of the planes (that is a TOTAL guess though).  However, most of the time crews trained long hours with the country and navy that they were going to be flying for.  Therefore, the CAG’s were of the same nation as the CV from which they were operating on.

@Casualties:  Any basically “random” method can be used, including all of the one’s you mentioned.  I gave one example and also left it open to other methods that different groups prefer.

@Analysis & Advantage  I fully agree with you.  The GREATEST advantage to this system is for the Allied and Russian players for sure.  In fact, I think it makes for basically balanced game.  The 6 or 7 games we have played so far have had both Axis and Allied/Russian wins.  ….  Here are some additional things we have noticed:

Like you mentioned, Italy/Germany Can Openers are eliminated on the Eastern Front, greatly helping the Russians.  This is SOMEWHAT mitigated by the new rule that doesn’t allow Allied Forces to step on Russian Controlled territories (and vice-versa) to reinforce Russia in the North … But the overall advantage definitely goes to Russia on this one

It is easier for Italy and Germany to combine forces and hold the Med via Gibraltar.  UK –> USA won’t be able to do Can Openers there.  This lets Italy dig into Africa a little bit more.

ANZAC doesn’t get side-showed as easy.  They can pump out subs, destroyers and maybe even the odd cruiser and incorporate them into the UK or USA fleets.  (historically accurate)

I could go on and on … but basically, “It’s a whole new way at looking at the day.”  :-D

How about if you capture Sicily the Italian player has to toss a coin. If it’s heads the King arrests Mussolini and Italy becomes neutral.

If Germany sends units into neutral Italy (or leaves units there on a German turn after Italy becomes neutral) then Italy joins the Allies.

Maybe give the Axis one full turn to recapture Sicily before Mussolini gets the boot.

ossel, in 1 of my games I do have Light infrantry. There is a cap on how many per country and the A and D is lower than Reg. infrantry.

I will have to look at rule again if your interested in values. I’m guessing there like ( D12 )  A 1, D 2, M 1, C 2.

It’s possible that the designers may have intentionally left the door open for such a variation.  I may be reading too much into this, but note that the game is called “A&A WWI: 1914”, not simply “A&A WWI”.  On one level, you could say that the “1914” part is redundant unless it’s a potential way of distinguishing the game from hypothetical versions set in 1915, 1916, or 1917…and even possibly 1918, though I think that one’s too much of a stretch.

On the other hand, leaving the door open does not in itself prove that the designers have any actual plans to make use of it.  So who knows.

Keep up the good work.

:|
Or, use A@A pieces on a risk board.
    Infantry are worth 3 reinforcemint point
    artillary are worth  4 points
    tanks 5
    fighters 10
    bombers 15
    transports 8
    well, you get the idea.
Build a factory, (15 points) and all the units that you buy to place there, cost 2 points less!
  Protect it well, if a enemy captures it, then they can use it.
    The only way to get from one continent to another is with a transport “bridge”. One transport per dotted line is enough to ferry your army/armies across.
   Use A@A combat rules, and movement, or risk combat and movement, your choice on what you are comfortable with.
It will be a slower game than Risk, but interresting none the less.
  I think I will set this up this weekend and see how it plays myself. It could be a good cross-over to get Risk players  interrested in playing A@A.  :wink:

Bottom line, have fun!   :-D

that seems a little complicated though. Besides, getting a fair moderater might prove to be a challange.