Too Lazy To Play? Listen to us play!

@shadowhawk

Yeah, I definitely didn’t think of things that way. Mostly the AAA just stays in the US the whole time. I’ll give it a try.

He thinks China is the real killer for Japan and it can be however I don’t like the idea of using USSR to keep China alive because of how fragile USSR will be against Germany.

@knp7765:

@theROCmonster:

@Young:

We experimented with a house rule that gave the US the War Bonds breakthrough for free once they entered the war, it was no big deal to give that to them, and it was fun to see how each roll for more money turned out for the American player.

Sounds fun. I think it would be interesting to give each of the major powers a free tech at the end of turn 3. What would you choose for each power as your tech?

Germany = Jet Fighters
USSR = Advanced Artillery
Japan = Super Subs
USA = War Bonds or Increased Factory Production
China = none
UK = Radar
Italy = Improved Shipyards
ANZAC = Long Range Aircraft
France = Heck, why not give them Heavy Bombers. They won’t be able to use them anyway.

Looks good!

@ItIsILeClerc:

@theROCmonster:

Don’t know why anyone would play a game in revised to 8 VC’s. This seems impossibly easy for the axis to do.

How big of a bid do you think the axis would need in a world domination game? maybe a bid that keeps the Italian fleet alive?

Don’t think the axis need a bid for this in 2nd edition.
IMHO: with the other axis strategies not so much (a VC-hunt from the start), but definately with an economic  domination strategy, the axis are very hard to defeat already! In game turns anyway, because this kind of strategy requires 20+ turns to beat (if at all possible). During the first 10 turns or so, the axis at least equalize in economy and TUV on the board but more likely will leave the allies far behind in both aspects.
AFAICS, the only way the allies can maintain rough economical parity with the axis is to go KJF and this will cost them Moscow big time, seriously endangering Cairo later on (or London, or both for that matter).

Because I don’t like the fact that the majority of the axis strategies already require the allies to resort to this ‘KJF thing’, I have never explored this beyond my typical J1DOW response (which indeed already is very Japan heavy).

I’m not saying that the axis will actually win if they leave the allies behind both in income and TUV on the board, because there is also something like where all that TUV is positioned. Are the allies able to once again stabilize the economical imbalance and if yes, will that be lasting…

…Anyways, for me personally, about 15 turns of playing A&AG40 is my tolerance-limit for this game. So with this kind of axis play we always end up with calling it a draw unless the majority agrees that the situation is easy enough to predict a winner.

Ya, that is the problem with a really competitive global game. Most of them go over 15 rounds, at least in LL. In a game where VC’s don’t matter it would take forever to win as allies. You are right that the axis will be ahead, or even, after the fall of Moscow if you are going KJF. The thing is once US gets a large enough fleet majority over Japan the TUV swing will be massive. It would be something like 700 in TUV lost with Japan if you completely defend against US. Even with a KJF you should still be able to easily hold Moscow till turn 9. Also in a game where VC’s don’t matter I think it is always best for Japan to attack T3, unless the allies leave it open for a turn 2 attack. This is because Japan needs to kill china and set up in a better position against US. Also US is down 40 IPC’s if you wait till T3.

It would be interesting to see what would be best for allies. KGF or KJF.

Going KGF would leave a super Japan, but he is really out of position. Russia would be immensely powerful because he would be able to get Iraq, Italian somali land, Tobruk, and Libya. This would mean Japan would have a hard time taking Russia, and Germany has no chance to do it. US would be a lot weaker because of all the NO’s he looses in the pacific, and he would have to keep at least 10 infantry in western US to keep Japan honest. Britain would be weaker as well because he wouldn’t have India for very long. Anzac becomes a worthless country that is only building infantry to defend.

Going KJF would leave a super strong Germany that would have a lot of options open to him. Japan would eventually die, but not before doing serious damage. He can still take out India and China and survive till around R10 or so when US’s fleet just becomes too much for him to handle. US would be way more powerful than in a KGF, so when he switched to going against Germany he would have a ton of fleet and would only need to build transports and infantry. He should be making 90+ vs a Germany that is making the same. It would come down to US/UK/Anzac vs. Germany and Italy.

I would probably lean towards going KGF because it allows you to keep Russia, and even if Japan is making 120 PU’s, he is so out of position it would take him forever to take Russia, and by then Germany should be dead.

I don’t think the axis would stand a chance in hell if VC’s were taken off the table, but the problem is what would a fair bid be? Because allowing the axis to bid ships would be too powerful, especially with Japan. That is why I think a fair start would be to allow Italy to have their entire fleet merged to start the game.

What do you guys think?

@Gargantua:

My heart always feels like it Jen.

As Japan I like it when Russia invades.  I strip Manchuria/Korea because if they invade I get extra money and if they dont invade I dont have to go back.  The downside is, I eventually have to invade Russia.

I would much rather crush India like an over-ripe grape early in the game, knock out the Australians and worry about fleet for a few rounds, once I feel secure against America (assuming they sent anything towards Europe so I have a chance to feel secure - in alpha 2 -) then I can dump 50 IPC a round into China/Russia.

So far, in Alpha 3, it seems I don’t have to worry too much about America, they are hobbled pretty well with the loss of an NO in the Pacific.  Could be better, but at least now my opponents are investing in the Atlantic, at least a little.

MWaaaHaha! :evil:

That’s what I thought.

Thanks fellas!

Russia assuming you understand how to be defensive.

The USA, if you know understand how to prepare & play offensively.

Nothing throws a game to a competant Axis like a Russian player that plays too offensively and overextends or a US player that doesn’t understand transport math and can’t keep sustained pressure.

I played Japan last weekend. I didn’t have too hard a time, however I tend to play a very anti-US strategy. Therefore I was able to manage them as well as I had been able to in the Pacific game. I even had him spending more on the pacific side. Russia was actually what tended to throw me off because I had to constantly be prepared for a potential invasion until it was my time. Luckily I had set a trap and Russia invaded Korea, allowing me to trap him between my navy and land forces.

If your looking for more specifics then let me know, otherwise that should give you a slight idea as to what to expect.