Too Lazy To Play? Listen to us play!

Our army knives are bigger than their army knives though. Waaay bigger.

The US does not have enough income to represent its realistic capablities
A real problem is that its a power that relies exclusively on transports to get to the action (japan also, but japan can build ICs on the coast, USA cant build ICs anywhere worthwhile)
Transports that need a fleet to protect them.

The best thing that could be done to help the US is to give them some extra infantry in the mainland. To ease the burden of having to buy so many high cost units.
Maybe like 4-8 more infantry.
The US really didnt have a manpower shortage, and the draft had already begun by 1940.

The 4-8 infantry would allow the US to maybe buy another bomber and Cruiser over the course of the first few turns, while still able to fill its transports.
I always feel the US shows up in a theatre with 3 units too few to really scare the axis player. They show up with enough that the axis can attack, and trade away planes for boats.
Setting back the US by a little, and the axis by a little more.
When in reality, the US should show up and the axis be very afraid to attack the US transports and fleet, and have to use its air units defensively. So that by turn 6 or so the US is the major allied agressor on the board. Not just the boogyman.

@Frontovik:

play like a man, use OOB(+)

meaning with the phillipines harbor and airfield, changed aussie IC’s and russia neutrality applies to each board seperatly

I can agree with this. Typos are a different thing (they’re not a different version). A non-agression pact rule must be added, still

Thanks again for the inputs. :-)

So, to sum up the issue. US IC upgrade cases are listed below.

1.) US buy the upgrade with money before (or even after) being at war
–> the upgrade is done during the mobilize new units phase of this turn, therefore, the 10 production capacity is available only in the next turn.
2.) not one attack or provoke US up to turn 3.
–> During the US3 collect income phase, US goes into war anyway. turn 3 mobilize phase gone already. wait for next turn please.
3.) US is being declared war on by an Axis.
–> US become at war immediately and IC upgrade immediately. On the start of next US turn, US has the major IC already, everything proceed as usual.
4.) US is not being declared war on, but was given the pretext to go to war. possible cases: Japan makes unprovoked war declaration on UK/ANZAC, Axis capture of London or any territory in North America.
–> it’s a little subtle here, but in short, US will be able to buy in large order. US is still having the 3 minor IC only at the start of the turn. she can make a over production purchase order (20 inf or something), go on to declare war at the beginning of Combat Phase. IC gets upgraded immediately. When US reaches the mobilize phase in the same turn, the now-Major IC are ready to produce the once-over-large order.

ok. one less reason for Japan to make a “UK+ANZAC” war declaration than to make a “all Allies” war declaration.  :wink:

@Sime:

That?s a pretty interesting strategy for that specific scenario.

Do you think he was aware that Germany could reach his capital before you sent the Italians to America?  In your opinion, was he buying all the talk of you sending the Germans to Egypt?

I think if I was in your position I would have sent the Italians to Africa instead of attacking America, keeping up the illusion that Axis is heading south.  If he didn?t perceive the German threat, he would be sending his units to intercept the Japanese and hopefully leaving his capital lightly defended.

It?s a bit riskier this way because if he sees the threat and stocks his capital, the Italian units are no longer in position to invade America and divert attention away from the Japanese, but it?s just another way of looking at the situation.

Anyway, great write-up, Pelanderfunk. I enjoyed reading it.

No, he definitely saw it coming. Truthfully, the Italians were a bit of a waste in the US – all they really did was give the US a few more targets. On the other hand, maybe the resources he wasted on those targets could have won the war if he used them differently.

My opponent tends to let his emotions leak into his strategy. I knew that if I sent even a tiny Italian fleet over, he would destroy it the first chance he got, even at the expense of a more benefitial move.

@molinar13:

Seeing that Axis and Allies does not use rules such as terrain effects, experience of troops, or weather effects I consider the luck of the dice to compensate for these items.

I tend to view it the same way. Axis and Allies does not take a lot of things into account… including scouting and supplying your armies. I always viewed these things as being incorporated into the game, sort of expected and assumed.

For example, many times neither side knew where the other’s forces were. They needed scouts and intelligence organizations to figure it out. There is no “fog of war” in a boardgame. You can see everything that everyone does.
Also armies/navies needed to be supplied. Axis and Allies does not require you to maintain a merchant fleet or a force of supply trucks. It is sort of given and expected.

Now these things do not directly relate to your die rolling, but it shows that not everything needs to be accounted for by the player… including the fixing of his odds. Dropping a (fair) die and letting it bounce and roll is entirely fair and just. It is random, and that is the purpose.

Artificially compensating for losses due to bad rolling just seems like diluted cheating to me.

by that point in the game we couldnt have stopped you… I’m thinking how we could have stopped it from getting to that point in the first place.  A couple of things come to mind… 1) not stockpiling the russian infantry in Amur and 2) when we saw you only bought 2 transports on G1 UK could have taken out the Taranto fleet and just bought infantry.  This might have stopped Italy opening a second front in Russia and stopped a successful sealion.

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.