Soviet Union National Advantages

@ohwrm said in Are either of these the National production Chart for the 2004 revised edition?:

I’m missing it and currently trying to find one to print out but since I don’t know what it looks like, I’m having difficulties

http://ernestangely.org/queensland/how-to-find-index-units-aviation.php

The Production Chart at the top of this page is for some version of A&A Global 1940 (the admixture of A&A Europe 1940 and A&A Pacific 1940). While nifty looking, it won’t help you much with A&A Revised.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/9982/new-national-production-national-objectives-chart

This Production Chart is also for A&A 1940, in this case A&A Pacific 1940.

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/63235/axis-allies?size=large

This production chart is for the Milton Bradley version of A&A. Again, nifty looking, but it won’t help you much with A&A Revised.

or if anyone has the game, if they could send me a photo that would be seriously appreciated (I’m also missing the Reference Chart for the Soviet Union)

By finding BGG, you’ve hit on a source of information about A&A, you just haven’t found the right mine shaft to explore. Instead of looking at BGG’s Nova Games & Milton Bradley A&A page, try BGG’s Avalon Hill A&A (A&A Revised) page. Yes, they are both “helpfully” named “Axis & Allies”. This is both technically correct and wildly unhelpful. That said, the BGG A&A Revised page has much information, to include:
A picture of the production and weapons development charts for Milton Bradley Axis & Allies and Avalon Hill Axis & Allies, AH on top and MB on bottom.(source)

But there are also resources on this website that can help you. The front page to the site has a link to “Rules & Downloads”. Going there will land you on a page of basic information about the different A&A games. Scroll down until you get to the “Axis & Allies Revised (2004)” section. You will have two options, a link to download a pdf version of the rules for the game and a link to a setup chart for the game. The setup chart gives you the unique information found on Reference Chart for the Soviets (the rest of the information on the chart is about the names, abilities, and prices for the units in the game, information that is duplicated both in the rule book and on the other four reference charts.

If you want to duplicate the look of a reference chart, combine the reference chart from another country with the setup from here. You might find a picture of another country’s reference chart here.

I hope that helps.

-Midnight_Reaper

So I played a quick game against a friend last weekend (we agreed it was experimental and would not count towards our scoreboard).

I was the axis and picked two national advantages: naval night-fighting and nazi scientists.

The allied player insisted on also having two national advantages, so he picked colonial garrison and flying fortresses (I forget the name, it’s the non-LHTR national advantage; US bombers are immune to AA).

Colonial Garrison gave me a lot of problems!  He placed the IC in India, which I went for right away, but the allies managed to trade it for a few turns, and then the US player waited till I was in a bad situation and bought two factories in china and sinkian.

The battleship advantage was not that great.  It was fun for a couple of battles, but then the US player just avoided my battleships.  I was a few turns from opening the suez canal, and my fleet was prepared against africa, but the US player was going to provide quite a hassle.

The game ended prematurely; I suspect I would eventually have lost.  The nazi scientists got me a tech upgrade only after 10 tech buys.

If you’re going to use the US as your trading country, then make sure you have a good transport system in place. Get a 4x4 going on. Four transports from Ecan to UK, and UK to EEU (preferably) or Kar. And buy a fighter EVERY round so you can fly it to Russia. Do the same with the UK. Buy a fighter every round and fly it to Russia. Get a good fighter cover going, have Russia buy infantry out the wazoo (and an armour every now and then) and continually wear Germany down.

@ncscswitch:

To limit the Yamato Class Battlehips by reducign their defensive fire against air to a 4, then you also would need to increase them to THREE hits to sink.

Marianas Turkey Shoot.  It was 200 and what hits to sink that single BB?

The Mushashi was sunk during the Sibuyan Sea phase of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, on October 24, 1944.  It is estimated that the ship took 20 torpedo hits, 17 direct bomb hits, and 18 near-misses by bombs prior to sinking.  After Action analysis by the US Navy and the post-war report done by the US Naval Technical Mission to Japan analyzing the loss of major Japanese warships (I have my own copy and also a complete set of the reports on microfilm) indicated that one of the reasons for the survival of the ship following so many hits was the relatively even distribution of them on both the port and starboard sides, in effect counterflooding the ship and preventing it from capsizing.  Extremely heavy damage forward from both bombs and torpedoes resulted in the ship sinking by the head, and capsizing in the process of sinking.

The Yamato was sunk on April 7, 1945 during the attempt to sortie to the Okinawa invasion in an effort to attack the transport fleet. The ship was hit by an estimated 13 torpedoes, and at least 8 comfirmed bombs.  I suspect that there were more unreported bomb hits, and no count was made of near misses.  The US torpedo plane pilots had been briefed to concentrate their attacks on one side, and all but 2 torpedo hits were on the port side.  The two on the starboard side were assessed at prolonging the process of sinking.  The Yamato did capsize to port, and the after magazines exploded when she sank.

In neither case did the ships have fighter cover, so they were totally dependent on anti-aircraft fire from themselves and the rest of the task force.  In neither case did the losses of US Navy aircraft attacking the ships exceed 10%.  In comparable attacks on US battleships, Japanese attacking aircraft losses started at 50% and at times reached 90%.  That is my basis for reducing the Yamato-class defensive fire against aircraft.

I am also very familiar with the protective schemes of both the Yamato and the Iowa class.  The Yamato class did have a major flaw with its torpedo protection system that left it highly vulnerable to flooding from a shallow torpedo hit, to some extent compensated by the depth of the side protection system.  There is also a problem with the torpedo protection system on the Iowa, which required modifying the liquid-loading scheme to restore full effectiveness.  Overall, I would rate the Yamato and Iowa equal in damage resistance.

I guess that I am looking at it more from the standpoint of a naval tactical gamer where individual ship characteristics can be easily factored in, verses a strategic game, where that is hard to do so, unless you have a pronounced disparity.  Also, keeping track of Three hits verses Two is much more difficult.  I will have to come up with another way of factoring in poor Japanese AA fire.  Two hits, and 5 attack and 5 defend it is.

First Edition (though with 2nd Non-Weapon Prof added).

I have a LOT of dice, but in my primary set I have 25d4 for one of my character’s Cone of Cold :-D

I like those 13d4 Magic Missiles too :-)

The sound a Magic Missile makes… THWAP!

Asbestos’ Magic Missiles…
Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-THWAP!
Average Damage:  45 hit points… no save, automatically hit :-D

Because USA needed another NA, probably, and they didn’t want to give them Atomic Weapons? :P

I dunno.  Basically it just says that infantry can move two zones like tanks and may blitz.  Not overly useful for America, but it does help.

Some are just cheap, though, like the Superfortresses. Since fighters can’t intecept SBR’s, you can bomb at will with America, while being perfectly content to lose nothing.

Russia - Build Infantry - Defend until relieved