stupid question about minor aligned power

Krieghung, thanks for the quick response.  That poor Russian battleship in SZ12 has to thread the needle through SZ11 and SZ10 even if there are no ships there and I guess once the UK Navy is gone in SZ29, you just need to start ground pounding your way through Ottoman to get into the fight.

That’s what I thought.

Reading the rules again, I begin to get a bit fussy about the RR rule. We have always run with that Moscow have to be contested in order to RR to occur. I now realize that perhaps thats wrong and that for example  holding Ukraine, Polen, Belarus and Livonia is enough?
IN our games AH have to put enough units in AH% in order for Russia not to be able to kill them all in R5. However if we have been wrong about RR, the 4-7 remaining Germans from G4 is enough since Russia cant advance untill they have been destroyed… And in that scenario AH can have its entire stack moved from Ukraine to Sevastopol in round 5, very much changing Britians advance.

In the west Germany usually have to tactically retreat in r2-r3. However since all buys from G1 and forward will be moved into the west they wont need to retreat further. And even with Belgium and perhaps an orginal German territory gone they will have an income advantage against France alone and therefore push them back r4 and forward.

Same goes for Italy really. AH will use all its income towards Italy (exept 5 planes in r1-3 = 30 IPC). And by r4-5 AH will push Italy out of Trieste/Tyrole for good.

That’s exactly right, why should a stupid piece of land come between two best friends who fought each other many times since 1800….previous animosities have no effect on future relationships.

Just like Hitler and Stalin joining together 1939. Neither of them had any suspicion of the other and knew the 10 year pact would be able to be renewed. They must have figured the pact would last into 1979. It was so obvious right?

@BJCard:

@GoSanchez6:

I don’t know for sure BJ but I do know that these games are coming out faster than they ever had which leads me to believe they are not playtesting them like they used to.

Fair enough.  It seems as though the 1940 games and Spring 1942 were made and then after a couple years of playtesting by the general public, they put out 2nd editions.

Unfortunately BJcard I think this is what we are going to see from now on out with these games. Get it out there,have the community play it,Maybe come out with a Alpha edition and then make a second edition and make even more money on it.

@Flashman:

So no contested SZs, then.

Does that meant that, when a player with ships in a SZ that an enemy has just built a new ship into takes his turn, he must either fight the new units to the death or withdraw?

If I remember correctly, ships can avoid battle in previous A&A versions, but perhaps he’s changed it to simulate the necessity of breaking through the blockade?

@Imperious:

They buy Pizza and multiple copies of Axis and Allies games.

That’s your whole life right there.

@Flashman:

Germany did a lot of trade with adjacent neutrals, especially the Netherlands and Sweden, so maybe Germany gets a certain ammount of IPCs from these without having to invade.Â

That will be interesting. It seems like a Norway-Denmark NO-type rule would be good, except supposedly the game was said not to be complex enough for NO’s. Maybe to avoid confusion one of the German seaside territories will have a larger than expected income. I’m not sure if the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare phase will be for more than just Germany, but if it were, then the allies could take out the “convoy” between Scandinavia and Germany.