Axis and allies map

@JDOW also would you mind if I read your input on youtube?

I’ve only played one game where Italy raged, it was glorious.  No Taranto I believe.  Axis win in Europe

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

That is why I prefer to incorporate the “no more than one unit per territory or seazone” rule.

I think the great variation that bids provide allow for great replayability. Who wants a game that always depends on what kind of dice Germany got G1? Pick sides, set up the board, roll a couple dice, quit. Blech.

To your point about a 12 being too much, though - only 1 game has been finished in the league this year with a bid over 11, and the axis(-15) won.

Most good players are not going to give their opponent more than 10, is what we’ve been seeing in the league results. And among what appear to be opponents of close skill level, the Allies have won at +9, +10, +8, +10, +9, and +8. And the Axis have won at -9, -15, -7, -9, and -11. Yes, that’s a small sample size, but it seems to be pretty even.

I think the best judges of when a game is fair and balanced are the players. As you can see, over half the games have been run at an 8 or 9. And 2/3 of those games have been won by the Allies. You have people that don’t want to give bids too big, people that acknowledge the Axis has an advantage, people that don’t really want to play the Allies - it’s an interesting and fluid dynamic that always seems to find its own level.

@TheDefinitiveS:

So to get the topic back to victory conditions as I have not had a chance to look at alpha setup because im apparently banned from the larry harris website is it 8 out of 11 AND 6 out of 8 VCs or is it 8 out of 11 OR 6 out of 8 VCs

or

Also, try to make Z109 and 118 touch each other at more than a corner.

Japan should be able of taking India mid-game (let’s say round 5-7), but never as soon as round 1-3, as usual in AA50-42. Also, this thread is about a 1942 mod for AAG40, not for the OOB setup, that it’s still undecided if it has advantage or how many advantage could have

Also, with this order, ANZAC cannot act as can opener for USA against Japan, and that’s a very big aid for axis (and if you’re trying ignore Japan as allies, you’re totally toasted in AAG40, specially with this mod)