The Inherent Problem with Axis and Allies

I don’t see how the Allies can liberate DC because as I said, if Germany does it, that means it has to destroy Home Fleet to get to DC which means that without US having income, Canada cannot produce enough to counter a full invasion on DC and Germany at this point will have more income than UK with a navy and army to counter.
Well now I see your point if Germany reaches Washington I think the allies should just surrender at that point cause if they keep going the axis will have extra money to get the economy token if playing with grasshoppers tokens.Or with stock rules the axis control Berlin Rome Warsaw Paris Tokyo Shanghai Manila Hong Kong possibilitie London Cairo and Washington and maybe Ottawa

@taamvan:

We going to see you at Gencon?

Unfortunately no, due to a combination of work commitments and geographic distance.

@Cow:

Get the African NOs for Russia as well. African NOs are very important for Russia.

Agreed wholeheartedly!
I must admit though, I’m still a little in doubt about when to take them and when not to.

For example, if Germany is doing SeaLion it seems better not to (correct me if I’m wrong)? If Russia goes there (early) in this situation, it has just too few units to start contesting Eastern Europe and/or Scandinavia RU3 (assuming GE did sortie into London). Contesting those area’s with Germany seems better than getting into Africa, since the Russian profit is the same or even higher but it also denies Germany valuable IPCs. Maybe in this case get the African NO’s at a later point?

In all the other situations I’d go for African NO’s (except perhaps a G1 DOW?).

@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.

Since were all talking about G39…
Does anyone know if there is a simplified version of G39?
I have the latest map, it’s beautiful. But a little too complex and too many outside pieces required.
To me G40 is a great ruleset.

I would love to play a version that is G40 style with 39 setup on the 39 map.
It would also be much more appealing to new players.

3 boats a turn on the Atlantic side or the pacific side?

Pacific.  He was speaking of the type of Navy that could get built up between Anzac and US with a late DOW.  Without pulling guys from the Atlantic, US can’t put a ton of guys on the Pacific in those first 3 turns.  Just to match the Japan Navy the US needs 2 more carriers, 1 battleship, 1 destroyer.  That’s  60 ipcs.  In my opinion, US needs more navy since they need to be the attackers.  That would require neglecting the atlantic almost entirely (which isn’t an awful idea depending on how good the German player is).  That also doesn’t take into account that Japan buys a Carrier and can load it without spending the 20-21 ipcs for fighters.  The Naval bases also allow for 3 more fighters to defend if used correctly.

I think it’s still 8–you need Paris, the 3 Red cities, and Cario IIRC.

@Sgt.:

In AAP40 my one game as Japan resulted in a pretty easy win due to going all out on J1. But in Global you have to consider the USA getting that massive IPC boost if you attack UK/ANZAC. I find the best strategy is to focus on taking China and killing any Russian INF that get too close. Dare the UK to attack you early, if they do you get a free shot at the DEI.

That wont work as easily with alpha set up… J1 attack in Alpha is usually a bad idea if the allies know what they are doing.