Game History
Round: 8 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 2 artilleries, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter and 9 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; Combat Move - Japanese 1 transport moved from 21 Sea Zone to 20 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Shantung to 20 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Jehol to 20 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 20 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Java to 43 Sea Zone 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 2 fighters, 1 infantry, 1 submarine, 2 tactical_bombers and 1 transport moved from 43 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers moved from 36 Sea Zone to Paulau 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 21 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 6 Sea Zone to 22 Sea Zone 1 armour moved from Shantung to Kiangsi 1 artillery and 5 infantry moved from Anhwe to Kiangsi 3 artilleries, 1 fighter, 4 infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kwangtung to Kiangsi 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 21 Sea Zone to Kiangsi 1 marine moved from Kwangtung to 21 Sea Zone 2 carriers, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 marine and 5 transports moved from 21 Sea Zone to 6 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 8 infantry moved from Japan to 6 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 8 infantry and 1 marine moved from 6 Sea Zone to Korea 1 armour, 2 artilleries and 5 infantry moved from Southern Manchuria to Korea 1 fighter moved from Japan to 22 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from Japan to 36 Sea Zone Combat - Japanese Battle in 22 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 2 fighters, 1 submarine and 1 tactical_bomber Americans defend with 1 destroyer and 1 transport Japanese win with 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber remaining. Battle score for attacker is 8 Casualties for Japanese: 1 submarine Casualties for Americans: 1 destroyer and 1 transport Battle in Kiangsi Japanese attack with 1 armour, 4 artilleries, 2 fighters, 9 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Chinese defend with 4 artilleries and 9 infantry Japanese win, taking Kiangsi from Chinese with 1 armour, 4 artilleries, 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 25 Casualties for Japanese: 6 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 4 artilleries and 9 infantry Battle in 36 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 1 battleship, 1 bomber, 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 1 submarine and 2 transports Americans defend with 1 destroyer Japanese win with 1 battleship, 1 bomber, 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 1 submarine and 2 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is 8 Casualties for Americans: 1 destroyer Battle in Paulau Japanese attack with 2 fighters, 3 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Americans defend with 1 artillery and 1 infantry Japanese win, taking Paulau from Americans with 2 fighters, 2 infantry and 2 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 4 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Casualties for Americans: 1 artillery and 1 infantry Battle in Korea Japanese attack with 1 armour, 3 artilleries, 13 infantry and 1 marine Russians defend with 1 infantry Japanese win, taking Korea from Russians with 1 armour, 3 artilleries, 13 infantry and 1 marine remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Russians: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - Japanese 1 aaGun moved from Southern Manchuria to Korea 1 aaGun moved from Anhwe to Shantung 1 infantry moved from Shantung to Anhwe 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 marine moved from Java to 43 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 cruiser, 1 infantry, 1 marine and 1 transport moved from 43 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 bomber, 1 infantry and 1 marine moved from 36 Sea Zone to Davao 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Paulau to 36 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsi to 6 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Kiangsi to Kwangtung 2 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 22 Sea Zone to Davao Place Units - Japanese 3 infantry placed in Shantung 2 artilleries, 1 fighter and 6 infantry placed in Japan 1 destroyer placed in 6 Sea Zone Turn Complete - Japanese Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 1 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 42 Sea Zone. Rolls: 1 Japanese collect 44 PUs (1 lost to blockades); end with 44 PUs Objective Japanese 6 Home Islands: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 47 PUs Objective Japanese 4 Control Dutch East Indies: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 52 PUsLeague General Discussion Thread
-
it says units in the rules. is a ic a unit?
also what map do i use for BM4 -
-
I love that question!
I don’t remember what was intended years ago.
But I checked the rulebook, and on page 27 of the Europe 2nd edition rulebook, it is clear that infrastructure pieces are called “units”.
Since league rules have not clearly stated that infrastructure units are NOT allowed, they are allowed.
I will clarify in the league rules.
-
Remember there must be another unit in that territory, which would of course include another facility, or any other unit.
Therefore you could place a naval base on Wake Island, for example. Because although there is no combat unit, there is an air base.
-
thanks
:)
Just everyone knows… you actually don’t see it often…
-
@gamerman01 thank you for the clarification. Although an IC in Egypt at the beginning of the game is killing Italy immediately 🤔
-
@martin I no i’ve tried a while back and was told i couldn’t.
-
@dawgoneit same here
-
… and consequently I also denied it to others
-
Consider it clarified permanently!
If UK puts IC in Egypt, they are not adding 2 subs desperately needed in round 1, and if UK builds units in Egypt in turn 1, those are IPC’s not put on London, potentially inviting Sealion.
In other words, a UK IC in Egypt as a bid makes it easier on Germany - watch out. And then, of course, if Italy does manage to take it, you just built one for Italy.
Well… and if the IC in Egypt means no sub in 98, then UK is weaker in the Med at game start. Trade-offs.
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
Consider it clarified permanently!
If UK puts IC in Egypt, they are not adding 2 subs desperately needed in round 1, and if UK builds units in Egypt in turn 1, those are IPC’s not put on London, potentially inviting Sealion.
In other words, a UK IC in Egypt as a bid makes it easier on Germany - watch out. And then, of course, if Italy does manage to take it, you just built one for Italy.
Well… and if the IC in Egypt means no sub in 98, then UK is weaker in the Med at game start. Trade-offs.
it depends on the offer… if it’s high (as in this case) there’s an IC and two submarines
-
Yep - remember that before giving up 24
-
@gamerman01 its a different game again.
-
Enjoy!! Sounds like the question should have been asked by someone some time ago! Thanks, Dawg! I had to do a little research to definitively interpret that league rule.
-
@gamerman01 :+1:
-
Especially for those who haven’t been with us long -
If you wish you could edit or delete a post that you made here, just ask me and I’ll do it for you if it looks appropriate.
It’s been years since I couldn’t, but I’m guessing you aren’t able to modify your posts in the “Play Online Axis & Allies” forum. Maybe goes back to the ABattlemap days, where you could easily cheat if you could modify your posts…
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
Obviously every year that goes by and we’re playing the same version year after year, the interest wanes.
And as Karl said, G40 games take a lot of time and commitment. Compared to earlier versions of global A&A, well, there is no comparison as most of you know.G40 was such a leap forward for A&A in so many ways, it’s no wonder at all there was huge interest for the first few years, and a great observation by Simon that Balanced Mod was a big improvement that breathed new life and stoked a lot of interest, but it loses its new car smell too, like anything.
Someone, design a new global version of A&A that raises our heart rate again!
I have played A&A&Zombies and it is a hoot, a perfect “beer and pretzels game” as players used to say. But most of us probably wouldn’t play it very many times.
FABULOUS entry level A&A game, and also VERY interesting for veterans.France goes first! Boom!
-
I was wondering if we might incentivize players giving away high bids by rewarding them with more points?
-
-
My first instinct is to say absolutely not, but I thought about it a few seconds.
If we’re even going to talk about it, I would require a standard scale for the bids.
For example, you give a +50 bid to allies, you get +1 point. + 75 gives +2
So if you give a tier 2 opponent a +75 bid, you would get +7 for winning, +3 for losing.
But then… the player with the big bid would receive fewer points?
I don’t like bigger bids because it gets away from the regular setup more and more, and makes bid selection a bigger part of the game before G1 even starts.
So I promise nothing, but can’t resist discussing things.
Thoughts on handicaps? On modifying the point scale? If both players agree, most anything is allowed. But altering the point scale has to go by me… there would have to be a set scale for bid amounts as per above.Only discussing, nothing promised. No change this big will be done without many league players supporting it.
Suggested Topics
