We need an allied playbook.

I took a look at the opening post. Although I do not agree with all points, it sounds quite solid in general and can function as some good common sense and/or as rule of thumbs for less experienced players.

@CWO:

@Caesar:

So I played a game where as I was USSR, US decided to bomb a Japanese transport and land it in USSR territory as well as asking me to leave infantry behind to defend the bomber if Japan goes after it.

Historically, there were a few cases of US B29s bombing Japan and then, due to battle damage, flying onward to land in the relatively near USSR rather than returning to their home bases.  The planes and their crews were interned by the Soviets because it was a violation of neutrality for the US to use the territory of the USSR as part of a military operation against Japan, given that the USSR and Japan were not at war with each other until August 1945.  The OOB Global rules don’t go into that level of detail, but they do say:

Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.

From my understanding of OOB Lend Lease, it states that it is broken by Axis movements or any allies in said original USSR territory which was broken for me even though said units were not being used against Germany or Italy.

@the_jetset:

In fact, it could even be argued that Germany should collect the IPCs for these Vichy French territories after capturing Paris.  … but that might be going a bridge too far.

While I agree with this in spirit, I do think it could be taken too far. You could have people that say it should be this way for all countries: Once the capital is captured, the capturing power now controls all the territories and units of the vanquished nation.
For one thing, this would eliminate any possibility of liberation and I think this game would end up being a sort of Deluxe Risk rather than Axis & Allies.
Imagine this scenario:  Germany goes after Russia and tries punching straight through to Moscow along the north route, thereby NOT taking Ukraine or Stalingrad.  Suppose Japan didn’t attack Russia at all in the far east.  Now suppose Russia was foolish and bought a battleship for the Caspian Sea instead of infantry so they didn’t have a proper defense in Moscow and Germany wins.  Now Germany controls territory all the way to the Pacific and Japan now has a buddy to their north instead of an enemy. Plus, Germany becomes instantly rich, almost doubling their income with all the Russian 2 point territories plus all the troops that were guarding those territories (not to mention Germany’s shiny new battleship in the Caspian Sea.).

I wonder if a crazy rule like this would make games longer or shorter?  Capital defense would probably be even heavier.

Any player can concede for any reason; you just have to learn who throws a hissy fit and who doesn’t.  I’ve had an Allied player forfeit on me after UK ROUND ONE.  Yep, a scramble didn’t go his way, and a couple of bad rolls in the Med and claimed there was “no way back”.  Meh, a win’s a win, but I’m still in it for the long haul with expectations of an epic game.

In general, a sucessful Sealion doesn’t an Axis victory make.  I’ve lost as the Axis after a sucessful Sealion; the Russian player knew what to do and put immense pressure on a front stripped-bare for landing units.  If Japan gets some bad luck and isn’t threatening victory, it’s bad.

That said, i’ve won plenty of times after a good Sealion, so it’s not an unheard of response.

I did a quick skim and I don’t think anyone mentioned it so I’m gonna chime in. If you ever are in a game and want to figure out odds in a battle you don’t need a fancy odds calculating website or iphone app.

All you have to do is figure out the low luck odds in your head or with an old  fashioned pocket calculator. Just add up the total attack value on one side and divide that number by 6. That’s the number of hits you’ll have in round 1 and then just anticipate what the opponent will remove as casualties (likely lower def/atk values first) and then repeat.

For example, you attack Russia as Germany with 6 infantry, and 3 armor vs their 8 infantry. Your infantry attack at a 1, and the tanks at a 3. That means your attack value is 6 for the infantry (61) and 9 for the tanks (33) for a total of 15. You divide that number by 6 and you have the number of hits you’ll do on average in the first round. 15/6 is 2.5 hits. So you should kill 2 or maybe 3 units. To play it safe I always round down. So lets assume you kill 2.

Then you’ll figure his odds of hitting you in round 1 the same way. He has 8 inf defending at 2 each for a total of 16 defense. He will get 2.67 hits. Again, I always round in my opponents favor so we can assume he hit you 3 times.

So that’s round 1. You can then repeat that process to figure out round 2 and so on until you win or lose. So in round 2 you will have 3 inf and 3 tanks vs 6 inf. Your attack value (AV) will be 12, his will be 12. The odds are dead even in R2. If you divide both by 6 you get 2 hits each.

Round 3 will be your AV of 11 vs his AV of 8, now you’re winning! The more rounds you fight the more the odds are in  your favor since you have higher attack values on your tanks.

Hope that’s helpful, I just hate it when I’m in a game and people want to figure odds and the next thing you know 5 grown men pull out their smart phones and try to race to see who’s $6 odds calculator app will figure out the answer first when you can do it in your head faster… :roll:

I bought it at coolstuffinc, 60$ each. In the malls they are like rip off 100$ ea
So I think Coolstuffinc is the best. unless used.

Buy it new and go through the awesome pleasure of popping the cardboard popouts for an hour! :mrgreen:

@marechallannes:

Q1: A battleship enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. The sub submerges.

Following the rules, the sub emerges after the combat (that doesn’t take place)

Who controlls the seazone after the battleship owners turn?

Is the sub able to raid the convoy zone in that seazone, or is it impossible, cause the battleship owner “won” the battle and controls the sea zone?

Q2: Does the sub emerges before the collect income phase of the battleship owner and is it able to raid the sea-zone of the battleship-owner?

Q3: A submarine enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. Both sub submerges before any round of combat.

Are both submarines are able to make convoy raids? (For example a UK-sub and a Jap-sub in SZ 37)

1:  No power can “control” a seazone.  That’s why you don’t mark it.  The sub is able to raid, because it remains in the seazone during the collect income phase.  Powers occupy a seazone, and a seazone can be hostile, but it’s never really “controlled”.  A power can still place units in a seazone adjacent to its factory, regardless of how many enemy units might remain in that seazone (that may even be disrupting a convoy).
2:  Yes.
3: Yes,  assuming each is present during their respective enemy’s collect income phase (when the disruption occurs).

“Submerging” is simply a term for the option to retreat but remain in the same seazone.  It serves no other function, and it does not have any impact on any other phases of a turn.  After combat, all subs are effectively no longer submerged.

Delay of fame, five yard penalty! Lol

have japan pay attention to when they want to get america and england into the war.

Pay attention to the neutrals

Have fun!