Where can i find the axis and allies cd-rom patch v1.33? (thats free)

@thrasher1

I posted this about three years ago. So I thought a ‘BUMP’ was OK to do (just put this topic into the spotlight again).

(If this is not OK just remove this post. No problem)

So to all:

Please imagine what new Gamemaster Series you had liked to be released by MB/Hasbro. In the 1980s or 1990s. Another WW II game? WW I or WW III?
Medieval warfare with knights and stuff like that?
Or a game set in the future…

Looking forward to read your - creative! - replies.

Original posting: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32447/axis-and-allies-mb-edition-inquiry-form-included-in-the-box?page=1

Questionaire by MB (was included in some of the boxes):
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/assets/uploads/files/1610451934068-gamemaster-customer-survey-card-question-7-to-9.png

I broke this news first:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/rants.html

Results of testing…

Interesting idea, but not viable against a good opponent.

UK re-taking of reinforcing Egypt throws a major monkey wrench in getting those aircraft to Europe.  Best I could do in almost all cases was get them to Germany for use in J5 instead of J4.  By that time, the volume of transports alone was so great that even without capital ships also in the UK sea zone, Japan would have probably have lost most of their aircraft on the first attack.

Also, the number of aircraft is wrong.  If Russia strikes Manchuria on R1, then Japan loses a fighter.  Although a Russia attack on Manchuria in R1 DOES make it easier for Japan to still move against Russia without air support.

However, if Russia consolidates in Yakut in R1, then the lack of air-power makes Yakut way too difficult for Japan to crack for SEVERAL rounds.  Every test I ran showed that Russia holding Yakut and NOT going after Manchuria (or re-taking SFE) was a superior strategy for Russia.  It kept Japan’s navy out of action against Russian forces.  Any move by Russia to a coastal territory improved Japan’s ability to function without those fighters (actually, Russia does far better against Japan even if the fighters are kept for use against Russia’s eastern territories if Russia keeps their forces away from Japan’s navy.)

India is the stumbling block to this Japan strategy.  If the Japan AF consolidates in Burma, UK abandones India and reinforces/re-takes Egypt.  This takes away Japan’s transit LZ, trapping those fighters in Asia for additional rounds, and out of position for flexible use in potential Asian combat theaters like Yakut (they can reach Yakut, but the European transit is set back to square 1).

Lastly, on those occasions when those fighters were able to move into Africa to stage for the last flight to Europe, it left the US with a wide open Pacific to tear through.  A couple of subs and tranny’s and US started to gobble up islands quickly.  The remaining Japan capital ships (2 BB’s, a sub,  and a carrier with no fighters) were destroyed engaging a VERY cheap US fleet; a fleet that was followed by a couple more tranny’s and subs that proceeded to take the Pacific AND Burma virtually un-opposed.  Two subs in that fleet is all it took to break through the unguarded Japan tranny’s that were shifted to attempt to reinforce their soft positions in southern Asia.

If anything you have more of the Axis and Allies pieces and chips than I do :D .

@Zakes:

The trick to screwing over Russia on the first round is to throw everything, literrally everything at Karelia on the very first round, and buying tons tanks so you can reinforce your front on the second turn.

I initially thought so as well.  But these folks showed me the implementation of US and UK strategies that I had never seen developed to the level they use them that preclude Germany from HOLDING Karelia to be able to build there in G2.

To take Karelia against the best defensive buildup that Russia can muster requires your Air Force.  But if you use your Air Force against Karelia, the UK navy is intact, and does an amphib in Karelia (2 BB’s, 3 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 INF, 1 tank) to kick Germany’s few remaining forces out in UK1.

Even if UK fails to kick Germany out of Karelia, what forces does Germany have left?  2 INF in Western, 4 INF and a tank in Eastern, 1-3 tanks in Karelia, 2 fighters, and a bomber; and their “total tank” build of 6 tanks in Germany.  That is a BEST case survival scenario.

Going forward against this, you have Russia building 7 (or more) INF per round, UK with a “full” transport fleet to use against Germany and the US also with a transport fleet that starts hitting Germany in US3.

Believe me, I used to agree whole heartedly with you, but failing to take out the Allied naval forces in the 1st and 2nd rounds is certain quick death for Germany.  And without them, you can;t crack Karelia.  Even if you can, you can;t crack it with enough force to threaten Russia the following round.

i have i XP and i works for me

The Japan isn’t the main problem. With a decent size Navy (2 hit BB’s hopefully) after Pearl Habor and maybe a buildup of some supporting ships (a few subs or destroyers), the Japanese can hold WUSA at bay even without blockading. However, it’s the German I’m more worried about only having subs and maybe a carrier to contend with).

Ah, forgot the “additionally” clause. Overall, this seems pretty sound. When I play Russia, usually I focus too much on Germany and sometimes forget how quickly the Japanese can creep up in my back door. On average, I may shift 2 inf now to Nov, and I’m sure another 4 would help me out without jeopardizing my Eastern Europe Operations. However, what I like about Russia is accessibility. Even if I forget to place 4 inf. in Russia early on, I can do so later due to fact that Nov is only one space away, making supply lines a minimal concern.