Need a little help the game is preditable

I agree with a post that Mashmallow posted earlier, there is no guarantee that you are going to get that NO for a clear med, you should not even rely on that one. The Italians have so many uses, on the ground, with actual IPC earning territory’s that those planes can be used for, you need to weigh out their impact in the med versus potentially taking Egypt, steam rolling Greece, building an actually strong can-opener force in Russia, and even Protecting Rome.

The last few games that I have played, when I am the Axis, I get my Italian partner to seriously evaluate the Taranto raid force. If it is the max force possible, and the UK is totally on point, I say scrap the scramble, focus on more attainable objectives. As a German player, I sure as hell don’t want to burn the Luftwaffe on an air vs naval clean up battle G2, where I can lose guaranteed safe hits against Russian ground troops once Barbarossa commences. On the other hand, If the UK doesn’t bring the max force down, or they don’t make a move to middle east with SA and India navies / units, and Italy looks like they might have some time to maneuver for a few rounds, then scramble all the way. I have seen games were Italy won the Taranto raid, and from then on became unstoppable in the Med, which in turn leads to Germany being able to achieve their full potential, and results in an Axis victory.

Italy unfortunately has to play the game, or at least start the game, being completely on board to support the Germans in whichever direction they plan to strike. A strong Afrika campaign with Italian air power can lead to Italy generating sufficient IPCs to gain a bit more control over their destiny. A successful Italian campaign in the middle East, or as a can-opener can have the same impact. Italy with zero navy, and zero air force, means they might as well stockpile Rome and prepare to defend Europe, there will be no expeditionary force.

@Argothair:

My play group is very considerate about trying to (a) identify when the game isn’t much worth playing anymore, and then (2) accurately describe the likely outcome of the game.

Right, like there are no hard-and-fast rules about “oh, you lost your capital, or you lost Cairo, or you’re making 30 IPCs less per turn, so it’s game over.” Instead we look at the board and try to see if there are battles or campaigns coming up that are likely (>10%?) to make a dramatic impact on the state of the game, especially campaigns where the underdog is going on the offensive, or where the apparent favorite is in danger of being pushed back if they lose a key attack. E.g. it matters a lot whether Germany has one stack next door to Moscow, with nothing to reinforce it if that stack is destroyed, vs. a steady stream of reinforcements and a huge stack next to Moscow. In the former case, Moscow could recover if it fends off a German battle with 80% odds to take Moscow. In the latter case, even if Moscow pulls out that 20% from the dice, they will still have 80% odds to die one turn later, so it’s not a big deal. The former position is interesting and worth playing on if we can manage to find time for a second session; the latter position is not interesting and the game should be called.

When we call a game, we don’t insist on unconditional surrender. Instead, we try to agree on what the game looks like. For example, “the Allies are way ahead, but the Axis still have a slight chance.” Or, “It’s hard to say for sure who’s winning, but it looks like the Axis have a slight edge.” Sometimes we don’t always precisely agree – one side might claim the Allies are ahead by “a little” while the other side might claim the Allies have “a significant lead,” but so far we have always at least agreed on which side has the edge, even if not by how much.

Hey!  I am in your play group and what you are saying is…. basically right.  Although have we played global together?  Don’t recall honestly

@creeping-deth87 Italy needs no help if played correctly.

That’s true, and slipped my mind. But this would effectively stop the invasion, which I believe it should. I know the rule is the rule I just think its goofy that a sub would be ignored by something that couldn’t attack it. CV’s have changed so much during all the incarnations of A&A and it seems will continue to, having no attack value is silly but giving them Capitol ship status would make them too powerfull if they had attack powers or too expensive. Any way, again, thanks for the clarification, I would have played it differently and not even have thought to ask. And again, no disrespect Gamerman, I just don’t like the rule is all.

@Guru03:

My brother always beats me in the 1st round in A&A and i dread playing because of that. Can you give me some good allies and some good axis strategies to help me win?

One thing you might have failed to realise is that the Allies are supposed to suffer heavy casualties in the early war, and then progress into winning in the long run.

Think of the axies as the school bully who pushes the young allies around. Then in the long run the Allies go to college and become CEO of Goldman Sachs and proceed to dick on the over-cocky axies. If the Allies give up in the early stages, well they will never win, whilst if they stick to their guns and make the good investments and minimize their loss, they win in the long run.

/holding breath

Haha nice video man. That Russian stack is pretty intense.