Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)

@Olmate
Welcome to the forum.

The rulebook should be clarification enough (1940 Pac.2nd ed., page 15):
“A quick reaction team of no more than 3 defending fighters and/or tactical bombers (strategic bombers can’t scramble) located on each island or coastal territory that has an operative air base can be scrambled to defend against attacks in the sea zones adjacent to those territories.”

As you correctly stated this wording clearly doesn’t include fighters located on carriers in seazones.

Why should something not being part of the rules be explicitly stated in the rulebook? Or in any FAQ/Errata when the wording of the rule is clear enough? There are hundreds of House Rules that might fill what people are missing being included in game rules / rulebooks.

There of course exist player created variants of Global1940 that have scrambling from carriers included.

@freh said in Bids for allies - 60???:

Wow, I’ve been away from the game so things must have shifted and strategy must be evovling. I just can’t imagine losing with the opportunity to put $60 worth of allied units before the game starts. Are there any patterns to bids? Does it get concentrated in one nation (defending UK against initial German attacks, or giving Russia some more offensive bite) or is it spread out?

As I said my gaming group in Seattle has gone up to $60. I am not sure that is true for the general community. The placement of the Bid depends on the Player. Sometimes it all goes in Russia, sometimes it all goes to UK Europe. Personally I think that is six of one half a dozen of another. Bid units in Russia protect Moscow so the Allies do not need to help Russia defend their capital. Bid units for UK Europe assist UK in defense of London and in taking out the Italians much faster which allows them to assist Russia either with direct unit intervention for the defense of Moscow or intense pressure on the Atlantic Wall. The end result is basically the same. Either the UK is strong and gets help to Russia fast or the UK is weak and struggles but never has to send help to Russia because Russia is strong. Personally I like a 50-50 balance between UK Europe and Russia. Best of both worlds. :)

One constant is that normally at least 80% up to all 100% goes on the Europe side of the board versus the Pacific side of the board.

True, threatening Sealion is strong German play, but as Young Grasshopper himself has said, many British players do not fear it much these days, so you might as well hit Russia hard, right from the start, and get the killing blow(in my strategic opinion).
Thanks and God Bless You All from AxisandAlliesGeneral

Also depends on IF:
UK brings in the extra Ftr and a Bmbr.

But as SH allready explained:
What is your goal with Italy. Stall as long as possible UK in the Med.?
Getting aggressiv?
Looking for NO’ s?
Or soften UK RN for the German Luftwaffe?

If you scramble with Italy or not reveals also your future Plans in the Med. :wink:

@Rocmistro:

One gripe: I almost feel that the bonus income stuff forces you to play the War exactly how it played out in reality. That’s a bit of a bummer, as I would like to see different scenarios play out.  Oh well.

Yeah, the national objectives are based more or less on historical objectives of the actual war. Think about this though; you had Japan capture Alaska, Italy captured Cairo and Germany conquered Russia without having to face an Allied invasion of France. You DID play it differently from reality.
Plus, believe it or not, a lot of Allied strategies end up being vastly different from the real war. Most successful Allied strategies I have seen involve the US taking out Japan first, then dealing with Germany/Italy. In one game, Germany took London then went on to attack Russia. The US managed to take care of Japan then took Rome and liberated Paris. Germany used so much to take London that they didn’t really have enough to take on the Russians and did very poorly in Russia. Berlin fell to the US and London NEVER GOT LIBERATED!

That’s what I thought too, Garg.  Only Cow knows for sure  :lol:

Thanks guys.

In my first Europe game, the Allies won after 16 rounds.  When the US liberated France, giving them 4 extra men and their economy back, they did help by attacking and taking Western Germany.  The next round, USA was able to move through Western Germany and take Berlin.  Germany was not able to properly defend it’s territories, even Germany itself, because of so much stuff committed to the Eastern Front.  Moscow did eventually fall, but it took Germany a long time to get there and cost them a ton of units in the process.  Plus, the very round Moscow fell, the US took Berlin.
One strange thing about this game was that London was never liberated.  Once Germany took London, they built a strong force of infantry there and the US decided to bypass that to take Rome, liberate Paris and go after Berlin.  The German navy was decimated and the Atlantic was totally controlled by the US so all those troops on England were pretty much stuck there.  On the very last round, after taking Berlin, the US had enough forces left in the area and they liberated London.  Technically the game was over though because the final German round to see if they could retake their capital had passed.  It was really impossible for the Germans to retake Berlin because what was left of their forces were way east in Russia.
In my second Europe game, the Axis won in 8 rounds.  So with those two games, it kind of goes along with history.  Shorter game/war, Axis victory.  Longer game/war, Allied victory.  One big thing that did the Axis in was that they were planning on a short, quick war to achieve their goals.  When the war dragged out, the greater Allied industrial and mineral resources told.