Now, extra German planes in the mid-game can be a good investment against a balanced, slow KGF if Allies don’t have excess escorts. They already defend where they are almost like 2 more inf (6 IPC), also threaten 1-2 fleets that will need extra escorts, and swap easier on land. Combined with the Japanese fleet coming throught the Med, they can paralyze the Allied moves sandwiched between each of them.
But, that’s not ships, but anti-ship build…
German Offensive Troubles..
-
I think revised is good because both Russia and Germany are significantly better off. It takes much longer for American interference and Africa is much more defensible with the Axis then before. (Mainly cause it takes 2 rounds to land in Southern Africa or you are locked into Algeria landings, so you only need to defend Egypt in most games.)
If Russia is being aggressive, why not invest heavily in Infantry and force them to extend too far?
-
Well, I was hoping Germany would have a better time at things in revised, but it seems to me they are even worse off.
How many revised games have you played?
You should really utilize the LHTR rules set. It fixes certain things (like delayed tech)
Also, There ARE key German 1 moves to ward off the dreaded KGF strat.
-
I agree with Axis_Roll. Once you learn how to play the Axis properly, the Axis can be tough to beat. But playing “gambits” with Germany is not how you do it against decent competition. You need a long-term strategy and the patience to invest in the right purchases to make that strategy pay off. You also need to recognize Allied mistakes when they make them so you can take advantage. It’s a far more balanced game than A&A Classic.
-
I was just saying that in my group, the gambits are a waste from the get-go, because none of the guys I am playing with are dumb enough to miss the obvious possibilities. Trannies + troops + clear shipping lanes = possible invasion. It doesnt matter to these guys if the attack isn’t “ordinary,” they’ll still see it. I only got off the sealion because everybody (including me until half way thru buying more troops for germany) forgot about tech, and how it goes into play immediately. And like I said, we fixed that rule immediately, without ever hearing about LTHR yet…
As to the general German strategy of trading with russia, hoping for a weakness, and eventually turtling up and waiting for Japan… its the same thing as last version, with just a couple different twists. I would really like to see a game where there are more than two major strategies in round1, where pretty much anything could happen… (and as it is, 90%+ still do KGF, with only 10% doing KJF, according to most polls, so we can almost narrow it down to one major strategy.)
That’s why we are thinking of coming up with our own map, with maybe four nations in each corner and nobody fighting on more fronts than anybody else. Perhaps some juicy incentive in a continent in the center for people to fight over. And enough space and complexity in the map, that barring 100% identical moves and purchases, the game will evolve differently each time. Hell, íf the map is good enough, just the statistical differences in luck will be enough to evolve the game chaoticly in just a few moves.
-
A good game has good mechanics. A very good game adds theme and distinctive flavour to the good mechanics.
I like A&A also for the feeling that it gives during play. So in my personal gaming experience I like A&A because it requires accurate planning and effective logistic to win. At same time it gives different emotion depending on the nation you are leading.
Naturally you may create your own map, simmetric and balanced for example, but I believe that in such way the game may loose some of its feeling.
Moreover, even if the possible “grand strategies” (higher level planning) are somewhat reduced I think that there are a lot of space for creativity and fantasy for concretely implementing those strategies. In each turn several different moves may be performed with diverse pros and cons.
It is similar to Chess: the “grand strategy” may be only aimed to mate the opponent king (KillKingFirst KKF :) ) but you have space for different way of reaching that objective. -
With players on the same level, axis should get a 8-9 bid IMO.
-
A good game has good mechanics. A very good game adds theme and distinctive flavour to the good mechanics.
I like A&A also for the feeling that it gives during play. So in my personal gaming experience I like A&A because it requires accurate planning and effective logistic to win. At same time it gives different emotion depending on the nation you are leading.
Naturally you may create your own map, simmetric and balanced for example, but I believe that in such way the game may loose some of its feeling.
Moreover, even if the possible “grand strategies” (higher level planning) are somewhat reduced I think that there are a lot of space for creativity and fantasy for concretely implementing those strategies. In each turn several different moves may be performed with diverse pros and cons.
It is similar to Chess: the “grand strategy” may be only aimed to mate the opponent king (KillKingFirst KKF :) ) but you have space for different way of reaching that objective.I completely agree – each country has decisions to make which are not automatic, even when playing an overall strategy of KGF or KJF. Within KGF, there are a variety of ways to go about it. Do you go the Africa route or the northern route? Do you push back against Japan or fall back? What did your opponent do? What opportunities do your opponents moves create? I’ve played more than 30 games on this forum and every one was different. It’s why I keep playing.
-
Hey Daggaz,
Since you guys play tech, why not get Rockets with Germany, put an AA Gun in E. Europe and hit Russia, Caucasus and England every round? Add an SBR of England or Russia with the German bomber each round and you can do some serious damage!
Might knock the wind out of the Russian sails if you get lucky enough early enough to implement it in time!
-
As to the general German strategy of trading with russia, hoping for a weakness, and eventually turtling up and waiting for Japan… its the same thing as last version, with just a couple different twists.
Well, I guess you have to expect something like that in a game titled Axis & Allies. And as it being the same thing except for a couple of different twists - did you not expect that when the title was “Axis & Allies: Revised?” If you didn’t like the old game, then why expect the new game to be completely different?
Perhaps Risk is more of your style? Or try one of the other A&A variants, they are a lot different with things like supply trucks, fortune cards, etc.
-
They are all self-described gambits.
took the word right out of my mouth. not safe and steady play but reckless ‘seat of your pants’ type of things. not too good. not crisp playing techniques. Its more like a network of theory attempting to discover some “great” new ideas never before thought of but its just an average study of the game.
-
I don’t think any site goes over “crisp playing techniques” for Revised.
Csub is also fairly in depth about certain topics. It talks about complexes vs transports, the viability of IC in India, how to attack Pearl and how to go KJF if you wanted to. The cheat sheets also give a great starting place for new players.
And in spite of the obvious that people state about the gambits, they are actually decent normal moves as well, as Daggaz has admitted. It’s the ghost of the gambit that gets the people scrambling and possibly overreacting. None of the gambits are truly “risk takers”; all that land bridge asks you to do is buy 2 transports instead of a carrier, which actually is a better buy in many ways, and as for the Japanese gambit well this isn’t out of the way at all, lots of people take islands in the exactly the same manner.
-
Yeah, I definitely can see the use of the transports now… just played thru a few games by myself and those things can be a real pain for both USA and England. I’m thinking, if I see that move on G1 by any other player, Im going to go out of my way to sack their fleet ASAP, regardless of the costs. Long term delays due to being overly worried are just way too costly. Which is still a good thing for Germany… spend 16 IPC, maneuver your fleet properly, and you buy a round or two AND you force USA to sack their first fleet/airforce against it. Fine by me…
Same thing with having a few transports floating around west USA as Japan… Keeps USA on their toes, and with any luck they will react and you can just pull back to safety and once again, the allies have burned cash and time responding to a threat rather than a real force on the frontlines. Or if you are really lucky, the other guy will be overly focused on the fronts and totally forget that Alaska can be sacked that turn and that he wont be able to defend LA cuz all of his troops were placed in Eastern Canada… Not likely against my group, but still, one can hope…
But I’m just talking about one or two transports here, nothing like the gambits describe with dumping a whole turn into boatbuilding… that is just instant death at my table.
Still, we keep running into the problem that we all understand force projection, kill zones, and logistics all too well. It just keeps up ending as a war of attrition… And in this case, as long as the allies dont get bad luck (or the guy gets too tired), they generally win. I will say tho, having tried a few times now with a tank and an inf in libya, it does go somewhat better for Germany as far as flexibility. Way too many units were tied down in Egypt and surrounding sea zones otherwise… I think Ill just recommend to my group that germany always gets those pieces, and we can continue just flipping for who gets to play Axis. (japan is too much fun, everybody wants to be them, heh).
-
But I’m just talking about one or two transports here, nothing like the gambits describe with dumping a whole turn into boatbuilding… that is just instant death at my table.
If you actually read the gambits, they only recommend 2 transports at elite level of playing, and their goal is never to do a gambit, just to screw up Allied shipping. Like you said, it buys a round or 2 and forces the US to sacrifice their air and fleet. There’s no reason to pidgeonhole those papers, because they are quite nuanced if you read them.
Still, we keep running into the problem that we all understand force projection, kill zones, and logistics all too well. It just keeps up ending as a war of attrition… And in this case, as long as the allies dont get bad luck (or the guy gets too tired), they generally win.
Then the bid isn’t high enough. I also have to say I’m skeptical that your play is so perfect already. What are the general timetables on which Germany is falling? On which round do they lose Norway, Ukraine, etc? On which round is Japan able to threaten Moscow?
I will say tho, having tried a few times now with a tank and an inf in libya, it does go somewhat better for Germany as far as flexibility.
Yes, it makes it tons easier not to have to send your bb/tran to Egypt! :-)
-
@Bean:
I will say tho, having tried a few times now with a tank and an inf in libya, it does go somewhat better for Germany as far as flexibility.
Yes, it makes it tons easier not to have to send your bb/tran to Egypt! :-)
More importantly, bringing the inf and tank from SEU to AES (with an inf/tank bid in libya) leaves a force that UK can not counter on UK1. AES is one of the most important territories in round one for Germany/UK.
-
As Japan I like to leave a carrier and battleship in SZ 60. That way America isn’t tempted to put a solitary transport in SZ 55 in hopes of getting an island or two before it is sunk.
Life is just easier when America knows it’s place on Tokyo’s planet!
-
More importantly, bringing the inf and tank from SEU to AES (with an inf/tank bid in libya) leaves a force that UK can not counter on UK1. AES is one of the most important territories in round one for Germany/UK.
Actually I want the UK to counter, which makes it easier for Japan to expand. I don’t mind using up those initial units in Egypt to burn up all those random inf the UK has.
-
If UK has the shot at 2 German tanks solo in Egypt, they have to go for it. The cost of Africa is too high not too.
-
@Cmdr:
If UK has the shot at 2 German tanks solo in Egypt, they have to go for it. The cost of Africa is too high not too.
True dat. AES is the gateway to lots of IPCs… it’s like a double swing. German +IPCs, UK -IPCs.
An early goal the Axis should have is to reduce UK’s ability to make war… they are the first to strike on Germany so it’s best to make them as weak as possible from Berlins perspective.
-
Jap player could sometimes not do pearl, in tempting US to come to pacific.
All Jap units could be used on mainland J1.
If UK goes all in, those units should be killed, though.
Problem with not doing pearl, is that US may send the pac fleet against Japan, and still build everyhing in EUS.
Pressure on Germany would be the same, the US pac fleet uses 3-4 rnds before it’s in European waters.
If US catches the bait, pressure on Germany will be much weaker.
Suggested Topics
