Customized Axis and Allies playing pieces

@MarineIguana:

KJF with us naval pressure and no ICs is different and actually competitive vs experienced players.

If you want something nasty, try accumulating battleships. 18 battleships landing with 1 infantry…

Lol, or researching destroyer bombardment and have 36 destroyers instead.

See other thread about Russia strategy… overall I can just say: DO NOT PLAY WITH NAs. In my opinion they are very unbalanced and can shift the game into certain directions very much. Just as examples: Lend-Lease for Russia is a lot stronger than e.g. Trans-Siberian railway; Luftwaffe Dive Bombers are strong; Joint strike or Colonial Garrison are sick; same are Superfortresses which are just stupid especially with heavy bombers.

@AxisOfEvil:

@Cmdr:

Actually, I am quite proud that I, and game play, have convinced about 25% of the voters

….

40 votes Russian Fighter
10 votes British Bomber

I really, really look for things to agree with you about jen. I like your enthusiasm in your analysis. But im confused. How can you incorrectly quote vote results that are posted at the top of this thread. How can anyone agree with you when your misrepresent obviously verifiable facts. Note the time and date of my post here. I am going to reproduce the numbers I see at the top:

ONE Russian Fighter  34 (79.1%)
ONE British Bomber  7 (16.3%)
ONE Japanese Fighter  1 (2.3%)
ONE American Bomber  0 (0%)
ONE German Fighter  1 (2.3%)
Remove Vote

Total Voters: 43

Look, they even include a handy % next to the number for us!! sweet. So 43 total votes. 7 for UK bomber. And logically, if 79.1% of the votes are for the russian fighter, it does not mean Jen can claim the other 20.8%. There are other options, created be Jen herself. Think of those as the Nadar vote, it doesnt count for your side Jen.

Again, why should we debate easily verifiable facts, especially ones posted at the top of the page!!!

Hence my observation of the Florida vote count (no political agenda was implied!)

@Crazy:

:-D
You gotta love LL!  :wink:

I don’t love LL . . .

No love.  (oo a tennis pun . . .)  :lol:

But it takes two turns to arrive in WR. So first step is always Ukraine, being Belorussia an inferior choices. The final destination of the Gemran Army moving west is Moscow, passing for WR or Caucasus, depending on the situation. So it is not a different proposal from going to Ukraine, is a possible step after that move.

The problem that I see is that meanwhile Allies could invade Karelia and then EE.
Or, moving Karelia and Arcangelsk, being ready to counterattack in Moscow if it falls.
Moving German main army East implies redisposition of German Fig. further East, for being useful.

I thing that the German may efficiently focus on EE dead zoning Karelia and trading it every turn. If Allied come out in force, strafing them for at least delay their action. This should give to the Japanese all the needed time for conquering Moscow and for relieving Germany.

I have, but what I haven’t figured out yet is whether or not the game was already “in the bag” for the axis before that point.  Still fairly inexperienced at this Revised stuff…

@Yahoshua:

To get a clarification:

You can bridge YOUR TRN and YOUR Troops (1 pt for TRN to load 1 pt. for TRN to unload) without moving the TRN provided the unit in question has the movement pts available for doing so (like Mech Infantry or Tanks?).

I’m not sure how this is handled with LHTR.

You can bridge INF too.

But no unit can move on land before or after being transported.

i like 5 since i dont get to play very often and this makes it more of a social event where we can all talk friendly trash to each other.  we also avoid blatant suggestions “buy 3 transports and two infantry, move these pieces here and these there” because then they become nothing but a dice roller.  it is more like “hey jap buddy, get your butt into asia as fast as you can, i’ll meet you in moscow!”