Favorite country

When I played it was almost always with the same two people so I usually got stuck with Germany. I got to play the US once and that was a lot of fun.

Death Head, I think you are discussing Revised, not the original version of Axis and Allies.

fair enough. Let’s say you pull the armor back, and toss fighters in? Or one arm, one ftr?
Also it’s not just the german ftr but also it’s armor(s). Plus stalling it for 2 turns (by forcing it to pull back instead of allowing it to build up).

I’m not sure I follow, how does hitting EEuro hurt Germany more than attacking Ukr. It has 1 more armor anyway, and you have more guys to throw in. Further against a good PE bid you’d likely be creating a deadzone in Karelia even with armor there, or I could stack Cauc to force you from Karelia on R2. Either way I don’t see why attacking EEuro is going to hurt Germany more than hitting Ukr would.

Depending on the bid of course, but interesting is

sub vs sub in AZO

2 ftr vs trn, sub in BAL
8/3 vs Ukr

and maybe 5/1 vs Man (only w/1 inf Kwa bid or less)
ncm the trn to NOR and Germany has a tough task.

Yes very much depending on the bid if you ask me. IMO no Africa bid should ever happen unless you are prepared to bid 2 guys into Manch. I assume an Africa bid as against a PE bid this would be extremely risky, and create a potential deadzone out of Karelia. So yes I’d say this would work against only the very worst of bids.

That’s the only reason I’d risk all my tanks in E Euro. At least I know I’ll have another round to build before an invasion. I don’t like it, but in an unRR, no bid game (ie playing by the printed rules) I could see the tactical advantage to taking Manch, E. Euro, Baltic Sea and the sea zone to the west of France with Russia followed by a Kwang attack by the UK.

But herein lies the problem in a no bid no RR game why would Russia need to ever worry about Karelia. I would also question why Russia would need to attack Manchuria as in a no bid game the Allies start with such an impressive advantage they don’t need to do much to win.

Example: huge trade off in round 1 and 2 between Russians and Germans, both lose their arm. Spa landings are interesting once Ger hasnt got any arm.

Yup when Germany hasn’t got much or any armor they should not expect to hold both EEuro and WEuro for long. Conversely, if Russia doesn’t have much armor walk throughs in the Cauc should be expected.

Yeah, but you have to have the cash to buy HB.

Or have built up a nice stockpile of bombers prior to rolling tech. 3-4 can be enough to have a big impact on the game. For example, I love to sometime build a few British bombers just so when the Japs decide to lurch into Africa(after the Allies push Germany out). I get two rounds to roll for heavy bombers, and if I get a little bit luck those 4 bombers could kill 8 ships which should be enough to kill all or almost all of the Jap Fleet there including capital ships. Once that happens the game is usually over for Japan as their remaining fleet can be hunted down, or at least pushed out of position to be a factor.

Also depending on who you are, you can surround yourself with aa-guns, or just place them in all your countries. I just think HB are very defendable, provided of course you know your oppenent has them to start the game and you can prepare for it. Say you play a game where one side has HB and the other has IT.

No this is a red herring because all powers are susceptable to Heavies at some point and regardless of how strong you are you will have to figure you can’t prevent them. For example, if Britain or America gets HBs they can always bomb Germany without flying over 2 AA guns, true they can’t necessarily hit Japan, but with LRA they can. More importantly though with Heavy bombers the Allies can afford to give up Moscow if they need to as it opens Japan up to SBRs making them have to be able to win with what they have, if they don’t have enough to crack through the wall you’ll put in Karelia then they can’t take Moscow, and Russia gets the benefit of holding Moscow with no units! Because of this I think tech represents an enormous Allied advantage. However, should Japan get HBs they can SBR Britain as long as Germany survives without flying over two AA guns, and they should be able to do the same to Russia, if they position themselves right. The Americans too should be susceptable to SBRs unless they too get HBs before you can get to Hawaii with enough bombers.

Yeah, I totally agree with that! That’s one reason I don’t like tech, and you precisely laid out why. If you play someone who you know will tech later, then I say just get it out of the way and start teching early on, like you suggest, and your bound to get a tech. But if you tech, your opponents my tech earlier (or should), then it becomes a ‘luck’ race for tech and the first side which gets a meaningful tech or 2 then they are likely to win. Once and a while that’s okay, but I don’t want all my games to be like that.

But if you look at tech as a necessary investment you will not hate it as much. What I hate is when I spend 20ipcs a turn for several turns with an overall investment being 60-80ipcs without getting HBombers. Then once my opponent realizes I will get it eventually decides to roll 20-30ipcs of dice and gets it right away. That tech doesn’t require an equal investment for equal results IMO results in too much luck, but LowLuck/NoLuck variants attempt to rectify this.

Vann Himself wrote:

I chose Japan because they are usually more flexible and as long as you hold asia, island hopping isn’t really a threat to your economy.

I have to disagree with that. Island hopping can devistate Japan. I’ve said this a couple of times and I’ll reiterate my points.

First, it puts a navy on Japan’s door step, and gives allied players another foothold for Asia. Not the biggest advantage but it helps a little.

Second, it is very easy for the UK to put an IC on Australia (even easier if WE is taken and the US is moving in on Germany, so your on the defencive in Europe) and grab at least two islands form the start. Since it’s difficult to reinforce islands effectivly, you usally only have to take out one inf. A ftr and 2 inf can usally handle this threat.

Third, it draws attention away from Asia. If Japan doesn’t reinforce their navy in the south pacific (esspecialy against an IC in Australia), they will wind up with a broken or, worse, no navy, which opens the door for invation. So, Japan is forced to spend money on a navy, taking money from the mainland, which is a plus as it slows the drive to Moscow. That could mean death for Germany right there.

Finally, if you take all the islands, you steal 8 IPCs from Japan every turn. That is VERY difficult to retake on mainland Asia, as the territories average around 2-3 each. So you need to take something like 3-4 territories just to make up for the loss. Plus it provides a nice boost for the Allied nation(s) that occupy the islands.

So, thats my two cents.

Oh, and I like Germany the best :D

Russia’s give’s you a neat challenge so I like it best…

USA, there lack of threats and high income makes them perfect

columbia is also good if you have an IC in brazil and want to invade the us through panamaa