Posts made by Axel Allie

another poll…

Friday, I will have a newbie showing his moves…
I have made some positive and negative comments as well:

should he start as axis?

• germany can be an allrounder (doesn’t have to) and gets immediate action
• japan is a country that easily expands, so it’s fun to play with

• if allies combine forces (which I will, of course) - an unexperienced axis player doesn’t make a chance

or should he start as allies?

• they start with a little more advantage
• Russia gets immediate action, so you’ll know the value of units better…
• UK is the best allrounder in the game (ground units, fleet and AF), so you learn the benefits of every unit

• they lose this advantage pretty quick if a newbie is playing them :-P
• if you don’t know you need to combine forces to crush the axis, then you’ll lose eventually
• UK has to be an allrounder - if he’s not, he will be doomed.
• USA has to build his force before he can join combat - so he isn’t much involved to start with - patience and co-ordinance is everything for USA

probably I’m missing lots of pros and cons here,…
I’ll see about the vote :lol:

has anyone had very good experience with IC builds for G?

I know Nix once placed a new one in Ukraine.
I know some people talk about one in Egypt, but if they’ve ever put one there?
(so yes, you would have to recapture it…)

anyone?

Like always:

I would never try a black sea fleet with experienced players…
Same as all you guys I see.
but what the heck if you’re playing with newbies?
that’s the moment where you can do something crazy and fun as well I guess 8-)

But for me, it would be something like: save about 15 IPC’s from R’s last investment, so Russia has probably at least 40 IPC’s at once…
and then you can buy an AC and a BB in the next round for example.
you can load the AC with your existing figs and buy a few trannies in the following round.

If G still has a lot of figs flying around, it’s probably a lost case, anyway (even with newbies :-P)

12 votes so far and axis lead with 5 votes for each country…
many people want to play as the underdog apparently…

@ncscswitch:

Also, doing away with that rule would create some really fracked Allied strategies…
Things like the Allies LETTING USSR fall so that UK and US could have the rest of Russia’s income and become incredibly strong immediately.

yeah,

I know  :lol:
I would never imply the system in one of my games!

so, ncscswitch, I guess you never play it in real time, face to face?
or do you see some of those guys you mentioned?

things are looking great :lol:

but: remember: don’t get to confident!!!
do not overestimate your Japs…
Not even their fleet.

team building is everything, even with the Axis!
so, reinforce that western front in Berlin with every infantry Japan can send there!
then Germany can start building artillery as well and think of claiming those UK and USA occupied countries back!

have fun!

For me, it’s Japan…
the Japanese empire has the ability to grow steadily and blosom like a flower that gets enough water and sun…

Germany is my second favorite…

@omniconsum3r:

lol axis&allies.org vs one man…i still think thats funny

team building is everything in A&A
:lol:

@JamesG:

I grant you it does not “make sense” from a real world perspective, but a fair number of rules don’t make sense in that way.  They are probably the way they are for game balance reasons, etc.

Thx for your back-up, James G.

trihero and ncscswitch:
I know the rules and I always play by those rules, but I don’t see how this specific rule makes sense in a real world perspective.
anyway, NOT THAT IT MATTERS  :lol:
:-)  :lol:

I played 7 times in total:

5 times with friends
2 times alone, playing both axis and allies…

Like I said in my post:

@Axel:

I can’t remember anything mentioned in the rulebook on this specific topic, so I guess it’s not possible?

playing by the book, I know an ally can only get paid for a LIBERATED friendly allied territory.
but why wasn’t this mentioned in the rulebook?
I mean, wouldn’t it be logical to give the IPC’s to the ally that occupies the friendly allied territory with only his units on it, after the capital of the original owner of the allied territory fell?

Maybe that’s true,

but still, some are not, I think…

thx, ncscswitch!

even on this forum, you seem to know all the answers  :lol:  :roll:

hey,

I think an update is required for the sticky subjects here
I’ve seen one with: last post on MAY 2003!!!

hey,

I would like to know how the percentage in your general statistics is calculated…
So far, I had almost all my posts in the A&A Revised section, but only 2,12% has been calculated for this???
if you want to know what I try to explain, you can see my general statistics on:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=3763;sa=statPanel

@trihero:

USA 1 and USA 2 together is good for a built of 5 bombers, together with the one you have to begin with is 6 bombers to attack in USA 3! that’s an average of 17,5 IPC’s to drain from G in round 4…
it’s not the best way to get USA in the action, I think, but it’s a way to go…

Well on USA 3 you could only attack with the 2 bombers you built on USA 1, because they are in London. Your USA 2 bombers can’t even attack Western Europe from Eastern US.

My sentence wasn’t formulated as good as it should have been…
@Axel:

… is 6 bombers to attack in USA 3! that’s an average of 17,5 IPC’s to drain from G in round 4…

better was:
… is 6 bombers to attack after USA 3! that’s an average of 17,5 IPC’s to drain from G in round 4…
(notice that I mention the loss of IPC’s for G in USA 4)

@trihero:

If you can use them in combat in any way, they are far more better!

Well yes, but since you can build fighters, you’d rather build fighters because they are even better. 3 fighters will inflict slightly more damage than 2 bombers per combat round (equal costs), offer more fodder, and infinitely better defense.

fighters are indeed better!
I didn’t state that building bombers was the best thing to do!

I did the suggested calc to clearify the math…

the only way you should build bombers is when you need a longer range than figs and certainly when you work with weapon developments (double SB is worth it)
we never play with weapon developments 'cause it increases the luck factor a lot and the double SB is much to effective and harsh…

And what if Archangel was Russian territory the moment Moscow fell, but NO Russian units were present and only UK units for example?

would this territory be reverted to UK hands and give IPC’s for UK until the Russian capital is liberated?
so, to make things clear: UK didn’t actually liberate Archangel, but they have control of a former allied territory…
does that count as well?

I can’t remember anything mentioned in the rulebook on this specific topic, so I guess it’s not possible?

Imagine next situation:
Every Russian territory, except Caucasus and Moscow, have ONLY units of UK…
Caucasus is G territory…
Moscow fell to Germany, so the capital can no longer give commands to all of its territories.
In my imagination, it would be possible that UK gets all of these territories to command and gain their IPC’s for doing that (sort of payment).

what would be the difference in moral explanation if they actually liberate the territory (first in G hands and then in UK hands)?
why would they be rewarded only in this specific situation?

you still make a chance indeed…
if J is making 60 IPC’s and G was still making 20… this is 80 in total.
what has UK and USA? each probably about 40… and Russia still some IPC’s on a few territories…

then axis have an edge indeed!

Since I look at all the units present on the field, I have a nice topic for a you guys:
what was the most expensive battle you’ve encountered
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6356.0

Till now, we always played untill someone forfeited…

but, I have to admit: you have to be with persons who tend to see when they have lost the game!!!
and some persons just don’t know the word quitting