Posts made by Bardoly

@Driel310:

@P-Unit:

After two games, and much thought, I hate the NO rules because they are far too many of them to track, dragging down the game with everyone evaluating 6-10 extra territories a turn. Think about it, pretty much every nation has to not only track ~5 territories for their own NO, but has to keep an eye on the ~2 enemy nations around them to make sure they aren’t getting all of their NOs. Boooo, sorry, too much friggin work.

They went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overboard with the NOs. Instead, they should have made each nation have one obvious NO and there should have been a way to track each of them on the board with some sort of marker or plastic flag.

If you find keeping track of the NO’s too much work, maybe you shouldn’t be playing A&A but chess?

Come on, if you play a few games you know all the NO’s by head. At least our playgroup does… :wink:

I totally agree. After playing a few games, my group pretty much has the NOs memorized.

@TG:

Bardoly,

Gameaholic!   :lol:
How did you guys manage to play so many games in like, two weeks!?  Do you guys intend to continue playing on a regular (though less frequent) basis?  If you are, I’d like you to visit: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12942.0

Well, we almost always play games until someone conceeds, so sometimes the game is over by round 4-5.

Also, we have had an incredible rash of game-changing bad rolls.  For example, in one game, Germany built a large fleet of 4 Super Subs, 2 Aircraft Carriers with 4 Jet Fighters on them, 2 Cruisers, 1 Destroyer, and 2 Transports, in the Baltic Sea.  The UK, who was played by an average player, against my better judgement, attacked with only 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier with 2 Fighters, 1 other Fighter, 1 Bomber, 1 Cruiser, and 1 Destroyer.  They battle lasted 2 rounds, and at the end of the battle which the UK won, the UK still had 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Bomber, and 2 Fighters.  Needless to say, the Axis lost that game.
In another game, the US sent out a sacrificial fleet (1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, with air support of 2 Bombers (not Heavy) and 1 Fighter) to whittle down the Japanese fleet (1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers with 3 Fighters, 2 Cruisers, 1 Destroyer, and 1 Sub).  The US won that battle with the Battleship, Cruiser, and 1 Bomber remaining.  With incredible rolls like these and others, the game can be decided quickly.

Also, occasionally a  couple of us will get together for a fast one.  We all live and work together in a compound, so we are able to just leave the board set up and easily finish the game later if we need to.

I’ll try to write up some reviews.  We’ll see how long everyone’s attention stays on this game though.  We go through phases where we play a lot for a while, then very little for a while.  This is new, so we were pretty interested in it.

@TG:

Bardoly,

As for playing with the NOs, I still think that the game is still too new to get a balanced “feel” for the game yet, but my group and I feel that playing with the NOs is more enjoyable than playing without.  We have played several (6-8) games with the NOs, and the wins for the Axis/Allies are about 50/50.

Was this under the 1941 or 1942 setup?

If I remember correctly, we played 4 1941 games using the incorrect setup (missing 1 Japanese transport with 2 Infantry and 1 Infantry on Iwo Jima), and the Axis won 1, and the Allies won 3.  Then, when we got the correct setup, we played 2 more matches, and split the 2 games between the Axis and the Allies.  We played 1 1942 game, which the Allies won, and we are currently in another 1942 game which has progressed quite strangely.  The Axis should have won already, but, due to a fluke, America captured Japan on the same turn that Moscow fell, and the Axis have no convenient way to liberate Japan.  UK (which I am playing) is holding on, but Italy is actually bigger than the UK.  The game is still going, and we don’t have a clue who will win.

One qualification, our group includes 3 pretty experienced playes, 3 decent players, and 1 new player, and every time we start a new game, we randomly choose sides, with 1-3 players sitting out, because they can’t play at that time.  Because of this, some of the matches were a little lopsided experience-wise, although, of course, the most experienced player on the less experienced team gives many gameplay suggestions.  Also, we always play with techs which adds to the luck factor of the game, and in one 1941 game in particular that I remember, by turn 3, Russia had Mechanized Infantry (paid 10 IPCs total), and US had Long Range and Shipyards (paid 25 IPCs total) versus Germany’s Super Subs (paid 15 IPCs total), and Japan’s Radar (paid 15 IPCs total).  Because of these tech rolls, the game was quickly decided in the Allies favor.

For truly balanced gameplay, one should never play with techs, because the difference in getting a tech on the first turn versus getting a tech on the seventh turn (I recently played an AA50 -41 Setup game and purchased 2 Research Tokens for UK on the first turn. After 5 turns without rolling a “6” with 2 dice, I paid 5 IPC more to roll 3 dice, and still didn’t get a tech until my seventh turn.)  can drastically alter the balance of the game.

As for playing with the NOs, I still think that the game is still too new to get a balanced “feel” for the game yet, but my group and I feel that playing with the NOs is more enjoyable than playing without.  We have played several (6-8) games with the NOs, and the wins for the Axis/Allies are about 50/50.

So, my recommendation for you is to play both scenarios with NOs but without techs.

I think that the current Capitol Capture rules need to either be eliminated or altered.

My group and I are currently playing an AA50 42 Setup game where the Axis took control right from the start and took Moscow strong, but by a fluke, America’s smaller navy outmaneuvered Japan’s navy and actually managed to capture Japan on the same turn while also destroying the last remaining Japanese transport.  Now (with NOs) we have Germany collecting 60+ IPCs, Italy collecting 30+ IPCs, and Japan still at 30+ (no NOs because of not controlling their capital, and they don’t collect any IPCs either, so these 30+ IPCs are completelly wasted.), against the US collecting 60+ IPCs and UK collecting about 25 IPCs per turn.  The game has somewhat stagnated, because America has to keep UK alive and can’t expand in Japan’s territory, because there is still a large Japanese fleet within striking distance of any transports that America wishes to build in Japan.  Germany and Italy control all of the mainland but can’t get the Japanese IPCs because of the CC rules, but neither US or UK is strong enough to establish a beachead on the mainland to fight back with.  Japan lacking the means to liberate his capital, but still having a lot of units on the board, seems a little silly.  (They have a Manchurian IC, 10+ land units on the mainland, and a nice navy with 2 BBs, 2 Carriers (no Fighters though), 1 Cruiser, 2 DDs, and 1 Sub.)

There is definitely not a clear winner yet, but the game has now dragged out for such a long time that interest has waned.  (We play our games over a period of about a week usually, but this game is now past 2 weeks with no signs of ending soon.)

@Imperious:

If Italy built a 2 DD on I2 or I1 if playing with the NO’s…do you think uk can rid her fleet on UK3?

It would be 2 cruisers 1 Battleship, 2 destroyers against 3 bombers, 1-2 fighters?

14 vs. 15-18 and 6 hits vs. 5. that’s pretty close.

If i saw UK building bombers, id start 1 DD a turn and take Jordan on I1 and Egypt on I2

Where are you getting the IPCs from?  If UK builds 3 Bombers on UK1, then the only thing Italy can do with his 10 IPCs is build a DD and leave his fleet in SZ#14 to keep it together, which means that Italy will not be taking either Egypt or Trans-Jordan.

Also, you said earlier, that if you saw UK build 3 Bombers on UK1, that you would want to take both Egypt and Trans-Jordan to nullify the landing zone, but that still leaves Caucaus available.

I agree that the longer UK waits, of course, the bigger Italy’s navy can get, but one must remember that for every ship Italy buys, he has fewer and fewer land units to use.

@Cmdr:

I don’t think Germany should take Egypt at all.  That’s a plum target for Italy.  You KNOW England’s buggering out of there ASAP if they are not killed by Germany to avoid those 3 Shore Shots (and I like to build a 4th for Italy on round 1 as well).

Italy only has 10 IPCs on turn 1, because you don’t collect the NO bonus until end of turn, so no 4th Shore Shot on turn 1.

I do like reinforcing Morrocco.  You have that useless transport already positioned there, may as well!  It annoys England and America and protects Italy’s flanks a bit.

I feel that taking Gibralter is more important than reinforcing Morocco-Algeria if Germany isn’t going after Egypt, because this instantly takes 5 IPCs of NO bonus away from UK, and it takes a potential landing zone awy from the Allies.

The big problem for G1 is that you need the Bomber to be in 2 places at the same time, because both Egypt and the SZ#2 BB & TR are very important.

What is the solution?  Why Long Range Aircraft, of course!  :-D

If you are playing with techs, I would probably purchase 1-3 research tokens on the first turn on the off chance of getting Long Range, because, with Long Range, I can probably take out the entire Allied Atlantic fleet!  If I got a tech, but not Long Range, my moves would be changed accordingly.

No, seriously.  I know that going for tech is very chancy, so I don’t assume that I will get Long Range.  It is nice when it happens though.  I have played Germany a couple of times, and I did get Long Range on the first turn one time.

So, assuming that I didn’t get Long Range, or another tech which would alter my first turn move, I have to say that I believe that the following moves are the best for G1.

Purchase units phase:
Assuming that I spent 10 for Research Tokens, my G1 buy would be 7 Inf, although I might buy 3 Inf and 1 Bomber instead if I feel like it.

1. SZ#9   Attack UK DD and AP with 2 Subs.

2. SZ#6   Attack UK DD with CA and SS.

3. SZ#12  Attack UK CA and DD with 3 Fighters.

4. Egypt(2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm, &1 Fighter)  Attack with Bomber, Libian army(1 Inf, 1 Art, & 1 Arm), 1 Infantry and 1 Tank from France on the SZ#13 AP.  (I changed using the Infantry from Morocco-Algeria to using one from France, because the Fighters landing there need a little support defense-wise, but if anyone is worried about losing France on UK1, then just use the Morocco-Algeria INF rather than the French one.)

The above moves, I feel very good about, but the following moves, I may tweak just a little more.

4. Baltic States(3 Inf)  Attack with 2 Inf, 1 Art and 1 Fighter.

5. E Poland(2 Inf)  Attack with 2 Inf and 1 Art.

6. Ukraine(2 Inf)  Attack with 2 Inf and 6 Arm.

(You can switch the units attacking E Poland and Ukraine.  I still haven’t decided which I like best, the central location of E. Poland or the pressure on Caucaus of Ukraine.  Because of the non-combat move to Finland, to put pressure on Karelia, I am leaning toward my current move setup which will probably stress Russia out over worries of first Italy, and then Germany nailing Caucaus.  Depending on what Russia does, Germany may move those Tanks back to E. Poland or to Baltic States on G2.)

Non-Combat:

Move 2 Inf from Norway to Finland and 1 Inf / 1 Arm from Poland to Finland on AP.

Move 1 Inf from Northwest Europe, 3 Inf from Germany, and 1 AA gun to France.

Land 2 Fighters on France.  (At least 1 should have surrvived the SZ#12 Battle.)
          (This will leave a total of 5 Inf, 2 Fighters, and 1 AA gun to defend France against the maximum of
          1 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber, and 1 BB Shore Bombard.)

Land any other remaining Fighters (if any) from the SZ#12 battle on Algeria.

@Adlertag:

Read my signature.  :-D

For correct English, your signature should read, “Oh, and death to the Allies!”
:-)

@Black_Elk:

It would make a lot more sense if you just put a “house rules” sub-forum in each category, instead of continually moving the threads around.
:-D

I can’t imagine a topic worth discussing, in any section, that isn’t going to verge on a house rule at some point. Besides the current House Rules is section is all over the place anyway, and rather hard to navigate, since stuff gets dumped their from all over the rest of the site.

I totally agree with you.

Krieghund,

So, to further clarify, here’s the following situation:

My Fleet of 9 Super Subs, 2 Destroyers, and 1 Battleship attack my opponents fleet of 3 transports, 3 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, and 6 Fighters.

My Super Subs all hit, but my other ships all miss.  My opponent must choose all of his ships as casualties, including his 3 transports, right?  Then his Fighters fire back hitting 3. I “soak” 1 hit on my Battleship, and take the 2 Destroyers as casualties.  Round 2, I choose to retreat, because the only units firing would be my lone Battleship against the 6 Fighters.

Is the correct interpretation of the rules?

If so, then my opponents big mistake was having no Destroyers with his fleet.

I agree that Italy’s main goal should be to take and hold Africa, only changing his tactics if there is an emergency, (I feel that if UK takes France , then Italy must recapture France to nullify America’s bonus.) but my group did let Germany take Africa 1 game, and Germany was able to use the extra IPCs well.  In our games, the bigest problem is that if UK or US really wants to in the early stages of the game, either one can usually sink Italy’s fleet, and there goes Italy.  Jen, what were your first 3 turn buys if you remember, and without playing with NOs, how many turns did it take Italy to get to 20+ IPCs - probably 4 or more without NOs.

Of course, in a game without NOs, Italy achieves closer parity with the other players because Italy’s max bonus from NOs is 10, while the other players can often get 15.

If playing with techs, which my group always does, then Russia should spend 5 IPC for 1 Research Token, because he can use every single Land tech except perhaps Paratroopers.  The remaining IPCs probably should purchase 4 Infantry units, 2 Artillery units, and 1 Armor unit.

If I weren’t playing with techs, or if Germany had an incredibly good turn, losing absolutely nothing, then I would probably purchase 4 Infantry units, 2 Artillery units, and 2 Armor units.

Russia already has a lost of Infantry, but what he doesn’t have is any offensive punch to take territories back, and he needs the mobility of the Armor units to hit where needed.

@Driel310:

I think John said: Germany has almost all his NO’s. The Karelia / Cauc one is the hardest to get naturally. But still with the other two NO’s Germany will cash 40-50.

Why would you need an air force to fend off UK? Are you going to attack the UK/US fleet in the Atlantic?  :?

As for the tech part, I agree, Germany can spend a buck there.  :wink:

In almost all of the games that my group has played, Germany puts pressure on England’s Atlantic fleet so as to be able to leave France less defended.  Many times, France has been empty of defenders because England has no transports, and the US is busy in the Pacific.  With this strategy, the German Air force (and sometimes Subs) usually goes after the UK’s transport fleet, but that frees up the land forces to go toward Russia.  Later, if UK’s fleet gets too big, then Italy can supplement France’s defences by walking Infantry units over there.  My group may play differently than others, because the US usually spends much much more in the Pacific than in the Atlantic.

@JohnBarbarossa:

Well without any IC in France, Russia outproduces Germany with 12 to 10 (assuming no IC’s lost). Furthermore in the 41 scenario you can easily get most of your NO’s which gives you a income ranging from 40-50 (including some gains in Africa). How can you efficiently buy units with only 10 production capacity available? And don’t answer all tanks, because that wouldn’t work in the long run imo.

Well, if Germany has all of his NOs, then that means that he also controls either Karelia or Caucaus, so then he can produce more units from there.  Also, Germany must keep up his Air force at the beginning to fend off England, so, he should probably be building 1-3 Bombers or Fighters every turn after turn 1 as well.  If you play using techs, then Germany may be able to spend 5-10 every turn on Research Tokens also.

@Lynxes:

It’s a well known fact that USA is the country that most can afford tech, since it doesn’t have a land front that must be supplied with troops. Also, USA can use almost any tech except maybe Radar and Mechanized infantry, whereas Japan and Germany will in most games find a majority of techs to be of marginal use.

I agree that the USA can slightly aford tech more than others, but the second part of your statement I must disagree with.  Japan especially and Germany can both benefit from may techs from both tech trees even more than the USA can because both of them use Air/Navy and Land, where the USA wouldn’t use most of the Land techs until late in the game.

I totally agree that E. Canada and Australia should have starting ICs, and I would not disagree with a starting IC in India.  If people think that would unbalance the game, then give Czech-Hungary a starting IC as well.  (That would solve some of Germany’s build limitation issues.)
These starting ICs would definitely alter the game for the better, I believe.

There should be a “scorched earth” method in the game as well.  Why not use the damage counters that are already in the OOB rules?  My thought would be that every time that a territory containing an IC is captured, that the IC would receive damage counters equal to half of its total damage capacity.  (i.e. If Germany captures Karelia, then Karelia would immediately receive 2 damage counters.)  So if China captures a Manchurian IC, then put 3 damage counters on the IC, and then when Japan recaptures it, put another 3 damage counters on it making a total of 6 damage counters (the maximum allowed) on it.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I’m in China, so it is Thursday already.

@Cowboybob:

@jeffdestroyer:

What about a factory in France?  Building only 10 units is tough on Germany.

If Germaney was to build a IC in France,this is a recipe for defeat.When the Allies create a second front in the west they will want France because of the IC,by that im saying they will not have to use there Navy transports to keep a pipeline of forces.
they will just build them in france which will make it almost imposable for Germaney to push them back into the Atlantic.And this will bring the allies advantage of ecodemy(Assumeing this is 1941).While this is going down if it was me i would withdrawl almost all my forces on the Easternfront and circleing the wagons.

P.S This is my first post.

Welcome!

I don’t quite agree with you that building an IC in France is an automatic loss for the Axis, because if the Allies can take France (IC or no IC) and can hold it a full round without Germany or Italy taking it back, then it is probably just about the end of the line for Germany anyway.  So, building an IC in France will help you defend it against the Allies, but if they take it and begin producing out of it, then it just ends the game that much faster.
IC in France= 2-edged sword, but not end of game.  There are advantages and disadvantages to it.  I do agree with others, though when they say that building the IC in France on the first turn is not the best move.

Stay and continue contributing ideas!

Thank you for your quick response.

Could someone verify this please,

@Admiral_Thrawn:

I loved the new rules for bombardment! Your men get to fire back before they die so it is not so insanely powerful.

I haven’t heard about this rule change.  I heard about the 1-for-1 rule change, where you may only fire shore bombardment my matching them on a 1-for-1 basis with the attacking troops, which I agree with, but this other change really weakens shore bombardment by taking away the preemptive shot.