Posts made by BigBlocky

http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=faq/axis

Can a transport unload two infantry into two different territories?
Yes, but only during noncombat movement. Both territories need to be adjacent to the same sea zone.

Can I have more stacks of bombers (or battleships, or whatever) than there are bomber pieces? If so, how would I mark them?
Marking them isn’t a problem because you can’t have them in the first place. The number of playing pieces is a limit on how many forces can be in play. No one, for example, can have more than three bomber forces, or more than two carrier groups. The only exception to this absolute limit is chips; if you run out of chips you can use anything else as a substitute: pennies, beads, slips of paper, or whatever works for your game.
Note that this applies throughout the entire turn. A stack of six bombers can’t split up into more than three groups when they fly out to attack.

BB

Kantabricus, you make some good points. I still say let the newbie take the game home a few days ahead of time and set it up. Perhaps the newbie has to lose once first. I did, I got spanked. So I borrowed a game, and spent lots of time with nobody distracting me.

The nice thing is that if you do a really dumb move as Russia, then as Germany you SEE _how dumb a move that was, you can go back as ‘russia’ and correct it, THEN do Germany’s move.

If you start the game off wrong, then all you learn after the first turn is how to play a game that starts off really really bad. Let that come later, it always does!

BB_

The same is true of all units actually. You cannot have more than 2 stacks of carriers or 3 stacks of Battleships, like that would ever happen. Can’t have more than 20 stacks of INF or 10 stacks of ARM, 5 stacks of subs, 8 stacks of transports, 10 stacks of fighters. You can’t stack AA guns at all, can’t build more than 4 new factories and I’m not sure how many AA guns are allowed to be built. Guess dats it.

BB

Well, from what I have read on the internet, there is a grey area. You can load infantry during combat movement although you never intend to use them in combat.

BB

Japan HAS to build land forces anyway to attack Russia. But now they can threaten to attack BOTH Russian and India. So, you must defend both. Moreover, with little pressure on Germany, they move up and threaten Karelia more and more. Since lots of resources from all 3 allies go into India to defend it, none of the 3 allies can mount a credible attack on the creeping Germans.

Sure, Karelia is safe until Germany moves into Caucus. Now you must defend, Karelia, Moscow AND India 3 ways instead of really just 1, Karelia, as you should be able to punish as German force split across 3 territories. Since your forces are split you cannot punish the Germans for splitting their forces across EEU, UKR and CAU, indeed, it is the axis that will punish the allies for splitting their forces 3 ways instead of 2 ways or just 1.

With a strong allied navy off England, the Brits can flow forces through soviet territory just as well once the supply line is set up.

BB

At some point you may need that one more IPC to get 1 more VP, this often comes from China but not until round 4-7 or so. On turn #1 I ignore China for the most part, but do hit them in 1-2 places in overwhelming numbers so as to decrease my losses. It’s no good to trade 4 to kill 2 then lose the 2 left in a counter-attack of 2 INF and 1 FTR. Try not to even let the allies use their offense to attrit your Jap units.

As the game progresses you might see opportunaties to use overwhelming power to attrit the chinese forces, and here is the key, overwhelming power that isn’t being used or doesn’t hinder your ability to project power against the advancing US fleet. I love to keep 6 or so fighters and 2 bomers on Formosa. If the US moves up to within 1 space of the Caroline Islands where the combined Jap fleet sits then those air units fly out to attack and land on the CVs. The fighters on the CV attack then land back at Formosa. Otherwise they can still fly in 2 territories inland (3 with bomber) which exerts heavy offense over a wide swath of territory.

There is no sense going deep into China if it takes away from your offense against the incoming allied fleet again, unless you need that 1 more IPC to get that precious VP.

BB

I remember some conversations with people who claimed that Arabs in the middle east get a fair view of what is going on. That Al-Jazeera compares favourably to ‘Western Standards’. Oh really?

I guess the evil western media empires all controlled by the central conspiricy agency is supressing the truth that the US used Nukes in Iraq and that is the ONLY reason they won. Jeez, I wish I lived in the middle east so I could get more truth like this from Al-Jazeera. Yep, if Al-Jazeera reports (as they did) that the US used nukes it MUST be true.

The link below is to a rather interesting text of a radio show with some rather world renowned experts on the media in that area, a good read!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030425-2c1944a2.htm

Perhaps the difference between a Texan and somebody who lives in San Francisco is not the same as the difference between somebody who lives in Ankara versus somebody who lives in Amsterdam. However, the average Texan and the average Californian have great differences in opinions. I have been to Texas and have been to California and have been to Amsterdam (not yet to Ankara however) so I know a bit first hand. There is probably more differences in average attitudes between those two ‘states’ and say France and Germany.

Most US southerners still don’t like the northerners that much, I’m not saying dislike but, the north east and west coasts are very liberal and the south is very conservative.

BB

DS, you’re right, NK doesn’t stand a chance. After they launch an attack killing a million civilians in the first 24 hours the southern allied forces would try to contain the attackers for 9 months while the US brings in 3/4 of a million troops to conqour the north and there is a 100% chance of winning after about a 1 year of the most vicious fighting since Vietnam. There might only be a few million deaths provided the North didn’t use any of their tens of thousands of chemical weapons or any of their nukes.

What’s a few millions deaths in Axis and Allies, not much really 30-40 INF maybe. But this is real life and millions of the deaths would be plain ordinary citizens along with about 100 thousand dead US soldiers.

I believe that would be a great example of a Pyrrhic victory.

BB

The one thing that makes Russia unique is that Russia NEVER has to think perhaps it’s time to build bombers, or a navy or do weapons development.

My thinking is as follows:

The russians build infantry, the odd tank, attack when it’s to your advantage, retreat when it’s to your advantage. Anything bold they do must be supported and initiated by one of the other 2 allies. It’s all tactical.

The other 4 nations have the ability to change things in a big way. The other 4 nations must be able to see trends and react before it’s too late. They must be able to see far enough in advance to know when to do weapons rolls while you still have time to take advantage of obtained weapons. Russia cannot be a game changer like the other 4 nations and for that reason alone, seasoned players should be the ones to have to decide such things as whether or not to use fleets or factories or weapons rolls to project ultimate power.

BB

Give the newbie the russians, as long as he does everything you say it ususally works out well :-)

BB

I’ve always played that way except it seems for the game I am currently playing, forgot all about only having 3 stacks of bombers!

BB

Yeah, ain’t democracy great! 8)

It’s hard to believe that after about 20 years of playing I am still learning about rules!!! I’ve seen a few issues in variouis threads so perhaps we need one thread as a common point of reference. I’ve scouted out some FAQ’s online and compiled a few interesting things. What follows are copy’n’pastes of online FAQ’s available to anybody, these are NOT my thoughts and I’ve learned something myself under “*How do fighters fight on an ally’s carrier?”.

Q: If I captured a territory, is it then legal in the non combat movement phase to move an armor into or through that territory to some other friendly territory?
A: Yes. You may move into or through a newly captured territory (whether it was previously neutral or enemy owned ) in the non combat movement phase. (page 21)

Q: If I cleared a sea zone in the combat phase, is it then legal for me to move through it in the non combat movement phase?
A: Yes, as long as the sea zone you are moving to is either empty or an occupied - friendly zone. (Rules page 21)

Q: If a transport has been involved in a naval battle may it unload units during the non combat movement phase?
A: Yes, it can unload some or all of the units aboard. However it is not legal to pick up any units and then unload them again since this would be considered movement by the transport and after having been involved in a naval combat it has already used its movement. (AAMC FAQ)

1.22
Q: Can I retreat a sub into a sea zone that was embattled in the same turn?
A: NO. (RC page 2)

1.27
Q: Can I unload units from - or load units onto a transport that has retreated from battle?
A: NO. After retreat all action if finished. (AAMC FAQ)

1.30
Q: Can a transport unload in the combat movement phase or combat phase and afterwards load or unload units in the non combat movement phase?
A: No. Once a transport has unloaded it cannot take any action, that is it cannot load, unload or move. (AAMC FAQ)

1.31
Q: Can I load units onto a transport in the combat movement phase even though these units will not be involved in combat?
A: Yes, you may load units onto a transport during the combat movement phase regardless if they are to be used in combat or not. These units can enter the transport, be used in an amphibious assault, remain on board, or leave during the non combat movement phase. If any of these units are to be used in combat, you must specifically declare which units will be used and where. Units going aboard a transport must do so prior to any naval battle taking place in the sea zone. (AAMC FAQ)

1.35
Q: Can there be more than one AA gun in the same land territory?
A: NO. In land territories there can only be one AA gun in one territory. (Rules page 13, RC page 2)

1.36
Q: Can there be more than one AA gun in a Sea Zone?
A: Yes, it is legal to have several transports with AA guns aboard. (Rules page 13, RC page 2)

*How do fighters fight on an ally’s carrier?

If a carrier attacks while carrying an ally’s fighter(s), the
fighters cannot fight, but can be taken as losses, provided the
owner of the non-fighting fighter consents to the loss.
Source: Communication with Milton Bradley (dated July 27, 1995).

How many new industrial complexes can be built during a game?

Four. There are eight on the board at the start of the game, and
there are twelve complex pieces. The number of locations that
have a specific unit type is always dependent of the number provided.
This also means that any country could only have bombers in three
places, carriers in two, subs in six, etc. The number of units in
each place is unlimited, but the number of locations is not.
Source: Clarifications, page 4 (bottom right, “More Markers?”).

Exactly what part is ambiguous or open to intrepretation?

BB

**Resolve as defined in the Webster’s New World Dictionary:

1. to break up into separate parts; analyze
2. to change: used reflexively
3. to reach as a decision; determine
4. to solve (a problem)
5. to decide by vote

I’m thinking 5) voting on the outcome is out, 4) since it is not a crossword puzzle that’s out 2) to change, yeah, I’d like to change some battles, toss a few more infantry in here and there, but I think we can all agree #2 is out. I’m thinking #3 is our baby, no doubt All gravy will eventually come to the conclusion you determine the outcome of rolling the #1s on the attack sheet is what is meant.

So, you resolve the 1s first and allocate hits, then you resolve the 2s and allocate hits etc.

All Gravy, you can conclude the entire world is wrong and only you are right, and you might even be correct. And, 1 Infantry could defeat 50 attacking armour with 50 bombers in support too. I won’t hold my breath on either. :-)

BB**

It’s messy but F_alk is right. However, if say norway was in enemy hands, the US for a combat move must move the transports to Canada and back to unload and attack. This is legal as it is defined in the combat phase. However, if the units don’t attack, then it’s NOT a combat move in theory and so the naval units ought not to have moved as they were not required to move in support of combat. So during non-combat, the wording says they can move and load or unload. Here in fact we are moving, loading and moving again, even that is not explicitly stated as being legal, though not explicitly stated as illegal as well. In any event if the transports can move after loading again then they can’t unload as it is worded as load OR unload and F_alk’s scenario must come into play.

Ah thinks we need to do some internet research on this one….

BB

When the game is played as is with say bidding or russia restricted I find that it often parallels history fairly well, at least the way the game play has evolved for me. It seems the allies concentrate new resources towards Germany initially. Once Germany can be held in check more goes towards the pacific.

Towards the end of the game often bombers do come into play to finally drive a nail in the coffin of Germany. Of course you get bizzare outcomes as well. I am just surpised that it stays as historical as it does!

Instead of changing the price of cheap units, maybe increase the price of more expensive units. The allies tend to build more naval and air units then the axis so this would tend to penalize the allies a bit more. Since adding 1 or 2 to air units or naval units is a small % change and those units represent a small % of total outlay over the long run it might be less of a ‘shock’ to the gameplay. Just a thought.

BB

Well, the rules sure implies this. However, I have yet to do any research at other A&A websites. I’ve always done bridging during non-combat, however, I always expected to lose a transport and a fighter when attacking the german baltic fleet if he rolls snakeyes for his transport and sub. It looks like I have been playing wrong for 20 years. Live and learn, tis the reason I sought out a place like this.

BB

I’m pretty sure you can only have as many ICs as were in the game, and that I can’t help you with, I’ve had a couple games and mixed up the pieces.

BB