I don’t think US will need to “mix” income. We know Western US is 10 and 50. We can postulate the Eastern US will be 12 and 60. That’s 110, + Central US (6) + Alasks (2) + Hawaii (1) + Mexico (2) + Brazil (3) + Cuba (1) + Phillipiness [typo?] (2) + Pannama (1) = 128 IPCs!!! Forget KGF or KJF, it’s Kill Everyone First!!!
everybody will have huge ammounts of IPC
but i think in earlier games USA is overrated with militairy force and underrated in terms of IPC
Japan would be my least favorite power to play (not including China) as it is sort of a “gimme power”, in that there just is no major threat or opponent in most cases; yes it can be delayed and harrased semi-effectivly, but not at the peril of putting signifiant game breaking damage to the Japanase empire. Essentially the worst that can happen to her is preventing a super power from become a super duper power.
Thanks for your post. I agree with your Japan assessment especially for 1941, but in a current game I’m playing by forum (against Omega and friends) Japan got completely dismantled in the first 3 turns, mostly by dice, but also from the full attention of US bombers and fleet. I often give close to full attention to Japan with the US in the first few turns, and it causes major problems. (Talking about 1942 start)
Like you said, (especially for 1941) it’s a question of whether Japan is a super power or super duper power. I won a game (by forum) recently where it was Japan vs. the world, and the world lost (1941 start).
play 1941 witth few VC’s, and no NO’s
then you have nice game with US attacking japan and russia and UK fending of germany and italy
How would the odds fall with 3 subs 1 bomber?
Now that was a depravity line of thinking. Imagine Eisenhower abort D-day 1944 because the odds was not good enough. We would all be speaking german now. If you want to win games, you need to strenghten your fighting spirit and breed more aggression. Peacekeepers dont win wars, you know that, now do you ? Butt enough talk. Now you better gimme a + karma and help me reach the magic 800 before Frog.
good luck with 800, but i’ll support :)
or worse, we would be speaking russian!
1941/1942, no NO’s, playing with 11/12 VC’s
dunno bout balance, but it was most fun game i played in years
you really have global warfare
US trying to protect honolulu, sydney, manilla and such, while russians are fighting germans for leningrad and stalingrad
With a 13 Victory City game, technically the Axis don’t even have to capture a capital city. I like this idea, it means Japan doesn’t actually have to attack Russia.
A 15 VC game is pointless, this requires the Axis to capture 2 capitals. The game is pretty much over once one capital city falls and you hold your own.
The game should’ve had a 13, 14, and 15 VC option, not 13, 15, 17.
12-13 VC’s sounds like fun, but is it with or without NO’s?
cause with, i think axis win almost 100%
make it historically with italy: loose against any army possible and roll 6’s, except with SBR and tech.
picked US, russia and italy
the problem is with axis that i find them boring
germany with its 10 production can like only build 10 tanks each round, japan has no resistance due to its strenght.
gimme chains, inf stacks and africa domination! :)
@The:
Wow, I do not belong here
I only have 1 copy of AAR, 1 copy of AA42 and one copy of AA50, but damnit if I don’t think about playing Axis and Allies a couple dozen times a day, hell I keep AA42 in my car just in case someone wants to play me while I’m on the road! I may not be hardcore, but I get withdrawls just the same.
Welcome, thetoof.
The first step in recovery is to admit you have a problem.
1.We admitted we were powerless over Axis and Allies—that our lives had become unmanageable.
Hi, I’m TheDesertJournalist, and I’m an A&A-aholic. I dream about this game non-stop, my social life (sometimes) suffer because of the amount of time I spend online playing this game, and I stay up until all hours of the night just watching/reading the progression of other people’s games.
What’s the second step to recovery?
there is none :-D
I’d say…
I’ve only got Axis and Allies: Europe and Axis and Allies: Anniversary Edition, but I’ve only just discovered A&A a year ago! It’s all I can think of… I have a permanent station in my family’s basement, fully laid out and everything. I’m only 15 as well.
My friend and I will probably become fullfledged A&A addicts within several years :|
last words are true :-D
people should start recruitement station for young AAA players :-D
@Rakeman:
The problem isn’t one of making the game “more historical,” but into a game about World War II in some way. The fact is, in WWII, the Japanese and Russians were not at war, while in Axis and Allies, if you are playing to win, Japan will likely conquer much of Russia. This didn’t happen in WWII solely because of a piece of paper, but rather because Japan would not have been able to conquer Russia.
Yes, give the players options. But why make the BEST option also one that would have been 100% impossible in WWII?
I’m all for abstractions, such as all units costing the same and functioning the same for each nation, units not representing real world units in a 1:1 ratio, etc. By all means, give the player an option to invade Russia as Japan- but make it so that, like in the real war, this course of action proves to be extremely difficult- NOT the best strategy.
Same thing goes for America and Britain completely ignoring Japan. That would have been absolutely insane, yet in A&A, it’s the best thing the Allies can do. Just imagine it… “Well, we got Berlin. Yeah, Japan owns the entire world outside of North America and Europe, but we have Berlin!”
Maybe we need an altered “Economic Victory” option. If any one Axis power gets 20 IPC more than they started out with, automatic victory for that Axis power and loss for the Allies (and perhaps the other Axis power, if played by separate players). Or with victory cities, give Japan and Germany their own unique targets. If one Axis power gets their targets, they win.
Use victory cities. they add much fun to the gamen especially for shorter games (12VC’s)
@Imperious:
I think If Japan only attacked the Soviets in 41, Stalin would have to divert alot of his forces to fight and gave Germany an easier task in June. But realistically Japan could not even hope to get more than the immediate areas north of Manchukuo. Their is no way they had the resources to get to Moscow or anything like that. The loss of the Far east would have meant nothing to Stalin except that he would send reinforcements to push them back, but this was not in Japans interests because it didn’t translate into a solution for her crude oil shortage.
It was also a war aim for either the Army or Navy and took Japan away from her natural sphere of influence which was to remove all the colonial powers from Asia and dominate China. Japan was not in the war to fight for German interests and the so called “alliance” was nothing but a slip of paper describing the fact that in all likelihood they would all eventually be fighting the same enemies so by inference they are on a “team”.
but don’t forget, japan allowed US ships (with russians insignia) to pass to vladivostok, where they brought huge ammount of supplies and tanks for russia.
i hear everybody talking of 'allies/axis can’t win in '41, and NO’s/tech ruines game
but does anybody play with victory cities?
if yes, can you share your experiences?
I have:
1 revised
1europe
1 d-day
1 AA50
not much, but i’m only 15 XD
and friend of mine has another copy of revised and battle of the bulge
G1
German Buys - 5 x tank
2 x inf4 inf: Poland -> Baltic States
1 art: Poland -> Baltic states
1 tank: Poland -> Baltic states
1 inf: Germany -> via trn sea zone 5 -> Baltic States
1 art: Germany -> via trn sea zone 5 -> Baltic States
(crusier sz 6 gets shore shot)1 x tank: Poland -> East Poland
2 x Tank: Czech -> East Poland
1 x tank: Bul/Rom -> East Poland
1 x inf: Bul/Rom -> East Poland1 x tank: Bul/Rom -> Ukraine
2 x inf: Bul/Rom -> Ukraine
1 x art: Bul/Rom -> Ukraine1 x fighter: Poland -> SZ6
1 x sub: SZ 5 -> SZ61 x FIghter: Norway -> SZ2
1 x Sub: SZ7 -> SZ2
1 x Bomber: Germany -> SZ21 x Fighter: NW Europe -> SZ12
1 x sub: SZ7 -> SZ12
1 x Fighter: Germany -> SZ12Link to German setup turn 1
Germans win all combats and take light casualties. Worst loss is 1 x
fighter in SZ 12.
Results
After place units
R1
Russian Buys = 2 x inf
1 X art
2 x tanks
1 x fighterNo Combat moves
Non combat illustrated below.
leave 7 inf in bur
move 3 inf towards rus
move russian tank to kar ssr
stack 5 inf 1 art on archangel
stack 6 inf in caucUnit placements -
1 x tank 1 x fighter in kar ssr
2 x inf 1 x art 1 x tank in caucEnd of Russia Turn 1 map
note: What have I done wrong here? how can I make a better T1 buy and setup
to stop the germans taking kar or get in a position to trade back and still
be strong in the south.
J1
Japanese buys-
2 x trn
1 x infCombat moves
2 x ftr: SZ 57 -> SZ 53
1 x dstr: SZ 51 -> SZ 53
2 x ftr: SZ 57 -> sz 563 x inf: MAN -> sui
2 x inf: Kia -> Fuki
2 x inf: FIC -> Yun
1 x inf: FIC -> Fuki
1 x ftr: MAN -> Yun
1 x ftr: FOR -> Yun
1 x ftr: Jap -> Fuki1 x inf: Car islds - via trn (SZ 51) > Phil isld
2 x inf: Car islds - via trn (SZ 51) > Borneo (Borneo Taken)
1 BS: SZ 61 -> SZ 50
1 x inf 1 x tank - via trn (japan SZ 62) > Phil isld1 X Carrier w/ 2 x ftr: SZ 61 -> SZ37
1 x art 2 x inf -via trn x 2> SZ61 -> SZ37
1 x cruiser: SZ61 -> SZ37
2 x ftr: SZ37 -> SZ 35
3 x inf: SZ37 -> Burma
1 x art: SZ37 -> Burmajapan Turn 1 combat setup west map
http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/Japan%20turn%201%20west.jpg
japan Turn 1 combat setup east map
http://java.cms.livjm.ac.uk/homepage/staff/taedfolk/Axis%20and%20Allies/japan%20turn%201%20east.jpg
Combat
Sui taken
Burma Taken
SZ 50 win
Phil islds taken
SZ 53 win - ftr/dstr lost
Yunnan Taken
Fukien Taken
SZ 56 win - ftr lost
Hupeh stalemate - chinese retain territory
SZ 35 win - ftr lostWest map
East Map
So this is my turn 1 up to now. How would you approach this game? I have
left Gibraltar so as to let a few more strategies in the med be viable. But
ordinarily I would take gibraltar with the germans to deny uk a NO and to
stop a build up of air units there on UK 1.The allies need you!!!
why do you want to keep karelia in the first place?
Currently playing 1v1 with a friend. And we’re both competent veteran players of the older AA games. I’m Axis. Now, first in the other theater of the world, Japan is doing ok. A lot of my navy left over there and fighting with US navy while at same time I setup a factory in Manchuria and India to steadily pump infantry/tanks west trying to help either reenforce Africa or help take out Russia. I tell you this because if I wasn’t pressuring Russia like this, then Germany would be even harder to play.
So now to my question. Any half competent player, playing as the UK/US is going to have bombers parked on UK and every turn will be Industry bombing Germany. This is really a necessity to do if you play Allies. So of course he’s doing that to me. Per turn he brings 3 British bombers, and he’s got 2 American bombers there. So per turn I lose 17-20 IPC’s from this as I’ve also been a little unlucky on the AA rolls. I’ve only shot down 1 bomber after 4-5 turns. So he hammers my factory so bad that, as Germany, I only have about 7-10 IPC left each turn. This is even INCLUDING the bonus money that I get per turn. Because of this aspect of the game that Germany has no defense for, I don’t have the money to take Russia, where as Russica continues to have 25-30 IPC per turn to push me back.
So of course, I’ve lost ground and been reduced to making lots of Infantry and just defending. I simply cannot afford anything and it’s only a matter of time when Germany will fall.
My question is I simply don’t understand how Germany is playable with this going on. It’s too much power. Germany only has 1 factory so each turn I’m REQUIRED to repair the damage or I can’t bring in any new units. Russia isn’t hindered by this, so even if I tried to bomb Russia with my own bombers to try and do to them what UK is doing to me……I can’t.
My bombers, I think, can only reach the north Russian factory and that’s only an IPC value of 2…meaning I can only do a max of 4 damage to that territory. That’s nothing compared to what UK/US are doing to me.
Trying to take Africa takes time and Britian has already killed off my navy in the med. Italy is actually doing ok and is helping defend Germany with infantry while at same time managed to take Egypt at the moment. I couldn’t take my Italians further down south and take Africa because the British/US fleet controls the Med and western Africa seazones not to mention they have a big presense now on Algeria. So I’m forced to keep my Italians (they even have a factory) in Eygpt to help defend that from the forces soon to come from Algeria.
==== HERE’S MY POINT ====
This bombing from UK, any half competent player should be doing this to Germany, but with AA only being a 1/6 chance to shoot down, I complained and complained that he was destroying 90% of my income and he wasn’t having to pay for that power. He isn’t losing enough bombers. I’m not complaining about the damage…(as this happened in real life)…as much as I’m complaining that I don’t think 1/6 is enough of a chance. I told him that in the war, we lost a ton of bombers prior to mustang escorts. He hasn’t lost hardly any and that doesn’t seem balanced. I figured if he’s going to keep doing this to me, he should have to put more IPC’s towards that power.
So I convinced him that, JUST for the purposes of industrial bombing, we need to give the AA a 20% chance instead of 16.5%. So we use 10 sided dice for this purpose and a 1 or 2 kills the bomber. So since doing that, it’s been a little more balanced and thusly I take a little less damage, he is paying for another bomber or two. I think that’s balanced.
I just simply don’t understand how Germany can even function with this heavy bombing on a 1/6 AA dice roll. Imagine if UK/US had heavy bombers? What am I doing wrong as Germany to be in this situation?
We’re using bonus income (which I’ve noticed gives the Allies the advantage as he’s getting lots of IPC’s from this), and we started with 1941 scenario, which again is Allies advantage. I even took off right away with Germany and raced ahead into Russia as best I could. I took 3-4 territories at first and Russia looked as if it would fall, but then the heavy bombing was so bad that I’ve since been fought back and lost ground cuz I simply can’t replace what I’ve lost. Russia still can be because they don’t have a factory as vulnerable as Germany’s.
okay, i agree on you, sbr can be tough. but than again, use japan to win the game :-D
i do disagree on this: i think '41 with NO’s axis have big advantage, rather than the allies
have you tried some tech perhaps against sbr?
Beginners take TWICE as long as Experts.
NO’s makes the game FASTER because these IPC’s usually allow whoever is winning to continue winning, and get the job done faster.
If you want to improve your game time, make people BUY before thier turn, so Purchases are ready, and time thier moves, 3 min Combat Moves, 3 min Non combat, or 5 min, or whatever.
Allow dice rolling to go as per needed. Cut distracting chatter down.
If you can 6 turns in within an hour, you’re doing good, that will get you in 4 or 5 hours, quite close to a game completion.
Also keep in mind that the Opening moves are often much longer then subsequent turns. So it should speed up as it goes along.
thanks for the tips!
but i think '42 without NO’s is shortest
with NO’s = more units = more dice rolling and moving and such
and '42 so japan doesn’t need to conquer entire pacific again, and all countries can do something cause they start with more
medium experienced players, no tech, no NA’s
so, how long does a game take?
-'41 with NO’s
-'41 without NO’s
-'42 with NO’s
-'42 without NO’s
please, cause me and my friends want to play the game, but we lack very much time
The optional rules of Revised were ridiculous. I mean, every allied country had decent rules (and UK having probably the best with free IC and Joint Strike), and the Axis probably had the worst. Kamikaze anyone? :)
To be more historically correct, maybe the rules were correct. But I have to agree with the post of another member. If we were to do a historical game, we would have to take into consideration the attack/defense of every unit in the game, which would make the game far too complicated.
If one wants to play with joint strike, he should do so in in-house game
Robert
kamikaze could be strong
imagine a nice lonely carrier with 2 fighters on it with no place to land
worth a fighter?
well, if they would split up the map and make pacific, siberia, africa bit smaller
than it would be a perfect game!
(with splitting up i mean:= a europe map and a pacific map)