Posts made by Bruda_Iz

ok so that was pretty funny…. but can any of your youtube gurus put together an axis and allies version of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzmrxKhaKRU

It would be hysterical!!!

Interesting looking game.  It looks like the axis either attacked the US far too early or they werent playing aggresively enough early in the game.

Airbases should just be able to scramble to adjacent Seazones, thereby eliminating the island rule mumbo jumbo while allowing the UK to have SOME control of the English Channel.

AGREED!

Have you accounted for the UK presence in Africa.  If you let the UK alone for the first couple of rounds you might find Egypt reinforced with enough units to Keep you out of all but Northern africa and they will be able to attack any units you put in Trans Jordan.  Italy relies on taking Africa to bolster their economy.  What I think will happen with your plan is that Italy will run out of money when the US gets there.  Now the situation may be different if a successful sealion is mounted that would stop UK re-enforcing Egypt with units from south Africa.

by that point in the game we couldnt have stopped you… I’m thinking how we could have stopped it from getting to that point in the first place.  A couple of things come to mind… 1) not stockpiling the russian infantry in Amur and 2) when we saw you only bought 2 transports on G1 UK could have taken out the Taranto fleet and just bought infantry.  This might have stopped Italy opening a second front in Russia and stopped a successful sealion.

@Flashman:

@tgardner57:

Ok, if someone thinks they have found a strategy that may hurt the enemy, Why are we always wanting to use “home-rules” to fix the problem? Why not take some time and figure out an answer to the problem within the rule set?

Because we don’t want optimum strategies making the game predictable. I don’t want a game revolving around “the Norway factory” or the “India factory”.

After all, even LH himself has admitted problems with Pacific 1940 and effectively endorsed a fix for the sake of balance.

We have the further anomaly of oil values; clearly tts such as Java and Borneo as valued high due to oil production, but as islands cannot house factories.  Conversely we would expect Caucasus to be worth at least as much as these, but as a mainland tt the designers probably didn’t want to see the Soviet player build a MIC here.  It comes across as a bit arbitrary, when the ban on new factories solves the problem more elegantly.

But then LH would say that the game would no longer be Axis and Allies…

I agree with you both… however I will say that I think that people tend to be too quick to yell that the game is broken before they try counter strategies that are within the existing rules.  If the game does become too predictable and boils down one or two key battles then a rule change may be needed.  Has anyone played this game enough or more specifically this scenario enough to say that this stategy has broken the game?

hmmm this thread seems to have gotten a little off topic

Yes Cond1024… but it was a heck of a great game regardless.  Now I’m racking my brains on how we would have stopped you if not for that anomoly of the dice.

Japan has the most to gain from early attacks and German and Italy the most to lose.  It could be argued that if Japan attacked early and then sent most of their fleet/airforce to hit the US it might even out but probably not.

I’ll be very interested to see your results.  I think a J1 attack on the US sounds like suicide but I’ll be interested to see how it goes.

To increase your chances of surviving a sealion move UK ships into SZ’s 109 and 110 to stop any naval shore bombardment.

Just curious IL … how many games have you played where this has been used.  I’m going to try this strategy and see how it plays out but it seems at first glance that US would have to ignore sending relief to Africa and western europe while only putting a token force in the pacific for this to work.  It sounds kind of like a sealion strategy for the US… i.e. it will work for the US but only under the right conditions.

I think it would work if Russia was strong, UK had not fallen and the Italians and Japanese are not running rampant in Africa and the Pacific respectively.  Otherwise the Allies will be under threat from very rich Axis powers

From what I’ve read on the boards and now experienced (albeit in only one game) I think your 20 + hour game will be rare.  My group played a 6 hour game on Sunday/Monday that would have been probably 10 hours had it been played to conclusion.  The Axis players conceded when Japan was lost to the US with no hope of recovery.  I think most games will be like this i.e. conceded when one side or the other has an overwhelming advantage.

I must say though it was kind of tough being the US and having the Axis concede on R 5.  I wasnt even totally in the thing yet and they give up…. SHEESH!!

we played last night and the Axis came extremely close to winning!  In fact they probably would have won but for an incredibly desperate and lucky move that handed Japan to USA with out even a fight (it came down to 2 ANZAC inf. defeating 2 Japanese inf. on the Caroline Islands which then allowed the USA to use the Caroline Island navel base to get to Japan and land 2 US Inf. there.  Japan was totally stripped of any units and the only sea units around it were subs).

The big advantage the Axis have is that they control the flow of the game for the first 3 turns.  Axis dont have the uncertainty that the Allies have as they no they are at war from the start and can plan for it unlike 2 of the 3 major allied powers that have to wait to get into the war.  This being the case the Axis can plan and set up objectives to help win the war.  e.g. in our game last night Japan had the objective of capturing all of the dutch east indies by in round 3.  Germany had the objective of containing UK in the UK, capturing France and setting up in on the eastern front for a R3 attact on Russia.  In fact our German player had his opening move planned 2 weeks before the game even started.  Acting is always faster then having to react and that is a huge advantage for the Axis.  In our game when we saw that Japanese Navy getting close to India with a sizable force we thought they must be coming in for the kill.  The UK player withdrew all he could from the DEI back to India which then made it so easy for Japan to take it.  Japan then had about 12 extra IPC’s.  If you take advantage of this you can make it very hard for when the USA and Russia finally get in the war.

I had my first game of global last night and that game at least was very balanced.  Even ANZAC and China had contributions to make.  There seems to be just too much going on for any one nation to be able to steam roll over everyone else and for every action a country makes they have to give up opportunities for other actions.  Given that this was only my first game my opinion may change as I become more experienced.  One thing I really liked was that the whole board was crucial to success.  In my opinion any one that focus’s on a KJF or KGF strategy is going to find it tough.

Great summation Daedelus

That is amazing!!!

my initial thought is yes you can but its just my gut feeling…. I’m not basing that on anything.  I suppose my reasoning is that the mech. is just accompanying the tank and isnt actually combined with it in any meaningful ratio for combined arms.  I may be wrong however.

I’m wondering how Japan was able to get enough stuff to Australia to smash it on R1 as well as doing everything else you mentioned.

wow thats alot of stuff to remember!!

I think the tech development is waaay too random.