@Mr:
Assuming a time frame of 1 Turn = 6 months or there abouts,
Could anybody post a round by round simulation of WWII using the Axis and Allies rules?
Do you think it’s possible to simulate on the map what happened in the war, turn by turn…?
Volunteers? LOL ! :lol:
Turn 1: Russians build 10 tanks, 30 inf.
Turn 2: Russians build 11 tanks, 30 inf.
Turn 3: Russians build 14 tanks, 30 inf…
I’ve had 2 Axis victories and 2 Allied victories, both with NOs and tech.
I think your strategy is a neat idea. I’d like to see one of the naysayers play you online to see how good it really is (or, better yet, use it on someone good who isn’t paying attention to these threads, since part of the beauty of this strategy is that the Allies are unlikely to see it coming the first time.
It looks to me like strategic bombing is pretty costly now if one uses the interceptor rules. Maybe it’s balanced out by the chance to shoot down enemy fighters, but the defending fighters on a 2 combined with AA fire seem to mean that the attacker is always likely to lose more than the defender.
Italy did not own either Egypt or Trans-Jordan?
If they were helping the Germans by taking the Caucasus, that’s not unusual at all. I’ve had a couple games where, even when the Axis was winning, the Italians and Germans couldn’t break out into Africa.
I like AA50 better. We actually succeeded with a Kill Japan First strategy in the 1941 scenario, which I didn’t initially think was possible, which made for an exciting pacific game, for once. I love the inclusion of Italy, and the way research is conducted means that people buy it and inevitably a couple players will get technologies, which makes every game different.
AA50 is a sight better than Revised in my opinion, and is worth the money. I can’t think of any changes from Revised to AA50 that I wouldn’t consider an improvement.
my playgroup have pretty much decided that we’re going to introduce a house rule that allows china to count its territories and collect infantry at the end of its turn. otherwise they just fall far too quickly
We accidentally played it this way for both of our games, and both times the Axis still won and Japan rolled over China, but China was definitely a problem for Japan. So it’s certainly not unbalanced, and I think China needs the help.
Very nice. I think it also seems feasible that Italy could fall near the collapse of Moscow and be recaptured by Germany.
@Nix:
Norway is very difficult to take back if lost. The Allies could take it and keep it.
But 2 rtrn, and ac g1, then it will be hard for Brits to hold norway.
So you’d hold it (maybe - UK can build more planes in response), but this is becoming a very costly endeavor. That’s 41 IPCs worth of income for the IC and ships.
You’re pitting Germany’s income more directly against the UK’s, a fight which Germany could potentially win, except that Russia is going to have a big edge in the Eastern Front.
Nice review – thanks for taking the time!
The Russian sub became an expensive annoyance by wandering around in the mediterranian, denying me a badly needed 5 IPC bonus for several turns. I even bought a destroyer to deal with it, and he attacked and sank the destroyer (I should have split my fleet to protect it, I invaded the Caucasus by sea that turn but I could have spared a cruiser).
Good catch, thanks. I could have just ignored the thing, would have been handy. It’s my fault for not carefully reading my own NO.
Only fly in the ointment that I saw – Subs don’t deny Italy the NO and the 5 IPC.
“control all of the following territories: Italy, Balkans, Morocco/Algeria, and Libya,
and no enemy surface warships are in sea zones 13, 14, and 15.
(See Sea Units, pg. 28 for information on surface warships.)”So, don’t let him get away with it next time ;-)
Good catch. That error was my fault for not carefully reading my own NO.
Great stuff comassion.
However, I found a small contradiction in your recommendations:
Africa is nice for the Axis, but not essential. I’m not sure if the Axis is better off with Italy helping the Germans take Russia (and protecting France) or if it should work on taking Africa.
The UK can be truly terrifying if it gets to keep its income high.
Doesnt taking Africa auto-mean a heavy shortage on UK IPC?
And with less UK-IPC, Italies’ help in Europe is less needed….right?
In our game, the UK not only kept Africa, but also kept its pacific holdings, even retaking Borneo and East Indies for a couple turns. That resulted in a really huge UK income for several turns.
For all that, Germany did most of the fighting against the UK and held them off. I really did want to grab Africa, but it seemed like every turn Italian forces were needed to help out in France or against the Russians.
As a matter of curiosity, does anyone know if it is possible with the right moves and builds for the 1941 scenario to become the 1942 scenario in exactly two full turns?
Assume the players are all cooperating to achieve this, and assume any battle results go the way you like.
If you can manage it down to to actually getting the starting income of all the countries at the correct amount, mad props, but I’ll be sufficiently impressed if the board setup is identical.
Use of NOs are optional, whichever you think will be more likely to get you to the desired setup, but obviously nations can’t buy tech during the first two turns.
I like EaglesNest’s approach, so let’s look into it a bit further.
What if, Germany’s main goal isn’t to kill Russia?
What if…you go for a KBF?
Then I think a complex in France is better suited for the fight. It’s easier to defend and retake, and can produce more units. Without exactly remembering the map, I think it gives Germany access to more sea zones as well, but I’m not sure of that. It’s also better suited for threatening both the UK and US, whereas a Norway complex can really only threaten the UK.
Seriously though. Let’s be constructive and try to see if we can’t figure out a way, if at all possible, to make this work. Two things are certain though:
1.) The British and/or Americans cannot be allowed to capture it. So that requires a lot of effort. And
That effort is what ultimately sinks the idea. Germany now has an obligation to defend Norway, probably with a minimum of 9 units, and possibly more. That means that the Norway complex won’t end up adding units to the Eastern front until four turns after it gets built (Since you have to pull those 9 units off the Eastern front for immediate protection).
Germany is going to have a very rough time protecting Norway, France, and Germany from the allies while the IC gets up to speed. Keep in mind that the allies can very feasibly cut off your ability to reinforce Norway and whittle it down if they need to.
2.) It does provide Germany the ability to open a new front with which to launch attacks (later). In addition to attracting the Americans and British away from lucrative IPCs and distractions from the Eastern Front.
Capturing Norway is often an early allied step towards helping the Eastern front - the IC just makes an already standard allied option more tempting.
IMO it takes too long for a British landing to gather against Norway with out the distinct possibility of being attacked by planes (my personal favorite).
The British can build a fleet in the upper-left corner of Britian, meaning it’s safe from most German fighters. That fleet can threaten both Norway and France, as well as Finland if he wants to land a force now, and a force to combine it with next turn.
If people want to try this, by all means - give it a shot. I suspect that it simply won’t work, and will probably hinder the Germans even if they manage to keep it.
I hope this helps for my first, but not last, post
The defending sub can also fire back (even if it gets hit as a casualty), but it’s only firing back at a ‘1’, so it’s probably better to submerge after the enemy takes a shot at you.
Good thought Black Elk.
Several ideas for a Naval NO for Germany. Perhaps to make room for it, remove the Karelia/Caucaus NO.
For every one of the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) in which there is at least 1 Axis Sub, Germany receives +1 IPCs during the Collect Income phase.
I would rather this be received at the beginning of Germany’s turn so that the Allies have a chance to nullify it, or for this to be minus IPCs from UK or US, but doing it in this way fits it into the current NO system.If Germany controls at least 3 Subs total within the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) at any time, then all German subs within those sea zones are +1 Attack and +1 Defense.
If the Axis control Iceland, then all German Subs within the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) are +1 Attack and +1 Defense, Germany may place up to 1 Sub per turn in sea zone #2, and Germany collects +2 IPCs during the Collect Income phase.
If there is a German Battleship in at least one of the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12), then, in those same sea zones, no UK/US transports may move during the combat phase, and no UK/US surface warships may move except to attack or move toward the Battleship. (This NO is a little strange, but this replays the sinking of the Bismark, which was a very historical event.)
Are the attack and defense bonuses for 2 and 3 cumulative? And are they cumulative with super subs?
Mwahahahaha….
@Gallo:
I was thinking the other day about building an IC in the 41 scenario in Norway. Being able to place 3 units there gives it some strategic value with an IC there, as you can use it to hold Scandinavia from the British (and thereby delay any invasions into France) or if the Brits give up on it you can use it to funnel units into a Northern front against Russia. Thoughts?
If I were the British player I would make your Norwegian IC my top priority… and since it’s not your (German) top priority (which is taken Moscow), I’ll eventually take it and use it to funnel units into Leningrad to support Russia myself.
Yeah, that sounds about right. It will be a very difficult complex for Germany to hold, and unlike, say, a complex in France, it’ll be very difficult to retake if lost.
Agreed - there’s really no advantage to having a bunch of units compared to keeping the IPCs to produce those units.
And in general there’s no advantage keeping IPCs, unless you want to build a surprise super-navy or something.
I haven’t seen a full KGF (or KIF) myself, so I don’t know how well it would work.
I do think that the US needs to do something to distract the Japanese fleet. Even though the US in both our games lost their fleet to the Japanese, it didn’t have to happen that way if the players had been more careful with their units, and both times it did significantly slow down Japanese expansion in Asia, especially around India, where the fleet would have been otherwise. That said, their absence from Europe was sorely missed - I think the US needs to do something in both theaters, contesting the Pacific enough to keep the Japanese from having free reign and posing a threat to Japanese pacific NO holdings (not to mention trying to acquire American NOs), while still sending troops off to Europe and Africa to help out there.
Next time I play I’ll try to be the US and see how well a balancing act works.
Game 1
Title: Axis Advance, 1941
Date: December 6, 2008
Special Rules: NOs and Tech were used. 13 VC victory.
Victor: Allies conceded with Axis at 11 VC and no sign of stopping
Game Length: 4 hours, about 4-5 rounds.
Bias: Played with strangers, but likely Axis.
Description: Germany smashed UK fleets and went for Caucasus. Italy went for Africa. Japan hit China and Pacific, taking Hawaii and destroying all US boats on J2. UK went for India IC, and US went full tilt against Japan, but the combination barely slowed the Japanese down as they had 2 mainland ICs to answer the Brits. Mech inf for Germany and Jet Fighters for Japan sealed the fate of the allies towards a conceded endgame.
Observations/Recommendations: US needs to preserve their remaining early fleet to seriously threaten Japan. Techs can really help the Axis if they get the right ones. UK really needs to consider the worth of an India IC if they want to take on Japan. Allies suffered from having no US help in Europe.
Link: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13010.0
Game 2
Title: Terrified by tea lovers 1941
Date: December 6, 2008
Special Rules: NOs and Tech were used. 13 VC victory.
Victor: Axis Victory by Concession after Moscow capture
Game Length: 7-8 hours, about 8 rounds
Bias: Slight Axis, but closer than last game.
Description:
Germany and Italy cooperated against Russia. Germans took Karelia G2. Japan went north against Russia as well, breaking through Russia, China, and India around J6. US went full tilt against Japan and lost fleets. Russia tried desperately to hold out. UK took France frequently but was forced back despite a large income due to losing fleets to the Germans. The game took a huge turn when UK developed Heavy Bombers. Axis suddenly engaged in a hell-for-leather dash for Moscow before HBs ruined Europe and captured Germany. Desperate counter-thrusts from Russia and UK (sacrificing bombers) held off the Axis for some time, but in the end a final, desperate assault with the last Axis units in Asia brought Moscow down.
Observations/Recommendations:
This game made me love technologies, because the development of Heavy Bombers turned what was becoming a clear allied loss into a huge, manic dash of a game, with no clear winner right up until the end. I think I will have some trouble ever topping the fun I had at this particular game, but then again it’s only the second one I’ve played, so I hope I’m not speaking too soon.
Link: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13010.0