I voted indifferent because I’m still holding out hope that:
The undesirable zombies can be house ruled out.
The map is a good medium sized map (a la Revised/42SE).
The “1939 Scenario” that the WOTC rep mentioned in his interview with A&A.org a few months back is fresh/worth playing.
I’m still willing to hold out hope because the only objectively terrible A&A games are 1941 and Spring 42, the latter of which is only terrible because the small map made the game unplayable.
Might be a bit of repeating what Argothair said but here’s my take for zany plays.
Fair warning: none of these are “viable” but they should definitely spice things up:
USSR: Charge the starting FTRs into the Baltic to interfere with Germany’s opening (even if you have two and it’s a terrible odds battle).
Turn the entire Allied effort into a game to see how long you can keep Karelia alive. Fall back when you need to so you don’t get your stack wiped out.
Alternatively, build a tons of tanks and try to kick Japan off mainland Asia at the detriment of the German front.
Germany: Build an Aircraft Carrier or two and a few Transports and dominate Africa/the Baltic/the Atlantic.
UK: Play in the Atlantic. Funnel 1 FTR a turn to Moscow to help their defense.
USA: Do something totally out of left field like an IC in Alaska. Alternatively, build 1-2 Carriers in the Atlantic and fly FTRs to UK.
UK+USA FTR Conga Line:
1. Build 1 CV off US East Coast (don’t have the board with me so I don’t recall the exact Sea Zones, sorry).
2. Build 2 CV + supporting fleet (DDs mostly) off UK (SZ that’s next to the Baltic Sea).
3. Example turn:
a. Start with 2 CV, 2 UK FTRs, 2 USA FTRs, other supporting vessels in UK SZ. Start with 1 CV, 2 US FTR in US East Coast.
b. UK Turn: Move 2 FTRs from UK SZ -> Baltic SZ -> Karelia -> W. Russia -> Moscow, build 2 new FTRs to replace the old ones.
c. US Turn: Move 2 FTRs from US SZ -> Atlantic -> Africa -> English Channel -> UK SZ, move 2 FTRs from UK SZ -> Baltic SZ -> Karelia -> W. Russia -> Moscow, build 2 new FTRs to replace the old ones.
This essentially dumps 4 new FTRs in the USSR each turn (you can do less/more if you want), which is 40 IPC of income. You can use your FTR fleet to wipe smaller stacks to make trading more bearable for the Soviets.
Hope these ideas help somewhat, even if they’re not the most competitively sound strategies!
Hi all,
The Boardgame Players Association will be hosting this year’s (2019) “World Boardgame Championship” convention from July 20-27 at the Seven Springs Mountain Resort (777 Water Wheel Dr, Champion, PA).
This Axis and Allies tournament will be on July 20-21. I mention the other dates because there are several other competitions at this tournament besides Axis and Allies (lots of the other Avalon Hill wargames).
If anyone is interested in attending let me know and I can post more details.
The only A&A game ran at this tournament is Revised, so be forewarned.
What strategies are you currently using? Which side?
Asking because I don’t want to tell you anything you’re already doing.
Seriously though, a game with a map about '42 size with rules for playing an intro version of the European War from 1939 to 1941 and main rules for playing from '41 to the end? That actually does sound intriguing to me.
This bit here is what gives me hope for the game. Especially if there’s a way to play out the whole war starting from 1939.
…Just as long as they don’t cheap out on the components (wishful thinking, I know) or make another 1941-small map…
Only way Allies win ever with no bid is if you turn NOs off. Otherwise it’s an Axis stomp basically every time.
And this is coming from a guy who barely plays G40 competitively.
Larry was busy making War Room, @Hunter:
Can someone tell me why we needed this? I would really like to know. I would buy it for the sculpts if we get any new ones besides the zombies.
Better than the brand being dead IMO.
I could be wrong though (I’m saving my temper tantrum until we get more info on the game), which is why I haven’t voted in the poll.
especially ones that don’t involve the original designers or creators.
Larry’s gone, man. He’s moved on from A&A to make War Room as a new take on the WW2 Genre.
(Un)fortunately, the A&A brand is with Avalon/Wizards, meaning we still get new A&A games.
…The downside of course, is that we’re stuck with gimmicks like this mess for the time being.
@Slip:
Are you finding this is working under WBC rules?
Yes.
@Slip:
What is a common J1 response to this strategy, combat, NCM and purchases?
Can’t give 100% specifics because every player is different, but I’d imagine a Japan player will just dive on Pearl anyway with every ship/plane available.
@Slip:
What have you found are the impacts of Germany running free in Africa?
USA has to do mop-up work, sending whatever Atlantic forces it has to Africa to protect UK’s IPCs.
I’m in the “let’s wait for a more detailed announcement before denouncing it” crowd, but I’ve already said that like 5 times in this thread.
We’ll see how it goes. Novemeber’s a ways off yet.
There’s no point in arguing about the manufacturing and logistics process Wizards used when making G40/G40SE on a thread about “Axis & Allies: Zombies,” so I’ll drop the conversation.
However, I dispute the notion that G40SE, a game only played by the most hardcore elements of the A&A fanbase and only distrusted to hobby shops, was a cash-in.
If anything, 41 was the shameless cash-in of the franchise.
AAZ is also most-likely a cash-in, but pretty much everyone here agrees with you on that I think.
Again, all I’m asking is that we wait to see what the game looks like before we crucify it. The Zombies (and the “Cards,” even) might be easy to house-rule out of the game.
So, with G40 2nd ed., you’re fine with WOTC releasing a product while actively working on a 2nd ed. at the same time?
New sculpts take time to create, proof and sign off on.
P40 was 2009, E40 was 2010.
G40 2nd Ed. was released in 2012. A two-year gap. The only real differences besides minor cosmetic changes to the map (correct me if I’m wrong) are the use of the Alpha 3 setup/rules as an attempt to balance the horrible mess (balance-wise) that was the 1st edition. The Alpha 3 rules were basically over-glorified house rules crafted by the community over the years with Larry’s blessing, if you recall.
So, like I said, G40 2nd Edition is nothing you can’t play by house-ruling 1st edition, which is exactly what I do, since there’s no point in my owning both 1st edition and 2nd edition.
WOTC would have to have been working on this while getting 1st ed. out the door.
That’s incorrect, based on what I explained above (AFIK Wizards had nothing to do with the Alpha 3 rules beyond Larry’s input). I doubt that G40SE took very long to cook up, seeing as most of the components are identical or nearly identical to 1st edition. If anyone has insider info regarding what went on at Wizard’s from 2009-2012 feel free to correct me.
As for house ruling, why do I have to? I just paid $200 for G40.
You don’t. No one’s holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use the Alpha 3 rules (or the balanced mod, for that matter). It’s just for the sake of game balance. If money’s an issue just play TripleA like most people. If you just want the sculpts just buy them for cheap off HBG.
1942.2 was again released too soon after Spring 1942. Both games existed at the same time in different stages of being finished.
WOTC used people as play testers and had them pay for the privilege.
I agree with the release dates being too close (it over-saturated the market and is probably a main reason why both versions of 42 aren’t as well-regarded as the rest of the franchise). It also didn’t help that the name “1942 2nd Edition” was completely and totally misleading, as 422E has almost nothing to do with 42, aside from there only being 5 playable countries and there not being NOs.
I don’t see any grand conspiracy about 42 being a “test run” for 42SE, though. 42 was just a lazy copy/paste of revised using AA50’s map design, rules, and units. It probably took WOTC about 3 months to finish soup to nuts, and as a result, it’s probably the worst version of A&A barring 1941. It’s not that the rules or gameplay are bad, the board is just hideously small/cramped and the physical components were atrocious (IIRC it was the start of the whole “no paper money, no battle board” cost-cutting fiasco that’s plagued the franchise in recent years).
42SE, while an unbalanced mess (and still having awful physical components, for the most part), is a true successor to Revised/AA50 in terms of map size/scale, and a good way to ramp new players up to G40.
I know I’m coming off like some sort of drone for Wizards, but I’m not (they pushed out way too many A&A products in too short a span of time between 2009-2014, some of them good, like AA50, G40 and 42SE, and the rest ranging from okay to terrible).
As for Zombies (not responding to robert t, just a general note for the thread):
I understand the visceral hatred for the concept of zombies removing any semblance of historical accuracy or “wargame tradition” from A&A, but what’s stopping us, as a community, from house-ruling out the Zombies and enjoying the rest of the game? The A&A community took G40 from OOB to Balanced Mod and has made bids for practically every game in the series, I doubt that a few zombies are too much to handle.
Wizard’s been “cashing in” with this franchise since the “2nd editions” release. It still rubs me the wrong way thinking about that fiasco.
They should have created an upgrade kit for 1st edition owners. :x
Second edition of what? G40? There’s nothing in G402E that you can’t just house rule into first edition IIRC.
Only other “2nd Edition” out there is 42SE and it’s an entirely separate game from 42.
I actually have decently high hopes for this as long as the scale isn’t pathetic a la 1941.
A possible 1939 start date sounds fun, and if they do a good job “streamlining” the rules it might be enough to convince my more casual friends to break out the game with me for once.
Another possible benefit is that, if the setup/start is unique, we can always just house-rule out the Zombies and have a brand new shiny A&A to add to the family.
Here’s hoping for a Revised/42SE scale map!
While I’m certainly not a fan of the concept of adding something as absurd as Zombies to Axis and Allies (Or, God Forbid, have the Axis and Allies work together to fight them) I don’t understand the surprise. Let me elaborate from the position of someone from a younger generation:
There is a popular series of first person shooter video games called “Call of Duty” where (for the most part) you play as a soldier on the front lines of World War II.
One of the most popular multiplayer game modes in later editions of this franchise is something called “Nazi Zombies,” where you and your friends fight against Zombies that are implied to be the creation of some absurd wonder weapon project.
My Point: I think all Wizards is trying to do here is cash in on a popular game mode in a trendy video game in order to appeal to a younger generation. Insulting to the hardcore base? Perhaps. Stupid? I think not, but time will tell.
I’m with djensen on this. The game might very well suck and I probably won’t buy it, but if this game does well and it might lead to the creation of a game that can surpass even G40, then more power to Wizards.
To really boil down your advice, you’re saying to skip the attack on the British Home Fleet and the American Pacific fleet in favor of sending maximum Axis air toward the center of the board
Center board pressure, yup.
Only exception to the whole “not hitting the UK Home Fleet” bit is that I make sure to dive on the SZ12 Fleet (The DD/CRU pair). Taking that out gives the UK one less bombardment, gives Italy a chance to get its “clear the Mediterranean” NO, and might make the US think twice before storming Morocco US1.
Anyway, onto the nitpicks/discussion:
Britain can pretty easily bring 4 land units + 3 air + 2 bombards to attack France.
That’s true, but think of the typical Allied strategy in AA50. Most players try to land in Norway and drop an IC there. If UK is spending its time diving on France it delays this factory until they decide to divert the resources needed to occupy it.
Additionally, devoting everything 100% to a France landing B1 implies letting the Baltic Fleet and surviving German Subs live. If UK does this and Germany landed its air force in-range you could be looking at a pretty bloody G2 attack on the UK Fleet (unless UK buys like a CV or some other big naval force B1).
I’m not saying that leaving France in shoddy shape is necessarily a good idea either, and I definitely see the downsides of having to tether a 10+ INF/1-2 FTR stack to France for most of the game. It really does take away from the Russian front if I can’t cripple the Soviets economically in the first 2-3 turns.
Holding France isn’t 100% necessary either. It sucks if I don’t have enough punch to retake it on G4/G5, but if Moscow falls round 5 and the Allies are in France/Italy, that still should come up an Axis win once either:
A: Germany takes Russia’s lunch money and builds a massive land force in Europe.
B: Japan’s tank stacks flood into Europe to save Germany’s bacon.
Second, it’s not clear to me that you can kill the British Indian fleet J1 AND shut down China hard AND and take India on J2.
Fair warning before I describe my order of battle here, bids change this strategy completely. I probably wouldn’t recommend something that’s basically a cheese in a tournament setting with bids because an experienced player would definitely recognize that India is a key position that the British need to hold at all costs if they want to keep Japan’s income from exploding.
Fair warning #2, the image I’m looking at for the setup is blurry, so forgive me if I get the SZ #s wrong (I try to describe the physical location).
That being said:
J1:
Most of the East Indies Fleet (CV/BB/1 FTR, the other FTR is going to Yuunan), FTR from SZ51 (Caroline Islands) Vs. India Fleet (DD/CV/FTR), idea is to do this battle last and take casualties based on how other battles go (i.e. if everything else went perfectly take the ships as casualties to maximize available planes, if things went poorly elsewhere keep the navy around to transition into a normal Japan game. Calc says 92% chance of attacker win with 1-2 casualties expected for attacker.
Manchuria INF, 1 Kisangu INF (2 leftover), Japan FTR (it can’t reach Burma anyway) (Total: 3 INF, 1 FTR) Vs. Suiyuan (2 INF). Calc says 94% chance attacker wins. At least one INF should survive. Yes, I know this means completely abandoning Manchuria to the USSR for a turn, but unlike older versions of A&A the Soviets gain 0 IPCs from attacking Manchuria, just one extra Chinese INF and the temporary deprivation of Japan’s NOs if they fail to counterattack the following round. In fact, I want the Russians to come at Asia as hard as they can because it means those 6-8 INF (possibly more if they funnel troops into Persia or Western China) won’t be in Moscow/Stalingrad when they’ll be direly needed rounds 3/4.
2 Kisangu INF (the other went to Suiyuan, see above bullet point), Manchuria FTR (Total: 2 INF, 1 FTR) Vs. Hupeh (1 INF). 98% Attacker.
Transport from Japan picks up INF+Tank, BB from Japan, CRU from Philippines -> SZ61 (South China Sea), Kwangtung INF + Transport + bombard (Total: 2 INF, 1 Tank, 1 BB, 1 CRU) Vs. 1 Fukien (1 INF). 99% Attacker.
FIC (2 INF, 1 FTR), Japan Bomber, Formosa FTR (Formosa->SZ61->Fukien->Yuunan->NCM to Burma), SZ36 (East Indies, the rest of the fleet engaged the Indian Navy) FTR (SZ36->SZ37->Burma->Yuunan->NCM to Burma) (Total: 2 INF, 3 FTR, 1 Bomber) Vs. Yuunan (2 INF, 1 FTR). Calc says 99% chance Attacker win with 4 units surviving. If I get lucky I won’t lose 2 units but I’m not afraid to sacrifice a FTR or two to keep China down.
End result (key territories):
Burma: 1 INF, 5 FTR (one from Manchuria, one from Formosa, one from FIC, two from SZ36 (East Indies), 1 Bomber.
SZ35 (India): 1BB, 0-1CV, 0-1FTR (the FTR from SZ51 (Caroline Islands)).
Manchuria: Empty.
SZ61 (Off China): 1 TT, 1 BB, 1 CRU, potentially other ships.
Fukien: 0-2 INF, 1 Tank
FIC: IC from buy.
J2 you’re looking at 1 INF, 5 FTR, 1 Bomber Vs. whatever UK brought to India. If UK swings absolutely everything in range like you suggest (3 INF/1 AA from India, +1 INF from Persia, +1 FTR from Egypt, +1 FTR from Australia), then India will hold until J3 (1 INF from before + 2 tanks from FIC (J2 buy) + the IJN transporting the land units from Fukien + bombard will overrun whatever UK can possibly bring).
So it may have been a bit bold of me to suggest that India will “definitely fall by J2,” but it is possible if UK’s priorities lie elsewhere.
As for the strategy being “unstoppable,” I’d hardly call my plan unstoppable, but it does have a certain appeal to it if the first 2 rounds go smoothly.
IMO Allies have the edge in Revised and Classic. Especially Classic.
AA50 (both scenarios, although IIRC 41 is a bit closer) is tough for the Allies in most cases unless you turn NOs off and/or close the Dardanelles.
Of course, if you really hate yourself just play 42SE or G40 with Allies no bid.
Replying because I employ a variant of this strategy in my own games.
Apologies in-advance for hideous post format.
While I agree that Desert Rat’s perfect game report is a fantasy, I still advocate a less extreme variant of E. Ukraine stacking strategy. I think my take on things addresses some of your concerns:
I’m only going to discuss round 1 in detail or give 100% exact declarations of moves (although we can discuss that if you’d like), because it becomes impossible to predict the exact gamestate after round 1 due to dice:
J1 - Use air power against Chinese territories and the British India Fleet. Ignore US Fleet entirely.
Yes, this dooms Japan’s long-term prospects in the Pacific, and the money islands will certainly fall to the US, but it will take the Americans about 2-3 round to assemble a navy capable of killing the IJN and sail it all the way to the South Pacific.
Opening this way, assuming your opponent did not place a heavy build in China (they shouldn’t have), gives Japan their usual initiative in Mainland Asia and almost certainly spells doom for India J2, barring a miracle. The only real thing you’re sacrificing here is the IJN’s long-term prospects, which can potentially be remedied later in the game if you’re willing to sink IPCs into it.
As far as builds go I usually just stick with a Factory in FIC and some extra navy. This gives Japan it’s usual tank-rushing capabilities while also forestalling the inevitable destruction of the IJN at the USN’s hands.
G1 - This is where things get a bit tricky/technical. I do the following:
-Use Subs (2) + FTR from France to take out SZ12 (Gibraltar) Fleet (DD + CRU) - 81% Attacker
-Use DD from SZ13 + FTR from Bulgaria to hit SZ15 (Egypt) Fleet (DD) - 92% Attacker
-Strafe Egypt with Afrika Korps. You’re not expected to win this one, just to damage Egypt enough that Italy can waltz in I1.
-Slam some combination of Russian territories, depending on what USSR did R1. You must hit E. Ukraine the hardest. You have 2-3 tanks (depending on if Soviets hit Ukraine R1), 3 FTRs (Norway/Germany/East Poland), a Bomber, the Blatic Fleet, and a decent number of INF to work with, so you should be able to snipe at least East Ukraine + 1 territory.
Doing all this totally ignores the UK Fleet, which will cause problems for you late-game when UK sinks your fleet, lands en-masse in Norway and drops an IC. But as with the USN defeating the IJN, this will take the Allies about 2-3 turns to setup. By this point you should already have basically neutralized the Soviets.
Build can be more-or-less whatever you want, within reason (i.e. no absurd all-bomber buys, ICs, Battleships, etc.).
I1 - Not a lot to say here. Roll into Egypt for easy progress towards the NO (barring a disaster you should be able to take Trans-Jordan I2 to finish it out (France/Egypt/Trans-Jordan).
Quickies for Round 2:
J2 - Continue in China, Capture India, NCM the surviving Air Force to E. Ukraine. Continue shoring up fleet and/or tank spam.
G2 - Take Caucasus if possible. Continue stacking otherwise. Attempt to cleanup Allied landings and satisfy Italy’s NOs.
I2 - Prioritize NO Completion.
I specifically mention Italy’s NOs because they’re more-or-less mandatory if Italy wants to contribute to the Axis in any meaningful way.
There’s no way to calculate what the final IPC Incomes would look like in my extremely vague scenario, but a rough outline of the board-state at the end of Round 2 would be:
US: USN Assembled in Solomons (or wherever they’re staging). USN ready to strike Africa if they haven’t already.
UK: Fleet assembled in North Sea, Norway locked down, successfully destroyed Baltic Fleet, lost Egypt/India, may or may not have destroyed Italian Fleet.
USSR: Holed up in Moscow. May or may not still have Stalingrad.
China: Should be down to their last 2-3 territories.
J: Occupied India, significant progress in China, still hold Money Islands, do not own Australia, fleet in sorry state compared to USN (if US is going KJF).
G: Should own East Poland/Leningrad (but not for long with the UK starting their Norway stack)/East Ukraine/Ukraine. May or may-not hold Belorussia and Caucasus. Should still be holding France.
I: Occupied Italy/Trans-Jordan. May or may-not hold Ukraine and additional African territories. May have lost Morocco-Algeria already.
So overall a much more well-rounded position for the Axis.
The gameplan to take Moscow (if the UK is playing badly and not sending any air support to Moscow) would be to suicide the German Army into Moscow as a can-opener for an Italian attempt to take Moscow followed by the Japanese Air Force to clear out any survivors. After the triple can-opener, the Soviets can build 6 land units, which shouldn’t be enough to survive a second German offensive. Of course, if the game devolves into a stack-off in Russia the Japanese are free to move their Air Force elsewhere (possibly back to the Pacific for support or to mop up in Asia).
That’s all I’ve got, generally speaking. Granted, I don’t play AA50 a lot and definitely don’t consider myself to be a high-level player.
Side-Note: Kudos to you for using common sense and closing the Dardanelles. IMO, that simple act does infinitely more to balance AA50/42SE than any bid can.
Looks like I missed the boat while trying to mentally process that they weren’t kidding about the Zombies.
If you send a follow-up question, can you ask:
1. Will the game be distributed in retailers, like 1941, or to hobby shops only, like the G40 line?
2. What is in the game that will appeal to long-time fans of the series?
Context: 1941 gets a lot of flak for not bringing anything new to the table (not counting sculpts, of course). Revised, on the other hand, managed to import the Destroyers/Artillery from the spin-offs while remaining mostly on the same level of complexity as 3rd Edition.
A better way of asking my question is a variation of the one you made in your first post. Where will this game fall on the spectrum of 1941/Revised/AA50/G40?
3. Alternatively, is this game even going to be a strategy board game? (Midnight_Reaper raised the possibility of a card game on the last page).
4. Longshot, but MSRP/Release Date would also be nice, but I’m sure we’ll be getting that regardless.
No Revised so I’ll go against the masses and vote for AA50.
You can try playing without National Objectives, although I guess that’s technically a “rule change.”
I say this because the National Objectives give the Axis a huge advantage, as they’re able to keep/gain theirs easily while the Allies tend to lose/fail-to-gain theirs.