Posts made by eddiem4145

I have never played with victory cities. The game is always called well before that and someone surrenders. There could have been a time when it was temporarily met but no one would have even noticed. Either the allies would surrender just before or just after. Once the game becomes obvious as to a clear winner, agreements are always made to play a certain number of turns with some qualifiers that must be met, otherwise the losing side must surrender.

When I was in the army, I remember just one playing the Axis IPC victory if anyone remembers that. The axis for a moment, that could not be maintained, had the level of combined IPC’s to win the game. I was on the allies side. 5 of us were playing. The axis claimed their victory and we, (the allies) were livid and declared it a false victory.

I understand you issue with Japan in the sense that it is Germany who will always dominate when the Axis wins. But that does not take away from the importance of Japan. If Japan is able to win in the Pacific, (without declaring an end to the game), it can then place incredible pressure on Russia, the UK via Africa, or the US via Alaska or Hawaii, that will bring victory to the Axis.

Japan would be a power house if allowed to take China, India, the Middle east, and all the Pacific Islands so they cannot be ignored. They just need to be slowed down. One of the things I think should change to encourage action in the Pacific without unrealistic NO’s and “technical wins” would be dramatically lowering the costs of building a Navy. Subs $4, Destroyers $6, Cruisers $8, Air Craft Carriers $10, Planes $8, Tac Bombers $10. Then you could have real action in the pacific without taking away so many resources from other fronts that are more important.

Also, instead of making Hawaii worth more to the Japanese then to the Americans, which makes no sense at all, they should be penalties to the losing country, such as a one time surrender of IPC’s, $20 or so to mimic a loss of morale, as suppose to a constant unrealistic stream of income to the Japs. These things combined would be more realistic, historical, encourage action in the Pacific and still allow for the efficient expenditures of resources.

Historically, the US spend less than 15% of its resources fighting the Japanese in the real war. There was a reason for that, but there was still meaningful Pacific action. That was because building one air craft carrier with a full complement of planes and a ship or two did not require nearly 100% of their resources for 3 months.

I have played countless other games of different variants and editions. The new rules, set up, and NO’s I think are enough to prevent the allies from ignoring Japan. They can’t ignore them. A japan that takes Anzac, China, India, the middle east and half of Russia would still be a major power to contend with, even if Germany falls. So the 6 victory city is not needed.

I can’t say definitively that without the 6 victory city condition, it would be completely balanced, but my impression so far is that luck, strategy, concentration (especially since they are very long games), and overall tactics matter so much in this game, it by far is a greater determining factor in who wins then any initial unbalance. That is my impression anyway.

I can’t stand the 6 victory city condition because the Allies can very easily be in a condition of winning yet lose due to the condition forcing the US to spend inefficiently in the Pacific. They can’t ignore the Japs but they shouldn’t be their key focus. It is unhistorical, unrealistic, and not strategically sound except for that 6 victory city rule.

Maybe it should be an 8 victory city rule.

I can’t yet prove that is false as I have only played 5 games on global. I played 4 games with just Europe 2nd edition and 4 with pacific. I have played countless other games with edition

I’m shocked that no one has mentioned getting rid of the 6 victory city rule in the Pacific for an Axis win and continually talk about changing the set up. Talk about keeping it simple stupid. The 6 Victory City rule gives a massive advantage to the Axis as it forces an inefficient use of the USA’s resources, forcing it to maximize its resources against Japan.

It may not be enough, but it is definitely a start.

This is WRONG. I have seen Russia hold out on their own against Germany, Italy and Japan. Now, if you mean “help” by the UK and US attacking the Axis in other places, then yes they need that. But if you are talking about actual US and UK units being sent to Russia for defense, it is not necessary.

Not sure how you interpreted actual units in Russia, but I meant attacking Germany and Italy specifically.

One strategy I have seen work, and I know some people don’t like it, is infantry stacking for Russia.

It is impossible to determine if a specific strategy would always work. If this strategy in fact would always work, then in fact it is impossible for the Axis to win. If Germany by itself could not take Russia, then the game is historically and severely unbalanced towards the axis. Which is a different argument in itself. I don’t know yet how the balance of the game is due too to many variables, such as the expertise of the players since the game is still relatively new, mistakes made when great players get tired, and the luck of the roll. But this post is preferenced on an Axis clear advantage and how to balance it. My suggestion is to not play with the 6 victory city in the Pacific option. That allows the US to more efficiently spend most of it resources on Germany, thereby tilting the balance more towards the allies.

England kept Italy in check in the Med while bothering Germany from the back with SBRs and small attacks. The US spent most of it’s money in the Pacific and basically closed Japan off. Japan was still in the game but was making no money thanks to US convoy raids and SBRs. Their army on the continent got whittled down and ANZAC was taking their islands. When you get to that point, the US just has to keep a supply of subs to keep convoying Japan and bombers to keep the factories out of action. China and India will eventually wipe out the Japanese mainland army because Japan won’t have money to buy reinforcements for it. Japan becomes a “non-entity”. Then the US can send ships and troops to Europe to support UK and knock out Italy.

If this overall strategy relies on Russia holding out for a while, while the US first goes all out against the Japanese with the sole purpose of weakening them so ANZAC, China, and India can contain them on their own, thereby allowing the US to then go all out against Germany, I can’t say this obviously would not work. It may. My initial thought, based on the 10 or so games played with Europe and the 5 games played with Global, is it may work, but more victories would be obtained by the Allies if the US only helped minimally to contain Japan and spent most of its resources from the get go against Germany. Of course this carries a greater risk of losing the whole game when you play with the 6 victory city in Asia rule, which I abhor and never play with. There is too many other variables in this game and tactics, skill, calculated chances play a much bigger role in this game then the other smaller Axis and Allies version. This game is truly more like Chess than it has ever been before where the middle part of the game is purely tactics and not definitive strategy can be developed. Except for one. The war must still be one in Europe. That part of the game has not been changed.

The point is, as I make it again and again, is that Victory must come from Europe. The resources it would take to “trounce” Japan would result in Germany taking Russia. Assuming of course you had extremely proficient players on both sides.

The war is won in Europe, not Asia. Japan is important in that once, if it can, China and India falls, it can help win the war in Europe by various means. Going after the US (not recommended in my opinion), go after Russia full force, or go after Africa if it was not yet taken depending on the circumstances.

Enough resources needs to be put into Japan to slow them down, but the bottom line, without a majority of the US resources helping in Europe, Germany would win. Once that happens, it is all over. That part of the game has not changed.

In my last post I agreed with your numbers, 60-70% to avoid the 6 victory city. You could probably do it with less, but my ultimate point is that for the greatest chance of an allied victory, it ought to be 70-80% in Europe and 20-30% in the Pacific. The Germans are too much for Russia without that kind of assisitance.

Now Germany is hard to play, but with equal efficient players, Russia cant stand without significant help. Offensive in Europe and defensive in the Pacific. That basic has not changed from the game unless you play with the 6 victory condition for Japan.

I was looking for something clear like that but could not find it. Thank you very much for taking the time. I appreciate it.

ghr2,

I would agree on your number of 60-70%. Unfortunately that is what the US should at the minimum be spending against Europe to maximize the Allies chances to win. The 6 victory condition for the Pacific forces that 60-70% to be ineffectively spent in the Pacific. That is why I don’t like it.

So far I can’t tell how unbalanced the game is. I read most people complain the axis now have the advantage. But in the games I have played, playing with the 6 victory city rules most definitely puts the Allies at a greater disadvantage. So much so, no of my buddies like to play with it.

We are near agreement on some house rules that keeps it realistic in terms of the history and did some research on how many resources were spent on Japan vs. Germany and on Navies vs. Air Forces and Ground units.

So far it seems that it needs to be easier for the US to get to Australia to better assist, we are introducing a “Merrills Mauraders” rule, and we are dramatically making Naval units cheaper.

This is to encourage realistic Naval action in the Pacific without the silly 6 victory city rule.

Bottom line, Japan can capture 6 cities and win the game while obviously losing the world war.

knp7765

Axis and allies has changed over the decades I have been playing. Probably 30 years. But one thing has not, the basics. And it makes sense since they are trying to stay true to what happened, in the sense of what the situation really was at a given point in time. Thereby, the fact remains that the real action is in Europe and whoever wins Europe wins the war.

Britain and Russia cannot, unless playing a weak German player hold off the Germans long enough for Japan to be neutralize much less defeated. And if they could, then the resources spent on neutralizing Japan only means the allies would have won much earlier if those resources were spent in Europe.

Now before everyone goes crazy on me and makes arguments that you just can’t completely and totally ignore Japan and give me all kinds of examples on how the old KGF strategy would not work in the newest editions, understand, I am not arguing a complete ignore of Japan, only enough resources to help Anzac, India, and China slow them down. Essentially, defensive in the Pacific and the offensive in Europe.

That part of the game has not changed EXCEPT, that with the Victory cities only requiring Japan to hold 6 of them, forces the US to go offensive in the Pacific.

That is why I do not like it. It forces in unrealistic and ineffective strategy.

The poll missed the most significant thing that puts the US, thereby the Allies at a disadvantage. The fact that Japan only needs 6 victory cities for the Axis to win the entire game. That forces the US to foolishly spend massive resources in the Pacific when they would better be spent in Europe.

The best chance for the Allies to win is for the US to play defensive in the Pacific even if means the risk of losing Hawaii which is a pretty insignificant loss. But with the current rules, that would cost the allies the entire game, even if Italy already had fallen and Russia was still solid.

Only if they are playing with the victory city rule, which of course is the rule, but in my games we don’t use them. They are unrealistic and foolish, (im sorry if that offends).

Europe, where the main battle is, can be losing terrible, on the verge of defeat, and Japan without even taking Anzac can win the whole game. It forces the US to spend incredibly inefficiently in the Pacific to not risk that happening.

Outside of the, I have not played enough games, roughly 10 or so to fully understand the balance as old strategies have to be modified still.

But only 6 victory cities in the Pacific to win the whole game, that is foolish. Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and the Philippines are automatic. Calcutta is automatic too unless the US foolishly goes on the offensive in the Pacific and defensive in Europe, or worse, attempt to go on the offensive in both. That only leave Hawaii. Hawaii, an insignificant island that if taken over and kept for one turn, ends the game. Foolish. It again, forces the US to overspend to avoid even the risk.

It should be 8 victory cities, not 6. So yes that would include Sydney and Los Angeles. It would have to be that overwhelming to ignore what is happening in Europe.

Great, but can someone explain it. A destroy stops sub movement. So during it combat movement, it should only be allowed to attack or retreat. Please explain in the rules where they can move out and attack somewhere else.

In the original AA that came out in CD-Rom, an exact replica of the game to be played on a desktop, or when, (I believe) the revised online game on axis and allies.com, if an enemy ship is next to an IC, and the opposing play puts a ship there, on the next turn the enemy ship is given the option to fight or retreat. I don’t remember the options to move and fight again.

Please explain. The destroyer should stop the subs movement unless they retreat.

Is there such thing as an electronic roller with a low luck option like on the axis and allies game on the internet. Something I can use for the board game to speed it up.

3 German subs off the coast of Egypt. I have small US Navy parked in the sea zone directly west of it. UK has a factory on Egypt. If UK puts a destroyer in the Egypt sea zone, on Germany’s next turn what happens. I know they can either attack the destroyer, or retreat. But can they move out of the sea zone with the destroyer and attack the small US fleet.

I love the idea of using monopoly pieces for factories. Based on what I saw, the Hotels were major complexes and the green houses were minor.

But it also looks like you have red houses. What are those. In some you have a red hotel and a red house?

Eddie

This isn’t as dumb as a question as one might think.

Think the ocean not land before you respond to this post please.

US fleet is off the coast of Gibraltar, on the west side. Italy has one destroyer blocking their passage. US takes out the destroyer with one sub and one plane and destroys it. On the non-combat movement phase, can it then move through that space into the sea zone just south of France. Since the sea zone is not occupied and does not have an enemies control marker on it, it is not a combat move. Unlike on land where if you did that, it would be another combat move.

I guess the question could apply to land. If I take an enemy territory, can I then move through that territory during non combat movement to reinforce a friendly territory. The answer to that is obviously yes, so I think I just answered my question.

Am I missing something???

Thank you for your last post.

The jerk part was a little pot shot at your username. My apologies.

Lastly,

I have been reading a lot of post lately, and to my surprise, though not from moderators, there had been some negative back and forth post going on that seemed to get personal between other participants.

In one post, I read an apology from a participant and a response acknowledging that posts, like emails, are comely misread and attitude and sarcasm is easily read into posts when none were intentioned. If that is the case here, and I did as such with Kriegmund, then I am in error. And if I am doing the same with you, then again I am in error. Though using capital letters and exclamation marks in you post lends to that impression.

But my point in the last post, again where I acknowledge the fact that I misread the rules and the responses I received helped me realize that, my main point was that I thought moderators should be more careful in how they respond. You can reread my post if you like.

If my point is pointless, OK. But so was responding with your last post.