Axis can win on either side by collecting victory cities. Three of four scenarios have a win for the axis - therefore 75%
Allies on the other hand have to take all three capitals. That means they have to win on both sides - that’s only in one of those four scenarios, therefore 25%.
You were right. The retreat everything into a single territory rule only applies to land units and planes can land wherever they wish. (Provided it’s a legal landing spot of course)
I’m not sure on the exact language from the rule book but I think that sums up the essence of the rule.
Unfortunately, even if they were legal SZs, all but the Great Lakes and Lake Ladoga would still be illegal because you couldn’t place an IC in an adjacent territory…
:-D :-D :-D
However, I did place a massive stack of Soviet Battleships in Lake Baikal one game, it took longer than you might expect for the opponent to notice!!
:lol: :lol:
Usually Germany stealmates around moscow around G7 with US and GB Eur slowly advancing on the West.
My question is: do you play to take moscow (so a medium game) or do you play on the income and play in the long term (14-15 turns)?
Not being able to take Moscow and having the Allies in France isn’t that big a deal for Germany if:
-Germany isn’t going to lose Berlin
-Italy isn’t going to lose Rome
-USSR is down to a few IPCs of income
-Japan is thriving in the Pacific
Germany should be able to hold off Britain and America long enough that Japan grows to match American income and either wins or forces some pressure (from America) off of Germany.
Maybe Germany is overestimating the Western Allies’ forces? From what I read, KJF is the preferred USA strategy, which means they won’t have much to devote to Europe. Of course, if the Japan play is ineffective, that’s a whole different issue. But it seems from earlier posts that Japan usually does well in your games.
Taking Moscow quickly is not the only way to win. Taking Russia’s income works as well, and has the added effect of turning the economic balance toward the Axis.
@Herr:
My specific reason for buying that sub is, to kill the SZ111 UK battleship G2, while keeping the German battleship alive. On G1, I like to to take out SZ110, but only strafe SZ111, and then retreat the German battleship. Ideally, this would leave the UK with only a damaged battleship in SZ111, and that battleship can’t escape from the range of the German sub and bombers. But I’d rather not loose a bomber when attacking the battleship G2, so that’s where the sub comes in.
If the strafe doesn’t quite go as well - say that the UK cruiser has also survived - then as Germany, I still have a fair chance of killing both ships with 2 bombers plus the sub if the ships stay together. Or, if they split, I’ll probably just go after the battleship and leave the cruiser alone.It’s always best to destroy the uk batt G1 even if you lose your own batt uk1. The allies can easily make it so you either have a low odds fight g2 to destroy the batt or you have to use so many planes to scramble protect you are light in planes for other objectives like the med uk navy counter. Also, the uk will likely use their destroyer as fodder in the counter against the batt and any surviving subs, which means when u destroy it g2, if it happened to survive uk1, the sub u purchased g1 can take the 125sz NO from ussr without any counter. Also, the uk will need to use planes with that destroyer to defeat the fleet left in 111, which means they might go a little light in some med battles, which can open up opportunities there for italy if you have above average dice in those battles.
Are you referring to ignoring sz 110 and instead of strafing 111 you suggest to take it instead?
If you ignore either SZ you’re leaving a battleship alive so probably that’s not what aagamerz13 was going for.
However, responding to aagamerz13, I doubt that leaving a British BB alive would hurt you in the short term, especially if you can keep your own alive. There’s not much Britain can do with it early on, maybe it can go to the Mediterranean to help defeat Italy but britain usually is able to make Italy a non factor even without the BB.
The Ethiopia attack goes bad about 30% iirc. Without a bid, I don’t reckon it is worth it.tutor most powerful unit, the artillery, can’t retreat because it had come in amphibiously.
It may be worth it if the axis j1 Dow and you build an ic in Egypt. That way you keep the Indian tt alive and also you don’t need to build one in Persia uk2. You need the j1 dow to make sea lion that much more difficult.
But if you don’t attack it then the Italians can scatter and threaten the loss of the UK objective for turn 2. I say it’s better to kill them when they’re all in one spot rather than doing three/four smaller battles where things can go bad quickly with bad dice.
You’re definitely right about the bid though, I am in favor of using it on an artillery that can attack Ethiopia to make the battle more in the Brits’ favor.
@Elsass-Lorraine:
I do it, along with Taranto. No Tobruk. I usually try to bid an artillery in Sudan so I can take Persia with the Indian transport. I use the cruiser for bombard in Ethiopia as well.
At what point as UK, do you not do Taranto anymore?
Always Taranto. Those Italian boats are unparalleled assets in the Med that need to be destroyed in my opinion. Ethiopia is also very important, it takes priority over Persia turn 1. I hope that answered your question, I was a little confused at what you meant.
I do it, along with Taranto. No Tobruk. I usually try to bid an artillery in Sudan so I can take Persia with the Indian transport. I use the cruiser for bombard in Ethiopia as well.
Did you attack the 8 undefended tanks in Baltic States?
You should consider attacking Baltic States, they don’t have much else tank-wise on the eastern front besides what is in that territory. Maybe use the stuff in Leningrad that has been cut off.
Of course it is faster to roll once, count hits once, and clear the dice tray once rather than doing that process up to 3 more times per side. The issue here is that we don’t need, in my opinion, to have an all-encompassing “rule” per se that standardizes what colors of dice people use. There’s no difference between using a black die or a white die for ones, twos, threes, whatever, they both need to/should be given the ok by an opponent so that no disputes based on color come up. There’s no need to attempt to regulate something that is already either regulated on a per-game basis or not used altogether (most people do not roll all their dice at once, and they are perfectly fine with adding a few minutes to the game)
Elsass-Lorraine
I’ve been playing AA since 86
after 5 games of first edition we house ruled the game…2010 2nd edition…same thing…house ruled it…2013 we shelved it for HBG Global 39…Global 36 came out…tougher time to find players…I am creating a hybrid game taking the best of all 3 games to mesh it into 1
I just recently started playing AA G 40 so I could play at YGs tournament
AA G 40 is a great game but it is broken…Destroyers and Bombers overpowered…political situations idiotic in my opinion
Most broken are Russia…Italy and the UK Navy…awful representation of themMy games all Military Veterans and historical buffs of WW ll…we changed it up
An example…my Tankograd…Russia may purchase 2 tanks for 4 IPC’s and immediately place them on the board and combat or non combat move them on that turn
Russia has heavy tank…only country with them…Germans SP’s…Italians Berseglieri Infantry and TB DD…US AA destroyers…China Cavalry…Japan Escort carriers…Brits Battle cruisers…2 hits to destroy…Anzac Coast Watchers and special Naval Tac / Torpedo bombers that can convoy and target select ships…French Colonial Infantry that you roll a 1 you place an Infantry into a territory you own…this is my simple one…then I have mega complicated rules
Glad to hear that you understand how house rules work. But they’re called house rules for a reason: They apply uniquely and singularly to your group. That means, when you are playing with other people, such as at events like YG’s tournament, you play by the letter of the original rulebook (or whatever rules are played at that event).
Like I said, you are more than welcome to house rule the game (which you have) and then go talk about your house rules in the House Rules forum.
This forum is for people who play Axis and Allies Global 1940 by the rule book, that’s why there is a separate one for house rules. Let me reiterate: The rules surrounding your situation have been completely and clearly explained by multiple people. The rules are not changing anytime soon either, and definitely not for a fringe issue such as this.
You asked about a rule, we told you about a rule. It’s pointless to deny rules that are clearly written in the rulebook and even nicely brought together and tied up with a bow for you by rules deputies and various others.
Let me end with saying that I mean none of this maliciously. Good luck with your future games of A&A, HBG36/39, or whatever hybrid game you come up with. :-)
Guys, there’s no “pact” outside of Russia not being able to declare war on Germany or Italy until turn 4 UNLESS they were attacked by either power first. Molotov-Ribbentrop isn’t really a thing in this game.
Germany is not declaring war on Russia (or “violating the pact” call it what you wish) as they did not attack Russia, but Russia is free to declare war on Germany on their turn as they are now at war with Italy. That means no more German objective after the first Eastern Poland move.
The rules have been stated many times over, by regular members and official rules deputies alike, and they are clear. Obviously there is nothing stopping you from playing a different way in your personal games, the A&A Police will not knock down your door and arrest you. However, you are not going to change rules that have stood for years by arguing this over and over again.
@CWO:
Out of curiosity, I looked at the two acronym threads in the Player Help section…
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7842.0
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27430.0
…and unless I’m missing them somewhere, there don’t seem to be abbreviations given to distinguish between major and minor ICs. There’s simply an IC abbreviation.
The capitalized-versus-non-capitalized distinction mentioned above is clever and short (just 3 characters each), but it’s potentially ambiguous (as the above posts indicated). Adding one character might be a better option – say, for example, MjIC and MnIC.
Or just say “major” or “minor”, they’re probably easier to type anyway…
I believe MIC stands for Major IC, while mIC stands for Minor IC. The only difference is the capitalization of the M.
Japan unmolested will build 1 factory per turn, then power those with 3 tanks per turn. The only way he can do that is if he spends zilch on the water while you’re dropping 70 PER TURN.
In my (relatively limited) experience, Japan doesn’t need more than 3 factories to accomplish its goals on the mainland, and they certainly don’t need to buy all tanks from them, mechs and inf/art usually work just fine. That leaves them much more income to buy boats leading to a giant fleet standoff where nobody can/wants to attack each other which is a win for Japan because America isn’t stopping them from growing even further.
Great question, you can’t really force him to do anything, but at some point, his only option left is to flee the Pacific board and head to Africa. He will likely have something like 2 BB 3 CV 2 CA 4-8 DD 2-4 SUB plus an amazing amount of air power that can hit you once you are close to the Mainland, but your fleet will be even more powerful than that with something like 6 CV, 12 planes, 1 BB 2 CA and 20+ dds and subs.
I am wondering when this would occur, as it doesn’t seem realistic (at least from my experience) that at the same time Japan has 3 carriers and 8-12 small boats, the Allies have 6 carriers and 20+ small boats.
But at the same time in my games the USA rarely commits so much to the Pacific especially in the early rounds, so maybe these scenarios are more feasible with a heavier focus on the pacific.
As mentioned it isn’t difficult to starve the Japanese with convoy/sub every turn. The Japanese have to build destroyer(s) counter sucking up valuable IPCs. The US can start build 52 worth of subs until turn 3. Once it hits 72+, game over. The Japanese cannot hold high IPC islands, control the Chinese, take India and prevent an ANZAC build up. If Russia attacks even a little forget it. The Mongolian pact is not that important or much of a deterrent for either side. There needs to be some lessening of the American IPCs pre-war. 52 is too much.
But if you are building all subs the first three turns then you aren’t building carriers and destroyers which are important to ensure japan can’t take full control of the pacific. Japan can easily kill your subs if there’s nothing else keeping their navy in place.
Thanks for your reply, very helpful.
Just so I don’t get anything confused, let me make sure I get everything you said straight:
100% Pacific. Not 80, not 90
Try to get Iwo Jima then occupy SZ 6 if you can, but if not go to Queensland/Carolines and land on DEIs
Purchases should be subs & carriers?
A few random follow-up questions:
Usually no matter how this goes down, Moscow is about to fall while you are throttling Japan.
Shouldn’t the Siberians go west in this case?
you divert south and try to force him into a giant fleet-to-fleet confrontation.
How can I force japan into a large-scale battle?
ANZAC is buying the transports and landing on the DEIs if you go that route, right?
Let’s say Japan has most of their navy on the Philippines by turn 4, and the USA wants to go to SZ 6 from Iwo Jima. How can the US fleet be large enough to survive an attack from Japan’s navy and air force in SZ 6? I think (not completely sure) that even with max Pacific building the first 3 turns the US fleet is still too small to occupy SZ 6. Plus if you’re buying subs those defend at 1 which is not good. Or do I have the timing wrong, and a SZ 6 move should be later?
I’ve read on multiple posts here that America going after Japan is arguably the most effective use of American resources, as Japan is the most vulnerable member of the Axis (Germany and Italy are generally considered impregnable).
I’m wondering specifically how this effective KJF is accomplished, as I and my group in general finds it hard to do anything game-changing in the Pacific as America.
How it usually plays out is Japan balloons their income to 60s and 70s (turn 4-6 following a J1 usually) before America can overcome the initial naval advantage that Japan has and get a sizable navy in position to counter the Japanese. Following that it’s just a massive fleet standoff/arms race between the USA at the Carolines and Japan at the Philippines or FIC.
So, what can the USA do to overcome this and execute a successful KJF? Is it purchasing 100% in the Pacific? Buying transports and taking islands from Japan? Buying subs and choking Japan’s income? Positioning the US fleet somewhere besides the Carolines? Something else?
Your thoughts are much appreciated, and if there have been previous threads discussing how to do a KJF in detail, please point me to those.
Thanks!
The easiest thing to do is conquer Normandy/Bordeaux on G1, and build 2 destroyers in sz105 on G2.
If your plan is to put boats in the Med why not take Southern France turn 1, then you can build right into the Med without risking your destroyers to Allied ships in the North Sea where you have little to no naval superiority. Then you can give Italy Normandy-Bordeaux, sure they get it a turn later than they would Southern France but that 2 fewer bucks probably isn’t gonna make that big a difference in the long run. Additionally, it’s not like Italy is going to be using the Southern France factory, they have more than enough production in their homeland.
Activate Bulgaria. Bulgaria only gets you an extra IPC and four extra men. That has a far greater effect on Italy than it will on you.
I would much rather add 4 more men to the German army in Russia than add 4 more men to the Italian war effort which is usually limited to defending their coast & Germany’s important territories.
I like to let Italy get at least Yugoslavia and Greece, sometimes I will take Southern France as Germany, sometimes I won’t. Either way, Italy is gonna be weak unless the British player does not do a good job of keeping them in check.