Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. IKE
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 5
    • Posts 200
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by IKE

    • RE: FAQ Now Available

      @wolfsden:

      Thank you. I have one more question. In the rule book it saids during an amphibious assault if there is only an enemy sub and or transport, you the attaker have the choice to attack or ignore. Does that mean i still can go in  Unescorted or would i have to be escorted. Also if i did go in with a destroyer doesn’t that Voids the option to ignore? Just wondering for myself. Thanks again

      If there is an enemy sub in that sea zone your transport must be escorted with a warship (not sure if this can be a sub or has to be a surface ship).  You now have the choice whether to attack the sub or ignore it.  You cannot bring only a transport into a sea zone with an enemy sub and offload.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • Losing Amp Assault

      If the sea battle is lost by the attacker, do the accompanying transports & their cargo die?  Or are they allowed to retreat one space from the battle?

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: 1940 Global table & painted pieces

      Very cool, so the LED sticks up through the plexiglass, about 1/4’ or so?  I’ve seen some other people have the game board printed on vinyl and then they glue it down to the plywood.

      I’d love to get that map file if anyone sees this and could send it to me.

      posted in Customizations
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: 1940 Global table & painted pieces

      Just read this all for the first time.  The table & victory city lights are amazing!

      Did you drill through the game board to install the lights?  How did you mark the exact spot of the VC on the table so you could drill through?  Very curious about your install method.  My dad loves projects. :)

      posted in Customizations
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: Naval composition

      Depends on what you’re trying to accomplish with the navy and what it will be up against.  For example, Germany’s navy builds will usually be different then US or UK because of it’s mission.

      Subs are great for offense, especially against fleets w/o a destroyer, they can be devastating.  Carriers are great for defense and for amphibious assaults.  While it’s nice to have a big gun in the fleet like a battleship, you also want to have fodder that can take hits for you (subs or destroyers).

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: Confused about UK split economy

      If Japan captures India do they take India’s money?  And then London can’t collect income for Pacific UK territories?  Or does all the money get transferred to London?

      Thanks

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: Big Bang and A&A42

      I don’t watch the show but I think that’s pretty cool.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: Powerful opening German moves?

      Wild Bill, in 1942 1st ed. I believe Germany only has 1 sub in the atlantic instead of two so it’s a more riskier attack.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: I think I did the right thing.

      Cow that does sound pretty ghetto I’m not gonna lie, I don’t blame your friend lol.  You can get the game for 55 shipped from CoolStuff and then just sell the pieces and keep the map.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: PORTUGAL is wrongly drawn in 1942 se!

      It looks like a 5 year old tried to draw the US, Michigan was butchered lol

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: First game tomorrow

      WILD BILL - do you play with an optional rule that damaged BB’s take until the next turn to repair after taking 1 hit?  In the 1942 Rulebook it states “If a battleship survives a combat having taken one hit, return it upright to the game board.”

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: Finally! Non-Moscow Axis victory! Do the Allies stand a chance?

      Damn, I think Global 1940 is the other way and I assumed 1942 was the same, I would’ve won the game already.  Now it looks like the Allies are going to rebound for the win… grrrrr

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: Finally! Non-Moscow Axis victory! Do the Allies stand a chance?

      I’m confused on how long you need to hold the 9th city for, for example if Japan takes India for the 9th city do the Axis win after US turn or do you need to hold it for a complete turn back to Japan’s next turn to win?

      posted in Axis & Allies 1942 2nd Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: GARGANTUA'S $200 TOURNAMENT OF EXTRA DEATH AND PAIN (TripleA Only) 2xELIMINATION

      I don’t know how the online play works but I just downloaded the map and I’m interested. Does everyone sit at their computers and play real time until the game is over or is the game played when people make moves over the course of a week, etc. ?

      posted in Tournaments
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: My Axis & Allies 1942 Room…

      The room is so awesome! Great job and enjoy it.

      posted in Customizations
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: What if hitler died?

      @KurtGodel7:

      @Herr:

      It’s rather off topic considering the question asked by the original poster, but as far as a potential Soviet attack on Western Europe is concerned, I find it very hard to believe that the nuclear bomb would have stopped Stalin. We’re not talking about a man here who was particularly concerned about the possible death of millions of his soldiers or civilians. Besides, at the time that Stalin would potentially arrive at such a decision, it wasn’t at all clear how devastating the nuclear bomb would be - but it was clear that they wouldn’t be produced by the dozen any time soon.
      Say that it’s July 1, 1945. The Trinity test hasn’t happened yet, so nobody knows whether or not the bomb will even work. US troops stationed in Europe are being relocated to the Pacific to finish off Japan, and the USSR military has an overwhelming numerical superiority. If Stalin intended to conquer the West, that would seem like a perfect opportunity.

      So why didn’t he? I suppose that only historical research could provide the answer, and maybe it already has, now that many the old Soviet archives are accessible - I’m no expert there. But there are two reasons I can think of:

      1. While the communist doctrine of the first half of the century was aimed at world domination, the typical route to achieve that would have been by means of worker’s revolutions similar to that in Russia itself. The USSR was more than willing to promote that, typically by supporting communist parties around the world. Stalin believed military conflict with the West to be inevitable, but didn’t intend to start an all-out war unless the West had been weakened by internal dissension.
      2. At the end of World War II, Stalin’s grip on the Soviet Union itself had been severely compromised by the events of the war. During his reign of terror of the late 1930’s, he had been in full control - but the purges of those years had severely weakened the Red Army and the entire administration of the country. The German attack left Stalin with no other choice than to allow more freedom, to loosen the reins to a degree that was required to fight the war in a somewhat effective manner. So he had to delegate power to others to a degree that he wouldn’t have been comfortable with in peace time. The war created celebrities and heroes, and in 1945, Stalin was probably not even in a position to start a war with the West - there would have been a lot of opposition, and it might have led to his downfall. It took Stalin several years to reassert his power - a prime example was the case of the highly popular field marshal Georgy Zhukov, who was relegated to a relatively unimportant post.

      You’ve raised excellent points. To add to what you’ve written, the Soviet army had become disorganized toward the end of the war in Europe. They were more interested in robbing, raping, shooting civilians, getting drunk, etc. than they were in remaining a disciplined fighting force. There was a celebratory atmosphere which made it unfit for a major new conflict–at least at the time. Another problem it faced was a lack of supplies. While the soldiers could eat by stealing what they needed from civilians, ammunition was another matter.

      Stalin was a man who believed in thorough preparations for war. During the '30s, he purged his army of anyone he suspected might prefer Nazism to communism. (Mostly people on the right.) Leading up to a war with the United States, a different sort of purge would have been used. The United States and Israel had formed a strong alliance. Stalin suspected that Jewish Zionists (read: Jews generally) might prefer an American victory to a Soviet one. In the early '50s, Stalin began show trials of Jewish doctors–trials which supposedly unveiled a Zionist conspiracy aimed against the Soviet Union. It is felt that, had Stalin lived, these trials would have been expanded to target Jews generally. It has also been noted that during this time, Stalin ordered the construction of two large new concentration camps. While the intended victims of these camps are not known with certainty, they were widely rumored to be for use against Jews.

      The extermination of the Soviet Union’s Jewish population would have been one of two facets of Stalin’s overall effort. The other would have been an invasion of Western Europe. The MiG had been specifically designed to shoot down American strategic bombers. (Though it was also effective at destroying American jet fighters.) While the Sabre was somewhat better than the MiG, the U.S.'s other jets were not nearly as good. And the Soviets had a lot more MiGs than the U.S. had Sabres.

      Evidence suggests that Stalin allowed the Korean War to be launched as a test of American military readiness. The U.S. failed this test, which made Stalin comfortable going forward with his plans to invade Western Europe. The Truman administration realized that the U.S. conventional forces in the area were no match for their Soviet counterparts–especially not after the nations of Eastern Europe had had their armies recruited, trained, and integrated into the Warsaw Pact. (The addition of Soviet satellite state forces to the communists’ army was another reason for delaying the communist invasion of the rest of Europe.)

      Because the NATO conventional forces in Germany were no match for their Warsaw Pact counterparts, the Truman administration’s plan was to respond to any Soviet invasion by using nuclear weapons on the Red Army as it moved deeper into West Germany. Stalin understood this, and his plan was to use MiG jets to shoot down American bombers before they could deliver their payloads. In any case the U.S. did not have very many nuclear weapons to use. (This was before the era of ICBMs, so any nation which could shoot down enemy bombers effectively enough could defend itself against nuclear attack.)

      Stalin died before putting these plans into effect. Had he lived another five years, it’s likely the Soviet Union would have invaded Western Europe, and that the Jews within Soviet territory would have been exterminated.

      Wow, very interesting post! I had no idea.

      posted in World War II History
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: Fighter and DD vs. 2 subs

      Thanks

      posted in Axis & Allies Spring 1942 Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: Fighter and DD vs. 2 subs

      1. Understood.  Thanks

      2. I meant combat move phase.  Just so I’m clear, in the combat move phase the Germans can move away from the SZ shared with the UK even if they are not moving to another hostile SZ? I always thought combat movements had to actually end with combat, so is it the case that they are avoiding combat and that’s why they can move to a friendly SZ during the combat move phase?

      3. I was referencing IL’s map which has IPC values assigned to some neutrals.  In the thread he discusses the project for optional rules being added to 1942 to allow for conquering neutrals, but I didn’t know if that work had been completed or not.

      posted in Axis & Allies Spring 1942 Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • Fighter and DD vs. 2 subs

      Three questions for the board:

      1. Suppose a Fighter and DD attack 2 subs, and both subs score hits on defense. � How are the two hits absorbed since the rule as I understand it is that subs can’t hit planes?

      2. Suppose UK drops a navy in the same SZ as Germany occupies. � On G next turn, can they move in the combat phase to an open SZ to avoid the fight, even though the move is not a combat move but rather a move to AVOID combat? �  Or is that German navy forced to fight, either in another SZ or the current one shared with UK?

      3. Where can I find the optional rules of including the neutrals in the game play?

      Thanks

      posted in Axis & Allies Spring 1942 Edition
      IKEI
      IKE
    • RE: Master Find Players List

      Southwest Connecticut (Fairfield county), A&A

      posted in Player Locator
      IKEI
      IKE
    • 1 / 1