Posts made by M36

@Kreuzfeld we also typically play for a world domination ending, which favors the Allies. Victory city conditions are far easier for the Axis to achieve.

@RedRyder01 Yeah I think you’re over complicating things a bit. Just remember that national production does not equal cash in hand. The reason collect income is at the end of a powers turn is so that you have that opportunity to recover losses or improve your position.

@RedRyder01 The national production is not necessarily the same as the available IPCs a power has. In the scenario you provided Japan does not take any IPCs from the Chinese player, but rather their production ability. Japan will collect an additional 4 from the “bank” on their collect income phase. China will still start their turn with 12 IPCs, but in their collect income phase they will receive 8 IPCs assuming they did not take any territories back. I hope that helps.

@simon33 I don’t get me wrong, the Axis win about 2/3 of the time so it’s clear they have an advantage. We’ve just always seen that as part of the challenge.

@Panther I believe this was the case in revised no? I no longer have this copy of the game, and it was many years ago that I played. Am I thinking of a house rule?

Wow I’m seeing lots of neat new strategies here. The G1 Carrier purchase that many seem to agree as a standard for Germany would make me the laughing stock of my group, until they saw an actual Sea Lion attempt, which we virtually never do. Typically I have had great success with a throwback to A&A Classic: The IPM. The Luftwaffe can give the infantry plenty of attack power, but the problem is they are slow so a G1 or G2 Barbarossa is essential. Has anyone else had success with the classic infantry march to Moscow?

@SS-GEN well you’re not wrong. AA in general wasn’t all that efficient except in huge quantities. It’s difficult to hit a target traveling over 200 mph. Look up the specs for ships like the Bismarck though. Extensive AA batteries because the supremacy of air power was not yet established so it was thought AA batteries would be adequate.

@SS-GEN Didn’t have AA? Battleships were literally bristling with flak batteries. 20mm, 40mm, 3 inch guns…

@simon33 I see your points. In my experience however ANY additional turns Japan spends fighting in China is a benefit to the Allies.

Ah yes, I was not considering an attack from multiple territories. In any case the fighters may scramble for the sea battle or they may stay in the land territory and fight in that. They may not do both. As for the ships in previous versions of the game they could chose to fight in the naval engagement or bombard but in 1940 I am quite certain ships MUST all fight in any naval engagement first.

Has anyone considered a “Pocket Battleship”? A cruiser that costs 16 IPC, attacks at four and like subs receives two dice for convoy disruption? Tried this in a couple of our Europe games but haven’t seen enough use of it yet to truly determine its worth.

@jasonondesign “They can’t participate in any other battles during that turn, including a battle in the territory from which they were scrambled.” From the 2nd Edition rulebook. I’m not sure when this would occur anyway, because if the scramblers win then the attacking transports are sunk so there is no land battle, and if they lose the Scramblers are killed as they are defenders and cannot retreat.

@aequitas-et-veritas Thank you, I’m glad to be back after many years absence. 😁 If I ever have enough time I will have to try some of the forum games, as I only have the experiences of my group to base my opinions on. We have taken to playing China much like the Soviets, with one big fighting withdrawal/delaying action, and adopted an aggressive UK/ANZAC to keep Japan busy playing whack a mole. While the overall strategy remains the same it’s always a challenge coming up with fresh tactics since we all know each other and our playing styles. So far the Allies are generally able to hold on by the skin of their eyelids until the sleeping giant arrives on the scene to find a very spread out Japan. That is why I always advocate aggression. Any Japanese attack that does not take them closer to Calcutta or Sydney is considered a success.

Well here’s my two cents. I don’t play online or competitively, I just play for fun with friends so we have never once used a bid. It’s far more fun coming up with creative strategies to counter the sheer power Japan starts with.

@simon33 I’m not sure I see the need for a bid at all here. China has enough starting forces to retake it C1 and if Japan only has minimal ground forces in range to take it again J2. That means the UK (If they are aggressive and are moving forward from India (A sure bet when I’m playing my regular opponents) can march in with at least 5 units.

@DCWhat My friends and I have tried a 1939 setup that we came up with in the original Axis and Allies Europe map. Countries started with virtually no militaries or IPCs and had to “political action” cards which dictated what they could do i.e. purging the red Army, violating the Washington treaty etc. Was a lot of fun but took simply forever to work out the kinks.

Hello A&A.Org crowd. I used to be a regular on the forums and avid gamer many years ago, but dropped off due to various life commitments. Now I find myself in possession of this wonderful thing called Axis and Allies 1940 so here I am again to peruse the thoughts of strategy masters.