Posts made by Octopus

There is a huge difference between an infantry and an AA.  The difference is, the infantry can be destroyed.

Case: Japanese air power wishes to clear a path for the German advance. Sorry, don’t even bother, because an AA stands in the way and will block a blitz and cannot be destroyed. The AA’s intended purpose of shooting aircraft is NOT used because there is no purpose in attacking the space, so the combat never takes place. Second, the unintended use of the AA IS used to block the path of blitzing tanks and Russia loses no units and pays nothing for this strategy.

This is called gaming the system; when unintended uses of the game are employed for purposes other than the intended.

Someone mentioned the idea of capturing the gun….except a solid Russian strategy is to not bother defending both zones that protect Russia (Belorussia and Eastern Ukraine). A single mass of units exist in one zone (along with an AA), while only the AA exists in the other. If the Germans try to capture the gun, they will be taken by the mass in the other zone.

The use of the AA to block the blitz allows the Russians to protect both zones effectively while only occupying 1 zone and risking no units.

yes, house rules are always up for consideration.

I have this wierd habit of finding (what I consider) imperfections in games that break the play. In this case, the best Russian defense might be to possess a large stack in either Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine. What ever territory the stack is not in, put 1 or 2 infantry with the AA gun and the defense of Moscow is impervious to armored blitz.

The industrial complex stopping a blitz I understand. It is most often the target of an attack and complexes don’t move so you can count on going around them.

I would love to know the thought process behind the AA gun stopping a blitz (what led to the decision of making that rule).

aye, that is terribly hokey.

the defending submarine should have the ability to decide if it wishes to participate in combat or not (naturally unless a destroyer is present).

why would a unit be forced to not partake in combat when it has the ability to?

i can only assume the designers do not like submarines much (or worse, don’t want anyone else to like them either).

so let me see if I get this straight……

a submarine cannot stop a defenseless transport, but an AA gun can stop a tank blitz.

wtf?

i am complaining because i can see how this breaks gameplay.

What do you guys think of an AA blocking a tank blitz?

I personally think it is a terrible rule on the sole basis the unit cannot be destroyed (unless sunk on a transport). It becomes a nearly permanent road block. The rule seems to only aid Russia since there are no other places where armor is a factor where AA exists.

Yes, I have 17 Armor that cannot take Russia because a lone AA is blocking the path.

Most unfortunate.

Oh, I think having to own the Suez Canal prior to moving through it is also a sham. Yes, that only hurts the Axis.

I did play a Revised game where I lost Germany the same turn I took Russia (with Japan). Many observers thought I didn’t stand a chance and said the game was over. After 1 turn it was painfully clear Japan was going to stomp the remaining Allies.

I would not say that just because capitals were swapped that anyone side has an advantage, but it was how I took Russia that gave me the ability to stomp the remaining allies.

When you move to take a capital, prepare for what happens after.

AND since you mentioned Kursk (operation Citaldel), Russia wouldn’t have known about it unless England broke the code and delivered the plans of the attack to Stalin.  England wouldn’t be alive to decode the crypto if the US didn’t develop sonar and give it to the British……

Tarkonis,

Here are a few hints to help you out. Buy more infantry (not necessarily all infantry) with Russia to absorb the German armor. Russia is designed with strategic depth, which means you can lose quite a bit before it really affects you (read: ignore the loss of Karelia). Knowing Germany’s supply lines are long, try landing British troops in Poland to cut off reinforcements to the German lines (or at least keep the German Armor from moving 2 spaces).

The map is also designed to allow Russia to cut off German forces that occupy Karelia so they may not escape.

On the Western Front, while the US takes 2 turns to get to France try timing a large British landing in France at the same time as the US landing. In other words when you take France, dont give it back.

There is an easy (cheap) way to stop the Polar Express, you just have to be imaginative to figure it out.

Explore the Allies a bit more….I see no reason they cannot win.

I have read this thread and I have to chuckle as I think people have lost the purpose of the bid. People are concerned about how the placement of immediate units imbalances the game but who allowed that opponent to walk off with so much cash in the bid.

If I think I can win with the axis straight up (no bid) when why would I bid more than zero? The bid is like “name that tune” where you challange your opponent to beat you with less. I am reading bids of 12 or more and I think that is nuts (who allows someone to walk off with 12 IPCs? I wanna play you!)

As for the play testers, Larry Harris is far from perfect. I know far more complicated systems that let have huge amounts of play testers and even they let some things through.

Over all, I like the bid system for if you really want to play the axis…bid low!

A Kill Japan First strategy is not cost effective. I am not saying you cannot make life tough(er) on the Japanese but the amount of money spent by the US is not nearly as effective as going to Europe.

My entire Japanese strategy is designed around the notion the fleet is not necessary (meaning it can be used to defend against the US). Taking some islands to earn 4-8 IPCs will not affect the Japanese march.

As for Russia marching into Manchuria, I have found that only accelerates the death of Russia. I welcome an aggressive Russia for the candle that burns twice as bright lives half as long.

If you want to know how long Russia has to live, the answer is 8 turns(barring error or catostrophic rolls). What is funny is that against a good allied player, Germany also only lasts 8 turns!

Use that as your marker, if the US can do significant damage before 8 (really by turn 5) turns has passed, you will do ok.

Consider taking the UK to be the equivalent of a Fool’s Mate in chess (wiki it if you must). While it can happen, only a novice (or fool) would allow such an attack to be successful.

I think partenac gave an excellent description of solid strategy so I second his (I assume he is a he) approach. The most effective way to ruin England is to take away their IPC’s.

I don’t think there is enough to do for an Italian player. Truly they are at the mercy of the Germans in all aspects.

Russia is designed to operate on their own (and needs help from the allies but can operate without it) and even benefits from the lack of Allies on its native soil (national objective #1).

The Italians provide the benefit of being able to move after the British, however anyone would say (at least I think) the Italians would be far more effective if they could merge with the German forces and act as one nation (combats, purchases, shared IC’s etc). The separate power of Italy adds an interesting dynamic but overall I think weakens the German position as compared to Revised.

Some might argue that a beginning player should play Italy but I think you are doing them a diservice but not allowing them to deal with a full budget, or have their moves create meaningful situations.

warning: possible political incorrectness ahead!

As for a Chinese player, I would only have a stripper play China so after spending 2 minutes doing moves(maybe another 60 seconds explaining the rules and 60 seconds to actually do moves), she can get back to entertaining. Conversely, if the stripper is not appropriate maybe when the pizza guy delivers a pizza, you can have him do the moves. After turn 2, China is kind of silly (the nation in Axis and Allies, not the real world China or people of Chinese decent).

I am afraid the subs cannot defend the transports from fighter and the transports are lost.

An easier way to remember this is that the subs are only visible (eligible) during a ship to ship engagement.

I will offer a strategy that may seem counter intuitive but has proved to be quite effective (for me).

Play yourself again, but this time do not purchase armor for Germany or Japan.

See how your gameplay changes.

Good Luck

I completely agree that Axis and Alllies is like chess. Naturally, Chess does not have the element of random rolls (read: luck) however the concept of initiative remains the same.

The idea of the ideal first move is to grab and hold the initiative. In other words, force your opponent to react to your moves rather than you react to theirs. This does not mean to not respond to their moves but to be in control of the flow of the game. Forcing your opponent to attempt to contain you means you have the initiative.

In 1941, the Axis have the initiative but can the player maintain it? The Allied production will attempt to turn that initiative around somewhere through the middle of the game. The mid-game decides if the Allies can overcome their initial deficits.

The end game is not necessarily the taking of the Captial or where your opponent concedes, but the tipping point of no return for either the Axis or the Allies.

A good set of players will have a long mid game where the balance sways just slightly in either direction.

In that regard, I think it is a lot like chess.

If you are wondering what solid first moves are, consider if you can support another set of solid moves after the first one.  If you cannot, then perhaps that first set of moves wasn’t so hot. This game is about constant momentum…even if it is very slight.

This may answer your question better;

Taking over Africa with Germany is not nearly as important as taking Africa over with Japan.  It is ok to not be successful with Germany, but to not succeed taking over Africa with Japan will make things most difficult for you.

You are half way to the answer.  You stated that a pure infantry build has left you without any teeth, so try to construct a build such that if Germany takes Caucasus, you are able to take it back.  Keep in mind you still require infantry so I do not recommend a build all armor or all artillery.

Here is a thought to ponder on your quest for the proper build.

What happens to Germany if they run short on infantry?

This discussion seems be about Axis navies in general, however it is clear the real request is for an Augmentation to the Germany Navy.  So far there has been no dialogue regarding the Japanese Navy and their inferior setup, so I must assume this is limited to the German Navy and their lack of ability to deal with the Allied offensive.

This game is not about a fair fight between the German Navy and the Allies.  The game is elsewhere.  The German Navy is designed to introduce a variable that may (or may not) cause the Allies to start their offensive in an orthodox or unorthodox manner.

A counter argument could be, “The British in Africa are screwed and deserve a change to fight…just like in Australia!”

Consider the German Navy for what it is, a randomly cast die that has the potential to down a fighter or two, or a few Naval Vessals depending on how the Allies decide deal with them.

Changing the price of shipping is not going to solve the problem, you will only find 5 Battleships off your doorstep with a lone transport dropping 1 Infantry per turn.

Start dealing with the Allies pounding on your door and I promise you will become a better player.

I am a beginner who plays other beginners, so don’t listen to me.

Lack of Naval action?

Indeed….

The reward of attempting that much does not exceed the risk.

While it may be mathematically possibly to eliminate two German fighters on the first turn, the losses for the Russians will outweigh any gains.