@SuperbattleshipYamato

Which was considered by the US to be the biggest naval base in the pacific!

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npswapa/extcontent/wapa/paradise/paradise4.htm#:~:text=Truk Lagoon was regarded by,the war in September 1945.

@Poptech Your point about a base being surrounded is a good one, though it undercuts your own argument.

Being surrounded doesn’t mean your fuel and ammo ceases to exist, it means it won’t be replenished and you have to work with what was already on hand. Seems to me that since fuel and ammo are stockpiled at naval and air bases, territories that have them would be at a huge advantage when surrounded vs a territory that doesn’t and is surrounded, and units stationed there would be better off.

But since you either failed to read the responses or just dismissed the reasons the bonus movement makes sense, maybe it would be better to come at it from another angle?

Do you agree that naval and air bases existed in the second world war? If so, why do you object to their inclusion in the game? If you don’t object to their inclusion, what benefits do you think they should confer?

If you can answer those questions for yourself, you have a clear path to if you want to set up your game with the markers included, and what those markers will mean for your play group.

If you feel you’re already there, and you want to convince the rest of us that your way of playing is better, you might find you’re better able to persuade people by first understanding where they are coming from. Asking a question, failing to acknowledge the responses, and then acting like you’re the one who is not being listened too is not very persuasive.

@sachmatkris

German bombers can’t reach the US east coast in a typical anniversary edition game.

Where are your german bombers taking off from at the start of their turn? Where are they landing at the end if your turn? How far are you allowing them to move in one turn?

I suspect this may be a source of your issue. In anniversary a small fleet is absolutely needed to cover a transport which is in range of enemy air units, but it is typically manageable. However, if you are giving air units freer movement than they are due it could very quickly unbalance the game.

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.

@imperious-leader

I’ll admit that I haven’t played Revised in quite a while, but I think a buy of all tanks would be pretty easy to counter considering that for 15 ipcs you could get 2 inf, 1 art, and a tank that will beat three tanks on both offense and defense.

Huh. Yeah I googled it too and didn’t find anything! It was definitely a small kind of company, fortunately they were smart enough to put their website on the wrapper.

http://gamesmiths.us/

Looks like $12 was a convention price. The buy it now is $15 plus shipping. If I were you I’d still go for it!

@mordedura

I would say that it is absolutely playable out of the box, though I think it plays better if you dig out some poker chips, printed money from another game, or loose change to use as in game money rather than tracking income with pencil and paper as the manual suggests.

For units, you won’t be swimming in spare pieces, but I wouldn’t expect to be with a game that is this detailed but costs so little!

I have not played it as extensively as I have other versions, but I have never run out of pieces in the games I have played, whereas in previous editions (revised in particular) we would always have a cup of change ready to use as additional marker chips. (A penny means one extra unit and a nickel means five)

In fact, I assumed all the complaints that 1941 did not have enough pieces came from people who did not understand how to properly use the chips to indicate multiple units of the same type. Having read Midnight_reaper’s reply I can see I was wrong, and it may be an issue even for experienced players.

I don’t know if its a factor in my personal experience, but I personally LOVE how few new units you’re allowed to buy in this version and its the reason I play it.

The ratio of the value of your starting units to your income is very different than other versions, which I think makes this game an interesting play even for experienced players and something beyond just being an “intro” version. You can’t replace losses easily so you really have to think hard about where and when to put your best units at risk, and the calculus about where to attack has a lot less to to with the value of the territory than it does with the value of the enemy units you’re hoping to eliminate.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

I’m going too. Really looking forward to this one!

See you there.

@zooooma

Yikes. Not a great sign, seems very much like a consolidation of the line.

Sure 1914 and AA50 weren’t currently in print, but not acknowledging them on the website suggests they’ve joined classic and revised in the not going to be reprinted category. If true, thats a huge shame. AA50 is by far my favorite edition of the game. Its sad to think the copies that exist now might be all there will ever be.

Has anyone here tried “World on Fire?” It’s so much fun! I came across a small table at a game convention and they were selling it so I figured what the heck. Best $12 I even spent! It takes like a second to learn and makes the game way more fun!

Its just a deck of cards for each nation the gives them special abilities. (Germans get heavy tanks and dive bombers, US gets marines and island air strips.) The effects lasts for one battle, so its not like a tech upgrade. (In fact, the rules say they work WITH tech, but I don’t play tech games so I couldn’t say.)

You get one card per NO at the end of your turn instead of the 5 IPCs.

Its not pretty. (Comes in a plain white box, with plain text on cards) but man is it fun! My brother and I are re-addicted to the Axis and Allies! The best part is, each nation gets two cards to start, so the opening moves aren’t same-old same old any more. If Germany has a lot of sub/air bonuses, they may go hard after UK fleet and take it easy on Russia. Lots of ground bonuses and they might do just the opposite!

@dictatorcj

When playing with national objectives, another advantage is increasing the number of units you can place allows for the option of infantry spamming for a slow and steady push to Moscow while keeping your Western flank secure.

The downside of course is of course is if the US focuses on the Atlantic, the allies can mount a massive threat to France. Success in North Africa increases what Italy can contribute to the defense of France while decreasing the UK’s threat, but this is hard to maintain if the US goes KGF.

My two cents would be to not place until round 2. Germany is already tight on funds round 1 without bonuses, plus it gives you a chance to see if the US focus will be Pacific or Atlantic.

@DoManMacgee

Wow. Thank you for providing such a detailed rundown of your games! I was also playing in the tournament, (I think you may have even helped me set up a board at one point.) . My brother and I were also semi-finalists, but on the other side of the bracket. I very much appreciate getting a chance to read an overview of many of the other games I didn’t get to play in!

I did not keep as detailed notes as you did, and could never hope to provide as detailed a blow by blow, but I will confirm that the German Carrier absolutely seems to be in vogue for Axis Players, though I agree with you that I think its over-valued. I will say that for all four of my games, the bid went to the Axis, and I never got a sense that anyone felt that was unexpected. I guess our side of the bracket generally thought the advantage was with the allies, and your side felt differently. I’m very curious to see how the bid went for the championship.

More importantly, I want to say that I could have written this post about your final assessment of your experience after last year’s tournament, which was my first experience at GenCon. The only differences would be that I played with a partner, so I could remove that mistake, but would have to add that I booked my hotel too late, leaving me with a cheap a hotel, too far away and lost sleep to a crappy bed an unnecessary travel back and forth

We played too fast for our own good. We tried to cram in too much practice just before the tournament. We did not bring enough snacks to the hall and had to fight through the convention crowds to grab meals between games. All of it derived from a severe underestimate of how a lack of sleep would effect our play. We lost on a mistake I would not have thought we would ever have made, and it was far from our only error.

If you have not played in GenCon or a similar tournament, you have to know that you will try to play at your max speed to get in the most game you can. Going fast and not sleeping is a recipe for mistakes no matter how experienced a player you are.

Reading the above give pause to new players that are considering attending a GenCon tournament. Let say that having made some small adjustments for our second tournament, I am far more satisfied with how I played. I won’t say that we didn’t have some small errors as the tournament progressed, but nothing that cost us the game, and at that point our opponents were also having small mistakes too.

The trick is to ensure you’ve got enough sleep and awareness that you won’t miss the devastating mistakes that will cost you the game. It is not hard to do, you just need to go in with an appreciation for what its like deep in the tourney. Hopefully this thread is enough to provide that for anyone considering attending for the first time.

Very small side note: You were correct that you could have placed the new Chinese infantry in Hupeh in your second game. The limit of three per territory only applies to the number of Chinese units in the space before you place. If the number you place causes the territory to exceed a number of three, that is ok. The believe that you can never have more than three Chinese units in any territory is a persistent misconception that stems from the fact that the wording in the original 2008 rulebook was not very clear. It was clarified in the official Errata that is available on this site (https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf) but a lot players learned this game from that original rule book.

I think you were right not to make too big a deal of it though. One of the best parts of these tournaments is the spirit of fun and comradery between opponents, and its not worth spoiling that if it won’t have a major impact on the game.

Thank you again for the detailed recaps! I sincerely hope to see you at a future tournament.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

I’m going too. Really looking forward to this one!

See you there.

@flipperlord

It means the Axis get 3-5 worth of IPCs to place.

@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)

Hello,
I’m curious if anyone can help me with some general advice for in person Tournaments. For one thing, would it be a frowned on/weird to use small post-its to mark the board on my turn? I tend to forget a non-combT move from time to time, and I’m hoping the post-it method will be a better way to avoid that than having to double and triple check the board in a timed game.

Secondly, do teams talk in code at the table or do they just openly discuss in front of their opponents?

@The-Mink

Panther is right, but I’ll offer one more clarification. Your allies can help you defend, but not attack. Destroyers belonging to your ally don’t participate in your attacks, so they can’t help your air units hit subs even if they’re in the same sea zone.

When defending, they do participate, so a UK destroyer can help US planes hit subs if they’re defending the same sea zone.

@squirecam

Awesome, thank you!

Hi all,
I used to play this with NOs on, but lately I’ve been wanting to give it another go without them. I know with them on I traditionally give the Allies a hefty bid, but considering how much the NOs favor the Axis, I’m curious if anyone on here has an idea of what a fair bid looks like when playing without the objectives enabled.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Italy active on turn 1... What?:

@PizzaPete said in Italy active on turn 1... What?:

@SuperbattleshipYamato
Maybe there could also be a mechanism to forestall an Italian entry into the war even if the requirements are met if Austria-Hungary either (I’m still thinking of which house rule to do):

Turn Trieste into an Italian territory (Central Powers have one turn to evacuate)

Austria-Hungary loses 2-4 IPCs (unsure of the exact number yet), representing them ceding territory to Italy.

I like that idea a lot. It would add yet another layer of choice to the central powers, and it is a good historical fit too. Between the two options, I’m leaning toward handing over Trieste, but I’d want to try both a few times and see how it plays out.

@SuperbattleshipYamato

While I agree that there wasn’t much chance of Italy coming in with the central powers, the nations engaged in the war in 1914 could not be sure of that, and I think it would be interesting to try a game where the players are also unsure.

I like the die roll for the uncertainty it adds, but I’d be concerned to give something that could have such a big impact on the outcome of the game wholly to a die roll without first giving players an opportunity to exert some sort of influence on the outcome.

I wonder if it might be more fun to roll a die each round to see if Italy enters. If they do, the side they choose could be determined by the status of the western front. Maybe select a few territories and Italy joins whichever alliance controls the majority of them. The selected territories should be an uphill fight for Germany to get more than half of, and depending on how many territories are contested, there could be a tie, in which case Italy joins the entente.

This would not only add some uncertainty into when and how Italy comes in, but also some variation to Gemany’s strategy. A little bit more for the western front could pay back bigger than it cost you, or it could turn out to be a waste.

It’s not a terribly historical idea, but it could be pretty fun.