Posts made by QuakerGeneral

Here are some of the things we do in order to finish games in about five hours:

1.  Increased number of victory cities from 18 to 21 by adding Cairo, Johannesburg, and Sarajevo.
2.  14 Victory Cities at the end of any U.S./China turn is victory.
3.  If victory not achieved after 4.5 hours, no new round can begin and 13 Victory Cities at the end of that round is enough for victory.  Otherwise, the game is a draw.
4.  Added dice and assigned colors to hits:  white = 1, black =2, red =3, yellow =4.  Roll all dice at once (ally prepares dice while player is making combat moves).

Results so far: Axis 2, Allies 2, Draw 1.
Average time per game: 4 hours.

Note:  We like things so far but are prepared to continue to adjust things (like the victory cities) as we play more.

I have been trying to find time to post a detailed counter to the Japanese Fighter Gambit (as I call this strategy), but I ran into Christmas and haven’t had time to go over the details like I want. I still hope to post this at some point, but I thought I would offer my thoughts based on what I have done so far, which is to play a couple of solo games trying to implement Michael Tan’s strategy as best I could while defending against it as best I could. I would go back and change things if I later realized they were sub-optimal, so this was not a “game” at all. I also tended to use “low luck” rules for resolving battles. My conclusions are:

(1) The strategy is not “unstoppable.” Michael himself admitted as much, noting that luck can ruin even the best plans. I do believe that the strategy is not beyond the reach of Lady Luck, as poor dice rolls early could easily turn the tide and allow Moscow to hold on (given an expert Allied defense of course).

(2) The strategy is a very good one. Japan’s sacrifices in giving up her fighters and her bomber(s) do not cripple the Rising Sun and these fighters give Germany a great advantage in securing forward ground against Russia (and later, if they survive, in making it hard for the Allies to take France or Rome or Berlin or Warsaw).

(3) The optimal Allied counter to the Japanese fighter gambit seems to mix offense and defense. Sending Allied units to Moscow, especially fighters, is probably critical to saving Moscow, but if the Allies only worry about defense, they won’t be in a position to take advantage if Moscow does indeed survive Germany’s push. Allied bombing raids and amphibious assaults targeting vunerable Italy seem the best bet.

The Bottom Line: Against all but very experienced players, I would imagine that the Japanese Fighter Gambit would lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union by Turn Four. Even against experienced players prepared for the strategy, I see Leningrad and Stalingrad falling very early into Axis hands. However, I do think those experienced players can save Moscow while simultaneously preparing a modest invasion of Europe. Together, this offense/defense strategic response to the Japanese Fighter Gambit seems to put the outcome of the game back up in the air. The key moment to me is Round Four. If Moscow can survive that Round, her Allies should be in position to take territories in Europe such as Rome that would minimize, though perhaps not completely make up for, the fall of Moscow on Round 5 or later. One final point is that, unlike some posters, I don’t see the failure of this strategy to lead to Axis collapse. I think the Axis players can push forward with this strategy, easily steamrolling Moscow if the Allies don’t respond just right. If the Allies do respond appropriately, the Axis aren’t doomed but have gained valuable ground and can pull back before committing suicide. So, I think this is a very viable Axis strategy even if it isn’t unstoppable.

Is a house rule needed? My feeling on this is mixed. No, a house rule is probably not needed because the game isn’t truly broken. However, I don’t like the strategy because it is ahistorical and threatens to either lead to a quick (but cheesy) Axis victory or a long drawn out game. As a fan of the five hour game, those are not good options. If it were me, I would try to use the National Objectives to limit the Japanese Fighter Gambit. In my eyes, these objectives reward strategic play that aligns with political factors. It would not have been politically viable for either Germany or Japan if the entire Japanese air force was moved to Germany. Therefore, I would favor some changes to the Axis National Objectives, perhaps adding language like that which already exists for Russia, that would penalize and hopefully deter players from using the Japanese Fighter Gambit. What exactly that language would look like, I haven’t come up with yet.

Thanks to Michael Tan for posting his strategy (on BGG). I have found learned much from exploring it and attempting to counter it.

I played two games, one with five players, one with six players.  Both games took a long time (6.5 hours and 9.5 hours) and both games ended with my side having 12 victory cities and thus in a draw according to OOB rules.  We didn’t run out of any pieces, though game going on next to me ran out of Japanese markers!  The game was fun both times, though too slow and long for my taste, and I would have liked the game to have ended in something other than a draw.

@axis_roll:

Since you didn’t mention it, and they’re optional, does that mean that tech and N.O.'s were not used?

We voted to use National Objectives but not Techs.

I started playing in 1986.  Played a ton during high school with my friends, played at some conventions in Texas (Dallas, San Antonio), played less frequently during college, then just occassionally until April of this year when a friend and I decided to start a local Axis and Allies club.  We now play twice a week at a FLGS.

Our group, composed of mostly experienced and evenly matched players, has adopted the following rules to help us finish our AA50 (1942 Start) games in 4-5 hours.

1.  Three new Victory Cities:  Sarajevo (Balkans), Cairo (Egypt), and Johannesberg (South Africa) for total of 21 Victory Cities.
2.  Required Victory Cities to Win:  13 at the end of any turn OR 12 at the end of the final turn (no turn can begin after 4.5 hours reached).

Prior to adopting these rules, we played four games (13 VC to win) with games lasting as follows:  6 hours (victory be concession), 6 hours (draw declared), 9.5 hours (victory by concession), and 10 hours (draw declared).  We haven’t tried out the new victory conditions, but we are hopeful they will get the job done, even if the new victory conditions don’t amount to “the losing side has no chance of coming back” which is what the existing VCs seem to represent.  Our victory conditions are designed to give us a victor at the end of a long night of playing with this victory meaning “things were looking pretty good for you when we had to stop.”  If we find that the new 13 VCs are too easy to achieve, i.e. our games start ending in 2-3 hours, then we may bump up the VCs to 14 or 15 or drop one of the new VCs.

FLGS = Friendly Local Gaming Shop or sometimes Friendly Little Gaming Shop

I paid $90 (10% discount) at my FLGS.  Actually, the Axis and Allies club that I am in bought two “club” copies as well.  I think the store sold seven copies in all, which makes me happy because I want my FLGS to thrive and times are getting tough.

I am planning on playing the OOB 13 Victory City scenario until I get a better feel for it, but I am concerned that it will take too long in games of evenly matched players (not that this problem didn’t exist in earlier editions as well).  I plan to keep a couple of options open down the road if I want to speed up the resolution of the game.  First option is to reduce the number of victory cities to 12 (if that didn’t work, maybe 11).  Second option it to introduce more victory cities, probably Cairo and Johannasberg, without changing the 13 VC condition.  Any thoughts on problems with doing either of these options in terms of game balance?

I lean toward 1942 at the moment because the 1941 game, if balanced, seems to extend the length of time required for play.  If the game is “broken” in favor of the Axis as some have suggested, then the 1941 game could end early I suppose (but this would not be a good thing).  I am not convinced that a quick victory is inevitable, however, as the Allies can prevent a quick Axis victory (even under the 13 city scenario) if they hold on to the North American victory cities, London, and any ONE of the other victory cities.  I think it comes down to Moscow.  Can the Allies hold on there until the U.S. and England are able to secure France?  If so, I think the game is up in the air and balanced.  If not, then I think then the 1941 scenario should be tweaked with a bid system.  So, in either case, either without a bid because it isn’t needed or with a bid because it is needed, I think 1941 will take longer to complete than 1942.

I love the fact that Axis and Allies can be played in a relatively short amount of time (for a game of logistics and long term grand strategy), so I would favor the 1942 scenario.  Of course, I also usually have no more than five hours for a game when I play, so this practical factor is also in play.  The next scheduled session for our group, however, will be one in which we could play for ten hours or so, making 1941 more appealing….

FYI:  I posted this elsewhere, but I thought folks here might be interested in my review.  I am a longtime lurker on this site and have found comments by numerous posters to be very useful in the past.

Eight Things I Love about the New Edition

1. The trays for holding your pieces. The Revised edition was terrible in this regard, and the Classic edition’s Styrofoam boxes left something to be desired. The anniversary edition ones are great.

2. The larger board. Although there are some issues here and there (see below), the bigger board is a great thing. The Revised board was too cramped, and the Classic board had the awkward boxes at the top of the board for extra units.

3. Italy! I like the way that Italy has been included. It is by far the weakest power, and to make it anything else would have been to fly too much against my sense of history. Yet, Italy, especially if one plays with National Objectives, has fun and interesting things to do during the game. Heck, Italy even took Stalingrad in my first 50th edition game!

4. China! I love the way that China is incorporated in this game. China’s semi-independence from the U.S. and its great expansion in number of territories makes it much more interesting, essentially adding more challenges and difficulties (and rewards) for Japan without giving the U.S. and equal boost in IPCs, etc.

5. National Objectives: I really like the way that these objectives encourage historical simulation in play. I do think that they have some drawbacks (see below), but I love them in general.

6. Revised Weapons Development Rules: I have never really liked weapons development, as it seemed to increase the role that luck already played in the game. I also thought several of the weapons developments in both the Classic and Revised were too game unbalancing. Although I haven’t played with these new rules yet, they seem on the surface to me to be the best rules yet in this area.

7. Naval Units: The addition of the cruiser is cool, but the best thing is that the naval units are cheaper all the way around, making naval purchases more viable and interesting. I also really like the way that transports have been changed, removing them as “cannon fodder” in naval battles, which always bothered me since it was hyper ahistorical.

8. 1941 or 1942 Start Options. I had rules for a 1939 start for the Classic Board, and I am glad to see two starts built right into the OOB rules this time.

Five Things I Don’t Love in the Revised Edition

1. The non-folding board: I hated the four-fold Revised board. It was already coming apart on me, so having three pieces is better than that, but why couldn’t the board three-fold like the Classic Board? Maybe there is a reason for this, but it eludes me.

2. The Pacific as “Pond”: The Pacific seems very “shrunk” in comparison to the Atlantic which is expanded in size over its geographical dimensions. I am not terribly bothered by this, as both are probably necessary for good gameplay.

3. Offshore Bombardments: I liked offshore bombardments taking out defending units before they could roll a defensive die. I will recommend going back to this in our group.

4. National Objectives and Germany: As a friend pointed out, Germany’s grand strategy options are severely limited in this edition. In earlier editions, especially in Revised, Germany could viably go after USSR, England, or Africa or some combination of these three. In the 50th edition, because of its National Objectives and because of Italy, Germany is really limited to attacking the USSR.

5. Game Length: This may be biggest issue of all for me. I think the best thing about Axis and Allies is that you could play a World War II game heavy with logistics in one evening’s time (or in a tournament). Adding Italy seems to extend the time a bit, though maybe not as much as I think once we get used to the new rules. I think that the 1941 start would take quite a while to complete even under the 13 game victory city conditions.