Posts made by Squash

Means it’s good:)

That’s a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel!

I’d really like to, how do I do that? Please help me set this up!

Hmmm, have you considered giving Japan jet fighters instead of Germany, just to make it a little easier on Russia without unbalancing the teams?

I guess the problem with that is that each Axis and Allies game should be considered independantly, not overall encompassment of a player’s carreer. But I do like the risk element of technology in an Axis and Allies game.

I’ve tried! Although it’s probably different than what you’re thinking. GB and I (Russia) tried an experimental strategy. Instead of an early offence, I pulled my troops back to Russia and the Caucasus, and bought nothing but infantry first turn. Obviously Germany moved up but didn’t attack, and fortunately, Egypt was not taken by the Germans. The British moved their Indian fleet up through the suez, and the game went on. Second turn, Russia built 3 transports, making 4 including Britain’s, two infantry loaded into the British transport. Germany tried to take out the British med fleet but got massacred, so it went to GB’s turn. GB moved it’s fleet West to S. Europe. Russian turn came around, transports loaded, moved, and unloaded at S. Europe, 8 infantry attack Rome. They got slaughtered. But the point is I tried it, and the fleet remained, and I moved them up to Britain, allowing them to have the transports to majorly pump troops into Norway, then Western. So the game went well, and in the end I got the transports to work, but it didn’t really help the Eastern Front.

Well guys, just thought I’d give this thread some closure, we played for 9. The Axis held the game for a while city wise, Germany had Leningrad and Japan had Calcutta, but they didn’t make a significant stab at Moscow, and instead Germany attempted an invasion of London, while Japan aimed for the Asian mainland (E. Russia, China, and the Middle East), but no 9th city was taken. Eventually we the Allies took back Leningrad, and then Calcutta, but by the time Calcutta had fallen the game was clearly won by the Allies and it was simply boring. I think our attention spans aren’t high enough or something, I guess an 8 city game is the way to go, possibly with moving Calcutta to Canberra. Thanks for contributing guys.

Hi there, I realize that I perhaps I should have put this in alternative or house rules instead, but it’s so small a rule change I figured this section would be the best. My friends and I have recently gotten into Axis and Allies, we’ve played what I think amounts to four games and are about to play our fifth this weekend. We all like the idea of world domination, so we play for that. Unfortunately, the end of the games are always incredibly boring. Of the four games the Allies have won twice and the Axis have won twice and the end has always been the same, either the USA is left alive, practically intact, with a ton of infantry to clear out, or the only Axis territories left are Japan and Germany. The result being of course huge time costing buildups followed by one enormous battle. So we’re thinking about playing for victory cities in hopes that that problem will be avoided.

Here’s our dilemma: The rulebook says either play for 8, 10, or 12 victory cities. To me these seem like bad numbers though. (Please keep in mind I’m new, this might sound profoundly ignorant) It seems like the axis have to great an advantage playing for 8 cities, as Leningrad and Calcutta are just a stone throws away.

Playing for 10 cities seems like it wouldn’t be great either, given our goals of avoiding the situations where a side has clearly won, yet an enormous buildup and battle is needed to claim victory. With 10 there’s alto of avenues for the Allies to win without taking the two capitals, but I have a feeling Western Europe, Southern Europe, and Manila could be so insanely defended that attacks would be incredibly difficult and almost unreasonable. It also seems like the Axis would have to take over everything but the US to win, my only problem with that being that an invasion of the UK seems also, unreasonably difficult.

Obviously we don’t want to play for 12 cities anymore, so the question I’m posing is, am I wrong about 8 and 10 victory cities? Which one would be better for our needs? And would playing for 9 cities work? 9 Seems like a good number to me, because it means that the Axis could win by only crushing Russia, a point which seems like the clear ending point of Allied hope (sorry, again I’m new if I’m wrong about that), while the Allies would win by crushing either Japan or Germany, or decimating the two Axis players equally, perhaps by taking Paris, Shanghai and Manila/Rome, a point in the game which seems to me to be the ending point of Axis hope.

I’ve also read a thread on this board about moving victory cities, does anyone have any suggestions for that? I always thought there should be a Capetown and a Canberra, but that’s just me.

3 - don’t forget trinity.

@ncscswitch:

OK, here is the problem with adding interceptors, fighter cover, etc…

It was not until late in the war (specifically, the introducton of the P-51 Mustang) that Allied bombers had viable fighter escort for bombers.  HOWEVER, the CBO was STILL effective using a combination of daylight precision and nightime runs on German targets WITHOUT figher cover.

I don’t think that’s a fair thing to say, while it’s true it wasn’t until late in the war that viable escorts came into being, it was not because of any technological lacking but because they weren’t put into place. That sounds like a tactical choice a player can make.

Well, as long as we’re talking about what historically slowed down production, you’ll find that although initially in most bombing campaigns factories were targetted, this was mostly abandoned in favor of bombing suburbs surrounded factories, the logic being that this demoralizing will lead to less worked output.

Guys, there’s already nukes in the game. I think most people would agree that each playing piece is representative of a larger group, rather than an individual. For instance, the infantry figurine is representative of possibly a division rather than one individual soldier, likewise a bomber would be representative of an airwing, not a single bomber.

There was nothing special about the nuclear bomb strategically. Incendiary bombings were found to be far more effective if used en mass on cities, especially Japanese cities as the structures were built fundamentally from wood and plaster (to save rebuilding costs following natural disasters such as earthquakes). While the nuke was clearly unique tactically, it was only for its efficiency and speed, to kill hundreds of thousands in an instant with one bomb.

However: That bomb was incredibly expensive. The Manhattan project used over 1% of America’s electrical power alone, and only three bombs were actually created through this project. Incendiary and impact bombings were just as, possibly more effective as a practical weapon throughout the war.

The conclusion I’m drawing here, is that the dropping of one nuclear bomb from one plane, is easily the alternative to dropping thousands of firebombs from a large heavy bomber airwing (represented as one bomber on the A&A board anyway), so isn’t it assumed we already have nuclear weapons in the game? What would change?

Well, logic would dictate me to think that the target territory can lose only up to its maximum worth in IPCS until the target’s next turn, but i’m not sure.

Cheers! Makes alot more sense now, thanks:)

Hey there! My name’s Josh, I’m a MA student of Military History at KSU, and I’ve just started playing A&A, so I thought I’d introduce myself to the community, and ask a question I’ve been wondering about. When strategic bombing, can your bombers stay for as many rounds of combat as wanted until the opponent loses the max amount of IPC possible as dictated by the target territory’s value, assuming of course the target continues firing AA every round, or is there only one round of combat? Thanks for the input:)