Best posts made by The_Good_Captain

Enjoy.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/h3p3rbk0hq9xeiu/Revised.png/file

So I think we can declare this thread concluded at least as regards its original intent:

https://www.mediafire.com/file/7i8mgxaom0d9oqw/Xeno+The+World+at+War+3rd+Edition+Board.png/file

This is the 3rd edition map. I will upload the 4th Edition next. Its the same map structure but was published with different colors/artwork. Also, I have created a repository of all my digital maps here:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37316/the-good-captain-s-digital-map-repository

The following link contains an edited and much easier to read version of all the Don Rae Essays.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/s1fbbddjic865af/Don_Rae_Hindsight_2020.docx/file

It’s been roughly twenty years since the release of the “Don Rae Essays”. These documents, still freely available for download on the web, are best known for presenting and/or confirming the argument that Milton Bradley’s version of Axis and Allies is imbalanced in favor of the Allies. They have since become a part of Axis and Allies lore and are the origin of game terminology such as “shucking”, the “strafe attack”, and the “dead zone” among others. Given the legacy of these documents, I felt it interesting, if not prudent, to revisit this work and see if it could use an update for the year 2020.

What follows is a compilation of all the essays for which I have acted as editor. The original was (still is) filled with grammatical and punctuation errors, wordy and imprecise sentences, and braggadocios smugness that detracts from the overall messaging. Some of the examples and recommendations clearly lacked the use of proper battle calculation (use of a battle calculator). The game economy is largely ignored and referred to only in the abstract. The use and implementation of optional rules outside of the Restricted Attack (“Russia Restricted”) are not mentioned at all. The same is true for Technology rolls. Finally, in my opinion, the most fatal flaw was that the essays left no room for growth. In other words, these essays are presented as containing ALL the answers to your Axis and Allies questions.

Despite this, and though I cannot endorse these essays, they do contain concepts that are invaluable to understanding Axis and Allies game mechanics, especially for newer players. In this regard, I recommend essay #4 and #5. The strafe attack and more importantly, the dead zone have been thoroughly and well explained here. Additionally, though not the only (or in my opinion, ideal) first-turn strategies on offer, these essays contain a starting game plan for each individual power. For these reasons and their legacy, I have worked diligently to make the “Don Rae Essays” more presentable and easier to read.

Who am I, you might ask, to be worthy of such a task? To begin with, I am a huge fan of the Milton Bradley version of Axis and Allies. I am so much a fan that I began a YouTube channel that tries carefully to presents tactics, strategies, and game concepts learned over the course of many games with many different opponents. Many of these games are a matter of public record and are visible on the axisandallies.org forums. Finally, I am a published author and have applied all my experience regarding professional editing that I can offer to this essay.

As a disclaimer, I have corrected all misspellings and punctuation errors. Overly wordy sentences were trimmed down for ease of reading. All pompous and egotist comments have been removed. All font sizes have been standardized. Finally, all editorial commentary is clearly discernible in blue italics. My interventions in this way were done sparingly and only when the matter being discussed was erroneous or misleading. What’s left should be a MUCH smoother read of the concepts and strategies of the “Don Rae Essays”.

-The Good Captain

@Martin Yep, here is a quote from the official FAQ: https://axisallies.com/rules/axis-allies-rules-classic-2nd-edition-faqs.pdf

Q. Can I have more stacks of bombers (or battleships, or whatever) than there are bomber
pieces? If so, how would I mark them?

A. Marking them isn’t a problem, because you can’t have them in the first place. The number of playing pieces is a limit on how many forces can be in play. No one, for example, can have more than three bomber forces, or more than two carrier groups. The only exception to this absolute limit is chips; if you run out of chips you can use anything else as a substitute: pennies, beads, slips of paper, or whatever works for your game. Note that this applies throughout the entire turn. A stack of six bombers can’t split up into more than three groups when they fly out to attack.

@Vital-Signs

I’m going to make a short video for you on how to do it. Its something I thought I would be able to do but I realize I just can’t anymore with the baby around.

But I will make and post a short video this weekend and link it here. It’s far simpler to do than I think most folks realize and so I can do that. Its not that its a complex process. Its more that its kind of a grind.

I’ll post the link here in a couple days. Sorry my dude - but I promise everything I’m about to show you is very simple and can be done.

@the-janus The Janus is shortchanging himself a bit. We played half a dozen games where I do what I normally do and just try to find whatever works to win either side. Once I find something, I don’t change it until I’m shown a flaw or defect during gameplay.

In contrast @The-Janus was very much willing to test/play game theory. This can result in an what I call “artificial losses” or the willingness to risk a game in order to test a strategy and its affect on the game. This third party variant is shocking in its replayability, its accessibility (using the old 3rd edition classic rules for the most part), and overall fun factor. As someone who was vehemently against playing anything outside of canon series games I feel strongly East & West deserves far more daylight than it gets and that’s why my channel’s next video will review this underappreciated third party variant. @The-Janus Cheers my dude - thanks for showing me this and convincing me to stack some games. I look forward to taking the Cold War hot a few more times in the future.

The first two of what will be a twelve part series on Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition (1941 setup) are now available:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ibSw0y4zkI&t=16s

@Martin The stack limit for each power is the following (out of box pieces for each power):

(15) Infantry
(10) Tanks
(10) Fighters
(3) Bombers
(6) Transports
(6) Submarines
(3) Battleships
(2) Aircraft Carriers

You’re welcome:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/322b1gupqmgnhm4/Pacific2000.png/file

@CrazyIvan

It went well! There were something like 8-10 players/teams that showed up to play at Gamex for AnA. I won my first round playing Anniversary edition. This was only my second time playing through a game of this version. I was the Axis playing the 1942 setup and my opponent conceded about round three (he hadn’t played much AnA).

Round 2 I was paired with another winner from earlier in the day which led to some difficult command decisions. We squared off against a pair of other experienced players. This game was Europe 1940. We were the Axis and managed to seize the Russian capital around turn 5 or 6 forcing the allies to concede. This was, however, due completely to amazing dice rolling on the part of my partner. I am not an expert at either Europe or Pacific and this was apparent to all concerned during this game as I struggled at times to stay up on the rules (if you have to choose between losing a cruiser or a destroyer, lose the cruiser, esp if there is a submarine…anywhere nearby). This put us in the final on Sunday.

Day two, final round saw my partner and I square off against the last victorious pair from the previous day. We played global and had an 18 point bid in favor of the allies (our side). I pretty much torpedoed ANY chance of a win when I pulled the trigger on a “sneaky carl” with ANZAC turn 1 (dont ever do this on ANZAC 1). A DOW with ANZAC keeps USA out of the game until turn 4. This was disastrous and despite my partners ability to roll seemingly only "1"s and "2"s, it was not enough to stem the axis tide. Despite this and other sloppy, awful mistakes caused by not knowing the rules too well and difficulty settling on strategies with my partner, it was actually far far closer than anyone thought it would get and nearly went the other way. (the french fighter failed to clear the blocking Italian destroyer in the Med that would have allowed the USA invasion convoy to seize Italy on turn 5).

Anyway, never made it to the final round like that before. I’m now using some of my AnA time to brush up on 1940 rules and situations. I will be much more competitive and prepared for Strategicon in September including having my own custom map and pieces done so I’ll definitely post pics after that tournament and may even upload a youtube video.

Thanks for asking!

I’ve just posted the second round (in two parts). If anyone was interested in a game, please reach out to either of us.

Here is the link to the first part of round 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQjGkXAKE3U

The United States video is up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrB3pkdogh4

The final video in this series will appear in about 4 weeks and will review balance and act as a Q&A for comments received throughout this series.

@Martin said in Invitational Classic 2nd edition:

@Ragnell804 @The_Good_Captain @dawgoneit @elche

As there is some apparent interest in playing Classic competitively, e.g., from @kwaspek104 and potentially a number of additional players, we could consider starting a Classic league, in 2025, similar to the ones in place for 1940 Global OOB, Balanced Mode, and Path to Victory. The question is which rules shall be played, and if there shall be some bidding process.

I will support this and advertise through my channel. I would 100% be up for this.

@victoryfirst I have completed nearly 40 games of 1914 since we started our first game. I have come to understand the the Russian revolution rule is incredibly complex and there are many little tricks someone can implement to bend the game in their favor.

I will be releasing a video shortly on my channel that details all of the ways each side can take advantage of that particular optional rule. I’m not sure what you did was wrong in Russia. It took a relatively long time to remove the Russians from the game compared to others and I had to heavily damage one of my armies to pull that move.

When playing against a seasoned CP player, it can take 10-11 turns to break the Ottomans down. In that sense, you are on track as the Entente.

The area that hurt the Entente in this particular game was having the USA stopped by the CP navy for so many turns. Being delayed one turn is rough but more than one turn is going to be trouble. Also, as the Italian player and as the Entente in general, I spend quite a bit of energy to never lose Venice. I even send French troops down there until the American get into the war. If Venice falls to the CP, it can become very difficult for the Entente after Russia falls. The Entente have the economic advantage. The British can and will overwhelm the Ottomans eventually. This means the Entente just need to hold everywhere else (except Russia). The only area where you need to “win” (rather than hold ground) is with the British against the Ottomans. And you don’t really need to have this done until turns 11, 12, or 13.

This has been my experience across the nearly 40 games I’ve logged in the last six to eight months.

I also need to thank you again for bringing me the TripleA file for this game. Without that, nothing I have created on my channel about this game would exist. And thank you for these games so far. I have learned a lot in each of our games! I’m always ready to play with you whenever you are looking for an opponent!

hey everyone! My conversation with @The-Janus is available as an audio only podcast type conversation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4KrQ1V9IcI

We discuss a range of different topics related to East & West as well as review the two games that are posted previous to this conversation.

The final video in my 12 part series has been posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QModTkxr7rs

This video discusses balance and bidding as well as a few other topics including some shout-outs to a handful of opponents I ran into on this fine website.

@Martin @elche @dawgoneit @Ragnell804 @kwaspek104

That was a lot of fun, thank you all!

Hopefully, we can do this again next year. Regarding balance, I feel very strongly that games need to be played with the “Restricted Attack” optional rule but also that neutral territories need to be impassable.

In every game as the Allies, I invaded Spain early in the game. I have played hundreds of games of classic in the last five years and have not seen this strategy fail. It cripples Germany and almost guarantees an Allied win. Nobody used Spain against me when I was the Axis (Elche did but it was around turn 18 - far too late).

At a minimum, I strongly recommend playing this game with “Restricted Attack” and Impassable Neutrals.

I also recommend allowing tech starting on game turn 4. The affect of doing this is that it prevents the long, drawn out, slow death of one side or the other. When the ‘loser’ realizes he is losing, he can roll for tech and hope to catch heavy bombers to try to get back in the game. Otherwise, games go on and on and on (I would use the game between Elche and I as an example). Tech speeds up the game which is especially important in tournament games. In my experience, it does not break the game or create a lucky winner…so long as it is not accessible unit turn 4.

Finally, I recommend using the optional rule “No New Complexes”. I feel strongly (and its been my experience) that they favor the Allies and don’t do the Axis much good. The Allies don’t need the help that the complexes provide. I understand this adds a lot of “flavor” so I’m totally fine to play with them - but if the Allies know how to use them early in the game, its difficult for the Axis to recover.

In conclusion, I hope we have a tournament next year and I think perfect balance is achieved by using:

1) Restricted Attack
2) Impassable Neutrals
3) No tech until turn 4
4) No new complexes

I think the first two are a necessity. I think the second two make the game perfectly balanced but are not a necessity.

Thanks for the games and hope to play again next year.

**If anyone wants to see what Spanish Harlem looks like and why its so awful, see this video and go to 8:44. If you use Spanish Harlem against me as the Axis, I will lose the game. It just cannot be beaten.

Game 4 of this fine game.

@The-Janus

This’ll be my last post on this topic out of time constraints. I love the back and forth, but I don’t see anything here that is new or otherwise convinces me that the game is balanced or that it favors the USSR.

At this point, I don’t see there being any daylight made between us on game theory (which is fine with me). This is the main reason I don’t really like to write essays. I just don’t have the time, and minds generally don’t get changed via this method in my experience.

You have a point, but you’re also completely discounting the fact that NATO can only really act at 1/3rd efficiency with those units.

I did not discount this, but I didn’t share every detail of the valuation so it’s totally forgivable. My valuation does not include infantry from either side because there’s almost EXACTLY the same amount for each side at the end of R1. NATO has more stuff in every category at the end of the Soviet opener except tanks - it has way more stuff in every category at the end of the actual round once everyone has had a turn. Further, to be fair with regards to TUV, we’d have to count NATOs first round of purchases in the valuation. This essentially nearly doubles the TUV gulf. I didn’t mention this in the initial post.

Fruity pebbles is a phenomenon that exists to some extent in every version of axis and allies. This is extremely challenging for AnA players to handle on a good day. The response is to understand you only need to be winning in one area of the map and holding everywhere else to win the game. There are finer details, but this is the general concept. In E&W, its hold in India, hold in Europe and kick in the back door as the USA in Kamchatka. After the first two to three turns, the economy is balanced as you point out, but NATO has 200 TUV over the Russians (not including the Navy) and the Russians should be contained with their demise coming on their east front via USA. This is the best way to “see” the imbalance. There is a loss of kinetic energy as the Russians as the economy balances and then the USA is piercing through.

I could (and might) run the same valuation for Anniversary and Classic to have something to compare it to so this is better understood but I don’t know. Takes time to lay out and I’d rather be playing. I’m unchanged. NATO should win 6/7 games at least. If that’s not happening, there was some extreme dice event or NATO was mishandled. But I leave my mind open to being changed over the board. If something can be demonstrated repeatedly, I absolutely will abandon this position after investigating why/what was so misleading - but experience tells me that is unlikely.

If the game ends up being balanced or less in favor of NATO, I believe it will come from increasing the risk profile of the soviet opener to an… unreliable but at least threatening chance of success as @Ragnell804 did. But you’ll still need very good dice.

OR

…get to the Fusion bomb asap. This is the “heavy bombers” of East and West. Maybe through some combination of spies and tech, the soviets can make up the massive TUV advantage by blowing away pieces in a truly economical way.

As a side note: the NATO “at start” nuke is very impactful in the ways that are considered secondary. Removing 5 Russian infantry might be a letdown, but when you do this to the SFE industrial complex on the turn you land in Kamchatka, you ensure the Russian counterattack is less likely to succeed because they’re down five infantry and can’t move their fighters due to EMP. Finally, on the Russian turn, because the IPC value has been reduced, the Russians can only add two Russian infantries instead of four.

This typically forces the Russian player into a horrific choice. Abandon the territory leaving the fighters to be destroyed because they couldn’t move. Or fight a losing battle in SFE and die with the fighters albeit at higher NATO cost. If NATO is using the nuke in some other way, imo - it’s being used inefficiently. Full stop. The NATO nuke is for the critical territory of SFE timed when landing in Kamchatka.

I’ve just posted two videos that review the statistics around very common openers for both Germany and Japan in Axis and Allies Classic (MB 2nd Edition):

Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG55y5vyyqQ&t=101s

Japan (and why you shouldn’t attack that fleet around Hawaii): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ48LJurAhU&t=8s