DMM ( @domanmacgee ) is right.
Besides:
But if you do play Axis and Allies Z (AAZ) with the house rule of building new factories: please tell us how these games went.
@cernel Yeah, that option indeed is possible yes.
A -> B -> C <- D
Combat in C
A . B . C -> D
Now the sub from seazone A is in seazone D.
@krieghund and others: thanks for clarifying this. Issues likes this do surface (no pun intended) so now and then and I must say I pretty much like them. Well, find them very interesting.
A more general remark. To me it always seemed a bit like:
Attacking subs should not use retreating as a way to actually move further. So: move back to a seazone where at least one of your units came from. (That can be from the ‘opposite’ directions indeed).
Defending subs: They can use this oppurtunity (retreating) to sneak away. Just giving them a ‘bonus’ / extra oppurtunity for a potenial good move.
Just my idea…
@krieghund I still think this is a ‘general’ principal to keep in mind. It does not apply to all instances as you clearly show.
Issues like this (where you can retreat to / move to) reminded me of a rule me and my friends had overlooked for quite some time:
“You may ‘non-combat move’ units into an area you just conquered that turn.”
I thought maybe, maybe this was mentioned in the great Peter Goudswaard’s Axis and Allies FAQ but unfortunately it was not.
Version 1.4 (the last one released): https://groups.google.com/g/rec.answers/c/dALhmZ-8gec
Section 2: Situations not covered clearly in the rules.
What defines a legal sea zone for withdrawing subs?
For attacking subs, this is more clear. Attacking subs must
withdraw to an adjacent sea zone from which any attacking
naval vessels came (Source: Manual, page 17, under “Where:”).
For defending subs, this is more complex. Defending subs must
withdraw to any friendly or unoccupied adjacent sea zone (Source: Manual, page 17, under “Where:”. But, what is unoccupied?
A sea zone becomes unoccupied when the attacker vacates it.
Source: Communication with Milton Bradley (dated July 27, 1995).
So, during the combat phase of a turn, a defending sub can withdraw into a sea zone that the enemy had left during that same turn’s combat movement phase. Thus, it does not matter if the attacking units that left the zone might or might not retreat.
Note: I personally disagree with this statement from MB, as it violates a principal that I have noted the spirit of throughout the rules. The principal is that “the state of the board at the beginning of the present turn defines what is legal.” This idea applies to legal landing spaces and use of canals, even to the point that, for example, if during the first turn Egypt falls to Germany and then the UK sub south of Turkey is attacked and missed, it can go through the canal even though Germany has already captured Egypt. However, I recognize MB as the experts and thus will accept it, pending further questions – Dewey Barich.
EDIT: Tried to clean up the text formatting a bit…
@crsluggo Thanks for picture.
It is a pity these units are not more ‘same scale’. Still these vehicles seem to be OK when compared to size of Axis and Allies tank.
Thank you very much for picture.
Any chance you can compare the infantry and vehicle units of RTWD with the Axis and Allies infantry unit and an A&A tank (or other vehicle).
Thanks again and thanks in advance!
I posted this about three years ago. So I thought a ‘BUMP’ was OK to do (just put this topic into the spotlight again).
(If this is not OK just remove this post. No problem)
So to all:
Please imagine what new Gamemaster Series you had liked to be released by MB/Hasbro. In the 1980s or 1990s. Another WW II game? WW I or WW III?
Medieval warfare with knights and stuff like that?
Or a game set in the future…
Looking forward to read your - creative! - replies.
Original posting: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32447/axis-and-allies-mb-edition-inquiry-form-included-in-the-box?page=1
Questionaire by MB (was included in some of the boxes):
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/assets/uploads/files/1610451934068-gamemaster-customer-survey-card-question-7-to-9.png
I am pretty sure Larry Harris once said that about 80 % of the questions sent (pre-email, pre-internet) to Hasbro were about subs…
Well, I am still learning new stuff (into Axis and Allies since the mid-1990s). So thanks for this question.
To be honest I cannot recall if this situation once happened in a game I played.
But I can imagine this can be a handy tactic to ‘spread’ your subs…
Wow… again: thanks. I like to keep learning about Axis and Allies Classic’s great (and sometimes unclear though) rules! Keep playing A&A Classic!
See: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/1875585/risk-walking-dead-survival-edition
(Direct link to our friends from BGG: https://cf.geekdo-images.com/AJq64_k6NTAFmzgs9xZR_Q__imagepage/img/1GZ2LOwmCAJVb_C7UDgeqL0C8a0=/fit-in/900x600/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic1875585.jpg )
Dear all,
First: Happy New year!
Then:
Topic title basically says it all.
This Risk games has ‘infantry’ units and vehicle units.
Are these the same scale as Axis and Allies units?
It would be nice if this game will be produced.
Are there some ‘political’ rules? Like:
Have you been able to try these house rules, Guillermo?
Interesting idea. I am a big fan of What-If history. And if these can be used in Axis and Allies (or Fortress America): the better!
Have you thought about just then-present / then-existing Turkey joining Axis?
Just coming up with some ideas but if this makes Axis too strong one can switch Bulgaria to the Axis.
Idea being that Turkey and Bulgaria fall out on each other after Greece has been conquered.
NOTE: Something similar did happen during the Second Balkan War…
My question is (and than I will explain how I came upon this strange idea):
Did anyone of you ever play Axis and Allies Classic with the following rule or rules misconception:
“During attack each unit that is hit is removed immediatelly. So the units of the defender that are hit are immediatelly removed. They do NOT fire during the Defensive Player’s phase of a round of combat.”
So basically: all units are ‘Deadly First Strike’ submarines all the time…
I am wondering how this would change the game play and the chances of the Axis and the Allies.
Now: How I came to this.
I just was thinking about sometimes you really cannot explain something to someone so then you respond: well, if you want to see it (do it) like that, it is not correct, but please do then…
And then I thought about someone insisting that units that are hit during A&A combat are removed immediatelly. And then I thought: would someone ever have played Axis and Allies like this? So yeah, maybe in the Axis and Allies Classic days… We only had that one Axis and Allies game (and maybe Shogun and maybe mabye Fortress America) so ‘we’ tend to try some ‘stranger things’. No pun intended…
@nolimit Really looking forward to play Classic Axis and Allies game with these expansions. Keep you updated.
And to all:
What would you have liked to be included in such an official expansion back then? (Had Hasbro/MB released one.)
Any specific rules you liked or disliked?
Personally I like the concept of IPC values of these island being doubled after they changed hand. This make them more important.
@Imperious-Leader Hope you will find the time to check this one out.
General remark:
Are there any players here who played all Gamers’ Paradise expansions together? How did this mega-expaned Classic Axis and Allies play (out)?
On my bucket list: finally play at least some of these expansions with pieces from later games :)
