Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. UltimateChaos
    3. Posts
    U
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 5
    • Posts 15
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by UltimateChaos

    • RE: US Response to Sealion

      @taamvan:

      If you leave Russia completely alone, it will turn into a massive, 50 income monster by turn 4 and destroy you.

      A lot of people seem to be discounting the possibility of doing a invasion round after round, attacking with all your air but withdrawing from each rounds battle after your cannon fodder is lost.  Â

      If the UK builds up properly (men and a few fighters) however, the odds don’t look great on this one and feeding round after round of ground troops into a suicide mission drains too much of your starting forces that should be fighting on the eastern front.    With a 100% sacrifice of Ger resources, the battle is almost certain to be won at some point, but the war will be lost because of the investment of so much of  Germanys money and time

      Destroying Moscow then using that money to turn around and push off the Western Allies is much more optimal than doing it the other way around, because taking London is less rewarding, more costly, and Russia has so many NO takeover targets that it has a chance to stand as equals against Germany.

      The USA is usually too weak to cross or stuck out of the war for too long to intervene directly in the UK Ger battle but they are optimally positioned to liberate UK if it did fall, after reviving it the Germans may be weakened enough to succumb to the 3 power crush.

      I completely agree that Sealion is usually a losing strategy in Europe as Russia becomes too much of an opponent. However in my experience Sealion is often used to achieve a victory in the Pacific, by forcing the Americans to spend in the Atlantic. So do you think it would make more sense for the US to completely ignore a Sealion and continue to go full Pacific?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • US Response to Sealion

      If Germany decides to go Sealion the US often responds by building some sort of fleet in the Atlantic. However this usually leads to success in the Pacific as American IPCs are not being being used there. My question is would it make sense for America to not respond to Sealion in the Atlantic at all? It seems as though Germany could be contained by Russia after Sealion and America is desperately needed to stop Japan. Thoughts?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • RE: Cheating or just bad at game.

      Well it is certainly possible to have 7 battleships if war was not declared on UK considering that would cost 100IPCs (Japan starts with 2) and if Japan averages about 40-45 a turn with the NO and Chinese/Russian territories they will definitely have enough money. Did it look like he purchased much else besides BB?

      Also it is definitely possible to take China and Russia by J4 if no resources are used in the money islands and the Air Force is being used. So it is certainly possible even if not too likely. It is impossible to be sure though without seeing the board.

      Although it may look like Japan is dominating this scenario does not sound very good as India should have a large army by now and the Japan should be low on land units after buying so many BBs.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • RE: Hypothetical Question

      Just to clarify u cannot move the units or replace them but they instead turn into IPC that could be spent on the first turn so putting artillery on Amur would not work. These IPCs would go to the power who’s units were removed

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • Hypothetical Question

      If u could have all the units on any one territory (or sea zone) from the starting setup be removed and instead be replaced with their IPC value that could be spent on the first turn, which territory would you use this on?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • RE: Taking Greece

      If the med is secure and Rome is too heavily defended than yes, Greece is a great landing spot for the reasons you mentioned. Otherwise it is really just a waste of resources as the Italians can easily counter it with a lot of force.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • Axis attacking strict neutral?

      Can anyone think of a possible situation in which it would be beneficial for the Axis to attack a strict neutral? Attacking turkey to get in the ME seems like an option but that would take a lot of units that could be used against Russia. Anyone have any ideas?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • Sea Lion

      I usually threaten to make Britain spend at least some money on land units rather than air or units in Africa.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • RE: Convoy disruption or bombing raids

      I think overall convoy disruptions hurt the economy more (obviously not for some powers like Russia) because instead of forcing the IPCs to be spent repairing damage they are never given to the opponent. This mean the opponent can’t just choose to ignore the damage and spend the IPCs elsewhere. Also convoy does not hurt you if you conquer the terriotry and there is no risk of losing a unit.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

      Thanks for the response wittmann.

      I have one more question regarding submerging subs. If a fleet with no destroyers attacks my fleet which contains subs I may choose to defend with them or submerge them, correct? If this is true then the subs would be able to surprise attack if I read the rules correctly. Thanks in advance for any response

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • RE: Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

      Just to clarify if I take a terriotry I may noncombat land units and AAA guns into the territory the same turn I took the territory, correct?

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • RE: POW House Rule

      @CWO:

      @UltimateChaos:

      I never expected this to be used in large scale battles involving planes and tanks but more so in battles when there are few infantry that will get slaughtered so they surrender to save themselves. As for POWs costing money rather than making money I was ignoring Geneva and thinking of the POWs as more of slaves.

      Well, looking at this purely in terms of game mechanics, there’s a more fundamental problem (if I understand correctly what you’ve proposed).  A defending player would have the option of surrendering his land forces, which under the house rule in effect means self-destructing all his equipment and handing over to the enemy infantry units who will produce economic gains for the enemy in subsequent income-collection rounds.  As far as I can tell, the defending player has no incentive under the house rule to do any of this; the surrender terms are a complete loss to the defending player and an appreciable gain to the enemy, so why would the defending player do this?  The answer “to save his men” wouldn’t really work because the objective of the game isn’t to save your men, the objective is to defeat the opponent.  Losing your men and equipment in combat is far more productive than just surrendering them because, in combat, they at least have a chance to eliminate some enemy units in exchange for their own losses, which in turn helps the player’s overall war effort.

      Yea you are correct. I guess POWs would never really work in this game because unlike real war it does not matter how many men you lose

      posted in House Rules
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • RE: POW House Rule

      Amalec I see your points. Assuming I allowed them to move on the first noncombat move they might still be able to be liberated in some situations but not most. I guess this idea would not work out in the end because no one would surrender as it would end up being stacks of infantry in the capital generating income

      posted in House Rules
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • RE: POW House Rule

      I never expected this to be used in large scale battles involving planes and tanks but more so in battles when there are few infantry that will get slaughtered so they surrender to save themselves. As for POWs costing money rather than making money I was ignoring Geneva and thinking of the POWs as more of slaves.

      posted in House Rules
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • POW House Rule

      This rule incorporates prisoners of war into the game. Note that I have not tested it yet.

      Capturing POWs:

      Before any combat round the defender may decide to surrender the battle. This immediately turns all of the defending infantry into POWs and are now in control of the attacker. ALL OTHER UNITS BESIDES INFANTRY ON THE TERRITORY ARE NOW DESTROYED. You may not surrender a sea battle or a battle not involving defending infantry. Also there must be at least one attacking land unit remaining to to claim the POWs and territory

      After the units are captured:

      After the units are captured they now belong to the controlling power and this should be shown by placing the controlling power’s control marker under the infantry. This infantry may now be moved as a normal infantry during the noncombatant move EXCEPT ON THE TURN THEY WERE CPATURED. FOR EVERY 3 POWs A POWER CONTORLS DURING THE COLLECT INCOME PHASE, THE POWER COLLECTS 1 IPC.

      Liberating POWs:

      If a territory containing POWs is captured by a friendly power they are now back in the control of the power they orgianlly belonged to and may move during their next turn.

      Please post your thoughts and improvements that could be made to this rule and also any questions you may have. Thanks

      posted in House Rules
      U
      UltimateChaos
    • 1 / 1