New Rules I Made

@MarineIguana:

Honestly (and sincerely don’t mean to insult), your comments suggest to me that you are not playing at a high competitive level. Against typical players, the skill level will have a much larger impact than a few bid. This is because people will mistakenly leave units in a position for the opponent to win 10-50 point battles. Bids to balance really shine when both players are playing optimally, the games are going 20+ rounds with 150 unit stacks. I would stick to my suggestions in the original post if you’d like to try revised with the new rules.

Of course im no experienced player, i made 6 games before. But still i wish to have as balanced starting circumstances as possible.

@mozkaynak:

So, My understanding is that  fighters and bombers can attack submarine by themselves and submarine can not fire back.
Please confirm that.

Correct.

@mozkaynak:

So how does submerging work here?

Subs may submerge at the end of any round of combat if there are no opposing destroyers in the battle at that point (as long as the battle is not over).  They have no effect on other units while submerged, and are ignored.  They resurface at the end of the noncombat movement phase, having no effect on enemy units in the sea zone at that point.

@Bunnies:

When in doubt, blame it on America!

I did not think Nuno was still around to do that…  :roll:

Greetings Konrad.
  Is it Axis and Allies Revised that you are trying to play?
If so, search for ‘Triplea Warclub’ on your computer. There you can download rules and files to play the game online or via e-mail.
I learned how to play on their game  ladder, ( I don’t own a boardgame) and have played well over 80 games, with over a 50% win rate.
  Good luck,
        Crazy Ivan

Just think of it this way:  Since trannies are NOT involved in the attack (they are not even on the battle board) then they don’t have to “waste any part of their move” getting to the objective.  However, any BBs or DDs that contributed to a battle offshore canNOT bombard during the amphibious assault.

i think this rule is needlessly confusing because it’s not that beneficial or realistic for going through the added hassle of keeping enemy units on the board as prisoners. i also think this topic should be moved to house rules forum.

Weapons development is a viable option now since you can choose what you get instead of spending a lot of $ and getting super subs.

Even though it’s six times as easy to get the tech you want, the risk associated with it doesn’t translate well into consistent strategies. If you roll 9 die of tech (45 IPCs) you have an almost 20% chance of NOT achieving the tech. That sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? Ironically super subs is the only tech that I try for, and only if I’m the US and gunning after Japan. Rockets are pretty good for Germany but I really can’t find space in my economy to throw away 30+ IPCs for an uncertain tech. If you’re a habitual gambler or feel like you’re playing against  superior player so you need to take your chances, then I would say tech. Otherwise, it isn’t going to win you a whole lot of games unless you are already winning.

One part of the game that I have not explored is the option of the US going into the pacific in a big way.  Of course, the pressure off Germany is a huge reason not to do it, and it was hardly ever done in the old game.  But the increased value of the islands make it more attractive.

This is pretty fun to do if you have all the Allies cooperating against Japan. You can really make Japan squirm if the US is dumping all cash into a navy while Russia/UK swipe the Asian territories away. If the US smartly maneuvers the navy and researches super subs right before a big battle, likely Japan is going to be staring at an 8 IPC paycheck and squatting on his capital for the rest of the game. But yeah, taking pressure off Germany is a pretty big no-no. You’re leaving 10 IPCs in Africa alone to Germany (couple more in trans-jordan/persia as well) and letting him hammer Russia with full strength, which is much harder to defend against than a Japanese attempt. I admit I’m not an expert though; I haven’t taken that many games to conclusion in a real bonafide KJF strategy. It’s hard to say if the Allies can recover or not once Germany kills Russia; perhaps taking the Japanese mainland gives the Allies too good of a position to retake, but then again maybe Germany takes too many IPCs and can overrun the UK in short order and then the US.