The point of agreement on how to represent additional units is that all players can easily recognize what each proxy represents in order to facilitate game play, and it should be reached before starting the game. Anyone who would use this to attempt to gain some sort of advantage is someone you should think twice about playing with.
@Cernel A good argument against the fact that I’m moving to the coastline during Combat Move, if the sea zone is hostile, may be that I can have two or more different landings from the same embattled sea zone, and all these sea units are part of the same battle, which seems to hint they cannot be on the coastlines, at that point, as, this way, they would be not all together. So, it may be that they are all together during the battle, then, after winning the battle, they split up and head each one to their assigned coastline. Is this how it is working? If so, this would be the 3rd case of same sea zone movement I’m seeing (the first one, of course, being bridging, while the second one being loading a transport from two different land territories, without moving the transport itself, comprising non combat loading immobile transports that combat moved or took part in battles (or both)).
@ponef In regards to what? This thread kind of wound up diverting itself in like 3 different directions:
Whether UK should retake Egypt B1 Vs. send the FTR from the India Carrier over to the US Pearl Harbor Fleet.
Whether Japan should attack the Pearl Harbor Fleet, the UK India Fleet, or both on J1.
Whether UK should attack Borneo B1 or not.
The answer to basically all of these boiled down to some combination of “it depends on how the dice went G1” and “are you playing under WBC Rules or not”. Seeing as WBC no longer runs tournaments for Revised (or any A&A, for that matter), we’re left to assume all games being played will be OOB rules (or at least LHTR), in which case Egypt suddenly becomes much less of a priority in the grand scheme of things.
Personally, I got to try the strategy out at the 2018 WBC in one of my games. It worked well for me, as Japan was routinely baited into attacking the USN, losing the TT and the DD in the process. This allowed me to wipe out the remaining IJN Fleet A1 (Bomber from East USA + FTR from West USA + Navy from US West Coast + FTR from Hawaii). This crippled the IJN and let me rapidly come to dominate the Pacific.
@gbb8brm Welcome to the forum 🙂
As long as the seazone that surrounds the island does not contain any blocking enemy ships it is friendly and may be passed through. The seazone is not part of the territory.
The Production Chart at the top of this page is for some version of A&A Global 1940 (the admixture of A&A Europe 1940 and A&A Pacific 1940). While nifty looking, it won’t help you much with A&A Revised.
This production chart is for the Milton Bradley version of A&A. Again, nifty looking, but it won’t help you much with A&A Revised.
or if anyone has the game, if they could send me a photo that would be seriously appreciated (I’m also missing the Reference Chart for the Soviet Union)
By finding BGG, you’ve hit on a source of information about A&A, you just haven’t found the right mine shaft to explore. Instead of looking at BGG’s Nova Games & Milton Bradley A&A page, try BGG’s Avalon Hill A&A (A&A Revised) page. Yes, they are both “helpfully” named “Axis & Allies”. This is both technically correct and wildly unhelpful. That said, the BGG A&A Revised page has much information, to include:
A picture of the production and weapons development charts for Milton Bradley Axis & Allies and Avalon Hill Axis & Allies, AH on top and MB on bottom.(source)
But there are also resources on this website that can help you. The front page to the site has a link to “Rules & Downloads”. Going there will land you on a page of basic information about the different A&A games. Scroll down until you get to the “Axis & Allies Revised (2004)” section. You will have two options, a link to download a pdf version of the rules for the game and a link to a setup chart for the game. The setup chart gives you the unique information found on Reference Chart for the Soviets (the rest of the information on the chart is about the names, abilities, and prices for the units in the game, information that is duplicated both in the rule book and on the other four reference charts.
If you want to duplicate the look of a reference chart, combine the reference chart from another country with the setup from here. You might find a picture of another country’s reference chart here.
This simple different wording would have probably made all crystal clear, and saved this whole (and other!) discussions, as well as my question.
I suppose that those dicussions lead to a clearer wording in LHTR and are one reason why submerging submarines had been moved to another step during ‘Conduct Combat’ starting from and including the Anniversary ruleset.
@Seadog Not a problem! Glad to hear you found the advice helpful.
I don’t want to go into too much detail on what you did for AA50, as that game has its own sub-forum, but I’m glad you were able to find my advice generic enough to apply to multiple A&A titles.
However, for the Anniversary game, playing a more aggressive Germany is usually favored in the 1941 Scenario (due to how weak the Soviets are at the start of the game), and even somewhat in the 1942 Scenario (If Germany can make a foothold in Eastern Ukraine early, Japan can reach the territory with almost its entire airforce on J2, there is a thread on this strategy I’ve posted in quite a bit called “Unstoppable Axis Strategy”, if you’re interested).
You’re right that this rule is ambigious in this rule book. But to me the intention of the game makers is very clear. That shows not from this rule book, but from all rule books after this version. For example in the rule book from 1943 2nd, They state specifically that all strategic bombing raids take place first. This resolves any argument about who pays the IPC’s to the bank, the attacker or the defender! Since they solved this in the next rule book, i think it is quite obvious what they intended and tried to correct.
Hmmm, well I guess it is not more effective, you’re right. I just went and looked at the numbers and by the end of round 6 the transport method would only yield you 12 units, while the factory method would yield you (assuming you use original 2 transports) 4 on round 2, 3 on round 3, 4, 5, 6. The method I would be advocating would require two extra transports to shuffle down to brazil, which obviously costs substantially more than the factory and only allows you to get 1 more unit there a turn.
I think I just have an aversion to having a factory around not doing anything later in the game, but in your case it would definitely be worth it. In every other case I would definitely suggest against a brazilian IC, but for the smallest amount of IPCs I guess the factory in brazil would have to be the way to go, assuming you just want to use the original EUS transports.
Good idea Switch. Now if we only had one of those boards like in the Avalon Hill Bookshelf games that folded down into an 8 X 10 inch size so you could put it in a tray underneath the organizer!
Go to your local print shop, have a duplicate board printed (perhaps 20% to 30% larger to make Europe a little less cluttered), have it laminated while there (my local print shop charged me $7.00 to copy my board at same-size, and lamintaion would ahve been $13, but I only made teh copy for “Wall Art” in my office at work).
Then, to the top of your drawer organizer, add a couple of velcro straps to hold the rolled game board. Add a few nice weights to hold teh board flat when unrolled to one o fhte drawers and PRESTO! a 1 handle, easy to carry, and totally organized AAR set. (You could also just add a vinyl pouch to the back of the organizer with a size large enough to hold teh 6-fold game board…)
The main reason you could do that is because you took London on G2, so he couldn’t possibly increase his naval force (not to mention he lost a fighter off his carrier). Plus, the US didn’t really put any effort into co-guarding the UK fleet because he is trying to go after Japan first.
You made an excellent choice in this circumstance and it is a good example of what I think the German navy was designed for, but in normal circumstances the costs would have been greater and the benefits less if the US/UK had united in SZ8 and built some navy together (and not lose the capital :lol:)
this tactic works well against the group i play with… they go after germany with a vengance… they retreat everything from all the corners of world for the most part and pull to the atlantic just to put a wrench in the works for germany… they buy nothing without germany in mind… its 100 % devotion… it took 5 turns last game before i felt i could even make a real run at russia because i had to hold strong while japan got going…
Edit: holding strong meant staying at 40 or above… i fell to 37 one turn but rebounded back after a little regrouping…
In one of my games, I had staged UK in Karelia with about 15 units…
at one point of the game, I also had 5 trannies in SZ 4…
I pulled 10 units out of Karelia and put them into an amphibious assault in Western Europe!
Germany didn’t see that one coming, I can tell you!!!
USA could easily reinforce W-E massively as well, so G ended up looking at about 20 units in W-E.
I can tell you: the next round G was taken and my adversary resigned 😛
1. Odds not in your favor: A. survives: 22% D. survives: 73%
2. If you fail, you have just lost the game.
3. If you succeed, you will have lost more units than the money you will get from UK, while letting Russia get ahead in the builds.
4. You will lose Gbr against the UK or US counterattacks. If you retake it, you will lose it again.
According to odds and some of my calculations, this strategy will win you the game less than 20% of the time.