I think the problem is with the U.S. economy when played separately. Compared to their global income, it comes out to a very small amount being spent on the other theater. Less then 20 if I remember right.
indeed, very very interesting discussion. It only makes this powerfull game more attractive for me. I’m going to play now again Pacific 1940 and after that I’ll start to read the rules for the guadalcanal version… Curious about this specific rare game…
Not sure what you mean by that? You mean when the Germans counter attack?
I’ll try it another way. When you calculate the odds for the UK defence in SZ97 you are miscalculating. The battle calculator assigns the first hit on the UK forces against the CV which cannot be done in the actual battle because the Axis can just retreat and sink the planes.
ringing just one fighter drops it to 93% instead to 98% with a 3 fighter scramble and at those odds I doubt anyone would scramble so it works out the same.
I probably would. I am aware of the scenario you refer to and it is, as you outline, really, really undesirable. The downside of the no scramble is that it can cost Luftwaffe, which is not good. Although I might sometimes not scramble. Either way though, there is no way that I am not counter attacking with Italy.
I definitely scramble at anything weaker than that attack. Only costs 1 Luftwaffe when clearing out the fleet later costs more.
Yes, but any Italian counterattack means the French fleet escapes and the British fleet in SZ96 has to be dealt with by the Germans. Also, even a strafe means Italian planes are at risk. Losing the Italian fleet is bad. Losing the Italian air force is really bad.
I think you are worrying too much about the Italian air. The Luftwaffe can reinforce. I would take that risk every time.
French ships escaping? So what. Then you don’t have to kill them. There may be a cruiser in 96 for the Luftwaffe to finish off. It can be argued that it isn’t worth half a plane. If it escapes to the Red Sea it struggles to get back in the game.
Having said all that, maybe the 2ftr from London move is worth more consideration. Especially if you use the Indian transport to claim Persia so you can use the British transport suiciding to take Greece. With the sub bid, scrambling would be insane.
@CHILDREN Thanks for designing and sharing these setup charts. I wonder if you have them in a white background. The black background consumes too much of my black ink. Or, would you know other alternative setup charts with a lighter background? Many thanks.
You said it yourself-it’s hard to pull off and the Soviets will crash hard into the Axis. I still think it’s hard for this reason:
Japan can never assemble enough troops to land anywhere and succeed (or at least land on the West Coast), because Japan has to spend 7 more IPCs for every two units than the Americans. The Americans also have a home ground advantage, so more turns of builds would reach the front in time. Then there’s the problem of the US making more IPCs than Japan.
Italy can easily be blocked from Gibraltar on the first turn by having sea zones 96 and 95 attacked, and having at least one ship present in each zone.
Anyways, I do sometimes dream of a stupid US doing a KJF and letting Germany land on the East Coast, sacking the US the turn they enter the war.
There is one viable point made here, which is that russia lacks troops to defend the south. What is not mentioned is the factory you already have (Volgograd Stalingrad). Later in the game, Russia often lacks the troops needed just to block. They could walk all the way from moscow or be waiting down south all game, but if you failed to do that, building some more units in the south in the mid game might be a good idea to get some blockers in place.
For all the talk about how powerful Germany is and how imbalanced the game is, its odd that no one suggests making Germany or the Axis weaker, rather than the allies stronger. Or both.
Removing an air pair from japan or germany makes a big difference.
And to repeat, why does germany get 70-80$? That’s what makes it too easy. The bonuses are too easy to get and are easily nerfed (leningrad volgograd moscow shouldn’t be worth 5, you could make them 2-4 and lowering the bonuses doesn’t alter Germany’s setup or first turns. Moreover, interfering with Germany and Japan money and production is way too difficult in comparison to how easily they can smash the UK or USSR economy (except in anniversary). By midgame, Germany has 2 greater and 5 lesser factories, we’ve tried partisan type rules to limit their vast choices.
I am playing again in 2 weeks with my father & brother, after a 1.5 year break. I will focus on Barbarossa as well, and likely use oysteila build orders. Maybe spend some more on Atlantic Wall when USA goes for KGF with my JDOW1 in G3/4.
@argothair yes that indeed is an issue. That is why i stop doing taranto but this form of Gibastion. This way i save the fleet and carrier. So UK 2 i move them (UK fighters from the Med and London who are now in algeria) to Egypte and there on to Moscow. Togethee with the Anzac fighters this gives Russia a bit of breathing space.
The factory in Egypte buys subs and a fighter turn two and from turn 3 on fighters abd Land units .
It is not the perfect plan but wirh a US going 75% KJF you can’t invade Europe direct.
@tincanofthesea idk. I am going to try it in the Pacific map and see how it goes. Going to do a allied bid game (our first official one lol) because last game, allies didn’t really stand a chance. I wonder if there are “Blockade” markers at HBG, well if the shipping wasn’t so expensive I could buy those-
This will be my last 40 game before I will use the new stuff I got from HBG 🙂 maybe try to learn the G40 Balanced Mod (TheCaptain’s) + some extra stuff
Yes. However, the FAQs currently don’t have a home online. I’m working to correct that.
They can be found on the Downloads Page.
The only change that makes a difference to game play is on the Pacific map. Sea zone 5 is not adjacent to Korea. The border between sea zones 5 and 6 now meet at the border between Amur and Korea, leaving Amur still touching only sea zone 5 but Korea touching only sea zone 6. This was actually an erratum for the 1st edition.
@all-encompassing-goose I recall one game a few years ago when there was a Russian and Anzac stack in Burma defending against Japan with no British units. I genuinely have no idea how that happened anymore, but it sure looked odd.
I took a look at the opening post. Although I do not agree with all points, it sounds quite solid in general and can function as some good common sense and/or as rule of thumbs for less experienced players.
On this line, the old guy could be named: Axis & Allies 2nd Edition (Classic)
or, to cover all: Axis & Allies 1st/2nd/3rd Editions (Classic)
Since you don’t see “Classic” anywhere in the box or the manual or anything for real, it fits better between parenthesis (people that don’t know stuff might think it’s not the one, since the one they have is not called “Classic” anywhere, of course).
Good idea but not worth the 15 IPC. Taranto isn’t that bad for Axis and many top players avoid it and rather stack 92 in UK1 to preserve the fleet in sz98.
Very true. Not worth it, and has 0 long term value. Seems tempting, but not. Also not worth it, but is better, about G3 AB in yugo. I think you want the allies in the med compared to 110 or Norway as axis