So, is Obama a fool? Looks like we might find out very soon now.

It does’n’t seem to match up too well in Venice, though.

My board is just about perfect, fortunately.

Absolutely, freaking love this game.  Love it even more than WWII 1942 I think.  More interesting gameplay, more historically accurate IMHO (e.g. Russia was never under threat of attack by Japan, Japan’s more critical to the success of the Axis than Germany, etc.), more interesting powers, and I love all the optional/delayed stuff (Russian Revolution, unrestricted sub warfare, U.S. entry on 4th turn, tank purchase beginning on the 4th turn, etc.).  Can’t wait to play again!  :-D

Because of amphibious assaults.

You can’t have boat loads of infantry waiting around in sea zones for the end of a naval battle that might last for months.

I still think ships should be allowed to retreat from combat, however.

Allowing planes to retreat after a round of aerial combat is another idea, but what happens to planes that withdraw and then have nowhere to land because their side has been wiped out on the ground?

You could allow them to retreat to a friendly tt, but that in effect gives them an extra movement point, and it seems to go against the game mechanics.

And we may also point out that some here are no longer interested in anything more than trolling and hijacking this thread. Arguments could still be brought up with proper links to support this thing about Italy and Austria joining up, but alas we are now dealing with typos and trolling.

Remember to have enough infantry saved to allow you to split up your force when you need to.
Or you’re liable to get an army stuck in Moscow…

@knp7765:

Yes you can. You are supposed to announce to the other players if you are making an amphibious assault (resulting in combat this turn) or an amphibious reinforcement (with NO combat in the contested territory this turn).
What’s more, if you do an amphibious assault, accompanying battleships can conduct shore bombardment and any defending artillery can take shots at your landing units. With an amphibious reinforcement, your battleships do not bombard and the defending artillery do not take shots at your landing units.

Battleships and defending artillery do not fire if you are offloading to a contested territory whether you conduct combat there or not.  They only fire if you offload to a hostile territory.

Thank you very much

@Auztria:

Yes. If they truly had a historically accurate setup, Russia would have almost as many troops at start as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined. The Ottoman Empire would have no fleet, Germany would have extra cruisers in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, Britain would have just 1 infantry, and Africa would be even more barren. Of course they can’t do that, simply for gameplay reasons. If Russia could conquer Galicia and East Prussia effortlessly every game, people would quickly grow bored.

But you see… I went to school to be a historian! I will have to do a little bit of experimenting with the Russian infantry bordering Galicia and East Prussia. Naturally, it raises my hackles that the Russians can’t do much more than poke the CPs on this front. The Russian TTs containing six infantry probably ought to have eight (on the western border). Any attack they make in Prussia or Galicia is going to be bulldozed by a massive A-H or German attack with at least 12 infantry in each case to throw at the hapless Russians.

I have a soft spot for those intrepid Bulgarians c. 1915. This has led to some experimenting on my end to make them a playable country in lieu of a country in the direct Ottoman pale. Instead of collecting income, they would do something like China does in A&A:Pacific 1.0–crank out people or arty (no planes, tanks or ships). I even thought about allowing the Germans to give them a subsidy (1 IPC or something along those lines). Australia is often talked about for its commitment to the war (and justly so), but I was blown away when I read the Bulgarian stats. 1,200,000 mobilized out of about 5 million people!!  If Italy is in this game, surely Bulgars can’t hurt…

Yea, the rules are a hurdle the first time through, then they feel good after you get the hang of them.

@KimRYoung:

@rjpeters70:

Dude, no offense was meant whatsoever.�  I was not knocking you or Koreans at all (I’ve even been to the ROK, and loved it).�  It’s just the first thing that jumps in my head these days, given that we have a crazy dictator actively threatening nuclear war named Kim.

I’m not offended at all RJ, just letting everyone know who I am. It was also bad in the late 60’s when the name Kim became a common girls name (short for Kimberly), then if they didn’t know, they thought I was a girl. In H.S. I got put in an all girls health education class, which I thought was great! I still get mail to Ms. Kim Young  :lol:

Kim (white, non-Korean male  8-)

For what it’s worth, I know a Korean named Robert E. Lee.

@Texas:

The biggest mistake I have seen is Germany contesting too many territories in the west.  You simply can’t produce enough infantry to sustain that.  I have found hitting hard through Belgium is effective while leaving Lorraine and definitely Switzerland alone.

I don’t know about that- hitting Switzerland gives you a lot of flexibility to hit Italy or Southern France.

LOL. yea funny

@wittmann:

I think paying a token amount to repair a Battleship would be a good idea in any A&A game.

Agreed.  Many times extensive repairs would almost cost the same as it would to build a new ship…  You need supplies, metal (copper, iron, steel), rare earths, manpower, etc.  Not to mention taking up a drydock that otherwise could be used to build a new ship.

Remember that Moscow has to be Russian controlled or contested for the Revolution to occur.

If the CPs control Moscow it does count towards victory, regardless of Russian status.

Please stop creating misspelled threads and post questions in this thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30272.360

We don’t want this forum section littered with questions while you play.

Please stop creating misspelled threads and post questions in this thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30272.360

OK after playing the game a few times I have to say this is my least favorite AA game to date.

I agree with many others it is near impossible for the Central Powers to win, the first game we played I won but we where still new to the game.

The Russian Revolution oob was just broken, now it has been fixed but I still hate the idea that if the Russian Revolution is triggered the CP lose one of the victories cities need to win the game.  As if it’s not hard enough for the Central Powers.

The debate over contested territories and moving out of, is just silly.  The first game we played this rule wrong, but the idea that you cannot leave a contested battle into a territory that you already have units in is beyond stupid.  The idea I couldn’t leave a contested zone into an allies is bad, but not being able to move into territory with my own army unless I own the territory.  Shows a easy way out when writing the rules in my opinion.

Cruisers are next to useless in this game.  The extra movement of 1 does not make it worth buying them, with battleships being so cheap.

Obviously many rules where overlooked when first released such as
US neutral rules and what they can or cannot do  (many of these things are not in the OOB rules as written)
US transports before they are at war.
I also notice when many of these things where questioned the official response came back with what seemed like a bit of attitude at people pointing out these errors and that truly turned me off.  It is not the players fault the rules are unclear or just out right do not say something cannot be done.  There is no reason to blame the players for pointing out these faults in the rules.

I have not played a second game, but my first went like yours.
Is good to know the second is better for the CPs, with a different opening move.
Do say if you get that victory, thank you.