• Official Q&A

    @johnnymarr:

    Does anybody know why the victory cities are chips and not printed onto the board?

    They are printed on the map.  The tokens are just for passing back and forth to indicate ownership.  They take the place of the VC chart that was in Revised.


  • I did a number crunch… if japan conquers ALL of the islands of the Pacific, India, and all of China, the Japanese income, with known bonuses, will be 60 IPC.  However… the US income is still 42, and the British income is still at 30.  Not all that devastating… if conquering all of the Pacific brings Japan to 60 IPC but leaves the UK and USA with a lot of money as well, I don’t see KGF/JTDTM going away in this game.  Conquering all of the Pacific barely leaves a dent in the American wallet, and while it takes quite a bit from the UK, 30 IPC is certainly enough to wage all out war on Germany.  So what’s Japan to do with this 60 IPC income?  Rush Moscow, of course!  Just a lot slower, since it’s further, but with more money.  Problem is, by the time the first tank reaches Moscow, it’s time to change route to Berlin.

    Just speculation of course, but I’m not convinced at all after checking out the numbers, that KGF/JTDTM are gone at all.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    It all comes down to whether or not the players are going to take a 13 VC win seriously.
    We already know that Moscow will be needed for 15, and definitely needed for 18, (though honestly at 18 I don’t think people are paying much attention to anything but the Capitals anyway.) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what sort of patterns emerge.

    One thing is for certain though, if the listed values are correct, this game is going to be all about bombers. Without transports as fodder, the new unit roster will still favor aircraft over capital ships (even with the new rules for subs, and naval air strikes). And with bombers so cheap, we’re bound to see more of them purchased, which is likely to make any naval defense more challenging to coordinate. I’m a little spooked by the cheap bombers, because I’m used to playing in games where bombers are carefully controlled, and the purchase of new ones is rare. The higher cost of AA guns, combined with cheaper bombers, would seem to favor strat bombing games, which are inherently unpredictable. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

    The other thing I keep thinking about with the National Bonuses, is that they might be easier to take away from the enemy, than they are to achieve for yourself; just on account of the way the territories are grouped together. So it could be that we’re overestimating their impact on the gameplay for everyone. We’ll have to check out the starting units and round one purchase options, then see how these can be used to their greatest effect, before we understand which National Objectives are really in play.


  • @Black_Elk:

    It all comes down to whether or not the players are going to take a 13 VC win seriously.
    We already know that Moscow will be needed for 15, and definitely needed for 18, (though honestly at 18 I don’t think people are paying much attention to anything but the Capitals anyway.) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what sort of patterns emerge.

    One thing is for certain though, if the listed values are correct, this game is going to be all about bombers. Without transports as fodder, the new unit roster will still favor aircraft over capital ships (even with the new rules for subs, and naval air strikes). And with bombers so cheap, we’re bound to see more of them purchased, which is likely to make any naval defense more challenging to coordinate. I’m a little spooked by the cheap bombers, because I’m used to playing in games where bombers are carefully controlled, and the purchase of new ones is rare. The higher cost of AA guns, combined with cheaper bombers, would seem to favor strat bombing games, which are inherently unpredictable. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

    The other thing I keep thinking about with the National Bonuses, is that they might be easier to take away from the enemy, than they are to achieve for yourself; just on account of the way the territories are grouped together. So it could be that we’re overestimating their impact on the gameplay for everyone. We’ll have to check out the starting units and round one purchase options, then see how these can be used to their greatest effect, before we understand which National Objectives are really in play.

    I think people will be taking the 13 VC win as seriously as they have taken the 8 VC win in Revised… but of course, we will see.

    I haven’t even thought about the bomber situation yet.  Something that bothered me was that, in the last game, in order to do a potential 20 IPC damage to Germany, you’d need a good 3 bombers for both the UK and USA, as each nation was capped to 10 IPC damage.  Now, USA can potentially just build bombers, letting the UK spend all it’s money on taking Germany down.  Of course, I guess we will see when the game comes out…

    Not only are AA guns more expensive, mind you, but they are less effective as well.  I don’t think AA guns fire at aircraft flying THROUGH their territory, just aircraft that commit to an attack in their territory.

    In LHTR, if America just bought bombers and shipped them to UK, then bombed Germany, they could do at most, 10 IPC damage per round, because of how those SBR rules worked.  In order to do more, UK would also need to dedicate itself to a bombing strategy.  In this game, USA could potentially do 20 IPC of damage to Germany per round, while the UK and Soviet Union beat it to a pulp.  My main concern, however, is still that the Pacific will be treated the same way it was in Revised when optimal strategies are used.  Something I like about Europe and D-Day is that they do play so that a historically accurate strategy is viable.  When the games give the US player a choice on to commit to East or West, and Japan the option to invade Russia, it seems all that goes right down the tubes.


  • @Rakeman:

    I did a number crunch… if japan conquers ALL of the islands of the Pacific, India, and all of China, the Japanese income, with known bonuses, will be 60 IPC.  However… the US income is still 42, and the British income is still at 30.

    I think your numbers are way off.

    UK + africa is only 21 IPC or so. Thats a large difference from 30. That also assumes no Germany or Italy conquest of Africa.

    Secondly, if Japan has taken and held all of china, which is much larger in this game, then USSR is in alot of trouble. China is not easy to conquer, and if it has been taken, that means Japan is unchallenged, and it should go for Moscow seeing as it is right there to take.

    However, you can build Inf/tanks in Japan or Manchuria, which take 3+ rounds to reach Moscow after being built, or have them take ONE round to reach Alaska.

    Once Japan gets 60 IPC, its potentially going to be easier for Japan to attack.


  • @squirecam:

    @Rakeman:

    I did a number crunch… if japan conquers ALL of the islands of the Pacific, India, and all of China, the Japanese income, with known bonuses, will be 60 IPC.  However… the US income is still 42, and the British income is still at 30.

    I think your numbers are way off.

    UK + africa is only 21 IPC or so. Thats a large difference from 30. That also assumes no Germany or Italy conquest of Africa.

    Secondly, if Japan has taken and held all of china, which is much larger in this game, then USSR is in alot of trouble. China is not easy to conquer, and if it has been taken, that means Japan is unchallenged, and it should go for Moscow seeing as it is right there to take.

    However, you can build Inf/tanks in Japan or Manchuria, which take 3+ rounds to reach Moscow after being built, or have them take ONE round to reach Alaska.

    Once Japan gets 60 IPC, its potentially going to be easier for Japan to attack.

    I assumed no Germany or Italy conquest of Africa because if USA/UK completely ignore the Pacific and bash Europe to the ground, I assumed the Axis would not have many gains in Africa.  Including the UKs bonus for holding African territories plus Gibralter, it’s actually 25 IPC- I was slightly off, but of course this is assuming that the Allies haven’t captured anything but Africa, despite dedicating their entire force to Europe for several rounds (since it takes that many for Japan to make a dent in the wallets of the Allies).

    You are right about Japan attacking Moscow with tanks- that takes 3+ rounds for the tanks to reach, 4+ if building from Japan (as in, a force worth fighting with, as opposed to 3 tanks per round).  What is the point about going for Alaska with 60 IPC, though?  You can only build 8 per turn in Japan… at most that is 8 tanks per turn, which 40 IPC would cover, which could easily be obtained in revised, yet we never saw that strategy work effectively there.  That’s because, most likely, the US player can produce 8 tanks per turn regardless of how much land it has lost, since the economy is so high.  Japan cannot outproduce US, and therefore is not likely to be able to threaten it.

    While I agree that a 60 IPC Japan will be able to do a bit of damage, I don’t see that mattering when Berlin and Rome have fallen because the Allies have dedicated everything they had to taking out Europe, leaving Japan to conquer meaningless things to slightly delay the inevitable.  Conquering all of the Pacific in Revised would give Japan a good 40 IPC, so yes there is improvement to the Pacific aspect, the problem is that none of this matters when the Allies can let Japan play by itself as they annihilate Germany/Italy.

    Of course, this is all speculation based on what we know about the game.  It definitely looks like, unfortunately, KGF and JTDTM are going to be viable, if not the best, strategies.


  • @Black_Elk:

    It all comes down to whether or not the players are going to take a 13 VC win seriously.
    We already know that Moscow will be needed for 15, and definitely needed for 18, (though honestly at 18 I don’t think people are paying much attention to anything but the Capitals anyway.) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what sort of patterns emerge.

    Personally I prefer domination before VC’s, but as we can choose between 13, 15 or 18 VC’s that’s a good solution because players can choose what kind if game they want to play by setting the amount of VC’s needed for victory. The nr. of VC’s needed will have a great impact of how each game is played.
    I also imagine that the new AA50 map is closer to your POS map than the current AAR    8-)


  • Hey, you’re all talking about a push towards Moscow through China or Siberia. But a much quicker route is over India and Persia and going at Caucasus. That area can be attacked by all three Axis powers in the mid-game and once taken Russia is in very bad straits. Double ICs in India and FIC for Japan means it doesn’t have to ship units by sea. That 60 IPC Japan will then help Germany and Italy very directly, and not via any Alaskan invasion which I think is bullocks.

    The Allies counter to this will of course be an IC in India, combined with aggressive US play in the Pacific. But if you look at the Japanese strategy I posted at '41 strategies, you see that to hold India, Russia has to move a lot of Infantry down to India right away. I suspect this will become a standard strategy.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I wish we’d just pony up and give the Brits a starting IC in India already.

    The game always works better that way, but no serious Revised player is going to buy one unless the Allies are going all out against Japan. Even then its usually just for a few rounds until the the tanks have to be backed out to Caucasus to save Russia from impending doom.

    I don’t know how its going to play out here, but in Revised the southern route to Caucasus via India is how most people get the job done, though a good player will also take China and the Soviet Far east at the same time, without missing a beat. I don’t expect much to change from the old pattern, except that now the Japs will have more money to throw at the Russians. I think the problem stems from the fact that we keep building China as a place to just get totally stepped on by the Japs. During the real war the fighting in mainland China was intense and constant. All told almost 5 million people died in this theater of the War, closer to 20 if you include civilians.

    The Japanese never penetrated the interior of China, even if they did manage to cut it off from the West for a time, but in the game this happens as a matter of course. I feel the same way about operation Impala; its just way to easy to pull off. Unless the Russians give away the whole allied game plan, and start sending troops to back the Brits immediatly, its almost impossible to hold an India factory in Revised. Even if you do, then there’s always the question of whether it was even worth it, since the UK has to keep filling the IC with tanks in order to make the buy effective. A starting factory would at least give the allies a stake in south asia, so they don’t just abandon it in favor of an all out KGF.

    I never thought I’d move in this direction, but now that we have Italy as a full faction (something I never expected to see in A&A) I think we should make China a full faction too.

    Then we could have Chungking as a VC and the seventh capital, and maybe start to fix this seemingly intractable problem with the Japs/Russians.


  • Agreed with China stuff. The issue is even greater, because Japan can toast literally ALL chinese forces in the very first turn, thus giving China 1 inf  :-o at deploy units phase, and no more. Ridiculous  :-P

    China should be more than free IPCs for Japan. Options:

    1. The picture we see in Boardgamegeek is not the deploy. Someone wants framing us or simply someone said to Larry “Hi, Larry, put some pieces on board, we must take a photo”, Larry said “sure, I’ll put some random forces”.
      Thus, in fact, China probably will have about 5-6 inf, 2-3 of them out of reach from Japan and the fricking fighter will also stay out of range from Japan (the best option)

    2. KGF is so badass option in Anniversary that Japan really needs free China IPCs. A very bad option, I don’t want 99/100 games KGF as in Revised  :-P

    3. In no time we’ll mod China to a true playable power or at least a true playable minor (moving units to inland China and such), or maybe bidding a fig and some infs for China. Not optimal but affordable.


  • @Black_Elk:

    I wish we’d just pony up and give the Brits a starting IC in India already.

    The game always works better that way, but no serious Revised player is going to buy one unless the Allies are going all out against Japan. Even then its usually just for a few rounds until the the tanks have to be backed out to Caucasus to save Russia from impending doom.

    I don’t know how its going to play out here, but in Revised the southern route to Caucasus via India is how most people get the job done, though a good player will also take China and the Soviet Far east at the same time, without missing a beat. I don’t expect much to change from the old pattern, except that now the Japs will have more money to throw at the Russians. I think the problem stems from the fact that we keep building China as a place to just get totally stepped on by the Japs. During the real war the fighting in mainland China was intense and constant. All told almost 5 million people died in this theater of the War, closer to 20 if you include civilians.

    The Japanese never penetrated the interior of China, even if they did manage to cut it off from the West for a time, but in the game this happens as a matter of course. I feel the same way about operation Impala; its just way to easy to pull off. Unless the Russians give away the whole allied game plan, and start sending troops to back the Brits immediatly, its almost impossible to hold an India factory in Revised. Even if you do, then there’s always the question of whether it was even worth it, since the UK has to keep filling the IC with tanks in order to make the buy effective. A starting factory would at least give the allies a stake in south asia, so they don’t just abandon it in favor of an all out KGF.

    I never thought I’d move in this direction, but now that we have Italy as a full faction (something I never expected to see in A&A) I think we should make China a full faction too.

    Then we could have Chungking as a VC and the seventh capital, and maybe start to fix this seemingly intractable problem with the Japs/Russians.

    That could be good.  I think that even just having an IC in China, Australia, and India at the start of the game would be enough to keep the Allies from letting it fall… otherwise, Japan takes it and has a free IC to strike Russia with.

    @Funcioneta:

    Agreed with China stuff. The issue is even greater, because Japan can toast literally ALL chinese forces in the very first turn, thus giving China 1 inf  :-o at deploy units phase, and no more. Ridiculous  :-P

    China should be more than free IPCs for Japan. Options:

    1. The picture we see in Boardgamegeek is not the deploy. Someone wants framing us or simply someone said to Larry “Hi, Larry, put some pieces on board, we must take a photo”, Larry said “sure, I’ll put some random forces”.
      Thus, in fact, China probably will have about 5-6 inf, 2-3 of them out of reach from Japan and the fricking fighter will also stay out of range from Japan (the best option)

    2. KGF is so badass option in Anniversary that Japan really needs free China IPCs. A very bad option, I don’t want 99/100 games KGF as in Revised  :-P

    3. In no time we’ll mod China to a true playable power or at least a true playable minor (moving units to inland China and such), or maybe bidding a fig and some infs for China. Not optimal but affordable.

    All Chinese forces round 1?  Yup, I looked it over, that’s how it looks… let us hope this isn’t the case, or this game may play EXACTLY like Revised/Classic (japan overruns China/India/Soviet Far East, moves on to Moscow, as the Allies don’t even touch the Pacific)  :x


  • @Rakeman:

    All Chinese forces round 1?  Yup, I looked it over, that’s how it looks… let us hope this isn’t the case, or this game may play EXACTLY like Revised/Classic (japan overruns China/India/Soviet Far East, moves on to Moscow, as the Allies don’t even touch the Pacific)  :x

    In fact, it’s even worst than in Revised. In Revised, in a KGF, you had 2 inf surviving, not zero plus 1 reinforce. In a KJF, you could put a IC and give a serious fight to Japan if done correctly. You cannot in anniv. edition.

    And in revised/Classic, China gave 4 ipcs to Japan. Now gives 7 + 5 from bonus = 12 ipcs  :-o


  • Well, in Revised, the standard victory condition in tournament play became 9 VC out of 12, which is 75%. With the actual 18 VC, 75% would mean 13,5 CV.

    It may depend on what you play for. With the standard 15 VC you could ignore the Pacific as allies. But can you really afford to ignore the Pacific, if you play to 13? This “minor victory” basically means 7 VC for Japan in Asia-Pacific, Germany-Italy must hold it starting 4 VC in Central Europe and the axis powers must conquer both Stalingrad and Leningrad. So the axis could win without taking a single capital. Nevertheless, this is quite an impressive goal to hold all continental european VCs besides Moscow if all three allies go for Germany and Italy.

    Imho it is more likely that Japan will conquer Caucasus if you ignore them in the Pacific, so the question is wheater the western allies are quicker taking Italy (or even Germany) out of the game than the Japs taking Moscow.

    Ignoring Pacfic in a 13 VC game may be the wrong strategy as besically Germany-Italy only have to defend their 4 VC in Central Europe and let Japan do all the rest. And if they take all Pacific and all Asia, they accumulate to about 70 IPC in total (with 15 IPC bonus) and this really is a lot!


  • All this strat talk on a game that is not released…, but it’s fun anyway. I look forward to play AA50 (in TripleA)  :mrgreen:

    As for the KGF in revised, the single most important reason why exp. players use KGF is because there is not enough $ in pacific. US will be wasting 3-4 turns building stuff that is wasted. And this again leads Japan to the task of capturing Moscow, while Germany holds…defending WE+SE etc. Between exp. players regardless of ADS or LL, the winning team is usually the one who captures a capital first. And the capitals are always Berlin or Moscow. This is revised in a nutshell. There are many different tactics that can be used within the basic mechanics of the game, but the few important factors are well known and will not change.

    I’m not gonna bet on what strats will be most used in AA50, but if there’s more $ in mainland Asia than in the Asian pacific, then it’s gonna be the same exercise again, with some minor changes and some new units.


  • About China I tried to ask Larry about why China couldn’t be allowed to have the possibility of getting an IC build on www.harrisgamedesign.com and I just got an answer from Krieghund about China not being an industrial power etc.

    I guess it all comes down to play-balance, which will be clear pretty quickly once the game comes out. Hopefully they have play-tested the game and China is needed to be this weak to not out-balance the game in Allied favour. For example, USA has 10 IPCs of bonuses now that can be held and two bombers at-start so a Pacific campaign can now jump-start quicker. Also, as I’ve written in '41 strats, Russia might be able to shield India with infantry until UK production starts up and then Japan will be busy fending off UK attacks and China might survive.

    The simplest change would be to give the Chinese one inf/turn PER AREA rather than per two areas. If the game is unbalanced and you have a Chinese collapse in every game, I will propose this to my playing group, but we still haven’t got the game so its too early for that.


  • Hi guys!   :-D

    I’m excited about the new game.  I actually think that they got the Victory City distribution right this time.  The whole point of Victory Cities, is to allow the game to be won, without needing the fall of a capital.

    We’re all familiar with the typical KGF/Ignore Japan/JTDTM playout from Classic and Revised.  Basically, produce your units, and push them towards Berlin or Moscow (the two easiest capitals to take down) as efficiently as possible, or what I like to call, “Moving the Meat” style Axis and Allies  :roll:  This takes very little strategic thought and is boring as H-E-double hockey sticks to play.  Those of you that are familiar with AAR: Enhanced, know how much more fun the game is when the Allies are fighting in the Pacific and you have multiple theaters to think about and spread your tight resources among.  To get this “Global War playout”,  victory shouldn’t depend on capital capture.  If victory depends on capital capture, then the most efficient way to victory is to simply just push all your units towards the easiest enemy capital (ie. Berlin and Moscow).

    Now in Revised, they did introduce Victory Cities to try and correct this.  The problem is, is that their distribution (at 9VC win condition) still necessitated the fall of a capital to win, ie. Moscow.  So what’s Axis going to do?… Go straight for Moscow.  In turn, the Allies, with no reason for being in the Pacific, would go straight for Berlin.  Well, so much for that version  :roll:

    In Anniversary Edition though, I think they got it right.

    Axis starts with 6 VC
    Japan has 5 non-capital VCs in close proximity
    Ger/Ita have 2 non-capital VCs in range

    With a 13 VC win condition, Axis can win the game without taking a capital.  This is critical, because in previous games, they had to take a capital.  Thus, the groundwork is laid to keep Japan in the Pacific and out of Moscow.  What remains to be determined though, is if it’s viable for the Allies to fight Japan in the Pacific.  If it is, then we will get the Global War we desire.  If it is not, then we will still get KGF.

    On that note, the one disappointment I have is that the Industrial Complex price remains at 15IPC (unlike 12 IPC in Enhanced).  If you’re really wanting to encourage more of an Allied Pacific campaign, you have to allow the Allies to do one of 2 things, either:

    1. Let the US go full tilt 1 on 1 with Japan while UK+Rus work against Ger/Ita
    or
    2. Get a UK IC in India or Australia with some partial US assistance (ie. US+UK split their resources in both theatres)

    If the ICs are overly expensive, especially for a cash-strapped UK, you’re going to see less of situation 2 and more of a Classic KGF/Ignore Japan/JTDTM style of game  :roll:

    Now, the only other thing to keep in mind though is bonus income for UK.  It might be enough to encourage UK to build an IC, even at the inflated price of 15 IPC.  We’ll have to see when the game comes out.

    Bottom Line: The Victory City distribution with a 13 VC win condition lays the groundwork for the Axis to fight a Global War (ie. will keep Japan from going to Moscow).  What will ultimately determine if the Global War playout happens, is whether a UK IC in the Pacific, or a full tilt US naval campaign against Japan, are strategically viable for the Allies.  Again, we’ll need to see the opening set-up to know.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Hey Joe  :-D

    Good to see you again man.

    Your VC optimism is contagious I’ll admit, but I still wish they had gone further and placed more VCs in contested areas of the board. Hopefully the 13 win will be more popular here than the 8 win was when Revised first came out. I’m still rather skeptical, but I’ll be stoked if we can somehow convince a majority of players to focus on the VC game over the Capital game.

    I have no doubt though that an AA50 Enhanced will be available in short order, if any imbalances remain. Totally agree about the factory costs. I’m also still waiting on Sub raids to receive some love from the official rules. I’d happily give up the ability to submerge (with all the confusion that causes) for the ability to make economic attacks against factories. :)


  • Hey Black_Elk,

    Good to see you too  :-)

    I do agree.  I think the Ottawa VC in would have been nice to see in South Africa.  It would have given Italy a more defined target to shoot for (ie. a specific VC, rather than just Africa income).  It would also give a bit more variety in terms of what VCs the Axis shoot for.  As of right now they basically have to go for the M13 I’ll call them (in honor of the old M84 from Classic).

    The Magic 13 (M13):
    Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai
    Calcutta, Hong Kong, Sydney, Manila, Honolulu
    Stalingrad, Leningrad

    As the game stands, if Allies ignore Japan, I can see Axis capable of pretty much grabbing up all of the M13 with the exception of Leningrad and Stalingrad.  At that point, Japan can start applying pressure to Stalingrad via India or to Moscow itself via Siberia/China (I wouldn’t call this JTDTM though as this would be more midgame rather than early game).  If Allies are conducting typical KGF, then Karelia is probably loaded with Allies.  At some point, Japan pressure will force them to move to Moscow, and if Germany is pushing INF like they should be vs a KGF, then Leningrad should fall.

    Overall then, ignoring Japan looks like a very grim situation for the Allies.  They are essentially forced to defend one of the Pacific VCs, either India, Sydney, or Honolulu.  This is why I think they chose Ottawa as a VC.  If the Allies are well behaved and defend one of these Pacific VCs as they should, then the last VC Axis has to get, should be difficult.  South Africa would be too easy in my opinion.  Too far from Allied reinforcements, and too close to a nearly maxed out Japan.

    Axis still has options though.  Either go for all 3 Russian VCs, or just go for Leningrad/Stalingrad and run a fork maneuver into Western Canada with Japan (ie. pressure San Fran and Ottawa simultaneously, as it would be hard for the US ignoring a nearly maxed out Japan to defend both).

    As I said above though, the key to whether Allies will stay in the Pacific depends on their ability to defend one of those VCs.  If they decide none of these are defendable (because of a bad opening set-up and poor game rules), then expect to see all or nothing KGF +/- HB/Rocket strategies to try and take down German/Italian VCs before the Axis get their M13.

    At that point, yes, perhaps we’ll see AA50 Enhanced  :-D


  • Ottowa for the Canadians man!
    We We’re int he war before many countries so do not say Ottowa should not be a country.

    Even if i was not canadian i would still think ciaro or alexandria or a city else were would be a waste because then ex. italy mass men not navy
    just to close and gb wotn be able to do as much dmg.
    u see the problems


  • @italiansarecoming:

    Ottowa for the Canadians man!
    We We’re int he war before many countries so do not say Ottowa should not be a country.

    It doesn’t matter who was in the war longest, but a mix of what makes for the best gameplay and historical accuracy.  By your logic, Chicago should be a victory city in Central USA, because obviously USA had a bigger impact on the war than Canada.  But from a gameplay perspective, that’s just redundant, so who needs it.  Likewise, I imagine loosing Chicago would have hurt America MUCH more than losing Hawaii, but Hawaii is the VC, because it makes for fun gameplay.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 8
  • 2
  • 9
  • 2
  • 1
  • 11
  • 31
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

27

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts