Axis and Allies Classic 10 part series on YouTube

[The_Good_Captain]

In the many recent games I have played against a variety of players in terms of strategy and skill level, I have not yet seen this rule break the game or come close to it.

[The_Good_Captain]

In what may be my most controversial video yet, I have realesed “Waltzing 'n Sunny Skies: Axis counter-strategies” (in Axis and Allies Classic) on my YouTube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnJReTMIlU8&feature=youtu.be

Let me know what you all think.

[The_Good_Captain]

Also, if anyone would like to play a game of Classic, OoB Rules, RR, no bid, send me a PM!

[The_Good_Captain]

^ this invitation still stands

[DizzKneeLand33]

The invitation only makes sense under the conditions set by @Imperious-Leader

If you are willing to have the rules be what all of us understood as the real rules to the game (no one played competitively without the “no naval occupation” rule in effect. Had Larry understood the advantage/disadvantage presented in the game from the beginning, he would have said the rules should be Russia Restricted with 2 infantry in Libya (that’s the lightest the Axis should take, I’ve seen 4 bid there and the Allies still have more power).

So, I would play RR (with tech) with 2 extra infantry added to Libya and of course the no naval occupation rule in effect.

There have been tens of thousands of games played online in clubs to prove why that bid is needed. And you and I played and I tried to show why there should be a bid. Of course that was no RR – in that case the bid should be between 17-21 (depending on 2 hit BB’s and things – without 2 hit BB’s the bid is probably 21-24).

The 2 inf in Libya is the only way Germany can hold Africa with any semblance of sanity and try to play in Europe. That’s the reasoning there.

There was a game called “Anzio” where it was no tech and Axis Advantage, and still the regular bid was 9-12. I found that game boring (since I thought tech should be a part of the game) but others truly loved it.

[DizzKneeLand33]

Otherwise, we all played without bids in our day (say, 1984-1998) and realize why the game needs one.

[The_Good_Captain]

@DizzKneeLand33 glad to see you back!

I’ve evolved my thoughts on the game quite a bit and summarized them in two videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHBXRXn8JCM

and the finale:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxfPFlpbtNo

To summarize, my contention is no bid is necessary if RR, no new industrial complexes, and strict neutral rules are applied. Although between two 10 level opponents reducing Caucasus to four and increasing Ukraine S.S.R. to four is advisable.

[DizzKneeLand33]

@AcesWild5049

I can’t think of a real strategy that involved building a new IC. I would build some sometimes, but that’s because I’m weird and have off the beaten path strategies. But real strategies don’t involve IC’s.

I don’t know what strict neutral rules means. Does this mean no one can ever take one? Again, this doesn’t affect the advantage that the Allies have.

If it’s RR, the balance between Ukraine and Caucasus doesn’t really matter, right?

[DizzKneeLand33]

Let me qualify that. Real allied strategies don’t involve IC’s. Japan can play with IC’s in mind. Which, again, means that your no new IC’s only hurts the Axis.

[The_Good_Captain]

@DizzKneeLand33

The British building two industrial complexes on the first turn was found to be just as efficacious as “Spanish Harlem”.

The first video reviews both of these bugs and the second video addresses the fixes using the OoB optional rules except for strict neutrals as you point out. That rule comes from Anniversary and 1942. Correct, it means they cannot be invaded.

Your comment about Japan being hurt by not being allowed to build IC is also address in the video. I feel that at first glance, what you say seems true but the purchase of two transports is as good a purchase if not better. It just removes the nearly automatic win for the Allies via the British two IC build.

[DizzKneeLand33]

omg, seriously, let me tell you, from my own experience, that a 2 IC build for the british is suicide against a good Axis player. Period.

[DizzKneeLand33]

Okay, first, you have to remove the naval occupation issue. After that, then we could play.

[DizzKneeLand33]

I won’t place any IC’s either. But I’d hate to limit the Axis to that rule since it’s rough. Yes, I know that the transports are more flexible. I’m not sure that’s the base issue.

[The_Good_Captain]

sure no problem! naval occupation is an optional rule anyway.

[DizzKneeLand33]

Okay, so I get Allies and it’s say the best 4 out of 7?

And, to confirm, you are certain you don’t want a bid?

[DizzKneeLand33]

So, for the others out there, I didn’t understand this, but apparently the proposition is to place an extra inf into Ukr and subtract an in out of Cauc. So, that is in effect a 6 bid when you think about it. I was thinking that this was straight up even, but that’s not what is being said.

That’s a much more interesting proposition.

And, just to be clear, it’s kind of like a 6 bid but without being able to place it anywhere you want.

[The_Good_Captain]

^ yep…and all for all the others out there, this was/is addressed on my Classic channel.

[DizzKneeLand33]

This post is deleted!

[DizzKneeLand33]

A bid of 9 covers that, 1 inf EE, 2 inf Libya. This isn’t being considered here because it is not “historical” but it does balance the game quite nicely.

[The_Good_Captain]

…and I never argued with that.

The two videos on my channel regarding balance explain my position. Nobody has to play with those recommendations. They’re a personal preference, that’s all… you and I are not obligated to play a game.

I don’t care to play with your bid and you don’t care to play with the no IC optional rule (in box) and “strict neutrals” (out of box). I’m not married to the east front adjustment i put forward.

and that’s okay