• Haha, I would not say that I am getting bent out of shape. I said I considered it a little strange and that I might houserule it as it makes the game more believable and does not affect the balance much. And I agree that in the rules that you get in the box should be as simple as possible and I think that is one of the big virtures of the axis and allies games. But I also think that it is the players responsebilety to alter things they find silly or things that are unbalanced. In the end its that the players enjoy the game that counts, not whats in the original rulebook.

    Anyhow. the relevant part of my post was the second part where I asked what was meant by “moving into”.


  • I wasn’t referring specifically to you, Dany, I just don’t understand why everyone thinks this is such a big mistake.  Someone earlier referred to Crete being part of Greece just like Hawaii is part of the US.  However, if Japan invades Hawaii, they don’t receive control of the Eastern US; and even if they invade the Eastern US and take the capital but don’t invade Hawaii, they don’t automatically get control of Hawaii.  I think it’s perfectly acceptable to make Crete a separate territory from Greece because it is geographically completely separate, as was pointed out by the fact that the separate invasions by the Axis of Crete and Greece occurred months apart too.  The current game mechanics represent this perfectly as the Axis invading Greece does not immediately give them control of Crete and vice versa.  By the same token, Greece doesn’t have to give the UK control of their mainland because they let them use Crete as an airbase…  So I don’t see how there’s anything all that wrong with the way it works now without making it much more complicated or changing rules.


  • During your non combat move you may move a land unit into a pro-you neutral.  You then gain control of the territory, its income, and its units.  Air units cannot activate a neutral.


  • @SAS:

    I wasn’t referring specifically to you, Dany, I just don’t understand why everyone thinks this is such a big mistake.  Someone earlier referred to Crete being part of Greece just like Hawaii is part of the US.  However, if Japan invades Hawaii, they don’t receive control of the Eastern US; and even if they invade the Eastern US and take the capital but don’t invade Hawaii, they don’t automatically get control of Hawaii.

    That was my quote - but again - I wasnt referring to issues regarding “control” or occupation, merely when and where related forces are activated.  For sake of clarification, I was looking at the issue from the perspective of an Axis attack on Crete - not from the perspective of an Allied player sending forces to Crete in order to bring Greece into the war.

    The analogy was simply intended to illustrate that when Japan attacks Hawaii on J1,2, or 3 - Japan and the US (i.e. ALL territories of the US) are at war.  In my mind it seems to follow that if the Axis attack a portion of Greece (be it Greece proper or Crete) then all territories part of the Greek state are at war - and so any troops so designated on the board are activated.  I certainly wasn’t getting “bent out of shape” - I was simply offering what I thought was a plausible explanation of what happens - understanding official clarifications will eventually come from those positioned to do so.

    But I also understand (based on the earlier poster’s Mongolia clarification offered by Krieg) the idea that Crete and Greece are treated as separate and distinct tt - and not part of the same greek  nation-state so to speak.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 13
  • 46
  • 3
  • 25
  • 30
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

26

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts