• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Young:

    @Cmdr:

    Allies generally need one and a really good shot at another for us to conceed our games.  (That one being Italy because they get farmed so easily now.)  Which is the primary reason I want to strip the Americans down and force them to pay significant attention to what they are doing.  With most of their money in harder to attain (not hard to attain, HARDER) islands in the Pacific they should have less to use to hit Italy with and thus, Italy should have a modest ability to first survive and second prosper again.

    I understand the days of a 60 IPC Italy are probably over.  Fine.  I didnt really like it anyway.  However, now we’re at a 0 IPC Italy in almost all of our games.  (0 collected, not 0 in holdings necesarily.)  And it’s all due to America.

    What is Japan doing while America is hammering the Italians?

    It doesnt take 80 IPC a round to hammer the Italians anymore.  I do it with 2 carriers, a destroyer, 6 transports and after that a pittiful 23 IPC a round in ground forces thereafter.

  • Sponsor

    @Cmdr:

    @Young:

    @Cmdr:

    Allies generally need one and a really good shot at another for us to conceed our games.  (That one being Italy because they get farmed so easily now.)  Which is the primary reason I want to strip the Americans down and force them to pay significant attention to what they are doing.  With most of their money in harder to attain (not hard to attain, HARDER) islands in the Pacific they should have less to use to hit Italy with and thus, Italy should have a modest ability to first survive and second prosper again.

    I understand the days of a 60 IPC Italy are probably over.  Fine.  I didnt really like it anyway.  However, now we’re at a 0 IPC Italy in almost all of our games.  (0 collected, not 0 in holdings necesarily.)  And it’s all due to America.

    What is Japan doing while America is hammering the Italians?

    It doesnt take 80 IPC a round to hammer the Italians anymore.  I do it with 2 carriers, a destroyer, 6 transports and after that a pittiful 23 IPC a round in ground forces thereafter.

    You’re right, I support the UK forces in the Med with an aircraft carrrier and 1 fighter, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, and 3 loaded transports.

  • Customizer

    @JamesG:

    @Cmdr:

    I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

    I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.

    Yeah, the last time we decided to “play it out” from an official Axis victory, it really stretched out the game.  The Axis won in round 8 I think.  Basically, it was one night’s worth of playing.  When we kept going, eventually the Allies overwhelmed the Axis and it took 19 rounds.  That took all of the next day plus into the next weekend.  I should point out that before the Axis won with 8 VCs on the Europe board, Japan had already been taken out due to a huge blunder of leaving their capital unprotected.  They had a decent navy in SZ 6, but NO land or air units on Japan itself.  The US went in with anything that could reach and it was a tough naval battle.  However, the US land units just had to walk into Tokyo.  After that, the rest of the Japanese navy was hunted down and they had to push through a rather large army presence on the mainland.  If Japan hadn’t made such a blunder, who knows how long the game might have lasted.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @knp7765:

    @JamesG:

    @Cmdr:

    I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

    I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.

    Yeah, the last time we decided to “play it out” from an official Axis victory, it really stretched out the game.  The Axis won in round 8 I think.  Basically, it was one night’s worth of playing.  When we kept going, eventually the Allies overwhelmed the Axis and it took 19 rounds.  That took all of the next day plus into the next weekend.  I should point out that before the Axis won with 8 VCs on the Europe board, Japan had already been taken out due to a huge blunder of leaving their capital unprotected.  They had a decent navy in SZ 6, but NO land or air units on Japan itself.  The US went in with anything that could reach and it was a tough naval battle.  However, the US land units just had to walk into Tokyo.  After that, the rest of the Japanese navy was hunted down and they had to push through a rather large army presence on the mainland.  If Japan hadn’t made such a blunder, who knows how long the game might have lasted.

    Yes, that is why I put in the Financial victory rule.


    @knp7765:

    @JamesG:

    @Cmdr:

    I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

    I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.

    Yeah, the last time we decided to “play it out” from an official Axis victory, it really stretched out the game.  The Axis won in round 8 I think.  Basically, it was one night’s worth of playing.  When we kept going, eventually the Allies overwhelmed the Axis and it took 19 rounds.  That took all of the next day plus into the next weekend.  I should point out that before the Axis won with 8 VCs on the Europe board, Japan had already been taken out due to a huge blunder of leaving their capital unprotected.  They had a decent navy in SZ 6, but NO land or air units on Japan itself.  The US went in with anything that could reach and it was a tough naval battle.  However, the US land units just had to walk into Tokyo.  After that, the rest of the Japanese navy was hunted down and they had to push through a rather large army presence on the mainland.  If Japan hadn’t made such a blunder, who knows how long the game might have lasted.

    Exactly, it does not take much.  Just enough to be too costly for Germany or Italy to attack and enough transports and ground forces to put “threat” on Italy.  After you get that established, it’s only 23 - 27 IPC worth of ground units being shucked into Africa and walked over to the Middle East or dumped in Gibraltar to run into Spain once large enough.

  • Sponsor

    Are we a bunch of negative Nellys if “the worst of” poll boasts 5 pages, and “the best of” poll has less than 1?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Young:

    Are we a bunch of negative Nellys if “the worst of” poll boasts 5 pages, and “the best of” poll has less than 1?

    There’s a best of?  Dang.  ^_~

  • Sponsor

    @mantlefan:

    @Young:

    Are we a bunch of negative Nellys if “the worst of” poll boasts 5 pages, and “the best of” poll has less than 1?

    No.

    The best of where people can say “I like this” and that’s all that needs to be said. Here is where people present problems they perceive. Then come attempts at solutions. The fact that many of these “worst” things are and have been problems means there’s a lot of disagreement and therefore more posts.

    I guess you’re right, because there’s not much disagreement in regards to scrambling being the best improvement, but this poll is very diverse.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Best of:

    AA Guns
    Scrambling

    Worst Of:
    Setup changes
    Russian NO

    Indifferent:
    Convoys


  • I voted for the aa gun, it seems the most obvious fail with far reaching effects.

    Scrambling- best in Alpha over OOB
    Convoys- A3 system is warming to me, however I think some ships should be excluded from raiding, making less units capable of doing it.  Perhaps only Subs, CA’s, and tac bmbs.
    SBR- meh, I liked A2 for the logic of the system, but I rarely bomb as is.
    NOs-A2 NO’s were good other than US and USSR, and A3 has not improved those.
    unit setup-all FUBAR’ed because of the aa gun mishap that near breaks the game. 
    Political-still very wrong, why is it that we cannot have a sleak DOW system?  No more ‘leave it up to the players to make a pact’.  Also fix the neutrals so they are a part of this game, Larry took the time to add them to the board and put units on them…
    Tech- I don’t tech and see it as the one area that is easiest to house rule.
    AAguns-projectile vomits
    Kamikaze- how has these changed?  I was unaware.
    Turn order-I still think Italy should be moved up to before UK, add more UK units if needed.
    Mongolian rule-A3 tried to fix this, but didn’t go far enough.  Take Mongolia out of the ‘true neutral’ camp and make it dependent on Jap/Rus relations.  I do prefer those 6 scattered inf to the 12 ipcs of A2.

  • Sponsor

    @JimmyHat:

    I voted for the aa gun, it seems the most obvious fail with far reaching effects.

    Scrambling- best in Alpha over OOB
    Convoys- A3 system is warming to me, however I think some ships should be excluded from raiding, making less units capable of doing it.  Perhaps only Subs, CA’s, and tac bmbs.
    SBR- meh, I liked A2 for the logic of the system, but I rarely bomb as is.
    NOs-A2 NO’s were good other than US and USSR, and A3 has not improved those.
    unit setup-all FUBAR’ed because of the aa gun mishap that near breaks the game. 
    Political-still very wrong, why is it that we cannot have a sleak DOW system?  No more ‘leave it up to the players to make a pact’.  Also fix the neutrals so they are a part of this game, Larry took the time to add them to the board and put units on them…
    Tech- I don’t tech and see it as the one area that is easiest to house rule.
    AAguns-projectile vomits
    Kamikaze- how has these changed?  I was unaware.
    Turn order-I still think Italy should be moved up to before UK, add more UK units if needed.
    Mongolian rule-A3 tried to fix this, but didn’t go far enough.  Take Mongolia out of the ‘true neutral’ camp and make it dependent on Jap/Rus relations.  I do prefer those 6 scattered inf to the 12 ipcs of A2.

    Battleships should disrupt convoys, that was the main goal for releasing the Bizmarck.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Young:

    @JimmyHat:

    I voted for the aa gun, it seems the most obvious fail with far reaching effects.

    Scrambling- best in Alpha over OOB
    Convoys- A3 system is warming to me, however I think some ships should be excluded from raiding, making less units capable of doing it.  Perhaps only Subs, CA’s, and tac bmbs.
    SBR- meh, I liked A2 for the logic of the system, but I rarely bomb as is.
    NOs-A2 NO’s were good other than US and USSR, and A3 has not improved those.
    unit setup-all FUBAR’ed because of the aa gun mishap that near breaks the game. 
    Political-still very wrong, why is it that we cannot have a sleak DOW system?  No more ‘leave it up to the players to make a pact’.  Also fix the neutrals so they are a part of this game, Larry took the time to add them to the board and put units on them…
    Tech- I don’t tech and see it as the one area that is easiest to house rule.
    AAguns-projectile vomits
    Kamikaze- how has these changed?  I was unaware.
    Turn order-I still think Italy should be moved up to before UK, add more UK units if needed.
    Mongolian rule-A3 tried to fix this, but didn’t go far enough.  Take Mongolia out of the ‘true neutral’ camp and make it dependent on Jap/Rus relations.  I do prefer those 6 scattered inf to the 12 ipcs of A2.

    Battleships should disrupt convoys, that was the main goal for releasing the Bizmarck.

    They do.  1d6 max 3 dmg


  • Read JimmyHat’s post, Jen.


  • any ship should dissrupt convoys if you really think about it. a destroyer is the same thing as a battleship against an unarmed merchant vessel. In axis and allies turns it is like killing a transport. No big deal. The battleship bissmark was intended to disrupt convoys and lower the morale of the United Kingdom, while as a destroyer would easily be destroyed and not thought twice about. All ships should be able to do damage to convoys. Get rid of adding more dice to the game. Alpha 2 had it right.

  • Sponsor

    @theROCmonster:

    any ship should dissrupt convoys if you really think about it. a destroyer is the same thing as a battleship against an unarmed merchant vessel. In axis and allies turns it is like killing a transport. No big deal. The battleship bissmark was intended to disrupt convoys and lower the morale of the United Kingdom, while as a destroyer would easily be destroyed and not thought twice about. All ships should be able to do damage to convoys. Get rid of adding more dice to the game. Alpha 2 had it right.

    Jen, I think you need to get offline and play more table top, the physical act of rolling dice is suspenseful and fun, but I can see how you would want less rolling if you were constantly commanding the computer to do it for you.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Young:

    @theROCmonster:

    any ship should dissrupt convoys if you really think about it. a destroyer is the same thing as a battleship against an unarmed merchant vessel. In axis and allies turns it is like killing a transport. No big deal. The battleship bissmark was intended to disrupt convoys and lower the morale of the United Kingdom, while as a destroyer would easily be destroyed and not thought twice about. All ships should be able to do damage to convoys. Get rid of adding more dice to the game. Alpha 2 had it right.

    Jen, I think you need to get offline and play more table top, the physical act of rolling dice is suspenseful and fun, but I can see how you would want less rolling if you were constantly commanding the computer to do it for you.

    But you did not quote me!

  • Sponsor

    @Cmdr:

    @Young:

    @theROCmonster:

    any ship should dissrupt convoys if you really think about it. a destroyer is the same thing as a battleship against an unarmed merchant vessel. In axis and allies turns it is like killing a transport. No big deal. The battleship bissmark was intended to disrupt convoys and lower the morale of the United Kingdom, while as a destroyer would easily be destroyed and not thought twice about. All ships should be able to do damage to convoys. Get rid of adding more dice to the game. Alpha 2 had it right.

    Jen, I think you need to get offline and play more table top, the physical act of rolling dice is suspenseful and fun, but I can see how you would want less rolling if you were constantly commanding the computer to do it for you.

    But you did not quote me!

    LMFAO! I think I’m going to take a break for a while, signing off.


  • I like the Research and development from the Anniversary Edition
     Our group never seems to spend the money on Technology,  when we were doing the Anniv you would see it on the board, now as before the risk of getting one vs using the money on something else just dosent pan out

    The group wants to try a game without any N.O.'s just to see how it plays out….I think Japan could become very powerful if the U.S.A. has to wait until the end of three to come in. should be interesting


  • Japan would be super powerful! GL and let us know how it turns out. Should be fun.

  • Sponsor

    @suprise:

    I like the Research and development from the Anniversary Edition
     Our group never seems to spend the money on Technology,  when we were doing the Anniv you would see it on the board, now as before the risk of getting one vs using the money on something else just dosent pan out

    The group wants to try a game without any N.O.'s just to see how it plays out….I think Japan could become very powerful if the U.S.A. has to wait until the end of three to come in. should be interesting

    Try my house rule… “Any power that has $30 or more to spend at the beginning of their turn, may roll 1 free die @6 during phase 1 of their turn to win a tech, powers may never buy rolls.”


  • that might be a fun houserull, but what happens if say germany gets rockets or america gets heavy bombers? for free no less?

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

32

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts