I like the part of the story which quotes a certain Gary Campbell as saying that it was “entirely feasible” that a large sea creature disabled the submarine. Given that Mr. Campbell is said by the story to be “the keeper of the Official Sightings Register of the Loch Ness Monster,” it’s unlikely that he’d dismiss accounts about marine monsters as being nonsensical tall tales from sailors who’d consumed one glass too many at the local tavern.
Looking for a Japanese strategy to work with my German strat
-
Ok… I just thought I’d let you all know that we always play where you start with no money… So I manage to take out the UK navy, AND take Karelia…
-
This is just a suggestion:
Not having first turn money seems very disruptive to the intended game-design and strategy. I’m sure it throws the game completely out of whack.
I think you should consider reintroducing first turn money (the way the game was intended).
just my 2cents
-
We have yet to start with house rules, we play by the book… And since there’s no mention of 1T money in the book, we don’t play that way…
Why do you think it throws the game outta whack?
-
The rules clearly state that money is distributed at the begining of the game (before you set up the board if you want to get technical). See page seven, middle colum, about the middle of the page.
-
When game designers create a game, they sometimes use mathematical algorithms to help them derive an equal “win-chance” scenario for all game participants. Its hardly ever perfectly equal (because only purely mathematical games can achieve total win-chance equality). But they get as close to equal as they possibly can (within predefined tolerance parameters).
One of the factors in the A&A game algorithm is first turn money. If someone just arbitrarily changes that part of the game, it violates the games algorithm and creates win-chance inequality (unless you’ve stumbled upon a way to make the game more equal that the designers totally overlooked…but thats doubtful).
Basically, it would be similar to taking all the fighters out of the game on the first turn. It seems fair, but, it really hurts some countries more than others and thus throws-off the game’s chance-equality.
Its much more disruptive than the common house-rule where Russia can’t attack on the first turn, because “not attacking” is one of the options open to the player playing Russia. And therefore, it doesn’t violate the Games mathematical algorithm of win-chance equality.
Believe me, much more goes into creating games like this than people usually know about, these “game designers” at Milton Bradley (and other companies), are actually highly skilled engineers. A lot of these guys have masters or doctorates in logic and mathematical theory. They put tons of time and effort into creating win-chance equality. (Otherwise the game sucks).
I don’t know where you got the idea that first-turn money is not in the rules. (Maybe you have an older copy of the rules that’s unclear about it).
The rulebook is divided into 8 chapters. Chapter 2 is called “game set-up”. One of the segments of that chapter is called “handing out the money”. This segment instructs players to hand out money as part of setting up the game. If you haven’t been handing out money when you set up your game, then you’ve been setting up your game incorrectly and thus not playing by the rules.
-
Amen Drunken!
Here is my 2 ipcs
A good game is designed as for a 50-50 chance to win for each side. Axis and Allies are ment to be played as a Game, not as a realistic WWII scenario. I can see how you came up with the idea that you cant buy the first turn. Hell, what did the countries spend their money on LAST turn, aka Turn 0, and the turn before that? Well its a game, so for all intensive perposes there was no Turn 0.
-
Hmm… I missed that part… Oh well. I’ll point it out next time we play…
-
I HAVE TRIED THE KAR T1 A COUPLE TIMES. IT NEVER WORKED. A SMART RUSSIA PLAYER WILL DEFEND WITH MASSIVE ALL OUT REINFORCEMENT EFFORT ON T1. IF YOU PLAY RUSSIA CAN ATTACK ON T1, GERMANY WILL BE SHORT A TRRANSPORT AND SUB. THE GERMAN OFFENSE SHOULD COMPLETRLY DESTROY THE UK NAVY OR THE GAME WILL BE SHORT, FOR A UK NAVY QUICKLY UNITES THE ALLIES. TRY LETTING JAPAN CONQUER AN AFICAN CANAL ZONE(EGYPT, SYRIA) AMPHIBIOUSLY. DROP AN INDUSTRY THERE, THEY CAN HELP GERMANY KEEP AFRICA,THEREFORE MAINTAIN THE $ AFRICA PAYS AND UNITE A MODEST GERMAN NAVY WITH HALF OF JAPANS NAVY.IF YOU HAVE SUPER SUBS YOU WILL EVENYUALLY BE DROPPING 2 AT A TIME AT THAT INDUSTRY TO DEVESTATE THE UNITED ALLIED NAVY WHICH INEVITABLY ENDS UP IN THE ATLANTIC. THE FEW TIME I’VE WON WITH THE AXIS WAS THROUGH THIS STRATEGY. EXCEPT WHEN IVE PLAYED INFERIOR COMPETITION. WHICH ISN’T ANY FUN
-
If you try to put subs down (with Germany), then they always get sunk by the RAF…
-
You have to place them outside of the range of the Raf (Out of Southern Europe) or kill all the RaF fighters.
-
Which is hard to do since UK will naturally put some infantry on Britain, making strafing the fighters near impossible, not to mention expensive.
-
You need to have the Japanese expand into Asia ASAP. They must build IC’s in Asia to achieve this. Send armor into the Russian capital as quickly as you can…
Suggested Topics
