• I’d have to go with the U.S.– plenty of purchasing power and options.  The board looks completely different by USA’s turn, so flexibility and creative adjustment to the outcome of the first turn keeps USA on its toes.  Plus what’s not to love about getting to buy aircraft carriers anytime you want?  :-)


  • Japan is the Peyton Manning of A&AR – it puts up big numbers every time. However, if the Allies do their job right, they do a Bill Belichik and run out the clock on the Japs. It’s all about the numbers . . .

    I love the analogy!

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I like Japan because America never expects the Japanese Inquisition!  =)

    If you set it up right, you can take out Alaska, W. Canada and W. USA in 1 shot and hold it.  All without diverting anything but 1 Transport, 2 Battleships and a bomber from teh front until you make your move.


  • @Jennifer:

    I like Japan because America never expects the Japanese Inquisition!  =)

    If you set it up right, you can take out Alaska, W. Canada and W. USA in 1 shot and hold it.  All without diverting anything but 1 Transport, 2 Battleships and a bomber from teh front until you make your move.

    Taking Western USA with only transport (albeit 2 offshores) would only happen due to an allied (US) misplay, IMHO….unless of course you have transports that can move 3!


  • @axis_roll:

    @Jennifer:

    I like Japan because America never expects the Japanese Inquisition!  =)

    If you set it up right, you can take out Alaska, W. Canada and W. USA in 1 shot and hold it.  All without diverting anything but 1 Transport, 2 Battleships and a bomber from teh front until you make your move.

    Taking Western USA with only transport (albeit 2 offshores) would only happen due to an allied (US) misplay, IMHO….unless of course you have transports that can move 3!

    ONLY due to an Allied misplay?

    You CAN leave the Western US open, and it CAN be a perfectly valid move.

    HOLDING Western US is probably - I do not say definitely - a result of an Allied misplay.  But allowing Western US to fall is perfectly acceptable in certain situations.


  • yeah, I meant to say losing western permenantly…


  • @axis_roll:

    yeah, I meant to say losing western permenantly…

    Oh, I can think of times that you’d want to lose Western US permanently.

    “If you lose Western US and let me keep it, I’ll take off and keep off my bra.”

    yay!

  • 2007 AAR League

    @newpaintbrush:

    @axis_roll:

    yeah, I meant to say losing western permenantly…

    Oh, I can think of times that you’d want to lose Western US permanently.

    “If you lose Western US and let me keep it, I’ll take off and keep off my bra.”

    yay!

    Owl, if you really want to see my man-boobs I’ll just link a photo for you:
    http://www.media-post.net/mob2.jpg


  • @Baghdaddy:

    @newpaintbrush:

    @axis_roll:

    yeah, I meant to say losing western permenantly…

    Oh, I can think of times that you’d want to lose Western US permanently.

    “If you lose Western US and let me keep it, I’ll take off and keep off my bra.”

    yay!

    Owl, if you really want to see my man-boobs I’ll just link a photo for you:
    http://www.media-post.net/mob2.jpg

    Hawt.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    You just have to time it right, not necessarily bad play, just a mistake.  If W. USA is lightly defended, Alaska/W. Can/C. USA almost undefended and America doesn’t have any Armor in N. America (a situation I’ve seen a majority of the time) you could easily take it.

    But even if America retakes, you’ve diverted assets, you’ve taken 13 IPC for 1 round, at least 2 the next round since America can’t possibly take W. Can, W. USA and Alaska all in the same round without naval assistance, and you’ve lost roughly 9 IPC in units, tops.

    15 IPC for 9.  Your transports arn’t out of comission, cause they just move back to SZ 60 after the assault to shuttle troops.  You got 1 transport out of position, but hopefully that’s not one you need.  (You only NEED 4 transports.  more is desireable, but you only NEED 4.)

    Besides, the manuever alone is worth the games you don’t get to do it!


  • @Jennifer:

    not necessarily bad play, just a mistake.Â

    By my thinking, a mistake that you can see coming, and can avoid through good play, is definitionally bad play.

    Let us say that Western US has 2 infantry, and that Japan’s air is out of range.  So say Japan commits 2 transports 2 infantry 2 armor to attacking W. US.  US loses 2 infantry worth 6 IPC and Japan gains a 10 IPC territory, say the US kills one Japanese infantry worth 3 IPC.  On the US turn, let us also say that the US has some god-awful number of fighters on Eastern US, so kills the transports, infantry, and tanks in one big smasheroo along with infantry from Central US.  The US risks about 3-4 IPC worth of fighters, and 3-4 IPC worth of infantry, killing 29 IPC worth of units and regaining the territory.

    So sometimes taking W. USA is bad for Japan.  Rarely, because Japan often has air support that changes the numbers above.  But SOMETIMES.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I wouldn’t commit those kinds of numbers though.

    Best you are looking at is 2 infantry, 1 bomber, 2 battleships and MAYBE a fighter or two, though, honestly, my fighters are usually strafing Russians.

    And you’d be surprised how many players, even here, build in E. USA to deploy faster to Europe.


  • I like Japan best in part because I’m an old navy guy and in part because I used to live in Japan.  Besides Japan is the key to an Axis win.


  • My favourite player is myself.

    Every time I play, I root for me.

    ~Josh

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Pnazers are the key to an Axis win, IMHO.  Japan adds pressure, but it’s the German war machine that makes the allies commit the forces necessary to stalling their advance so that Japan can steal the show.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I believe Japan on the back door of Russia is key to the German assualt.  Without that meat grinder chewing up units, Russia can hold off the Germans forever.

    The 6 Russian IPC and 4 US IPC are a major part of the 16 point difference between the starting values of 70 (Axis) and 96 (Allies).

    If you consider the long term game to be all about economics, there are 166 points available.  The Axis needs to get at least half of this to handle a long term war of attrition so they need to increase 13 points from 70 to 83.  10 of those points are between Japan and Moscow.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Call me crazy, but here’s my theory - the axis need BOTH Germany AND Japan to win. Gasp! Without either one doing its job, the Axis is farked.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Frood!!!

    You are such a radical!!!

    Frood the Man!!!

    :-D


  • your right but the same holds true for the allies.  Even more so with them.  If you do not coordanate well, it goes downhill fast for them.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Actually, I am beginning to think the key to the allied victory is ensuring England takes the land to keep England between 30-40 IPC and using America for reinforcements or Japanese distraction.

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 4
  • 12
  • 3
  • 32
  • 1
  • 33
  • 76
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

23

Online

17.0k

Users

39.2k

Topics

1.7m

Posts