So, you think you are good at figuring out who is ahead in a game?

@colonel_sanders You also might enjoy looking over the past 2 “tutor” games, where players discuss rationale behind each move.

But by far the best way to learn is just play. Just post a message on the forums, and you’ll quickly find opponents.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35254/tutor-game-andrewaagamer-x-vs-trulpen-and-everyone-else-a-50-oob

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37451/abh-and-crockett36-a-69-tutor-game

@aequitas-et-veritas said in New to G40...will not playing w/NOs break the game?:

@taamvan said in New to G40...will not playing w/NOs break the game?:

we are omitting that shutting off US NOs means they are at minimum income all game. A different game for sure…but probably not an Allied advantage

I agree on that.
The US needs any IPC they can get!
I played a few games with minimum income for the Allies. You will unlikely win. The Allies depend on the NO’s, so does the Axis powers.
You may experiment with diffrent NO’s or change them, but shutting them off is not a good idea Imo.

We play with NOs off except USA +30 when at war. It works great for us. Give it a try.

Thanks for the feedback guys!  Very thought out reply TheMethuselah, that helps, thanks.  I was thinking that 8 Mechanized Infantry might be enough and that some might only use two, so I was surprised to see that 12 can be used by many of the major powers.  Are you sure that there could be 12 different Mechanized Infantry on 12 different territories?  I could see that if Russia was attacking Japanese forces in Asia by land or vice versa.  I was also surprised to see 6 additional fighters for Italy, which would make 8 total.  I had thought that 4 might do it, so I really appreciate your input.  If anyone has a different experience, I’d love to hear from a variety of people, since I never know who I might be playing with and what units might be realistically used with the various strategies out there.

I imagine my mental estimate for fighters and bombers of other countries is off as well.  Do you have an aircraft estimate for some (or all) of the other countries?

Right now I just have some sub par quality photos of the Europe pieces, but maybe I can post those some time; the IJN probably is my best work, but I don’t have any good photos right now.  If I have free time I should be painting rather than setting up a photo shoot.  I’ll plan to post a link here if I end up posting them.  Thanks for the interest.

@Gargantua:

@Paksos:

Never played 2nd ed. What’s the difference in the Mongolia rule?

I’m up for 2nd ed though if you are game, Gargantua……

Let’s Rock.

I need to “practice” my axis strategies.

So do I  :-D

I dont know if this is off on another subject but I wanted to post the results from this weekend……    the Axis have another victory!  Barbarossa on G3. They had better rolls at most of the key battles  A couple of different rolls at a few of the key battles and It would have been diff.    Especially in sea zone 6 for me, Oh well what can ya do. Next time It will be different

Well you admit to Bad Play on the part of U.K. so the case is closed.  Regardless of what had to go right for the Germans.

And no, resources don’t HAVE to be built to deal with the Japanese Navy, but the reality is 100% of the USA’s income is going into the atlantic, thereby relieving NO pressure on Germany.

A Jap navy with transports off the east coast of the U.S. or threatening australia however, would divert that 100%.  Sending a useless navy to South America was a poor decision in this game. Hinsight or not.

Just jumping in, since the water seems warm enough.

Are people trying to win as the axis militarily(meaning conventional forces/economy shifting) or by victory cities?

Just curious, cause if you don’t have to worry about future turns(by ending the game early through cities), you may be able to afford to give up certain ground and take unusual risks or losses to secure the cities in question and then see if the allies are in position to liberate one in time.

I’ve drafted and posted early ideas on unconventional strategies. One designed for Europe with a goal of 5 cities in 5 turns seemed plausible. My first live try failed, based on one particular allied response and a close battle being not close after dice were rolled. Am I giving up? Nope. I’m refining the strategy. (In this example, it is clear I must take Normandy if I permit France to produce units, as 3 carriers for the allies proved to be “a bridge to far” for the German air and naval forces.)

I think attacking a strict neutral may become a late game move in which the other tt on the board are worthless to the outcome of a game that may end in 3-4 turns.