Playing Minor Victory - Allies have no chance


  • Hi Frimmel

    I’m on turn 8 at the moment with the UK and I started with an IC in India and it still hasn’t fallen to Japan But Russia is completely overrun by Germany and Germany is going to take India  not Japan

    We use 4 National advantaged
    Fortress Europe for Germany
    Tokyo Express for Japan
    Colonial Garrison for UK  placed in India
    NON Aggression treaty with Russia.

    It played for a very different game
    Japan have no troops on the mainland and the US occupy the Philippines
    Even with Russia completely gone the Axis still only have 6 VC as I still occupy Kwangtung The Philippines and India.

    I’m losing the game but no-one has had more than 7 VC buy the end of the US turn

    Cheers
    Rob


  • I understand that starting with a IC in India is the colonial garrison NA. I am not talking of using NAs. I mean straight out spot the UK the IC in India to start the game. No other NAs or tech. If you just want to play to play any game is playable. If you want to have an even match each side having an even chance to win…


  • The game is not 100% even, even with a bid.

    You have a reasonable chance to win, playing straight up. Even as allies under 8VC.

    However, you cannot KGF.

    Squirecam


  • Here is an alternate thought…

    In 8 VC, you HAVE to go KJF as the Allies.

    Karelia is a no-go.  It is too darn expensive to hold onto being so close to German’s build limit of 16, and only 2 moves for 10 INF.  UK needs a MASSIVE dedication to even think about TRADING Karelia.  And Paris/Berlin/Rome are far from easy Allied targets.

    So you go KJF…
    Surrender Karelia giving the Axis a 7-5 VC edge.  Then IC and defend India.  Russia trades while it can, then holes up in Caucuses and Moscow.  THey need not worry about Japan as they have massive help coming from the UK and USA.
    UK drops the IC, pulls out of Africa, fleet consolidation off India (not long at all, but they try), and try to get 2 INF from Australia to India without the TRN getting spanked.
    USA builds the Sinkiang IC for FIGs, with Russia East Asia INF for defense, and the occasional ARM thrown in to drive Japan back.
    Meanwhile, the US is also doing major Naval builds in teh Pacific, and brings their ATLANTIC units to the Pacific (reverse of normal KGF).

    You make the grab for Phillipines by sea, and the grab for Kwang by land.  USA handles Phil, all 3 Allies team up on getting to Kwang.

    With those 2, you are at 7-5 Allies, with Germany being secure in Karelia and threatening Moscow.

    Then, try to flot the UK ships from India to the Red Sea, take Egypt and T-J at the same time, and the US follows up with a quick sail through the canal to land in Rome… both done in the same turn, after Germany’s move, so that the Axis is basically powerless to stop it.

    8 VC Allies.


  • Interesting thought, although if you move all USA ships to pacific, what is there to threaten a german med fleet coming through the canal at India.

    But it does point out that KJF/8VC is viable, just you have to think/play differently.

    Squirecam


  • In the short term that works.

    But the Allies cannot reinforce India, not without Russia stripping itself bare in the effort.  And doing so only means that Moscow will be one ot he 8 VC’s under Axis control instead of Calcutta.

    8 VC simply is an Axis game, if played by two skilled players.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I’d like to hear an answer on the thought of moving the VC from Karelia to Caucasus.  That alone might make an 8 VC more of a balanced game.  Either that or go 9 and make Stalingrad in Caucasus a new VC so you don’t HAVE to take Moscow to win a minor victory.  (After all, once Moscow falls the game’s over most of the time anyway, that’s why it’s public enemy number one for the Axis.)


  • @Jennifer:

    I’d like to hear an answer on the thought of moving the VC from Karelia to Caucasus.  That alone might make an 8 VC more of a balanced game.  Either that or go 9 and make Stalingrad in Caucasus a new VC so you don’t HAVE to take Moscow to win a minor victory.  (After all, once Moscow falls the game’s over most of the time anyway, that’s why it’s public enemy number one for the Axis.)

    If you added a VC to the Allies in Caucuses, you would need to add one for the Axis as well to maintian balance.  If you put ANOTHER VC in Europe, you only serve to further polarize the game into European battles.  But where else can you put a viable Axis VC?  Manch? FIC?

    If you are going to play 8 VC, and do not want to have the game totally slanted to the Axis, move the UK VC from Calcutta to Sydney.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Why do you have to give the Axis another VC to even out the number?

    And if I had to, I’d put it on Okinawa.  Encourages island hopping.


  • Each side has an equal number of VC’s.  If you add an Allied one, you add an Axis one, otherwise the extra VC is an Allied advantage.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 3
  • 6
  • 6
  • 29
  • 27
  • 27
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

20

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts