What third guide, you only list two…
Will release third guide when it’s finished.
Third guide is a basics strategy guide, breaks down strategy by nation, work in progress
Nice video. Had the piece and type counts for each nation, a United States of America dime to show scale on pieces on the piece closeups, edited so the presentation’s pretty sharp, doesn’t waste any viewer time.
The rulebook looks nice but is terribly organized. (The .pdf I’m looking at anyways).
Four Russian battleships is probably way more than anyone ever needs, and two German and two UK carriers could be on the light side in some games. Same can be said for a lot of other pieces, too much or too little. Time was when I’d buy two sets of any Axis and Allies release to make sure I had enough pieces. Usually ran short on Japanese infantry; I think this version requires 15 of 20 for initial setup, then once you start pushing Asia and/or splitting to Africa, Australia, Alaska, well. I suppose I’d feel weird if I didn’t run short on Japanese infantry in an Axis and Allies game though, so eh.
These days I guess historicalboardgaming.com has official pieces so I don’t even have to buy two board game sets. Also has paper money which is nice. Haven’t ordered from them personally though.
Other useful things - separate chips (often the board game runs short), different colored dice (so you can roll attacking carriers, subs, destroyers, fighters, and bombers all at the same time, say), and cheap fishing tackle boxes - wee cheap ones with removable inserts (so you can fit the larger miniatures).
I expect probably you know all that and didn’t want the video to be overcomplicated. Still thought I’d mention 'em just in case.
These screenshots show the US7 combat move and US2 purchase phases, respectively.
If you want to make a point of players having crazy luck, you should make a screenshot of the COMBAT PHASE showing what attacked, what was destroyed, and what survived, for that attack specifically.
BTW Black Elk wrote about Allied air power to “the center” and mass Allied strat bombing years ago on the 1942 Second Edition forums.
Sounds like people just used an Allied variant of the “Dark Skies” strategy that Germany likes to use in G40 lol. Once Air Stacks hit critical mass they get pretty nasty but you should be able to use keep tight stacks of land units to deter it.
I’ve read other of DoManMacgee’s posts and consider them good; I think he wrote another good one here. If you want more comments, searching for “Dark Skies” may be useful, and tight stacks of land are what you use.
I lost count on the number of times he sent 3 Bombers and a fighter or two at a stack of 3 infantry and didnt lose a thing. He had absolutely no fear of sending in naked fleets of air at ground units and it paid off for him the entire game.
Nah, tight stacks or whatever you call it isn’t 3 infantry against 3 bombers and a fighter. Against such a force, eight infantry would be about right.
If you want to ask “how is that even possible” - some depends on dice results, sure, but there IS an Axis strategy that pushes these large stacks. Ask if you want more details.
Returning to 3 bombers and a fighter attacking 3 infantry - look at the numbers.
23.52% 3 bombers 1 fighter
40.75% 3 bombers
25.7% 2 bombers
7.55% 1 bomber
0.9% no survivors
1.24% 1 infantry
0.29% 2 infantry
0.04% 3 infantry
As you can see, it’s expected the mass air attack survives. The median is one fighter lost, but 23.52% of no losses is hardly outside the range of reasonable possibility.
Having it happen multiple times in a game - suppose you’re digging for the 35.73% of 2 bombers or worse for the attacker resulting. You figure your opponent’s number has got to come up eventually, but you’re balancing that against 23.52% for best-case for the attacker, or 64.27% for best or second-best case for the attacker.
Considering 64.27% as “success” for the attacker over five trials, the probability of all five trials succeeding is just under 11%. Unlikely, sure - but not necessarily stupid.
Basic Axis and Allies is infantry chains. What the most effective transport routes are, how to maintain effective lines of reinforcement, and so forth. When you play Axis and Allies at that basic level, if you have one player that understands infantry chains and another that doesn’t, the player that understands infantry chains wins.
If you’re doing basic attacks, an infantry costs 3 IPCs, defending has 1/3 chance of destroying an air unit, cheapest air (fighter) costs 10 IPC, so expected 3.33 IPC (more than the value of the infantry) on defense. It’s just expected that you go plus.
But intermediate Axis and Allies involves thinking about multiple dice, threat multiplication, timings, and other things. As seen with that link to aacalc, often you can get surprisingly cost-effective results.
Think about it like this. With infantry chains with UK/US, say you build destroyers in case of enemy sub builds and for defense fodder, carriers, fighters, and transports. Only with that infrastructure can you move in infantry. By the time you move in that infantry, your opponent’s already been doing whatever they’ve been up to, so you have to play catchup. And maybe you won’t win that way.
With mass air, you don’t need anything but the air themselves. Escorts and transports are slow and hard to protect, but air is very fast. Your opponent may not have been able to harden targets early on, then any gains you make from added speed are often leveraged into additional income for you and less for your opponent. And you can reposition between different theaters at speed too. (Off topic, but bears mentioning German mass air against KGF can threaten both sea and land targets, it’s a big part of that strategy).
So think again about 3 bombers 1 fighter against 3 infantry. The median result is fighter lost, 3 infantry lost. Air loses net on the IPC exchange, but just by a bit. The timing against a strong Axis anti-transport-based KGF is US3 to Finland/Norway. But US3 air hits at about the same time, at higher strength, and is not limited to those targets. They can hit closer to the action, against targets in the interior of Europe, emptying enemy territories may let Russia take control of those territories for income - and Russian income is best of all Allied income. If US wants to reposition its units to hit Axis targets in Africa, transports just can’t get the job done well at all, only being able to reach French West Africa then slowly trundle through Africa. Air can hit points in Africa while still threatening targets in Europe, then return and hit Europe the next turn while still threatening points in Africa.
So - was your opponent really engaging in stupid behavior? Perhaps not. Lucky, sure, and willing to press his/her luck, sure. But mass air of itself isn’t necessarily an indicator of poor play.
Look at the post by Julius in 1942 online. Season 3 patch notes. The tenor of the response by the Devs seems to say they felt like they had issued a fix.
If you mean the “Season 3 Launch: Patch Notes + Development Letter” at the first link in the first post of
They never did say they issued a fix.
In “DICE & AXIS & ALLIES” they said they heard and understood players saying the randomness of the dice didn’t feel right. They said they were working on a stabilized dice option. They did NOT say the dice were “fixed”.
In “A DEEPER DIVE ON DICE” they . . . uff. Well, they never did say they issued a fix there either.
Devs said they were reverting to a model they had used previously…
Yes, so if you didn’t like it before, it will be the same since there are no changes yet to ranked play dice. The nature of the headline of your post implies you thought things might be different for some reason.
It is reasonable to think things might be different.
Follow the first link in the first post. You’ll see they reference that they claimed to have changed PRNGs on previous months. If someone says they didn’t see a difference in dice, that’s just an observation. Brian Cannon didn’t mention anything about stabilized dice in the OP; it was you that brought that up. Perhaps the poster’s concerns are different to what you think they are.
@Krieghund Thanks. I’ll cite the “Defenseless Transports” on page 17 (for me), when making the case to the 1942 Online developers. Appreciate your taking the time to input, and especially the specific reference - most helpful.
I’m just as pleased that the AAA can shoot down the fighter before the fighter can get any automatic destruction effect. Simultaneous shoot-downs is weird.
Also thanks @Witt of course.
I’m looking at a .pdf of “Axis and Allies Rulebook 1942 Second Edition”. The unit rules start on 24. I looked on page 24 but didn’t see anything relevant to AAA there. I found some rules on page 25. Could be we’re looking at different versions. Anyways I reproduced the quotes below.
"If a territory containing AAA units and no combat units is attacked,
the AAA units are automatically destroyed.
For each “1” rolled, the attacker chooses one air unit as a casualty. These casualties are removed immediately, and will not participate in the remainder of the battle. This AAA attack is made immediately before normal combat occurs in the territory containing the AAA unit. "
Intuitively, I would agree with what you and Witt wrote. It’s how I thought it worked until a few days ago. But thanks to a post on Steam, I ended up looking up the literal rule and I was surprised. Please review the premises and reasoning below.
I consider “is attacked” and “attacks” the same action. Instead of “is attacked” I could write “when a unit attacks the AAA”. Instead of “can fire only at an air unit when that unit attacks”, I could write “when a territory an AAA is in is attacked”. (If you disagree please let me know).
If that IS correct - I don’t see any wording resolving the timing of the two effects. Nor do I see any blanket rule for automatic destruction that states it happens before or after.
If the trigger is “attacks”, I’m okay with that happening before the first round of combat. The rule defines it that way, so why not. But I’m saying the automatic destruction also properly happens before the first round of combat.
Automatic destruction isn’t normal combat. It’s a separate effect.
I think I read said something about automatic destruction effects being implemented to save on needless rolling - maybe on the Larry Harris forum. I don’t have the reference handy. But even if that’s the INTENT of the rule - it’s intuitive, it makes sense - it’s not what the literal rules say.
OR is there some official text somewhere (rulebook or errata) that Iiterally states that automatic destruction effects are supposed to only save on needless dice rolling? If there is, would you happen to have a reference?
I went up and down the 2nd edition rulebook and the errata, found nothing official.
The question is - what’s the OFFICIAL ruling? If it’s a matter of INTENT - that’s another matter.
@aardvarkpepper the AAA fires first . If it hits , it survives. If it fails to roll a 1, then Combat begins and the Ft kills it automatically, as the AAA has no defence roll.
That’s what I thought up until about a week ago when a question came up in another forum and I looked it up. A literal reading of the rules is the AAA and fighter CAN destroy each other because of the “automatically destroyed” special rule.
What I’m asking is if anyone knows of a specific official rules reference that I missed.
This is a 1942 2nd edition question - but the RESOLUTION affects 1942 Online, which is why I want the literal and correct rule. Julius Borosov recently wrote that the AAA gets destroyed and never even fires on the fighter.
Well, even if we do get a pretty strong consensus on how the 1942.2 board game works, the developers of 1942 Online may still well not change anything, but I still want to know for my own reference for when I play on TripleA or IRL or whatever.