Posts made by Black_Elk

Sounds pretty cool! I’d watch the video haha. I have a lot of old pewters from the 80s, but mine are all high fantasy, dragons and the like. My uncle had some kick ass Napoleonic era pewters, and a great set of plastic army men from the early 60s that I always pined over.

My first serious attempt at the map concept was for the computer in tripleA, a few decades ago, so pretty limited by what the thing could do at the time. It worked for a bit, but was kinda wonky and used some gimmicky ideas for the naval movement and convoys, as a way to delay the USA. It had a kind of one direction flow from the Americas to support the Entente, but the game was basically decided by what happened in Europe with the CP. I was never very satisfied, but it was a fun project cause I like the era. You can see the map down at the bottom here…

https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Great_War

Then I tried to revisit the era again, but ended up not using the WW1 map abstraction concept, opting for something that just had the whole world on view and a more free form 1898-1918 vibe, so the factions could be less rigid. Basically I wanted it to include the Spanish American war, and Africa scrambles, or Boxer rebellion-y stuff with a kind of slow build into WW1. I split the Entente into Anglo-American and Franco-Russian sides, to see if I could find a way of dividing up the world and then tacked some others minors onto each team just to see how it would work. I think I had America-Britain-Portugal-Japan on one team, France-Spain-Italy-Russia on another. Germany-Austria-Ottomans-the Dutch and China on the last. Just so the spread would be evenly distributed with some fronts in each theater to tease out. I determined it as too simplistic and anachronistic though. It was basically the dilemma of the 3 faction game and being modelled more on the playscale of Risk than A&A that proved kind of intractable. The factions weren’t entirely satisfying, though I thought it kind of fun for make believe, and colonial competition. I just called it “Domination” lol. That one had a very limited unit roster, and simplified economy, but a much larger scale of territory divisions. I think it still would have worked on a 6 ft table, but only because of the limited units. Really it was just an excuse to draw a world map projection with a warp that I liked a little better than the traditional A&A map.

https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Domination

I wanted something a bit closer to Mercator, but which would still give a much larger Europe. The squish-blob challenge I found was in how to manage South Asia and Africa, where the map compression becomes more extreme due to what has to happen with Europe/Med in A&A style games, so there was some abstraction, but a bit different than the earlier idea. I abandoned that one too, but Hepster picked it up again and revised it considerably for a 1914 era game using the same base projection but focused more on politics and a much more highly evolved roster/ruleset for this one…

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1063/power-of-politics-1914-a-wwi-scenario

I’m not sure if that one would work as a physical game though without a very large map. Perhaps 2x6 ft tables to make a large square with a more extreme warp in the map projection? But basically its better on a computer I’d imagine since you can map zoom and scale to micro with the imaginary sculpts. But work on it has gone a bit quiet since last year. Anyhow, it have a few of the abstraction concepts for stuff like convoys or how to handle the Bolshevik revolution (always a toughy), or things like cities through an abstracted scheme, but not so much with the playboxes ideas.

I’m definitely interested in different ways to push the map around though. I enjoyed the Classic playboxes in the first A&A map I picked up, even if they were just sort of cosmetic zooms in that one. I liked the look of it.

I tried to use an idea like that for a WW1 map. Abstracting the Western Front in to a large playbox. Retaining Europe and the Med, but abstracting everywhere else like the Americas, Africa and the Pacific into boxes. The idea I tried to play with was like a maze of Sea Zones connecting the regions.

I thought Empire Total War also did an interesting take, by combining 3 theater maps connected with abstracted Trade routes for other regions.

Something like that might work for WW2, basically compressing the main fronts in Europe/North Africa and in the Pacific. I guess basically you’d want Axis at their greatest extent in the zoom, and some of the rest abstracted. It was easier for me to get my head around the idea for WW1 since the fronts were more limited and major expeditionary forces bouncing around the globe doing amphib stuff didn’t really fit the period. Although in WW2, I think the attractive idea is that global domination and painting the whole map is a little more conceivable in that era. Still, might work, just need a compelling abstraction scheme.

Anyhow, yeah, it is intriguing to me for sure. I’d be curious to see where you take the idea

I fired it up in A&AO a few times to see if anything was patched up recently, but I haven’t really been able to finish any ranked games in months. These days I feel like I can blink and loose a day pretty easily. Now that I’m all habituated to endless lockdown, getting anything done within 24 hrs is a stretch and I’m not particularly reliable lol. Usually what happens is I’ll stick it out for the first 4 or 5 hours if I catch a live one, then someone dips… I sleep all day, and come back to the auto forfeit. Alas

I think the big gripe with this one is that it just doesn’t really feel like the game is set in 1942. To much stuff in the first round script doesn’t look like 1942 at all. Its one thing when a big exchange happens a few rounds out and you can suspend disbelief, its another when it happens on the very first turn.

Some things that definitely didn’t happen in 1942, but which the game scripts into the first round would include stuff like German U-boats sinking the Royal Navy at Scapa Flow, or blowing up the US Atlantic fleet on G1. Britain sinking the entire Regia Marina in the med, or the Japanese fleet in the East Indies on UK1. Japan running a second attack at Pearl Harbor on J1, or just flattening China entirely. Even the Ukraine opener on Russia’s first turn doesn’t really make sense for the timeline. So yeah, the critical path is usually pretty muddy and seems to be winding away from historical expectations straight into the woods lol.

I do hope we get a proper 3rd edition or a new standard A&A board at some point. This map isn’t the worst, but the set up is pretty lackluster and one dimensional. I really think they need to provide some way for players to influence the composition or distribution of at least some of their starting forces. Like similar to a tournament bid, but more gameful in the implementation, just so there would be some more variety in the first round, or so the playpattern wouldn’t have to be so predictable a few months out. Clearly that would need to be written down in the manual somewhere, not just hacked off the cuff post release hehe.

Anyhow, hope you guys are well, and maintaining through the plague.
Io Saturnalia!!!

Best
Elk

I brought this up a while back, mostly because I find laundry lists of text describing the “moves” written out in words pretty useless when playing at a steady clip (which is probably saying something for me, cause I’m notoriously long winded with my A&A rambling and lists of lists on the forums lol), but I think what most would want is a visual representation of the moved units on the game map that is as easy as possible to parse at a glance. Diamonds and Arrows are only marginally better than lists at the final prompt in my view, since they hide a lot of the relevant information behind another click to view type graphical element. Last time I checked the diamond was updated to a black circle with crossbar riffles, its got a little circular colored meter now showing which units are involved, yellow for ground, red for aircraft ect, which is a bit of an improvement aesthetically over the diamond though functionally its much the same. The arrows have definitely been improved over the past few months, because now the ‘moving’ units don’t shift position within their starting territory to a spot along the border anymore, which was kinda confusing sometimes before, but still, a lot arrows going on.

The optimal method for usability I’d think would be like an inter-phase step, where the units actually move into the relevant territories/sea zones and are displayed clearly on the map in their ending locations rather than with arrows from their starting location (like where the moved unit appears as a ghost or semi-transparent version of itself or whatever ‘while its moving’ in the actual spot where its meant to end up, similar to the way other map games work.) But I’m pretty sure Cody described in discord that something of that sort with a preview was basically impossible given the way the game was designed. In my layman’s way of understanding it there’s no real intermediate game state to save/preview, until the phase is actually completed and then the stuff actually happens, after which point there’s no going back. Which I think is also why there’s no time machine or simple way to access or export a gamesave or to view a previous turn/phase in a game history? I don’t know how it works exactly if it overwrites as it goes maybe, or something like that to ease the load? I do wish there was a way to save games though. Even for something sort of ephemeral like a really killer A&A match, sometimes its cool to have something other than a screen capture that you can look back on later to study, or just show off haha.

I’m not a big fan of the vestigial movement arrows myself, since I think they clutter up the map view and wouldn’t really be necessary if the units just moved into the relevant space with a “to/from” for each unit involved listed in a sidebar when you cursor over the spot haha.

I try not to bring up comparisons too much anymore since I don’t think its particularly productive, but I kinda just wish the map display for movement looked more like TripleA. Like I guess its one of those 'why reinvent the wheel, when you could just take a sleigh, or cross country ski there instead?" heheh. I mean I don’t know, maybe that’s a little harsh, but yeah. I feel ya dude. It’s a bit rough, mild panic sets in immediately after clicking the “End Phase” button.

I know its an online game with “Online” in the name, but I still think not having really any focus on the single player experience is a bit of a missed opportunity. Its the lowest barrier to entry, low-pressure first introduction, that A&A really needs from a product like this. like at least as much as it needs solid online matchmaking. I know I probably played a hundred solitaires or games against goofy computer opponents with the old Hasbro CD before I ever put up an even remotely decent game in a head-to-head match.

Axis and Allies is a kinda wonky game to learn how to play, and one that would be well served by a robust computer tutorial. Even a middling computer opponent would be great to have for learning the basic mechanics of A&A, to say nothing of learning the UI. I think this one is serviceable for people who already know what they’re doing, and just want an official way to play, but I worry its not the most spectacular thing ever if what you’re using it for is just getting your head around the nuts and bolts. Or if the way you’re trying to learn how to play A&A is by running through the tutorial and then playing against the computer, before into a pvp match lol. The Hasbro CD attempt even with the limits of mid 90s gameplay still managed to find ways to engage the Single Player, with like AI generals, splashy stats/graphs/newsflashes stuff of that sort, and a lot of game mode options to mess about with.

This one really does need an editor though or at least a time machine.
Would be cool if there were more built-in communication features too and a way to share histories and gamesaves and such.

I wish I had more time to play lately. I missed the second season entirely. Might check it out again in the third. Things tend to open up for me in the Fall for A&A time sinks heheh. Hope all’s been well!

Yeah I think the ‘ignore’ advice what they’re really saying is more ‘don’t buy ships in the other theater with USA.’ So USA/Britain aren’t ignoring Japan they’re just managing Japan from the center instead of head on from East/South Pacific. And Usually if you withdraw Atlantic fleet, then you still have to purchase position to cover the West Coast and VC snipes.

I’d prob end up trying to use Britain to threaten an early Japanese press into Kazakh, since they have more to work with than Russia usually. But just having enough Brit fighters there to get the job done sometimes depends on how first round cracked off so that’s rough too. Germany can come hard all by itself, basically they just mass artillery/inf stack pushing. So you have to start trading as quickly as possible into Europe with UK/USA to draw off German hitpoints, or else Russia just topples eventually (usually you want it holding till about round 8-9, but that means drawing Germany back in sufficient numbers that they stall out a bit after W. Russia/Caucasus push intstead of careening straight into the Soviet capital in the 8th round). Germany has so many starting aircraft and tanks that you basically have to force them into half a dozen combats every round just to make a dent in their forward progress to Moscow. And probably have to bomb at some point too, if you really want an edge over even then, which is the most nerveracking. Ideally bombers you’d just want for combat, but sometimes you just can’t even get close to challenging German income without a max-damage into the dirt sort of round, which is a pretty dicey proposition. Allies also have the challenge of landing enough inf units with UK/USA that Germany has to actually funnel hitpoints west each turn to die in trading, instead of heading east for the stackfest. So its more than just the bare minimum inf and bombardments+mass air, usually gotta send more dudes just to die, just to spread G thin enough that they’re actually risking something for the reconquest every round in the trade. Hoping for lucky dud on their part or maybe holding a tile on d every once in a blue moon.

I usually go Africa coverage first then swing north. Depends on sz11. Most people I saw in Plat were going all-in on sz7 attack as Germany, with all the subs on G1 just to make sure, only a couple balsy exceptions out of like 50 some odd games that I saw. So the USA is a little better off with those transports and dd in tact but still hard to get it going fast enough even then.

I like carrier and transports+ art focus first two rounds to get the chain going, then bomber focus. Most of my wins as Allies in KGF have come from the bomber stack like 6 or more deep. Its important to at least threaten airblitz amphib of Berlin in case they mess up their no com fighter landings or placement phase and leave open an early snipe attack vs Berlin, which can sometimes happen.

Its usually easier to prop up Russia by trading north via sz5 or sz3 over the Med trade game I find, but I’ve seen the Med work in some prolonged type games, or where something went wild in early Africa battles. But basically only way to keep Russia up, is the fighter wall to the center and then trading as many spots as possible along German coast so they have to pull back to cover coastal trading instead of just hammering Soviets with everything.

I think it takes 100% USA focus in Pacific if you want to do anything to break IJN early. Otherwise its about meeting the IJN somewhere else in the engame. Usually at the canal/Med, or Indian ocean reverse press where your fighter wall at the center can help prevent the Japanese fleet from just parking into Africa sz34. If you see Japan going against USA in KGF, better to build ground chain up through Canada like the old games, write off Honolulu, and play to make the trade Alaska or whatever that way if Japan goes all balistic with transports north, when they should really be pushing em into Yunnan shuck. Then hope to make em pay for the distraction on the other side of the board with the repeating launch sz10 to sz3 Finland.

ps. another thing not always obvious is how sometimes just funneling hitpoints with USA into British held territory and holding puts pressure on Germany. They don’t always need to advance into territory unless you can start splitting G hard in each fight. Other times it can be helpful just to juice a territory like Northwestern or France after Britain has taken, just to force larger numbers into the next trade. Trying to have even larger numbers via transports for the following clap back to up the stakes. But always optimal is liberating Karelia while the center is still holding, so I like Finland push after Africa coverage for the set up. To at least try for putting heat on Karelia and securing Norway, but there’s always that tension between trying to prop up Russian in the north repeating launch, or just start slamming into G from the West head on? KGF is hard because G is so beefy and has such strong defensive position to stack Berlin. Just trying to save Russia from G is tough enough, but then turn around and save them from J while crack’n Berlin at the same time? pretty tough even with Gencon boost. Bombers in the back pocket helps

ps. this is an aside, but the main issue we have right now for playing the official A&A game digitally, is that its not 1:1 with the rules on the physical board. So the solutions for playbalance are going to be different (and unfortunately don’t port well from the one to the other). Kind of my main idea for what a digital game should be, or how it might be used, is as a way to formalize and popularize solutions that can also work on the physical board, and which are frankly needed for playbalance there.

In a face to face game, usually the opponent has already been chosen and the bid is used as a way to choose sides based on player confidence/skill assessment. The bid is basically a handicap there.

In the online game the opponent is chosen at random. So I might imagine a way where the bid amount requested brings up a pool of players willing to play Axis vs your Allies at that amount. But it still requires some kind of preliminary game phase or launch option.

I wish the digital game and the physical one were treated the same way, a hybrid release, same promotion and coordinated like that. It is possible to play tripleA or face to face using the A&AO rules in a live game, if you player enforced things like friendly fighter landings or forced casualty selection etc but I don’t know that it’d be any more popular than using OOB rules or Gencon rules and a tournament bid. But it’d be nice if both had the same conventions for play I think.

For tournament live play conditions, sudden death you could add a timer of some sort. But yeah, the cool thing about that would be that when a new release dropped you’d have a way to stitch the two communities together more.

I guess right now short answer to keeping Russia afloat is either bid or solid luck in their opener, depending which version you’re playing. OOB they’d need a bid for sure. Gencon I think a bid might help for choosing sides, but balance their seems more delicate and people seem to have fun with allies even with no bid, so I don’t know if it’d even need to go to double digits to get what we want out of it. I’d for sure play Allies in Gencon with +9 it’d be way more fun than 0 hehe. So least you got a fairly narrow range on bid, closer to what it was in Revised.

But for Russia doesn’t seem like a lot of great things you can do if dice go poorly and no bid to stabilize opener. I mean best strategic choice on offer is probably where to land the second fighter, and what to do with the Kazakh dude. Bringing him back to Caucasus is about the most you can do to juice the eastern front. Everything else comes down to the opening rolls. Only buys I’ve seen really doing much good are 3 art 4 inf (standard), or 4 inf 2 tanks (Karelia aggressive). I still like 3 art 2 inf 1 tank (ultra agro) since it’s money if you sweep both attacks for the follow up, but then probably I just get hosed in W. Russia or Ukraine battle and regret it lol. I think most attack Ukraine all-in to kill bomber, and just take it in the teeth if that fails.

Yeah there are definitely ways to pull it off. In the plat tier for Allies during the first ranked pre-season I saw a lot of peeps doing some clutch KJF play. I think KGF is more reliable when you’re not sure about the opponent, but at either end of the experience curve KJF opens up.

My interest in A&A always comes in these sort of manic waves, where I’ll be all intensely engaged with it for a few months, and then dead to the universe for a few months, then back in it again hehe. Weirdly this past couple months I’ve had less free time during the plague than I did before it cracked off, so not sure about the latest and greatest A&AO, but its cool to see how just when I think I got it pegged in the opener, someone will come up with some new surprise to explore.

I think A&AO by kind of straight-jacketing the set up with no bid, has probably resulted in the most sustained playtest of a given ‘official’ A&A board to date. Even though the rules in A&AO are slightly different owing to friendly landing rules and defense profiles, their approach to the no bid Gencon variant there is probably more consistent for a control than the actual live tournaments where a bid is included and the time limit or live play pressures factor into how people play it, a bid of anything changes a lot.

Now that everyone is all used to the no bid pressure cooker and being deprived of any bid, it might be fun if the idea of the bid was re-introduced in a really deliberate, slow and methodical way. I think the following for example would be pretty fun for an Allied advantage to try…

Bid Season: A bid to starting income of only 1-2 ipc. Which obv isn’t enough to pre-place an inf hitpoint, so everyone would then have to think about it like “OK, what could I do to tip things with 25-26 ipcs as Russia? 32-33 ipcs as UK? or 43-44 as USA?” Like maybe there is an interesting split there, and its fun because it puts the emphasis on first round purchases rather than battles. Let everyone play it for a few months as the new thing.

Then bring the bid up to 3 ipcs. After everyone has had fun exploring the purchase potential of 1-2 ipcs, now its about using it all in one spot for the extra inf hitpoint (e.g. Ukraine attack for most players I’d guess). The choice would be between playing Allies with the hitpoint boost, or as Axis vs the 1-2 income boost. See how the balance fairs for a month or two like that.

Then introduce the 5 ipc bid for Allies. This bid is really interesting because it combines aspects of the two earlier forms, mainly because 5 is such an awkward number for pre-placement bidding. E.g. Nobody is going to spend it all on an AAgun, so they’re either buying 1 inf (for Ukraine attack) with a 2 ipc remainder left over, or 1 art (for Ukraine attack) and 1 ipc remainder left over. And since everyone had a chance to explore the 1-2 ipc purchasing bid in the very first iteration of a bid season, now they’ll have thoughts about how to best use the remainder income. Whether to just take the inf hitpoint or boost it to art for attack advantage, and then where to use/split the remainder most effectively.

I’d actually stop there before hitting the 6 ipc threshold so it doesn’t hose the naval game right out the gate, and just see if people like the balance on the game at Allies bid 1-5 ipcs. In other words, instead of a broad bid range up front, stage it in, community wide, so that people can have a chance to tease things out before it goes straight into pre-placement bid extra hitpoints dynamic. By stopping just short of 6 ipcs, we keep the focus of the playbalance at a single hitpoint on the ground, and avoid sub breakers to the first round battles.

Having experienced the long deprivation of playing with no bid whatsoever, a bid ranged 1-5 ipcs would suddenly seem pretty awesome and might result in a satisfying play balance for most. But if its not enough, then when you finally introduce the 6 ipc bid, the board resets again. Suddenly everyone focuses on the choice between an extra sub, or 2 hitpoints on the ground. If each season lasted a couple months, by the time you got to a bid 6+ we’d have a lot of information from the games at different tiers to see where the balance actually falls. Maybe 6 is plenty?

That’s wishfull thinking though probably. Challenge for A&AO is coming up with something that works for their matching system. I don’t know that they will ever include familiar bidding as a way to determine sides, because of how their matchmaking process is set up. But maybe they could do it in bid pools? Allies +1 makes up one pool, Allies +2 another and so on. Seems like it would be easier to do it with starting income than preplacement units though, since I don’t know how they’d add a new bidphase to the match, but maybe they could auto add income prior to launch? Probably the easiest thing for them to do is just change the set up, and offer Gencon 2 or whatever. But its too bad, cause bidding is kind of a fun aspect of the game that keeps it from getting stale over time. You could try it in tripleA, but then you don’t have enough games really to tell because the player base isn’t there, and anyway if it was most would just be playing G40 or AA50 or some other game I’d guess over 1942.3 hehe

Which set up are you playing? For A&AO in Gencon or TripleA World War II v5 1942 SE TR, basically USA is spending 100% in Pacific for several rounds to prop up India, clip a money island and sink or push IJN off sz61, while UK/USSR are basically spending 100% to hold the line at W.Russia/Caucasus and the India/Persia/Kazakh wedge.

The most important change in that set up is the extra 2 inf on India, and altered German opener (bomber in Ukraine, naval adjustments in Med and Atlantic.) That set up basically takes G1 Egypt off the table and German press in the east is delayed by a round. Some will invert the canal order (first Trans G1 then Egypt G2) or delay canal with Libya push G1, or ignore for Ukraine or Gibraltar press, but Africa is slower like that.

For OOB bid is in the double digits, going north of 20 ipcs sometimes. So that gives other options to mess with IJN via subs say, or to shut down Med before G fleet can really do anything meaningful with it.

For Gencon in A&AO still no bid is supported, but I’d guess Allies are still good for a hitpoint or two in the bid on balance. Prob most would use vs Ukraine R1, though 6 ipcs or higher opens up some interest for KJF with a Brit sub.

To defeat the Japanese AI in TripleA, the best way to pressure their fleet is from the air. Fighter/Bomber spam works pretty well for that (against human, dd/sub spam is more reliable over the long haul and just stacking hitpoints, but the machine in tripleA gets brain freeze vs air attack power). HardAI will tend to retreat their fleet rather than hold position to defend sz61/62 the way most humans would. Been a while since I played vs the AI for latest updates, but the computer is pretty good at the Tokyo turtle, so I’d just bypass and try to force their fleet off the home island. The AI tends to build production on Manchuria too, so that’s another quick crash if you can nuke the transports or force them out of range. HardAI in tripleA has its own play patterns that you can start to tease apart, but its pretty decent at the basics. An income bonus to the AI can be fun for harder challenge once you’ve got it pegged, or for painting the whole map world conquest type challenge after most human opponents would throw in the towel.

The computer opponent in A&AO is pretty middling, since it doesn’t know how to use aircraft properly and will land fighters in vulnerable positions even from the first round. On that platform its pretty much pvp or bust, since the computer can’t hold its own.

ps. just played a few out using the stable, saw computer Japan going for early bomber focus, with more Moscow raids and such, and a couple fleet sweepers when the bombers stacked to the ceiling after their fleet gives hehe. Feels improved from the last few times I played hard AI. Still I think the best way is to push up on IJN from the south first sz44 then 49 to springboard into the island trade. Aussie fleet doubles back to keep the pressure on for round 4, and sack a transport to start the exchange. Japan sometimes goofs by pressuring north towards Alaska and such and leaving a money island out reach to set up shop. Russia surviving or how for long prob comes down almost entirely to W. Russia/Ukraine result in the first round with no bid in Gencon, but if playing vs a computer I imagine most would just dip after W. Russia slaughter anyway. If Russia gets in W. Russia with 6 inf+ though and handles Ukraine center wedge can get pretty strong before G can crash the party. AI Germany pushes their art stacks pretty east pretty well, but also suffers from undervaluing their starting air. Break downs for their fighter landings can give Allies a leg up.

The Hard AI can be made pretty challenging by giving the computer opponents each a bid of an extra starting bomber edit. AI is pretty good at building off early bomber strength. But it also struggles sometimes on air protection, landing them in vulnerable spots or withdrawing from a spot where a teammates air has landed, that’s usually where it gives I find.

Anyhow have fun on the next one! Glad to see Redrum’s AI still pulling out some strong play

I had always hoped for something more like RiskII for a combat animation layout (just for another 90s cd call back). Like where you were given the option to run the battles in a sidebar, or actually enter the tile and have it expand to combat scale, with little toy soldier type dudes and tanks blasting while the dice roll. Or basically all the same features from a roller that RiskII had on the fly, where you could scale it to fast battle and just see numbers and dice flashes for a sec, or view the combat in a minimized battle board window, or on actual terrain with full animations (more along the lines of what they did visually in the A&A RTS game from 04, but with the animations only going with dice rolls, not like the actual mini game that that one was based off.)

For the map, the main thing I really want is just a full scale pan out. Max zoom-out to see the entire world at a glance and read the numbers. It’d be cool if it ran like a mini version of google maps, where you get the global pan out at various scales, but can go to a street view where it generates a table top layout on actual terrain. In combat a view like that shows the tanks roll around and blast, or fighters strafing across the screen, and when hits are made the tanks explode and planes crash, dudes keel over and disappear. That sort of thing. At sea much the same, just with fleets and open water, or coastal terrain at the zoom in combat if it’s amphib. An iso or birdseye quick view would be cool for that, planes coming in when hits are made, battleships bombarding when the dice drop with craters and clouds. Capitals and VCs might have their own visual flourishes at that scale for terrain zooms with iconic buildings or landmarks, bridges or whathaveyou.

Features for a camera view Z axis to rotate around and position a cam like it was an actual table. A tricked out battlefield game-table, in someones imaginary double wide garage palace, ultimate board hehe. Where the player can set and move pieces that look like plastic army men into position in columns, on a game plane simulating a physical board that looks like a model train-terrain set up. That would be cool. Or something with a cartoon vibe maybe. And just stats screens plastered with info, and with WW2 ephemera all around. Medals posters old photos or clippings, whatever. All the window dressings basically.

I like a tutorial advisor, fully voice acted like they do in Total War, or things like news reels or bulletin period headlines. Splashes randomly during the various phase, turn, round sequence transitions. A passing computer opponent that makes for fun solo games and AI generals that randomize the computer playpatterns in different ways.

Then just AA50 or Global with all that going on. Options to edit the board state at any time to allow for all game possibilities. I think a tutorial mode and a decent computer opponent using an established board like AA50 would help the learning curve because the game almost needs a ride along show, and step up to Global scale which is pretty complicated without a primer. But I think 3D map, terrain, weather etc for sure. Give a happy medium, or just a gang of options to have basic abstract national-color with plastic looking army men and cardboard vibe, or painted tin soldiers decal’d out on train model scale with the tiny waving flags miniature vibe and all that. I think those are the two looks most people like.

If max zoom’d out to view the whole map, more like the former, if entering the close up combat view, more like the latter. It would look slick. In my head, anyway. Just pining lol

Interestingly I think that’s like the default move that the computer opponent does if assigned to play Allies. Not that I’d suggest following the machine for much, but who knows might be something to it that most have neglected? I think its just the high cost for the Russians vs what Allies are likely to get out the deal long term. 5 inf for 15 ipcs is pretty pricey for a bait, and parking a Brit fighter to back it up takes that up to 25 likely destroyed. I don’t know could just be me, but if Russia stacks Bury without a Brit fighter I will always try to smoke it on J1. If they do bring the fighter then the profit for the Bury attack starts getting closer to Pearl level trade off (such that J might consider leaving 53 alone to pull it off). Japan can also run a hit on 53 with the sacrificial fighter coming from sz37 instead of Tokyo if they wanted, and still land the Bury fighters on deck in sz60 after.

4 inf 1 tank 2 fighters 1 bombardment vs 5 inf 1 fighter is still like 80% to the attacker with 2 units remaining on ave, 3 if attacker won.

Every now and again that might break unlucky for Japan with a dud or something, but most times they blast through 6 hitpoints like it was nothing, and then the north is open road for the rush to Evenki line. Obv the plan for that to have much pay off would be like full on KJF slam trying to break the Japanese in the first couple rounds. For a fast game high stakes might be fun, cause there’s only so much Japan can do in their opener. If I was Japan I’d prob just bring the bomber into it, and focus north initially instead of Pearl, cause it would really suck to get rolled on the mainland immediately. Or like you mentioned, also possible to ignore the Bury stack and just bolster manchuria on D, delay of game tactics for both sides hehe. But on balance I think its just tough for Allies to have Soviets leading the charge in the East, when they are already struggling so much just to maintain vs G onslaught, and then not having those Siberian dudes to back up the middle path across China or as a life line to bolster the center in the 4th round. This based more on the A&AO situation which is slightly different from the physical board, with no bids and such to help the set up beyond the Gencon tweaks. Then again its just kinda speculation, I haven’t seen enough games where players tried for the Bury stack to really know the ultimate trade off. That’s a strong telegraph for KJF, so as G I would just go for broke in the opener I think, and play for the fast game on the center.

I gave it a pretty good run during the first ranked season, with a fair amount of early access type updates along the way. I’d say the main thing it has going for it is essentially the player base. That’s the draw.

Aesthetically I think the digital platforms all still leave a lot to be desired. I wouldn’t say that A&AO is ugly, or that TripleA is a thing of beauty hehe, or that GTO looked slick or stale, but I mean its pretty clear that the Art wasn’t exactly top priority after initial development of the game map and core assets. On the one hand you have an art department for the official products (or I don’t know exactly if its a team or a couple peeps or what) that is basically limited in terms of resources for that, and also by having a publisher that requires everything artwise to be pre-approved by Wizards or whatever. Its all based on the boxed art more or less. Then on the other hand you have an open source thing with unpaid enthusiast making the stuff, using a platform almost 20 years old, and not able to use any official art for it, so of course that’s going to show as well. It’s too bad, because in my head I can picture all sorts of ways that the visual appeal could be really dialed up. Like with really polished alternative map skins, or same deal with Units or Dice, splashier splash screens and all the rest. In some ways I still think the Old Hasbro CD still takes em both to task, even with late 90s sprites lol. But it is what it is I guess.

That said I’ve enjoyed playing. If nothing else it certainly popularized the Gencon ruleset and helped to give a clearer picture of the real playbalance of the game at different levels of player skill (which unsurprisingly has confirmed a lot of what was said here at A&A.org, just with more data to back it up). Also helped quite a bit with expanding the community of digital players and getting some returning vets who probably haven’t played online in a long time if ever. The main thing that’s always held tripleA back is difficulty of installation and the sort of port forwarding/hosting live play issues you mentioned. So having something on steam that’s sort of ready to go click-click for 20 bucks is nice just for convenience factor, although the asynchronous playstyle is pretty different from playing live like you would on the physical board. But yeah, I feel you for sure. It’s not exactly what my pipe dream fantasy for a digital A&A board would be, (nothing ever is, I have high expectations lol) though I don’t regret spending a few bucks just to keep it going haha

I have seen a couple approaches, one is to essentially ignore America after the opening round and focus on India/Center crush with the plan first to delay then cede/trade the money islands to USA when they eventually arrive. Priority for that one is sz61 funnel with naval/air forces large enough to deter a US sweep, even if you can’t destroy their fleet yourself. Turtle up home island and drive for the center with G more or less.

Another way is to go forward vs USA early to try and deter the pacific game. For that one J1 sub spam, and positioning New Guinea seems to work pretty well if pearl goes to plan. The trade off is no added transport capacity J2, but the Imperial Japanese Navy can then go toe to toe and is pretty hard to sink both starting carriers are free to non com. Japan then has the option to spam a second round of subs or transport capacity on J2 depending on how the USA responds. For Axis preserving the Japanese fleet in KJF basically sets the playlength of the game. Once its destroyed or outclassed USA does the creeper money island push, and its down to just stacking Tokyo, so the logic is that you just try to outclass USA so they can’t move on the islands for as long as possible. Or go for an all out trade fleet for fleet if one presents itself.

Third way I’ve seen is the run and gun on India, which would be like trying for J3/4 slam before USA can really get out, with early transports. That one is more high reward high risk, since if you’re pushing Burma or trying to drop the VC early it often comes down to things like aafire bombardments and mass air, where the swings can be kinda wild. Or also the risk that it stalls and you have to redirect if India can’t be swept and US start mucking about in the backfield.

USA going full in on Pacific can be rough, especially once USA gets out, or threatens bomber strikes vs fleet, or if they clip the islands and spam production there. But Japan can get up to match them on income pretty quickly just by sweeping China/Soviet lands, and sz61/62 is a strong position for transports to shuttle back and forth to push hitpoints across the middle. Expanding production early is a liability if USA is spending in the Pacific, but I’ve seen people make do with fewer transports or just 2/3 transport pushing steady and the rest on fleet coverage. But anyway I think safest J1 build if you fear KJF press might be only 1 transport or forego added transports on J1 just to make sure to secure the fleet. Sub spam is pretty potent. Sometimes seems better to drop a gang of em at once and close off the lane by threatening attack, and then you also got a fodder cushion. Marine Iguana floated it as an idea a while back. I haven’t tried the 5 subs build in enough games to know if it really has the full psy ops deterrent to KJF, (USA might still come at you regardless, or see it as a challenge for a high stakes naval game, which is fun in its own right hehe) but there’s something to be said for having hella subs as Japan. If you get a 10 stack of subs going for example, with all Japans starting ships and fighters that’s a pretty hard fleet to dislodge, but also gives ya something to throw at USA or trade if you have to delay the money islands play.

Some stuff in this thread might be worth checking out. The game in A&AO is a little different for things like defense profile/subs and such. But broad strokes still some good ideas in there:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/25675/how-to-do-a-good-kjf/2

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26266/japan-s-response-to-kjf/2

Best Elk

Yeah I don’t think East Indies IC is a viable KJF deterrent in Gencon, I’ve tried it more than a few times, but just end up wishing I’d dropped hitpoints for the same amount of cash. OOB the India situation is different and Germany was in a stronger position out the opener, which means USA has a bit more flexibility to gun after Japan in Gencon. Marine Iguana was the dude who I first heard suggesting 5 subs on J1 as the only real way to deter KJF in A&AO, if Axis is fearful of all out Pacific Press from USA. At first this seemed like overkill to me, but having tried it a few times it definitely makes the IJN pretty flexible. The trade off is a 1 round delay on transport shucking heaving into sz61, but the upside is a more predictable KGF slog vs high stake Pacific naval contest right away. Last conversation I had on it, the consensus view was basically that conservative German play is much harder to break even in Gencon, that securing the IJN was probably the most important concern, and that of the two Axis players Japan was probably more vulnerable if they lose the sub spam race to USA by allowing America to get a build in before they drop.

Kind of like Green I usually feel that by the time the carrier arrives in the Atlantic its not doing a whole lot for Allies that the USA wouldn’t have already have handled by then. So I tend to either go guns blazing with it right out the gate, or do the hover round east Africa thing and wait to see if there is an opening to double back on the money islands, or at least threaten Japan enough at sea that they can’t sprawl too hard. A&AO rules kinda tweak things. I tend to take the sub to protect the Aussie evac transport (and wait to see if its better to swing Brazil or double back towards money islands) if KJF. Otherwise I camp sz37 with it, just to maybe cause Japan a headache.

I haven’t been playing much the past month though, could be something new floating around now. But that was what I saw in the pre season towards the end there before the last patch.

I think overall I am more familiar with KGF, so might be skewing that way when thinking on vulnerability, but not sure I’d try it much anymore. Better to focus sz61 and just pushing Yunnan center route I think.

Best
Elk

Got 40 some odd games clocked so far as Allies in A&AO, and that Russian sub defending in sz7 saved the British battleship in half a dozen of those games, saved the transport in a few more than that, and helped peel off a German fighter even more often. Even in games when Axis sent an extra sub from sz9. Just by being there it tends to make the opponent pull a sub off transport battles in sz10 or 11. So I think its a sound play sending the sub to defend.

Karelia remains indefensible same as OOB, but I agree Ukraine is a toss up (the whole first round is pretty dicey), but I find leaving the Bomber alive just gives Germany too many options, unless it was like a perfect strafe and the opponent’s defense profile was customized, and W. Russia went really well. I think its better to run the West Russia fight first, so you know what you’re dealing with. I think it defaults to whatever battle had the first combat movement into it, so you might have to manually click W. Russia if you want to run it first, to determine if a lucky strafe will even have any real pay off. If you can’t deadzone Karelia, because G put up a bunch of hits in W. Russia then its sort of fruitless to strafe anyway. Usually I just fight it out in Ukraine. Average is 2 tanks remaining, but I’ve seen that fight go way south more than a few times, so its certainly not a sure shot.

I think bombers are best used for fleet screening, but once you’re on the center even one solid SBR can have a huge impact on Russia’s ability to stack enough hitpoints to match what Axis can throw at them in a critical round. Better to wait until you have 3 or 4 to make it worth it though, that’s my feeling anyway.

The difficult thing with Gencon is that a lot of times a couple early fighter or sub exchanges going well or going poorly can tip the balance pretty dramatically for either side. The script on that one is more dicey than OOB for sure.

Yeah Russia is really the most vulnerable to sustained bombing, even though Germany never really ran a strategic round the clock bombing campaign like that vs Russia during the war. Certainly Japan didn’t hehe. As Allies its harder to get the bombing game up and running. Frequently by the time you have enough bombers to smash Berlin every round, Germany is banking enough to repair and still drop like 8-10 inf a turn. And a bad run losing bombers can really set you back trying to get the edge for a big amphib assault on the German capital. For round 1 USA it depends for me on what’s left alive in sz11 or sz53. If no transports left in 11 I usually buy a pair so 1 CV, 1 DD, 2 transports, then either a tank or sub depending on what Germany has left. If transports left alive I’d stack destroyers. If USA was ignored then I buy bombers and a CV. But yeah I agree, a lot comes down to R1/G1

haha yeah that sounds pretty intense. I can definitely see why they’d go preplacement when you’re rocking 9-5 until eliminated. Esp with teams. My memories of save for purchase bids are all coming from tripleA warclub stuff not the sit down and gun with the gang official type situation. I always imagined that things in the actual hall would be pretty next level. Definitely sounds like that’s the case

Hey what’s up man! Been a while hehe

Yeah I honestly don’t know the exact history of how it got started or at what tournament. I think the cd games from the late 90s probably standardized it, just because it was a relatively easy edit and more action oriented to have extra pieces banging away from the get go.

For A&Aonline the base game for ranked play is Gencon and its been going with no bid for a couple months now. If I had to put money on it, I’d say Axis retain the edge, but there are a lot of big swings and potential for Allies to come up under Gencon. The playpattern remains pretty similar to OOB overall.

The preplacement bid obviously forces players to think really hard about what is possible in the first turns, and how an extra hitpoint here or there might blow something wide open. So it has that appeal, playing to the fixed nature of A&A, where the start conditions are basically always the same. Totally different from say Risk or games like that, where there is much more variability in the starting conditions. Still just looking at the standard options in the menu for the Iron blitz game there were a lot of other ideas as well, some using tech unlocks “Axis Advantage” had Supersubs and Jets for Axis. Economic Victory. Russian restricted opening. And a couple alternative riffs on the Classic game going from 2nd to 3rd edition. It had marines and a few other things like that, some of which could shift the balance back and forth depending on which option one went with.

I still think starting income adjustment is the easiest. There’s always an amount in cash that can fix any perceived balance issue and its rather less distorting to the opener. But I’d guess the preplacement bid is used in tournaments mainly because its faster, and tournaments always have that element of time to consider. A larger cash bid that introduces units via the normal purchasing system would take longer to materialize and its impact would be more amorphous than say another sub or tank somewhere right out the gate. So prob that’s the reason it became so popular.

Yeah, if the amount is less than 3, usually saved for purchase. Sometimes the Axis bid in revised would be used so that Japan could purchase additional transports or things of that sort. In the earliest versions of bids that I recall rather than pre-placing units you had to purchase them using the normal mechanics in game. So the bids would be larger, but the opening battles preserved according to the box.

I’d guess tournaments are set up to have basically a core afternoon committed. Maybe a follow up day for the final or something like that. Even the most enthusiastic players can’t usually put in like a full work day just on the board. Since a hall isn’t quite as chill as playing a long ass game at home, where you have like couches and snacks and beverages at the ready. Some of the bigger tournaments might run it more like a convention, where its more about the meeting up and talking shop than like going full The Wizard style. Though that would be cool. Like just powergloving it vs Lucas for the chance to compete live on some grand new A&A board reveal hehe. Or like world championship in Vegas with some ridiculous grand prize. A&A Olympics with actual medals hehe. But yeah more like a big empty room with a gang of folding tables and kinda tight on time. But I haven’t been to the big ones in the midwest

I was just trying to visual what the coolest possible legacy product for me would be.

A 3 or 4 section split map, so that its easy to move or store a set board. A rigid material that doesn’t get wet or bend, or worn from folding (since its sectional.) Something printed on metal would be coolest, because that would allow for Cyanite style magnetic sculpts and also a way to stack the sectional board, using pylons or columns like an inch or so high, you could stack a set board on top of itself with the sculpts in place for easier storage on top of a shelf or corner of a table (since A&A is such a long game that would be particularly rad).

A double sided map would be sweetest, with the obverse serving as the main base map, and the reverse something more customizable. So maybe a political historical theme for the front map (all the pretty national colors, with the labeling of things like VCs or starting territory control with little roundels etc being printed directly on it.) The reverse side could be a more stripped down build-it-yourself topographical map, showing the basic territory and sz divisions, but using movable control markers to indicate things like VCs and starting territories control. On upside down, it could then service multiple scenarios or different start dates.

Magnetic sculpts, with chips, baseplates and risers for easy grouping and stacking.

WW2 nation themed unit trays, dice, and dice tower.

The underside of the box lid itself, could serve as a large battle board field for multiple encounters per turn. Something that shows the base attack/defense power (“hits at”) in Rows 1-4, and shows moves remaining on the attacker side (“moves left”) in columns to the far right or left of each row 1-5. That way all the critical gameplay information is preserved when moving sculpts from the map to the battle box and back again. Movable battle markers could be used to indicate which square on the battleboard field corresponds to which territory or sz on the map. Since there is a lot of room on the box lid, you could also have a field/marker that is used to expand a territory or sea zone that is becoming overcrowded. Similar to the blow up boxes on the Classic map, but more adaptive.

The inside of the box base could serve (as it often already does), for rolling the dice and housing the sculpt trays, but with a tower this would make it easier to save space.

Using a sectional map rather than a folding map, with pylons everything could be stacked on top of itself, even for a set game. And then moved around easily from spot to spot. Basically a longer box, with a narrower attack profile hehe

The 1942 game map in print is 40″ x 26″ but its comprised of two folding pieces of cardboard which is harder to move around without a backing and takes up a lot of space when set. Global and AA50 also use folding maps. A rigid sectional map that was more like 12x24 in 4 panels would be larger when playing but easier to transport when set, and a lot smaller when stacked so you could have something a little closer in total size/space to the game box itself. Just a few inches taller. With magnets stuff wouldn’t shift around, so it’d be easier to leave out without dominating the room.

Then for the manual something like a gamemaster’s guide, or a players handbook or DMG in D&D but for Axis and Allies. Like with a layout of the standard rules for the scenario or campaign that comes in the box, but also with a section at the end on the history of the game, and ideas for how to customize or create new scenarios, paint sculpts, add to the game and whathaveyou.

Something like that would be platinum plus. Take all my loot hehe

I usually go by the 7 hitpoints minimum rule of thumb, so if Russia is collecting 28 ipcs or more, then I will consider buying additional fighters. The received wisdom for light trades is that when you really need your Russian fighters and artillery to hit they will probably miss, and when you really need that Axis infantry to miss they will probably hit hehe, so an extra fighter may come in handy if you can afford it and it suits your playstyle. The problem, especially in rounds 3-5, is that if the Axis stack a big armor wall and start spreading fodder around, Russia can start hemorrhaging infantry and artillery pretty quickly just trying to block all the blitz paths on Caucasus or Moscow. If you put too much into the light territory trading, then it becomes harder to deadzone vs a big push. But sometimes you really need to prevent the Axis tanks from driving forward, and sometimes a bad dud on a light trade can upend your whole front line, forcing you to withdraw or hold when you’d rather advance. Ukraine, Arch, Belo all play that way on the German side, Kazakh or Novos on the Japanese side. Artillery gives you the most bang for your buck, clearly, but an extra fighter can also work if Axis aren’t already on top of you.

With 28 ipcs though you can also buy 8 inf + 1 artillery, or 4 inf +4 artillery, 6 inf + 1 art +1 tank, or even 7 artillery, which are all stronger all around buys than 6 inf 1 fighter. So it really depends on how many hitpoints the Axis are throwing at you and whether the British or Americans have any fodder/air to help you cover the core.

I find you can usually tell by the second or third round whether your Axis opponent is more inclined to consolidate and slam or spread their hitpoints around for the slow bleed. If they are consolidating then you probably want to do the same and spam artillery for a big wall so you can match their stacks, but if they are spreading heavier then you might consider aircraft so you can run more attacks per round and try to trade with less cost in hitpoints over the long haul. A good tell is watching to see whether your opponent is just trying to match you on the ground hitpoint for hitpoint in the air trades and being all conservative, or if they are sending more ground hitpoints than you have defending to try and push the fronts and be all aggressive in the trading game. So like say you have 1 infantry unit defending in Arch, if Germany is attacking with 1 inf +air they are probably the sort who trades light and favors consolidating. If they are attacking with 2 or more inf +air, then they might be the sort that favors the spread. You also want to see whether your opponent is conserving their artillery to deadzone, or if they are throwing it forward, because that is another tell for the opponent’s playstyle and priorities. So, say this time you have 2 inf defending in Arch, if Germany is attacking with 1 inf and 1 art + air, or just 2 inf +air and holding the artillery back to deadzone it might tell you more about who you’re playing against. Same deal keeping an eye out for the airblitz, like if you see that your opponent is willing to attack 2 of your defending infantry, with just 1 of their own + a shit ton of aircraft, that will tell you more about what you’re up against. If the opponent is particularly risk averse or prone to gamble, sometimes you can play off that, either by mirroring and trying to volley more predictably, or sometimes by doing the complete opposite to throw them off. Often you have to adapt to whatever the Axis are doing since they are usually in the driver’s seat, but if something went really well for team Allies, you might be able to dictate and get more brazen with your buys. Russia doesn’t have that luxury very often, but every now and again you can catch a nice break.

In the Gencon version, in A&AO at least, I think the choice for Russia is either come out swinging heavy in Ukraine if you’re willing to take a chance, or stackfest West Russia if you aren’t, but I haven’t had much success doing much else. Sometimes if the newer Allied player is struggling to manage the approaches to the center of the gameboard it can help to stick to a few hard and fast purchasing rules of thumb, for a couple rounds anyway, that might go something like…

For Russia buy more artillery and try to hold it back for a few rounds so you can build a big wall of it. Sometimes 3 artillery end up being a lot more useful than 4 infantry to manage your deadzones whatever your income level. Even if the instinct to stack infantry is strong, just trying to get whatever number of art pieces the remainder of ipcs will allow you to fit in when dividing out by 3s for max inf may not be enough to deal with a bigger Axis push.

For UK buy more fighters than you probably think you need hehe, mainly because they allow you to skip around between Europe and India more easily, and you will need a bunch to cover vs German airblitz of your eventual Atlantic transport fleets, to threaten an Airblitz vs Japanese transports from the center, or just to hold the line on Defense. W. Russia and Caucasus are optimal because they allow you to threaten Germany 3 moves away, while still being close enough to pinball around between India and the Canal, or China or the Eastern front. The more you have the easier it is to split for double duty.

For USA buy more transports and bombers than you think you need. If you buy a bomber per round for a few rounds, and don’t throw them away on early bombing runs, usually you can get something going before too long once you have a nice pile of them. Also when you transport your infantry around try positioning it where it can threaten two or more territories the following turn on amphib assault, instead of using them to trade territories right away. This is where having more transports and more bombers really comes in handy, because it forces the other player to split defense or possibly withdraw, without having to actually attack. Often you can stay in place and send the transports back for a repeating launch. When the infantry is already in place its easier to set up a stronger double punch with a 2 turn set up, rather than gunning early and allowing a round of delay for Axis to regroup before you can threaten again.

In general the more stuff you have in the middle of the map the better, so like a big party with everybody all up in Russia, because its usually easier to coordinate and find an opening from there than it is from either side.

Thought this thread might do with an update, since Axis and Allies online is in early release and ranked play over there is using the Gencon set up provided by Larry a little while back. Currently that game also uses a few new rules that change the dynamics quite a bit, the main ones are no landing of fighters on friendly carriers, and no loading units onto friendly transports, which is pretty big esp. for sending fighters across the ocean in either direction.

Axis and Allies online also uses a “defense profile” where the defender sets their casualty priorities in advance, which means that unless you are playing live and switching profiles on the fly at the last minute, you have to choose each turn your general order of loss for units. This includes things like whether subs will dive or fight, whether fighters or carriers die first, things like that. So for example, you might have to choose between diving in sz53 with the USA sub, or fighting on defense with the British sub in sz41 (Aussie evac), since right now the defense profile is universal for a given turn, and not something you can choose battle per battle. There’s been talk that some of the rules like friendly carriers might be allowed or more nuanced defense profiles allowed, but for now with those rules in play, the opening conditions in the first round are a little different.

For Russia the main change from OOB is the Ukraine situation, because now Germany has their bomber located there. This also tweaks the German opening considerably depending on whether the bomber lives or dies. Germany is also down 1 sub in sz5 under the Gencon rules and the British cruiser is moved to the other side of Gibraltar so that also alters what Germany might try to do on their first turn.

sz16 is open by default in Axis and Allies online, and no bid is currently supported, so that’s also something to consider.

For the Russians the options for opening attacks are a bit more straightforward in gencon than OOB, since its basically a choice between going heavy into Ukraine or the big West Russia Wall all-in. Of the two I think Ukraine has the better payoff, but I’ve had some fun games using both openers, and some terrible games using both openers, since the swing is fairly wild and much comes down to how many hits the Germans put up in the first round of combat.

The Ukraine play is essentially the same as OOB, but bringing 3 tanks is more essential now since Germany has another fodder unit, and a clean strafe is somewhat harder to pull off.

For the West Russia wall, Szech and Evenki are somewhat more attractive as landing spots for the Russia fighters. For the Ukraine hit strat, its harder for Germany to get on Egypt early. So in either strat you might find some incentive to put your UK bomber in a territory with max reach into both theaters since India has 2 more inf in the Gencon set up, which makes an early hit on Japan a little simpler. Sometimes the Brits can find a clutch airblitz vs Japanese transports provided they have a landing spot, so Russia might find a reason to stack 4 or 5 units in Yakut. Keeping open a possible hit on Bury R2 can sometimes be nice, to open up a landing spot for British fighters or Bombers on UK2 that might be able to put the hurt on Japan if they fall short somewhere. Fighting east/south out of Evenki is a bit more viable too, provided Russia didn’t get stomped in their opener. So sometimes I see a fighter hanging in a more northern position for that sort of stuff. Its still pretty up in the air on R1 though, so many things could go wrong for either side that will determine the playpattern.

In general I think its more important than ever to make sure Russia has sufficient hitpoints in their first buy to deal with whatever might happen, because things can certainly get ugly with a quickness. And there’s definitely no bomber bid to lean on in Axis and Allies Online hehe.

One thing to keep in mind is that a full withdrawal from Caucasus gives Germany a nicer option to keep their battleship alive into the second round at least vs a British air strike, since it denies British aircraft a landing spot in Caucasus if the Germans can take it G1. Another possible reason to suggest hitting Ukraine heavy with the Russians, just so you can stack Caucasus safely and force the battleship to go elsewhere. The other German options for their med fleet aren’t too spectacular, especially if the Brits roll hot on defense somewhere, so unless they are planning a naval build to support it, there are some decent possibilities to kill the German Battleship with the Brits from the air, provided they don’t tuck up into sz16. There is also more pressure on Germany in sz7, so the Russian sub can sometimes make a big difference there now. In the defense profile for Axis and Allies online, its important to set one up for the Russian turn that has the sub remaining to fight, rather than dive, because every hitpoint counts. Making a clean sweep of the Allied Atlantic transports, or killing the British cruiser, while also ensuring that they win in sz7, and keeping the med battleship alive all at the same time is pretty tricky for Germany, so the chances that your friends the Anglo-Americans on the other side of the sea might survive with some more ships is higher. But this is also somewhat offset by the fact that USA can’t skip their fighters across the Atlantic on British carriers in A&AO, so the Russians still have a lot of weight to carry.

I’d be curious to hear from anyone who’s playing, any thoughts they might have about the Russian opener in A&A online, but that’s what I got so far.

Good gaming all!
best

Elk

That would be cool. I’d buy in for sure. It would be a pretty legit offering if it gave the US those warhawks in the Europe set, and the lightnings in the Pacific set. That way we’d get a bunch of warhawks and when you combine the boards you’d have a nice substitution at the ready for the Flying tiger in G40. I’d probably get more excited about seeing some of the 1941 scultps in a 3rd edition than France, but it would be nice for completion. Especially if the manual provided some extra options to expand the game, and perhaps put a new spin on it maybe with marines or vichy stuff. I think a second set up for the Global Board with an alternative start date would be cool and well received. Like they did for AA50

What would also be nice some map corrections for the roundels on Western Canada and Sierra Leon, if doing a new reprint.

@aardvarkpepper Yeah I mean not saying it is representative, just that dude was actually playing hehe. Even with an oddball Japan stall opener there were at least 3 occassions where the AAZ carrier rules altered a move I would otherwise have made.

I think what feels a little strange to me is the primacy given to PBEM or asynchronous play over live play. Like I don’t know anyone who is spending time trying to do things asynchronously on the physical board. I guess in the 80s maybe you could set up 2 boards and make a phone call or whatever, but I don’t see anyone trying to pull this off before dice rollers and email. Its novel sure, but not exactly traditional by any stretch. The original game was clearly intended for live play, and a lot of the nuts and bolts assume at least 2 people in the room actually playing at the same time.

TripleA remains pretty ideal for me, but there isn’t much of a playerbase for 1942 over there. If ever there was those peeps have mostly moved on by now to other games. So the draw of A&Aonline is mainly that, the players. I guess steam is just a more popular or convenient way in, or at least many people seem more comfortable playing a steam game version despite its evident shortcomings right now. Even after GTO demonstrated how easily those can go the way of the dinosaur as soon as the publisher pulls the plug. Doesn’t matter how much time or energy or money you put into GTO, there’s no way to access it anymore. Online only means we’re dependent on continued dev support to keep it running. I guess even TripleA and A&Aorg have to run donation drives to keep the servers up, but least once you have the application installed you can always run it locally. I can still play Hasbro in single player even if the cd is kind of scratched hehe. But yeah, the draw I see is the players coming out of the woodwork, many who probably would never have found tripleA or these boards on their own, but who have found their way to A&Aonline. I still think they’d have more pull if the game was live play primarily, by the book, with asynchronous just as an alternative option.

I don’t know about the devs, but I was playing the gencon set up with Julius last night and had a good time via discord. I’m like a complete insomniac and he was in a timezone way off so guess it aligned. I went for a pacific stall plan that panned out after making making a pretty clean sweep with Russia. Went with the blast on Borneo x2 inf/New Guinea x2 inf 1 cruiser bombard, sz61 1 fighter one cruiser (landed in Bury for the pacific press), Australian Submarine immediate dive in sz 37 for the extra attack forward attack pip and carrier forward to block at Philippines. Starting bomber to Kazakh. UK opened damn near flawlessly, placed a new bomber in India and pair of tanks in India, for UK2 crush on IJN from the air, and rush up of British mobile ground support to eastern front.

Some good early headaches thrown at Axis in the Pacific, but even when you nuke the hell out Japan’s starting fleet, Pearl is still on the table and they got a lot of options on defense. Still seemed to come down to getting ahead in the Atlantic, and basically down to trade German air vs Allied main transport group, after UK finally dropped a deck in round 3. Peeled off too many German air in that exchange for Axis to recover position on the center so called it inside of 7 rounds.

The whole defense profile and AAZ rules for carriers definitely changes some key things. But still feels like A&A even if different than the 1942.2 I was playing a few years back. I guess it works, but it would really be nice if more live play features were introduced and just keeping the asynchronous style as a default option, but with the option to enter live play and normal defender chooses casualties. I think that would probably make most people happy. Clean up the movement UI, and finish up with some basic unit editor (so you can fix player mistakes to save an otherwise hosed game, or bid via added units.) They do that and it probably ends up a pretty good platform for casual pick up games. But yeah, roll out was a little rough. I kind of expected it to be in a more complete state, but the last patch and hotfix added some nice stuff. Hopefully they keep going with it.

I probably use A&Aonline just to keep up, and maybe more new players find a way in that way. I’m too deep into Iron War and probably when 1914 Pops off that will eat up all my time in triplea heheh. It’s hard to go back to v5, but I can’t imagine any other way to play the global game than triplea and don’t see that as something very likely to crack off online elsewhere. I think they’d have an easier time adding the Anniversary game online than G40.