Hi,

I checked game 7  - i was impressed - much better than game 1.

to find out what  went wrong is quite easy:

If Germany loses Norway + Finland there has to be done everything to deny the Russians access to the 10 IPC Bonus, which means Bulgaria + Poland should be fortified heavily. And what happend ? Russia got 47 IPC round 3 + 45 IPC round 4 - game over.

I tried to find out, why Germany was so weak on the Eastern front: Then I saw it - you wanted to keep UK + US out of France and pilled up units there. Exactly that units you did have on the Eastern front.

Well it’s always hard to play Germany/Italy if alle 3 Allies go for you, but i would prefer hand out UK + US the 5 IPC bonus for France instead of the 10 IPC for Russia.

Don’t forget UK can only buy 8 units at London, once they have a fleet + 4 Transports, they need only 32 IPC/round (4 Inf + 4 armour), so don’t care about Uk, give them the 5 IPC for France and kick them out of Europe in your next turn.  Even a UK with 70 IPC is not as dangerous as a Russia with 45 IPC, cause UK can’t use that money, while Russia can. Russia is the one the Axis have to kill.

But in overall it was a good game, if you have that units not in France but in EPL, you will get another 5 IPC bonus and Russia will not have that money. So far the strategy check. in overall: Holding France is interesting, but does not work if all Allies play a KGF strategy. Better expand quickly on the Eastern Front, kick out Allies from France and later carefully pull back to protect Germany + Italy, but then Japan is near Russia capital. With a better buying as Italy (4 inf instead of a bomber) it would have been harder for the Allies to capture Rome.

Some details:

• attacking Egypt as Germany without the bomber  - unwise,  losses are too high, just for strafing purpose

• Buying a bomber for Italy = crap

• Buying 1 Transport + 2 armour for Japan in Round - i don’t link it, I prefer an immediate IC in manchuria, which is always strong, but even stronger when US doesn’t bother you (as happened here)

• The IC on an 4 IPC Island is interesting, but you always require transports and that transports require cover. I don’t like that, better build that IC in India. However, that’s not the reason for the Axis defeat, it was the income of Russia which makes it too hard for Japan to pressure such a rich Russia quickly.

• if you have so many transports as Japan, conquer Hawaii + Wake island ( means - 5 IPC for US, as it’s a bonus)

• do not repair Rome if you have already 9 IPC damage. wait one round, send German tanks + fighter for shelter. It’s highly unattractive for the Allies to bomb a damaged Italian factory when the odds of making a maximum of 3 IPC damage is worse than the loss of a bomber to an AA hit. Next round repair and buy 6 units for Italy. Remember 12 is the maximum damage for Rome, from then on they can’t harm you any more. If you repair every round they bomb you again every round. better repair every second round !

• I don’t like your German first round attacks on the eastern front

You have two possibilities: either conquer that strong that any counterattack is crazy or that weak, that you do not lose much. Especially that tank you lose in Ukraine counterattack is a bitter loss.

Some Ideas to improve: Ukraine - is the most critical battle - why ? Well in G1 NCM you can move some units from Germany to Poland.
This means if Russia attacks either EPL or BST that support units from Poland will immediately be useful for another attack in G2.
Unfortunately for you Ukraine is harder to re-attack in G2 as you can’t bring units to Bulgaria in G1.

So either: “the weak attack”

3 Inf + 1 Art + 1 fighter vs 2 Inf in Ukraine

Goal, kill 2 units and get 2 IPC income

or: “the hard attack” 3 Inf + 1 art + 3 tanks in Ukraine

Goal: make a counterattack impossible

––

If you do the hard attack, do the other battles that way:

3 tanks + 3 Inf to EPL

Inf + art  + 1 fighter + 2 units transported (1 Inf from NWE + 1 Inf from Germany) + Cruiser Bombardment for BST

NCM: 2 Inf + art to Poland

Yes Russia can attack in BST, but a) it’s only a 1 IPC territory, while Ukraine is worth 2 IPC, b) BST is reachable for all German air units, while Ukraine is too far (at least to land somewhere to threaten UKs fleet for G3) and c) your Poland units can attack BST in G2.

Try it !
GL & HF

Hi Bongaroo,

I only checked the first game, but i got some information for you:

1. maybe you did not see that Russian sub attack against the cruiser, but to move the cruiser + the transport to fight that lone destroyer is a mistake imo. Leave the cruiser + transport where they are and transport two units from Germany to assist the Baltic States attack.

attack the destroyer with 1 sub + 1-2 fighters

2. don’t land the attacking fighter in France, land in Norway

3. Land all other planes that way, that you can destroy any new build British fleet, if it’s too weak

Some Examples:

1 bomber + 4 fighters vs 1 BB + 1 DD + 1 AC + 2 Fighters:

Pathetic 3,8 % that you win with 1 unit left and 7,4% that all units are killed (about 11% overall), but 89% of losing with at least the BB surviving.

Only one Bomber more for Germany:

2 bombers + 4 fighters vs 1 BB + 1 DD + 1 AC + 2 Fighters:

64% of WINNING with at least one unit left, 19% of clearing (about 83% overall) and only 17% of losing.

What a difference ! Buy 1 Bomber/round as Germany if you see UK + US are going against you as long it makes sense, then stop and buy other units, maybe inf + tanks.  –> see 8 )

4. If UK buys heavy fleet, as they did in that game it’s good news for the Axis:
   You Know, that UK is mainly focusing on Germany/Italy and may help out Russia when in trouble (UK fighters can Reach Moscow in 1 turn starting in London). They did not buy any IC in SA, India or Australia. Good news for Japan ! That makes it easier for Germany to play, as Allies already revealed their plans.

5. Consider buying an IC as Japan and place it either Manchuria or FIC. This IC is useful in any case, it’s good if UK builds an India IC, it’s perfect if UK + US play in Europe and even when US is playing 100% in the Pacific an IC on the Asian mainland is very strong (as your transport otherwise need constantly protection)

6. NEVER attack with 1 Fighter vs 1 DD + Transport - far too risky. Use 2 Fighters. Better delay one or two attacks against China, they can wait. Killing all US and UK fleets is more important.

If you see round 1 a 100% US Atlantic buy, Japan has to play very aggressive, buy 2 ICs (FIC and Manchuria), take all your fleet, conquer Australia + Hawaii + another US island (kill one of US and UK bonus and get one yourself for Hawaii), then head with your fleet directly towards India and Egypt and help in Europe

7. Anyway, you got good dice rolls as Germany and Japan, but screwed up Axis play in Italy 1. The Ukraine attack was too weak and losing a plane as Italy when taking back France is out of question. Buy a second fighter as Italy in round 1 and mass your troops in Italy, so you are strong enough for another recapture of France in R2. If UKs fleet is going to the Med, just buy an AC in round 2 and land your 2 fighters on it. UK will not have enough fire power to attack an Italian fleet of 1 BB, 2 Cr + 1 full AC. If they can’t kill Italy’s fleet that UK fleet is wrongly placed in the Med and should better conquer Norway. Then go for Africa to get more income as Italy.

8 ) If you see UK + US heading for Europe, don’t buy so many tanks as Germany. Better go for Infantry and air units. If Germany constantly buy air units, especially bombers UK and US will have problems to cover their fleets. If they buy heavily naval units, good news! UK can buy only 8 units in London, this means, they will not have 4 fully transports quickly. Once you see you can not threaten that fleets any more, start Bombing London + Moscow. Play defensively as Germany. Build masses of units and hold of the Allies as long as possible. In round 4 Japan should have conquered Northern Russia, all China, India, the whole Pacific and is moving it’s fleet towards Italy to support, while 3 ICs (India, FIC and Manchuria) are building lot’s of offensive units every round. The Allies will have a hard time against such a Japanese Monster if the fail to break down Fortress Europe !

9. As Germany is the Target for all Allies, you need strong air for either protect Germany itself, but mainly to trade in a good ratio.
   If you attack with  just a few infantry and masses of fighters and bombers, you can wipe out large attack forces. This will slow down the Russians on the Eastern Front while prevent UK + US to get a foothold in France.

Try it and you will soon win your first games as Axis, since AA50 with NOs naturally favors the Axis. You need some bidding for the Allies to balance the game.

Multinational forces would make the Allies win too easily, such as happened in history. We want a board game that every side can win.

Making this game more historical would make it boring. To be accurate you have to give US about 55-60 IPC on the pacific side and about 50 IPC on the atlantic side. The Allies will always win, such as happened in reality. But would you like that kind of game ?

Even more: you would have to customize all units: German Tanks should cost 6 IPC but attack at 4. US and UK tanks cost just 4 IPC but attack and defend only at a 2. German infantry should cost 4 IPC but attack at 2 ,3 with artillery, while Russian infantry just cost 1 IPC and is an 1/1/1 unit (see battle of Stalingrad where Russian soldiers were sacrificed as cannon fodder). German fighters had just 3 movement while UK and US fighters had 4-5 range. Rules would become even more complicated, and believe me it is already complicated ! You can’t start a game with beginners without about 30 minutes of rule explaining and at this forum the rule clarify section is the most visited one with the most replies…

Despite all that, you are right, but it’s not a flaw, it was planned this way to balance the game.

Hi Commander Jennifer,

first, this post is about closing tripleA by Hasbro which sucks. They are afraid people not going to buy their games but simply play AaA online. They did not consider that friends next door will never play it online, they just meet and play. But if you don’t have someone to play with, why buy that game ?? The online version is a good opportunity to find players and just play. It’s a shame for Hasbro after years of experience with Axis & Allies and its potential buyers to not have foreseen this trend and missed to place their own online product.

as a second point: You are completely wrong. Better players tend to not play with technology, because that kind of game play requires 100% strategic skills and better players have that know-how.
As an easy example: a complete stupid player researchs some overwhelming techs, such as LRA and HB, simply builds bombers and kick the crap out of Germany and Italy. Tell me what special skills does that kind of gameplay require? Absolutely nothing! Every idiot can play like that ( I am not saying that people that play like that are idiots, i say everyone can simply play like that!). Compare this with an US player having a strong fleet against Japan, cleverly uses the starting planes from all his ACs doing some action and land on some allied-controlled islands, while newly build fighters land on the now empty ACs after some action. Or playing the Allies combined, such as UK captures an island, while US is landing masses of fighters on it, preventing Japan from recapturing that island. This is skilled gameplay, not researching heavy bombers. - My Opinion -

maybe this was discussed already somewhere - i just ask:

In AA revised rulebook page 22 it’s clearly mentioned a newly build carrier may pick up fighters that ended their non-combat movement or have already been in the country with the IC that build the new AC. This means you could use your fighters in combat phase fly 2 spaces away, return on NC phase and the new AC picks them up.

In AA50 rule book i can’t find this rule - has it been removed, and if - why ?

aa50, with NOs, no tech, with bidding for allies to balance the game

in this case the Italian fleet is already in real danger.

That’s how it works:

Bidding 3 IPC: Uk places one infantry in Egypt. Turn 1 Germany it is impossible to kill all units in Egypt, especially with no luck.
That UK fighter normally survives. Now on Turn 1 Uk, there is an attack with UK Bomber, Egypt fighter und Gibraltar naval units (destroyer + cruiser) against the Italian fleet with an 60% of winnig and a much higher chance to simply kill that fleet even when losing all attacking units.

Yes, losing the fighter and bomber hurts UK, but get that fleet destroyed simply kills Italy. No hope of NOs, Africa gone forever there’s not fun at all to play Italy !

So it seems forced that Germany has to attack that destroyer + cruiser with subs  + air units, to help the Italians.

If bids get higher, the problems rise too: a 9 IPC bid, Uk can place one inf to Egypt and one sub to that DD + Cr fleet.

Anyone experienced that? What do you do in that situation as Germany ?

we usually play aa50 with NOs, no tech

we have the impression US will be only strong when spending 90% or more in one region, either for Europe or Pacific.
On the other way, for all players it’s more interesting and more fun if US plays everywhere, as happend in WWII.

Unfortunately US funds does not allow that kind of play, a 50% spend means your too weak for Europe and you will never threaten Japan.So this looks good at a first glance, but it’s waste of time and money and leads to frustration to the Allies player.

Our Idea:

Dividing US !

That would be an Idea for a new AA version or TripleA sceanrio.

The eastern US forces get their own NOs for Europe and Africa, a higher income, 10 - 15 IPC, but they can only build and play in the Atlantic and Europe/Africa

The western US forces get their own NOs for Pacific and Asia, a higher income, at least 15 - 20 IPC, but they can only build and play in the Pacific and Asia

Both get units of a diferent colour to seperate them from each other, they can’t attack together as well.

Move Order ist new: you play western US completely and after placing units, the eastern US will be played.

That’s the same concept as dividing Germany into Germany and Italy in AA50.

For obious reasons that US nations need more money as US has now as a united country, how much is questionable of course. I would like to see the US competitive in both Atlanic and Pacific at the same time, but of course much weaker as now, when US spends 100% in one region. Some rules have to be defined as well, one thing that should not happen is, that one side is building air units and fly through US to support the other side (e.g. fighters that land on the other ACs).

what do you think of that idea ?

maybe I should make a little change in the definition of VIUs

there are two types of VIUs

a) potential VIUs

b) all time VIUs

all time VIUs are e.g. the German bomber or that US fleet in SZ 44 which can be helpful in the Atlantik as well as the Pacific. Italys fleet is also useful in every game, obviously. UKs fighter and tank in Egypt are always VIUs, Axis powers should destroy them if possible.

German naval units are potential VIUs, as in a non-naval-strategy they will be exposed for UK air attack an often destroyed in the first rounds.
UKs units in Australia, South Africa and India are potential VIUs as well, depending on UKs overall strategy and newly build ICs.

Thanks guys for that input, every theory has to be developped until it’s really scientific

I agree, the Russian sub is sometimes useless, but sometimes it can be useful.

Well, this is a theory and his has to be verified.

If that sub isn’t importnant, then Russia has no VIUs at all !

Remember, the VIUs are units that you have at the beginning and you can hardly replace them, so be careful not losing them - that’s the message of my post. If one decide to not play with a navy as Germany, that units lose the VIU status for him. But if one decide to build a carrier first round as Germany, he will glad to have that cruiser + transport - for sure.

I don’t know if ever one wrote about this, but this may be of interest:

Whenever you play Axis & Allies, you have to define in the first round your VIUs and the one of your opponents. VIU are very important units.
Typical for VIUs is:

• you have them from the beginning
• you cannot afford to lose them

The last point has to different forms:
VIUs that can hardly be replaced because of their costs (e.g. battleships) and/or VIUs that you can’t replace, because it takes to long to reach that place (e.g. the 2 UK infantry in South Africa)

Once you defined VIUs on the board, the VIU theory says:

• Never lose your VIUs sensless
• Don’t attack with VIUs unless it’s overwhelming
• Kill enemies VIUs whenever possible
• try to build additional units that may replace your current VIUs
• help your allies to protect their VIUs
• trading VIUs with the enemy can be good if the future consequences are checked
• don’t rely on lucky dice when attacking with VIUs (e.g. never SBR if your bomber is that precious)

–----------------

Examples:

UKs Battleship in SZ2 and UKs Tank and Fighter in Egypt are VIUs (expensive + hard to replace). Attacking them as Germany is highly desirable. For UK killing the German cruiser + transport via air attack is desirable too, as well as for UK and US is a goal to kill the Italian fleet.

VIUs in AA50:

Russia:

Only the sub in SZ 4, because you will hardly ever have enough money and less pressure to build navel units again, don’t lose your tanks or newly build air units

Germany:

the bomber, your fleet, the African units

Japan:

only the battleship, all other units are near Japan and can be replaced

UK:

the BB, the bomber, 2 Inf in SA, all units (ground + navel) near Australia, all units from Egypt to Burma

UK has naturally the most VIUs due to the vast distances to reach them. Units in SA, Egypt, India and Australia will lose their VIU status if an IC is build there, as they can now be easily replaced

Italy:

fleet  + fighter (Italy is lacking funds)

China:

the fighter

US:

as the 2 Inf and fleet at Philippines can’t be protected, US has no real VIUs, anything can be replaced. Yet its fleet at SZ 44 should be kept, those units are valuable