The thread in this board that’s directly under yours already has lots of people commenting on it. It probably has what you’re looking for.

Link: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34797/current-2020-global-1940-2nd-edition-bid/13

@W4rP1g There’s actually an entire subset of Youtube channels dedicated to playing A&A over the internet by doing the following:

• Everyone agrees on a ruleset (usually some variant of G40 but I’ve seen other games get played too).
• Everyone sets up their own board at home.
• Everyone takes turns filming themselves making their moves, rolling their dice, etc. Usually folks agree on an order-of-loss for major battles.

I’m at work right now, so I don’t remember the names of any of the channels that do this, but you might want to take some time out of your day to look into it. Seems like it might be right up your alley.

@Cernel said in Calling off landings:

@DoManMacgee Being able to move on board transports of your allies, as well as being able not to offload units into a territory after a battle changed what you are aware you can commit into the battle just makes sense. I think a definition of nonsense is not being allowed making something that makes clearly sense. Thus, not being able to load into a transport of an ally of yours that is fine letting you load onto it makes no sense, as well as it makes no sense that, after winning a sea battle, you are irrefragably driven into committing your, possibly decimated, forces to a battle, possibly with next to no hope, as all rulesets after Revised original oblige you to do. Of course, I’m aware that, in practice, both these items are next to irrelevant and are arguably far from clear, and even far from sensible, in all their possible applications (especially the rules for calling off landings, otherwise I would not have this discussion).

It’s a board game by Hasbro. There’s mountains of other things in this game that make no sense from a historical perspective, but at some point you have to make sacrifices in realism to make a game playable and its rules comprehensible. There are other theater-level wargames out there that do a much better job at realism than Axis & Allies, but they’re much more complicated games and, as a result, fewer people play them.

@Cernel said in Calling off landings:

@DoManMacgee Are you sure that AAO doesn’t want it on purpose or is it just a yet unsupported feature or deemed not worth coding yet? Haven’t really followed how much the game is or is not supposed actually to be a 3rd Edition (?) of 1942 (is it?).

It was intentional to support asynchronous gameplay, I’m pretty sure. Same reason you can’t land Fighters on another friendly power’s carrier in that game. AAO was originally designed for casual, multi-player experiences. It was only after basically everyone told them to shove it, and that 1v1 ranked was what (most) people cared about that they implemented a ladder/ranked system (that’s my guess, anyway. For all I know ranked could have been planned from the start). However, it has been clearly stated by Beamdog that scrapping the ability to use another power’s transport/carrier was an intentional design decision.

I guess everyone knows that almost all German troops in Africa were shipped by the Italian navy but, of course, that doesn’t matter if the Italians are Germans too.

If you want a game that’s 100% historically accurate, or even close to that, A&A is the last place you want to be. Gameplay trumps historical accuracy here, and always has.

But to your point, since Italy has debuted in AA50, the Mediterranean has been filled with Italian boats, and Germany’s navy has been limited to Subs in the Atlantic + the meager Baltic fleet.

Just throwing my two cents in, but I’ve played Revised competitively for years and no situation has ever come up I’ve ever bothered using an ally’s transport to conduct amphibious landings. It’s such an archaic rule because it creates needlessly complicated situations like the one @Cernel dreamed up and I’m glad AAO and Zombies axed it.

@Midnight_Reaper If you’ve ever played Magic the Gathering, you’d know not to trust WotC as far as you can throw them, lol.

@CorporalClegg said in Are Cruisers for Losers? A video discussion:

@DoManMacgee
I agree with maximising use of existing cruisers.
Also I haven’t played 1914 so I cant really comment. But looks like cruisers are 9IPCs, attack/defend @3 and can move 3 spaces. Seems reasonable, but then again Battleships are only 12. Interesting! 1914 is definitely on my wishlist

1914 is different than the other games in that naval units are actually sort of balanced:
All naval units have 2 base movement, but can move 3 if their move originates from a Naval Base that’s owned by it’s original controller and is friendly to your faction.

Transport - Cost 6, do not make SZs hostile, do not participate in combat
Subs - Cost 6, do no make SZs hostile, 2/2
Cruisers - Cost 9, cannot bombard, make SZs hostile, 3/3
Battleships - Cost 12, can bombard, 2HP (but need to begin a turn on a friendly Naval Base to repair), 4/4

Interesting changes to the system to be sure. The math actually works out so Battleships are extremely useful if you can keep them repaired, and Cruisers/Subs are about even (although having more HP/dice-rolls is typically better than having fewer).

EDIT: There’s also the whole business of mines, but that’s way beyond the scope of this thread.

@Midnight_Reaper Duh. It’s 17 if you actually sit down and count up the IPC values by-hand too. That’s what I get for being lazy.

Cruisers are useless. 2 SUBs beats a Cruiser every time. 1914 is the only game where a Cruiser is even something close to resembling being worth it.

EDIT: That being said, Cruisers you begin the game with are valuable assets that should be guarded carefully, due to their ability to bombard.

Follow-up: Regarding the whole “lower IPC value thing”, the specific values for the 1941 game are as follows:

• USSR - 7
• Nazis - 12
• UK - 12
• Japan - 9
• USA - 17

And here’s a link to the setup page. https://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/axis-allies-1941-setup-chart/

EDIT: Got USA’s starting income wrong. Thanks @Midnight_Reaper