Thanks for nothing everyone No replies telling me if advanced was good or bad.

Well! I played my first game today. It was alot of fun, albeit we struggled with intrepreting some of the rules. The subs are ridiculously powerful in this version. The German and Soviet land war is insane, by round 4 Germany was only spaces deep into USSR, and still had another three to get to Moscow. The addition of Italy makes for alot of fun, as well as the industrial complexes being spread out. I have to say I do prefer revised, but once I play a bit more who knows advanced may be more well liked. The thing I like about advanced is it forces you to do stuff. The Africa war for instance, the atlantic wolf packs, spreading out your forces because of the nature of the industrial complexes. So all in all a good game

Well all I can say is, whoever works at Harris Design that made those particular instruction pages, deserves a butt wooping.

Only Kidding, haha. Your right as usual Krieghund, the rules are pretty clear.

Hmm don’t know if I’ll get around to playing Europe any time soon. I went to kinkos the other day and printed off Axis and Allies Europe Advanced, so ima give that a whirl and see how it goes. I can’t wait to play with Italy You can really unhinge the Russian front in Advanced. Germans attack the first line of the defense, and then Italian tanks can blitz into the next line of territory. So the Russian player has to think about defense in depth! Also I’d love the idea of, Germany goes all out against Russia and Italy spends all its money tieing down allied convoys, and the allied fleet in general. I was thinking along the lines of a bombers off the west coast off france attacking with subs. Anyways I will tell you all how the game goes when I play it next

Haha it wasn’t a house rule, the rules manual doesn’t say anywhere u can only use one naval or air port!!! It just uses one example where you can move three spaces. Ridiculous explanation in the manual i think. Thanks for the clarification Frimmel.

This might sound pretty funny, but can you use more than one naval base or air base? I played the game the other day, and we played that you could move say five spaces with a boat as long as it moved along naval bases. We did more or less the same thing with the fighters, as long as they flew over airbases theoretically they could fly anywhere on the board. Is this drastically wrong?

The game we played was so lopsided towards Japan as it could literally move its fighters and navy units from threat to threat until its navy was virtually wiped out within 3 turns, but during those 3 turns Japan was collecting 4 VPs a go!

Is it within the rules to build boats in a caucasus lake? Russia could build a battleship and a transport, which would be defended by the caucasus anti-air. Then when German takes Caucasus, Russia could counter-attack with an amphibious assault from the lake, unloading units off the transport.

Its clearly a strategic folly to undertake such a strategy, but it also sounds as if its within the rules. Also it’d be great fun to use such a tactic if Russia can afford to do so against an amateur opponent. What does everyone think?

This emoticon says it all:

I like your argument, it shows you have considered my side, and that you are well read. I am actually half Italian by the way, and I had family that fought for Italy in the war. I have always been taught, and have only ever read that the Italians were hopeless fighters in the war. Have you any reliable good books on Italy in the war that you could recommend to me?

As for you imperious leader, leave the historical debate to the experts.

A generalised factual statement, implies that on the main they did not retreat, and on the main when they came across Russian soldiers behind enemy lines they put them in the gulag. They even did it to Stalin’s own son! Yes he was thrown in the gulag after they found him in a prisoner of war camp.

I know what the problem is, you have read too many sources from the perspective of the allies. Why would the allies prop up the Italians? So that when they beat them they looked better. Remember history is written by the winners. So my suggestion to you is buy some books written by German veterans. I would suggest Hans Sajer’s ‘forgotten soldier’, Von Mellethin’s ‘panzer battles’, Von manstein’s memoirs, or even Heinz Guderian’s memoirs. If you want books written by Americans or British who tell it how it is, try Max Hastings or Antony Beevor. I will no longer argue with you, World War 2 is a sea of dis-information propagated by the allies after the war to make themselves look better.

As for the free French imperious leader, are you forgetting Monte Cassino!!!

Good point Rakeman!

Make it so that where ever a UN peace keeper is, in order to emphasise diplomatic negotiations, the attacking player can reconsider his attack after having rolled his dice, haha.