Suggested Topics

S

Squirecam Witt G42 (Axis +6)

Play Boardgames
• • • squirecam

780

0
Votes

780
Posts

56.3k
Views

W

hina 4 Witt. .tsvg
V

Gamerman01 (Axis+11) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | Classic 2025 Tournament, Losers Round 2

Tournaments
• • • VictoryFirst

22

0
Votes

22
Posts

127
Views

G

@The_Good_Captain Rule question, please
I looked and looked and used AI too and couldn’t find the answer to this question -

Is my move of loading an infantry from Japan on J1 and sending that transport into battle at Hawaii legal, since the infantry was not unloaded on amphibious assault? It looks to me like it’s legal because the move ended in combat for the transport, but you definitely can’t do this in G40. But there is an explicit rule in G40 and I couldn’t find it for Classic.

In my case I went ahead since we wanted to keep the game moving and it really wasn’t going to make much difference since in only an extreme dice result would I take the transport off, so effectively was moving it in during noncombat move…

Is an important distinction, so I need to know for the future - - and maybe someone else reading this will find it helpful as well - thanks!!!
A

L25 PTV axis-dom (axis+14) vs adam - rematch

League
• • • axis-dominion

47

0
Votes

47
Posts

111
Views

A

TripleA Turn Summary: French round 4
TripleA Turn Summary for game: WW2 Path to Victory

Game History
Round: 4 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport; Remaining resources: 1 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC 1 infantry moved from New South Wales to 64 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 64 Sea Zone to 55 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Queensland to 55 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 55 Sea Zone to 45 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 45 Sea Zone to Celebes 1 infantry moved from New Guinea to 55 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 55 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from 35 Sea Zone to Paulau Combat - ANZAC Battle in Paulau Battle in Celebes ANZAC attack with 1 artillery and 1 infantry Japanese defend with 1 infantry ANZAC roll dice for 1 artillery and 1 infantry in Celebes, round 2 : 1/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 1 infantry in Celebes, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Celebes ANZAC win, taking Paulau from Japanese, taking Celebes from Japanese with 1 artillery and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Non Combat Move - ANZAC 1 infantry moved from New Guinea to Dutch New Guinea ANZAC take Dutch New Guinea from Dutch 1 cruiser and 1 submarine moved from 55 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 2 fighters moved from Queensland to Caroline Islands 2 aaGuns and 1 artillery moved from Queensland to New South Wales 1 destroyer moved from 64 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone Place Units - ANZAC 1 transport placed in 64 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry placed in New South Wales Turn Complete - ANZAC ANZAC collect 12 PUs; end with 13 PUs Objective ANZAC 3 Pacific Supply Lines: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 16 PUs Objective ANZAC 2 Control Strategic Islands: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 19 PUs Combat Move - French Non Combat Move - French 1 destroyer moved from 81 Sea Zone to 42 Sea Zone Turn Complete - French
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Japanese regular : -0.33 ANZAC regular : 0.33
Savegame
A

L25 PTV ArtofWar (X+10) v Stucifer (L)

League
• • • ArtofWar1947

57

0
Votes

57
Posts

645
Views

A

@Stucifer

On second thought, please use the edited version of ITA-6.

41780-AoW(X)vStu(L)-ITA-6.tsvg
S

A&A: Spring 1942 game contents

Axis & Allies Spring 1942 Edition
• • • skay85

3

2
Votes

3
Posts

26
Views

K

@skay85 The Rulebook can be found here.
A

L25 BM Avner (X) vs FlyingBadger (L+16)

League
• • • Avner

35

0
Votes

35
Posts

661
Views

F

TripleA Turn Summary: French round 4
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3

Game History
Round: 4 Purchase Units - ANZAC ANZAC buy 1 artillery, 1 destroyer and 1 fighter; Remaining resources: 1 PUs; Combat Move - ANZAC Non Combat Move - ANZAC 1 destroyer moved from 62 Sea Zone to 55 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 62 Sea Zone to 33 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 cruiser, 3 destroyers, 1 infantry, 1 submarine and 1 transport moved from 54 Sea Zone to 33 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 33 Sea Zone to Caroline Islands 1 infantry moved from Dutch New Guinea to New Guinea Place Units - ANZAC 1 artillery and 1 fighter placed in New South Wales 1 destroyer placed in 62 Sea Zone Turn Complete - ANZAC ANZAC collect 10 PUs; end with 11 PUs Objective ANZAC 3 Pacific Supply Lines: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 14 PUs Objective ANZAC 2 Control Strategic Islands: ANZAC met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 17 PUs Combat Move - French Non Combat Move - French 1 destroyer moved from 76 Sea Zone to 79 Sea Zone Turn Complete - French
Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame
T

Units, Mechanics, etc.

Axis & Allies Europe 1940
• • • The Janus

60

2
Votes

60
Posts

3.0k
Views

T

Getting back to the main topic of the thread, I’ve played a couple of games recently (in TripleA) and I’d say my opinion of the unit types has solidified even more.

For context, I want to lay out the general tactics I tend to use, as the western Allies:
Try to preserve French units as much as possible; move French units from UK to Morocco ASAP Land US tanks+infantry in Morocco; use additional transports to then ship those infantry further into Europe, while driving those tanks towards the Caucasus Utilize the purchase of harbors in Norway, Greece, and/or Persia to extend allied lines of supply Use the factory in South Africa to shuttle troops towards Novosibirsk
That all being said, here are my opinions on the various unit types:

Artillery: I don’t see a ton of use for this unit. I think the issue lies in the split between countries that are land powers vs. sea powers. If you’re the USSR, artillery are an attractive option because you have a low income, you need some offense, but also you just need as many pieces as possible. If you’re the US or UK, tanks do all of the above, but also are more useful to put on a transport, and move better once they’re on land – and you have the budget for it, too. Hypothetically, if you were to remove artillery from the game, and increase the USSR’s income to compensate (i.e. encourage them to buy more tanks) I think they’d just opt for bigger hordes of infantry. Limitations on the amount of units that factories can produce might play into it a bit, but otherwise IPM logic would win out, I assume.

Mech. Inf.: Germany feels like they’re in the ‘mushy middle’ of needing fast-movers (for the southern front, in particular) but not really having the economy to go all-tank in that regard (the way I typically would, w/r/t fast-movers for the US or UK). OTOH, Germany has the problem of also being a land power that needs as many units on the board as possible. I get the sense that a well-executed Italian strategy will give Germany a bit more time/space to breathe, so that’s something I’ll have to get some more experience with. I think with my strategies involving resupplying the USSR via South Africa, I could probably pivot to 1 inf+1 mech instead of 2 inf…? But on the whole, I don’t really see a use case for this unit, beyond Germany and possibly the USSR (or Italy, using some leap-frog maneuvering to do can-openers.) Generally I feel like Italy is a country that needs to focus on infantry and aircraft, more than anything else.

Tanks: My overall impression is that an artillery is “a tank without the mobility” and a mech. inf. is “a tank without the offense” – if you can afford tanks, they’re always the better option than either of those other units. This is why (as I’ve said in discussion elsewhere) I’d prefer to see the artillery and mech. inf. units/roles merged into one; some countries need the offense, some need the movement, and those that can’t afford tanks need a cheaper option for whichever niche they’re looking to fill. In short, I don’t think there’s enough design space for the 4 types of land units.

Aircraft: I’ve toyed with mixing tac. bombers into my carrier fleets; they’re nice to have, but I don’t think they’re an overall necessary addition to the game. I’ve generally reverted to purely fighters as my carrier aircraft. I think bombers are really strong, particularly for the allies in softening up Germany; the +2 bombing damage as well as the US/UK ability to just stockpile planes over time is really deadly. I almost feel like the US economic boost via National Objectives needs to taper off after a few rounds. I think the bombing mechanic overall is a little undercooked; the harbor in Gibraltar is probably the only thing worth bombing, other than factories. This fuels part of the weakness of tac. bombers, at least in the European theatre; I could see this tactic being potentially stronger in the Pacific.

Cruisers: They are obsolete. A fighter is basically always a better purchase, both for naval defense and shore “bombardment.” Destroyers are weaker defensively, but not relative to the cost, and they’re better for ASW as well as just general cannon fodder. For the same cost, I’d argue a bomber is way better, offensively. I’d even argue a battleship might be a better purchase, if you can use it to soak hits while also managing to keep it repaired.
I’ve said it earlier in the thread, but I think to make cruisers viable, you’d need to rebalance them through reducing the cost significantly and/or making shore bombardment be insta-kill. I honestly think there isn’t enough “design space” in the game for two classes of middleweight surface ships. Maybe if they were merged into a single unit, but interacted with other ships differently; for example, maybe pairing them with a battleship would upgrade their shore bombardment to a 4, while pairing them with a carrier would provide the ASW mechanics of a destroyer, or pairing them with a sub would grant them sneak attack.

Submarines/Destroyers: I’d be interested to see if there are any viable Axis strategies around leaning heavily into submarines… For the allies, while I think the slight cost saving/attack boost of a few subs over a few destroyers can help with wiping out the Italians, overall the destroyers are going to have more staying power, since they’re better for the main purpose of defending transports from enemy planes. Once you’ve got command of the seas, you’ll find yourself wishing that you had some ships that could bombard, and not just all destroyers – since they’re just defensive and not pro-active, at that point. (Now I’m finding myself wondering if there might be a case for Battleships over destroyers, as the US – particularly in a strategy involving additional harbors being built by the Allies. I might try and test this out, in the future.) You of course need transports, but overall I don’t think your naval purchases need to consist of anything other than destroyers, carriers, and fighters.

Other general musings:

The convoy zone to the east of Italy is such a huge detriment. I really like the idea of a constant Italian shuck-shuck into Syria, but once the Allied navy is in the Mediterranean, the Italians are basically forced to turtle up their ships to protect their coastline. In general, I find the convoy zones to be very arbitrary and “gamey” – Like, there aren’t any convoy zones adjacent to West Germany, or Berlin? Or the English Channel? Seriously?

I wonder if there’s any value to investing in a Baltic fleet, as Germany. Thus far, I’ve tended to send infantry towards Novgorod and mech. inf. towards Rostov, as the Germans; would speeding up the northern route with transports add any lethality to their strategy?

It seems like the Italians need to go into the middle east to get any meaningful sort of economy going (i.e. via National Objectives); the catch-22 is that it’d be expensive to get the necessary navy built up, to support that. Is it something they have to gamble on early, and hope they can parlay that into successes elsewhere later on? Are they better off just stalling the allies, while focusing on supporting Germany on land vs. the USSR? Do they have the economy to really make any difference, with that strategy?

Is it worth it for the Axis to declare war on the neutrals? I feel like taking out Turkey is too big of a hill to climb, but does that route make it easier to attack the USSR, or the middle east? Would it be viable to park the Italian fleet in the Black Sea and cause havoc that way? I see the Ai do it a lot, but is it worth it for the US to gobble up South America in this situation? Is opening up Spain just too much of a weakness for the Axis to even consider it?

Places like Saudi Arabia, Spain, and French West Africa all seem like interesting spots to put harbors. In practical terms though, the existing infrastructure tends to make those options fairly moot, and I rarely see the Axis take sub-Saharan Africa. It’s actually a shorter route on land from West Africa to get to the middle east and USSR, than by going through North Africa – but the lack of a harbor effectively makes this shipping lane twice the distance from the US, compared to just landing in Morocco.
P

Axis & Allies Spring 1942 Rulebook

Axis & Allies Spring 1942 Edition
• • • Panther

1

0
Votes

1
Posts

19
Views

P

I noticed that there never has been a topic about the Spring 1942 rulebook download.
So find it here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/#:~:text=Axis %26 Allies Spring 1942 (2009)

Posts made by graaf27