Hi All!
I’m Greyleaf3. I’m a 40-something computer geek (IT support person) from the metro NYC area. I played a whole lot of A&A classic as a teen in the late 1980s. I must’ve played over 100 times back then! I bought A&A revised in 2004 and A&A 1941 in 2017, and both games sat on the shelf unused until recently.
My teenage son became interested in Axis & Allies and it reignited my interest in the hobby. In the past three months, I have played revised four times, 1941 twice, Europe & Pacific @ once each. Also played DDay & Global 1940 exactly once each.
I am astounded by the level of commitment and dedication of some A&A youtubers such as the “Canadian crew” (General hand grenade and others). I am also in awe at the variety, depth, and complexity of A&A games on the market.
I guess it would be cool to find some other grown-up gamers to play with face-to-face in my area. Not sure how I feel about A&A Online on Steam.

All Encompassing Goose: I often consider doing this too when playing A&A Europe 1940 2E “Standalone” (not global 1940). I have tried it several times as the allies as has my son (with me playing the Axis).
Here is what we found:
1.) You can take Greece as UK round 1, you can do this even if you commit the remainder of your ships in the Mediterranean to the Taranto raid. Usually, it makes the most sense to bring 1 infrantry and one tank to make the foothold in greece the strongest, but doing this weakens Cairo’s defenses quite a bit.
There is no opportunity to re-inforce greece before Germany turn 2, so best case, Greece will have 5 infantry and 1 tank available for defense.
2.) The net effect of taking Greece on UK round 1, based on several playthroughs, is that best case, you slow down Germany’s push toward Ukraine for a turn or two as the german player feels they can’t afford to leave Greece uncontested. Germany is usually able to take Greece on Turn 2 with moderate losses depending on the forces they commit.

I haven’t run into it, but I am sure there can be an extraordinary battle roll in the UK’s favor such that they keep greece past Germany turn 2 and they can reinforce it with fighters, etc.

But most of the time, the entire endeavor amounts to slowing/delaying germany’s southern thrust into russia by 1 turn, maybe 2.
In the real WW2, UK did try re-inforcing greece from egypt and germany conquered greece anyway (see:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lustre](link url))

Thats a pretty general question, and I assume the answer varies depending on which WWII board game you are playing. I personally can’t speak regarding other games (Global War 1936, War Room, Triumph and Tradgedy)… I can only speak about my experience with various versions of axis and allies.
Most of the axis and allies variant games I played this year lasted very long (7 or more full rounds) and were fought to a stalemate, with the axis player eventually conceding that they were going to lose in the long-run.
The original classic A&A, revised A&A, and A&A europe 1940 2nd edition often seem to boil down to this: If axis powers take moscow, the game is pretty much over. If the allies conquer either Berlin or Tokyo, the game is pretty much over. Its rarely necessary to continue once either of those conditions is met, because the income bonus and momentum is hard to overcome.
I would say that most games I play end in less than 10 rounds.

Hey everyone!
I am not sure if this is the correct “sub-forum” to post my question(s). Moderators: Please feel free to move my post to the appropriate location.
I have recently rekindled my interest in Axis & Allies by purchasing A&A Europe &A&A Pacific 1940 second edition. I have had the good fortune of playing a bunch of times in the past few months.
I remain amazed at all of the custom pieces and enhancements available for online ordering from various third parties.
I am interested in some playing piece customizations, but I am not prepared to spend upwards of $500 on fancy customizations.
Instead, I was considering purchasing a few select add-ons and customizations that will help make the board less cluttered, more manageable, and hopefully speed up game play a bit.
I know there are a lot of options, but it seems like adding aircraft stands, carrier magnets, and maybe capital ship damage markers may be the most useful/valuable enhancements. Also maybe doing something to easily distinguish destroyers from cruisers.
Does anyone have any suggestions on the few most valuable, worthwhile “quality of life” improvement parts for the Global 1940 game?

Hey All,
I played a few games of A&A Pacific 1940 2nd Edition with my son.
There was one game where I had a fleet, transports, and a Naval base in Alaska and I won on Turn 6 because my son left the Japan Homeland relatively undefended although it was a very close battle and I wont it relying on a bit of luck.
Ever other game we played, we have fought to a grinding stalemate. I wonder if it is our respective playstyles or if this game is just normally a long grind?
I told my son that if Japan doesn’t quickly make a big push to eliminate one of the allies (besides china), its basically a long, slow death for Japan.
Anyone have any ideas why the game is taking us 8+ hours with no clear victor?

@imperious-leader : So your basically saying, you don’t have any additional suggestions for “high value” game-piece additions or modifications in the absence of house rules new unit types?

To be honest, I think the base 1940 global, europe, and pacific games are complex enough without House Rule add-ons. Even house rules like national advantages (from A&A revised) are a little too much to keep track of for me and my game-mates.

Hi,
I have a few related rules clarification question for Spring 1942 2E.

Any power can build sea units in a seazone adjacent to a factory. So can place new units in a sea zone occupied by any surface warships.
At the start of the other players turn, they have the option to stay in the occupied (hostile) sea zone, or to retreat (or move out of that zone). My question is: is it a retreat in that you can only move warships one space to retreat and avoid combat in such a situation, or can everything in the seazone that starts hostile move a full two spaces?
What about in cases where a sub starts its turn in a hostile seazone containing a destroyer? Can that sub move away/retreat during combat movement phase, and if so, is the sub only allowed to “move away” one space or two spaces?

All Encompassing Goose: I often consider doing this too when playing A&A Europe 1940 2E “Standalone” (not global 1940). I have tried it several times as the allies as has my son (with me playing the Axis).
Here is what we found:
1.) You can take Greece as UK round 1, you can do this even if you commit the remainder of your ships in the Mediterranean to the Taranto raid. Usually, it makes the most sense to bring 1 infrantry and one tank to make the foothold in greece the strongest, but doing this weakens Cairo’s defenses quite a bit.
There is no opportunity to re-inforce greece before Germany turn 2, so best case, Greece will have 5 infantry and 1 tank available for defense.
2.) The net effect of taking Greece on UK round 1, based on several playthroughs, is that best case, you slow down Germany’s push toward Ukraine for a turn or two as the german player feels they can’t afford to leave Greece uncontested. Germany is usually able to take Greece on Turn 2 with moderate losses depending on the forces they commit.

I haven’t run into it, but I am sure there can be an extraordinary battle roll in the UK’s favor such that they keep greece past Germany turn 2 and they can reinforce it with fighters, etc.

But most of the time, the entire endeavor amounts to slowing/delaying germany’s southern thrust into russia by 1 turn, maybe 2.
In the real WW2, UK did try re-inforcing greece from egypt and germany conquered greece anyway (see:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lustre](link url))

I have another Global 1940 2E rule clarification question. This one may sound stupid. If you purchase a Minor IC at the beginning of a turn, then move one land unit into a friendly neutral territory that is worth 2ipcs, can you PLACE your newly purchased Minor IC on the “claimed” friendly neutral on the same turn?

I read a post on this forum dating back to 2013 which advocates germany purchasing a minor IC turn 1, moving an infantry into finland, and then placing that minor IC in finland. I dont think its a good idea, I just want to know if it is a legal move.
Another application (if this move is legal) would be ULK transporting a tank and infantry to friendly neutral greece, and placing a minor IC down in greece (same turn)

Please advise.

Hey everyone,
On youtube, and on this forum I have seen so many part customizations for A&A global. I am more interested in “functional” customizations than ones that I consider cosmetic. So far, the only customizations I have invested in include the excellent 3-D printed unit organizer trays available from [https://iwillnevergrowup.com/](link url)
I am strongly considering investing in aircraft stands and/or magnetic mods for aircraft carriers. I consider these to be “functional” modifications because these changes allow aircraft to fit better in small territories or crowded territories/spaces.

I know there are multiple options for aircraft stands and for carrier modifications. I was just looking for advice on what works best.
Is it better to use the pre-fab plastic flight stands that the planes rest on/balance on, or is it better to drill tiny holes in each fighter and use peg-based flight stands? I have dabbled in hobby painting and modification before (not for A&A peices), but I am a little worried that if I attempt to drill holes in fighters that I may crack the unit in half.

Likewise, with aircraft carriers, I’ve seen people drill holes and embed small magnets. I have also seen people use magnetic paint on the flight deck, or use a flat “refrigerator style” magnet cut glued to the flight deck.

Just wondering what works best, and if anyone could point me at an actual “part list” where I can just order the necessary parts and then perform the mods myself. Alternatively, if anyone knows of a “mail away” modding service that will install the mods for a fee, that would be helpful as well.

@colt45554
We played 1940 pacific 2E twice or three times so far.
Japan starts strong with a J1 attack and some “standard advice moves” like consolidating Japanese Airforce at Kwangsi, etc.

Its not that Japan ends up turtling, nor does UK/British Raj. Its that Japan starts strong, doesn’t decisively take any allied capital, and slowly looses steam. Then the allies slowly gain ground, and it looks to be a “long, slow death” for Japan, and then my son ends up giving up 5+ hours into the game.
I am not sure if it is our respective playstyles, but we keep seeing this outcome over and over. Maybe I am a good defensive player, maybe he is a poor overall offensive player, not sure.
I will say this: I tend to do better in ANY version of A&A when I am playing powers with limited IPC budgets that start in precarious positions. I excel at USSR, British India, Anzac, and China. I tend to suck at playing the US because I have all this money (too much choice) plus the logistics thing.
When you are a turn or two from death, and have limited income, you tend to purchase conservatively and hunker down and not make any risky attacks.

@imperious-leader : I looked up real-life force projection or “power projection” on wikipedia, and maybe the real-world geopolitical definition is broader than what it means in an A&A board game, or maybe not.
In real life we talk about the “threat of force” acting as a deterrent without actual engagement. Does “threat of force” and “potential reach” work the same way in Axis and Allies?
I guess it does to an extent, especially when it comes to the pacific fleet maneuvering and posturing that can often occurs between the USA and Japan in various A&A games.
The reason I question “threat of force” vs actual use of force is that in A&A, everyone is basically in an open state of war, both sides have no doubt that the other side is going to do their absolute worst…its a game, and both sides want to win (the stake aren’t super high for the players other than “sunk time” (wasting time playing a long board game and losing.)
But again, flexing your potential force (threat of force) can act as a deterrent within the game.

So I know there are so many versions of A&A out there in 2021. I know that some versions been extensively studied and analyzed (Don Rae essays for example). I also know that certain versions have been proven to be imbalanced towards one side or the other.
I was wondering if most axis and allies games can be “reduced” to a simple overall concept: Axis power momentum or lack thereof?
The initial IPC income and military force distribution on most A&A Variants is easily summarized as follows:

1. The Axis powers start with significantly more combat forces already on the map, in striking position of key strategic targets, but a lower combined income than the allies.
2. The Allies start with relatively fewer combat forces, some of which are quite vulnerable to Turn 1 (T1) attacks , but they start with a higher IPC income that can turn the tide as long as they gain or at least NOT lose too much ground

Maybe there is a 1939 (or 1914:)) variant that doesnt match the above description, but generally speaking points 1 and 2 above are true.

Given the above, I think the Axis goal is almost always to “win quickly”, to quickly gain ground and IPC income through aggressive play-style and even some high risk/high reward attacks.
The optimal Allied play style can be summarized as “play defensively” until superior income combined with the “long-cycle” might of the USA player can be brought to bear to wear out the axis war machine and slowly overcome the axis power.

I know there is a lot of nuance I am not accounting for such as the "politcal state/declaration of war rules in the 1940 games and time-proven concepts such as KGF or KJF. But overall, it still seems to boil down to “Axis need to strike first, strike hard, and achieve a quick victory, or they lose the long-term war of attrition”.

Thats a pretty general question, and I assume the answer varies depending on which WWII board game you are playing. I personally can’t speak regarding other games (Global War 1936, War Room, Triumph and Tradgedy)… I can only speak about my experience with various versions of axis and allies.
Most of the axis and allies variant games I played this year lasted very long (7 or more full rounds) and were fought to a stalemate, with the axis player eventually conceding that they were going to lose in the long-run.
The original classic A&A, revised A&A, and A&A europe 1940 2nd edition often seem to boil down to this: If axis powers take moscow, the game is pretty much over. If the allies conquer either Berlin or Tokyo, the game is pretty much over. Its rarely necessary to continue once either of those conditions is met, because the income bonus and momentum is hard to overcome.
I would say that most games I play end in less than 10 rounds.

Hey everyone! This Covid-19 social distancing thing is killing me! I am having two dear friends come over this weekend for an in-person game of Axis & Allies Revised (2004).
We want to use the OOB ruleset, and find a way to have a shorter game, but the “minor victory” rules where you only need to hold 8 victory cities for a full round of play seems a little too short. The “major victory” rules where you need 10 victory cities seems a little too long (and typically boils down to moscow falls or berlin falls).
What does everyone think about playing a match for 9 victory cities. I know that is in the LHTR, but I wanted to play the OOB rules with this one tweak.
My question is really: If we play a house rule of "must hold 9 victory cities for one full turn (Russia-USA), will the game still play out in less than 5 hours?

Hey All,
I played a few games of A&A Pacific 1940 2nd Edition with my son.
There was one game where I had a fleet, transports, and a Naval base in Alaska and I won on Turn 6 because my son left the Japan Homeland relatively undefended although it was a very close battle and I wont it relying on a bit of luck.
Ever other game we played, we have fought to a grinding stalemate. I wonder if it is our respective playstyles or if this game is just normally a long grind?
I told my son that if Japan doesn’t quickly make a big push to eliminate one of the allies (besides china), its basically a long, slow death for Japan.
Anyone have any ideas why the game is taking us 8+ hours with no clear victor?