Hello,

I have the 2004 edition and would love to play some other versions. I have a few people locally but always excited to expand! Let me know if you’d care to Join us.

2 Turn Rounds:
I am wondering if anyone has tried something like this.
Last game we had took 4 hours, so i am trying to let some slower players do stuff at the same time.

In any game with 5 powers,
(turn order USSR, GER, UK, Japan, USA)
it is possible for a round to be finished in 2 turns instead of 5 by letting each team move together.

Start the game as normal, for the first few rounds, when the UK player is ready, change the turn order so the UK goes after Japan.
(if your group thinks the UK needs some compensation feel free to give them 5 IPCs or if the UK has a 2nd factory place 1 infantry there before changing turn order)

Before the Japanese goes. (or whatever player gets to skip) the skipped player (UK) should get to do a non combat move for every unit closer to Japanese (territory or units) than to any axis powers. (Germany)

After the swap, The Allies can do most of their turns at the same time and so can the Axis.
Different powers still may not attack together.
If their are turns where one attack depends on a previous attack let the different powers do combat moves & resolve combat separately (but in order!)

You can have different combat rounds for the allied powers.

Allies:
COMBAT 1: (move and resolve) USA > Japan | UK > Ger
COMBAT 2: (move and resolve) RUS > Japan | USA > Ger
COMBAT 3: (move and resolve) UK > Japan | RUS > Ger

Axis:
COMBAT 1: (move and resolve) Japan > UK | GER > USA & USSR
COMBAT 2: (move and resolve) GER > UK | Japan > USA & USSR

Although if friendly powers are not fighting in the same territories you can ignore the separate combat steps and just make all your moves. (often applicable for the Axis)

Combat move and resolve are the only steps that get messy.
All the other turn phases can be done simultaneously, and this speeds up the game.

This also solves the problem of the USA not getting to collect from territories in China that go back and forth being fought over by Russia and Japan. A small thing that has bugged me an unreasonable amount!

[warning: Idea stage. rules still being formed]
If anyone has played the small card game “air land sea” My idea is similar to that. In that game players constantly have the opportunity to cut their loses. This gives the losing player still meaningful decisions to make no matter how bad their hand is.

For Axis and Allies:
If after round 3 (or whatever) one side is losing enough they can concede the game. BUT the war goes on. The losers get some objectives. If they conceding side does well enough with those objectives, the game ends in a tie. This would allow players to still compete meaningfully, and give someone who thinks they have lost a new lease on life without having to clear the table/reset the board prematurely.

OBJECTIVE IDEAS:

1. War weariness? inflict enough casualties on the other side (thematic for USA or UK but not really for the others
2. Hold enough territory for the next 2 rounds
3. Hold enough Victory Cities for the next 2 rounds
4. Some negotiation track? Public opinion track?

Restrictions/Abilities Post Conceding?

1. After a side has conceded maybe they are allowed to build fortifications that are very strong
2. The conceding side is not allowed to attack any territory it did not start the game owning. And may only attack sea zones adjacent to those territories.

Anyone out there? I have the 1942 but open to trying other games

@ everyone

After thinking about this on and off for months I have come up with an idea that introduces zero new components!

No changing costs or stats. Instead change the casualties.

When picking casualties, you cannot pick the same unit type 3 times in a row. So instead of killing 3 inf you would kill 2 and the 3rd would have to be something else. And if no other units are left then u kill 2 inf on the 3rd hit every 3rd hit

Grinchveld
Waterloo
Ontario Canada
HAS: D-Day and the 2004 global

This Idea came up through talking to people here about avoiding infantry blobs. Spamming infantry is often the best way to play, but that can be boring. So to encourage more diversity in strategy, we came up with the following:

When taking Casualties, if you select the same unit type as a casualty 3 times in a row, you must take an extra casualty. So if you were defending with ONLY infantry and took 3 casualties, you must remove 4 infantry instead. [you may apply the same rule to all units or just infantry]

Players can adjust this to their liking. Every 4th unit must be different or even every 2nd unit must be different. I would love to play test this more online but not sure how to do that unless people use tabletop simulator.

@barnee
I think we are not understanding each other.

Different Victory conditions are normally decided before the game starts. Which is fine, but not what I am talking about.

I want to give agency to the losing side. If you are confident you have lost already (barring a miracle) I want the losing side to have agency to change their game objectives.

The trick is to come up with a fair and meaningful way for the losers to have goals that they have a chance of attaining, but that the other side has a chance of spoiling. How to move the goal posts, given the game conditions after the first 3 rounds, so that the new goals are competitive between the sides.

i.e. of it not working. Germany failed to knock out Russia before the USA reinforced it. If the German player just says, well i bet you cannot take Berlin in 2 rounds, that is not interesting because there is no way the allies can do it. There needs to be some objective that is still hard for both sides to attain. Some new goal that gives both sides have a real chance of winning.

[warning: Idea stage. rules still being formed]
If anyone has played the small card game “air land sea” My idea is similar to that. In that game players constantly have the opportunity to cut their loses. This gives the losing player still meaningful decisions to make no matter how bad their hand is.

For Axis and Allies:
If after round 3 (or whatever) one side is losing enough they can concede the game. BUT the war goes on. The losers get some objectives. If they conceding side does well enough with those objectives, the game ends in a tie. This would allow players to still compete meaningfully, and give someone who thinks they have lost a new lease on life without having to clear the table/reset the board prematurely.

OBJECTIVE IDEAS:

1. War weariness? inflict enough casualties on the other side (thematic for USA or UK but not really for the others
2. Hold enough territory for the next 2 rounds
3. Hold enough Victory Cities for the next 2 rounds
4. Some negotiation track? Public opinion track?

Restrictions/Abilities Post Conceding?

1. After a side has conceded maybe they are allowed to build fortifications that are very strong
2. The conceding side is not allowed to attack any territory it did not start the game owning. And may only attack sea zones adjacent to those territories.

Any ideas on what happened and how to fix this would be great! When my opponent hit exit the game closed itself.

is it a bug or do we need to configure something differently

This Idea came up through talking to people here about avoiding infantry blobs. Spamming infantry is often the best way to play, but that can be boring. So to encourage more diversity in strategy, we came up with the following:

When taking Casualties, if you select the same unit type as a casualty 3 times in a row, you must take an extra casualty. So if you were defending with ONLY infantry and took 3 casualties, you must remove 4 infantry instead. [you may apply the same rule to all units or just infantry]

Players can adjust this to their liking. Every 4th unit must be different or even every 2nd unit must be different. I would love to play test this more online but not sure how to do that unless people use tabletop simulator.

AnA Faster Rearranged Rounds MOD.pdf

My home brew attempt to stream line the games. I only have the 2004 edition but i tried to write it generically.

Interested in ways to make it more clear and if there are issues with other versions

Thanks,

@hengst YES
have you used table top simulator? I have not used it for axis and allies yet but i think that might be easier than facetime.

@panther

If i click on the report button it says
“A report already exists on this issue”
and goes to this link
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/9777

the game is 1940 Europe Original

Thanks for the quick response!

I tried a game against myself, just to learn the flow before playing against someone else.
(I used the same email address for both sides)
Started ok, but when i finished my 1st turn’s combat rolls it got stuck.
It did not progress to the non combat move.

A window popped up saying
unknown property named ‘turns’
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: unknown property named ‘turns’

Help

Do people use Vassal? how does it compare to triple A?

I would be looking at asynchronous play for either.

Any advice would be great! thanks

@grinchveld

the ‘Suggested Topics’ does look like others have come up with similar ideas.

like this from 2015
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26036/simultaneous-play-in-opposite-theaters/11

I have not played the versions with more than 5 powers, but I do think the basic idea can work to reduce the number of turns in a round. by changing the turn order.

Implement after the 1st round or 2, to keep positioning balanced.
Depending on the balance, some small advantage for the power who gets skipped.

Then powers on the same side who have consecutive turns may all go together as long as you break the combat moves along the original order (from the perspective of the attacked)

Breaking the combat into multiple rounds does seem to be the organizationally new thing.
(or at least I haven’t found someone say it that way on this site yet)