I always loved revised. In my opinion, it is the best axis game at that scale. I do like the fact that TTs has a die in defence. I have played houndreds of games of revised.

Global scratches a different itch. It is at a completely different scale. I always used to call it “Axis in flames”, since its scale is right between the classical axis and allies and a popular game called “World in flames” (by australian design group).

@Argothair, if you want to check out the most common global scale “war-game”, you should check out World in flames. It is on the smaller side of global war games, but it is extremely well made, and streamlined. It has the best system for fleet-combat i have seen in any system. In this game, you have a named counter for every ship of cruiser-size or larger. US has 196 named ships of the type surface combat ships (Light cruiser, Cruiser, Battle ship, CV and CVL).

revised

seems a lot of trannies, how about this;
g| major in rumania,  g2 10 mechs/tanks in rumania, g3 take move to grece and take turky, G4 go to iraq, UK now thinks you are going for egypt, you might change your plan and take middle east and egypt and maybe cauc, G4 take east persia, G5/G6 hit india

This is ofcourse dependant on heavy italian canopeners so you can move 2 areas each turn

fun thing about this is that you dont waste 130 IPC on naval, and uk might be guessing wrong about the direction of these forces.

With every single A&A game, the bid have increased with skil-level. The better you are. the more ability you have to use your advantages.

you don’t have a navalbase near burma, so that has to be built. However, uk can always then react by sending a single ship to 72, land his planes in egypt (if he has an airbase there) and build 3 units in S/A. Since you can’t hit it on the second turn, he can build 3 more units in S/A and fly at least 5 planes there from egypt. This means that he has 11 defenders against your 2 landunits and 2 fighters. He also has enough planes and ships to actually kill the navy you send as japan.

It sounds like a suicide mission with 0% chanse of success to me.

that seems wierd, and unworkable. You can’t bid for both sides.
If I bid 10 for the axis, and 40 for the allies, while my opponend bids 100 for the axis and 130 for the allies. Do I play both sides? or do I play the allies at 40 against axis at 100?

If you were to try it (adding units to both sides. You would agree that both sides get X IPC to place, and then have a regular bid.

@SS-GEN It is a very good game. At least 40% of the rules are relating to optional units. Most people play with most optional units, but a lot of people play the vanilla version.

I always loved revised. In my opinion, it is the best axis game at that scale. I do like the fact that TTs has a die in defence. I have played houndreds of games of revised.

Global scratches a different itch. It is at a completely different scale. I always used to call it “Axis in flames”, since its scale is right between the classical axis and allies and a popular game called “World in flames” (by australian design group).

@Argothair, if you want to check out the most common global scale “war-game”, you should check out World in flames. It is on the smaller side of global war games, but it is extremely well made, and streamlined. It has the best system for fleet-combat i have seen in any system. In this game, you have a named counter for every ship of cruiser-size or larger. US has 196 named ships of the type surface combat ships (Light cruiser, Cruiser, Battle ship, CV and CVL).

I’d agree with everyting said.

I believe that any 2player game should be played with a bid or a handicap based on skill (in a broad sense of the word). We have had players here who believe the axis can’t win, and need a bid of 20. That is probably correct for the way they play the game. That being said, it is an interesting exercise to figure out what the bid would be on an expert level.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the game LL or not?
a LL game has to have a higher bid than a luck game. LL attacks can be optimized a lot better, an a smaller force in needed to ensure a win. Just try to calculate how much you need to be 99 % certain of paris falling in a LL game vs a regular game

you don’t have a navalbase near burma, so that has to be built. However, uk can always then react by sending a single ship to 72, land his planes in egypt (if he has an airbase there) and build 3 units in S/A. Since you can’t hit it on the second turn, he can build 3 more units in S/A and fly at least 5 planes there from egypt. This means that he has 11 defenders against your 2 landunits and 2 fighters. He also has enough planes and ships to actually kill the navy you send as japan.

It sounds like a suicide mission with 0% chanse of success to me.

So, would you have it so that you don’t capture the cash if you take a capital? or maybe half the cash? or whatever that economy got the last turn?

@M36 once you get to higher levels of play, that 2/3rds will become 99/100 without bid

never buy battleships ever. never buy cruisers

Depening on what you have from before;

1DD 2 sub
1 CV, 1 sub
1dd 1 bomber
2 fighters

1 inf in Yunnan is a common bid. Holding Yunnan on the first turn is a big deal. it means the Chinese units there are surviving, and it means that japan will have trouble ever killing china. Those extra arts means china will have a permanent improved counterattack. Instead of one strong attacking unit, china will have 4.

There is something to be said for fixed bids, or bids that is added to a nations starting money.

one problem with bids you can place where you want is that there are critical units you get to place. as an example, going from allied bid of 5 to 6 is much more impactful than 1 ipc. It allows UK to place that sub in the med. If a bid of 5 meant getting 1 AA in UK, and a bid of 6 meant getting 1 inf in UK and 1 inf in Moscow, the difference would not be as significant.