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.
Subs are amazing units. I argue hacing about 40% of your IPCs in subs as US. Volume is vastly underrated.
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.
I think the rules here are quite clear. but first, some clarifications:
I once lost russia in axis anniversary when I had about 50 units with average strength of about 2.3, while the german attacked with about 30 infs, 5 tanks and 5 planes. He rolled 25 hits in the first combat round, while i rolled about 15, then he rolled 15 hits and I rolled 10. So russia fell.
got 101. taking the train from moscow to hong kong adds quite a lot.
these are difficult to respond do without you supplying any rationale. It seems like you have made many chises without saying why. I have the following questions:
1. It seems like you think number of people are more important than resources, but, in WW2, the resources was really what put a cap on industry, not people.
2. Seems like you put a great emphasis on canada, why?
3. you put a very high value on capitols. and not the reaas supplying the resources and industry. I Disagree with the increased values of France, West germany and russia.
4. OIL!!!- You have just removed value from so many oilregions, it is insane. Rumania should be a 6, not a 2, the money-islands are vital to the war because of the oil and rubber there. There is a reason shan-state, sumatra, borneo and the celebs are some of the most important areas of WW2.
5. Did you know that Urals and Novosibirsk where the areas where USSR produced most of their tanks and airplanes in WW2?
depening on the bidrules, here is an idea,
1 uk inf in london
1 french inf in london
1 UK ftr in scotland
1 uk mech in northern ireland
1 uk sub in med
that is a total of 25
you can build an mIC in egypt + 5 inf in uk1 and have more units available to defend london than in a non-bid game.
This would lock down africa and allow uk to build the mIC in Iran on UK2, and in Iraq on UK3. UK would be pumping out units to southern russia much quicker than in regular games. I would guess UK would have about 10 more units in southern russia bu tunr 4 than in a regular game.
I would say you are not buying enough of the right units as germany. Once you send your german army off, the only troops you can use to reinforce are fastmovers. You should try buying 18-20 mechs on G2, 10 mechs on G3, and 10 mechs on G4. That will really give you staying power and allow you to move into terretories much more efficiently. If you have trouble forcing the soviets back to moscow, you can go for rostow with italian canopeners. If you get there USSR has to retreat, otherwise you can use the italians to clear a path, and blitz right past his stack to moscow.
That seems like an awful lot of German troops attacking at a 1. Germany already has around 30 inf on the Russian front. Wouldn’t artillery and tanks be more useful? I’m often doing 10 art on G2 so that one army group is 25ish inf and 10-15 art and I still have 10 mech (bought G3) and 10 tanks available for a 2nd attack.
10 art buy G2 is a great buy. But remember you can buy art out of novgorod and ukraine. And really you dont need more than 15 art to attack moscow and more than 20 armor is a waste too. So if you are outside these numbers buy other units, like mech. Some people say the ultimate art:inf ratio is 1:3. Personally I think 1:4 is OK too as long as you have enough bombers (tac and strat)
Arts are good if they get there in time. you could buy 10 art and 8 mech (from w-germany) instead. But you usually want to stay away from buying any more tanks. They are expensive and not that good. Most people undervalue volume in this game. If you want to calculate strength of a stack (compared to an other), the correct formula is to use [Average strength]*[number of units]^2 .
I would say you are not buying enough of the right units as germany. Once you send your german army off, the only troops you can use to reinforce are fastmovers. You should try buying 18-20 mechs on G2, 10 mechs on G3, and 10 mechs on G4. That will really give you staying power and allow you to move into terretories much more efficiently. If you have trouble forcing the soviets back to moscow, you can go for rostow with italian canopeners. If you get there USSR has to retreat, otherwise you can use the italians to clear a path, and blitz right past his stack to moscow.
Scrambling is a defence not an attack. This is valid for any amphibious assault. A related example would be USSR trying to invade Sardinia to get that extra NO. It would not matter how many ships the royal navy had in the area, the italians will still scramble against the USSR ships, and prevent the landing.
it would be 75% if the chances where statistical independent events. That would mean that the allies could not transfer resources between the maps and what the axis does on one map does not affect the other map.
List of reasons why they are not independent:
1. Allies can transfer resources
2. US does not the the 40 increase in their home terr
3. Russia gets extra troops and income.
4. UK can shuffle troops between the theatres
5. Japanese declaration of war brings US earlier into the war on the europe map.
6. US can suffle resources between theatres.
7. USSR can hit japanese troops in china
8. Japanese can attack USSR
9. Japanese can soften up cairo, to help it fall.
I guess this is sort of an attack of opertunity, rather than a standalone plan.
Lets imagine a US response to japanese sinking of hawaii fleet, building 3 TTs, and a possible sealion. In this scenario, I would guess UK goes 8inf and US has two main objectives:
1., prevent sealion by flying bombers and fighters.
2. keep hawaii.
To keep hawaii, you have enough fighters to make the J2 attack not work, especially with anzak help. You still have the resources to prevent sealion at the same time (those eastern fighters wont reach hawaii anyways). So, since you have the resources to prevent hawaii falling on J2, you have to think about J3, To prevent J3, you would probably build something like 1 fighter and 7 subs on the west coast. At this point, japan is in a race for hawaii he wont win, while he proably isn’t doing what he should elsewhere.
Buying nothing have worked out well.
The big advantage is that it forces UK to assume you have bought for sealion, without you actually having to spend on a navy. So you force UK to buy 6 inf + 1 ftrs, instead of 2 inf and 2 fighter or 5 inf and 1 IC
I would give two general advice:
1. Don’t play your power optimally. The newbie can’t compete with that.
2. Allow the newbie to play his/her own game.
I would recommend resisting the urge to give unsolicited advice. It is important to let new players experiment themselves, and feel like they are in control. The only time you should give advice unsolicited is when the newbie is about to make an obvious blunder. This will usually be due to not remembering the relevant rules, or forgetting some capability. If they don’t remember the rule, you should explain it to them (for example: “fighters can’t land on damage carriers, are you sure you want to take your hits like that?”). If they forget about a capabilty, explain that to them (example: “I can land on you capitol now, it is not defended well enough”, or “Those transporters are undefended”, or “that fleet will be smashed if it is there”)
You could also perhaps spend a little time on the NOs, after turn 3 (or so), when they are starting to get the hang of everything else.