Btw, just as a side note on the bombers (which everyone seems to be bashing price-wise), IMO they’re an option for the allies because frankly they’re the only ones who can seem to afford the price vs. effect with them. Also, bombers were a different kind of buy back in the day when the rules were a little more… how shall we say, skewed to favour such craft? I still think that they hold some value for the allies as far as SBR’s and giving added support to invasions. Let’s be honest: you’re never going to buy bombers like you buy fighters, if only because although the firepower is slightly better the defense is regrettably lacking.

Now, if one were to up the bombers to an attack of 5, say, that might influence things differently as they could become more of a threat offensively.

Just a quick pip: the game needs to be kept at a somewhat reasonable level of complexity, and by that I mean (and it’s been said before) we can’t have a game so detailed that you actually have to be a ranking officer on a general staff in order to play. It’s fine if you want for your own games, but overall I am against continuing to add new units to the game.

If you’re going to re-adjust pricing, my vote is to price Soviet infantry @ 2 IPC.

Wow, what a thread!

I must say, I take NCS’s position on this one for several reasons, the most pertinant of them being that

a) While the Axis certainly CAN win without a bid, when you have players of equal skill and who are equally skilled at playing both Axis AND Allies (not just one or the other side), a bid can certainly make the difference in the early round(s) and many times it’s what happens the first 2 rounds that can help decide the game.

b) figuring out statistics is something that can only be done over thousands and thousands of games. I mean, you can flip a coin 100 times and get 90 heads. Does that mean the odds of getting tails are skewed? No, because if you were to flip that coin 10,000 times or 100,000 times the odds are it would be very close to 50/50 and 1,000,000 times or more and likely the difference would be so negligible as to allow us to say it was 50/50. While we cannot play 1,000,000 AAR games, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to suggest that a bid helps even out the game.

You know, just as many of the issues of AA Classic were worked out in AAR, I think probably in the next iteration (or version) that many of the issues we’ve seen here will be worked out as well. Maybe an extra unit here or another territory there… whatever it takes to balance the game.

Actually I have made the same observation in the past. While I do not have any conclusive evidence, it’s probably as was suggested that they were still in development. If anyone has any information please do post it. Also, if anyone has a Jpeg of the back of that box, post it somewhere. I think my box has long since deceased :)

I have to agree to an extent with Sankt Hallvard… it is a plan that relies on the Russians being extremely cautious and the USA going with a KJF strat. If the UK bulks up and the USA does the traditional sending troops to help UK, I frankly don’t see how you can pull it off short of a miracle.

I do understand that you want to break away from the traditional game because, quite frankly, it does get boring. I mean, basically as the Axis it’s the same thing over and over and as the Allies the only issue is whether to go KGF or KJF and even the latter of the two is considered risky.

Perhaps a key here could be the following: don’t go all out on the USA… let the feel they can spend some on a fleet in the Pacific, thus taking away some IPCs that could be spent in Europe. Meanwhile, leave India be… possibly even move some troops north-wards in order to entice the UK player to build an IC in India. Over all, though, make line an enraged hornet at Russia via the northern route or middle route because you NEED to get the pressure there on his back door before he decides to go heavy into Europe. This may (and again, I stress may) give you the time you need as Germany to pull off the heavy against UK. Try and add a fighter every turn if you can because you will need the AF for the navy and also for the invasion.

I guess it’s a little bit of misdirection, but you need the Allies to feel as if Germany is just going to turtle and then WHAM hit them with it. Let us know how it turned out.

Oh, and if all else fails… loaded dice :)

Please if someone (Jennifer, in this case specifically) is going to try this in a game make sure to let us know somehow so I can track the game in the other forum. I do try to follow that forum as much as possible but sometimes a few days go by and I won’t check it and I don’t want to miss out seeing this live in action!

I admit I would be very interested in seeing this strategy pulled off.

Also, remember, if I hadn’t had terrible rolls for Germany I would have beaten off the combined UK/ Russia attack. And when Germany finally fell, it’s ONLY because he hit it three times in a row UK, USA (the ONLY time he hit with US forces) and USSR. I am fully confident that had we played another game, I would have been able to hold him off and recouperated as Germany and he WOULD have lost the game since Japan was just getting warmed up.

NCS hit it right with his “Top 10 reasons to attack Egypt on G1”, and I will add in that there’s not much one can consider overkill. Trust me from experience (sadly) everytime I think “hmmm… I can take Egypt with <insert minimal=”" forces=“”>instead of bringing <insert appropriate=“” forces=“”>I end up losing and it’s all downhill from there with Germany.

It’s kinda sad that, for Germany at least, such a critical battle comes so early in the game. Granted, you can recover from it but it seriously screws up your game.</insert></insert>

He attacked my fleet. I suppose he figured with the subs he could take out several of my main ships as he was rebuilding on the west coast but the subs didn’t hit at the level he wished.

This is a post regarding the subject matter and a bit of a rant about my latest game…

In my last game this past weekend, I played Axis and friend played Allies. The game started out as fun with Russia taking both West Russia and Ukraine with no losses. Yes, Russia lost nothing and Germany totally wiped. Undeterred, I played Germany as she should be played: went after British Navy and did a little hit and run on the Eastern Front trying to weaken the forces. Took Karelia but African invasion was a complete and total disaster. By R2 he was so seriously threatening Balkens I had to focus all forces on Europe, and UK was landing in Western Europe every turn (being smacked back but taking a toll nontheless).

Through all of this, he decided to go heavy US navy. I had a decent pearl on J1 and started pumping troops across the border and made one fatal error… I decided to go after British posessions the Southern route and into Africa in order to take the pressure off Germany instead of going straight at Russia, but did this beacuse I thought Germany could hold out against UK/ USSR only with no American help. Meanwhile, he combined the India fleet in the South Indian Ocean and threatened to raid in right before the US attack with their fleet (approx 1BB, 2AC, 4SS, 4FTR, 1DD).

The point of the post is that I easily countered it without breaking much of a sweat on the mainland (only pulled 1 fighter away for fleet defence) and crushed him in a battle just off Japan. Because of the Japanese pressure on Russia, he had to start keeping the INF home and so made one last desperation throw at Germany proper before he ran out of INF to support the attack. He won with 1 tank left because my fighters hit 2x in 9 attempts. Had I won that battle, Germany would have rearmed next turn and taken back at least 2 territores which were essentially bereft of Soviet Forces. And Japan would have whopped up on the USA.

Point of post: I’m sore because I just seem to be unlucky with dice and going all out US Navy against Japan you had better play me with my bad dice rolls  :x