Topics created by marechallannes

Any reason why UK starts with control of Celebes?

In the US it will be around $60

Once I have a higher paying job I plan on buying some nice things from them 🙂

I don’t know what but when you have money and a list of items to enhance my favourite board game to play arises you have no limitations.

And keep em as are Sponsers!!!

Sounds like a good idea. I wonder what would happen to try the same on AA42, something like
Russia
Germany
Allies Europe
Japan
Allies Pacific

hmmmm… interesting and worth exploring. thanks for sharing!

Thanks for the clarification.  Makes sense now

@Imperious:

Yes get rid of that factory idea, but give Egypt a few more men. The Russian thing seems correct: add a fighter, 1 tank, and a few Inf.

Thanks Imperios Leader.

A factory for free is maybe too much with the 41 UK starting IPCs.

Think 2 Inf in Egypt an 2 Inf for the Russians (+Figther +Tank) will be ok.

yeah and I am going to cross out that (not including dutch) like so and pretend I didn’t read that.  Also I am going to pretend japan’s puppet state started with a minor IC as well.

@marechallannes:

Q1: A battleship enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. The sub submerges.

Following the rules, the sub emerges after the combat (that doesn’t take place)

Who controlls the seazone after the battleship owners turn?

Is the sub able to raid the convoy zone in that seazone, or is it impossible, cause the battleship owner “won” the battle and controls the sea zone?

Q2: Does the sub emerges before the collect income phase of the battleship owner and is it able to raid the sea-zone of the battleship-owner?

Q3: A submarine enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. Both sub submerges before any round of combat.

Are both submarines are able to make convoy raids? (For example a UK-sub and a Jap-sub in SZ 37)

1:  No power can “control” a seazone.  That’s why you don’t mark it.  The sub is able to raid, because it remains in the seazone during the collect income phase.  Powers occupy a seazone, and a seazone can be hostile, but it’s never really “controlled”.  A power can still place units in a seazone adjacent to its factory, regardless of how many enemy units might remain in that seazone (that may even be disrupting a convoy).
2:  Yes.
3: Yes,  assuming each is present during their respective enemy’s collect income phase (when the disruption occurs).

“Submerging” is simply a term for the option to retreat but remain in the same seazone.  It serves no other function, and it does not have any impact on any other phases of a turn.  After combat, all subs are effectively no longer submerged.

Thanks Krieghund.

There will be a few “Zeros” in the seazone, but with an attak of 3 or less. 😄

Thanks Krieghund.

Planing amphibious operations vs. the US-Player at the moment.  😄

the US could position troops on TR off Canada.  As soon as they are at war they will be able to use the Naval base

to Bodeacious:

In strategy B the philipines will be a target in J3. Most US-Players evacuate the plane from the Phillipine Islands.

to Bodeacious/Blitchga:

said before: Do not leave you transport undefended at the coast of French-Indo-China!

BB+CA+DD+DD+SS+SS+CV(2 Planes) is the minimum of ships you have to leave in the Sae zone to prevent an UK first strike.

I would think its good to give extra guys and ipc’s to Italy. You can add a couple Italian tanks to start driving into Russia (maybe to can opener). You could also get them into the African fight if you can keep the Italian navy a float.

I will say I like to take Yugo w/Germany for a possible IC build if it looks like the Italian navy is going under. A few German subs in the Med (with German air) could help axis turn things right. Plus both Italy and Germany can build in the same sz. I know Greece gives you this option too, but it can be invaded to easy from sz 99.

Thanks Larry for the best Axis and Allies game ever, keep up the good work! 😄

They be coming soon.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16012.75

What the UK does is based on what they have left. Their fleet in the Med should run and hide if Germany kills the RN in the channel. Then they should build up to defend England and screw africa. Honestly the UK only cares about africa AFTER England is safe. Otherwise taking africa falls to the USA player.

While it’s true that you will occassionally be heard, it will certainly not be an interactive process.  Unless, of course, someone from here decides to take it upon themselves to transpose discussions back and forth between the two sites.  My point is that anything posted here may or may not actually make it back to Larry, whereas if it’s posted there he’ll definitely see it and comment on it.

I’m really not sure what all this resistance is about.  If anyone really wants to participate in this process (or even just watch), what’s the big deal about going over to Larry’s site and paying attention to one thread?

How much did you pay for shipping (USA to UK)?

Japan SHOULD be able to go to war against the Soviet Union. That’s the nature of the game. It was also a serious option Japan considered for quite some time. Indeed, in the end they decided to go for the Southern option. It’s difficult to simulate both things in a game of the nature of A&A. One we want mutual attacks to be possible, Two neither of the two countries in question was eager to fight the other while already at war with Germany/Italy or the US/UK/France respectively…

Perhaps a negative NO would work or an IPC penalty (in the rulebook it’s explained that NOs represent a boost in morale and vigour (I suppose both in the military and as far as civilians/factory workers etc. are concerned). Hearing that your country is being attacked from both sides would probably have the opposite effect of an NO, so a negative one might work: -6 IPC if Japan is at war with the Western Allies and the USSR simultaneously and -6 if the USSR is at war with both Japan and Germany/ Italy. These negative SA’s only apply when you initiated the conflict with the Soviet Union or japan respectively. ( I agree the wording needs to be worked on, but I’m sure you get the idea). I’m certainly not for completely disallowing the possibility!

Thanks Krieghund.

You give the answer yourself. It’s not possible.

Just curious, did Japan land on Australia or simply threatened to? What moves were made?

@MaherC:

@zarnak

So you guys are taking a game that most people already believe is Allied favored, and making it even more so?

I pity your Jap player

In my second game Japan overran India by turn four.  China lived to turn 7.  That’s with the first turn income NO boost.  Japan owned the Dutch East Indies for a good while.  It’s income matched US/ANZAC put together and it was a nail biter for a good while with Australia repulsing attacks.  He finally made a tactical error with his navy that allowed the economic seesaw to finally move towards the allies.  With the DEI, China, and India Japan has an income in the mid-70s.

Besides- if China is at war with Japan since 1937 and gets 6 bonus IPC for having the Burma road open - and it’s open to start.  Why not?  And the scramble rule as is is not popular either.

@Krieghund:

@Ryx:

@Krieghund:

I’ve been thinking about this some more, and I have some further thoughts.

I don’t think that UK/ANZAC planes should be allowed to land on Dutch or French territories while they’re still Dutch or French controlled, unless they are at war.

I assume the Dutch have already lost their capital.

How does one declared war on a fallen country?

Unless the UK and ANZAC are at war, not the Dutch or French.

Thank you.

lots of oil in alaska