Posts made by MistaBiggs

@laststrike:

In 2nd edition rules, a surviving FTR in this scenario can only land if an island (completely surrounded by water) exists in that SZ.

In 3rd edition rules, the FTR is allowed one movement point to get to a friendly landing spot.

That is correct…

BEST case scenario:

U.K. survives Germany’s attack of Anglo-Sudan Egypt without losing a single unit (VERY unlikely). This would allow the transport from India to pickup the infantry in Anglo-Sudan Egypt and the infantry in Syria-Iraq and drop them back into India. The only other U.K. unit that could reach India is the bomber. This would give India a total of 4 infantry, 1 fighter and the bomber. Japan could have a maximum of 4 infantry, 1 bomber and 2 fighters (if Russia didn’t eliminate the fighter in Manchuria or playing RR). I still think Japan wins – however, they probably won’t have any ground units to take the territory unless they sacrifice a plane.

But this is the BEST case scenario, so …

If U.K. keeps the I.C., U.S.A. moves both infantry from Sinkiang and the fighter from China to India on it’s first turn, the tank from Anglo-Sudan Egypt (moved to Persia on turn 1) moves to India and (let’s say U.K. moved both fighters to Russia or Karelia on turn 1) U.K. moves the two fighters to India … and on turn 2 U.K. buys 2 fighters and an infantry for India – this would give India 3 infantry (2 U.S.A. and 1 U.K.), 5 fighters (1 U.S.A. and 4 U.K.), and 1 U.K. tank.

This would definitely allow U.K. to hold India in turn two; however, this will 85% NEVER happen.

Germany will probably win in Ango-Sudan Egypt. This will only enable U.K. to pickup 1 infantry in Syria-Iraq and fly the bomber over to India. India will have 1 fighter, 1 bomber and 3 infantry. Japan will win and take the territory. U.S.A. will retake India, but Japan will then retake India and eliminate U.S.A. from Asia on turn 2. The rest is history!

I agree with Gorion on the following:

@Gorion:

Japan should also try to get a IC on mainland for better speed in their attacks.

However, I don’t agree with:

@Gorion:

UK should also try to get a IC in India to keep Japan busy so russia can focus on germany together with US.

It has been in my experience that India is usually taken out by Japan on turn 1. Everytime that I have ever built an I.C. on India (with U.K. on turn one) – it has fallen into Japanese hands. India only has 2 infantry and 1 fighter. All Japan has to do is attack it with the following:

2 infantry and 1 fighter from French Indochina-Burma (fighter lands back in French Indochina-Burma);
2 infantry (via transport) from Phillipines;
1 bomber from Japan (bomber lands in French Indochina-Burma);
and if Russia didn’t eliminate or playing RR – 1 fighter from Manchuria (fighter lands in French Indochina-Burma).

Japan can then reinforce French Indochina-Burma with 2 infantry from Japan (via transport), 1 fighter from the aircraft carrier in the Caroline Islands sea zone and 1 fighter from the Phillipines.

This will leave French Indochina-Burma with 2 infantry (possibly 4 – see below), 3 fighters (or 4 if Manchuria’s fighter survives Russia’s attack or playing RR) and 1 bomber.

China only has 2 infantry and 1 fighter. Japan can also attack China with the following:

2 infantry from Kwangtung;
3 infantry from Manchuria (if playing RR);
and 1 fighter from Japan (fighter lands in French Indochina-Burma.

NOTE: If not playing RR … Japan should move 2 infantry from Kwangtung to French Indochina-Burma to boost up defensives and prepare for attacking China and/or Sinkiang on turn 2.

If Japan bought an I.C. (and places it on French Indochina-Burma) and saves the rest (10 I.P.C.'s) or buys a transport (and saves 2 I.P.C.'s) … look out in turn two!

It doesn’t matter what U.S. does – Japan will eliminate them from Asia in turn 2.

This is a Japanese victory in Asia anyway you spell it.

Mista Biggs

@F_alk:

If i see japan building BBs each turn, i would just start the shuck-shuck from 'Frisco and that’s it. Let them have Hawaii if they want.

Don’t worry about the aisan front? One bomber?
teheheee

I agree with F_alk – if Japan is building BBs each turn, I would use the shuck-shuck … but, I would use it in the Atlantic instead of the Pacific. I might would purchase a sub or so every turn IF I wanted to attack Japan’s fleet (being that the subs have the “first hit” capability).

OR – If the U.S. wants to spend = I.P.C.'s on it’s Pacific fleet as Japan does (in this situation 24 I.P.C.'s), then 3 subs for U.S.A. to Japan’s 1 BB. I would rather have the subs personally. More than likely 1 of the subs will hit and the dead unit is removed WITHOUT getting to shot back.

Not to mention – Japan needs to use it’s money on attacking Russia.

Mista Biggs 8)

Try KaZaA Lite…

@ethy:

of course the USA player will agree to sacrefice the poor bugers for if the carrier is sunk surley the fighters would go aswell (thats how i ploay the the game) LONG LIVE GREAT BRITAN ha ha :lol: ( im british as you probebly would have gest) :P :wink:

Not entirely true. If you play the 3rd edition rules for A&A … “When an aircraft carrier is sunk. The surviving aircraft on it can attempt to locate and land on a friendly island, territory, or aircraft carrier. These aircraft have one movement point to do so.”

Mista Biggs 8)

Check KaZaA lite…

I want to address this post in 2 parts.

1st:

@Eric:

How you play Japan depends on whether your opponent builds an India IC. If they do, control of Burma is the key to the defense of India, since if the UK controls Burma they can attack Kwantung and China with newly produced tanks and force you to keep contesting territories that don’t even border India. If Japan controls Burma with anough infantry that Japan can’t take it, then Britain is on the defensive and can’t attack out of India for fear of it being taken by the ever-expanding sea of Japanese infantry.

It doesn’t matter if U.K. builds an I.C. in India or not. Japan should always take India on their first turn. It is very important that Japan knocks out U.K.'s plane. If U.K. built an I.C. on their first turn – than it’s just an added bonus for Japan. Japan should set up shop in Burma after turn 1.

Japan should build an I.C. in Burma (plus a transport) on turn 1 … it doesn’t matter whether U.K. built an I.C. in India or not – here’s why:

If U.K. did build an I.C. in India … Japan should still build an I.C. in Burma since the India I.C. will most likely be taken back on U.S.A.'s first turn. Even though Japan will easily retake India on Japan’s 2nd turn … it won’t be able to start producing out of India until turn 3. So, I suggest building an I.C. in Burma no matter what. This will allow three tanks per turn from Burma, plus whatever else from Japan … and starting turn 3 – 3 more tanks from the India I.C. (if U.K. bought one on turn 1).

Turn 2 – Japan should finish off the U.S.A. forces in Asia. Russia will be eliminated soon thereafter!

2nd:

@Eric:

That’s why it’s usually a big mistake to send too many ships to Hawaii. If you do, it won’t be until turn 3 that you can finally send transports to Burma. Instead you should be covering the 2 transports as they land 4 infantry in Burma on turn 1. If you then build 2 more transports you can have 2 groups of transports going back and forth between Burma and Manchuria alternately unloading in both territories and adding more transports as you can afford them. Burma gets at least 4 inf per turn to India’s 3 armor. And one more thing, be usre that you don’t let any stray planes get a shot at your transports.

All though it is not necessary … I think that Japan should move all of it’s navy (except the transport from the Phillipines) to Hawaii along with the fighter (on carrier) and perhaps the bomber if not needed Asia. It is important to destroy U.S.A.'s carrier. It is also important that you bring all that you can so that U.S.A.'s chances of destroying the Japanese fleet are reduced. The most that U.S.A. could retailiate with is the battleship, the transport, 2 fighters and the bomber. Japan should have both battleships, the carrier and the fighter left. If the U.S.A. does attack the remaining Japanese fleet … the battle could go either way, but whatever happens – both forces will be entirely demolished. This will leave the U.S.A. with NO airforce and NO navy (except for what they newly purchased). Japan will have NO navy, but they really won’t need one for at least 2-3 turns. By then Japan will be making as much money as the U.S.A. and Germany won’t have to worry about the U.S.A. for a LONG time (and by then it’ll be too LATE … Russia will be OUT of the game).

Mista Biggs 8)

I personally would never use this leveling up rule. When I roll for a tech … what I’m hoping for is HEAVY BOMBERS. If I already have some other tech and I am rolling for another tech – I would never choose to level up my existing tech … instead I would prefer to reroll (hoping to roll HEAVY BOMBERS). I think the idea is creative and could be useful. I like having options! I guess I might would use it IF I already had HEAVY BOMBERS, but IF I already had HEAVY BOMBERS – more than likely I wouldn’t even bother rolling again (I’d be buying all the bombers I could).

Just my opinion…

Mista Biggs 8)

I agree with Kidhorn:

@Kidhorn:

Whether or not it’s better to buy transports or and IC depends on what you plan to attack with. If you plan on attacking with tanks, which I think is the way to go, it’s cheaper to place an IC. An IC costs 15 and allows 3 tanks a turn while 2 transports will cost 16 and allow 2 tanks a turn. Plus the IC will place the tanks closer to combat. Why is it better to attack with tanks? For 5 you get a 3 as opposed to spending 6 on two ones. It’s more economical. Tanks defend the same as infantry, but Japan isn’t in danger of being attacked and you can defend with fighters. Also tanks can move twice as far which leads to a faster conquering of territory, which means more to spend and less for the allies to spend.

I think Japan should definately take out Pearl Harbor. They can do so with little loss and it will take the US at least 2 turns to rebuild what they lost.

I like having the I.C. in Asia A.S.A.P. and still using the transports to bring over additional units. Producing 3 tanks from Asia per turn and what ever else possible from Japan = Russia will fall soon (unless Germany does first). I agree with the Pearl Harbor move as well … Japan should strike and strike fast!

Mista Biggs 8)

I’ve been giving this topic some more thought … how about having units that upgrade or get better based on EXPERIENCE.

Something like the following:

If defensive units survive the battle – their defense is raised one point.
If offensive units survive the battle – their offense is raised one point.

Or perhaps, make it every two battles survived and maybe place a limit on how many times both the defense and offense is raised (like two max.).

This would add combat experience as a whole new dimension to the game. Could be something like (Green, Regular, Veteran and Elite Units). Or if establishing a maximum of increase of two (Regular, Veteran and Elite units).

This could be different for each type of unit (due to some units already have such a high attack or defend roll – like a battleship).

Not sure how complicated this would be to keep up with, but it seems like a pretty good idea to me and it would kind of reward your units and make you want to attack a little more.

Mista Biggs 8)

I can’t help with the online playing (since I have yet to play myself), but as far as your question:

@1qaz:

What the hell are “bids”?

Please see this link – it should clarify this issue for you.

www.axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1695&highlight=bid

That’s how you do it … that’s almost exactly what I do!!

Mista Biggs 8)

@Kidhorn:

I think germany has to focus on fighting Russia from the get go or else russia will amass too many troops. Russia is the key to victory. If Russia lasts long enough, eventually the allies build enough weapons to win.

Exactly!!!

KEYS FOR GERMANY:

1. Attack Russia
2. Take out U.K. navy (if possible)
3. Take Africa (if possible)

Mista Biggs 8)

I haven’t tried personally, but sounds like it would be pretty cool. Check out this link … it should get you in the right direction.

http://pub50.ezboard.com/fthrashersaxisandalliesforumsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=358.topic

Mista Biggs 8)

I don’t agree with you – PrisonerOfWar.

It has been in my experience that India is usually taken out by Japan on turn 1. Everytime that I have ever built an I.C. on India (with U.K. on turn one) – it has fallen into Japanese hands. India only has 2 infantry and 1 fighter. All Japan has to do is attack it with the following:

2 infantry and 1 fighter from French Indochina-Burma (fighter lands back in French Indochina-Burma);
2 infantry (via transport) from Phillipines;
1 bomber from Japan (bomber lands in French Indochina-Burma);
and if Russia didn’t eliminate or playing RR – 1 fighter from Manchuria (fighter lands in French Indochina-Burma).

Japan can then reinforce French Indochina-Burma with 2 infantry from Japan (via transport), 1 fighter from the aircraft carrier in the Caroline Islands sea zone and 1 fighter from the Phillipines.

This will leave French Indochina-Burma with 2 infantry (possibly 4 – see below), 3 fighters (or 4 if Manchuria’s fighter survives Russia’s attack or playing RR) and 1 bomber.

China only has 2 infantry and 1 fighter. Japan can also attack China with the following:

2 infantry from Kwangtung;
3 infantry from Manchuria (if playing RR);
and 1 fighter from Japan (fighter lands in French Indochina-Burma.

NOTE: If not playing RR … Japan should move 2 infantry from Kwangtung to French Indochina-Burma to boost up defensives and prepare for attacking China and/or Sinkiang on turn 2.

If Japan bought buys an I.C. (and places it on French Indochina-Burma) and saves the rest (10 I.P.C.'s) or buys a transport (and saves 2 I.P.C.'s) … look out in turn two!

It doesn’t matter what U.S. does – Japan will eliminate them from Asia in turn 2.

This is a Japanese victory in Asia anyway you spell it.

Mista Biggs 8)

Check out these links for an overview of “Middle East”:

www.kw.igs.net/~tacit/aanda/expansions/mtu.htm#Mid%20East

www.grognard.com/info/a&amidd.txt

Here is a link that has it for sale:

www.brsnasis.com/topics/AxisAllies.htm

Hope this helps!

Mista Biggs 8)

“World at War” is GREAT!

It contains the following:

– Over 200 plastic playing pieces (includes sub pens and cruisers)
– Control Markers for each Country
– New map with the territories split up a little more (see www.wargamer.com/axisandallies/images/waw_map_3rd.gif)
– New rules (see www.xenogames.com/Wawrules.htm)
– New set up charts
– Starting time is 1939
– Adds France and China as separate players
– Has special troops such as paratroopers, marines, Russian guards, German SS Panzers and SS Panzergrenadiers
– Adds special attacks for Japan (Sneak Attack, Banzai Attack and Kamikaze Attack)
– Can Attempt to Assassinate Hitler

Plus, tons of other stuff!

Mista Biggs 8)

I’m not sure if Avalon Hill is planning any additional A&A related games; however, there are several Expansion Set that you can get to enhance A&A from other companies.

I suggest getting “World at War” by Xeno Games (www.xenogames.com). This game rocks!

Also, I like using the “A&A Accessories” and “Central Powers” Miniatures Expansion sets from Table Tactics (www.tabletactics.com).

I especially, like to mix all three of these together … and with a few modifications of the rules (“House Rules”) – it doesn’t get any better!

Also, try visiting the Strafe Zone (www.andale.com/stores/sf_home.jsp?mode=1&sfUrl=strafezone) for some other goodies to spice up your A&A games – like Battle Cards!

Or try out Black Baron’s Expansion Set for A&A … found at
(www.thegameshop.ca/enonhoraaex.html).

Try these … I think you’ll enjoy!

Mista Biggs 8)

I haven’t tried personally, but sounds like it would be pretty cool. Check out this link … it should get you in the right direction.

http://pub50.ezboard.com/fthrashersaxisandalliesforumsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=358.topic

Mista Biggs 8)