Posts made by PizzaPete

@tvarberg

Yes, Panther is correct. An important additional note is that the attacking transports may not unload during non-combat. Anything that is on board stays on board and remains vulnerable to sinking.

@stoffel said in New Axis & Allies games may become hard to find:

@midnight_reaper

Hi, I’m looking for A&A Europe and Pacific 1940 (2nd Ed.) but they are sold out everywhere… Any chance that they will start printing again?

Looks like they’re still available here:

https://hasbropulse.com/search?q=Axis and allies

@tasos

You would not be the first person to misunderstand that particular rule. I’ve come across many players that interpret the rules as I think you have. However the correct way to play is

1)Make all of your moves that result in combat before conducting any battles.
2)Resolve battles one at a time
3) Pieces that didn’t move or fight in steps 1 or 2 can now move, but they are limited to moves that will not result in combat.

As soon as the first die is rolled on a battle you are no longer allowed to make any moves that would result in combat of any kind, so while you can kill that US battleship and then move those transports through that sea zone after the battle, the transports can’t unload into hostile territory since that would require a battle and you’ve passed the point in your turn that you can have battles.

The best way to think about it is that your non-combat move is for units you’ve held in reserve to reinforce areas as needed based on how your battles turn out.

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.

@zooooma

Yikes. Not a great sign, seems very much like a consolidation of the line.

Sure 1914 and AA50 weren’t currently in print, but not acknowledging them on the website suggests they’ve joined classic and revised in the not going to be reprinted category. If true, thats a huge shame. AA50 is by far my favorite edition of the game. Its sad to think the copies that exist now might be all there will ever be.

@dictatorcj

Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.

@dictatorcj

When playing with national objectives, another advantage is increasing the number of units you can place allows for the option of infantry spamming for a slow and steady push to Moscow while keeping your Western flank secure.

The downside of course is of course is if the US focuses on the Atlantic, the allies can mount a massive threat to France. Success in North Africa increases what Italy can contribute to the defense of France while decreasing the UK’s threat, but this is hard to maintain if the US goes KGF.

My two cents would be to not place until round 2. Germany is already tight on funds round 1 without bonuses, plus it gives you a chance to see if the US focus will be Pacific or Atlantic.

@sachmatkris

German bombers can’t reach the US east coast in a typical anniversary edition game.

Where are your german bombers taking off from at the start of their turn? Where are they landing at the end if your turn? How far are you allowing them to move in one turn?

I suspect this may be a source of your issue. In anniversary a small fleet is absolutely needed to cover a transport which is in range of enemy air units, but it is typically manageable. However, if you are giving air units freer movement than they are due it could very quickly unbalance the game.

@mordedura

I would say that it is absolutely playable out of the box, though I think it plays better if you dig out some poker chips, printed money from another game, or loose change to use as in game money rather than tracking income with pencil and paper as the manual suggests.

For units, you won’t be swimming in spare pieces, but I wouldn’t expect to be with a game that is this detailed but costs so little!

I have not played it as extensively as I have other versions, but I have never run out of pieces in the games I have played, whereas in previous editions (revised in particular) we would always have a cup of change ready to use as additional marker chips. (A penny means one extra unit and a nickel means five)

In fact, I assumed all the complaints that 1941 did not have enough pieces came from people who did not understand how to properly use the chips to indicate multiple units of the same type. Having read Midnight_reaper’s reply I can see I was wrong, and it may be an issue even for experienced players.

I don’t know if its a factor in my personal experience, but I personally LOVE how few new units you’re allowed to buy in this version and its the reason I play it.

The ratio of the value of your starting units to your income is very different than other versions, which I think makes this game an interesting play even for experienced players and something beyond just being an “intro” version. You can’t replace losses easily so you really have to think hard about where and when to put your best units at risk, and the calculus about where to attack has a lot less to to with the value of the territory than it does with the value of the enemy units you’re hoping to eliminate.

@playing-kid I have some information to add, but not sure it will add any clarity, still trying to make sense of it myself.

I signed up for a stock notice from Zatu for when 1914 was in stock, and received a notice that they had it for sale again. I was able to add it too my cart, but for £70 plus another £35 they wanted to ship to the US, I decided to wait on and hope it would be popping up at a closer retailer. (Figures if this were an actual reprint it would right?)

Well, almost a week now and it hasn’t show up anywhere else. Perhaps more odd, I checked back on Zatu the next day to find that not only was it back out of stock, but it was now listed at £170.

Their confidence in getting new stock had my hopes high that a reprint was coming despite the lack of announcement, but now I’m thinking its not very likely. Certainly not any time soon.

I can’t say I know that version very well. Reducing victory conditions really only applies to games that start with all players in, otherwise, as you say, it will change balance quite a bit!

That is by far the biggest edition of the game though, so it possible 6 hours is about right for 4 rounds. (Again, don’t play it much so not sure. ) You could try a different edition of the game for a faster play through.

Which edition of the game are your playing? Different editions have different nuances you can use to speed things up. If you’re playing a version with victory cities, the easiest thing to do is just reduce the number of victory cities required to win.

This has an interesting effect on gameplay because both sides may fight harder for some key points for reasons beyond its IPC value or the enemy units you may destroy, which can be realistic if you look at it as not being willing to let go of certain points for purposes of national morale/propaganda rather than purely military concerns.

You can also try to build mechanics that will reward players for success. This way, one side’s success can reinforce and fuel future successes which shortens the time between the game tipping in your favor and final victory.

For the revised edition you could add one national advantage to each country each time it captures a victory city with which it did not start the game.

For the anniversary edition you could award an additional bonus each time a nation achieves all of its national objectives.

For 1942 second edition you can add these cards which award bonuses abilities for capturing victory cities: http://gamesmiths.us/WorldonFire.html

If you’re playing 1941 or classic you can say the game ends as soon as the first capital falls, and whichever side captures it wins.

The good news is that 6 hours is a pretty long time to play 4 rounds, and you can probably chalk that up to being the first time for most of the players. I’d expect to move a little faster each time you play for at least the first few games.

Actually no, I despise that! I always play low luck, and as I said in the first post, I don’t play tech at all. ( I think it ruins the game. When you’re losing, you might as well try for tech. If it fails, you still lose, if it works, you might win, which is dumb. Every decisions should be a hard one, not a no-brainer!)

The advantages in world on fire only last one battle, and they’re not big enough to tip a battle you would otherwise lose in your favor. They certainly won’t win you the game! They’re just enough to tip a battle that would have otherwise have been 50-50 in your favor.

What I like about Axis and Allies is stress of the decisions and being rewarded for correctly balancing risks vs rewards, and I think this amps that up a bit.

If you don’t use a card you can trade it for 3 ipcs, which feels about right for the value of the bonuses. (They can tip a battle more than 3ipcs worth, but only if you wait until the right battle to use them, whereas you can have 3ipcs now.)

If anything, the objectives are a little less valuable in this version, which makes the game even a little more balanced. My brother and I have started playing World on Fire with no Bid, alternating sides, and so far the score is even between the axis and the allies.

Huh. Yeah I googled it too and didn’t find anything! It was definitely a small kind of company, fortunately they were smart enough to put their website on the wrapper.

http://gamesmiths.us/

Looks like $12 was a convention price. The buy it now is $15 plus shipping. If I were you I’d still go for it!

Has anyone here tried “World on Fire?” It’s so much fun! I came across a small table at a game convention and they were selling it so I figured what the heck. Best $12 I even spent! It takes like a second to learn and makes the game way more fun!

Its just a deck of cards for each nation the gives them special abilities. (Germans get heavy tanks and dive bombers, US gets marines and island air strips.) The effects lasts for one battle, so its not like a tech upgrade. (In fact, the rules say they work WITH tech, but I don’t play tech games so I couldn’t say.)

You get one card per NO at the end of your turn instead of the 5 IPCs.

Its not pretty. (Comes in a plain white box, with plain text on cards) but man is it fun! My brother and I are re-addicted to the Axis and Allies! The best part is, each nation gets two cards to start, so the opening moves aren’t same-old same old any more. If Germany has a lot of sub/air bonuses, they may go hard after UK fleet and take it easy on Russia. Lots of ground bonuses and they might do just the opposite!

Nice! I’ll have to try that one too.

My play group also plays with national objectives and low luck most times. Some things we’ve tried that helps is first and foremost that China is allowed to exit Chinese territory so that Japan can’t let them grow out of of control with no consequence, and also that China’s move is linked to Russia instead of US, so they get to go before Japan and not have to lose the flying tigers. (We’ve also tried a modified version where we just change the placement so that the Flying tigers fighter survives.)

I think two subs to 14 is definitely the way to go. Sink a carrier and not have to fight the fighter!

I also think Africa is not worth the effort for Germany, so its worth dumping a unit in Gibraltar is worth taking away a UK fighter. Even though it’ll cost you the transport, if you’re not going to go for Africa, its an acceptable loss. (I even sometimes tank the armor from Africa and put it in Gibraltar. Sure I’m stranding a tank instead of any infantry, but its a tank that won’t to any more than have a 50-50 chance of knocking out an allied infantry when it is attacked, so I might as well waste the tank instead of an infantry from Europe.)

If your strategy involves pushing Africa or the Middle East with Germany, I still think its worth going after that carrier, but better to save your transport and let that UK fighter live to fight another day.

@Charles-de-Gaulle said in 1941 Balance?:

I’ve actuallly never played Anniversary with NOs.  What is the general opinion on how it affects balance?  I always thought I looked too good for the Axis.

In my opinion without NOs the game favors the allies, and with NOs it favors the axis. I would recommend trying a game with them sometime. It adds an interesting new layer to the normal strategy, and it also speeds up the end game because if one side starts doing well, they the strength to gain their objectives while denying objectives to their opponents, which accelerates the end. I don’t want to imply that it gives victory to the first side to have things go their way, its a long fight for total objective dominance, but it puts the emphasis of the whole game more on the tipping point of the war than it does on actually knocking an enemy capital.

I really prefer it. You may not but you should give it a try sometime to see.

@axis_roll said in 1941 Balance?:

Agree with Maverick, as the National Objectives are easier to obtain for the Axis and harder for the Allies to maintain/achieve.

My play group modifies the bonus from 5 IPCs to 4 IPCs to minimize the difference/impact

That’s a cool idea! I’m going to try that. Do you still do any sort of bid or do you find this eliminates the need for a bid altogether?

@axis_roll said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

@PizzaPete said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

1. Anyone here ever try putting a Japan IC in East Indies Round 1?

YES! That was the first reply in this thread

@axis_roll said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

@Soviet-Steamroller said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

1) where to put my IC? (F.I.C. or Burma directly under UK’s nose?).

East Indies. It produces 4 units per turn, you’ll have a navy nearby in SZ35 after J1 (for a J2 build of a tpt and 2 inf, perhaps AAA if the allies get cute with a USA bomber in australia

A decent UK player would probably put an IC in India in response but also could muster 1 inf from Persia and 2 Fighters (Egypt & Australia). On my J2 i would be facing 4 inf, 2 fighters and 1 AA!

Well don’t I look like an idiot, lol. My bad.

Right, which is why it has to be part of a coordinated strategy. If Germany has air in range Russia would need several units of armor and air to make it work. Even in that case though, if the German fighters go to India, you can trade Russian armor for German fighters, and if they don’t, its not like having armor and air in Caucus isn’t going to be useful to Russia in eastern Europe. And its only a factor in '41. In '42 Russia’s turn follows Japan’s.

I think the UK factory can work, but as others said it has to be part of a coordinated and balanced allied effort. If you expect the IC alone to stop Japan, all you’ve done is bought Japan an IC to use against you.

If I go with a India IC (in 41 or 42) I like to keep some soviet armor and air in Caucasus as an insurance policy. If Japan takes India with just one or two land units surviving, Russia can recapture it, and UK can place three new units before Japan can takes another strike. This means that Japan either has to hit India with such overwhelming force that they can take AND hold, OR be able to take it AND have a strong follow-up attack ready, and both of those scenarios take time.

1. Anyone here ever try putting a Japan IC in East Indies Round 1? I find it can be very effective. Sure its out of the way, but you can buy 2 transports and 2 land units for it round 2. Including the infantry that starts on East Indies, you have 3 land units that can strike Austrailia, Bombay, Egypt, or Trans-Jordan, which is great for spreading the UK defenses in the area pretty thin. You can also make repeated strikes at India or Australia each round, as a transport in sea zone 35 or 39 can pick up units from East Indies and come back in one round. (Or even move from 35 to 39 and pick up some new units on the way.)
   If the US invests heavily in the pacific war, the ability to place naval units in sea zone 38 can be a great way to check their advance. If they don’t, an IC in East Indies means when you get India, you can use the IC to dump an additional 4 units per turn into India, OR invest in another couple transports to dump 4 a turn straight into Persia.

Hi, I know this is an old topic, but I’m curious if everyone still thinks 6 is a good bid for the allies, and if so, are you playing with the national objectives enabled?

I play with the objectives, and we usually do a bid of 9-12 for the allies.