So happy to finally get the clarification on this. It's been bugging me. As usual, it's in the rulebook somewhere, just needed to find it!
Posts made by SteveO
RE: Rules - Sub blocking a transport-only amphibious assault
RE: Axis and Allies Europe 1940 2nd Edition ( AAE40.2) FAQ/question
Experienced 1942 AA player.. still getting used to Europe nuances.
Can someone explain the: "2 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia." NO rule.. my game partner and I settled on you needing to have Iraq, and then one of the other two for a minimum of 4 IPC, up to 6 bonus. Of course one argument is that it is simply 2 IPCs each?
Similarly for the NO rule:
5 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Novgorod (Leningrad), Volgograd (Stalingrad), and/or Russia (Moscow). Do you require Novgorod for any bonus?
We're also still a little confused if Germany can transport into Finland in non-com from SZ 115 in turn 1, when the Ruskies still have their ships there even if there is no declaration of war against USSR?
Axis fans in Australia
RE: Sub and Air
Read the rules of general combat very carefully.
Remember also, "As many hits as possible must be assigned". (General Combat, Step 3). It clarifies here as well with an example that submarines cannot hit air.
This essentially answers a lot of questions for you.. if you had destroyers and submarines firing you'd want to seperate these out because it may be a case that the submarines score hits against a mixed force including air and you will need to know exactly what hits assign to what, according to sub/air rules.
The presence of the destroyer takes effect at the start of the rolls.. so if a destroyer disappears, submarines special abilities that would otherwise be cancelled kick in.
This is always interesting when the carrier or battleship is the last surface ship.. so it could end up being a costly casualty if the opponent has still got a surprise strike up his sleeve.
I think this adds a lot ot the gameplay, as there are often very tough decisions to make
Again this is all clarified in the general combat rules. Just read them carefully.
RE: Fighters on a freshly built Carrier 1942
This rule is incredibly cheezy, since it violates the turn order. However, it seems to be intended to address the problem of defending newly built ships/fleets at sea which has been a constant problem since the 1984 edition.
I don't really feel it violates the turn order massively. If you consider the NCM as the phase fighters carryout their remaining movement, as opposed to landing, then the fighters are simply returning to their landing spot in the NCM.
"With only a few drops of fuel left after the raid, Honzo piloted his shining Kate onto towards the Kure Naval Yard, and just as the last few planks of teak decking were laid on Zuikaku and she was being pushed out of the drydock, he made a spectacular landing into the wind, taxing past the cheering shipyard workers."
Is this an actual real world event?
Hi Axis & Allies fans..
I had an idea for my games with my friend, to add a unit purchase option, the "Escort Carrier".
As you will all probably know, merchant vessels were modified to become light carriers.
Poorly defended and slow, the carriers could also only hold a limited number of fighters.
I was thinking to add a escort carrier as an option to purchase in the game, when you haven't got enough left for a full size carrier!
IPCs: 8 - 11 IPCs, not sure. Looking for comments on what you think here.
Carry one plane only.
Attack value: 0
Defense value: 0 or 1.
RE: British Pacific Opening Moves
Flying the fighter to the US Carrier? Ooh, never actually considered that.
Although, I think no matter what you do, you must kill the defenseless Japanese transport, slowing their onslaught into Asia.
I tried Borneo, but in all honesty, the UK can't hold it, so is it going to work in the long term?
I am thinking about this for my next game..
- Amphibious assault into French Indo-China with 3 infantry & fighter & cruiser bombard.
- Carrier destroys transport.
- Fighter lands in China, optionally with the one from Russia for 2 infantry & 3 fighter defense.
- US factory in Sianking.
In our games, we are in a trend where the US builds a factory in Sianking with Russian (two inf.) support, which is making the games more even as it stops the Japanese steamroll to Moscow.
I am sure three planes in China will be taken as a sure sign of a US factory in Sianking.
Even if the amphibious fails, wiping out the French-Indo infantry leaves Japan with 2 fewer men to attack China. Manchuria needs some defense from the Russians, and they need something to attack French-Indo, if the attack was successful.
Japan may retaliate with an all-in to China, which is 1 Bomber, 4 Fighters, but assuming at least one man is left behind for Manchuria, only 4 infantry going in.
With three fighters (one US, one Russian, one UK) the Japanese may take enough losses so that it: a) cannot not take China, b) take with one or two men.
It then would have very few if any men actually on the land territories of Asia, and Russian, English and American troops able to challenge the three 3 IPC territories.
Japan may even hold off on a factory purchase if it thinks it may lose the factory?
In any case, this is taking a lot of attention away from attacking the US, and any attempt to do so would result in an even stronger hold of China.
The US can observe what Japan does, and possibly even hold China for a 2nd factory there, if things go horribly on the Japanese open.
RE: All the Russian openings: For Begginers
Thanks Black_Elk for these write ups on the Russians.
I am really trying to figure out what the game needs for more balance.
The Axis seem to just be too strong on both fronts.
Ive started using TripleA to test that, and I can easily beat the Hard AI with Axis.. but I cant win with Allies, even with a 13 bid for Russians. I can hold past 8/9 rounds, even with American bases on the money islands but cant overwhelm either Japan or Germany.
What are your thoughts on that.. can you beat the hard AI as Allies?
Maybe you could share some thoughts on how?
It definitely seems to me the Axis need a few less starting units.. they just have too much.
RE: Big game board
I am new to the forums, but have been playing Axis for a few years with a best mate.
We started in 2007 with revised, then Spring 42, now SE. We still play Spring '42.
I have my own version of Spring 1942 that I scanned and photoshopped.
It printed really nicely at about 1.5m * 0.75m, so about 50% bigger in both dimensions.
I had it printed professionally and laminated in a matt finish.
I can't post links, so PM me if you are interested to see my big game board.
Otherwise, the URL is:
www dropbox com
RE: Supreme map 1942 ed 2
Hi All - This is my first post in the forums.
I have been playing Axis with only a best mate for about 8 years.
I did a similar thing with the Spring 1942 edition - I scanned the board and photoshopped out the creases and printed it at about 1.5 metres long..
I will post this up unless anyone says not to .. ( Is it a copyright infringement? ) but I will post in the corresponding forum for that game board.
We are Axis players in Australia! We are the sub and cruiser off Australia hahaha we like to call it the HMAS Sydney!.
Greetings from two fellow Axis nuts. (I even started painting model kits again as our 'trophies' for our games!)