Posts made by taamvan

Howdy guys

I think this version is pretty good, I demo’d it at gencon, played it twice with a buddy, and once against myself

Impression is that its hard for COBRA to overcome the income disadvantage. The weather dominator isn’t a maybe at $1, I think its key to controlling JOE’s movement and your main advantage-and another cost over time. Joe needs more (dedicated, icebreaking) cruisers than you would want to buy in the mix, and there are situations where you need to break ice but a 3+ isnt a sure thing even with 2 and those will be vulnerable if they succeed or fail…

I think its pretty good, though the 16 x2 + 24 x2 income is just a huge amount of $ difference, and the stronger player should probably play cobra. I’m hoping that future GI JOE versions have other units, like HISS tanks, that you could port back/forth into the other games, though there may not be canon rules for that.

@djensen

ru ready to play dave?!?

-j bosch

@8d88

at the first post-release tournament, the guys who won kept using the cheezeball rule to their advantage, we all three (and greg’s crew) that we understood the rule correctly and that they were free to use it;

Attack any territory where you have no pieces where there are 5-10+ zombies
Send just 1 unit, it can be air
All the zombies attack; none of them can hit your aircraft, though it is sure to die
all of the zombie hits against defenders land, plus your unit might hit

this exploit isn’t as game “busting” as I thought some of the zombie interplay might be when I originally wrote this post. Its mostly annoying, and as you suggest, the card you get that moves half the zombie horde is even more important, both to form the stack and push it away from the areas that hurt you and into those that hurt your opponent

As your post also suggests, winning a longer game is unpredictable, and has to be based on a conservative strategy that gets and uses the techs, and adapts to what unfolds

@Azpathfinder

Its an island in real life…

AxA defines it differently

It would cheese up some Global games, but except for cheese there isn’t a reason you HAVE to forbid this play, Phillipines seems like a good place for a factory

As this site eventually made me one of the stronger Global live players, I’d say that the idea that luck is decisive in Axis and Allies is overstated. Strong players won’t make attacks that require luck, they will just keep building up and manuevering. Luck very rarely decides a game–I’m not saying it has no role, but you need to choose a strategy that does not rely on a certain outcome during the opener, and continue to pursue a strategy all game that does not require you to fight a 50/50 battle.

As an example, in an 8 turn game, it is more or less impossible to allow berlin, rome, tokyo, or london to fall. It happens all the time, and i’ve won that way in 4 of the last 9 games. But, as I read it, it is simply an error to lose those capitals because there is pretty much no way in my simulation you can buy and place correctly and still lose them.

Players make mistakes all the time, in this case, if your opponent doesnt make a mistake with the Axis, the Allies will simply lose.

@Cornwallis

Even air via this direction is way out of position. Control of SZ 91 remains key.

@krieghund

I appreciate the conversation and answer, and look forward to further discussions, questions, and someday–a game with you.

@krieghund

We are discussing this in our community groups.

How do you reach the conclusion that the “transport moves within the SZ”. This is also not relevant to the analysis of the other limitations in the rules.

Unit 1 UK infantry is loaded on US transport on Turn 8.

On Turn 9,
US transport then moves, or does not move
Unit 2 UK infantry (a different unit) is loaded on US transport from UK or Canada.
Unit 1 UK infantry is dropped in non combat into normandy from the US transport
Unit 2 UK infantry remains on the transport.

Units did not move before they loaded (transport could, or not)
Loading and Unloading occurred in the proper order
Transport did not participate in both combat and noncombat actions.
Unit 1 has spent the required turn on board the transport before unloading.

Two units can be loaded from different territories in the same turn. Here, they could be loaded from the same, or different territories as long as the tt move / load —unload (ends turn) protocol is followed.

The two units did not unload into different territories. They loaded from any territories (different or same) on different turns.
Only the unit that has spent the interturn on the transport unloads during noncom, ending the turn of all 3 units.
Unit 2 UK infantry remains on board.

Each rule has been followed.

Thanks Kreig!

@dishero

there is already an interesting Axis and Allies Korea, i enjoyed watching it

@nishav

You’re arguing for a commander in chief rule

The rest of what i said was a response to your point about historicity.

as the others point out GW and the Captain’s Mod have many different treatments for planes, sea planes, torpedo bombers, air transports etc etc

My point was their treatment in AxA oob is a good tradeoff of all these ideas

You rock

Taamvan

@nishav

Carrier Fighter Groups are elite units with specialist aircraft trained specifically for operations from aircraft carriers. Those aircraft have structural improvements but also weaknesses of range and load based on the short runway and tolerances of operations at sea.

Therefore, its quite unrealistic to treat land-based fighter groups as even capable of operating from carriers, and sea based fighters should be a separate, more expensive, range-limited unit that is allowed to operate from carriers. Some famous units like black sheep and marines did operate from land bases, but having the cross-capability of doing so is a luxury and requires extensive training and support and extra well-prepared bases.

Besides the US and UK and the IJN, no nation had any practical idea how to actually operate an integrated, fully supported and non-seaplane aircraft unit from a ship and any attempt to do so without decades of preparation and planning would be a disaster.

To follow your logic,

carrier planes should be a separate unit
normal fighters cannot land on carriers
germany and italy can buy carriers but it costs them 15+ for sea stukas and they fight at -1/-1/-1
The usa and uk go on to win the technology and operational war as they did in real life after they didn’t sink the nonexistent western axis CVs

@imperious-leader

I would describe IB as Diplomacy + Castle Risk–though I’ve never actually played a complete game of those.

The pieces are simplistic, and the battle is sandbox-like so much more like Twilight Imperium, all the teams are vying the open spaces and choke points, but you can’t leave your home bare. Hidden movements encourage secret alliances made by sms during the game and by phone before, so the game is in some ways intentionally not a “controlled” type approach (its a free for all with up to 6 players that all start with the same stuff)

There is also a scenario where france starts out with a much bigger force and its everyone vs france.

@nikola1975 word

@the-duke

You just load em up onto your Soviet Black Sea Navy. The one with the Battleship.

@shkoboo

Its more a problem with Tripple AAA than anything else, and not even really that.

The issue with ANZAC on USA is that the USA is less flexible as long as the spots are taken up, and they are along for the ride a lot of the time which means they are not in a position to attack or defend other things. You want extra carriers but that doesnt come until later, as a plan it doesnt come together until japan attacks.

@imperious-leader Still a positive result because War Room and Imperial Borders are unlikely to have been the product of a corporate and mass market strategy

Back to the activist investor, who would attempt to get them to sell or market what they already have

@domanmacgee

I dont think its either. That relationship has run. If he was an employee of MB then his are works for hire, and he would have no unreserved rights to any of it. For all we know the franchise has run, minus the hasbro activist investor agitating them for the past two years.

That comment was directed at every cynical nerd including myself; (see Broken, Busted or Both). The game has exploits and I reviewed it harshly, and reappraised the game later as having some merit as being more unpredictable and less on rails than other versions.

@superbattleshipyamato

You should look into Kings and Kaisers, a WW1 Global game created by my buddies. If you want more details, I’ll DM you.

@bastardtanker753

https://www.facebook.com/groups/434993008477295

BBR is a variant with a new map and new rules, not as complex as GW36. I think that people who have played 2 games of G40 and 2 games of BBR would be familiar with whats going on.

We have 2 (soon 3-4) yearly tournaments around the country. I also host a live play League where you face other members in your area, and we travel to meet members of other Divisions.

Further, there are Youtube games and 1 day meetups in STL where we play one-off.

All the best, Jon

@trulpen @simon33

Ryan Vornick took 2022 Invitational AAA 9-0 as axis, 25 avg bid, bidding anything for axis to win, and COW J1JDOW every game. Sound familiar?

its been a long long road (almost 10 years now) for people to understand the META and address what is wrong with the OOB build. You continue to encounter people who were not part of our earlier discussions that insist that the axis are wildly overpowered and the only answer is, yes–that was conclusive in 2015.

It is always better to win a game during team selection than on the dice.