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
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.
Even air via this direction is way out of position. Control of SZ 91 remains key.
I appreciate the conversation and answer, and look forward to further discussions, questions, and someday–a game with you.
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!
there is already an interesting Axis and Allies Korea, i enjoyed watching it
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
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
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.
You just load em up onto your Soviet Black Sea Navy. The one with the Battleship.
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
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.
You should look into Kings and Kaisers, a WW1 Global game created by my buddies. If you want more details, I’ll DM you.
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
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.
@domanmacgee @SuperbattleshipYamato @Imperious-Leader
Battle cry is ok. The community already created a Total Civil War game that’s likely to be as good or better than a corporate product.
Like Star Trek, they’ve essentially lost control of the future of the franchise by abusing it. Then, the fans take over and fix that.
I don’t Larry was cashiered–I think he makes plenty of money off his association with AxA and Hasbro and he also makes fine new games. Why mess with that?
I also dont think it behooves us to shit on the products or people who design them–its extremely unbecoming for people to look at a work or art or product they would never and could never create themselves and cynically dismiss it
Good call, I didn’t see that. Italy may want to attack first and sacrifice to make the German job easier, but losing all those ships would be devastating to UK and unwind its value. Glad I wasn’t holding out hope that it was the best plan after Taranto. And, more allied weakness, thats welcome.
If the planes start with some in Holland and most in W Germany, aren’t they 1 move short to attack SZ92? Am I missing something?
More UK ships can come to SZ92 on UK2, but the gibbastion usually moves at that point.
In some of the variants we play, its not just the fleet but also the airbase that is threatented (because the axis can come in force over land to attack gibraltar) and so its fallen out of favor insteat people hide in the red sea