@mike64 to “play by forum” now you need to copy and paste the turn summary into the posting field of your thread and then attach the latest game file to the post.
The automatic post feature has been disabled for about a year now…
@mike64 to “play by forum” now you need to copy and paste the turn summary into the posting field of your thread and then attach the latest game file to the post.
The automatic post feature has been disabled for about a year now…
@Krieghund respectfully, I feel you gave a contradictory answer in the previous thread to this same/similar question (Q/A posted below):
"Q (@COJOH): In the rules you can find dat Axis must occupy one of the capital cities of the Allies and hold it till your next turn and that you must also control Germany. But what if you occupy Moscow and you loose Germany. If you recapture then Germany and are still holding Moscow, do you win ? Or do you need to keep both territories until your next turn to win ?
A (@Krieghund): You win. You have to hold an enemy capital for a full round, but you only need to be in possession of your own capital at the end of your turn."
So which is correct? Must Germany hold Berlin for another round or do you ‘only need to be in possession of your own capital at the end of your turn’?
Re: Axis and Allies Classic 10 part series on YouTube
I’ve added another AnA Classic video on my YouTube channel. This one is a detailed look at Russia Restricted and why it’s needed. You can check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTIXI3DgIVg&feature=youtu.be
Would someone be so kind as to direct me to a link of the World at War Map from Xeno, thanks!
Edit: *digital copy available for download
@SuperbattleshipYamato The rule as written is enough to make a cat laugh. Like the Chekov’s gun analogy, I believe that a rule that (basically) never presents itself to be exercised should not be in the game. My preference would be to just delete the rule and end it there. The scope and “Risk-like” simplicity of this game does not demand unrestricted submarine warfare imo. Further, one could argue the opening damage the CP navies inflict on the Entente is a representation of the damage the U-boat war had on them as an aggregate.
With that said, if a game designer demanded that I do something to improve it with the least amount of change to the rule as written, I would expand the sea zones to include basically all of the Atlantic and allow the German player to discriminate between attacking British/American IPC. In other words, the German player should be able to roll against the UK on their collect income phase and later decide NOT to do so on the USA collect income phase (and not risk bringing them into the war early).
Hello all.
I’ve uploaded my final pair of videos on my study of MB’s AnA Classic, 2nd edition. You can check them out here:
Is AnA Classic BROKEN? Part II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHBXRXn8JCM&t=2s
Is AnA Classic Imbalanced or Broken? Part III
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxfPFlpbtNo
Please like, comment, and subscribe!
Thanks
-TheGoodCaptain (youtube handle)
I have added another video to my channel on Axis and Allies Classic. This video reviews an alternative allied strategy different from both Don Rae and my own take on how to win as the allies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVyxI0Bjemc
The next video will be an axis rebuttal to this strategy.
Boy do I feel dumb. That thing is awesome.
If you miss this posting and have already started rolling I would like to make the change to 2 inf and one tank out of france instead of just 2 inf and place them back into Germany
if you’ve already started rolling, let it stand
I will used the calculator for all future battles. feel like such a noob right now
@TheJuggernaut “Russia Restricted” is not the only rule necessary to de-bug the classic, 2nd edition…IMO (as per the videos).
“Russia Restricted” is just the most obvious.
Constructive criticism is always welcome, of course.
@imperious-leader much appreciated but I do my own scans. Guadalcanal is up. I’ve got two maps for Xeno and the first will be complete in a few days.
Preliminary: I would caution against being so hard on your strategy. This was one game and I got REALLY lucky with all the dice. And I am not as sure of playing the Allies as I am the axis but here goes:
USSR: My only comment here is to recommend my R1 strategy with the tanks if you’re looking to protect your industrial investments. You surrendered a lot of their mobility. I didn’t feel worried about them in this game.
UK: The strategy of two IC is, I feel, as of this writing, not a mistake. Once they are down, the Allies must be very very mindful of the permanent relationship they have with those industries for the rest of the game, esp in the next 3-4 turns. If done, right and the Allies don’t get diced, it can lead to some quick axis losses.
Hitting the BB in the med on B1 is a tougher than it looks. If the German army is strong in Egypt, you are likely to lose whatever air forces were used in that assault.
USA: I wouldn’t get too hung up on the geographic and to a certain extent, the historical accuracy of the game (regarding the Canada shuttle). When AnA players in any version make noises to that effect I always say the same thing: the game pieces and map are an expression of military clout or the ability of one power to project military influence on the world.
I pretty much nodded my head while reading everything else you wrote.
I am playing in a AnA tourney next weekend but am definitely down for another game after that. Take care!
@TheJuggernaut They’re the same setup. And to your point about Japan taking India on the first turn I would reference you to my British strategic video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtoh0UtsuQc&t=1006s
starting around minute 16, I explain that (in my opinion) the best way to industrialize India is to pull out on B1. At any rate, if you don’t use the optional rule “no new industries”, Allies can reliably win the game.
Question for serious players of Anniversary:
Do you play with NOs? If you do what is the bid like?
I have found it pretty heavily in favor of the axis so generally leave this optional rule to the side but am still curious.
Also, if anyone would like to play a game of Classic, OoB Rules, RR, no bid, send me a PM!
Really nice post. Good read.
On the Med and Africa being worse off than the Russian front - Insofar as this game is merely a projection of military clout by the five major powers fighting in WW2, that particular situation approaches unrealistic whereas the situation on the East front IS unrealistic without RR. This is of course, an opinion.
What I would argue is less an opinion is that the Germans have a free ride in Africa. Even with good Axis rolls, generally, I don’t expect to have Germans in Africa after turn 3. I also expect to have lost the continent to the allies until the Japanese get around to it.
On my recommended strategy with the Russian tanks - their primary purpose is as a deterrent, not a cure all. I would be hesitant to use them in any manner beyond retaking India. Otherwise, I generally bring them back. This is somewhat situation dependent but that was the spirit in which I developed the strategy.
On the lack of classic players - I’ll bet you can get someone to play classic with you on this forum, just throw up a request! Otherwise, I’m generally always available.
Misc. - I’m open to house rules only in the most minimally invasive manner for several reasons. First, the more innocuous the change, the more likely the target audience will accept it. Second, there is less need to explain what the changes are and why they were made. Third, I want to retain as much of the original spirit and flavor of the game as possible. For example, the minute changes I spoke of earlier would be published by me using a photo edit software to change the digits on the oob setup cards. I would then make them available for download and title the file something very basic. “AnA classic setup v1.1” or something to that effect.
No, I haven’t played with LL but it seems to me a very “bean counter” way of playing. Like an order of magnitude higher than it already can be. At this time, I’m unwilling to try it, at least until I wrap up my time in Classic AnA.
If you would like to see some games where Russia has a good time with RR, check out either of my games with Avin:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33264/classic-2nd-edition-avin-allies-vs-aceswild-axis-no-bid/27?page=2
this one is really two games in one. The first, the axis get horribly diced and the second I experiment with a G1 Mediterranean build.
But this one is the crowning jewel of a great game using RR and the axis strategy that I advertise:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33336/classic-2nd-edition-avin-allies-vs-aceswild-axis-rr-no-bid-game2/104
it wasn’t clear who would win until about turn 8 or 9 and then just barely, it could have gone either way several times and I nearly conceded at one point.
I agree with you about the column rolling and AAA. And about the sense that rolling dice in person is much more interesting and entertaining in person. I will be submitting a request to the AAA developers to add an option in to allow for it. I really feel this is a subtle but crucial component to this game and I despair when opponents hand be their “order of loss list”. I would and will never do that. I was once asked what my order of loss would be for a big naval battle around japan and that my answer would dictate weather he would attack or not. My response, “You’ll have to find out for yourself.”
Give the enemy nothing…
The following link contains an edited and much easier to read version of all the Don Rae Essays.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/s1fbbddjic865af/Don_Rae_Hindsight_2020.docx/file
It’s been roughly twenty years since the release of the “Don Rae Essays”. These documents, still freely available for download on the web, are best known for presenting and/or confirming the argument that Milton Bradley’s version of Axis and Allies is imbalanced in favor of the Allies. They have since become a part of Axis and Allies lore and are the origin of game terminology such as “shucking”, the “strafe attack”, and the “dead zone” among others. Given the legacy of these documents, I felt it interesting, if not prudent, to revisit this work and see if it could use an update for the year 2020.
What follows is a compilation of all the essays for which I have acted as editor. The original was (still is) filled with grammatical and punctuation errors, wordy and imprecise sentences, and braggadocios smugness that detracts from the overall messaging. Some of the examples and recommendations clearly lacked the use of proper battle calculation (use of a battle calculator). The game economy is largely ignored and referred to only in the abstract. The use and implementation of optional rules outside of the Restricted Attack (“Russia Restricted”) are not mentioned at all. The same is true for Technology rolls. Finally, in my opinion, the most fatal flaw was that the essays left no room for growth. In other words, these essays are presented as containing ALL the answers to your Axis and Allies questions.
Despite this, and though I cannot endorse these essays, they do contain concepts that are invaluable to understanding Axis and Allies game mechanics, especially for newer players. In this regard, I recommend essay #4 and #5. The strafe attack and more importantly, the dead zone have been thoroughly and well explained here. Additionally, though not the only (or in my opinion, ideal) first-turn strategies on offer, these essays contain a starting game plan for each individual power. For these reasons and their legacy, I have worked diligently to make the “Don Rae Essays” more presentable and easier to read.
Who am I, you might ask, to be worthy of such a task? To begin with, I am a huge fan of the Milton Bradley version of Axis and Allies. I am so much a fan that I began a YouTube channel that tries carefully to presents tactics, strategies, and game concepts learned over the course of many games with many different opponents. Many of these games are a matter of public record and are visible on the axisandallies.org forums. Finally, I am a published author and have applied all my experience regarding professional editing that I can offer to this essay.
As a disclaimer, I have corrected all misspellings and punctuation errors. Overly wordy sentences were trimmed down for ease of reading. All pompous and egotist comments have been removed. All font sizes have been standardized. Finally, all editorial commentary is clearly discernible in blue italics. My interventions in this way were done sparingly and only when the matter being discussed was erroneous or misleading. What’s left should be a MUCH smoother read of the concepts and strategies of the “Don Rae Essays”.
-The Good Captain
I feel strongly that I know the answer to this but promised my face to face friend I would ask this question for him here to get clarification. Here is his question/argument in his own words:
“Liberating a Territory” says that if the original controller’s capital is in enemy hands and you (a friendly power) capture a territory (owned by the friendly power which lost its capital), the capturing power collects income from the territory and may use any industrial complexes in the territory. Thus, if Russia loses Moscow (while occupying Karalia and Italy) and Britain then captures Karalia and Italy, Britain would earn IPCs from these two territories and be able to use the two industrial complexes (until Russia regains its capital). This seems consistent with the above notes on page 26. Moreover, I can’t think of any other reason why page 20 would say that the conquering power (Britain in this example) may “use the industrial complex there until the original controller’s capital is liberated.” Pages 20 and 26 seem consistent.
My reading of pages 20 + 26 is that if a country’s capital is in enemy hands, and a friendly power controls another factory owned by this country, the friendly power can use the factory and collect IPCs. I was really hoping that if Italy fell to Russia and Russia fell to Japan, that America or Britain could later use the Italian factory. "