I’m more for the pointless killing with no objective but to win the game
But if you think about it all the nations had a goal in mind when fighting in WWII. This only makes the game show people how they would have played out the motives these nations had at the time. Churchill once wrote in his diary that the allies had won after all when the US decided to enter the war, the UK and US are allies but first and foremost they want to see their nations be the best or have the upper hand in their own way by the time the fighting is over. The reason that Britain and USA are natural allies is they share a common economics system and both profit off each other regardless of who is really making the money. There are reasons that we are natural enemies to communism and fascism, our economies don’t mix well and therefore we don’t see eye to eye. There are reasons we care so much about the state of North Korea or Iran but could really care less about states like Darfur or Somalia. N. Korea and Iran are right next to huge economic interests for us, which can be used to better the lives of American citizens. Dafur and Somalia have nothing that begs our presence, so there are no troops there. So we see that wars are fought with real reasons in mind, remember we were not even going to battle in Europe until Hitler declared war on us because at the time our economy was pretty self sufficient and we really didn’t care one way or the other who ruled over there.
Politics, politics, shmoliticks, let’s just play a game where we can play with cool plastic pieces and try to kill each others forces and take over the world. :-D
I agree, but the reason I like Axis and allies is that it is not like Risk in that you have to be an economist and strategist to win. I don’t think politics should be in the game, just simple national objectives with some sort of bonus would be nice for the game to play more like a the real thing did. You don’t have to follow the rules but it is to your advantage to, for the same reasons it was in real life.
Seriously this board game is my favorite!
Just to say - do not be fooled by statistics.
The reality is that due to the purges and loads of other issues the Russian army was not an effective fighting force in June 1941. By December of that year Stalin had given plenty of lee-way back to his generals (unlike Hitler who tightened his control of the army yet further). The Germans lost half there forces by mid 1942 in Russia and they were still a long way from being booted out.
That’s so true. Hitler kept taking control, like in August '41 when he turned the Army groups away from Moscow into Ukraine and Leningrad against his generals advice. This took 2 months before he turned attention back to Moscow. That would have been critical time to perhaps get to Moscow before reserves arrived and Russia would have regrouped. The goal was to get to Moscow within a couple months; while they were still behind schedule, they stood a good chance to get there before the fall rains or the winter counter-offensive.
Do you think hitler ever could have taken britian? or the japs could have taken austrailia? Germans taking russia was possible…
Do you think hitler ever could have taken britian? or the japs could have taken austrailia?
Yes and yes, but they would have had to roll a lot of low numbers. :-D
Do you think hitler ever could have taken britian? or the japs could have taken austrailia? Germans taking russia was possible…
Yes to all three, just be very glad they didn’t occur or we wouldn’t be having conjectural history discussions like we are just now!
1. Britain… Would have been awhile, and probably would have eventually dragged the US into the war, but economic blockade with subs/aircraft/minelayers around Britain could have starved the Brits into submission. The US was sending them Lend/Lease equipment in massive convoys which could have been a reason to declare war at any time; but the Germans were tearing the heart out of the raw material supply lines leading into England regardless. A bit more pressure on the Brits supply lines at sea, a successful war in Africa and the Middle East to cut oil supplies, and it wouldn’t have mattered how MANY planes and ships Britain could have built, it wouldn’t have had the fuel for them. There was a reason people were planting Victory gardens as well during the war, Britain largely imported its foodstuffs and if not enough food reached the Isles Churchill would have been forced to cry uncle eventually.
2. Japs probably could have taken Australia if they had won a few key battles in the Solomons, enabling them at least minor naval supremacy… The real issue would have been holding onto it! Probably wouldn’t have held it very long against the US and an Aussie insurgency…
3. No doubt possible! Everyone knows this! Russians got lucky or the Germans got presumptuous, but Stalin was very very lucky the Germans delayed invading Russia for a few months in '41. In WWI the Germans handily beat them, and many were expecting the same outcome though a much shorter war. Good thing we don’t emulate the winter weather in AA50.
If you think of it this way, Germany took territory that basically was double the size of Germany. And they were still about 100 Km from Moscow when the winter hit. Depending on how many territories Larry wants to put in between, I would say 3-6 territories in a straight shot from Berlin to Moscow. The distance is about 900 miles, so 3-6 seems like a good number, and allows Germany to be at Russia’s capital within 2 to 3 turns.
quote from Larry:
Aaah…ok Emperor_Taiki… there are 6 territories between Berlin and Stalingrad. Could not help myself… I just had to tell you.
I would think it would also be 6 tt between Berlin and Moscow. So it could take up to 6 rounds to get there. Germany will most likely start with some forces already in between however (Poland etc). Italy should also be able to can opener a few countries allowing Germany to blitz with its tanks/mech inf. So it could be like the 4th round or so for a full assault on Moscow.
Thank you for the information. Six turns… The map must be huge!
@WILD:
If you think of it this way, Germany took territory that basically was double the size of Germany. And they were still about 100 Km from Moscow when the winter hit. Depending on how many territories Larry wants to put in between, I would say 3-6 territories in a straight shot from Berlin to Moscow. The distance is about 900 miles, so 3-6 seems like a good number, and allows Germany to be at Russia’s capital within 2 to 3 turns.
quote from Larry:
Aaah…ok Emperor_Taiki… there are 6 territories between Berlin and Stalingrad. Could not help myself… I just had to tell you.
I would think it would also be 6 tt between Berlin and Moscow. So it could take up to 6 rounds to get there. Germany will most likely start with some forces already in between however (Poland etc). Italy should also be able to can opener a few countries allowing Germany to blitz with its tanks/mech inf. So it could be like the 4th round or so for a full assault on Moscow.
Italy really depends on north africa. There cant be to many forces there right? there never are in my other games.
Italy really depends on north africa. There cant be to many forces there right? there never are in my other games.
If the French become Allied like Larry says instead of Vichy you may end up with enemies that did not exist in WWII.
There cant be to much in africa right?
The French were in Morocco and Algeria and when they became Vichy they fought on the side of the Axis. If according to what I am hearing they become Allied instead, then Italy is going to have a tougher fight in North Africa.
I wonder if that will be an alternate rule that we can choose to employ? That would be kinda cool to see how the two setups would work out.
French territory in North Africa must become Axis controlled after the inevitable fall of France to keep a balance in North Africa.
quote from Larry
Hey Emperor_Taiki, East Africa – how will this be represented in AAE40?
Well I think so. I mean the French, the Italians and the British are all represented down there. I mean there’s Kenya, Tanganyika Territory, Rhodesia, Union of South Africa, South West Africa, British Somaliland, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and an administered from London - Belgian Congo, and that’s just the British stuff… Hope this answers your question.
Sounds like Africa will be a cesspool, with a lot of fighting.
lame…Italy sounds rather forced…
Well then as the topic states you don’t have to do it Larry’s way
