The United States

[Funcioneta]

@idk_iam_swiss:

lame…thats 5  against japan…

Well, you could include Siam or Manchukuo ar Japan’s partners, but they would have microscopical income  :-D

[molinar13]

Really Japan may only have to watch out for just the U.S. and China. From what I’ve read the ANZAC player will only have an IPC count of less than 15. With that much money I dont think you would be able to build up a powerfull navy to challenge the Japanese. The U.K. has India and other territories yes but unless it has an Industrial Complex built on them, its going to be hard for the British player to re-enforce Southeast Asia. So if this stands true and there isn’t a bold Russian player then maybe the Japanese player can just worry about the U.S. and China.

[idk_iam_swiss]

Hey thanks! + 1 to you, maybe japan wont have that much of a fight in the pacific.

[Guest]

Did you forget the industrial might of the US?

[molinar13]

That may be true in just the AAP40 version; However, in the global version how is the U.S. economy going to look? If its still strong it’s going to come down to the U.S. to decide what he or she wants to do. Attack Europe full power, attack the Pacific full power or try to balance both theaters out.

[idk_iam_swiss]

lol most people attack europe first

[molinar13]

It has never worked out for me playing as the U.S. If I attacked Europe Japan ends up invading Alaska and all hell breaks loose. If I attacked in the Pacific (which I usually do) Russia tends to fall and my U.K. buddy can never handle Germany (he isn’t good). Finally when I tried to balance both theatres my carriers in the Pacific were destroyed before I could launch an offensive and in Europe I always encounter a failed D-Day. Never could establish a foot hold in Europe, while at the same time fight the Japanese in the Pacific (unlike history).

[idk_iam_swiss]

have britian and russia meet up in norwei. britian can fly fighters to russias aid and back the USSR up. America leave an average force behind while you take africa and invade from the south. germany cant fight everywhere at once. one of thir fronts will fail. build a factory in china (as USA ) and you can back them up. you can also build one in india to stop japan.

[Guest]

You have to at least make it look like you might attack in either theater.

[idk_iam_swiss]

And then strike in whichever theater appears to be weakest.

[WILD BILL]

molinar13 said,
From what I’ve read the ANZAC player will only have an IPC count of less than 15. With that much money I dont think you would be able to build up a powerfull navy to challenge the Japanese.

I don’t think the Anzac will start with that much it looks to be under 10 ipc. Kinda like Italy in AA50. Unlike Italy it looks as if Anzac won’t be able to earn income as it takes over Jap islands as most of them appear to have no value, or they will just be liberating. I don’t see the Dutch falling to the Anzac, those islands should fall to the UK but who knows. I think the only way Anzac increases its income is through NO’s. Its possible convoy zones could also give them $, by keeping them clear of enemy ships. At this point we don’t know how convoys work.

[WILD BILL]

Well I guess after looking at the AA40P map again, maybe the Anzac do get control of the Dutch islands. That would just about double their income. It would also leave UK mostly on the Asian continent w/about 15 ipc’s.

[idk_iam_swiss]

Its a lot of small ally powers. You cant build an awesome navy in one turn with just 15 IPC.

[molinar13]

Thanks for the advice… As far as ANZAC forces are concerened I think its a great addition to the game but I just might suggest the U.K. player controlling ANZAC forces, unless there is a person who wants to play in the game but dosent want to controll large armies?

[idk_iam_swiss]

I think the UK will control ANZAC in the global game.

[WILD BILL]

I would think Pacific would be best played by 3 people.
1-Japan  2-UK & Anzac  3-US & China.

[Guest]

I think all games are best played by 2 players only, 1 for Axie and 1 for Allies.

[WILD BILL]

Whats the mater you only have one friend. lol  :evil:

1 vs 1 is great, most of the games I played in the early days were that way, but 3-4 is more entertaining.

[Guest]

Honestly it is just easier with 2 players and I am kind of a control freak so I don’t like having other players on my side using strategies that I don’t agree with. Also sometimes it is hard to get that many players together with the time needed for A&A. As far as friends go, right now I wouldn’t even say that I have one.

[idk_iam_swiss]

I agree with BD, if you want to WIN  play with less people if you want to have FUN play with more people. the more people you have the crazier and more fun the game is, thers a lot less strategy you have to consider when you are only one nation. but with two people you control every aspect of your side.