that makes sense. Thanks, ROC!
German strategy for the world game
-
Brett
Unfortunately, Russian ships can’t exit the Black sea because Turkey is neutral and thus the Dardennelles are close. Besides, since the Germans and Soviets are neutral, the Italian or German ships can go through the Russian ones.UN Spacey
It’s a rule. Control of Gibraltar closes the straitSo what happens if you invade Turkey, doesn’t that bring all of the neutrals to war or something?
OK, I’m still a little confused on some of the rules. I only on AA Revised so I haven’t dealt with neutral countries yet. I plan on buying AAE and AAP at the same time but don’t care to play AAP by itself.
So how does a neutral US work, Japan can pass through their ships in the Pacific too? I thouhgt you wouldn’t be able to pass through a neutral countries’ forces?? So you can pass through their SZ, but not their territories? Also, are you sure you can’t pass through the Dardenlles if Turkey is neutral? Why couldn’t everyone just pass through there.Yeah, you can pass through a neutral’s ships. Turkey historically closed the straits to both sides
-
@Dylan:
Brett
Unfortunately, Russian ships can’t exit the Black sea because Turkey is neutral and thus the Dardennelles are close. Besides, since the Germans and Soviets are neutral, the Italian or German ships can go through the Russian ones.UN Spacey
It’s a rule. Control of Gibraltar closes the straitOK, I’m still a little confused on some of the rules. I only on AA Revised so I haven’t dealt with neutral countries yet. I plan on buying AAE and AAP at the same time but don’t care to play AAP by itself.
So how does a neutral US work, Japan can pass through their ships in the Pacific too? I thouhgt you wouldn’t be able to pass through a neutral countries’ forces?? So you can pass through their SZ, but not their territories? Also, are you sure you can’t pass through the Dardenlles if Turkey is neutral? Why couldn’t everyone just pass through there.Yeah, you can pass through a neutral’s ships. Turkey historically closed the straits to both sides
So what happens if you invade Turkey, doesn’t that bring all of the neutrals to war or something?
That isn’t clear yet; a while ago Larry mentioned there might be repercussions like all other true neutrals turning pro-your-opponent if you invaded them, but that was still during development. We haven’t been told how that will work yet and probably won’t find out until the game comes out.
-
All other true-neutrals shouldn’t switch to pro-other side. I like the idea, but it should be grouped together by contintent or something, that would be better. Like, if you Germany invaded Spain, all European neutrals become pro-allied (assuming Spain were a true-neutral, when it might be pro-axis). This would be more historically accurate, since, I doubt Iraq or Mongolia would suddenly become pro-ally because Spain got invaded.
-
All other true-neutrals shouldn’t switch to pro-other side. I like the idea, but it should be grouped together by contintent or something, that would be better. Like, if you Germany invaded Spain, all European neutrals become pro-allied (assuming Spain were a true-neutral, when it might be pro-axis). This would be more historically accurate, since, I doubt Iraq or Mongolia would suddenly become pro-ally because Spain got invaded.
Spain is a true neutral
-
I apologize if this is too off-topic to ask, but if, say, Allied forces occupy a pro-Allied neutral territory, would the territory resist, or would its forces actually join up with them (and likewise for pro-Axis neutrals)? Say, for example, Soviet or British forces invade Iran, and Iran has three infantry silhouettes. Would three Soviet/British infantry appear once they occupy it?
-
I think yuo invade them during noncombat and their units become yours.
-
I don’t like that tanks are 6 IPC’s in this edition of hte game. I liked them better at 5, because they were a reasonable buy. Tanks were still the less efficient buy according to precise mathematical calculations, but reasonable. Now are we going back to the earlier editions of AA where everyone just builds infanry every turn and the person who gets sick of building infantry and goes with tanks eventually loses??
-
I don’t like that tanks are 6 IPC’s in this edition of hte game. I liked them better at 5, because they were a reasonable buy. Tanks were still the less efficient buy according to precise mathematical calculations, but reasonable. Now are we going back to the earlier editions of AA where everyone just builds infanry every turn and the person who gets sick of building infantry and goes with tanks eventually loses??
Tanks can move 2 spaces and increase tac’s attack to 4, which is why it’s 6. Also, this may be to prevent Germany from buildng just tanks, like in the original europe
-
Yea, moving 2 spaces could be a bigger advantage on the bigger board, because it will take infantry a long time to get to the front and to maneuvre based on your opponents moves. But still, I don’t think moving 2 spaces justifies twice the price of infantry. The tactical bomber die point might be enough to put it over the edge, but idk, that depends on how many tactical bombers Germany can attack with. If thats only 3 or 4, then maybe Germany only needs a few tanks at the front… Idk… I see your points, that tanks will be more valuable for new reasons in this edition, thus justifying the extra IPC. I just hope that is how it works out in reality, becuase everyone building infantry every turn will get very boring, very quickly. (plus i haven’t played the original AAE so I miss the reference).
-
I don’t like that tanks are 6 IPC’s in this edition of hte game. I liked them better at 5, because they were a reasonable buy. Tanks were still the less efficient buy according to precise mathematical calculations, but reasonable. Now are we going back to the earlier editions of AA where everyone just builds infanry every turn and the person who gets sick of building infantry and goes with tanks eventually loses??
One might argue tanks should be 7. Because tanks can move farther are 3 and 3 in combat, but yet Mech Infantry are 4 just because they can move a bit faster, so yeah.
-
@Dylan:
I don’t like that tanks are 6 IPC’s in this edition of hte game. I liked them better at 5, because they were a reasonable buy. Tanks were still the less efficient buy according to precise mathematical calculations, but reasonable. Now are we going back to the earlier editions of AA where everyone just builds infanry every turn and the person who gets sick of building infantry and goes with tanks eventually loses??
One might argue tanks should be 7. Because tanks can move farther are 3 and 3 in combat, but yet Mech Infantry are 4 just because they can move a bit faster, so yeah.
But then again mechs can’t blitz.
Personally, I think tanks at 6 ipc is a good thing for the game.
-
@special:
@Dylan:
I don’t like that tanks are 6 IPC’s in this edition of hte game. I liked them better at 5, because they were a reasonable buy. Tanks were still the less efficient buy according to precise mathematical calculations, but reasonable. Now are we going back to the earlier editions of AA where everyone just builds infanry every turn and the person who gets sick of building infantry and goes with tanks eventually loses??
One might argue tanks should be 7. Because tanks can move farther are 3 and 3 in combat, but yet Mech Infantry are 4 just because they can move a bit faster, so yeah.
But then again mechs can’t blitz.
Personally, I think tanks at 6 ipc is a good thing for the game.
However, again, for each tank blitzing 1 mec can come along; so tanks are the ultimate support unit as lots of units benefit from having them around. Infantry will still be the cheapest and therefore the most effective way to get the most units on the board, with artillery now having greater value as cheap infantry support, but tanks will now be the ultimate support unit, and still the most versatile. They probably should have cost 6 IPCs awhile ago, but with all their abilities: 2 movement, blitz, upgrading tacs attack stat and mecs blitz, and the need for more mobility with the larger board, the 6 IPC cost is definitely warranted.
-
This “Combined Axis Fleet” strategy has served me well in past Axis and Allies games, its only downside is that Russia usually gets huge and can become a problem if the Axis don’t expand fast enough.
If the Axis strategy is to simply wail away at the UK for 3 rounds to form a buffer zone between them and the other Allied powers, it might be possible to pull off a Sealion/Baltic Sea strategy. An Axis fleet in the Baltic has been an excellent counterweight to Allied fleets in the Atlantic in previous games, and since Germany starts out this game with a battleship, the Baltic is more viable than ever. If the Axis build a sub and transport a turn in addition to air units and some infantry, there could be enough of a fleet to threaten Britain and keep them “honest” in building land and air units to defend the island and not constructing naval units. No naval units means not sending Allied reinforcements to the Med, and especially if they don’t build any new destroyers, your subs can leave the Baltic to raid convoy zones.
The lack of a UK navy should add up to Italy owning the Med throughout turns 2-3-4 and hopefully overrunning Africa. For want of better things to do, Britain will probably be sending some troops up from the SA minor IC, but Italy should be outproducing/sending more troops to the African theater to combat them. 3 inf a turn produced in SA means 3 inf not produced defending the UK, plus Britain is probably feeling the IPC pinch without any NOs and the loss of most of Africa. The UK should be looking pretty weak by turn 4, with maybe 15 IPCs a turn, and after SBRs and sub convoy attacks reduced to even less than that. Meanwhile, Japan is setting up to crush India, if they’re smart, by turn 3-4, and hopefully will be able to reinforce the Italian Med fleet by sailing part of their Indian fleet through the Suez by turn 5. The US player, when he enters the war turn 4, should be facing a reinforced German fleet in the Baltic, a combined Italian/Jap fleet blocking access to the Med, and a sizeable Japanese fleet in the Pacific blocking off Australia. The US will be forced to pick and choose, limiting his options, plus it will take several turns for the units to even get there to the right theaters. A lot of his units will probably be sent to the UK anyway as last minute reinforcements. Anyway, the Axis should have free reign of much of the territory on the board and should then concentrate on bashing up Russia and holding down Britain.
The German fleet MUST also be used to invade the Soviet Union in the Baltic as soon as it is possible so it is not simply eating up IPCs waiting for the UK to fall. Hopefully by this time Germany will be getting several NOs and have enough territory so that it can reinforce its fleet AND build enough land units to invade the Soviet Union. This strategy’s Achilles heel is Russia, which will have 3 turns of neutrality to build up land units to which Germany will not have been keeping parity with. BUT it is very good at keeping the US and UK out of the Med, and done right can make Italy a powerhouse that can help out in defending Western Europe and invading Russia.
-
All this talk sounds very pro-Axis.
I realize that many of you think that previous games are decidedly broken in favor of the Axis. As for Pacific 40, I cannot really comment, because I have only played it once since having it. However, I have found Anniv. Ed. to be fairly even, if not pro-Allies. It seems fairly difficult for the Axis to win unless your opponents are morons or you roll incredibly well. Not that the Axis can’t win… because they can, but it seems more difficult for them to win than it is for the Allies. (The Allies still have a challenge on their hands, but in my opinion they can afford to take more punishment than the Axis because their economies and combined strength offset it.)
As for Global 40… I cannot see how the Axis can possible perform as well as most of you seem to think, in the European theater at least. On the first and second turns, of course the Axis will kick the crap out of Allied units; they always do… as they are designed to.
I guess my main question, before I comment further, is how declarations of war go. Who exactly is at, or not at, war at the start of the game? And will this be like Pacific in some respects, like how anyone can declare war at any time they wish? Does the US start out with a lower economy and then go higher after war is declared, like in Pacific? If this is the case, and everyone expects the Axis to run over the other Allies, what incentive at all does the US have to stay out of the war?
I must ask how Germany sustaining a Navy is remotely viable, in terms of money. They have enough to worry about with Russia, let alone trying to take on Britain. It just seems like Germany cannot afford to mess around with naval units when their real first objective should be to wipe the Soviets off the board.
-
Apparently in Anniversary, the Axis make the same income as the Allies in 2 turns.
Decs of war: in Europe game, Britain and France are at war with Germany and Italy. The USSR will stay neutral until turn 4 unless it is attacked. I think the rule for the US is same; I doubt attacking Russia will lead to war with the US.
In Global, Political rules from both will apply(except maybe what turn the US and Russia enter the War). In addition, the big question is if either German or Japanese declaration of war on the US lead to the US being at war with the other axis(I assume, like UK/ANZAC, that germnay and Italy are the same politically).
-
I assume a Japanese attack on the US would trigger war with Germany and Italy in Europe because this is what happened, historically. Which is interesting because, from what I gather, Japan’s smartest move is to attack the US on turn 1. If that’s the case, then Japan should consider Germany and Italy’s best interest before attacking the US. Then maybe Japan doesn’t attack the US turn 1, which would negate most of the starting strategy I’m hearing. That or the US just enters the war on turn 1, which would probably be more fun anyway.
However, this scenario would also lead to the anomaly that the US is in the war before the USSR. Unless Germany were to attack the USSR on turn 1, which, I woudl imagine would be strongly discouraged by the starting setup.
-
If Germany attacks the US(unlikely, since there’s nothing near germany to attack unless the US is stupid enough to put ships off the UK), do you think this would lead to war with Japan?
-
If Germany attacks the US(unlikely, since there’s nothing near germany to attack unless the US is stupid enough to put ships off the UK), do you think this would lead to war with Japan?
This is a very good question. Historically its hard to venture a guess. The tri-partite pact did say that the 3 powers would declare war on anyone who declared war on them. However, Japan refused to open up a seocnd front against the USSR, blaming Hitler for bring them into the war to start. They might treat the US the same way. But my guess would be that since Japan was supposedly at war with teh USSR, they should be at war with the US if Germany were to attack the US (or Italy, for that matter).
-
The Japanese shouldn’t be allowed to attack the USSR until Germany or Italy does. Is this going to be a rule? It would at least make a nod to the fact Japan never violtaed the Russo-Japanese peace. But I dont think AA would be the same without the possibility of Japan attacking the USSR, that has to be possible.
-
Apparently in Anniversary, the Axis make the same income as the Allies in 2 turns.
As in… the Axis make double the Allied income in one turn… or the other way around? I would think it is the other way around, unless we are talking about the Axis having additional income from conquered territories.
Suggested Topics
