Yeah, not really fair. Granted it is easier for the Allies to take Germany and Rome, but they almost never can take Japan. A little skewed in my opinion.
Why not? After taking Germnay and Italy, they’ll have the economic advantage and can convoy raid Japan and her holdings.
But unless the US do it (maybe Russia,) it won’t matter because Japan could be owning the Asian places, because UK has split income.
If Japan captures all of Asia, Australia, and the Solomons, it makes 98 ipcs. The US is making 80 ipcs at the beginning plus Italy, Algeria, Maybe Gemrnay which will give it 90-100. UK will probably be making 30-40, and Russia also 30-40. Japan will lose unless they can liberate Germany and Italy
@Dylan:
Okay so Axis need 15 cities, Allies need all capitals, I don’t think that’s fair
Axis Victory:
Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Rome, Tokyo, Shangahi, Paris, Cairo, Hong Kong, Manilla, Lenningrad, Stalingrad, Sydney, Honolulu, Moscow or CalcuttaWashigton, San Fransisco, London, Ottawa, and Moscow or Calcutta all free!
Allies need 3 capitals the Axis may not even touch one!
You said Rome twice.
The reason Sydney is hard to take is that it is far away from Japan and is easily reinforced by the US. Hawaii is also easily reinforced by the US
Damn it I got in solid in my head that Rome is a German territory in the game.
If Japan captures all of Asia, Australia, and the Solomons, it makes 98 ipcs. The US is making 80 ipcs at the beginning plus Italy, Algeria, Maybe Gemrnay which will give it 90-100. UK will probably be making 30-40, and Russia also 30-40. Japan will lose unless they can liberate Germany and Italy
What I’m saying is if UK takes Germany and Italy they have split income and they could be dying on the Pacific bored.
@Dylan:
If Japan captures all of Asia, Australia, and the Solomons, it makes 98 ipcs. The US is making 80 ipcs at the beginning plus Italy, Algeria, Maybe Gemrnay which will give it 90-100. UK will probably be making 30-40, and Russia also 30-40. Japan will lose unless they can liberate Germany and Italy
What I’m saying is if UK takes Germany and Italy they have split income and they could be dying on the Pacific bored.
Let them dies. Withe Germany and Italy they will be making 40-50 ipcs, and the US will be making 80, Russia 40-50 as well
@Dylan:
If Japan captures all of Asia, Australia, and the Solomons, it makes 98 ipcs. The US is making 80 ipcs at the beginning plus Italy, Algeria, Maybe Gemrnay which will give it 90-100. UK will probably be making 30-40, and Russia also 30-40. Japan will lose unless they can liberate Germany and Italy
What I’m saying is if UK takes Germany and Italy they have split income and they could be dying on the Pacific bored.
Let them dies. Withe Germany and Italy they will be making 40-50 ipcs, and the US will be making 80, Russia 40-50 as well
Russia’s navy would take like 30 turns to get to Japan, so the US need to do it, United Kingdom could take forever, the US is the only one who could!
@Dylan:
@Dylan:
If Japan captures all of Asia, Australia, and the Solomons, it makes 98 ipcs. The US is making 80 ipcs at the beginning plus Italy, Algeria, Maybe Gemrnay which will give it 90-100. UK will probably be making 30-40, and Russia also 30-40. Japan will lose unless they can liberate Germany and Italy
What I’m saying is if UK takes Germany and Italy they have split income and they could be dying on the Pacific bored.
Let them dies. Withe Germany and Italy they will be making 40-50 ipcs, and the US will be making 80, Russia 40-50 as well
Russia’s navy would take like 30 turns to get to Japan, so the US need to do it, United Kingdom could take forever, the US is the only one who could!
True, but Russia land forces can hit Japan’s chinese territories. The UK can come and liberate India and the Asian coast
I don’t think our group will ever actually play out the allied victory to the bitter end. Once the axis are on the defensive, and have no chance to get any more victory cities, we’ll just call the game.
I don’t think our group will ever actually play out the allied victory to the bitter end. Once the axis are on the defensive, and have no chance to get any more victory cities, we’ll just call the game.
That is the same thing we do. It gets inevitable at a certain point and once that point is reached it just becomes a drag for the person who has no hope. That is what happened last night. We played probably 4 turns (4th incomplete) of AA50, and the Axis had no hope left once Germany couldn’t take Moscow with their force in the Caucasus. I could explain it, but it might grow long and off topic. My brother and I played the Allies well and had one particular cycle of fortunate rolling with the Australian AA gun. The game could have looked totally different, but once Japan began to crumble and Germany could not dominate Russia… the end was known, so we quit the game. That and it was 1 o’clock in the morning and I had to get up at 7 for work…
So if really think about it, the fact that no one really plays by the victory conditions, the end result will all ways be the same as it was in AA50, quit once all hope is lost for a certain side.
So if really think about it, the fact that no one really plays by the victory conditions, the end result will all ways be the same as it was in AA50, quit once all hope is lost for a certain side.
Umm. I do :|
I mean in all seriousness the game is usually called before all the needed victory cities are captured.
I mean in all seriousness the game is usually called before all the needed victory cities are captured.
But it seems more real.
@Dylan:
I mean in all seriousness the game is usually called before all the needed victory cities are captured.
But it seems more real.
“Real” as in having the game last four years… like the war did for the US? A little too long for me…
@Dylan:
I mean in all seriousness the game is usually called before all the needed victory cities are captured.
But it seems more real.
“Real” as in having the game last four years… like the war did for the US? A little too long for me…
My friends don’t really care, it’s like an RPG game, you know your going to win, but it’s not over till it’s over.
I would hate that if I was losing side my group calls the game as soon as all hope Is lost. Any longer and the losing side is being tormented and focusing more on our iPhones and iPods.
I mean in all seriousness the game is usually called before all the needed victory cities are captured.
Not me, I will always play until the bitter end.
@Brain:
I mean in all seriousness the game is usually called before all the needed victory cities are captured.
Not me, I will always play until the bitter end.
How many games do you actually get to play then? If you keep going to the bitter end, well, it could take a very long time to finish even one game… To me it’s like, you know who the winners will be, it is inevitable, and the losers can basically just stall for time or build up what they can… I don’t know of anyone who wants, or enjoys, or is willing for long, to play in that position. In my opinion, I say end the game, go do something else and start a new one another day.
Yeah, Marauder highlights an unfortunate problem with the Axis & Allies series - the Allies generally don’t get to celebrate because the Axis tend to quit after a major loss :-(
I think AAP avoided this the best by having a VP system. It’s a shame the developers didn’t consider applying a similar system to the 2 new games. Another old game called Hitler’s War managed it best IMO, by saying that whoever held Berlin on turn XX won the game.
Cheers,
Lozza007
