My Axis & Allies Global table

I view the essays as para-historical entertainment from someone who contemplates the board waiting to find an opponent.

Welcome to the forum and try the game online. It’s much more interesting than writing and speculating about the game. :wink:

@Arthur:

You might as well issue an R1 DoW against Japan; at our gaming group we generally assume that Russia is at war unless stated otherwise.  So far I haven’t seen any reason in non-BM games to not opt for immediate war.

This makes perfect sense with experienced players, but I do remember a game where I, playing Russia, managed to delay a Japanese attack for quite a few turns by claiming that we had always been on good terms and that I had never done anything at all to damage Japan’s interests.  :-D

Thank you again for all the helpful advice. You were right on my misstep with Germany building 10 units on Paris instead of 3. You also have good ideas about buying artillery, which I was thinking because you can combine them with infantry to get attack or defense at 2. And the United States targeting Norway/Denmark/Western Germany combined with bombers is helpful. Thanks again for all the great advice from such nice players; you guys are awesome.
AxisandAlliesGeneral

Japan is ridiculously strong (but then is on 1940 too).
Germany can be held a while and Italy should not grow at all, but the U.S. must invest nearly all its income in the Pacific.
Still makes a refreshing change from 1940 though.

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Is Global domination rules just playing until one side controls all the territories? Any clarification would be appreciated.

In practice, a global domination variant is one where the sides ignore the official victory conditions, which are based on controlling a certain number of victory cities for a turn, and instead play until one side concedes.  You could play until all territories are controlled, but that outcome is usually determined well before the last enemy territory is captured.  Typically, experienced players can decide if a game is worth continuing after one of the major capitals falls.

As some have pointed out, this type of game can be less interesting because the Allies’ economic might encourages them to grind out a longer game until they can pour all their resources into crushing Germany or Japan.

Conversely, it presents a greater challenge for the Axis while also making the Allies less defensive as Cow mentioned.  The problem as I see it is that any game that lasts longer than 10 turns becomes a de facto Allied victory because of the economic imbalance.  Consequently, we’ve been trying to formulate a bid to help even things out, but not break the game in the first 3 turns.  It’s a bit of a round peg/square hole problem, but it’s good to get people talking about it for those of us who cling to the old “global domination” victory rule.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9936

52 while not at war and then add up the NOs after. usually 70s

@valtteri771:

why would japan have to attack russia I have won many times as germany without sealion and japanese help in barbarossa.

Oh ,  and if you check out the early GNazi buys,  my Axis opponent  even admits he didn’t buy enough tanks since he used his airforce to destroy the British Navy in turn 2 and the Mediterranean Navy in turn 3  early in the game.  so the extra 9 IPCs from the far east could have been elminated earlier.  He didn’t hit it till Japan Turn 8  which meant the Soviets colleted 72 IPCs for the game from the far east.  cutting it down by turn 5 or 6 well after Germany was pressuring the Soviets and with Japan stomping to to india could have swung the war against the Allies!  I had also moved 15 far east troops all the way back to moscow and they were big help in retaking Stalingrad.