Don't ask the obvious -but where do attacking units end up at

@Mannstein:

This has probably been subject of discussion before, but I want to give it another go; Who’s your power of choice? Not the most fun or exciting or challenging power to be, but the most succesful or “safe”? If you had to play for money, would you prefer to be axis or allies? If it was a matter of fun or excitement, (and luckily it usually is) I’d play axis anytime. But it seems allies have a lot better chance of winning usually? I’d say it’s about 70/30 allied favour? … What do you think? Maybe Hobbes and Bunnies will reply also - they seem to have played a few games, maybe they have some statistics they’d like to share?

Thanks in advance…

There is no most successful or safe single power.

The game’s pretty much about using the powers in combination effectively using calculated risks.  If you don’t work well with your allies or your allies don’t work well with you, you will probably fail.  If you don’t take calculated risks, emphasis on risks, you will fail, because only by taking risks can you maintain a forward position and therefore enough income to remain competitive.  You cannot “play it safe” and win unless your opponent is also “playing it safe”.

Luck and skill are far more important than which side you play in Spring 1942.  (Which is NOT the case for Revised.  There, I think the Allies have a REAL advantage, which can be offset by giving the Axis a bid.)

If pressed to commit to an answer, I would say I think the Allies have the advantage.

I personally find the Allies more interesting and challenging to play, because I pretty much know what I want to do with the Axis at any given time (I might stare at the board for quite a while, but I usually end up with a very concrete idea of what I want to do.)  On the other hand, I feel my Allies game is a lot looser and has room for a good bit of improvement.

That’s why I feel Allies have the edge.  I think I know what the Axis can do, and I think I don’t know all the things the Allies can do, and I fear the unknown.  It’s scary, sort of like when you open up the refrigerator and discover you’re out of carrots, then you wonder if there’s any carrots left at the grocery store.

@Krieghund:

@saturnracer:

And, of course, if on the next players turn, he wins it back, you are right back where you started at.

It’s important to not confuse your income level (indicated on the national production chart) with your IPCs “in the bank” (tracked on paper, or however you like).  Your income level moves up and down as you gain and lose territories.  As far as income level goes, you’re right that you end up back where you started if your opponent recaptures everything you captured.  However, during the Collect Income phase of your turn, you added the number of IPCs indicated by your income level on the chart to your “bank balance”.  Those IPCs are yours to keep until you spend them, so even if your opponent captures or recaptures territories, you will still have the IPCs you gained from them to spend on your next turn.

Ahh…(Light bulb turning on)  So thats where the paper comes in…i always wondered why paper was needed, when we have a production chart
thanks,…we really had a messed up game , then, as i woudl capture a territory or two, lose it back, and not have anything to show for it

Does a monopoly game have enought 10s 5s 1s and 20s to work for A&A?

That’s what I’m worried about doing, Bunnies. I got the feeling that once I start going into some detail that I’ll just keep going on and turn every question on plane movement into a lecture.

I’ve been thinking about leaving some stuf out all together, notably, strategic bombing. It just feels like something I can leave out for less confusion that isn’t a game-killer by not being there. I think the sub surprise attack and plane movement will be the hardest to fully explain so they understand.
One thing I just remembered was how hard it was to distinguish between some of the naval units when I first started playing. I have a picture printed out that someone made that helps with that, but that’s just one more thing to add to the confusion.

The more I think about it, the more I think I need to get with at least one of the guys and teach him a little. One - to help me out, and two - to make it so I’m only teaching two or three guys instead of four.

“And you wouldn’t like them when they’re angry.”

Luckily, no investigative reporters named Mr. McGee are invited.

@Bunnies:

Which would you rather have?  The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction?  Or . . . The Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction With Puppy package?

in my experience, the puppy IS the Nemesis Weapon of Mixed Destruction.

Ok, so this won’t be of use to everyone, but if you have an iPhone, and you’re new to the game, this might be of interest.

To get started, enter the number of IPCs you have, your industrial capacity, and click submit. Then press the “+” and “-” buttons to buy your troops.

It won’t let you add more units than what you can afford. But when you exceed your industrial capacity, that field with simply show a negative number. It won’t stop you from adding more units.

This is not an App. It is an html file that does local calculations. Nothing is sent to a server. It’s formatted using tables, and I know that’s bad form, but I don’t have much in the way of CSS skills (maybe later).

The only phone I have is an iPhone, so that’s all I’ve tested it on. It’s pretty standard html, so I would hope that it would work on other platforms. It works in IE on a PC, so maybe that is a good sign. Your milage may vary.

Constructive criticism is very welcome, but don’t tell me it’s stupid just because you can add up all your purchases in your head. This is a tool for beginners who haven’t memorized the cost of each unit, and may not remember to keep their industrial capacity in mind.

files.me.com/mtngoatjoe/ncwuur

gotta qualify this if you want answers.  better for whom?  Whats the situation and early or late game?

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Rev 1) In a situation where only defenseless transports are present a single attacking piece can be used to destroy them allowing the rest to perfrom offshore bombardment.

I think this is a question of value… You can chose to ignore transports, allowing Bombardment on the territory, which improves your chances of winning the IPC’s and position from territory.
…OR choose to sink Transports Each costing 7 IPC’s but lose the bombardment option.
I think they did this to force the choice, for strategic purposes and game balance

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Rev 2) This is much more radical.  In a situation where there is a defending fleet, some of the attacking fleet is held in reserve.  Combat occurs in the sea zone and if the attacker wins, then the the reserve fleet performs offshore bombardment.

Doesn’t make much sense to me, If an Entire Sea Zone is considered hostile because of any amount of surface warships, any Sea units entering their fire range are vulnerable.  If i were a defending Carrier with planes and i see lots of ships Im gonna try to sink the most valued units, it would help my defense in the land portion. Also, if the attacker could do that then the defender should have some similar balancing option, like maybe the ability to retreat defending planes, to the Land Territ.