We played Alpha yesterday.

I agree with a post that Mashmallow posted earlier, there is no guarantee that you are going to get that NO for a clear med, you should not even rely on that one. The Italians have so many uses, on the ground, with actual IPC earning territory’s that those planes can be used for, you need to weigh out their impact in the med versus potentially taking Egypt, steam rolling Greece, building an actually strong can-opener force in Russia, and even Protecting Rome.

The last few games that I have played, when I am the Axis, I get my Italian partner to seriously evaluate the Taranto raid force. If it is the max force possible, and the UK is totally on point, I say scrap the scramble, focus on more attainable objectives. As a German player, I sure as hell don’t want to burn the Luftwaffe on an air vs naval clean up battle G2, where I can lose guaranteed safe hits against Russian ground troops once Barbarossa commences. On the other hand, If the UK doesn’t bring the max force down, or they don’t make a move to middle east with SA and India navies / units, and Italy looks like they might have some time to maneuver for a few rounds, then scramble all the way. I have seen games were Italy won the Taranto raid, and from then on became unstoppable in the Med, which in turn leads to Germany being able to achieve their full potential, and results in an Axis victory.

Italy unfortunately has to play the game, or at least start the game, being completely on board to support the Germans in whichever direction they plan to strike. A strong Afrika campaign with Italian air power can lead to Italy generating sufficient IPCs to gain a bit more control over their destiny. A successful Italian campaign in the middle East, or as a can-opener can have the same impact. Italy with zero navy, and zero air force, means they might as well stockpile Rome and prepare to defend Europe, there will be no expeditionary force.

(Alpha) 3.9 are outdated rules.

Latest ruleset is 1940 2nd. Edition with the addition of a FAQ.

Get the rules and setup from
http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/

and the FAQ from
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AAEurope1940_2ndEdition_FAQ.pdf
and
http://www.wizards.com/AvalonHill/rules/AAPacific1940_2nd Edition_FAQ.pdf

Okay +3 more ipc to the usual 12 allies bid. Makes no difference to me. Kind of lame because that 3 more ipc would go to a more strategic spot like right below it to smack ethiopia with better odds.

mmm, that is fine. I might see more crazy korea attacks.

I wish the developers would post some of their games if they are doing it online. I really want to see the logic in -1 inf for egypt in an already axis stacked game. Too many people complained about Italy sucking I guess, but they never hear the tears of UK hitting the floor. London should start with more money to defend itself, 37 starting income seems more reasonable. 9 inf fighter.

Just go read them lol

USA still gets a massive bonus when at war :P

the newest alpha is probably the last and is about as balanced as it can get

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149

Hi All!

In my preparation I always loved having the old setup maps (made by Krieg I believe). As there hasn’t been one availabble for any of the versions after AA50, I decided to make one myself. It has been monkswork (as we say in Holland ). And having one, I asked myself: “Why not sharing it with all of you?”

So: Enjoy!!

SvO

http://www.mediafire.com/?esmhrshz6sjjkk5

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

here you go mate, http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=4035

@molinar13:

Seeing that Axis and Allies does not use rules such as terrain effects, experience of troops, or weather effects I consider the luck of the dice to compensate for these items.

I tend to view it the same way. Axis and Allies does not take a lot of things into account… including scouting and supplying your armies. I always viewed these things as being incorporated into the game, sort of expected and assumed.

For example, many times neither side knew where the other’s forces were. They needed scouts and intelligence organizations to figure it out. There is no “fog of war” in a boardgame. You can see everything that everyone does.
Also armies/navies needed to be supplied. Axis and Allies does not require you to maintain a merchant fleet or a force of supply trucks. It is sort of given and expected.

Now these things do not directly relate to your die rolling, but it shows that not everything needs to be accounted for by the player… including the fixing of his odds. Dropping a (fair) die and letting it bounce and roll is entirely fair and just. It is random, and that is the purpose.

Artificially compensating for losses due to bad rolling just seems like diluted cheating to me.