Early take down of Sydney

@aequitas-et-veritas said in taking out the Brit destroyers?:

@crockett36 said in taking out the Brit destroyers?:

@superbattleshipyamato try it out. If you get lucky and burn planes as casualties you are immediately convoying England. Usually in both 109 and 106.

Has no upside only downsides to it.
The more Planes Germany looses, the less power of threat it has against Russia and later UK and US Naval assets.
So this is simply a bad idea.

You may try to kill sz 106,109 and 110 and buy an Bmbr w. Subs first round or a CV w. Sub and kill the rest of RN on round two.

But this the maximium of feelings you can get from it.
Usually when some of these battles (sz 106,109,110) went south, you should def. primarily focus on Russia alone.

The reason why we even attack the most of RN first round is to clear and standoff against sz 110.
When th US enters the war and controlls sz 110 along with UK RN,
It is on Germany to defend the Homeland a fight two frontlines.

From 110 you reach everywhere you need as the Allied Player,
wich is:
Gibraltar, sz92,Germany, Western Germany, Norway, Denmark, Normandy, Belgium, Morrocco, Algeria.

This is a lot of Ground to cover for Axis.
Therefore sz 110 is a vital Keypoint!

The idea should be to delay as long as possible the process of Allies controlling sz110!!

I’m not an Axis guy, but I understand what you are saying. You didn’t exactly address the actual ipcs involved. 110 will not be held t1. They will run away or be killed t2. Especially if the g1 purchase is 3 figs.

@panther Oh, sorry I misunderstood you. It was just my error. I didn’t know about or see that category. Again, I’m sorry.

Amazing this forum is still active, even cooler that there is still talk about the Afrika Korps strategy and even a Youtube video!

Here is the original idea back in 2016: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28581/the-afrika-korps?_=1640243275057

I am playing again in 2 weeks with my father & brother, after a 1.5 year break. I will focus on Barbarossa as well, and likely use oysteila build orders. Maybe spend some more on Atlantic Wall when USA goes for KGF with my JDOW1 in G3/4.

I would really like to here the communities take on this subject. Praises and criticisms. I realize I’m late to the ball, but here I am and I’ excited about getting into this game.
Here is my take.

This board and map are great.

I love the hugeness of it; this thing is just massive.

The geography and how that effects play was very well thought out. Africa is squashed down abut as much as possible and there is more room available in Europe as one could have reasonably made without completely distorting the world map. The point being , the map still looks like the world while still being able to provide effective space for game play- that is a tough balance to achieve.

The idea of making the Himalayas and Sahara impassible was inspired. Of course they are impassible to large armies. If the Axis want to do damage to the British Empire in Sub Saharan Africa, they need to either turn the corner at Alexandria or win the Atlantic or Indian Oceans.

The neutral spaces are very well done. More on that when I review the Neutral Countries.

But the main thing the map gets right is what it’s supposed to get right, it provides the right geometry to promote good game play. Their are major regions and regions within those regions and each set has its own keys to being manipulated for offense and defense. That makes for interesting game play.

Even better, I haven’t found any rinky dink ways of manipulating the geography in ways that don’t feel true to the intent of the game/WW2. The space in the Pacific is an obstacle. The Space of Russia is an obstacle. As they both should be. The benefit from gaining Scandinavia is big, but its not a game changer. The Far East or the Black Sea can’t be used as some unanticipated flanking move. One doesn’t want to be tied down to replaying WW2 as accurately as possible, but one doesn’t want to completely break with reality either.

Every game I play I learn new things about this board. I’ve played 4 intensive games with myself and am still feel like I am a long long ways from mastering the geography of this board. That is a good thing.

Certainly there are things I could quibble about.
The names for the Chinese Provinces could be better. In that , as someone who lives in China, I would prefer the proper current Pinyin names for them, A westerner defiantly made this game. But I understand they are trying to keep with the Pre 1949 feel for the region and using the terms the west used back then; so ok.

Having Kazakistan so far south is a bit weird.

There are times where I wish certain spaces were larger; I’m looking at you Bessarabia and SZ110. But most of my spatial problems stem from my style of game play which is still rooted in monolithic stacks of enormous proportions which worked well in the Axis and Allies of old.

Which brings me to my biggest opinion about this board. This board is infinitely superior to the previous incarnations of Axis and Allies.

This is a very good and interesting game and it starts with the map.

What are your thoughts?

@simon33 I mostly agree. I’m counting the 2 IPCs from west India, too – if you can take and hold India, you can probably also get west india.

@variance:

UK may strafe Northern Italy with 6 planes and land all remaining plus Gibraltar fighter in Paris.

Sorry guys for being out of commission all summer.

Welcome back my friend!

No, I don’t like the idea of allowing the Allies to have 3 complexes in W. Europe.  Especially ones they don’t have to build.  A very common tactic for me is to abandon France to the Allies.  Let them have it and lose all their control in Africa and French Indo China, lose their complexes and then move back in.

Germany takes France or you can call the game on turn 1 because the germans need the extra cash otherwise they are screwed.

Once again an absolute on winning the game turn 1.