Classic Axis and Allies Accessory Pack

Personally, I prefer MB GameMaster Edition.

Another way to go is to invade Norway with everything you’ve got its an easy win, then on non-com move 2inf to Karelia and dump your fighters in moscow.  Place 3inf and 3arm in moscow as your purchases and wait for germany to invade Karelia which he will if he wants to win.  R2 counter attack with everything you’ve got, its risky but if done well and with UK’s support with reinforcements for defense Germany will be on the run from that moment on.  Why waste days building stacks of infantry and hope for “two’s” to win the day when the idea should be to attack, attack, attack.  If anything your constant attacks will force Germany to focus more on you and less on UK, which then leaves the UK to invade WE or EU if things go as planned.

Think of it this way, do you want to react to Germany’s moves or do you want him to react to your’s!  What is the worst that can happen…you lose  :-D

I continue to play classic as it is used in a summer historical gaming program that I teach in.  The 6th through 10th graders pick up the rules pretty quickly, and generally we can play enough in the time alloted to determine a probable winner.  We have just purchased the 2004 edition, and after my initial review of the game, we might work some aspects, mainly the destroyer into the Classic game rules.

I am not a fan of the new board, as it looks depressing, and the though of staring at it for several hours over a 5 day period is even more depressing.  The use of victory cities makes the game much more complicated for a beginning gamer, while the classic game of focusing on the capital simplifies the game greatly and clarifies what each players objectives are.  I am not a fan of the National Advantages either, especially as some of them are incorrect historically, and it one case, totally wrong.

All of the weapons development focuses on increasing attack capabilities, nothing increases the defense capabilitiesl.  By the end of the war, with the development of the Hedgehog and Squid antisubmarine projectiles, and use of larger depth charge patterns, the Allies were killing over half of the subs attacked, and aircraft were using sonobuoys, homing torpedoes, and Magnetic Anamoly Detection gear to locate and attack submerged subs.

There is no consideration of the proximity fuze used by the US and UK from 1943 on, which drastically increased the effectiveness of anti-aircraft fire, to the degree that between intercepting fighters and anti-aircraft fire, the Japanese were taking losses of 90% of their aircraft in conventional attacks.  Also, the British and the US shared all information relating to radar with each other during the war, so if the British get to use radar for their antiaircraft, so should the US.  Also, radar allowed for far better positioning of intercepting fighters, so in theory, your fighters should be able to defend at 5 with radar, rather than 4.

Japanese tanks were not exactly potent, to say the least, yet Japanese tanks have the same attack as the Sherman, T34, or Panther.  The Allies loved to see a Banzai charge, as the normal casualty exchange ratio started at 10 to 1 and at times hit 700 to 0 (Merrill’s Marauders in Burma).

The Germans did attempt to use the Stuka in the Battle of Britain as a strategic bomber.  After one week, it was withdrawn because of heavy losses.  When they tried again with fighters later, the British had a field day shooting them down, and German fighters never had the range to really attack anything significant in Britain.

Overall, I do not regard the Revised Edition of the game as an improvement over the Classic edition.  We will likely incorporate the destroyer into the classic rules, most likely using the destroyer rules from Axis and Allies Pacific.  The units will also prove useful in expanding the Axis and Allies Europe game to five players, and for my expansion of the Pacific game, as we will now be able to distinguish between Indian and Australian units, or use the odd color of the UK units for the Dutch.

@Linkon:

Attacking US w/Jpn looks great on paper, but in real time and turns, stalls the taking of Rus.  With every passing turn, the Allied economic advantage will make them stronger in arms.

So true.  Attacking the US (except for China & Sinkiang) is a BAD move.

Japan is the nation that can turn the economic tide in favor of the Axis in short order.  By focusing on a steady assault on Russia using a Japan transport fleet (using a fleet instead of an IC is faster, more flexible, and helps keep the US “honest” since those forces can reach AK in a single move) combined with a modest roving south pacific/indian ocean fleet, Japan can quickly be the leading IPC nation in the game.  In games I have played, it is not unusual for Japan to be in the 40’s for IPC’s by the end of round 2.

A Japan with more IPC’s than the US (down to 32 at most), with UK weakened (low 20’s or teens depending on Germany in Africa) and Russia in the teens or less after losing the eastern territories, the economic winds favor the Axis.

Then it only is a matter of Japan playing smart 9since they have most of the IPC’s) to crush Russia, saving the Germans, and then turning on the US while bombing the tar out of UK…

@MacArthurFan:

I’ve been playing A&A for quite awhile now. Has anyone else tried the strategy (while playing the Allies) of having Britian and America buy nothing but bombers, and sending them all to Germany (I’m not talking about heavy bombers, but just plain old bombers). I have tried this numerous times, and by the end of the 3rd round, Germany usually can’t buy anything. Even when Russia falls to Germany, and Japan gets really strong, if UK and US keep buying bombers, Germany and ultimately Japan simply can’t make enough money to buy anything. AA guns have proven to my satisfaction that they are not able to combat this strategy. I am very interested to know if anyone else has tried this.

amen to that brother but its stupid

I’ve been playing our game for about 13 years now, and still find it challenging to this day. I play with a core group and we comprise approximately 68 years of “Axis” experience among the four of us. I’ve seen all kinds of different approaches to winning: aggressive first year strikes, systematic build-ups with defensive posture, unorthidox strategy aimed at the U.S. and or Japan. But in all my years, I have never felt more focused, more consumed by each deployment than when $'s are on the line. Between '92 and '94, I earned aprox. $2000 playing Axis and Allies at $50 to $200 a game. Believe me, when $200 is on the line, you will think twice about sending just a sub and a fighter on the English battleship off Gibralter. You have to send the bomber. I know most of you are probably the “Big Kahuna’s” in your groups and couldn’t find a money player to save your life. But Axis is like pool. It takes tens to hundreds of games to master. It takes practice, forsight, and experience to be succsessful. So find your match. Don’t be satisfied with another win against the same old stiffs. Don’t be impressed by an “on-line” win. Play the game the way it was ment to be played. Head to head. $ on $.

“When you mobilize the army and form strategic plans, you must be unfathomable.” - Sun Tzu

G_t,
If you’ve played a lot almost any move should be seen before made. Look at some of the other strings under this Axis & Allies heading. This topic has come up once or twice before :roll: .
–----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read a coupla options and TRY AGAIN. - Xi