Did you ever play alone?

If your opponent is buying DD’s with the USA it is unlikely you are playing 2nd edition.  You should post on the correct forum to make sure you are receiving the best advice.

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.

Dude there is more than one axis and allies game. I like the original. (haven’t played any of the others)

Vann Himself wrote:

I chose Japan because they are usually more flexible and as long as you hold asia, island hopping isn’t really a threat to your economy.

I have to disagree with that. Island hopping can devistate Japan. I’ve said this a couple of times and I’ll reiterate my points.

First, it puts a navy on Japan’s door step, and gives allied players another foothold for Asia. Not the biggest advantage but it helps a little.

Second, it is very easy for the UK to put an IC on Australia (even easier if WE is taken and the US is moving in on Germany, so your on the defencive in Europe) and grab at least two islands form the start. Since it’s difficult to reinforce islands effectivly, you usally only have to take out one inf. A ftr and 2 inf can usally handle this threat.

Third, it draws attention away from Asia. If Japan doesn’t reinforce their navy in the south pacific (esspecialy against an IC in Australia), they will wind up with a broken or, worse, no navy, which opens the door for invation. So, Japan is forced to spend money on a navy, taking money from the mainland, which is a plus as it slows the drive to Moscow. That could mean death for Germany right there.

Finally, if you take all the islands, you steal 8 IPCs from Japan every turn. That is VERY difficult to retake on mainland Asia, as the territories average around 2-3 each. So you need to take something like 3-4 territories just to make up for the loss. Plus it provides a nice boost for the Allied nation(s) that occupy the islands.

So, thats my two cents.

Oh, and I like Germany the best :D

I do that quite often. Usually when I’m trying out a new strategy or when I just feel like playing :D .

I’m at home all day. I’ve never played online before but i used to play the boardgame with my friends, now I’m sick of stacking the dice against me and playing the computer.

Email me at oceanfront21@hotmail.com

I’d like to play today sometime before 6 or 7 pacific time.

qand whats this crap about super mega addict crap

Veritas, veritas, I say unto thee . . . - Xi
–----------------------------------------------
Achoo, Bruce Lee? - correct the misquote