Axis and Allies MB edition: inquiry form included in the box

@AdmirlScuttlebut said in Found an MB copy of Axis and Allies ...:

Don’t know if you would know the answer to my question but maybe if you don’t you can direct me some one who might. I also just received a copy of the original game but not for $3. It came with a cardboard sheet of custom roundels that look pretty old. I have never seen these before they include: 4 yellow with the image of a zero, 6 yellow pill box, 12 jap control markers with numbers in the center, 12 USA control markers with numbers in the middle of them, 10 marines with eagle globe and anchor logo, 6 commando with skull and cross bones logo, 6 German SS with patch logo, 4 fighters unavailable this turn for duty with red circled a/c logo, 6 paratroopers with patch logo, 6 air transport with a/c art work, 6 troop carriers with truck art work, finally 2 with artillery art work. Any ideas as to who made them?

Kevin kcsl3@comcast.net

That sounds like the gamers paradise expansion. I have all three expansion sets they put out.

@Krieghund Thank you. Very interesting how a technological breakthrough affects other core game rules here.

That’s sweet but now I don’t know what to do with it.

I don’t really understand what the problem is… You say that Japan has Russia surrounded… With surrounded I assume you have a big stack of units in Novo, only in turn 6 that is not really possible imho and you tell us that the allies stacked in Kar and not in Russia. If it is the case that you are still building your forces with Japan, you could try a strafe on kar. Building up until Japan is ready for the 1-2 punch is also a good alternative…

Some other things.

Results of testing…

Interesting idea, but not viable against a good opponent.

UK re-taking of reinforcing Egypt throws a major monkey wrench in getting those aircraft to Europe.  Best I could do in almost all cases was get them to Germany for use in J5 instead of J4.  By that time, the volume of transports alone was so great that even without capital ships also in the UK sea zone, Japan would have probably have lost most of their aircraft on the first attack.

Also, the number of aircraft is wrong.  If Russia strikes Manchuria on R1, then Japan loses a fighter.  Although a Russia attack on Manchuria in R1 DOES make it easier for Japan to still move against Russia without air support.

However, if Russia consolidates in Yakut in R1, then the lack of air-power makes Yakut way too difficult for Japan to crack for SEVERAL rounds.  Every test I ran showed that Russia holding Yakut and NOT going after Manchuria (or re-taking SFE) was a superior strategy for Russia.  It kept Japan’s navy out of action against Russian forces.  Any move by Russia to a coastal territory improved Japan’s ability to function without those fighters (actually, Russia does far better against Japan even if the fighters are kept for use against Russia’s eastern territories if Russia keeps their forces away from Japan’s navy.)

India is the stumbling block to this Japan strategy.  If the Japan AF consolidates in Burma, UK abandones India and reinforces/re-takes Egypt.  This takes away Japan’s transit LZ, trapping those fighters in Asia for additional rounds, and out of position for flexible use in potential Asian combat theaters like Yakut (they can reach Yakut, but the European transit is set back to square 1).

Lastly, on those occasions when those fighters were able to move into Africa to stage for the last flight to Europe, it left the US with a wide open Pacific to tear through.  A couple of subs and tranny’s and US started to gobble up islands quickly.  The remaining Japan capital ships (2 BB’s, a sub,  and a carrier with no fighters) were destroyed engaging a VERY cheap US fleet; a fleet that was followed by a couple more tranny’s and subs that proceeded to take the Pacific AND Burma virtually un-opposed.  Two subs in that fleet is all it took to break through the unguarded Japan tranny’s that were shifted to attempt to reinforce their soft positions in southern Asia.

Axis & Allies is the like Risk with more exciting battles combined with the financial investment challenges of Monopoly.

Interesting idea with the Pacific theatre. That’s probably the easiest way to lure the U.S. into a delay tactic. Probably still requires taking out Pearl Harbor first.

And, yeah, I know, I’m a pretty strict player. I play ONLY the odds on rolls (something my opponent hasn’t quite got the patience for yet; I’ve broken his thrusts at Eastern Europe and Germany countless times this way) and all. I just think there must be a way to position units so that the true intentions are hidden from the Allies, and he must respond. In general, I think this is the key for the Axis… having units (armor!) in position to shift anywhere across Asia, threatening everything at once… but wondering if there were other places that anyone could think of.

@Wild2000:

Stacking AA guns can be an advantage to the Allies when it becomes necessary to juggle AA guns between Allied territories. Under second edition rules, the Allied turn order can cause industrial complexes to go without an AA gun which can mean big trouble, especially if the Axis has heavy bombers.

I have had this situation arise many times in the European theatre, specifically when German territory is falling or the US has rockets.

agreed. This can even apply to the Axis as well. It may be nice to be able to “hold” a gun, while moving one at the same time. I remember at least one game where i wished that i could have 2 aa guns (even tho’ only one could be fired).