Converting to KJF

@theveteran

Yeah, well, that’s my ego to you. You’e right though.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

As it happens, there was some confusion about when the planes actually landed, so it turns out both my opponent and I were correct in a sense.

The UK planes actually landed on Greece during Italy’s turn after an adjacent UK carrier was damaged, so the move was legal after all.

My bad for incorrectly believing the planes landed on Greece during the UK turn, and neither of us realized what the other was talking about.  :-D

Good to see our fellow AAAers always ready to help out with good answers, though, so thanks again all.  :-)

I picked up another copy of 2nd edition from Amazons boxing day sale for &30 CDN.
You might keep an eye out for sales on major holidays like Memorial Day/the 4th of July/Thanksgiving/…

Thrift stores are also good places for deals as are local conventions.

@Ichabod:

From my perspective when playing Axis…

From my perspective, the Jedi are evil… oh wait… wrong thread…  :-P

Hey,

I was playing the USA this time and I did get Tokyo and starve Japan using Convoy’s with the USA on Korea. This was a cat and mouse with USA and Japan, but the USA had the window to move into SZ 6 to land on Korea by Rnd 8/9. Eventually it was basically till rnd 13-17 to totally kill off Tokyo and for the Allies to win the game. Meanwhile Rome was done by rnd 10 and Berlin by rnd 12.

The game was over by rnd 12 with Rome and Berlin gone, but our group plays itself out to the bitter end. The trick was, was to trick the Japanese that the USA had no interest in the Pacific at the very beginning early rnds and was going all out on the Atlantic, by pulling everything as much they can to Washington territory buy and stack up, in till it was time to sway the game to the Pacific in which this case was by rnd 4 USA were in the war. The Germans thought it was a heavy USA invasion coming across to France.

Knowing I was going to do convoys, the majority of my USA purchase was subs ( and enough air to pair up with AC and trans and land units ). These starved the Chinese territories the Japs had when I was in reach to place my USA subs along the coast. Just add up all of the IPC’s along that coast alone incl FIC and Hong Kong. Eventually they had no money to purchase, it was a matter to just keep bombing Tokyo from Korea before move my land units on transports into Tokyo.

It was risky and bold, but this worked well, however the Japanese were also one city away from winning in the Pacific, but in this case two moves too far out of reach.

That game was a proof that Japan can be taken down, even if it’s to the very last city. It all depends as we know what the Japanese is upto, and those good dice rolls, and working with your team mates.

Bravehart.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

I guess if I was in your position, I would use classic game pieces for the new countries:

Old Germans are gray I think, they could be Italians, Old Russians would be good for Anzac. Old UK for India,  Old U.S. for China, France could be old Japanese or Fortress America Southern Invaders.

France seldom builds units, in fact all you really need are some infantry for later African moves. Tactical bombers if you do not care could be fortress America bomber pieces, use some helicopters for smaller countries if they need any.

I rarely see many tactical bomber builds. Maybe Russia, and America might build some. Carriers and destroyers are built a lot in my games. Since transports are non combatants in 1940, just use transports as Destroyers, I rarely build cruisers, so just use a battleship with a penny underneath it as a cruiser. Just use paper to represent transports. Not sure if this is a good idea, but mechanized units can be risk pieces or even monopoly houses…

Just a few tips with not too much insight. Hope this helps.

I am having a good game against the allies as they have been splitting their points in the Alantic and Pacific.  That being said I don’t know how I could have stopped them had the gone all in the Alantic.  I seems to me Germany and Italy need time to prepare for that sort of thing.