Hey Crew–Taamvan from Kansas City here
My favorite version is also, G40, though I have every edition save AA50 and BoB. Enjoy all wargames, role playing games, strategy games, and eurogames.
Played Classic to completion about 4 times in college, never alotted enough time to really get into it back in the day.
Starting in about 2014, my best friend Maphead Dave and I play head to head about twice a month, often G40 (mod’d) but in 2016, 42.2, and 2018, AAZ. Our next game will be Game 187.
We also have a local KC club with about 15 members, they play G40 in one live sitting, about twice a month and at local cons

I have attended Gencon for the last 3 years, and consider myself to have many friends from this site–people I keep in contact by phone and DM regularly; YG, Dave Jensen, Argothair, Black Elk, Hambone, plus the regulars from Gencon. I enjoy playing in the tournament games and being a booster for the game, in general. I’m not as into customizing as some of the others, but look forward to a chance to meet these guys live, so they can whoop me.

The game itself is great, but the community and friends are what its all about, to me, if this were just another video game with a vast audience, it wouldn’t have this kind of grassroots following, that’s what makes the effort worth it.

Hey crew!

I think we are still trading around some great ideas. To throw in my two cents

Going all Atlantic or all pacific isn’t historical, but its much more effective than splitting
Going KJF is much more satisfying in some ways than KGF–with KJF you stand a better chance of toppling or surprising and seriously disrupting Japan than Germany.
However, you can’t defeat Japan and while you’re suppressing Japan: Germany takes the game and so we need to prepare USA for a KGF regardless of what the Axis do or what their plan is
This dynamic means that the everything the Allies do should flow towards moscow and be in place before the culminating battle

ANZAC 3 planes to java (dont forget many players think you cannot land on dutch islands without capturing them that is incorrect) and then all 6 of those allied planes go to persia, then russia

You cant lose on the pac board, so ANZAC should turtle after the intial 3–includes infantry because of limited production then protect sydney. Same Hawaii–guys dumped here early count for alot and can be supplemented by fighters even if you never buy fleet over there
Taranto must be done, but that costs you alot of fighters–so UK must be garrisoned starting from turn 1 and continuing all game, no exceptions (and no factories, airbases, or tank SA buys until its clearly safe and Germany is headed elsewhere). Not doing taranto makes Italy rage which is way worse over time for the UK than just dealing with them from game start
UK East wants sumatra and ethiopia and yunnan but you should take persia turn 1 and do what you need to do to keep egypt safe all game (tobruk? turtle? up to you)

The best KGF I’ve seen has the USA transition directly from SZ 91 to norway, then finland, building bases as we go–so at some point you’ll want to destroy the German fleet to ensure they can’t do anything about it. If Germany wastes time or flinches you will be able to go over the top and take back leningrad thats 3 factories pouring out tanks

A combination of US north and UK south rescue forces is the only thing that can prevent the income flop whether moscow dies or not
for russia, more fighters is better than armor or mech or tacticals because they dissuade the crippling stratbombings
for UK, more fighters is better than more men and ships because you go after the US and can support a US landing
realistically, USA only gets 1 wave of ground troops before the russia game is decided–do not waste 1 man

Finally, USSR is too weak and Germany too rich–your patch/set bid should address this, not alter the overall game dynamics vis UK/USA v Axis (insert pitch for Taamvan Mod v3.0 here)*

I emphatically agree that large bids are not needed for anything short of league/master’s play–12-20 is plenty and the allies consistently win games of mixed skill

good luck have fun boys

Russia needs every piece, and the other allies need all those factory nodes. There may be some more breathing room with a bid placed in favor of Russia, but plans that vary from the extremely vanilla (stack moscow) seem like temptations…and nothing more.

The game is still dynamic and changing because player perception about what is optimal still has some room to move. I contend that having a vast experience and playbook is key so that you don’t go into the game with a rigid strategy that is easy to sniff out. A year or two ago leaving UK with a fleet was taboo but other players have left me with a fleet on turn 1 and then dealt with the rest later.

All why I like weddingsinger’s plan of a Play Option Sea Lion–you only commit to sea lion once you see what UK buys turn 1. Placing or leaving the necessary units West does cost a turn (or turn and a half) of russian advance if you decline the Sea Lion, but its much harder to discern what the German player is trying to do than if he buys CV or TT on turn 1 or steps out into SZ 112. Even the best UK players are tempted to spend money away from the Home Islands starting turn 1–the crazy part is that Germany can conquer UK in the later game if its poorly and inconsitently garrisoned, and especially if all the fighters left/tarantod/died.

Sea Lion is still a poor move–even when this gambit worked and I took UK with a fair number of units left, it doesn’t give you that much money, you need to add men and planes to defend it, it doesnt count towards 1 of Mark Movel’s VCs, and America knows what it has to do.

Thats also why 2 SB is the ultimate Germany buy–it doesn’t telegraph a specific strategy, not even dark skies, but 4 SB can be used to accomplish any germany objective and you can decide on G3 what the actual plan is.

Welcome to the Allied Playbook v1.0

This article is a compilation of the best Allied strategies, as proposed by Crockett36. These ideas are gambits and strategems that the community developed for the original ruleset, though most of them are useful for modified games. I present the moves and buys and an overall plan. Then, I briefly lay out the problems with that plan.

These are not “how to win the game/beat the axis” plans—that would be too complex and conditional. When plans were developed by others, I’ve tried to give credit, and most of the plans have been fleshed out by the Axa.org community. My version of another contributor’s plan may depart from theirs, for the sake of simplicity.

Russia Armored Mobility

Buy/Moves: R1 Buy 6 armor. R2 Buy more armor, and mechs. Move everything to Bryansk/Belarus so that it threatens any German Stacks.

Plan: Instead of building a bastion of infantry, this plan uses mobility troops to threaten the Germans as they approach. If Germany declares war early, the Russians force them to stack up in East Poland and stick together, slowing the offensive down. If Germany doesn’t declare war on G1-2 and doesnt move everything east, these units can stack up on the border along with everything else the Russians have and force Germany into a risky early battle. Infantry and artillery produce too little threat and so this plan gives Russia more options.

Problems; Without a giant mass of infantry to protect them, the tanks and factories are vulnerable. Germany has so many infantry, armor, and air units that even if you put everything Russia has in the West onto one territory, they can still destroy it.

Russia NO Gambit;

Moves; Keep the 1 Armor and 1 Mech from Stalingrad in Caucasus. When Russia enters the war, liberate NW Persia. Build 1-3 more mechs and 1 armor. R 3-5 Liberate Persia and Iraq. R 6+ Liberate Ethiopia and Somalia. R 8+ Liberate Sicily and Sardina using friendly allied transports.

Plan: Russia exploits its special NO for taking Axis and Pro Axis territory, gaining more income.

Problems; This diverts crucial Russian mobility pieces away from the defense of the homeland. UK can’t take out the Italians in Ethiopia if Russia wants it. Russia can’t afford IC and units in Iraq and Persia and so the opportunity to build there with the richer Allies is lost. This plan is complex and takes a long time to execute so Russia may die in the meantime.

Spanish Beachhead

Moves; US 1-4 plenty of transports and fighters. UK same.

Plan; Violate Spanish neutrality to establish a beachhead early in the game. Build a factory in Spain, then use Gibraltar port to move back and forth from the US East coast in a shuck-shuck. This is the best way to attack Axis-held France directly on land.

Problems; Germany can take advantage of neutrality breach to get a boost in troops and income, especially if UK doesn’t demolish Turkey the same turn US takes Spain. Germany can also build at the French factories to block you, and if they see your plan, potentially overwhelm the Allies before they can build in force and take the factory away from you.

Allied Dark Skies

Buys/Moves; US 1-5 build primarily strategic bombers.

Plan; Strategic bombers are the only US unit with enough mobility to get over to the center of the map before the Axis own most of that territory. Fly the bombers to UK, then onto Moscow. Use the massive threat of the bombers to demolish any German fleet hiding in the Baltic or Med. Use their mobility to zap whichever land or sea units that are exposed. Fly the bombers to Moscow to act as casualties or alpha-strike Axis blockers and exposed units.

Problems; The US cant build much else when it is spending its money on bombers, and planes cannot take or hold territory. Many of the potential attacks will be made without other US units, so only high-value bombers can be taken as casualties. Germany has access to so many factories (2 major, 5 minor by G4) it is difficult to suppress them all. Allied units in Russia ruin a Russian NO.

Northlock

Moves; R1 Move 20 Russian units to Sahka. R 2-4 Move 20 Russian Units to Amur. US 1-3 Buy 4-5 Strategic bombers. US 4-6 more bombers and fleet.

Plan; The US can threaten SZ 6 with newly built strategic bombers and land in Amur. Along with a threatening US fleet, SZ 6 isn’t safe and Japan must protect it or lose its ability to place new units. The Japanese will often attack Russian units left on the coast, but as they move south to take the money territories, the Russians step up and the US has a safe landing zone. Once the Bombers are safe in Amur, they can Stratbomb Japan proper.

Problems; The Russian troops can’t help in the defense of Moscow. Since Russia goes before Japan, the Allies would have to guess about when Japan intends to declare war and step up to the coast. The Strategic bombers don’t add defense and Amur is too far away for US fighters to help.

Southlock

Moves; UK1 Transport with 2 units + 3 planes land on Java. Z1 Transport with 2 units + 3 planes land on Java.

Plan: Block the spice islands bonus for as long as possible, and fly away to safety if Japan comes at this node in force. This is a way to get the planes to India without the threat of destruction. With 3 sacrificial allied ships, this node can be screened out (37, 43, 44) even when Japan has control of a port.

Problems: You cant use the planes and ships to do other useful things, and the UK cant take Sumatra and/or Persia.

Northlock and Southlock can be used as a combined strategy.

US “Over the Top”

Moves; US 1-4 Build transports and a fleet with at least 14 hits. US 4-6 Liberate Norway. US 5-8 Liberate Finland and build Industrial complexes in both Norway and Finland. Liberate Leningrad. Uk builds fighters.

Plan; Once the US enters the war, the US takes Norway. It can attack from SZ 91, though that leaves it in the more vulnerable SZ 112. It can approach from above, landing in SZ 125. This ruins a German Bonus. Once the Germany Baltic fleet is dead, there isn’t anything they can do to recover the lost income or stop these factories pouring out aid to Russia.

Problems; The US fleet and ground forces are vulnerable to interdiction as long as the German navy is hiding in the Baltic and the German Luftwaffe is on West Germany. This plan takes a long time to come to fruition. UK and Russia can’t liberate either territory and still have the USA build factories there.

Yunnan Stack

Moves; R1 Declare war on Japan. Move 1 Fig and 1 TB from Moscow to Yunnan, and 1 Armor and 1 Mech to Sikang. Use Russian pieces to keep China alive.

Plan; Make it harder for Japan to cut the Burma Road bonus and smash China.

Problems: This diverts crucial Russian mobility pieces away from the defense of the homeland. Without extra China bid infantry, the Japanese can still easily crush Yunnan. The stack is difficult to move forward because Russia goes before Japan and the other Allies, after Japan. This plan does cause Japan some headaches, but doesn’t help Russia survive.

The Berlin Bank Job

Moves: US takes Denmark. UK transits Danish Straits to capture Germany.

Plan: The Allies take advantage of a German player who leaves Denmark and Germany lightly (or un-) defended. In a one-two punch, the US captures Denmark, opening the door for the UK to sail into the Baltic and amphibious assault into Germany, capturing Berlin and stealing Germany’s money. Executed at the right time, this move can save Moscow by preventing Germany from purchasing new units for at least one turn. Also, the UK gets a huge one-time income boost.

Problems: In order to keep the German player from becoming alarmed and reinforcing Denmark and Germany, the Allies can’t have a huge troop buildup in advance of the operation. This means that minimal force must be used, which means that those units committed to Denmark and Germany are essentially on a suicide mission. This includes any British naval units which enter the Baltic, as they’ll be trapped there until Denmark is again liberated or they’re killed by the Luftwaffe, whichever comes first. This plan forces the Germans to try and defend 3 separate territories (Denmark, W. Germany, Germany) which can leave them vulnerable.

Taranto Raid

Moves; UK 1 SB 2-3 Fig 1 TB 1 CV 1 CA 1 DD attack the Italian 1 BB 1 CA 1 TT (3 Fig) SZ 97.

Plan; Destroy most of Italy’s transports before they rage. Italy is obligated to counterattack the survivors, leaving Italy with virtually nothing left on I2. Helps ensure the survival of Egypt and keeps Italy away from the Oil money.

Problems; The UK fleet is lost and the Med is ripe to be cleared. If the CA in SZ 91 is dead, a ship has to be diverted to kill the Italian 1 DD 1 TT in SZ 95.

Tobruk Raid

Moves; Use the UK units in Alexandria and the UK Transport to smash the 6 Italian units in Tobruk.

Plan: Eliminate the land threat to Egypt

Problems; The Italian units are stuck there and can be whittled down with less risk over time. May divert forces from Taranto, which destroys more TUV and Italy’s best units.

Taranto and Tobruk Raids can be combined in to one strategy, though the risk increases since every UK unit in the region has a job to do and is on the line.

The Gibbastion

Moves; UK 1 buy an airbase for Gibraltar. Move 3 fighters to Gibraltar. UK destroys the Italian blockers in SZ 95, then moves everything it can into SZ 92 1 CV 2 Fig (1 TB, +2 Fig) 2 CA 1-2 DD etc.

Plan; Keep a powerful UK fleet alive, that can form the nucleus of a new Home Fleet even when SZ 110/111 were annihilated. Block the Italian clear med bonus. Keep Gibraltar safe all game. Fly fighters direct to Egypt.

Problems; This is an alternative to Taranto and you can’t do both. The Italians can attack SZ 92 with everything they have if Southern France was taken by Germany, and potentially destroy the fleet. Spending on the airbase and moving the fighters to Gibraltar means UK Home Islands are vulnerable to a Sea Lion.

“Middle Earth”

Moves: UK1 Liberate Persia. UK2 Build IC in Persia and Liberate Iraq UK3 Build IC in Iraq

Plan; This is the most powerful way to bring UK Atl’s resources to aid UK Pac and Russia. Persia is the only space where you can fly newly built fighters direct to Moscow. Mechanized units can help UK Pac survive.

Problems; UK can’t take Sumatra and UK Pac has less income. UK Atl has to be careful that it doesnt overspend in the ME and leave the Home Islands vulnerable. Best paired with Taranto to ensure Italy doesnt threaten the factories before they can produce enough units to defend themselves. Entering Russia with Allied units ruins one of their national objectives.

The Sneaky Karl

Moves; UK 2-3 move a DD among the Japanese fleet at peace in SZ 36, then declare war on Japan with ANZAC.

Plan; Japan can’t load their transports in a hostile SZ. They will often set up for DoW by placing a big pile of ships and men on Kwangsi. This prevents them from taking the spice islands and ruins their war plans.

Problems; Can’t be used during J1 DoW. Decouples the US declaration of war from the other Allies, so the US sits out with minimum income for the maximum time. Japan can prevent the entire plan by leaving its ground units on the transports during the interturn.

UK/ANZAC Pre-emtive Declaration of War

Moves: Z1 take Dutch New Guinea, UK 1 take Sumatra. UK 2-3 declare war with UK/ANZAC before Japan does.

Plan; Get the NO for Hong Kong, and both NO for ANZAC, giving them maximum early income.

Problems; Can’t be used during J1 DoW. Decouples the US declaration of war from the other Allies, so the US sits out with minimum income for the maximum time.

ANZAC on Deck

Moves: Z 1-2 build 1 fighter. Z 3-5 build more fighters, and/or subs.

Plan: The US will use its might to provide 2-3 extra empty CV at SZ 26 to accomodate up to 6 extra fighters from ANZAC. This increases the sea defense of the US fleet so that the US concentrates on subs or airplanes that increase striking power. Because US and Z both go after Japan, the US can initiate a strike and then ANZAC can use its fighters and subs to finish off any survivors.

Problems; The ANZAC fighters cant help India or Moscow. The Fighters are stuck on allied carriers in some situations and take up space that could be used to get US fighters/TB in position.

Credits;
Overall Concept: Crockett36
Northlock, Southlock, ANZAC on Deck: Taamvan and Maphead
Spanish Beachead: Young Grasshopper
Russian Mobility: Gargantua/Weddingsinger
Middle Earth: General Hand Grenade
Allied Dark Skies: Cow
Sneaky Karl; Karl

@AndrewAAGamer

Thank you for the post. I can add, especially winning in the live tournament format:

Sun-Tzu know your opponent: Any information that can be gained about their playstyle, opinions and predilections can become an advantage. You may also have to share information, but it may not be a 1-for-1 trade, (example; You know I like to buy mechs as Germany, I know you think stratbombing is a bad ROI)

Your job is to ensure luck matters as little as possible. This is why you use overwhelming force–more than to prevent multiple rounds of retals, it ensures victory where board position matters more than TUV trade. Some battles are forced by circumstance as in your example where your partner loses a big battle–you may need to take a risk. Its better to take that risk before, rather than after, you’re in a desparate situation. But moreover–its best to force your opponents to take those risks by simply turtling well and making him impatient for a close to 50/50 attack.

Decisive Battle; Some battles you can win by losing (both of you take massive casualties, but your follow on attacks defeat him in detail). The game we won in the tourney forced me to take a massive risk of attacking the US fleet on the final turn—luck did prevail that day but the overwhelming result was that so much Axis income was recaptured that it turned from a very close game to an overwhelming victory in 1 battle since by freeing a sea-territory a whole host of other units could/could not charge through that newly freed-up zone.

Consistency; You hit on this–the player that refuses to give up may win just because of that. There are many times that my opponent believed he’d given it all and had no further chance of victory (and he was totally wrong). In that case, I don’t signal concession–I encourage him to concede. If the game creates irrational victory conditions, use that and hope they just time-out or give up before they are attained/obvious.

Small stuff doesnt matter; we spend tons of time setting up small battles and taking $1 territories, but these truly do not affect the game as much as the key strategies; focus on capitals, defend and attack in force, flop the big money (+$70) dont sweat the small stuff. The smaller battles are a big part of (live) gameplay, but many winning strategies involve completely ignoring small, temporary money gains, or the survival of 1 infantry–and rely on much more robust dynamics…

Which is why your odds example is a bit over-illustrative as to what modifys the actual battle odds. Most times Germany is attacking Moscow with a ton of 3-4 “to hit” units that will die last. The value of the capitol ($$, plus knocking an opponent out for a minimum 2 turns) means that you can sacrifice all your best units to kill their last guy, lose $200 IPC than he did, and pretty much clench the game while doing it. That is why AxA is and remains fun–you’re obsessed with small choices–to buy this unit over that, or to take 4 $1 territories or 2…but the real game is won or lost by much more chess like moves (you killed all my pawns, but I took your queen)

@Kakarrot1138 @aardvarkpepper

I enjoy the game, and also enjoy the community and talking about the game. I’d surmise that the question about “Is AxA shallow/deep” comes up because if there were only 1 version and 1 format, the game would be really boring–but since there are many versions and many formats, even after 25 years, its not.

You mention that there should be a KGF and a KJF and perhaps another more balanced way of winning in each version–that’s a good concept, but especially if you look at the evolution of G40 from alpha, to alpha+3, one thing emerges. If you’ve tried to create your own setup (same maps, same units, same teams, just a completely different starting setup), you’ll quickly find that a goldilocks balance of great choices at the open that then lead into a series of cascading, fun sub-outcomes is EXTREMELY difficult to attain in an abstract wargame (that doesnt have squares or hexes). I’ve tried it a bunch of different ways, and the amount of tinkering and playtesting needed to create a great starting setup, or at least a really good, balanced one is immense. Many of the 1st Edition (and reprint) AxA games have confusingly worded rules, printing errors, or glaring balance problems (or all 3). And this for one of the most ## printed wargames in history.

So, its very hard to create that initial game state that is 1) opfor (the teams are completely different unlike chess) 2) historical 3) fun and 4) balanced. Once that state is created, its very difficult to alter it without causing a cascade of other changes to the game that flow from it, and remain balanced, and historical. That’s what leads to the critical pathing issue–Germany and Japan have tons of planes to make them flexible and to make different strategies viable–but its not very historical, not very balanced–AND, a really good player can ignore all the minor things those planes and ships could do and use them all to “lightsaber” through the opponent’s capital.

One thing that really stands out (esp. in G40) is about 60-70% of the battles and board don’t really matter…certain critical actions and zones do. So whether you take a $1 territory or kill 1 infantry without loss, those things are all just part of gameplay. Really good players don’t leave victory up to luck, and they are willing to sacrifice a bunch of small, irrelevant things like $1 territories, useless units, or NOs in order to zap your capital. And since they can lose every plane and still take the capital with 1 ground unit left, that means the attacker (axis) often has a clearer, easier and non-odds driven way to accomplish that.

@der-kuenstler said in Der Kuenstler:
“This year I turned 60 years old. I realized I’m now in the fourth quarter of my life. This is a time when a man starts thinking of his legacy. What do I want to be remembered for? Do I want to be remembered as just as a guy obsessed with a game?”

You should be remembered as a person who pursued your passion. Any less is failing to be true to your genuine self.

“Not just a game, but a game with the theme of the most destructive war in history. A war that killed over 60 million people and allowed Communism to spread halfway around the world, spawning later killing in wars like Korea and Vietnam.”

Did you ever consider that games and simulations direct a biologically determined aspect of male human nature into a peaceful and constructive pasttime? Watch the interviews of the Russian soliders captive in ukraine to find out what happens when you emasculate and debase men by exposing them to wanton violence.

Tirano and I discussed this at Gencon, I remain skeptical regarding how all the J1 primary goals can be completed WITH pearl harbor on the table as well. YG has a video where he lays out both gambits, but goes on to demonstrate what has to be taken away from the J1 in Asia to fulfill the PH attack, and declines PH in order to safely complete the J1.

Without the airbase, how can the air come to kill India? You only have 3 carriers, they’re needed to support both the east and west parts of your plan? You also need Yunnan, which will either cost you your invasion troops, or be left to China.
Crush India sounds nice, but after casualties are taken during J1-J2, how can we even fill most of those transports, if anything went into China? J1 doesnt leave time for a trip back so its 1 packet of troops that diminish turn after turn.
Why can’t USA step into SZ26? How much threat can we express against him when you have already allocated your planes and heavy ships to the southern push? I see that you can shuttle planes from japan into that fight–but what im not sure of is once you PH, why won’t he respond to that by spending 100% of his 10 factory money to stop what you’re doing, and before you can screen him out. Wont he do-or die defend Hawaii, since that’s what’s at stake?
How can we get 4 TT’s worth of troops without budgeting for those? Strip asia forces?
Italy and Germany’s contribution to your plan aren’t game changers when you consider that SZ 91 is likely blocked and that G/Ital have plenty to do on turn 1. It would be worth it to blow your chances of success on one board to ensure them on the other, but a much better plan is to play the game more conservatively and switch your focus from winning on the Pac board to the Atl board, then back to the Pac board…this makes the allies have to take bigger and bigger risks to stop your victory as you switch targets.

The plan sounds awesome, but in my experience, J1 leaves Japan thin and quite vulnerable to the US. To account for blockers, carrier-shuttling, bombardments, and all your planes being in the right place to attack both targets–Japan despite its “Airplane Sprinkles” cannot do everything at once or in 1 turn. Planes that can strike the US cant strike India, sometimes they are 2 turns away from being able to switch goals.

Hey Team,

There are certain cities and areas that have a more organized following than others. Finding live players can be difficult; training and retaining them can be a challenge if they haven’t played in a while. Bob Roby and I play in some of the national tournaments, and over time we’ve grown to have about 10 local regular members, that play twice a month.

I don’t use a social internet resource, just this website, an old-school email reply to all list, flyers, and word of mouth. Bob plays at both nationals and 4-5 local cons and highschools, churches, so hes a huge booster too. I also try to socialize with the guys that play; if AxA is a passion for you, you will find like-minded people at GENCON (and here). That is where we congregate, and where these relationships get started. GENCON has many details and mysteries that you can only learn from someone who has been–parking, food, scheduling and accommodations all require some planning. But that is my first suggestion; if you want to build local support (and personal excitement about our hobby), go national also. You’re just going to find the most enthusiastic and sportsmanlike players that way and may satisfy your own desire to play. I found 4 players at GENCON who are from the KC area, that I’d never met before. Then, they found me here, then at our local shop.

I play fairly often now, so if a game gets canceled or missed, I’m not disappointed. I also dont attend every game, just when I can.

Attend nationally
Meet people on the Forums
Post locally–find your following

Probably one of the most difficult considerations isn’t who to play with or how to find them–its how to AVOID players who will deep-six your game. People who play wargames are nerdy, some of us have issues–still gossiping, inappropriate humor, distractions, racism, cheating, slopping, talking incessantly until its your turn, arguing about the rules, long whispering asides, 2 hour smoke break powwows…these will demoralize your club. Invite people who are genial and cooperative, be that sportsman–people who undermine these principles can’t have a long-term place in your group, or you wont have one.

Thanks again DJ and crew, for all the work here. Go AxA!

Merry Christmas to all plastic soldiers and generals

@djensen

ru ready to play dave?!?

-j bosch

@8d88

at the first post-release tournament, the guys who won kept using the cheezeball rule to their advantage, we all three (and greg’s crew) that we understood the rule correctly and that they were free to use it;

Attack any territory where you have no pieces where there are 5-10+ zombies
Send just 1 unit, it can be air
All the zombies attack; none of them can hit your aircraft, though it is sure to die
all of the zombie hits against defenders land, plus your unit might hit

this exploit isn’t as game “busting” as I thought some of the zombie interplay might be when I originally wrote this post. Its mostly annoying, and as you suggest, the card you get that moves half the zombie horde is even more important, both to form the stack and push it away from the areas that hurt you and into those that hurt your opponent

As your post also suggests, winning a longer game is unpredictable, and has to be based on a conservative strategy that gets and uses the techs, and adapts to what unfolds

@Azpathfinder

Its an island in real life…

AxA defines it differently

It would cheese up some Global games, but except for cheese there isn’t a reason you HAVE to forbid this play, Phillipines seems like a good place for a factory

As this site eventually made me one of the stronger Global live players, I’d say that the idea that luck is decisive in Axis and Allies is overstated. Strong players won’t make attacks that require luck, they will just keep building up and manuevering. Luck very rarely decides a game–I’m not saying it has no role, but you need to choose a strategy that does not rely on a certain outcome during the opener, and continue to pursue a strategy all game that does not require you to fight a 50/50 battle.

As an example, in an 8 turn game, it is more or less impossible to allow berlin, rome, tokyo, or london to fall. It happens all the time, and i’ve won that way in 4 of the last 9 games. But, as I read it, it is simply an error to lose those capitals because there is pretty much no way in my simulation you can buy and place correctly and still lose them.

Players make mistakes all the time, in this case, if your opponent doesnt make a mistake with the Axis, the Allies will simply lose.

@Cornwallis

Even air via this direction is way out of position. Control of SZ 91 remains key.

@krieghund

I appreciate the conversation and answer, and look forward to further discussions, questions, and someday–a game with you.

@krieghund

We are discussing this in our community groups.

How do you reach the conclusion that the “transport moves within the SZ”. This is also not relevant to the analysis of the other limitations in the rules.

Unit 1 UK infantry is loaded on US transport on Turn 8.

On Turn 9,
US transport then moves, or does not move
Unit 2 UK infantry (a different unit) is loaded on US transport from UK or Canada.
Unit 1 UK infantry is dropped in non combat into normandy from the US transport
Unit 2 UK infantry remains on the transport.

Units did not move before they loaded (transport could, or not)
Loading and Unloading occurred in the proper order
Transport did not participate in both combat and noncombat actions.
Unit 1 has spent the required turn on board the transport before unloading.

Two units can be loaded from different territories in the same turn. Here, they could be loaded from the same, or different territories as long as the tt move / load —unload (ends turn) protocol is followed.

The two units did not unload into different territories. They loaded from any territories (different or same) on different turns.
Only the unit that has spent the interturn on the transport unloads during noncom, ending the turn of all 3 units.
Unit 2 UK infantry remains on board.

Each rule has been followed.

Thanks Kreig!

@dishero

there is already an interesting Axis and Allies Korea, i enjoyed watching it

@nishav

You’re arguing for a commander in chief rule

The rest of what i said was a response to your point about historicity.

as the others point out GW and the Captain’s Mod have many different treatments for planes, sea planes, torpedo bombers, air transports etc etc

My point was their treatment in AxA oob is a good tradeoff of all these ideas

You rock

Taamvan

@nishav

Carrier Fighter Groups are elite units with specialist aircraft trained specifically for operations from aircraft carriers. Those aircraft have structural improvements but also weaknesses of range and load based on the short runway and tolerances of operations at sea.

Therefore, its quite unrealistic to treat land-based fighter groups as even capable of operating from carriers, and sea based fighters should be a separate, more expensive, range-limited unit that is allowed to operate from carriers. Some famous units like black sheep and marines did operate from land bases, but having the cross-capability of doing so is a luxury and requires extensive training and support and extra well-prepared bases.

Besides the US and UK and the IJN, no nation had any practical idea how to actually operate an integrated, fully supported and non-seaplane aircraft unit from a ship and any attempt to do so without decades of preparation and planning would be a disaster.

To follow your logic,

carrier planes should be a separate unit
normal fighters cannot land on carriers
germany and italy can buy carriers but it costs them 15+ for sea stukas and they fight at -1/-1/-1
The usa and uk go on to win the technology and operational war as they did in real life after they didn’t sink the nonexistent western axis CVs