@gamerman01:

Look under Japan and Russia on page 33.  It says the Jap and Soviet players are supposed to work out the details of any nonagression pact with the Soviet Union.  So it appears it is actually up to the players to make the rules on this front.

I kind of assumed the italicized text was flavour text and not actual rules. If we are to treat these sections as actual rules then take a look at the italicized text in the United States section.

It reads “…only with the outrage felt by its people by a sudden and deliberate attack by an Axis power will the United States end its neutrality and go to war.”

Hmmm, so according to the rules if the Axis don’t make any sudden and deliberate attacks after turn 2 the US cannot enter the war. And how exactly do you decide whether an attack was sudden and deliberate?

Even though the rulebook says for the Japanese and Russian players to work out the details of the non-aggression pact it then goes on to provide rules for how and when Japan can attack Russia (as was mentioned there are no such rules provided for the Soviet player). Do the “rules” invented by the players overide the printed rules in the book. Example: Japan and Russia decide that they cannot attack one another for 3 turns. Does this now become a rule and overide the section below that states Japan can attack Russia on any turn?

Also, what happens if the Japanese and Russian players cannot agree to the terms of the non-agression pact? Do they start the game at war?

@gamerman01:

Under the Soviet Union, it only addresses its ability to declare war on European Axis and says nothing about Japan (like you noted).  It doesn’t say they can’t declare war on Japan before Japan declares war on the Soviet Union, however.

Rules for boardgames generally need to be permissive in nature and not restrictive. That is the rulebook tells you what you are allowed to do and not what you are not allowed to do. For example: the rulebook doesn’t say that the UK cannot declare war on the US. You have to assume its illegal because it is not explicitly stated in the rules.

Once again, the rules tell you what you are allowed to do. And no where in the rules does it tell you how or when the Soviet Union may declare war on Japan.

This entire issue is a trainwreck and has a major impact on the flow of the game. I assume most people will game it that the Soviets can declare war on Japan at the beggining of any of their combat move phases (just like Japan can do to Russia).

Lets see what we have here:

-A production chart that is useless
-Chips that are hard to read
-A useless tank unit
-An overpowered air unit
-Longer game play (6 turns in 10 hours!!)

Ouch, this sounds …brutal. I love all things Axis and Allies and will probably be getting myself a copy but damd. Why are people claiming this to be the best Axis and Allies experience to date? Is it simply because its so different to everything else? Is it really more elegent, balanced and an overall a better game than Anniversary?

Please convince me that this is a brilliant design and not the dinosaur it appears to be.

@knp7765:

@Holden:

Don’t have a use for the transports, armoured cars and trucks so I bagged them and stored them with the rest of the spare pieces I’ve got).

The Armored Cars are FMG’s Mechanized Infantry piece for the Italians.  Do you not use Mech Inf in your game?  Or do you just prefer the OOB halftracks?

I actually like the halftracks. I’d use the trucks for the Italian Mech Inf but they are massive. Maybe I’ll use the armoured cars and try it out.

Recieved 2x Italian sets in the mail today. Pieces look great! Some of the Battleships, Subs, Cruisers and Destroyers were slighty curved. Gentle application of pressure straigtened them out no problems. The two types of infantry look the same from table height (I’ll be using the leader pieces as “elite” infantry"). Don’t have a use for the transports, armoured cars and trucks so I bagged them and stored them with the rest of the spare pieces I’ve got).

All in all, very happy.

Will likey buy 2x sets of anything that comes out.

Two orders placed! Can’t wait.

@allweneedislove:

the most cost effective way to acquire tech is by rolling only one die a turn as not to waste two or more rolls of a 6 in the same turn.

if you roll for one tech a turn the average cost to acquire a tech is 30ipc which is 6 rolls at 5ipc each. if you roll more dice per turn the average goes up.

Got any numbers or fomula to back this up at all? What exactly do you mean “most cost effective way?” Do you mean that this leaves you with some IPC’s left over for purchasing? If so I tend to agree. If you are only interested in aquiring a single tech then spending 5 IPC’s per turn is a good way to ensure that you don’t spend more than you have to, but it doesn’t change the odds at all if you spend all 30 IPC’s at once (it just means you might get some additional techs).

@allweneedislove:

you can figure out the average cost to acquire tech if you always roll 6 dice per turn. i am not that good at math so i can not give you the formula, however i estimate it to cost an average of 43ipc. maybe math teacher gamerman can help me by posting the formula.

I’m not really sure of what you’re talking about here. If you always roll 6 dice per turn (unlikely) then you will spend 30 IPC’s each turn and you will have a 67% chance to develop a tech each turn. I’m not sure where 43 IPC’s came from.

@allweneedislove:

assuming you only roll 1 die at a cost of 5ipc per die roll then the average number of rolls to acquire a tech is 6. 5ipc * 6rolls = 30ipc = average cost to acquire tech.

This is not how averages are calculated. The question is largely meaningless. If you really wanted to calculate the average cost then you’d have to record every game of Axis and Allied played and find out how many IPC’s were spent to aquire tech by the multitude of players. Then you’d have to add those numbers all together and divide by the total number of players.

You’re just making up some arbitrary fomula that sort of seems that it should fit and calling it the average cost. Then your claiming that your average cost cannot be disputed and building an entire thread around it.

@allweneedislove:

i used 30ipc for my analysis as i think it is a representation of what you will pay to acquire a tech. i am not sure what other number to use, as it is so variable…

Ummm. The entire premise for your analysis is flawed right from the get go.

30 IPC’s is not the average cost to aquire a tech. In truth there is no average cost. Each time you roll the d6 it is a distinct and seperate event that has no history or bearing on any past d6 rolls you may have made.

This misconception is extremely common and is known as “the Gamblers Fallacy” or “the Law of Averages”. It is the false belief that past failures of a singular random event in some way contribute to a possible future success. It’s like that old joke where someone brings a bomb on board a plane because the odds of there being two bombs on a plane are astronomical.

If you spend 30 IPC’s on tech you have 6 seperate 1 in 6 chances to aquire a tech.

BTW: if you want to calculate what the odds are that you will roll any given number on a d6 with a certain number of rolls use the following equation: 1-(5/6)x (where x=the number of dice rolled).

Therefore if you rolled 6d6 the odds of attaining a result of 6 is 66.5% (however this is largely meaningless as the results of getting any other result is also 66.5%).

If you play Napoleon In Europe using the basic level rules (provided in the manual) its pretty much an axis and allies like risk game. Theres simple rules for movement, combat and building. Each unit is different from one another.

Of course NIE is extremely difficult to get a hold of these days but Eagle games does sell most of the components on their website: http://www.eaglegames.net/SearchResults.asp

@gamerman01:

Look under Japan and Russia on page 33.  It says the Jap and Soviet players are supposed to work out the details of any nonagression pact with the Soviet Union.  So it appears it is actually up to the players to make the rules on this front.

I kind of assumed the italicized text was flavour text and not actual rules. If we are to treat these sections as actual rules then take a look at the italicized text in the United States section.

It reads “…only with the outrage felt by its people by a sudden and deliberate attack by an Axis power will the United States end its neutrality and go to war.”

Hmmm, so according to the rules if the Axis don’t make any sudden and deliberate attacks after turn 2 the US cannot enter the war. And how exactly do you decide whether an attack was sudden and deliberate?

Even though the rulebook says for the Japanese and Russian players to work out the details of the non-aggression pact it then goes on to provide rules for how and when Japan can attack Russia (as was mentioned there are no such rules provided for the Soviet player). Do the “rules” invented by the players overide the printed rules in the book. Example: Japan and Russia decide that they cannot attack one another for 3 turns. Does this now become a rule and overide the section below that states Japan can attack Russia on any turn?

Also, what happens if the Japanese and Russian players cannot agree to the terms of the non-agression pact? Do they start the game at war?

@gamerman01:

Under the Soviet Union, it only addresses its ability to declare war on European Axis and says nothing about Japan (like you noted).  It doesn’t say they can’t declare war on Japan before Japan declares war on the Soviet Union, however.

Rules for boardgames generally need to be permissive in nature and not restrictive. That is the rulebook tells you what you are allowed to do and not what you are not allowed to do. For example: the rulebook doesn’t say that the UK cannot declare war on the US. You have to assume its illegal because it is not explicitly stated in the rules.

Once again, the rules tell you what you are allowed to do. And no where in the rules does it tell you how or when the Soviet Union may declare war on Japan.

This entire issue is a trainwreck and has a major impact on the flow of the game. I assume most people will game it that the Soviets can declare war on Japan at the beggining of any of their combat move phases (just like Japan can do to Russia).

@WILD:

Tip in regards to Russia, you can declare your self at war w/Japan R1 in the global game if you want to (w/o actually making an attack). This will allow you to gobble up pro axis or pro allied neutrals. Declaring war against Japan (or vise verse) has no negative effects, because they can go to war at any time anyway, and it doesn’t cause a domino effect with other powers.

I can’t find anything in the rules that actually allows Russia to declare war on Japan. What am I missing?

I may be reading the rules incorrectly, but I don’t see any means for The Soviet Union to declare war on Japan.