Best posts made by PizzaPete

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Which was considered by the US to be the biggest naval base in the pacific!

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npswapa/extcontent/wapa/paradise/paradise4.htm#:~:text=Truk Lagoon was regarded by,the war in September 1945.

@Poptech Your point about a base being surrounded is a good one, though it undercuts your own argument.

Being surrounded doesn’t mean your fuel and ammo ceases to exist, it means it won’t be replenished and you have to work with what was already on hand. Seems to me that since fuel and ammo are stockpiled at naval and air bases, territories that have them would be at a huge advantage when surrounded vs a territory that doesn’t and is surrounded, and units stationed there would be better off.

But since you either failed to read the responses or just dismissed the reasons the bonus movement makes sense, maybe it would be better to come at it from another angle?

Do you agree that naval and air bases existed in the second world war? If so, why do you object to their inclusion in the game? If you don’t object to their inclusion, what benefits do you think they should confer?

If you can answer those questions for yourself, you have a clear path to if you want to set up your game with the markers included, and what those markers will mean for your play group.

If you feel you’re already there, and you want to convince the rest of us that your way of playing is better, you might find you’re better able to persuade people by first understanding where they are coming from. Asking a question, failing to acknowledge the responses, and then acting like you’re the one who is not being listened too is not very persuasive.

@sachmatkris

German bombers can’t reach the US east coast in a typical anniversary edition game.

Where are your german bombers taking off from at the start of their turn? Where are they landing at the end if your turn? How far are you allowing them to move in one turn?

I suspect this may be a source of your issue. In anniversary a small fleet is absolutely needed to cover a transport which is in range of enemy air units, but it is typically manageable. However, if you are giving air units freer movement than they are due it could very quickly unbalance the game.

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.

@imperious-leader

I’ll admit that I haven’t played Revised in quite a while, but I think a buy of all tanks would be pretty easy to counter considering that for 15 ipcs you could get 2 inf, 1 art, and a tank that will beat three tanks on both offense and defense.

Huh. Yeah I googled it too and didn’t find anything! It was definitely a small kind of company, fortunately they were smart enough to put their website on the wrapper.

http://gamesmiths.us/

Looks like $12 was a convention price. The buy it now is $15 plus shipping. If I were you I’d still go for it!

@mordedura

I would say that it is absolutely playable out of the box, though I think it plays better if you dig out some poker chips, printed money from another game, or loose change to use as in game money rather than tracking income with pencil and paper as the manual suggests.

For units, you won’t be swimming in spare pieces, but I wouldn’t expect to be with a game that is this detailed but costs so little!

I have not played it as extensively as I have other versions, but I have never run out of pieces in the games I have played, whereas in previous editions (revised in particular) we would always have a cup of change ready to use as additional marker chips. (A penny means one extra unit and a nickel means five)

In fact, I assumed all the complaints that 1941 did not have enough pieces came from people who did not understand how to properly use the chips to indicate multiple units of the same type. Having read Midnight_reaper’s reply I can see I was wrong, and it may be an issue even for experienced players.

I don’t know if its a factor in my personal experience, but I personally LOVE how few new units you’re allowed to buy in this version and its the reason I play it.

The ratio of the value of your starting units to your income is very different than other versions, which I think makes this game an interesting play even for experienced players and something beyond just being an “intro” version. You can’t replace losses easily so you really have to think hard about where and when to put your best units at risk, and the calculus about where to attack has a lot less to to with the value of the territory than it does with the value of the enemy units you’re hoping to eliminate.

@The-Mink

Panther is right, but I’ll offer one more clarification. Your allies can help you defend, but not attack. Destroyers belonging to your ally don’t participate in your attacks, so they can’t help your air units hit subs even if they’re in the same sea zone.

When defending, they do participate, so a UK destroyer can help US planes hit subs if they’re defending the same sea zone.

@zooooma

Yikes. Not a great sign, seems very much like a consolidation of the line.

Sure 1914 and AA50 weren’t currently in print, but not acknowledging them on the website suggests they’ve joined classic and revised in the not going to be reprinted category. If true, thats a huge shame. AA50 is by far my favorite edition of the game. Its sad to think the copies that exist now might be all there will ever be.

@dictatorcj

When playing with national objectives, another advantage is increasing the number of units you can place allows for the option of infantry spamming for a slow and steady push to Moscow while keeping your Western flank secure.

The downside of course is of course is if the US focuses on the Atlantic, the allies can mount a massive threat to France. Success in North Africa increases what Italy can contribute to the defense of France while decreasing the UK’s threat, but this is hard to maintain if the US goes KGF.

My two cents would be to not place until round 2. Germany is already tight on funds round 1 without bonuses, plus it gives you a chance to see if the US focus will be Pacific or Atlantic.

Has anyone here tried “World on Fire?” It’s so much fun! I came across a small table at a game convention and they were selling it so I figured what the heck. Best $12 I even spent! It takes like a second to learn and makes the game way more fun!

Its just a deck of cards for each nation the gives them special abilities. (Germans get heavy tanks and dive bombers, US gets marines and island air strips.) The effects lasts for one battle, so its not like a tech upgrade. (In fact, the rules say they work WITH tech, but I don’t play tech games so I couldn’t say.)

You get one card per NO at the end of your turn instead of the 5 IPCs.

Its not pretty. (Comes in a plain white box, with plain text on cards) but man is it fun! My brother and I are re-addicted to the Axis and Allies! The best part is, each nation gets two cards to start, so the opening moves aren’t same-old same old any more. If Germany has a lot of sub/air bonuses, they may go hard after UK fleet and take it easy on Russia. Lots of ground bonuses and they might do just the opposite!

@chris_henry

Yes I received my copy Friday. I also have not had a chance to count the pieces, but the components look good and I’m thrilled to finally have a copy of this version of the game.

The early reviews stating the original printing didn’t have enough pieces to set up the first turn really turned me off, so I’m even more glad to see Renegade has taken steps to address that complaint rather than just reissuing it as it was, which they almost certainly could have done and still expected to see sales based on the prices used copies of 1914 were going for.

Most of all I’m thrilled to see that my fears of this and Anniversary never being printed again were not well founded.

Which edition of the game are your playing? Different editions have different nuances you can use to speed things up. If you’re playing a version with victory cities, the easiest thing to do is just reduce the number of victory cities required to win.

This has an interesting effect on gameplay because both sides may fight harder for some key points for reasons beyond its IPC value or the enemy units you may destroy, which can be realistic if you look at it as not being willing to let go of certain points for purposes of national morale/propaganda rather than purely military concerns.

You can also try to build mechanics that will reward players for success. This way, one side’s success can reinforce and fuel future successes which shortens the time between the game tipping in your favor and final victory.

For the revised edition you could add one national advantage to each country each time it captures a victory city with which it did not start the game.

For the anniversary edition you could award an additional bonus each time a nation achieves all of its national objectives.

For 1942 second edition you can add these cards which award bonuses abilities for capturing victory cities: http://gamesmiths.us/WorldonFire.html

If you’re playing 1941 or classic you can say the game ends as soon as the first capital falls, and whichever side captures it wins.

The good news is that 6 hours is a pretty long time to play 4 rounds, and you can probably chalk that up to being the first time for most of the players. I’d expect to move a little faster each time you play for at least the first few games.

@tasos

You would not be the first person to misunderstand that particular rule. I’ve come across many players that interpret the rules as I think you have. However the correct way to play is

1)Make all of your moves that result in combat before conducting any battles.
2)Resolve battles one at a time
3) Pieces that didn’t move or fight in steps 1 or 2 can now move, but they are limited to moves that will not result in combat.

As soon as the first die is rolled on a battle you are no longer allowed to make any moves that would result in combat of any kind, so while you can kill that US battleship and then move those transports through that sea zone after the battle, the transports can’t unload into hostile territory since that would require a battle and you’ve passed the point in your turn that you can have battles.

The best way to think about it is that your non-combat move is for units you’ve held in reserve to reinforce areas as needed based on how your battles turn out.

@polishpowerhouse

That is a great way to look at it. A fleet at sea or away from a fueling base has to rendezvous with a fuel tanker to refuel before moving full range. That rendezvous will cost the fleet time and fuel.

Meanwhile, a fleet departing from a naval base could be accompanied by a fuel tanker. Part way through your turn, the fuel tanker itself will need to head back to base to refuel that giant tank, but the fleet can continue on with the fuel it got from the tanker.

There wasn’t an option for refueling planes mid-air in the 40’s, but an airbase would have the resources and trained personnel to outfit your plane with one of these:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tank#:~:text=In aviation%2C a drop tank,often capable of being jettisoned.

Not to mention, as polishpowerhouse points out, taking off from dirt track is not the same as a proper airfield.

The shorter and less refined your runway, the more you’ll have to lean on the throttle to hit the speed you need for takeoff. The more you lean on the throttle, the more fuel you’re burning just to take off.