@oysteilo I definitely agree in the long run, that’s the way to go. But this is meant to be a quick one and done t6 win with axis.
Best posts made by WindowWasher
-
RE: Axis Hail marryposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
-
RE: Warfare Principles of Axis & Allies (By AndrewAAGamer)posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
@akreider2 TUV isnt the best way (although the easiest) to measure this imo. Two infantry to russia are worth way more than one tank is to germany (4 defence and two HP vs 3 attack) even though they are the same TUV.
If you want to be taking 50/50, 51/49, 52/48 battles, you’ve got to be gaining more than just TUV. Also for certain countries, TUV isn’t as important as strategic gain. Italy will take negative battles to can open for Germany to get positive ones. Say there is an air battle where there are 3 attacking British fighters and 3 defending Italian tac-bombers (imagine they cost 10) and the TUV change for the British was 0, they’re still in the advantage because the Italians don’t have the same capability to replace those units once they’re lost.
In conclusion, I don’t think there really is a better way to judge a battle’s worth than simply taking a look at the battle calculator, the units involved, and what will happen afterwards, and deciding for yourself whether or not it is something that is worth doing and, I don’t believe that some formula or calculation can circumvent that unless it is some super complicated and experienced AI.
-
RE: G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Threadposted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
For BM4, I’d love to see cruisers reduced to 11 IPCs, and battleships to 18 IPCs.
Also, it would be cool if it were easier for Japan to win and harder for Germany to win that way the game could be consistently won on both sides, not majority Europe like it is currently.
I also do not think that the game needs to be balanced to the point where no bid is necessary. I think bids are fun and make each game different.
-
RE: League General Discussion Threadposted in League
Is there a reason we don’t have a playoff with 16 people or 24 people in one big bracket? I could see it taking a long time, but besides that i dont see a reason why not.
-
RE: Battleship/cruiser with destroyer vs submarineposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
@Moller
No Destroyer Present: A sub cannot be hit by air, can sneak attack, and can submerge whenever it wants too
EX: A sub is attacked by a battleship, a cruiser and a carrier with 2 fighters. The submarine can choose whether to fight or not because there is not destroyer present to force it to fight.Destroyer Present: A sub can be hit by air, cannot sneak attack, and cannot submerge.
EX: a Sub is attacked by a Battleship, Cruiser, destroyer, and a carrier with 2 fighters. The sub cannot submerge and must fight. The sub also can be hit by the air units on the carrier, but it cannot ever hit them back. -
RE: League General Discussion Threadposted in League
I think the flip a coin idea if there is a disagreement is the best middle ground between setting BM or OOB as defaults
-
RE: Axis Hail marryposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
I will try it, who knows it might work, if it does ill let you know. Its a once per opponent type of thing, if you know japan is going for Egypt, you can easily make it hell with blockers and whatnot.
-
RE: Attack on the neutrals by alliesposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
Not sure whether you mean real life as in during WW2 or like during a real game.
The best way I’ve seen this strategy executed was using soviet infantry from Caucasus and a couple of tanks and planes hit Turkey round 5 and then the US takes Spain on its turn and if given the opportunity, lands all over the place to make a mess out of things. Then, the UK lands planes in Spain, and again if possible lands troops in southern France, or Normandy in order to prevent the German use of those factories or plane landing on their turn.
The British should have factories set up in the middle east by this point and should be slowly trickling in infantry into turkey to counter any axis offensives through the area, could also allow Britain to open up another front against Germany in the Balkans using their full IPC potential instead of having to use a portion on transports and a navy.
Overall I think violating neutrality as the allies is a good idea, but the allies have to be ready for it. The Americans should take Spain and be a nuisance of themselves, such as launching off to Norway, or Italy. Any distraction from killing Russia to Germany helps. The British can then pour tanks in through Turkey, and if the Germans have to invest significant resources into countering it, it may give Moscow an extra couple of rounds it needs to turn the tide of the war, or hold indefinitely. Also, the Americans cant spend all of their IPCs on Spain, there is a point where it is fruitless if Germany really chooses to crack down, also combining Spain with a Berlin Bank job kinda thing would be pretty nutty.
** all opinion, not a pro at the game i just spend a lot of time thinking about strategies id like to use **
-
RE: British Economy/Middle East Questionsposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
The division between the two economies is the split right down the middle of the board, no matter who captures it, if the territory is in the Europe game, it’s IPCs go to London.
-
What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bidposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
I am using bids for the first time playing against dawgoneit. I have been brainstorming for fun what would be the most unusual/annoying/effective/strange allied bid of 20.
- 5 Artillery in China
- 3 UK subs in key places (sz98, sz91 sz111)
- 3 Russian subs up north to convoy raid stuff and be annoying (or a battleship/carrier just for fun) ?
- 2 ANZAC transports 2 ANZAC Infantry
- 4 AAA guns in India (west india, india, burma, malaya) ?
- A second British battleship (sz110, sz111) ?
feel free to contribute weird bids
-
RE: What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bidposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
@J-o-C although that would be really annoying, the bidding rules say 1 troop per territory that you already have troops in.
-
RE: #1 trulpen (X) vs WindowWasher (A) WaWposted in Play Boardgames
What ive done in my AI games, Ive used the white one exclusively on land (mostly) and the yellow one to get islands and build navy
-
RE: League General Discussion Threadposted in League
Not a League player, but found this interesting.
Are there any other leagues similar to this maybe in different games that use different systems? You guys could look around see if there are any better systems out there, and I like the idea of ELO, but it cant reset to 0 every year, there has to be some sort of placement system, and with the frequency that games are played (not often), it would be difficult to have an accurate system. -
RE: G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Threadposted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
There is currently a discussion going on in the PtV thread, and I really feel that it would be applicable to OOB/BM.
It’s a problem that the axis can completely evacuate France, and not worry about the allies taking it because it’s a disadvantage. And it’s a problem that the allies don’t want to liberate an allied nation even if they could hold their ground.
If the allies hold 2 french factories in Western Europe, they should be able to produce 6 infantry a round at a minimum. Currently, liberating France prevents that, limiting 2-3 factories to 4-5 infantry at most.
My proposed fix is a +5 NO for France for holding France and Normandy or Southern France. The french earn 7 from Africa, 1 from Syria, and 6 from holding Normandy and France, which gives them a total of 14. You can only buy 4 infantry a turn consistently with this, on 2 factories. With the +5 NO it gives the french 19 so they have the capability to produce 6 Infantry, making it a feasible strategy for the allies to liberate Paris.
I Believe that this idea doesn’t fundamentally change the game too much to be included into BM, and also makes the game more fun for the allies. It makes the western front more dynamic, and could bring the balance a little bit closer to even. This also could make it harder to win in the Europe side, which might bring more action to the Japanese side.
-
Japan parks ships outside of Indiaposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
Hi, I was wondering whether I could not declare war on the allies with Japan and park my Japanese navy with transports in the SZ next to Calcutta. Is that allowed? If so, is the only way to counter it to declare war with the UK and set up blockers?
-
RE: #1 trulpen (X) vs WindowWasher (A) WaWposted in Play Boardgames
so with yamamoto, ive taken the entire philipines, on the 1st round, and with hisaichi i take hongkong
-
RE: Find League Opponents Threadposted in League
There should be a thread where every league player can post once, and every time they post, the old one is deleted.
So it would be like…
WindowWasher - No Tier (T3 probably)
Looking for T3-2 Games BM3
Current Games 1/1 -
RE: WW2 Path to Victory - Strategiesposted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
So, the aim of P2V in the pacific was to open up other major fronts against the Japanese, not just the islands. And the key to defeating the Japanese is to put pressure on all fronts. I like it
-
Japan goes after ANZACposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
Hi, I was wondering if it was worth it to try and take out ANZAC at the start of the game as Japan. I’ve never tried it, but it would take an allied power out of the game quite early which is 15 income every round the allies aren’t getting. The navy that would take out ANZAC would be on a naval base allowing it to be repurposed on the next round to hit Hawaii or move along to Calcutta.
J1 I would stage a sizable portion of my navy on the carolines
J2 If the allies put up blockers, don’t declare war and park navy outside of Sydney.
if there arent any blockers, just declare and take Sydney.Either way, you have Sydney J2 or J3, and there isn’t much the allies can do to stop you. Correct me if I’m wrong in any of these assumptions, I just don’t see why this wouldn’t work.
Suggested Topics
