Victory Cities - Great Idea!

[ButchOHare1]

Good job Mike. When you took out IPC victory I saw huge stacks of infantry going nowhere for hours. Cities Victory is historical and improves the game. Kudos for a real improvement to A & A.

[Muddog]

I love the victory city idea to. I just hope that every victory city has an industrial complex.
What I like about the concept is that it may force you to spend some time fighting in the pacific.

[Mike Selinker]

Sadly, Muddog, every victory city does not have an industrial complex. I wanted that to be the case, but my codesigners showed me that it didn't work at all. For example, an industrial complex in Shanghai meant Japanese tanks in Moscow by turn 4, while an industrial complex in Manila was too good a prize for the Allies.

[pt_mck]

With victory cities, as an axis player, L.A. and Washington are really pie-in-the-sky dreams. First, you would practically have to win the rest-of-the-world first, then build up convoys, to mount an offensive then overcome the defences of those territories. So literally you would be fighting for control of the other ten which at most gives the axis a major victory. Realistically an axis player could focus on 8 victory cities which is a minor victory. I see very little chance of an axis total victory ever.

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by pt_mck:
With victory cities, as an axis player, L.A. and Washington are really pie-in-the-sky dreams. First, you would practically have to win the rest-of-the-world first, then build up convoys, to mount an offensive then overcome the defences of those territories. So literally you would be fighting for control of the other ten which at most gives the axis a major victory. Realistically an axis player could focus on 8 victory cities which is a minor victory. I see very little chance of an axis total victory ever.If the game goes on long enough, somebody will get them all.

Or, a German-Russian alliance. "Hey Molotov, this is Ribbentrop. I got a proposal for ya. We realize now that this Barbarossa operation was a bust. And neither one of us wants a slugfest at the gates of Stalingrad, right? Let's agree to an armistice. No new troops on our border. You can take India, Australia, China, Japan, and Western North America (if you can), I'll take the rest of the UK, Africa, Brazil, and Eastern US. Once the decadent Western allies and the upstart Japanese are destroyed then and only then we'll slug it out for world domination. How about it?"

[pt_mck]

Maybe after 20 turns and 12 hours an offensive could be effectively mounted but by then most people will have pushed themselves away from the table and said "alright I need some sleep." I wonder in the playtested games so far how many times the axis actually mounted a sustained campaign against the lower 48. I see attacks as being a diversionary tactic only, a full-out campaign to capture those cities as being way too resource intensive given their isolation.

[Desert Fox]

If the axis get 10 of the cities and take Britian and Russia, then I'd say that is a total victory.

[mac224-2]

Not by definition. (theoretically) the USA is still there, a threat, building nukes (er, super bombers) and ready to come back to the continent!

Really, I agree with pt_mck. the loss of either American Victory City in a reasonably length game is only going to happen if the American player makes a big miscalculation. Like, he assumes the German invasion fleet in the Atlantic and the bombers in Western Europe are going to be for a knock-out blow of britain, and transports half his army to the UK instead of beefing up the Eastern US.

Originally posted by Desert Fox:
If the axis get 10 of the cities and take Britian and Russia, then I'd say that is a total victory.

[ButchOHare1]

It's impossible to say of LA and Washington are the safest two victory cities. We don't know what they have done with the board yet. We don't know what they've done with Weapons Development.

I can tell you under 3rd edition rules Japan with industrial technology, long range aircraft and heavy bombers can take West USA and then East USA fairly easily. It's just a matter of using 8 transports to drop 16 men from Soviet Far East into Alaska for 3 turns, while your long range heavy bombers bomb the west USA IC and reduce USA income to zero. Without a Soviet Fleet (yes RUSSIAN fleet) in the Atlantic, USA can't hold out long against Japan with the 3 deadly techs.

[pt_mck]

Originally posted by ButchOHare1:
It's impossible to say of LA and Washington are the safest two victory cities. We don't know what they have done with the board yet. We don't know what they've done with Weapons Development.

I can tell you under 3rd edition rules Japan with industrial technology, long range aircraft and heavy bombers can take West USA and then East USA fairly easily. It's just a matter of using 8 transports to drop 16 men from Soviet Far East into Alaska for 3 turns, while your long range heavy bombers bomb the west USA IC and reduce USA income to zero. Without a Soviet Fleet (yes RUSSIAN fleet) in the Atlantic, USA can't hold out long against Japan with the 3 deadly techs.Who actually spends money on weapons development? To get 3 you'd be spending a ton'o'cash. The problem is the U.S. can see these campaigns coming a mile away and can easily drop dozens of infantry in defence and retreat their navy to guard their coastline.

[Drax Kramer]

The real question is is there any possibility for a side who is down few victory cities to perform a come back?

For example, capturing nine victory cities for Axis means that at least one capital (Russia or UK) is lost (I won't count US victory cities as realistic options). Can Allies (UK and US) win the game with Russia gone? If not, then I see no point in introducing a victory condition which serves no other purpose than prolong the game long after the outcome is known.

For Allies it somehow different since they can capture Western Europe, Kwantung and Phillippines and see them successfully counterattacked on the next turn, but in all seriousness how likely is for Axis powers who are already outproduced by Allies to come back after they lost three victory cities?

Historically, Axis never captured any of Allied victory cities although a case can be made for Leningrad (the city was surrounded and parts of the region were occupied by Germans and Finns).

Allies captured Rome in June 1944, Paris in August 1944, Manila in March 1945, Berlin in May 1945 and finally Shanghai and Tokyo after Japanese capitulation.

From the historical point of view, the outcome of the war was foregone conclusion by the time third Axis victory city has been captured.

It is my current opinion that instead of three degrees of victory one would have sufficed, i.e. once any side controls nine victory cities at the end of the game round, the game is over.

Drax

[ButchOHare1]

Who actually spends money on weapons development? To get 3 you'd be spending a ton'o'cash.If you want to win this game as Axis, playing against the highest calibre Allies players, you must roll Weapons Development as Japan. Absent crazy dice or a very large bid, a great Allies player cannot be beaten by pushing infantry toward Moscow. Japan has the highest income after round 5,and it has to use that advantage to score game winning tech (IT or HBs, preferably both) before Germany is defeated.

The problem is the U.S. can see these campaigns coming a mile away and can easily drop dozens of infantry in defence and retreat their navy to guard their coastline. Actually, the great advantage of Weapons Development is that it takes effect instantly. Long range heavy bombers can strike without warning, sinking the Atlantic fleet from India for instance. A good Axis player will prepare for tech by purchasing 2 or more bombers before rolling Weapons Development. Once Japan has sufficient heavy bombers on the board, there is no way for USA to hold out without a lot of help from UK and USSR.

[Darksideknight]

originally posted by :Craig A. Yope

Heavy Bombers is a joke! It is way too powerful. The most it should be is for bombers to have an attack value of 5 or less. If someone gets heavy bombers then you might as well pack up the game and go home. Heavy bombers are the most powerfull industrial tech in the game no question. But that is why you have to roll two 6's in a row to get it. It is the hardest to get! Also when you say the opposition should pack up, this is not always the case. In a even game, say japan spends thirty ipc and gets super subs and heavy bombers, and only has one bomber on the board. It takes them two or three turns before their bomer force can be truly devestating. Furthermore in the time it takes the japs to build these bombers the allies can roll for tech. In a game I'll never forget, I was the axis and rolled with japan and got industrial tech heavy bombers and super subs over five or six turns investing 15 ipc a turn. I stoped after I got heavy bombers. At the same time I saved German mony to roll. I got industrial tech in my opinion Germanys best tech. At this point my forces were weaker from the ipc investment elsewhere but were poised to probably win the game. My opponent made correct buys for Russia and the Uk and then rolled with the USA. He rolled 6 dice! two at a time. To my absolut horror he got two sixs with the first two and one more each in his last two rolls. 4 out of 6 And get this he got every thing but rockets and supersubs I resigned on the spot. I'd rater be lucky than good he said! minor understatment! So as you can see rolling for weapons development is something we always do before we concede. :mad:

[ January 08, 2004, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Darksideknight ]

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Darksideknight:

Heavy bombers are the most powerfull industrial tech in the game no question. But that is why you have to roll two 6's in a row to get it. It is the hardest to get! Getting two sixes in the row is equally difficult as getting a six followed by a four or five. When you pay 5 IPCs to roll for a technological development there is an equal chance of getting any of the technologies available.

Drax

[Yoper]

Thanks Drax,
Once again you help clear up something that should be quite clear but people seem to think is tougher(statistical probability). I played in a game where the German player had just crushed USSR and had a lot of IPC's to spend on the final crushing of the other allies. Then the other allies get Heavy Bombers and Wham! there he was with no money(lost >50 IPC's). Talk about going from top to the bottom in the blink of an eye. I also was playing a game at Greg Smorey's(runs A&A tourneys at Origins and at GenCon Indy) Spring Gathering that he hold in his home town of Cincinnati. It was a tight game for approximately 5 hours. I asked him to look at the situation of the game because that is about the time most tournament games are adjudicated. He said it was a close call. I then told him that while that may be the case, the mitigating circumstance was that my opponent had just rolled for Heavy Bombers. No matter how well I had been doing as the Axis, the fact that the American had just gotten Heavy Bombers doomed my cause. The solution of now rolling to try to get Heavy Bombers for my side turns the game into a totally different animal. Why should my sound strategy and good game play be screwed by an out-of-whack technology. The luck factor of the dice is one thing(battles), an over done technology is another.
Craig

[Yoper]

Heavy Bombers is a joke! It is way too powerful. The most it should be is for bombers to have an attack value of 5 or less. If someone gets heavy bombers then you might as well pack up the game and go home. And don't tell me that it represents atomic bombs. If that were the case, it would only be allowed to be used once a turn(one attack by one plane). That might be close to simulating the limited amount of material that was available for bomb making.
Craig

[Desert Fox]

I play heavy bombers only roll 2 dice.

[axis_roll]

We also play HB's roll 2 dice, but attack at a 5... so just about as strong militarily, but not as devasting on SBR's.

[Darken]

Greetings,

on first sight the idea with the 12 victory cities is great. But if you take a close look you see, that an Axis player usually must control 2 of the 3 capitals of the Allies (f.e. Moskow and London). So for the Axis player there is no difference to the old A&A rules where he had to control two of the three allied capitals.

The main difference is, that the Allies must neither take Berlin nor Tokyo to win a major victory. And that is not only unfair, but also not realistic (don't forget that in 1945 Germany was surrounded by allied troops and the Sowjets still had to take Berlin before Germany capitulated).

Perhaps the following victory-rule is more fair.

The five capitals and Rome (Italy long time was member of the Axis) each count as two victory city points, so all in all you have not 12 but 18 victory city points (each side starting with 9).

A minor victory now needs 12, a major 15 and a total victory 18 victory city points.

The Axis still has the same problem (must control two of the three Allied capitals for a major victory). But now also the Allies must control at least one of the two Axis capitals.

[ January 15, 2004, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Darken ]

[Drax Kramer]

There is nothing revolutionary in the victory cities concept. What are capitals, if not victory cities? New revision only increases their number and sets three different levels of victory.

As you correctly pointed out, nothing really changed for Axis, except that they should play longer in order to achieve a major victory. Building of an invasion fleet is going to take time and cost IPCs.

Although theoretically Allies may score a major victory without capturing the capitals, the only way for Allies to do that is to spread their income on both theatres and build at least one IC in Asia. It wasn't a good strategy in the current edition of the game where the IPC gap is more in Allied favour than in the incoming version.

How likely is for Allies to invest less in the European theatre where Germany is beefed up in order to achieve control over India, Kwantung and Philippines is unclear to me at the moment.

Drax

[Epicedion]

Axis doesn't really have to take 2 capitals to win, just one -- assuming a Major Victory (10 victory cities) scenario.

Of course one of those cities would have to be Los Angeles, which would be very difficult. The 'easiest' route would probably be Calcutta/Leningrad/London/Moscow. However, we don't yet know how possible it will be for Japan to take LA.

It might even be a valid strategy for Germany to come boiling out of the Med with an East Coast US invasion fleet. Imagine if both Japan and Germany started out on turn one with the goal of heading straight at the US from both sides. Japan can decimate any Pacific fleet for several turns, and Germany has the initial manpower to hold off Russia for a few turns so it can focus on Infantry/Armor transport its reserves out of Southern Europe. We'll see.

--Epicedion

[ January 15, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Epicedion ]

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

Axis doesn't really have to take 2 capitals to win, just one -- assuming a Major Victory (10 victory cities) scenario.You're right, of course. However, I can't grasp any feasible strategy based on the conquest of continetal US so I usually dismiss it out of hand.

However, we don't yet know how possible it will be for Japan to take LA.I sincerely hope it is next to impossible against any sober opponent.

It might even be a valid strategy for Germany to come boiling out of the Med with an East Coast US invasion fleet. Imagine if both Japan and Germany started out on turn one with the goal of heading straight at the US from both sides. Japan can decimate any Pacific fleet for several turns, and Germany has the initial manpower to hold off Russia for a few turns so it can focus on Infantry/Armor transport its reserves out of Southern Europe. We'll see.I shiver from the mere idea that conquest of the continental US should be feasible strategy in any game even remotely related to WW2. With Japanese tanks rolling through Canada to California we might as well drop any pretense of using tanks and aircraft and take Risk 2120 units and continue from there.

There are options and there are options. Such options that allow invasion of US by Germany and Japan are crossing the line into the world inhabitated by orcs, trolls and hobbits.

Drax

[hicup]

RE-Drax

I shiver from the mere idea that conquest of the continental US should be feasible strategy in any game even remotely related to WW2. With Japanese tanks rolling through Canada to California we might as well drop any pretense of using tanks and aircraft and take Risk 2120 units and continue from thereWhy? I here you whining about the historical aspect of the game being true to form. Come on dude!! Lighten up man, it's just a game. As stated before the game is about what could have happened, not what did happen. If you wanted a game so historically accurate and with no room for ingenuity then go out and by a CD-ROM pertaining to WW2 and watch it on your computer and occassionally addlib your selection of possible outcomes to follow some scripted version of events.

I like the fact personally that allows for a possible invasion of the US or Canada whether feasable or not. I also like the fact that the revised version will make this difficult as in real life, but man o man stop critizing other peoples genuine excitement for this game.

Certainly you have the right to offer suggestions for what you like and what you don't but one persons view is not the same as anothers. Neither is right and neither is wrong.

Tim-

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by hicup:

As stated before the game is about what could have happened, not what did happen.I couldn't agree more. Japan could have invaded India. Japan could have invaded Australia. Japan could have invaded Hawaii. Either of this invasions had small chance of succeeding, but they COULD have happened.

Where I draw the line is the invasion of the continental US. It was not a realistic possibility and the A&A map was not designed in such way. (too short distance between Hawaii and California, too little territories in the North American continent).

If you wanted a game so historically accurate and with no room for ingenuity then go out and by a CD-ROM pertaining to WW2 and watch it on your computer and occassionally addlib your selection of possible outcomes to follow some scripted version of events.This is a strawman. Only because the game is simple it doesn't mean it must allow for virtually impossible things to happen. Both simple and complex games about WW2 should offer both sides to win the GAME (not necessarilly the war itself) and both types of games should allow the players to explore the viable options that realistically existed within a time frame of WW2.

Invasions of North American continent do not belong to WW2. Players who want to fight over the North American continent can play the games that do not presume to have WW2 background like Risk, Fortress America or historical games about ACW or American Revolution.

Certainly you have the right to offer suggestions for what you like and what you don't but one persons view is not the same as anothers. Neither is right and neither is wrong.
I don't say people who find amusement in driving Japanese tanks across Canada are wrong. I do say that WW2 games, no matter how simple, that allow such things to happen are wrong.

Drax

[zooooma]

Hi everyone.

England was very close to falling in WWII. Infact, England not being invaded was almost a fluke, due to such factors as weather. Source - The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Had England Fallen, The Back up plan was for England to continue it's war efforts from Canada. England's gold had been relocated here just in case. If Engalnd had fallen, German Europe would have been at open war with continental North America.

Something which never would have happened historically is for USA to ignore the sneak attack against Pearl Harbor and focus entirely against Germany. This happens frequently in the MB version of A&A.

I do not mind if these ahistorical aspects of A&A. To me, the games merrits are not related at all to the extent to which the game simulates the WWII enviroment. However, if USA were forced for politicall reasons to focus on retribution in the Pacific theater (which they were), and if UK had fallen (which it almost did), then the invasion of North America was going to be an issue. If, on the other hand, USA has abandonned Hawaii completely, Japan might have had an easy and irresistable time invading Hawaii, and who knows from there.

Our freedoms were in genuine peril at that point in history. Even if there weren't as much danger as I seem to think, recall that the game designers have given the Axis powers a little boost in strength. Although this itself may be not accurate, it is no less historical than allowing Germany to place six infantry in the Ukraine as a result of some sort of bid. What's the historic bases for that? Bidding for units seems less realistic than a potential German invasion of Canada. Infact, the bidding, compared to Axis tanks in California, seems to bear the stronger resemblance to sorceries and stleath MODs.

[Epicedion]

Where I draw the line is the invasion of the continental US. It was not a realistic possibility and the A&A map was not designed in such way. (too short distance between Hawaii and California, too little territories in the North American continent).
Why is it so far-fetched? At the end of the war, Germany had far-reaching goals to bomb New York. With the fall of Britain, Germany would have the perfect staging ground to attack the continental United States. With the British Navy out of the picture, German subs would own the oceans, taking care of any pesky American warships. Germany's best bet would be to take control of Canada, and then assault the US across our weak northern border.

On the other side of the world, Japan would be best situated to take Alaska and Hawaii, which would be very possible if America were overtaxed in the European theater. With the resources of Alaska, and the salvaged military resources of Hawaii (Pearl Harbor's excess fuel and ammunition), Japan would definitely be a threat to the United States directly, being able to load up troops and tanks in Japan, have safe passage to Hawaii, and stock and prepare for a two-pronged invasion of the US (from Canada and Hawaii) in conjunction with Germany's attack.

To do this in the game, of course, would rely on Germany taking Africa, Japan conquering India and Australia, and both of them pinning Russia down with strategic bombing to prevent a Russian build-up of offensive units. With Japan putting pressure on America, it's only a matter of time before Germany can build enough transports and infantry/artillery to overthrow Britain, and the rest of the world will quickly follow.


Only because the game is simple it doesn't mean it must allow for virtually impossible things to happen.
You are -way- too confident in the American military of the time. You probably think that we could currently beat China in a (non-nuclear) war. Germany had superior firepower and Hitler was quickly taking control of the majority of the world's resources. If he had listened to his generals, there's a good chance we'd all be speaking German -- except that's just a cliche`. We'd probably have started trading nukes with Germany as fast as both sides could produce them, and we'd all be speaking Caveman.

--Epicedion

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

At the end of the war, Germany had far-reaching goals to bomb New York.And no bombers to reach New York with adequate payload and return.

With the fall of Britain, Germany would have the perfect staging ground to attack the continental United States.Check the map. Britain is far closer to Europe (and serve as a staging ground for an invasion of Europe) than to US. No German aircraft had a combat range to reach US from UK and was unlikely to get it in the reasonable time frame.

With the British Navy out of the picture, German subs would own the oceans, taking care of any pesky American warships.Germans were unable to reach the French navy in 1940. What makes you think Royal Navy would not sail to Canada and continue the war in the unlikely situation of Britain falling to Germans. After December 1941 there was no way for Germans to launch a successful invasion of UK.

And no, German submarines had virtually no chance to "clear" the Atlantic from United States Navy, with or without Royal Navy. It's a phantasy.

Germany's best bet would be to take control of Canada, and then assault the US across our weak northern border.Germany would have needed years to construct a navy strong enough to defeat American one and additional years to construct a transport fleet capable of carrying the invasion army. We are here in the realm of non-science fiction.

On the other side of the world, Japan would be best situated to take Alaska and Hawaii, which would be very possible if America were overtaxed in the European theater.Japan was barely able to scrap 12 divisions for its initial campaigns of conquest. They lacked the transport for more. Even, if by some stroke of luck, Japan conquered Hawaii (forget about Alaska, there was nothing there to support any kind of invasion force), there are thousands of miles of ocean between California and Hawaii.

With the resources of Alaska, and the salvaged military resources of Hawaii (Pearl Harbor's excess fuel and ammunition), Japan would definitely be a threat to the United States directly, being able to load up troops and tanks in Japan, have safe passage to Hawaii, and stock and prepare for a two-pronged invasion of the US (from Canada and Hawaii) in conjunction with Germany's attack.I heartilly reccomend any general history of WW2. You may try Keegan for starts, just to get some picture about the historical capabilities of respective major powers in WW2.

I'll just note that Japan was inable to supply a single infantry division at Guadalcanal and had to pull out of the island after six months of combat. Read about Japanese capabilities to supply invasion of Port Moresby on New Guinea or Imphal on Indian border.

To do this in the game, of course, would rely on Germany taking Africa, Japan conquering India and Australia, and both of them pinning Russia down with strategic bombing to prevent a Russian build-up of offensive units. With Japan putting pressure on America, it's only a matter of time before Germany can build enough transports and infantry/artillery to overthrow Britain, and the rest of the world will quickly follow.I'd have no problems if this was a strategy for Risk, a game that does not pretend on any period of human history. A&A pretends to be about WW2 on the Planet Earth.

You are -way- too confident in the American military of the time.No, I am perhaps a way too confident in my knowledge of the period judging by the number of books I read and the time spent on various forums debating the war with people who know more than I. I know what I am talking about when I say that Axis invasion of the continetal US belongs to the games with orcs and trolls.

Germany had superior firepower and Hitler was quickly taking control of the majority of the world's resources.Germany did not have superior firepower and name one strategic resource Germany had more than US.

If he had listened to his generals,He would have never attacked France and would have lost the war by 1942. The myth about German generals who would have won the war if only Hitler listened them belong to the fifties when memoirs of German generals were popular cold war reading. If it weren't for Hitler, Germany would have never been in the position to conquer France.

We'd probably have started trading nukes with Germany as fast as both sides could produce them,Leading German nuclear scientists believed that critical mass was far too big for any conceivable plane to carry it. They were genuinly stunned when they heard about Hiroshima. German nuclear program was in the dead-end street throughout the war. They didn't even manage to create a controlled fission.

Drax

[Epicedion]

At this point, Drax, you're being bull-headed, and reading precisely the wrong things into my statements. I'm starting to think you're doing it on purpose.


Check the map. Britain is far closer to Europe (and serve as a staging ground for an invasion of Europe) than to US. No German aircraft had a combat range to reach US from UK and was unlikely to get it in the reasonable time frame.
I did not say "German aircraft could fly from Britain to the US." I said that Britain would make a good staging ground, meaning that Germany could marshall its forces on the ground in Britain, take over British industrial/arms facilities, and protect and prepare its navy (in the now German-controlled English Channel) for the long war ahead.


Germans were unable to reach the French navy in 1940. What makes you think Royal Navy would not sail to Canada and continue the war in the unlikely situation of Britain falling to Germans. After December 1941 there was no way for Germans to launch a successful invasion of UK.
And what did the French navy do during the war? At any rate, are you suggesting that during a sea-invasion of Britain that the British Navy would abandon the fight and flee to Canada? Beyond that, you have left your statement unqualified. Why would there be no way for Germany to launch a successful invasion of the UK?


Germany would have needed years to construct a navy strong enough to defeat American one and additional years to construct a transport fleet capable of carrying the invasion army. We are here in the realm of non-science fiction.
Actually, we're in the realm of 'alternate history', which could be construed as a form of science-fiction. Speaking of history, how long is a game turn? What date does the game begin? How come you hardly ever see a D-Day invasion of France? Why does America have a carrier group at Pearl Harbor? Could it possibly be that the game is -not- representative of history, but is instead representative of many possible, even outlandish histories? Perish the thought.


Japan was barely able to scrap 12 divisions for its initial campaigns of conquest. They lacked the transport for more. Even, if by some stroke of luck, Japan conquered Hawaii (forget about Alaska, there was nothing there to support any kind of invasion force), there are thousands of miles of ocean between California and Hawaii.
In the game, we are allowed to build more transports.


I heartilly reccomend any general history of WW2. You may try Keegan for starts, just to get some picture about the historical capabilities of respective major powers in WW2.
Again, this is not history. If it were history, there would be no point to playing, since the outcome would be predetermined. I've taken a course on the economic, social, and political causes and events of WW2 (specifically leading up to and discussing the events of the Holocaust), which by its nature dealt with German military actions. I have read translated German documents regarding the horrific attacks on civilians in Russia. If the game dealt with any of this history, no matter how 'true', I wouldn't play it.


I'd have no problems if this was a strategy for Risk, a game that does not pretend on any period of human history. A&A pretends to be about WW2 on the Planet Earth.
And the game -is- about WW2 on Earth. However, since this is a game (and due to the fact that we are dealing with both Chance and Free Will), we have the option of exploring scenarios that -never happened-. I never said it was -likely- that Germany could take over the US, I said it was a -possible strategy-.


I know what I am talking about when I say that Axis invasion of the continetal US belongs to the games with orcs and trolls.
If we had not been able to stop them in Europe (and it was a very difficult fight), what would have stopped them elsewhere?


Germany did not have superior firepower and name one strategic resource Germany had more than US.
Again, you're misrepresenting my statements. Germany had better armor, better submarines, jet fighters, and long-range rockets. We had more resources, which is why we won. And I said "Hitler was quickly taking control of the world's resources," which at the time the US entered the war was a true statement. Since (again) this is -not- history, it is -alternate- history, IF Hitler had managed to gain control of the Mid-East, Africa, and the parts of Russia he wanted, then he -would- have had more resources than the Americans.


German nuclear program was in the dead-end street throughout the war.
How long do you think that would have lasted if the war had gone on longer due to better German strategical acquisitions? Where would our nuclear program have been if we were forced to keep up the war in Europe, draining more and more of America's resources?


If it weren't for Hitler, Germany would have never
... started such an ambitious war in the first place. However, the man was not a brilliant strategist, but tried to be anyway. The game, however, lets the players make their own strategical blunders or triumphs.

If you're playing Axis and Allies for historical purism (and thus arguing against me on the basis of your historical purism), there's something very, very wrong with you. Go play Squad Leader.

--Epicedion

[baron]

There's something you are all missing in this discussion of the appropriateness of the axis even having a chance of invading the US. The important thing is not that the Axis might be able to the capture it, the important thing is that America has to defend itself. If Japan moves a carrier group off the coast with 4 loaded transports, there's almost no chance that they will successfully invade...why? Because everybody knows that a competent US player will dump the majority of their income that turn and load up on infantry. The point is that with just a threat, a feint, a bluff, Japan has affected the US's buying strategy. That is why it's important to have continental US territories on the board.

[ January 16, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: baron ]

[Darksideknight]

Hmmm.... Where do I begin? Well first off Drax, you are wrong about the possibilty of a German lead, United States invasion. Now, from a historical standpoint did it ever come close? No! Now that we have that out of the way, let me explain. WWII was alot closer than some people think or wish to think! The German campaign "Bombs over Britain" was almost successfull. Only when they gave up and went for Russia did the Germans take themselves out of the war. If Hitler had stuck with the plan of taking the U.K. out of the war, we all might be waving swasticas right now. Just imagine the capibilitys Germany would have gained with all the industrys in Britain. Think about it. Ok now take a deep breath and exhail, it never happened. From here on out we can only speculate what might of happened. In the game A&A, if U.K. is plundered, Germany ussually already has a large fleet assembled. What makes you think they wouldn't of built up more, sailed over to Canada and lanched cordinated attacks with the Japs through the northern border? Russia can't stand by herself against Japan and Germany. And thats what the Russians would of been faced with. With the Brit's out of the war, this is a scenerio that would occured. Hitler wanted to rule the world, he attacked Russia too soon and lost. By taking Britain out of it, Russia and U.S.A. would of had a slim to none chance of standing by themselves. Who else would have stood in the axis way? It's bone chilling to think about. Drax hate to say it but the allies nearly lost the war.
Second, about the nuclear arms race. Thank god all those German scientists that were working, and were very close to obtaining the split of a atom defected. Albert Einstein called the U.S. to let them know it was possible. The whole war hung in the balance of Britain holding on and a few German scientists defecting. And of course the endless U.S. industrys. And the men of allied nations making the ultimate sacrifice to secure the deafeat of historys most infamous tyrant.
Third, Once Again I will restate what Mike said earlier.This is a game about what could of happened not a walk through of what did happen in WWII. Hope this point hits home this time. :rolleyes:

Thanks, -Jason

[elbowmaster]

i am beginning to think that this was an original thread used

http://pub6.ezboard.com/faxisandalliesessayfeedbackaxisandalliespacificqa. showMessage?topicID=766.topic

as i look at some of the screen shots i notice the aae looking map...i wonder if this interlink version is the one we will see as the new axis and allies...

would not suprise me to see AH/wotc or who ever drop that version as well...seems to be a trend of "make a new version, then sell and dont support" i hope this is not the case this time...but, oh yeah, history repeats itself...

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

I said that Britain would make a good staging ground, meaning that Germany could marshall its forces on the ground in Britain, take over British industrial/arms facilities, and protect and prepare its navy (in the now German-controlled English Channel) for the long war ahead.And I am saying that US had larger industrial base then Europe ravaged by war (you don't think Germans were going to capture British factories and ports intact) and that transoceanic invasion against defended coast was something that was beyond even American abilities.

At any rate, are you suggesting that during a sea-invasion of Britain that the British Navy would abandon the fight and flee to Canada? Beyond that, you have left your statement unqualified. Why would there be no way for Germany to launch a successful invasion of the UK?Royal navy either dies fighting the German invasion or flees to Canada. In either way, Germany had no navy to threaten North American continent against USN. The reason why Germany had virtually no chance to pull Sea Lion was that RAF was unlikely to get defeated by Luftwaffe, Royal Navy would have been a master of the Channel during the night and British ports needed to supply invasion army were fortified. Even if Germans managed to land somewhere, these troops would have had to surrender within a week for lack of supplies.

Why does America have a carrier group at Pearl Harbor? Could it possibly be that the game is -not- representative of history, but is instead representative of many possible, even outlandish histories?US carriers were based at Pearl Harbor and if you take a box and read the bottom of it, you'll see that designers think the initial setup reflects political and military situation of Spring 1942. Their words, not mine.

In the game, we are allowed to build more transports.Yes, and America is allowed to build submarines as well. Check the number of carriers launched by both US and Japan during the war and compare it with the available IPCs.

Again, this is not history. If it were history, there would be no point to playing, since the outcome would be predetermined. I've taken a course on the economic, social, and political causes and events of WW2 (specifically leading up to and discussing the events of the Holocaust), which by its nature dealt with German military actions.I reccomend you a general military history of WW2 because you showed your ignorance about the historical capabilities of respective powers. You were not writing about the game when you devised your scenario for the invasion of US. And no reading about the Holocaust is not going to teach you about the military aspect of the WW2.

If we had not been able to stop them in Europe (and it was a very difficult fight), what would have stopped them elsewhere?Germany was already stopped in Europe when they reached the coast. They were stopped by Russians in the East and turned back. Combined military might of US, USSR and UK was needed to invade Europe and crush Germany and its allies.

Again, you're misrepresenting my statements. Germany had better armor, better submarines, jet fighters, and long-range rockets. Germany had less tanks than Allies and they weren't that superior to make up for the Allied numerical advantage. Note that Germans were winning in France and Russia when her tanks were worse than French and Soviet. It was the armor doctrine that was superior. German jet fighters were no better than British and American ones. Their long range rockets were pure terror weapon. Innacurate and in the case of V2, cost ineffective.

We had more resources, which is why we won. And I said "Hitler was quickly taking control of the world's resources," which at the time the US entered the war was a true statement. Since (again) this is -not- history, it is -alternate- history, IF Hitler had managed to gain control of the Mid-East, Africa, and the parts of Russia he wanted, then he -would- have had more resources than the Americans.No, he wouldn't. In forties, US was the world's largest producer of oil and you can freely add Venezuela in the Allied total. Hitler might have gained oil wells in Caucasus and Iraq, but they would have been thoroughly wrecked by retreating Russians and British. Add into account no pipelines nor tankers and it would take at least a year before Germany could make any good from the captured oil wells.

How long do you think that would have lasted if the war had gone on longer due to better German strategical acquisitions? Where would our nuclear program have been if we were forced to keep up the war in Europe, draining more and more of America's resources?Take a book and you'll see that most of the Hitler's "strategic mistakes" took place when the tide of the war iretrievably turned against the Axis.

If you're playing Axis and Allies for historical purism (and thus arguing against me on the basis of your historical purism), there's something very, very wrong with you. Go play Squad Leader.This is typical. There is no middle ground for you. One either have to play a monster game with gazillion of details or be happy with the phantasy world of A&A. I don't want to spend weeks playing WW2 grand strategic game. I am perfectly happy with simplistic mechanisms that allow the players to explore the historical possibilities and see where they might get them. There is a wide gap between saying that Stalingrad, El Alamein and Midway might ended differently leading to the Axis victory and the phantasy world where German panzers drive through the jungles of Africa while Japanese poor excuses for tanks drive across forrests of Western Canada.

The first game is a game about WW2 where people can explore what might have happened. The second is a fairytale with little plastic miniatures.

Drax

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Darksideknight:

WWII was alot closer than some people think or wish to think! The German campaign "Bombs over Britain" was almost successfull.It wasn't even near to successful. In 1940 Britain produced more aircraft than Germany and kept the lead until 1944 when Germany completely switched to the fighter production. Throughout Battle of Britain, RAF was getting numerically stronger while Luftwaffe was getting weaker. Germany navy was almost non-existant after the losses it suffered in Norway, so no there was no possibility of successful Sea Lion in 1940.

Only when they gave up and went for Russia did the Germans take themselves out of the war. If Hitler had stuck with the plan of taking the U.K. out of the war, we all might be waving swasticas right now.Not really. Britain was outproducing Germany in aircraft. In June 1941, Luftwaffe had LESS aircraft available than one year earlier. RAF, on the other hand was getting stronger daily. Royal Navy was so superior to Kriegsmarine that it would take a decade for Germany to catch up, providing that Soviet Union continues to supply Germany with the oil to fuel such a navy.

Hitler wanted to rule the world, he attacked Russia too soon and lost. By taking Britain out of it, Russia and U.S.A. would of had a slim to none chance of standing by themselves. Who else would have stood in the axis way? It's bone chilling to think about. Drax hate to say it but the allies nearly lost the war.Hitler attacked Russia in the nick of time. Had he waited for another year, he would have faced a reconstructed Red Army fully armed with modern aircraft and T-34s. He would have been lucky if he reached Dniepr. Even historically, Russians succesfully saved themselves in 1941 with no help from Allies. US alone, ourproduced all Axis powers taken together and by the end of the war, US even slowed down the production. Hate to tell it, but find me a serious book saying that Allies nearly lost the war, especially once America joined.

Third, Once Again I will restate what Mike said earlier.This is a game about what could of happened not a walk through of what did happen in WWII.Once again, EVERY WW2 game is about what could have happened, not a walk through the historical events. The only differences among them should be about the level of detail and how designers chose to represent this or that aspect of the war. What to emphasise, what to disregard. The simplicity of the design is not a mandatory requirement for the game to abandon the realm of historically possible events and those that were outside of the scope of the WW2.

What would have been fundamentally wrong if Axis victory cities were say, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Baghdad, Calcutta, Sydney and Honolulu? None of them were ever captured by Axis. Each of them might have been captured by Axis. The players could drive their armies across the known battlefields of the world and tried to outdo their historical counterparts. If successful, they would justly claim a victory by planting their colourfull counters over the captured Allied territories.

Now, tell me is capturing Los Angeles or Washington so funnier that the hypothetical game of Axis and Allies I described above?

Drax

[Jon Waddington]

Originally posted by Drax Kramer:
Once again, EVERY WW2 game is about what could have happened, not a walk through the historical events. The only differences among them should be about the level of detail and how designers chose to represent this or that aspect of the war. What to emphasise, what to disregard. The simplicity of the design is not a mandatory requirement for the game to abandon the realm of historically possible events and those that were outside of the scope of the WW2.Well said. I'm personally willing to tolerate more wackiness in terms of historical possibility than you are, but fundamentally I agree with you, and wish the game were more closely tied to its theme. However, I think the designers were not working under the constraints of what could have happened, but rather the popular perception of what could have happened. This is a characteristic (and not necessarily a failing) of most "broad brush" historical games. I mean, at the end of the day, what's going to sell more games?

[Epicedion]

This is typical. There is no middle ground for you. One either have to play a monster game with gazillion of details or be happy with the phantasy world of A&A.
This has been bugging me: the word is 'fantasy.' You misspell it so consistently that you must believe otherwise.

Also, what about Squad Leader and other 'accurate' WW2 games is so daunting? I play Axis and Allies because it's fun to pretend that my little plastic P-51s and soldiers are taking over the world. My strategy in Axis and Allies: Pacific for the British involves building a kajillion submarines in Australia and lying in wait until Japan spreads its navy too thin to adequately defend against them. Yeah, that happened. But it works more often than not. In another game of A&A:P I watched the Japanese player start and maintain a continued amphibious invasion of the continental US. It was brilliant. Also didn't happen, but it worked. The game is not now and has never been about being true to history. Complain all you want about gnomes and faeries, but the simple truth of the matter is this: this game has always been just as 'unrealistic' as Risk. It is more complicated than Risk, and is based on real-world events, but in order to make a -balanced- and -fun- game that can be played in a few hours, it is necessary to stipulate that if the Allies can fully conquer the Axis, the reverse must also be possible. Otherwise, the game would not be fun, as its new title would be 'Three Friends Beat Up On Two of Their Less Popular Friends for Four Straight Hours.'


And no reading about the Holocaust is not going to teach you about the military aspect of the WW2.
That's hilarious. You mistake hobby/interest reading for serious study. I did not say 'reading,' I said 'course.' Post-graduate level (600-something). As a basis for the course we necessarily covered the history (military, economic, social, political) of Germany from the late 1800's to the end of WW2, glossing somewhat over the specific military details of WW1 except to provide background for the breakdown of the German economy and the lead-in to WW2. The coverage of major WW2 military actions was more than adequate.


German jet fighters were no better than British and American ones.
Which American and British jet fighters were those?


Take a book and you'll see that most of the Hitler's "strategic mistakes" took place when the tide of the war iretrievably turned against the Axis.
You don't consider starting a three-front war against numerical and resource advantage to be a strategic mistake?


I am perfectly happy with simplistic mechanisms that allow the players to explore the historical possibilities and see where they might get them.
Still sounds like you're looking for a different game than Axis and Allies. Since you have already claimed:

A) Germany made no major strategical errors until it was already losing,

B) Germany and Japan had absolutely no hope of defeating the British or American forces,

C) No captured resources would be of any use to Germany in any reasonable time-frame, and

D) North America was an impenetrable fortress

it is reasonable to conclude that, as you have hinted if not stated outright, any game that would allow significant deviance from actual historical events is not welcome in your library of games. Unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us), Axis and Allies gives players freedom to devise their own unique strategies in order to play a fun and challenging game. Axis and Allies has never been a detailed historical game, and that you expect it to become one is rather amusing.

The game according to Drax is apparently one in which it should not be possible for the Axis to achieve the victory conditions for the simple reason that the Axis, in fact, did not achieve victory.

Believe it or not, the 'longer' the game you choose, the more and more out-of-whack you get with history. A 'minor victory', or 8 victory cities, only requires the Axis to take Calcutta and Leningrad to win, which would be fairly devastating to the Allied cause. Perhaps, Drax, you should limit your games to minor victories to keep yourself historically happy. A 'major victory' would require the loss of all extraneous victory cities and one capital (or, since LA is such a far-fetched goal, the total conquest of both Russia and Britain). Since Germany did not quite make it that far, it is safe to say that the Axis achieving a major victory would be considered completely contrary to a historical setting. 'Total victory,' requiring the total conquest of all Allied capitals and victory cities, would apparently be, from the standpoint of historical accuracy, like Martians landing and giving the Germans space modulators. But in such a broad game, why should anything be disallowed? The easy answer to the game would be that after X turns, the Americans develop the nuclear bomb and Japan surrenders -- if the Axis hasn't achieved victory by then, game over, Allies win. But that doesn't happen for the sheer fact that it would be thoroughly unamusing. We don't play for deep lessons about history. We play to move our little plastic army men around a map like the armchair generals that we are.

--Epicedion

[solitaire77]

At the end of the war, Germany had far-reaching goals to bomb New York.
...goals yes ...capability, no...


With the fall of Britain, Germany would have the perfect staging ground to attack the continental United States.
Operation Sealion was stillborn by the time A&A begins. There was little to no chance of Britain falling after Barbarossa began. The rest of your claim falls apart without England falling.


On the other side of the world, Japan would be best situated to take Alaska and Hawaii, which would be very possible if America were overtaxed in the European theater.
Why would the US be overtaxed in the European theater? The US was not overtaxed in the real war...why would they be in your fictional one? The US had adquate assets for a two front war. Japan, however, did not.

With the resources of Alaska, and the salvaged military resources of Hawaii (Pearl Harbor's excess fuel and ammunition), Japan would definitely be a threat to the United States directly, being able to load up troops and tanks in Japan, There wasn't that much swag at Hawaii. Japan was lacking fuel to the order of 40 million barrels per year PRE-WAR. Japan lacked adequate population to threaten the US any more directly than they did. Japan DID do their best against the US, and they didn't have the resources for anything like what you describe.

Germany had superior firepower and Hitler was quickly taking control of the majority of the world's resources. If he had listened to his generals, there's a good chance we'd all be speaking German You don't already speak German? All the shame for you, but if Hitler had listened to his generals, there also wouldn't have been much of a European war either.

A&A is a great game, but history speaks for itself in many respects.

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by Epicedion:
That's hilarious. You mistake hobby/interest reading for serious study. I did not say 'reading,' I said 'course.' Post-graduate level (600-something). Let's not drag degrees into this. I know several people whose knowledge of hobbies rivals their own unrelated profession's doctoral dissertations (myself included).


D) North America was an impenetrable fortress
North America was effectively an impenetrable fortress. Neither Axis power had adequate population to occupy the United States (alone or cooperatively).

This is a game however, and the issue at hand is not whether the US can ever fall, but rather if it is likely to fall early just due to the Japanese and Italians doing a fake-out.

The order of capitulation/conquest should almost always be USSR > UK > USA.

If the start date of A&A were backed up to pre-Barbarossa (such as in A&A:E), then it could be UK > USSR > USA.

A good game rewards wise decisions statistically, and punishes foolish ones... as does history. In that way, games and history are similar...

[Epicedion]

Let's not drag degrees into this.
I'm not. Drax challenged my background on the subject matter, so I supplied my own support. I'm a physics student. I took the course because it was interesting.


...goals yes ...capability, no...
At the end of the war, Germany was working on a prototype jet bomber that could reach New York. Fortunately, it never reached completion. I'm glad to see another person is saying "it can't happen in the game because it didn't happen in real life." It makes my day that much brighter.


Operation Sealion was stillborn by the time A&A begins.
Hey, why not remove Britain from the map, too? If Germany can't possibly invade it, then its strategic relevance is nil. Maybe we can remove Russia, too, and let the game focus solely on the unlimited resources of the Allies obliterating all Axis resistance. Every turn each Allied player gets to attack Germany or Japan with 40 IPCs worth of units. Sarcasm aside, do you people understand that this isn't an evaluation of history, but is instead, rather, a board game?


There wasn't that much swag at Hawaii. Japan was lacking fuel to the order of 40 million barrels per year PRE-WAR. Japan lacked adequate population to threaten the US any more directly than they did. Japan DID do their best against the US, and they didn't have the resources for anything like what you describe.
That is true, but America didn't know the exact capabilities of Japan. All they knew was that a massive naval power had crippled the Pacific fleet. Germany knew that Japan couldn't stand up to the Americans, but basically wanted Japan to delay the US and tie up their resources for several years to keep them out of Europe. Had certain battles gone in favor of the Japanese, the war in the Pacific would have been much harder and more expensive for the Americans, and Germany would have gained an advantage in Europe. Everything in Axis and Allies is 'if.' Limiting those 'ifs' limits the playability of the game.


Why would the US be overtaxed in the European theater?
Perhaps from extended warfare? America didn't have unlimited capabilities. The stipulation is that if America -were- overtaxed (from a more drawn-out fight in Europe), then Japan would be a bigger threat. If Germany had focused its military efforts on more reasonable goals instead of spreading out its supply lines deep into Russia, the defense of Europe would have gone on much longer than it did. How long could America keep sending new troops and equipment to Europe before the war in the Pacific started to falter? The point is that we don't know for sure. America certainly didn't have adequate defenses on its thousands of miles of coastline. There are thousands of places Japan could have landed troops and gained a foothold. How would America react in that situation? Would the supply lines to Europe dry up in favor of defense of American soil? What effect would this have on the war in Europe? Would Germany have taken the opportunity to perform an all-out assault on Britain in order to cripple the island and use that location to stave off any further (significant) US assistance? The US couldn't load up troops at home and then drop them off directly on the beachheads of France. They needed Britain as an intermediate ground.

Why shouldn't we be able to explore these scenarios? This entire argument is based around certain parties claiming that X scenario should not be possible because it did not happen (read: "was not possible") in reality. Until someone can adequately explain -why- X scenario whould be barred from an alternate-history board game (without referring to actual historical events), you're not going to convince me that the game is flawed with regards to possibilities. You're effectively arguing that options are a -bad- thing, which is actually quite amusing.


You don't already speak German?
No, I took Japanese instead.

--Epicedion

[Darksideknight]

Had Germany waited another year or so to build it's armys,navys,airforce etc. The attacks it would have mustered would have been near unstoppable. Had they crushed the UK, and then turned to Russia, the world would of been a different place today. Give Germany two more turns of full production, and see what happens in the game. Obviously the game isn't history, but I highly doubt that The United States Could have beat Japan and Germany alone.

In this game A&A, if Russia falls or Britian falls the allies rarely win. I think history would have been somewhat simular. Now the United States at the time was probobly a very tough nut to crack. But, with Britain, and Europe conquered it's anyones speculation how long we could have held out. If Germany had obtained a nuclear device, and exploited it, what then? Drax, to side step these historical what if's is to side step history alltogether just becase the allies did win.Sure you can quote and try to disclaim my statements, but you sure give the allies, and the U.S. military of the time way too much credit. If the war in Europe, and Britain was won by the Germans, the war would have come to the U.S. at both fronts. If the Russians and British were crushed in the first year of the war we, (the U.S.) would not have been prepared at all. Fighting a war on your home turf takes a major tole especially when civilians are involved. I am generalizing, but I am just arguing that it could have gone both ways. How can you possibly say that with out a doubt the allies would of won every time? There sure are alot of what if's to take into account that you just can't ignore! Ignore the possiblity of the axis winning no matter how slight the odds of the time, and you make your statements irrelavent.

Posted by :Drax:Now, tell me is capturing Los Angeles or Washington so funnier that the hypothetical game of Axis and Allies I described above?
Well I don't know? The British captured Washington in 1812, burnt the white house to the ground and then retreated. I am well aware of the power differences between the two time frames being discussed. Again history can be repeated. Not saying it was likely at the time, but you just can't ignore that fact.

I do agree that the US was a fortress and near inpenitrable but that doesn't gurantee we would have held out after years of war brought to the homeland. Atomic bombs in axis hands make that even less likely. If Germany had geared up till they did develop the atomic bomb and jet fighters.... well I don't want to think about it. Just glad it all turned out the way it did.

Furthermore we are talking about a game it is in many more ways fantasy, not history. Its not a written and completly acrurate script that plays out the same every time. That is part of the fun. If I wanted to argue and disprove every statement posted, quoting, and retorting. I would probobly be a history buff rather then someone just wanting to play a fun war game. I am going to post strictly on game rules and game strategy from now on. Not to argue over history. The past has already been written the future is up to us. To think that the axis never had a chance is to be nieve. Arguing over history on a gaming forum is ridiculous, your in the wrong place unless you want to talk about historical set up. In this case for many reasons detramental to game play has already been somewhat balanced accordingly.

-Jason

[Darksideknight]

Had Germany waited another year or so to build it's armys,navys,airforce etc. The attacks it would have mustered would have been near unstoppable. Had they crushed the UK, and then turned to Russia, the world would of been a different place today. Give Germany two more turns of full production, and see what happens in the game. Obviously the game isn't history, but I highly doubt that The United States Could have beat Japan and Germany alone.

In this game A&A, if Russia falls or Britian falls the allies rarely win. I think history would have been somewhat simular. Now the United States at the time was probobly a very tough nut to crack. But, with Britain, and Europe conquered it's anyones speculation how long we could have held out. If Germany had obtained a nuclear device, and exploited it, what then? Drax, to side step these historical what if's is to side step history alltogether just becase the allies did win.Sure you can quote and try to disclaim my statements, but you sure give the allies, and the U.S. military of the time way too much credit. If the war in Europe, and Britain was won by the Germans, the war would have come to the U.S. at both fronts. If the Russians and British were crushed in the first year of the war we, (the U.S.) would not have been prepared at all. Fighting a war on your home turf takes a major tole especially when civilians are involved. I am generalizing, but I am just arguing that it could have gone both ways. How can you possibly say that with out a doubt the allies would of won every time? There sure are alot of what if's to take into account that you just can't ignore! Ignore the possiblity of the axis winning no matter how slight the odds of the time, and you make your statements irrelavent.

Posted by :Drax:Now, tell me is capturing Los Angeles or Washington so funnier that the hypothetical game of Axis and Allies I described above?
Well I don't know? The British captured Washington in 1812, burnt the white house to the ground and then retreated. I am well aware of the power differences between the two time frames being discussed. Again history can be repeated. Not saying it was likely at the time, but you just can't ignore that fact.

I do agree that the US was a fortress and near inpenitrable but that doesn't gurantee we would have held out after years of war brought to the homeland. Atomic bombs in axis hands make that even less likely. If Germany had geared up till they did develop the atomic bomb and jet fighters.... well I don't want to think about it. Just glad it all turned out the way it did.

Furthermore we are talking about a game it is in many more ways fantasy, not history. Its not a written and completly acrurate script that plays out the same every time. That is part of the fun. If I wanted to argue and disprove every statement posted, quoting, and retorting. I would probobly be a history buff rather then someone just wanting to play a fun war game. I am going to post strictly on game rules and game strategy from now on. Not to argue over history. The past has already been written the future is up to us. To think that the axis never had a chance is to be nieve. Arguing over history on a gaming forum is ridiculous, your in the wrong place unless you want to talk about historical set up. In this case for many reasons detramental to game play has already been somewhat balanced accordingly.

-Jason

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

This has been bugging me: the word is 'fantasy.' You misspell it so consistently that you must believe otherwise.It is bad netiquette to correct someone elses spelling. For your information, English is not my native language. Thanks for the correction.

It is more complicated than Risk, and is based on real-world events, but in order to make a -balanced- and -fun- game that can be played in a few hours, it is necessary to stipulate that if the Allies can fully conquer the Axis, the reverse must also be possible.I disagree. In Second edition there was an 84 IPC Axis victory condition. It did not proscribe for Axis to conquer United Kingdom or United States in order to win. To me, it was fun and playbalancing victory condition as far as A&A mechanisms allowed. New game demands from Axis side to crush Russia and then build an adequate navy in order to invade Allied overseas victory cities. As far as my experience tells me, it will significantly prolong the game and make it LESS fun for Risk type of players. I may be wrong about this, of course.

As a basis for the course we necessarily covered the history (military, economic, social, political) of Germany from the late 1800's to the end of WW2, glossing somewhat over the specific military details of WW1 except to provide background for the breakdown of the German economy and the lead-in to WW2. The coverage of major WW2 military actions was more than adequate.You can't learn about military history of WW2 from the overall course about Germany from Kaiser Wilhelm to Hitler. Everything you wrote so far convinces me that your knowledge of military aspect of WW2 is lacking. If you're genuinly interested about the military aspects of the war there are two books I can reccomend. One is Keegan's "World War 2" and the other is Murray&Millet's "War to be Won".

Which American and British jet fighters were those?Gloster Meteor for British, P-80 Shooting Star for Americans. Both were contemporaries of Me 262. Unlike German model, they weren't rushed into combat because there was no urgent need for them. And German plane wasn't that cool either, with the average lifetime of its engines restricted to 20 hours.

You don't consider starting a three-front war against numerical and resource advantage to be a strategic mistake?Germany started war against Poland and by June 1940 eliminated all but one of its opponents. Up until June 1941 it was Hitler who was consistently right against the judgment of his generals.

Still sounds like you're looking for a different game than Axis and Allies.I like simplicity of A&A and some of its mechanisms. I believe there is much potential in this system and am dissapointed by the failure of the designer team to discover it.

It is reasonable to conclude that, as you have hinted if not stated outright, any game that would allow significant deviance from actual historical events is not welcome in your library of games. Unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us), Axis and Allies gives players freedom to devise their own unique strategies in order to play a fun and challenging game. Axis and Allies has never been a detailed historical game, and that you expect it to become one is rather amusing.I disagree with the notion that the game must be a detailed one in order to provide for reasonable things to take place. The game can be simple, fun, challenging to play without Japanese tanks driving through Vancouver on their way to Los Angelos.

The game according to Drax is apparently one in which it should not be possible for the Axis to achieve the victory conditions for the simple reason that the Axis, in fact, did not achieve victory.And why do you think in order to win the game, Axis players should necessary wipe out the opposition from the map? If you enjoy the game mechanisms (purchasing units to match your plans and the situation, develop new weapons, move, fight) how is conquering Karelia, Caucasus, Russia, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Syria-Iraq, Persia, India, Soviet Far East, Australia, China restrictive and insufficient to make your time spent on A&A satisfactory? It is these territories that make up for 84 IPCs and were all within more or less reasonable capability of Axis to capture them.

Why is it necessary for UK or California to fall to Axis to make Axis player evening well spent?

A 'minor victory', or 8 victory cities, only requires the Axis to take Calcutta and Leningrad to win, which would be fairly devastating to the Allied cause. Perhaps, Drax, you should limit your games to minor victories to keep yourself historically happy.I'd put more victory cities on the map and would not demand unreasonable victory conditions from Axis players. There were plenty of places they barely failed to capture in order to create several degrees of victory conditions and all playable within a single game session.

'Total victory,' requiring the total conquest of all Allied capitals and victory cities, would apparently be, from the standpoint of historical accuracy, like Martians landing and giving the Germans space modulators. But in such a broad game, why should anything be disallowed?Two reasons:

Historical - there was no way for any such thing to happen.

Gamewise - No sane Allied players are going to play last few hours of the game waiting to be captured. I mean, what is Soviet (presumably he is going to surrender first) player to do for the rest of the night while he waits for American player to lose? Why create victory conditions that NOONE is going to play with?

Drax

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

At the end of the war, Germany was working on a prototype jet bomber that could reach New York.They had a bomber that can fly within a sight of New York but without any payload.

They had jet bomber.

They hadn't both.

Hey, why not remove Britain from the map, too? If Germany can't possibly invade it, then its strategic relevance is nil.It is not. It's place where Britain builds its units. It is a place from where Allied aircraft attack German occupied Europe. Obviously, if it is undefended, it may be captured by Germans. But here we are entering into issues like, why does the game allow for Luftwaffe to wipe out Royal Navy from the Atlantic ocean? And the answers are, Royal Navy is underrepresented in the initial setup, fighters should not be allowed to attack naval units and so on. Neither of these would make A&A any more complicated, but would make it more historical.

That is true, but America didn't know the exact capabilities of Japan. All they knew was that a massive naval power had crippled the Pacific fleet.Out of 8 battleships hit at Pearl, only Arizona and Oklahoma were completely lost. Three out of remainding six were back in service by the time of the Battle of Midway. Two battleships were immediatelly redeployed from Atlantic and of course, no carrier was hit. Hit? Yes. Crippled? Not likely.

Had certain battles gone in favor of the Japanese, the war in the Pacific would have been much harder and more expensive for the Americans,Not really. Even if Japanese sunk every single US carrier at Midway and losing none (as realistic result as historical), US would have had more carriers than Japan by the end of 1943. If you take into account how decisive was the Battle at Philippine Sea in June 1944, you'd realise that historical time table was very likely to remain intact although some places like New Guinea or Solomons Islands wouldn't have seen so much action.

Everything in Axis and Allies is 'if.' Limiting those 'ifs' limits the playability of the game.I liked 84 IPC rule. It allowed Axis to win without forcing them to apply for the help from Martians. I've never seen Axis players sad or disatisfied when they won on points.

Perhaps from extended warfare? America didn't have unlimited capabilities.It did not. It had more than Germany (and German controlled Europe) and Japan combined. Granted, had Russia fell (a reasonable historical possibility), some sort of stand-off (much like post WW2 cold war) might have developed. In my book, this is an Axis victory, accurately represented by 84 IPC victory condition.

If Germany had focused its military efforts on more reasonable goals instead of spreading out its supply lines deep into Russia, the defense of Europe would have gone on much longer than it did.What more reasonable goals? Germany waged its war almost as optimal as it possibly could.

America certainly didn't have adequate defenses on its thousands of miles of coastline. There are thousands of places Japan could have landed troops and gained a foothold.US had its navy, the best and the strongest in the world. And there was nothing Axis could have done about it.

Japanese had barely enoug transport to carry 12 divisions in December 1941. Even if they doubled the transport capacity (which would have taken years and prevented any warship from being constructed), these divisions, once dropped on the American continent would have been cut off from supplies, on the tender mercies of the multi-million US army. Even Japanese weren't such idiots to attempt anything that mad.

The US couldn't load up troops at home and then drop them off directly on the beachheads of France. They needed Britain as an intermediate ground.So what make you believe Japanese or Germans were able to do? What was the equivalent of UK in the case of the hypothetical invasion of US? Cuba? Note that by June 1944 Germany had no effective fleet nor air force to contest the invasion. None of these were going to happen in case of the invasion of US even if both, USSR and UK succumbed.

Why shouldn't we be able to explore these scenarios?Because they were as likely as Martian intervention?

Drax

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by Epicedion:
I'm glad to see another person is saying "it can't happen in the game because it didn't happen in real life." It makes my day that much brighter.I'm not saying the game should rule out improbabilies. I am saying that a game based on WWII should reward viable Axis tactics (and there were some), and punish foolishness ones.

The Axis had chances to do more damage or win WWII via several mechanics, but none of those involved Japanese invasions of Alaska, nor German surface fleets heading for Nova Scotia.

Threatening the USA directly would have been a foolish strategy historically and should accomplish little for the Axis. I am not saying that it should be impossible, but it should be improbable.


Hey, why not remove Britain from the map, too? If Germany can't possibly invade it, then its strategic relevance is nil. Germany can invade England, but only after dealing with the already roused Russian bear that it had been poking with sharp sticks since the spring of 1941.

Sarcasm aside, do you people understand that this isn't an evaluation of history, but is instead, rather, a board game?I believe that Axis & Allies can have great gameplay and historical representation at the same time. Games can have an amazing level of accuracy and still have compelling gameplay.


Everything in Axis and Allies is 'if.' Limiting those 'ifs' limits the playability of the game.
Those 'ifs' have associated probabilites. The 'if' of invading the USA should be low. I am fairly confident that the new version will continue to punish German generals who ignore the USSR and UK in favor of attacking the USA.


America certainly didn't have adequate defenses on its thousands of miles of coastline. I live in Rhode Island (right by Hasbro actually), and one can find some great stuff about the combat air patrols, sub nets, and shore defense guns which were scattered all about Narragansett bay and the shoreline. If you haven't walked the ground with some of the great local books that tell where the defenses were, then you might not realize what was built.

The defense was here...there just isn't much of it left.

The US couldn't load up troops at home and then drop them off directly on the beachheads of France. They needed Britain as an intermediate ground. I certainly agree with that.


Why shouldn't we be able to explore these scenarios? You can, but you'll be relying on your 2 Japanese infantry landing against 8 USA infantry, or something like that. It isn't impossible...just unwise.


This entire argument is based around certain parties claiming that X scenario should not be possible because it did not happen...in reality. Historically impossible events should be improabable in A&A.
Historically improbable events should be unlikely in A&A.
Historically unlikely events should be uncommon in A&A.

In this way, in 1941 of the game a few odd things happen. In 1943, several odd things happen. In 1945 many odd things happen, and how the war ends is anyone's guess.

You're effectively arguing that options are a -bad- thing, which is actually quite amusing.You state your position... I'll state mine. I am clearly not saying that options are a bad thing. There is a time to gamble, and a time to play the numbers.

If the US builds only bombers and no navy or army, or focuses purely on one theater or the other, then invasion should look appealing. If the US builds balanced forces, invasion should be statistically unappealing.

In this way, the Axis can't ahistorically invade the US, but the US can ahistorically invite invasion.


No, I took Japanese instead.Ah... Japanese may have been my second choice. Great animation and movies, but poorer beer selection.

It is encouraging that Mike Selinker made reference (week 5 essay) to Thomas Carmichael's The Ninety Days: Five Battles That Changed the World. It sounded to me that Mike is looking at the historical watersheds in WWII.

I think we'll be more likely to see the Axis in Stalingrad than Washington. That's all I ask.

[Darken]

A) Germany made no major strategical errors until it was already losing That is not correct. When German ground troops conquered France in 1940 Hitler ordered them to stop before Dunkirchen. He wanted to demonstrate the power of the Luftwaffe (German airforce).

Only because of this (major) strategic error 130.000 British soldiers could retreat to the British homeland. Without these 130.000 men it seems possible that Britain would have surrendered.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Darken:

That is not correct. When German ground troops conquered France in 1940 Hitler ordered them to stop before Dunkirchen. He wanted to demonstrate the power of the Luftwaffe (German airforce).It was a mistake (with the benefit of hindsight), but not a major strategic one and Hitler was hardly alone to blame. The main proponent of the "halt order" was general von Runstedtd, commander of Army Group A where the majority of panzer divisions were concentrated. He wanted to preserve the tanks for the second phase of the battle for France (there was a larger group of French divisions still in the field) rather than to risk unacceptable losses in the restricted ground around Dunkirk. Anyway, the halt order was valid for two days only, which panzer crews used to get some rest and allow for supply columns to reach them. Hitler only accepted the suggestion from his senior commander in the field.

[/quote]Only because of this (major) strategic error 130.000 British soldiers could retreat to the British homeland. Without these 130.000 men it seems possible that Britain would have surrendered.[/QUOTE]

That 300,000 men were successfully evacuated from Dunkirk pocket was a great surprise for Churchill. His optimistic expectations were around 30,000. He did not contemplate surrender with the accepted loss of 100,000 soldiers, so I doubt he would have been any more prone to surrender if the number was 130,000.

Anyway, the army was only the last ditch defense of the island. There were still undefeated Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that had the ability to massacre any possible invasion attempt by Germans in 1940. The security of Great Britain always laid on the navy (and air force) rather than the army.

So, mistake it was, but at the time it made sense to use the best troops in the German army to finish French (the memories of 1914 Marne were still fresh with German leadership) who were deemed more dangerous opponent on the ground.

Drax

[Epicedion]

You state your position... I'll state mine. I am clearly not saying that options are a bad thing. There is a time to gamble, and a time to play the numbers.
My position is that the denial (by removal of the North American land mass, or by other similarly conjured impossibilities, as have been previously suggested on this forum) of Axis attacks versus mainland North America is an incredibly bad idea. Any claim that I believe that the Axis should have an easy time of conquering North America is misrepresentative of my postings. However, I argue in favor of -not disallowing- any particular strategy.

I think that if the Axis plays its cards right, they could stage an invasion of North America, using Alaska, Hawaii, Britain, and perhaps Greenland as staging grounds. This is not something that you would see in many games, but if the Axis wins certain key battles, I see the possibility arise. America has vast resources, but its goal is to be using them halfway around the world. Not at home. Therefore if the Axis is ever in a position to attack the US, its built-up forces have already been lost, or are far away.


The defense was here...there just isn't much of it left.
I know for a fact that we did not (and could not possibly) defend our entire coastline. We defended the important places, the industrial centers and major ports and cities. It wasn't the Atlantic Wall -- it would have been impossible to sufficiently defend all of both coastlines. Aside, we can't even sufficiently police the border with Mexico.


The 'if' of invading the USA should be low. I am fairly confident that the new version will continue to punish German generals who ignore the USSR and UK in favor of attacking the USA.
I agree. However, some people have been lobbying for making it a total impossibility based on its historically insignificant chance of actually working. I think it should be very -possible- (not probable). The possibility should rely on a combination of good choices and outcomes by the Axis, and poor choices and outcomes by the Allies.

Beyond that, if (for example) Japan continuously attacks America, it is forcing America to keep building defenses. Every IPC America has to spend on its own defense is an IPC that never goes to the aid of Britain or Russia. These are IPCs that will be spent primarily on Infantry -- navy vessels and expensive bombers, which are very important to the fight in Europe, will be delayed in purchase for some unknown number of turns. If Japan can manage to keep the pressure on the US, then Germany has a chance to defeat Russia and turn its attention entirely to Britain. This is a very plausible scenario, and was in fact what Hitler was hoping for when he convinced the Japanese to go to war against the US. However, the Japanese thought the attack at Pearl Harbor would deter the Americans, but instead the learned perhaps the hardest lesson in history about dealing with America: if you strike an American, he will return the favor as often and as forcefully as possible.


Gloster Meteor for British, P-80 Shooting Star for Americans.
Yes, I know what they were. The point was, their development was not an impact on the war. The Me-262 was used, however. It was just to show that the Germans were ahead of the Allies in vital techonologies, like jet power.


They had a bomber that can fly within a sight of New York but without any payload.

They had jet bomber.

They hadn't both.
Hence the use of the words 'working on' and 'prototype.' The point still remains that if the war had gone on much longer, Germany would have had some devastating (and potentially tide-turning) technology to use on the Allies.

--Epicedion

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

I think that if the Axis plays its cards right, they could stage an invasion of North America, using Alaska, Hawaii, Britain, and perhaps Greenland as staging grounds.Barring a newbie American player or extremely bad luck such a strategy is going to lead to a certain Axis defeat. Anyone is wellcome to base his Axis strategy on the conquest of US providing that I am playing Allies.

I am still puzzled why a strategy that can work only against a beginner should be an absolute necessity in any game.

I know for a fact that we did not (and could not possibly) defend our entire coastline. US coasts have been primarily defended by Navy and Air Force. No invasion force was likely to ever come close to the CONUS. Even invasion of Hawaii was beyond Japanese capabilities.

The possibility should rely on a combination of good choices and outcomes by the Axis, and poor choices and outcomes by the Allies.Well, if you enjoy to kick beginners around rather than help them learn the game who am I to spoil your pleasure?

Beyond that, if (for example) Japan continuously attacks America, it is forcing America to keep building defenses. Every IPC America has to spend on its own defense is an IPC that never goes to the aid of Britain or Russia.If Japan sinks its IPCs against US, it doesn't capture them from USSR and UK who combined have enough resources to keep Germany at bay.

This is a very plausible scenario, and was in fact what Hitler was hoping for when he convinced the Japanese to go to war against the US.Japanese went into the war against US on their own. They did not need Hitler to convince them one way or the other.

However, the Japanese thought the attack at Pearl Harbor would deter the Americans, but instead the learned perhaps the hardest lesson in history about dealing with America: if you strike an American, he will return the favor as often and as forcefully as possible.Had they bothered to read about ACW they would have known better. The example of the Confederate government should have been enough.

Yes, I know what they were. The point was, their development was not an impact on the war. The Me-262 was used, however. It was just to show that the Germans were ahead of the Allies in vital techonologies, like jet power.German jets were hardly influential either. With no more than 100 of them serviceable at any one time they were completely incapable of challenging the air supremacy enjoyed by Allies over the skies of Germany. Allies did not send their jets into combat because it wasn't necessary. British Meteors had better engines than German Messerschmidts so you're wrong as far as jet engine development is concerned. Had the war continued into 1945, Allied jets would have outnumbered German ones just as piston engined fighters did in 1944.

Hence the use of the words 'working on' and 'prototype.' The point still remains that if the war had gone on much longer, Germany would have had some devastating (and potentially tide-turning) technology to use on the Allies.What you fail to understand is that Allies had R&D teams too and judging by the planes in use, American scientists were in advance from Germans. While Americans had working B-29, and B-36 in development, Germans had nothing.

Again, I suggest you to read some dedicated book about WW2 because what you're doing here is to repeat the myths about German superiority that were rebuffed decades ago.

Try Overy's "Why the Allies Won" or Ellis' "Brute Force" for some insight in Allied production and research.

Drax

[Epicedion]

Well, if you enjoy to kick beginners around rather than help them learn the game who am I to spoil your pleasure?
Funny. So you in all your time playing never make strategical errors? That's a fairly arrogant position. I never said anything about new players (and thus your misrepresentation of my statements continues). I specifically said 'poor choices,' and not 'new-player mistakes.' Here is an example of a poor choice:

Germany maintains a strong border against Russia, slowly pushing the Red Army aside on its way to Moscow. Germany, having obliterated the British Navy, pushes its tanks and infantry out of Germany and into Eastern Europe to continue the fight. Instead of building more troops in Germany, the player decides to build an invasion fleet in the Med to help finish off Africa. Germany leaves token defenses (4 or 5 infantry) at home.

Britain comes on strong, sending out its 4 stashed bombers -- but instead of an industrial raid, like the Germans expected, it's an attack on the ground forces. Britain loses 3 of its bombers, but wipes Germany clean of defenses. When it comes around to Russia's turn again, Russia sails two infantry out of Karelia and around Norway on its initial transport, which it held in reserve, and captures Germany's 40+ IPCs.

That is an example of a -poor choice- on the part of the German player, and a -good choice- on the part of the Allies (I was playing Britain in this game, and worked out this plan with Russia). The German player was experienced, and just didn't foresee the attack. Germany expected 4d6 worth of IPC loss from strategic bombing -- not a suicide raid (15-cost German units lost vs 45-cost British units lost). But that one mistake cost Axis the entire game.

The moral of this story is: even good players make mistakes. Mistakes are likely made in every game. Exploiting these mistakes to the fullest potential is the way to win.

[solitaire77]

Originally posted by Epicedion:
My position is that the denial... of Axis attacks versus mainland North America is an incredibly bad idea. Agreed.

America has vast resources, but its goal is to be using them halfway around the world. Not at home. Absolutely. Nice to agree on another issue. While Axis invasions of North America should be very rare, putting pressure on the USA to force a more defensive posture is meaningful. It is especially useful to the Axis if the USA builds troops which can not be readily transfered to the comming offensive.

I know for a fact that we did not (and could not possibly) defend our entire coastline.Can't agree on everything. The whole coastline was not defended equally (neither was the Atlantic Wall), but it was defended proportionally to the threat.

...it would have been impossible to sufficiently defend all of both coastlines. I have to agree with Drax on this respect. Our air and naval power was better protection against the Axis than their concrete and wire was against the Allies.

Beyond that, if (for example) Japan continuously attacks America, it is forcing America to keep building defenses. Every IPC America has to spend on its own defense is an IPC that never goes to the aid of Britain or Russia. Exactly. The threat in A&A is the same as it was in history. It isn't that the Japanese were going to be marching through North Dakota, but they could scare the US out of a Europe first strategy. Churchill was VERY frightened of this for good reason.

These are IPCs that will be spent primarily on Infantry -- navy vessels and expensive bombers, which are very important to the fight in Europe, will be delayed in purchase for some unknown number of turns. If Japan can manage to keep the pressure on the US, then Germany has a chance to defeat Russia and turn its attention entirely to Britain. Agreed again. The USA can be threatened, but we will probably never see it fall before atleast one of the Allies is already eliminated, if not both.

[ButchOHare1]

United States can be taken, and under the right circumstances it is the optimal Axis play.

Late in the game it's common for Germany to be balled up into Germany itself, perhaps trading Western Europe, while UK builds up in Southern Europe. A decent Axis player will have held Africa and the rest of Europe for long enough before balling up to have 70 or more tanks and infs along with perhaps 5 fighters. No single ally will be even close to taking Germany down. Meanwhile Japan has pushed infantry toward Moscow and locked down Novo, but is similarly a long way from being able to take Russia SSR. This is a common scenario.

Successful tech rolls for Japan will lead to IT, lra and HBs. Japan should be cashing 45 IPCs per turn, enough for a lr heavy bomber and 15 men. Japan can then land strongly in Alaska and sbr West USA to zero, while moving men dropped in Manchuria the previous round to SFE instead of Yakuts. 16 men from Novo go back to Yakuts. Now Japan can drop 16 men per turn for 3 turns into Alaska while bombing USA to zero production. Because of the distances it is much harder for USSR and UK to help USA. 1 on 1 Japan with IT HBs and lra will take USA in about 4 turns. The round Japan takes West USA strongly it's often a good idea to send a few lr HBs against the ground forces left in East USA. From Alaska *** bombers can kill the UK fleet, and that will end the game. The Japanese fleet comes through the canal and UK is defenseless.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Epicedion:

Funny. So you in all your time playing never make strategical errors?I do. However, the strategy of conquest against US is not going to work against anyone but beginner barring a horrendous luck.ž

That is an example of a -poor choice- on the part of the German player,This was an example of German player who was either tired and otherwise distracted from observing the map. It's not something you base your strategy on.

The German player was experienced,It depends upon your definition of "experience". This can't happen to anyone concentrated enough to look around the map and count the potential threats to his capital. I once saw West US falling to lone Japanese infantry aboard forgotten transport somewhere in the South Pacific. It was obvious that Allied players were to occupied with beer to see that and once they saw what they did they rather surrendered than continued to play with such an embarassment. Since it was already 3 am Axis players gladly accepted their surrender.

It still doesn't mean invading US is a sound strategy for Japan.

Germany expected 4d6 worth of IPC loss from strategic bombing -- not a suicide raid (15-cost German units lost vs 45-cost British units lost).Suicide raid? Four bombers are stronger than five infantry and on average can expect to eliminate all five infantry. There was nothing suicidal in exercising a high win attack under better than average chance of victory. He could always retreat in case of failure.


The moral of this story is: even good players make mistakes. Mistakes are likely made in every game. Exploiting these mistakes to the fullest potential is the way to win.The moral of the story is that you can base your strategy on your opponent making a gross blunder. If your experienced German player applied the theory of the probability he would never left Germany so unprotected.

Drax

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by ButchOHare1:

have 70 or more tanks and infsThis is what I think is wrong with A&A ever since MB version. I don't think Larry ever envisioned his game turning into static mountains of chips staring at each other.

Nova version had it right, limited force pools reflecting the limited manpower available to major powers of the time.

Drax

[Darken]

Nova version had it right, limited force pools reflecting the limited manpower available to major powers of the time. Unfortunatelly I don't know the Nova version but I like the idea to limit the number of produced units (we'll give the following rule a try next time we play).

An optional rule could be, that none major power can produce more units than the IPC-production of its capital-region. So lets say Germany has 10 IPCs (I don't know as still none of us knows the new game board) -> every turn the German player may produce 10 infantry or 5 infantry and 5 tanks or any other combination with not more than 10 pieces per turn.

He may not produce more than 10 units per turn even if he controls Moskow or other opponent capitals.

[ January 20, 2004, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Darken ]