Commentary on British setup

[Drax Kramer]

My first reaction to the British setup was that it has little to do with the historical deployment of British and Commonwealth forces in June 1942. However, I will not comment on this because none of the games from Axis&Allies family had historical setups so it was unreasonable to expect for this game to follow the different design philosophy.

My questions about the setup concentrate on industrial complexes, destroyers and artillery.

Why does Britain have only one complex in the setup? In Axis&Allies:Europe there is a complex in (Eastern) Canada. In Pacific there are complexes in India and Australia. Both games start in 1941. Why does the game that allegedly starts in 1942 remove these complexes? Their presence would allow Britain to build units in the Asian&Pacific theatre which is good since it delays Japanese, but would also force Britain to build there in order to prevent Japanese from capturing them which will reduce British pressure on Germany. On the first sight it would have had a balancing effect and would remove the feeling that WW2 started in 1942. The "problem" with unlimited production of these complexes could have been easily solved with the rule limiting production on all non-capital complexes.

The only two destroyers in British setup are placed outside the Atlantic Ocean, the major antisubmarine theatre in the world. If there is a place under threat of Axis submarines, it is Atlantic Ocean. One would expect British destroyers deployed where their special abilities were most needed, not in the Mediterranean or Indian Ocean. If anyone is interested I can redeploy British ships in far more historical way.

There are 14 infantry units and only 1 artillery unit in the British setup. Why is that? Was artillery added to the game with some clear idea why it is there or was it an afterthought once it was realised these units are present in Europe and Pacific games? In 1942 the most organised fighting force under Union Jack was in Egypt, fighting Italians and Germans. I would expect at least one artillery there instead of been stuck in the United Kingdom territory.

Drax

[Reo]

Axis & Allies would not be well balanced if the UK had more complexes. Drax, there are not any destroyers in Axis and Allies, nor any artillery. The game already favors the Allies, so anymore help would make the game stupid. The balance is perfect for man on man. If you want to complain, try whineing about the stupid AI, who attacks 2 Inf with 1 inf & 2 planes, gets one hit so they kill the plane and retreat. I very rarely kill my planes over an Infantry unit, unless that territory is real important. The computer doesn't try to gain any ground with Germany, not even in Africa. They concentrate in holding Europe and trying to rush Russia from the back with the Japs, but they screw that up too. They buy a complex, but never put an AA gun with it. I wish I could program the AI for this game. I have never lost a game, so if there are any challengers you can reach me at Reo069@aol.com

[ButchOHare1]

I like that it's recognizable as the same Axis and Allies set up. A few changes but not too many.

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Reo:
[QB]Axis & Allies would not be well balanced if the UK had more complexes. Drax, there are not any destroyers in Axis and Allies, nor any artillery. We don't know how the game would have looked like if British had the complexes in India and Australia. Designers had the opportunity to place them and work their way up from there. In current edition, British rarely build a factory in India since Japanese are likely to capture it if they set their mind to take it so what we have is British concentrating their resources against Germany which puts Germany on the defensive from the turn one. I think Allies would gladly exchange one victory city (Calcutta) for knocking Germany and its three victory cities. A factory in India would have forced British to invest in its defense to prevent Japanese from getting free factory on the Asian mainland.

I am aware there are no destroyers and artillery in A&A. But if designers decided to put them in the game than it makes sense for their deployment to reflect their purpose in the game. To put units with special anti-submarine abilities away from the Atlantic makes little sense to me. Same goes with artillery. There are no artillery units on any of the active land fronts (Africa, Asia), but there is one of the inactive front like it's some sort of new, untested weapon waiting to be used.

Mind you, I don't criticise the setup from the historical standpoint since none of the Axis&Allies game had one.

[Reo]

I notice that just about everyone I play, will stack the UK against Germany, from the begining. It depends on the player, I guess. But I get bored doing the same thing over and over again, so I have come up with some great stratagies useing the UK against the Japs. Agreed, It takes some luck & a lot of attention, but makes for a better game for everyone, especialy the German player. Alot of the times when I do somthing off the wall, the Axis player will try to capitalize with the Germans, and so far I am still undefeated, so please send me an e-mail so I can finaly taste defeat. You can have anyside you want and as many freinds as you want, as long as I am the only person playing on my side I am confident that I will find a way to prevail, even if it is LUCK. I have won most of my games on being dareing and lucky. I would rather be the Luckiest man alive than the smartest player.