I've got a tear jerker right here! The young sons of my best friend (11 and 13, smart boys) were always quarreling and competing. So when I had them both over for a weekend, I introduced them to A&A Classic and let them play the Allies. I said: "This game is geared towards the Allies, so I will play the Axis. But I am experienced at this game, so if you don't work together, I will destroy you". After a round and a half where they didn't listen and went for their own glory... I humiliated them. We restarted and this time... they played as one slick machine. We -they- had such great fun. This was ten years ago, but I truly think that A&A and I really helped them bond.
@@JonathanMeyer84 Thanks! It's not all roses though... I vividly remember 'playing' against a friend and when the dice were awful to me and he made a generic "Aaah, them dices"-remark, I fast balled a hand full of dice towards his head in anguish. Then and there we came to the conclusion that A&A isn't a 'game'. 🙃
Has anyone ever played Axis & Allies Original/Classic (assuming the 2nd edition rules clarifications) with the bidding option for Axis? I first learned of it in an online Axis & Allies Club. This balances the game tremendously and tailors to the skill level of the players involved. In addition, Russia doesn't have to be restricted on its first turn because Axis has compensated with extra units. The way it works is each player secretly bids an IPC value that they believe they need to add to the Axis starting position to balance the game. Whoever bids lowest plays Axis and adds whatever was bid to the game setup. For example, in a 2 player game, Player A bids 16 placed as 2 infantry Ukraine, 2 infantry Libya, 1 infantry Manchuria, and +1 IPC to Germany and Player B bids 20 placed as 3 infantry Ukraine, 1 infantry French Indo-China, 1 transport French Indo-China. Player A wins the bid and plays Axis with the troops placed as bid and Germany has 33 IPC to spend on its first turn. Anything can be bid: land, air, naval, AA, Factory, extra IPC's. Additions must be the same country as the occupying or controlled territory forces or an unoccupied sea zone. Extra IPC's added during the bid don't change how you calculate production at the end of each turn. It's a one-time only add before the start of the game.
One of my last games with this version, I used the axis adjustments, and the axis player was battering the U.K. and the U.S. Germany destroyed the royal navy and shot down many of the British bombers when they counterattacked (so that Sea Lion won’t happen), and Japan threatened the Western United States. But the Soviets was getting closer to annihilating the German army. I was a pro at this game, but I still was not having an easy game. But we had to call the game off because we did not have a lot of time left
I prefer to play with the rule that Russia cannot attack on turn 1 because of this strategy - Russia uses fighter from Karelia and trans/sub to attack German Baltic fleet. Fighter from Moscow and all forces from Far East / Yakut SSR hit Manchuria and the fighter lands in China to bolster US defense. and lastly you move all but one infantry from Cacasus into Karelia and dump all remaining units into Karelia, period. Germany needs to knock out the UK navy before the UK can create an unattackable deathstack of battleships / aircraft carriers / transports in my opinion, but now that he has lost the Baltic fleet that leaves him with only his airpower and 1 sub to hit the UK home fleet. I think it becomes a lot riskier to try and take out the UK sub and battleship in the med and the transport off the coast of Canada on turn 1. Regardless of what the Germans do on turn 1, basically the UK buys an industry for India and dumps his fighters into Karelia.. and transports the infantry from Jordan to India. Japan then basically has to decide on his turn what to do - does he try and take India on turn 1 attacking 3 infantry and a fighter with potentially 4 infantry 1 fighter and 1 bomber, attack China on turn 1, 2Inf 2Fighters vs 4Inf 2 fighters and 1 bomber? Does he counter attack Manchuria with a double naval invasion from Phillipines/Japan and navy from Caroline islands? If he uses the navy from the Carolines how does he sink the US navy in Hawaii? Does Japan ignore Asia and attack the US anyway and just use transports to reinforce his position in Kwangtung/Indochina.. maybe take the free territory of Soviet Far East? Does Germany gamble everything on turn 1 to try and destroy the entire Russian army in Karelia at the risk of losing most of his army or airpower?
good play. UK needs 2 factories the first turn. one in India and one in south Africa. UK can fight for Asia AND Africa and that will put a HUGE problem for the AXIS.
Very tough problem, a few optional rules like fighters protecting adjacent sea units will give the German Baltic shipping 3 or 4 fighters, Russia wouldn't dare, of course this means England has Air Power protecting it's shipping also, possibly a more meaningful target, or intimidating since defender can decline air support only AFTER all combat movement is done. I've played a lot with and without a Russian turn 1 attack, it's a little bit more difficult but sometimes Russia simply wished they didn't attack. Japan & Russia are at peace and neither can attack the other until certain conditions arise, like Berlin falls as per history...or if china, India and Australia become axis, Japan can declare war on Russia. This would be more accurate and should work well to slow the Russian Spring offensive..it is after all, the end of their winter offensive and the spring 1942 belongs to the axis in Europe (Midway was technically still spring) Russia's economy picked up pace during winter because the snow made hauling everything much easier as Russian roads were poor. (potholes and spring mud...or smooth frozen wonderlands) . This is mostly opposite all other economies. ..
Not sure if you've read this before but A&A Classic is basically broken in terms of strategy. This guy basically wrote a strategy manifesto for A&A (The points are exclusively for this game but some of the broader points apply to other games in the series as well). donsessays.freeservers.com/ The short of it is that armies should consist primarily of infantry always (because, as you pointed out, the Industrial Complexes you start with in this game have unlimited production). This creates scenarios where the game bogs down to a crawl as the Allies slowly outpace the Axis while the Axis attempts to conquer Africa/Asia in attempt to make up for the economic deficit. Giant deathballs on Karelia/East Europe staring each other down is basically the best way to keep Germany alive long-term. So basically the same broad point you made in the video. I look forward to seeing your points on Japan and UK in particular. I always find their roles to be the most interesting in A&A.
I've not read that analysis in detail, but I have heard of the premise. By the point I did, however, I had already moved on to Revised so I never formally tested it in Axis and Allies Classic. While it seemed a little weird to me when all I'd ever known was 3/2 tanks, in retrospect the move to 3/3 tanks was a good one as was widening the Soviet-German border to include more territories in my opinion.
Revised beats the pants off of Classic in my eyes for the exact reasons you stated. Tanks having 2 Defense makes buying them completely pointless, and having the wider border in Revised made an entire world of German strategies possible (Baltic Carrier builds being my favorite). All that being said we owe a lot to Classic for starting the franchise we all love, don't we?
There is NO strategy for russia. All you do is to buy infantry, and keep the russian capital from falling. A grand master would never buy tanks in this game, and I never lost a war with the allies. BTW I have played tons of games.
@@JonathanMeyer84 them 3,3 tanks were our house rule heavy tank, Germany and Russia started with 1 each, you could build either the $5 3,2,2 or the $6 3,3,2 .
@@JonathanMeyer84 Which version are you using? The Original game allowed for several things that made an Axis victory impossible without extremely bad dice rolls/stupidity on the part of the Allied players, there was indeed a transport off Karelia, in the first revised (Or was it called second addition?) rules, which is why I'm asking for a pic of your copy of the game card/rule book. Or you can help me figure out this nifty site, and that will allow me to upload the pictures I just took.
In the mid '80s, I discovered a gaming club that met at my local library. I helped run it along with the guy who started it. Chris and I both owned Axis & Allies which was the game we played the most -- I eventually owned two copies of it, but I've never heard of the Axis Advantage rule, so we must've had copies of the first edition. Chris was a big Nipponophile, so he always played Japan. I often played Germany and when I won, it was usually because I got lucky on research and got heavy bombers which let me out attrition the Allies and use strategic bombing to bleed the UK and USSR dry. I hated playing the USSR, as the strategy was boring and easy -- buy infantry to bleed Germany dry. Investing in research was a waste of resources for the USSR unless you got extremely lucky and ended up with cheap infantry which spelled the end for Germany. 🤓
Playing a long time friend, he got the allies one game, and made one roll with Russia for turn one, got industrial tech. That turned the game completely upside down, and when he did that, my reply was that, Germany would buy 6 rolls on it's first turn, and if I got nothing, he wins, and we play again. I got two techs, industrial tech, and heavy bombers.
This was the game I grew up with. If you played Axis, Germany was not really in the best place b'cos besides having a good economy and decent forces, had to fight a land war with Russia which would buy 6-8 infantry every turn. Japan had a lot more options so it was really a matter if the axis could grab enough land in the first couple of turns to make up for the economic advantage that the Allies had. And even if you did this, America may be able to tech up to long range aircraft and/or heavy bombers after which you could kiss your income goodbye. So it was a hard game to win playing Axis but it was not impossible with a little bit of luck (and if the Allies players did not cooperate well).
One Strategy I used to employ as the Germans in the Axis(if Axis advantage was in play) was to focus on eliminating Russia as quickly as possible, even at the risk of giving up or not focusing on N.Africa(grab some quick and easy IPC's in Africa without risking combat if possible to balance out the potential loss of Norway if feasible, as Norway will practically empty for the attack on Karelia. One sneaky move that some people forget is using the transport in the med. to move 2 infantry from southern Europe into the Caucasus along with forces from Ukraine. And at the SAME time all out attack Karelia with forces, mostly armor from eastern Europe, Germany, and Norway. Germany purchases mostly armor for its possible 2 space blitzing movement. The Baltic transport can help get another 2 infantry into the fight in Karelia. Karelia's factory is key for Germany to put the final pressure on Moscow. Germany thus has to be able to take and hold it if at all possible. The Japan player distracts the U.S. with a couple naval combats, but focuses on one of two paths to central Asia, either through China and drive to Moscow from there, or more impactfull, take Siberia and Nt'l Eventi Okrug to take IPC's away from the already worn down Russia. Germany in the west needs to use a couple sub and air attacks on British transports to buy time before U.K. relieves Karelia or takes Norway. This strategy is a bit of a gamble, and the dice gods can really mess with you at times, but with the potential for Russia to loose 4 territories worth of IPC's on turn1 makes it very, very hard for the Russians to last. Once Moscow falls, Either Germany or Japan gets a big boost on the IPC chart as well as any banked money that Russia might have had left. I've even lost Western Europe briefly to an early allied D-Day and still won after defeating Moscow and effectively knocking Russia out of the war. Turn 3, turn 4 Russian defeat is the goal here. A good western allies player otherwise can match Germany and Japan even without Russia after turn 4, turn 5, and the game becomes bit of a back and forth, with even odds of winning on both sides.
yawn. The game has been played out, so I don't play this game anymore, however I would always play this game when I'm russai with four other players the are not experience in A&A. Then the game would be fun again because i may lose. If I control all three allie counties, I would always win no matter what.
My first time playing Russia, I would always start off with a pure infantry buying strategy, and only build additional tanks when I needed them for an offensive later on. That means that Germany is faced with a do or die, round one invasion of Russian Karelia, stacked with 16 infantry and 2 fighters, and without any ships in the atlantic or baltic, and Finland/Norway occupied by the Russian armor divisions, this is a very close fight, and Germany (Baring intervention of the gods of dice) has to ignore UK fleet, else risk loosing the ground invasion and the game. What do the Russian players in your game do on turn one?
@@math080guy I've often seen all infantry builds for both Russia and Germany, he who has the biggest pile has the strongest defense, advancing to Moscow has been done without direct assault on Karelia, it's a long march past Ukraine, to the Caucasus and if they don't destroy the German caucus pile, they very likely are forced to retreat from Karelia, Germany getting it without a fight, possibly a disorganized allied retreat leaving expensive allied units to be destroyed. The big infantry stack is a long term gaming plan, especially for Germany, they need the defences more than anything
There used to be a website called 'Don's Axis and Allies...something' that had detailed essays on how to win the game. Basically it boiled down to Germany couldn't win without fantastic dice, using the principle of 'Infantry Push Mechanic' that had a ratio of infantry to tanks that guaranteed success for the Allies.
@@crumbum2 there's a lot of expansion variants for the classic A&A. So much so that every game should be different. Years back my buddies & I employed a Free Technology rule (3 free for each team). With soo many different units from expansion variants, we treated them as technology developments, each player has their own tech chart filled out by the player. Rolling 2 dice and consult your chart. 11 technologies to start, if you want jets first, you put jets on your 7 spot because a lot of 7's do get rolled. No upgrades except for long range (drop tanks) and that waited a full turn because of the rudeness it can imply. I think we could have added the A&A first edition "Commander in Chief". Having about 20 free technologies will prevent a boring game. Also, you can still buy technology tokens but these must follow token rules, a 6 must first be rolled. Some technologies will have to be toned down, others will need precursor tech. A super duper submarine technology can't be developed until a regular super submarine technology is developed...we didn't call em that but we did have a few levels on submarine development..as with heavy bombers and atomic bombers. Heavy bombers roll 2 dice. Atomic bombers roll 3 dice and the $$ is paid directly to the attacking player...meant as a potential game ending weapon. Interceptor rules eventually become critical, radar and jets are key for defense.
Hope everyone had a happy Easter! Been spending time on many things Axis and Allies, and had some questions, and an Idea. Wondering if anyone is interested in doing some axis and allies videos with me, over Skype? Or at least letting me try to do that, as I really don't know what all I'm doing with making/posting A&A videos. I'm wanting to do several things, like: Make the case for Russia to be allowed her 1942 counter-offensive, or, if that isn't palatable to folks, then at the least get folks thinking about a "Limited Counter-Offensive", where the USSR can attack, but say only in two places of their choice. This could be interesting, as it might make playing Germany harder in someways, but would prevent the whole "clean sweep" of Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Manchuria, and the Baltic fleet all being taken out, before the German player gets their first turn. What do you folks think?
I'd suggest that the game box itself declares the starting date as SPRING 1942, the Russian winter offensive is actually over before SPRING 1942. Historically Germany has a strong spring offensive, but after the Russian turn 1 attack..?? What about a Russian limited " retreat" rule, or as you mentioned, other restrictions like the Russians can only attack for one round of combat, and or Germany gets a retreat option after one round of battle, maybe your idea has a middle path...or a couple different possibilities. The Manchuria attack is during peacetime between Japan and Russia, I'd think Russia can't attack Japan at all until Japan first attacks Russia
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov Yea, something other than just letting the Germans get a free pass to launch their own offensive, knowing Russia cannot affect what units they will have available to use, every time, seems like a bit of overkill, not to mention boring. But still, a limited attack by Russia seems best, as opposed to just no attack at all. What are some of your thoughts on an alternative attack for Russia?
@@math080guy what about the bid, I've never used one but before choosing player teams, a bid for how many battles Russia can do turn one would add some restrictions, then the dollar amount bid could also be employed. I like using aircraft to protect costal (adjacent) sea units, like air base rules. This would ensure the German Baltic boats have much more protection, but so would the English battleship with 2 fighters in London protecting the adjacent naval units. No Manchurian attack is the most accurate as Russia and Japan didn't fight until after Germany was defeated. A slight set up change would also limit Russian abilities, 4 infantry from the Caucasus to Moscow preventing 2 land battles against Germany.
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov bids are things I never messed with, to be honest. Interesting ideas with respect to the Manchurian front. I think that aircraft being able to defend ships while staying on the ground would kill Germany's chances to stop D-Day landings entirely. OTOH, it might allow Germany to build and maintain a navy of her own, so...
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov I like the IDEA of bids, but all players really need to know the game VERY well for it to work... and doing all the math to figure out what the bid should be is an arduous process, no? Otherwise it becomes a great deal of trial and error, and many, many games. Not many people these days are going to play an old game that many times to try and balance it, no?
All this talk of "well, if you change this rule, and change this rule, and add this rule"... back in my day, I was a teen in the 1980s... we just played A&A as it was written in the rules... NO CHANGES... you know what? We always had a lot of fun and sometimes the Axis won and sometimes the Allies won... it was a lot of fun as it was written the rules... not everything has to be modified to be perfectly balanced... so many times we'd just swap who played what side, but it was always fun as-is! Just play the game, everything doesn't need to be a math problem! I see too many sites putting graphics up of "odds probability" and well that's 51% so worth it, and that's 39% so I wouldn't risk it"... sometimes adults put too much adult problem solving and it no longer becomes a game, it becomes a math spreadsheet... just have fun with it, it's a game, not an accounting book!
Yeah but all of the rules he talked about are in the official rulebook lol. I see your overall point though, sometimes it is just fun to not think too much and play the game like a maniac.
@Kasper K. I don't recall them being in the official rulebook... maybe in a reprint, or maybe I just forgot (I am old). I should double check when I get home 🏡 😅
Attack Manchuria with all units from Yakut and Far East plus the fighter from Moscow. Attack Norway with two tanks from Moscow plus one from Karelia and the three men units from Karelia. Attack the German Baltic fleet with the fighter from Karelia. Attack the German sub in front of the French coast with the Karelian sub, move the Karelian transport to the UK fleet.
That's a little bit more aggressive than I play as the USSR, because I most often am so weak in the east, that the Japanese just suffer a single turns setback, but blow me off the coast by the end of turn one, and I cannot replace those losses until/unless Germany is contained. I throw my transport at the Baltic or the Atlantic, as a bullet stopper for my sub/fighter, and I fall back in the east, in order to support the well known "Asia First" variant.
i agree. push hard on japan the first turn to give UK and US time to build up. i do disagree with taking Norway because i leave that to UK or US so they can set up a factory there.
I remember endless fighting over Karelia and its factory as it was THE decisive territory in this edition. I think we never played with Axis Advantage, because Russias first turn was really a trade-off for them. If they pushed too hard on Ukraine, they could easily lose Karelia. Remember bridging? Germany could move two infantry via its transport in the Baltic Sea straight to Karelia. And the Bosporus was open for the German transport in the Med that could take another two Infantry to counter an attack on Ukraine or attack Caucasus.
We found that playing without Axis Advantage made games extremely one-sided. I remember one in particular. Russia seized Ukraine on Turn 1. Germany attempted to attack Karelia Turn 2 but was repulsed. Russia seized E Europe Turn 2. Germany pulled back into Berlin to try and maintain control of it on their Turn 2. Russia took Berlin Turn 3, England took W Europe Turn 3, the US took S Europe Turn 3.
What the hell did Germany (I mean the player of Germany) do with his Luftwaffe and tanks? Normally you would wipe out the Royal Navy on Turn 1 and then strike full force against Russia. Russia had a lot of infantry but not even half the tanks or aircraft in comparison to Germany. The dice must have really been horrible for him in order to lose within 3 rounds. That never happened to one of us.
It wasn't the first game my group ever played, but to be fair it was within the first five (I don't remember how many we had played before it, but it was a very small number). This was well over a decade ago, but I believe he did attack the British fleet. Without those fighter and with the loss of his force in Ukraine, he suffered terrible casualties in his attack on Karelia before deciding to withdraw.
First, thanks for making a video like this, and glad to see folks are still playing/talking about this great game. That being said, I voted thumbs down, not to be mean or hurt your feelings, nor as disrespect to the time and effort that you put in on the gaming publics behalf, but rather in the hope of getting you to do an even better video to replace this one. I'm a big fan of the Original A&A game, from back in the day when I ran into a group of my comrades in arms playing it in the Barracks way back in 1987. I personally feel that removing the Russian players first turn attack option isn't needed (nor fair), because there is something far more unbalancing than the awesomeness of the Russian 1942 counter-offensive, and that is the sxtreme exploit of being able to use an allied carrier or transport!!! Take that junk out of the game, ASAP, and then you have a viable Germany, else Germany is doomed by the end of turn one!
@@JonathanMeyer84 First things first, I guess: I cannot seem to upload a still image to youtube?!?! I suppose that if I need to, I can make a very short telephone video, showing the rules and russia setup card I have. Anyway, If Germany is to have any chance of winning, the UK, USA, and USSR must not be allowed to put their ground units on each others transport ships, nor can they be allowed to place fighters on each others carriers. This is NOT in any of the official/optional rules that I have ever heard of, but does more for game balance than the "Optional Rules" in the back of the Second Edition manual. If you want to try this out, get a group together and play a couple games, both of which use the two rules I outlined above, and then try the axis advantage/USSR no 1st turn attack, and the other without those, and see which ones work best for your group. Alternatively/Additionally, we could arrange to play a game over a skype call, in you were willing. I cannot explain better than by this example: Turn 1, USSR and Germany have done their stuff, and the the UK is up. UK buys 1 aircraft carrier and 1 transport, and ends turn by placing both in UK sea zone. Japan does whatever. USA buys whatever, and flies her two fighters from both East/West USA, and land them on the UK carrier. Given that unless the Germans build ships on turn one, they probably don't have any ships left that can be used in the battle for the UK sea zone, meaning everything is air attack and air losses. To attack the UK on turn two, Germany is facing at least a UK carrier and a UK transport, 2 US fighters, and a US transport, and this is assuming all other allied ships were sunk by the Germans first attack. Assuming that Germany didn't lose more than one fighter/rebuilt all but one lost fighters on turn one, then Germany has 4 fighters + 1 bomber to attack the above force. Math: 4@3 = 2 hit, and 1@4 ~ a hit, so mostly Germany can hope for three hits, allied counterfire >>> 2@4 + 1@3 +2@1 = at least two hits. Both sides take losses, the allied transports plus one fighter and half the Luftwaffe fighters bite the dust. If the Germans try for round two, its now 2@3 + 1@4, with likely 2 hits, and the allies loose everything else, but still get counterfire; 1@3+1@4, so, nothing cut and dried, but lets say they get one hit. This leaves Germany with just one fighter and one bomber. If the USA builds two aircraft carriers on turn one, then on turn two, they move move to the UK sea zone. If the UK, after the German Luftwaffe is savagely mauled, moves 2 fighters to the USA carriers, then when the USA moves their carriers forward, they already have UK fighters aboard. Rinse and Repeat, Germany ends up building planes and (at best) exchanging them with the UK/US, and so losses, as every fighter and bomber cost the Heer 4-5 infantry units.
Personally, I hate that rule, but then I had my start teaching folks exactly what russia can do in the hands of an aggressive, yet cautious player. Too me, stopping the UK/USA/USSR from stacking fighters on each others carriers is far more important and fair, YMMV.
@@math080guy Ouch, I never tried that one. It is often best to have your own fighters on your own carrier but sometimes you simply need the defensive help, loaning your Allie a floating runway to protect a supply line should be concerned historically accurate but somewhat rare. A middle path rule (1 allied fighter only), since 1 game unit can represent dozens or thousands of actual units, you couldn't loan just 1 carrier.
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov I haven't been keeping up on A&A since the pandemic hit, but glad to talk about it again. For allied forces getting to stack on the ground, I have no ideas on how to make things better or more balanced, but one idea I had but never put into a video was no stacking of allied naval units. What I mean is, no co-defense, at all, so if Germany attacks the sea zone around the UK, the Germans get to pick which allied player they want to attack, so along with no troops/fighters getting to use an allied transport/carrier, no cooperation at sea. One thing that always hurt our games was the UK builds a carrier on turn one, and then the US lands 2 fighters on it on their turn, preventing the Germans a chance to sink it before the British can land their own fighters on it on their second turn. Using these two rules together, if the UK built a carrier and a transport on turn one, the USA couldn't land fighters on the UK carrier at all, so the Germans could attack the new UK fleet without the hitting power of the USA's two fighters, and if the USA stacked a transport of their own in the UK sea zone, the Germans could either attack the UK ships of the US ship, without having to fight the other(s). For game where the troop shuttling from the US/UK is a big part of the strategy, this makes the gave far better balanced for the Germans/Axis. Land co-defense would be unchanged.
@@math080guy perhaps a rule variant is useful as a technology development, I like lots of free technology, every turn the Axis players get 3 to share and Allie's get 3 (1 each) rolling is only to determine what the free technology is ( house rules only) allied fighters landing on friendly carriers as a minor technology development would fix this early allied ability. Axis can benefit from allied planes can land on allied carriers, but not often, Germany builds a carrier and if it survived the English turn, Japanese fighters can land on it. The next technology development should be the 1st edition "Commander in Chief" rule, not so dangerous if only the axis have it, but the allies can be very decisive using it against the Germans.
Our standard opening move for Russia was taking Eastern Europe with infantry and fighters, then infantry and tanks take Ukraine. If Germany attacks Karelia with Finland then US takes Finland and drops a factory on it. Usually would take Manchuria to prevent Japan from putting a complex there on turn 1 so their complex is further away from Moscow.
That's a devastating opening for Russia in Europe and an excellent illustration why Russia should be weakened with the Axis Advantage rule. I did double check the board as I almost couldn't believe my friends and I missed that Eastern Europe/Ukraine opening (granted, we mostly played Axis Advantage) after our first few games. It looks like the odds of taking Eastern Europe with the fighters and just the infantry from Karelia is pretty low. That move on Manchuria is intriguing. An all out assault should secure the territory and prevent Japan from placing a factory there. On the other hand, they could place their factory in French Indochina instead. Did that ever occur in your games?
The move to take eastern Europe didn't work every time but if you didn't do it you were back on your heals all game. French IndoChina is one space further away from Moscow which makes a big difference in this game with much fewer territories. It would be better than Kwangtung but they also have China and India to deal with on turn one as well for putting a complex there. Kwangtung was the safest place to put it after taking out China. Taking out Manchuria on turn one makes taking out China more difficult for Japan on turn one because they have to settle for just China and have almost no chance of getting Sinkiang on the first turn because of lack of units on the Asian continent. If that happens then America moves 1 infantry a step back to Novosibirsk and drops a complex on it. Japan and Germany will be in tough if all of that happens. You could almost always tell who was going to win after round one. If America doesn't get a complex on round one then it could go either way. We had never heard of the rules that you're talking about but we had the game since it was released and they probably didn't think about it until later.
Nathan Gayner I had the first edition of the game right when it came out. Some of the rules were different but it took some discussion between me and Jonathan to figure that out.
first move should be build six infantry and one tank, then hit Manchuria with five infantry, one tank and one fighter from Moscow . land fighter in where you move up two infantry and two tanks from Moscow, plus move the last fighter up to where you have your other fighter. this means you have a counter attack on Manchuria while defending kareilia. non-combat move, place all infantry available in karelia plus reinforcements. caucuses minus one and Moscow infantry go to karelia. this slows down japan while keeping Moscow safe.
My buddy would often hit my Manchuria turn 1, when successful, his UK first turn attack was amphibious assault into Kwangtung, winning 2 out of 3 times and making china much more secure....very annoying and yet... challenging
ohh that games is just bad in its core even several editions did not change its formula... have you seen level 7 invasion? it takes major concepts of AnA but makes them so easy to use and fresh! but thanks for the video.
ohh that games is just bad in its core even several editions did not change its formula... have you seen level 7 invasion? it takes major concepts of AnA but makes them so easy to use and fresh! but thanks for the video.
Great beer & pretzels game, without house rules it's not so much fun, but free technology for everyone, every turn, that will remove much predictability. We'd start with about 20 technologies and never really needed more, but you could still buy tech tokens, following those rules...3 free allied technology per turn and 3 free axis per turn, each player rolling 2 dice and consult their own customized technology chart. Each player filling out their own 2 - 12 chart with 11 technologies, putting the one they want first on their 7 spot, 7 is more often rolled.
My Dad played many games with me. I miss him.
I've got a tear jerker right here! The young sons of my best friend (11 and 13, smart boys) were always quarreling and competing. So when I had them both over for a weekend, I introduced them to A&A Classic and let them play the Allies. I said: "This game is geared towards the Allies, so I will play the Axis. But I am experienced at this game, so if you don't work together, I will destroy you". After a round and a half where they didn't listen and went for their own glory... I humiliated them. We restarted and this time... they played as one slick machine. We -they- had such great fun. This was ten years ago, but I truly think that A&A and I really helped them bond.
That's awesome!
@@JonathanMeyer84 Thanks! It's not all roses though... I vividly remember 'playing' against a friend and when the dice were awful to me and he made a generic "Aaah, them dices"-remark, I fast balled a hand full of dice towards his head in anguish. Then and there we came to the conclusion that A&A isn't a 'game'. 🙃
Brings back memories
It sure does!
Has anyone ever played Axis & Allies Original/Classic (assuming the 2nd edition rules clarifications) with the bidding option for Axis? I first learned of it in an online Axis & Allies Club. This balances the game tremendously and tailors to the skill level of the players involved. In addition, Russia doesn't have to be restricted on its first turn because Axis has compensated with extra units. The way it works is each player secretly bids an IPC value that they believe they need to add to the Axis starting position to balance the game. Whoever bids lowest plays Axis and adds whatever was bid to the game setup. For example, in a 2 player game, Player A bids 16 placed as 2 infantry Ukraine, 2 infantry Libya, 1 infantry Manchuria, and +1 IPC to Germany and Player B bids 20 placed as 3 infantry Ukraine, 1 infantry French Indo-China, 1 transport French Indo-China. Player A wins the bid and plays Axis with the troops placed as bid and Germany has 33 IPC to spend on its first turn. Anything can be bid: land, air, naval, AA, Factory, extra IPC's. Additions must be the same country as the occupying or controlled territory forces or an unoccupied sea zone. Extra IPC's added during the bid don't change how you calculate production at the end of each turn. It's a one-time only add before the start of the game.
One of my last games with this version, I used the axis adjustments, and the axis player was battering the U.K. and the U.S. Germany destroyed the royal navy and shot down many of the British bombers when they counterattacked (so that Sea Lion won’t happen), and Japan threatened the Western United States. But the Soviets was getting closer to annihilating the German army. I was a pro at this game, but I still was not having an easy game.
But we had to call the game off because we did not have a lot of time left
I prefer to play with the rule that Russia cannot attack on turn 1 because of this strategy - Russia uses fighter from Karelia and trans/sub to attack German Baltic fleet. Fighter from Moscow and all forces from Far East / Yakut SSR hit Manchuria and the fighter lands in China to bolster US defense. and lastly you move all but one infantry from Cacasus into Karelia and dump all remaining units into Karelia, period. Germany needs to knock out the UK navy before the UK can create an unattackable deathstack of battleships / aircraft carriers / transports in my opinion, but now that he has lost the Baltic fleet that leaves him with only his airpower and 1 sub to hit the UK home fleet. I think it becomes a lot riskier to try and take out the UK sub and battleship in the med and the transport off the coast of Canada on turn 1. Regardless of what the Germans do on turn 1, basically the UK buys an industry for India and dumps his fighters into Karelia.. and transports the infantry from Jordan to India. Japan then basically has to decide on his turn what to do - does he try and take India on turn 1 attacking 3 infantry and a fighter with potentially 4 infantry 1 fighter and 1 bomber, attack China on turn 1, 2Inf 2Fighters vs 4Inf 2 fighters and 1 bomber? Does he counter attack Manchuria with a double naval invasion from Phillipines/Japan and navy from Caroline islands? If he uses the navy from the Carolines how does he sink the US navy in Hawaii? Does Japan ignore Asia and attack the US anyway and just use transports to reinforce his position in Kwangtung/Indochina.. maybe take the free territory of Soviet Far East? Does Germany gamble everything on turn 1 to try and destroy the entire Russian army in Karelia at the risk of losing most of his army or airpower?
good play. UK needs 2 factories the first turn. one in India and one in south Africa. UK can fight for Asia AND Africa and that will put a HUGE problem for the AXIS.
Very tough problem, a few optional rules like fighters protecting adjacent sea units will give the German Baltic shipping 3 or 4 fighters, Russia wouldn't dare, of course this means England has Air Power protecting it's shipping also, possibly a more meaningful target, or intimidating since defender can decline air support only AFTER all combat movement is done. I've played a lot with and without a Russian turn 1 attack, it's a little bit more difficult but sometimes Russia simply wished they didn't attack.
Japan & Russia are at peace and neither can attack the other until certain conditions arise, like Berlin falls as per history...or if china, India and Australia become axis, Japan can declare war on Russia. This would be more accurate and should work well to slow the Russian Spring offensive..it is after all, the end of their winter offensive and the spring 1942 belongs to the axis in Europe (Midway was technically still spring)
Russia's economy picked up pace during winter because the snow made hauling everything much easier as Russian roads were poor. (potholes and spring mud...or smooth frozen wonderlands) . This is mostly opposite all other economies.
..
Not sure if you've read this before but A&A Classic is basically broken in terms of strategy.
This guy basically wrote a strategy manifesto for A&A (The points are exclusively for this game but some of the broader points apply to other games in the series as well).
donsessays.freeservers.com/
The short of it is that armies should consist primarily of infantry always (because, as you pointed out, the Industrial Complexes you start with in this game have unlimited production). This creates scenarios where the game bogs down to a crawl as the Allies slowly outpace the Axis while the Axis attempts to conquer Africa/Asia in attempt to make up for the economic deficit.
Giant deathballs on Karelia/East Europe staring each other down is basically the best way to keep Germany alive long-term. So basically the same broad point you made in the video.
I look forward to seeing your points on Japan and UK in particular. I always find their roles to be the most interesting in A&A.
I've not read that analysis in detail, but I have heard of the premise. By the point I did, however, I had already moved on to Revised so I never formally tested it in Axis and Allies Classic. While it seemed a little weird to me when all I'd ever known was 3/2 tanks, in retrospect the move to 3/3 tanks was a good one as was widening the Soviet-German border to include more territories in my opinion.
Revised beats the pants off of Classic in my eyes for the exact reasons you stated. Tanks having 2 Defense makes buying them completely pointless, and having the wider border in Revised made an entire world of German strategies possible (Baltic Carrier builds being my favorite).
All that being said we owe a lot to Classic for starting the franchise we all love, don't we?
We sure do.
There is NO strategy for russia. All you do is to buy infantry, and keep the russian capital from falling. A grand master would never buy tanks in this game, and I never lost a war with the allies. BTW I have played tons of games.
@@JonathanMeyer84 them 3,3 tanks were our house rule heavy tank, Germany and Russia started with 1 each, you could build either the $5 3,2,2 or the $6 3,3,2 .
You are missing a Russian transport off Karelia.
Hi Nathan, you are correct. Sorry about that oversight. There is a transport off the coast of Karelia in Classic, but not in Revised.
I noticed that too.
First thing I noticed, too. Title says Classic, so either change title, or maybe, change video?
@@JonathanMeyer84 Which version are you using? The Original game allowed for several things that made an Axis victory impossible without extremely bad dice rolls/stupidity on the part of the Allied players, there was indeed a transport off Karelia, in the first revised (Or was it called second addition?) rules, which is why I'm asking for a pic of your copy of the game card/rule book. Or you can help me figure out this nifty site, and that will allow me to upload the pictures I just took.
@@math080guy Classic 2nd Edition. It fixed some glaring issues with the original. Came out in 1986 I think.
In the mid '80s, I discovered a gaming club that met at my local library. I helped run it along with the guy who started it. Chris and I both owned Axis & Allies which was the game we played the most -- I eventually owned two copies of it, but I've never heard of the Axis Advantage rule, so we must've had copies of the first edition. Chris was a big Nipponophile, so he always played Japan. I often played Germany and when I won, it was usually because I got lucky on research and got heavy bombers which let me out attrition the Allies and use strategic bombing to bleed the UK and USSR dry.
I hated playing the USSR, as the strategy was boring and easy -- buy infantry to bleed Germany dry. Investing in research was a waste of resources for the USSR unless you got extremely lucky and ended up with cheap infantry which spelled the end for Germany. 🤓
Playing a long time friend, he got the allies one game, and made one roll with Russia for turn one, got industrial tech.
That turned the game completely upside down, and when he did that, my reply was that, Germany would buy 6 rolls on it's first turn, and if I got nothing, he wins, and we play again.
I got two techs, industrial tech, and heavy bombers.
This was the game I grew up with. If you played Axis, Germany was not really in the best place b'cos besides having a good economy and decent forces, had to fight a land war with Russia which would buy 6-8 infantry every turn. Japan had a lot more options so it was really a matter if the axis could grab enough land in the first couple of turns to make up for the economic advantage that the Allies had. And even if you did this, America may be able to tech up to long range aircraft and/or heavy bombers after which you could kiss your income goodbye. So it was a hard game to win playing Axis but it was not impossible with a little bit of luck (and if the Allies players did not cooperate well).
One Strategy I used to employ as the Germans in the Axis(if Axis advantage was in play) was to focus on eliminating Russia as quickly as possible, even at the risk of giving up or not focusing on N.Africa(grab some quick and easy IPC's in Africa without risking combat if possible to balance out the potential loss of Norway if feasible, as Norway will practically empty for the attack on Karelia. One sneaky move that some people forget is using the transport in the med. to move 2 infantry from southern Europe into the Caucasus along with forces from Ukraine. And at the SAME time all out attack Karelia with forces, mostly armor from eastern Europe, Germany, and Norway. Germany purchases mostly armor for its possible 2 space blitzing movement. The Baltic transport can help get another 2 infantry into the fight in Karelia. Karelia's factory is key for Germany to put the final pressure on Moscow. Germany thus has to be able to take and hold it if at all possible.
The Japan player distracts the U.S. with a couple naval combats, but focuses on one of two paths to central Asia, either through China and drive to Moscow from there, or more impactfull, take Siberia and Nt'l Eventi Okrug to take IPC's away from the already worn down Russia.
Germany in the west needs to use a couple sub and air attacks on British transports to buy time before U.K. relieves Karelia or takes Norway.
This strategy is a bit of a gamble, and the dice gods can really mess with you at times, but with the potential for Russia to loose 4 territories worth of IPC's on turn1 makes it very, very hard for the Russians to last. Once Moscow falls, Either Germany or Japan gets a big boost on the IPC chart as well as any banked money that Russia might have had left.
I've even lost Western Europe briefly to an early allied D-Day and still won after defeating Moscow and effectively knocking Russia out of the war.
Turn 3, turn 4 Russian defeat is the goal here. A good western allies player otherwise can match Germany and Japan even without Russia after turn 4, turn 5, and the game becomes bit of a back and forth, with even odds of winning on both sides.
yawn. The game has been played out, so I don't play this game anymore, however I would always play this game when I'm russai with four other players the are not experience in A&A. Then the game would be fun again because i may lose. If I control all three allie counties, I would always win no matter what.
My first time playing Russia, I would always start off with a pure infantry buying strategy, and only build additional tanks when I needed them for an offensive later on. That means that Germany is faced with a do or die, round one invasion of Russian Karelia, stacked with 16 infantry and 2 fighters, and without any ships in the atlantic or baltic, and Finland/Norway occupied by the Russian armor divisions, this is a very close fight, and Germany (Baring intervention of the gods of dice) has to ignore UK fleet, else risk loosing the ground invasion and the game. What do the Russian players in your game do on turn one?
@@math080guy I've often seen all infantry builds for both Russia and Germany, he who has the biggest pile has the strongest defense, advancing to Moscow has been done without direct assault on Karelia, it's a long march past Ukraine, to the Caucasus and if they don't destroy the German caucus pile, they very likely are forced to retreat from Karelia, Germany getting it without a fight, possibly a disorganized allied retreat leaving expensive allied units to be destroyed. The big infantry stack is a long term gaming plan, especially for Germany, they need the defences more than anything
There used to be a website called 'Don's Axis and Allies...something' that had detailed essays on how to win the game. Basically it boiled down to Germany couldn't win without fantastic dice, using the principle of 'Infantry Push Mechanic' that had a ratio of infantry to tanks that guaranteed success for the Allies.
Search google for 'Dons Axis and Allies Strategic Essays', enjoy and then shelve the game version because it is broken.
@@crumbum2 there's a lot of expansion variants for the classic A&A. So much so that every game should be different. Years back my buddies & I employed a Free Technology rule (3 free for each team). With soo many different units from expansion variants, we treated them as technology developments, each player has their own tech chart filled out by the player. Rolling 2 dice and consult your chart. 11 technologies to start, if you want jets first, you put jets on your 7 spot because a lot of 7's do get rolled. No upgrades except for long range (drop tanks) and that waited a full turn because of the rudeness it can imply. I think we could have added the A&A first edition "Commander in Chief". Having about 20 free technologies will prevent a boring game. Also, you can still buy technology tokens but these must follow token rules, a 6 must first be rolled. Some technologies will have to be toned down, others will need precursor tech. A super duper submarine technology can't be developed until a regular super submarine technology is developed...we didn't call em that but we did have a few levels on submarine development..as with heavy bombers and atomic bombers. Heavy bombers roll 2 dice. Atomic bombers roll 3 dice and the $$ is paid directly to the attacking player...meant as a potential game ending weapon. Interceptor rules eventually become critical, radar and jets are key for defense.
Hope everyone had a happy Easter!
Been spending time on many things Axis and Allies, and had some questions, and an Idea. Wondering if anyone is interested in doing some axis and allies videos with me, over Skype? Or at least letting me try to do that, as I really don't know what all I'm doing with making/posting A&A videos. I'm wanting to do several things, like:
Make the case for Russia to be allowed her 1942 counter-offensive, or, if that isn't palatable to folks, then at the least get folks thinking about a "Limited Counter-Offensive", where the USSR can attack, but say only in two places of their choice. This could be interesting, as it might make playing Germany harder in someways, but would prevent the whole "clean sweep" of Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Manchuria, and the Baltic fleet all being taken out, before the German player gets their first turn. What do you folks think?
I'd suggest that the game box itself declares the starting date as SPRING 1942, the Russian winter offensive is actually over before SPRING 1942. Historically Germany has a strong spring offensive, but after the Russian turn 1 attack..??
What about a Russian limited " retreat" rule, or as you mentioned, other restrictions like the Russians can only attack for one round of combat, and or Germany gets a retreat option after one round of battle, maybe your idea has a middle path...or a couple different possibilities. The Manchuria attack is during peacetime between Japan and Russia, I'd think Russia can't attack Japan at all until Japan first attacks Russia
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov Yea, something other than just letting the Germans get a free pass to launch their own offensive, knowing Russia cannot affect what units they will have available to use, every time, seems like a bit of overkill, not to mention boring. But still, a limited attack by Russia seems best, as opposed to just no attack at all.
What are some of your thoughts on an alternative attack for Russia?
@@math080guy what about the bid, I've never used one but before choosing player teams, a bid for how many battles Russia can do turn one would add some restrictions, then the dollar amount bid could also be employed. I like using aircraft to protect costal (adjacent) sea units, like air base rules. This would ensure the German Baltic boats have much more protection, but so would the English battleship with 2 fighters in London protecting the adjacent naval units. No Manchurian attack is the most accurate as Russia and Japan didn't fight until after Germany was defeated. A slight set up change would also limit Russian abilities, 4 infantry from the Caucasus to Moscow preventing 2 land battles against Germany.
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov bids are things I never messed with, to be honest. Interesting ideas with respect to the Manchurian front. I think that aircraft being able to defend ships while staying on the ground would kill Germany's chances to stop D-Day landings entirely. OTOH, it might allow Germany to build and maintain a navy of her own, so...
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov I like the IDEA of bids, but all players really need to know the game VERY well for it to work... and doing all the math to figure out what the bid should be is an arduous process, no? Otherwise it becomes a great deal of trial and error, and many, many games. Not many people these days are going to play an old game that many times to try and balance it, no?
I’d like to see the game where Berlin was taken by the 3rd move. Lol
Just BEAR with me
All this talk of "well, if you change this rule, and change this rule, and add this rule"... back in my day, I was a teen in the 1980s... we just played A&A as it was written in the rules... NO CHANGES... you know what? We always had a lot of fun and sometimes the Axis won and sometimes the Allies won... it was a lot of fun as it was written the rules... not everything has to be modified to be perfectly balanced... so many times we'd just swap who played what side, but it was always fun as-is! Just play the game, everything doesn't need to be a math problem! I see too many sites putting graphics up of "odds probability" and well that's 51% so worth it, and that's 39% so I wouldn't risk it"... sometimes adults put too much adult problem solving and it no longer becomes a game, it becomes a math spreadsheet... just have fun with it, it's a game, not an accounting book!
Yeah but all of the rules he talked about are in the official rulebook lol.
I see your overall point though, sometimes it is just fun to not think too much and play the game like a maniac.
@Kasper K. I don't recall them being in the official rulebook... maybe in a reprint, or maybe I just forgot (I am old). I should double check when I get home 🏡 😅
Yeah, they were in the second edition rulebook. (1986) You may have had First Edition (1984).
@Kasper K. I had 1st edition back then... I did buy a 2nd edition rulebook in 2017 though! Lolz.
Of course by 2017 I had the newer versions.
Never change the rules, luck will make the difference and I always buy two planes on the first turn btw.
Attack Manchuria with all units from Yakut and Far East plus the fighter from Moscow. Attack Norway with two tanks from Moscow plus one from Karelia and the three men units from Karelia. Attack the German Baltic fleet with the fighter from Karelia. Attack the German sub in front of the French coast with the Karelian sub, move the Karelian transport to the UK fleet.
That's a little bit more aggressive than I play as the USSR, because I most often am so weak in the east, that the Japanese just suffer a single turns setback, but blow me off the coast by the end of turn one, and I cannot replace those losses until/unless Germany is contained. I throw my transport at the Baltic or the Atlantic, as a bullet stopper for my sub/fighter, and I fall back in the east, in order to support the well known "Asia First" variant.
i agree. push hard on japan the first turn to give UK and US time to build up. i do disagree with taking Norway because i leave that to UK or US so they can set up a factory there.
I remember endless fighting over Karelia and its factory as it was THE decisive territory in this edition. I think we never played with Axis Advantage, because Russias first turn was really a trade-off for them. If they pushed too hard on Ukraine, they could easily lose Karelia. Remember bridging? Germany could move two infantry via its transport in the Baltic Sea straight to Karelia. And the Bosporus was open for the German transport in the Med that could take another two Infantry to counter an attack on Ukraine or attack Caucasus.
We found that playing without Axis Advantage made games extremely one-sided. I remember one in particular. Russia seized Ukraine on Turn 1. Germany attempted to attack Karelia Turn 2 but was repulsed. Russia seized E Europe Turn 2. Germany pulled back into Berlin to try and maintain control of it on their Turn 2. Russia took Berlin Turn 3, England took W Europe Turn 3, the US took S Europe Turn 3.
What the hell did Germany (I mean the player of Germany) do with his Luftwaffe and tanks? Normally you would wipe out the Royal Navy on Turn 1 and then strike full force against Russia. Russia had a lot of infantry but not even half the tanks or aircraft in comparison to Germany. The dice must have really been horrible for him in order to lose within 3 rounds. That never happened to one of us.
It wasn't the first game my group ever played, but to be fair it was within the first five (I don't remember how many we had played before it, but it was a very small number). This was well over a decade ago, but I believe he did attack the British fleet. Without those fighter and with the loss of his force in Ukraine, he suffered terrible casualties in his attack on Karelia before deciding to withdraw.
First, thanks for making a video like this, and glad to see folks are still playing/talking about this great game. That being said, I voted thumbs down, not to be mean or hurt your feelings, nor as disrespect to the time and effort that you put in on the gaming publics behalf, but rather in the hope of getting you to do an even better video to replace this one.
I'm a big fan of the Original A&A game, from back in the day when I ran into a group of my comrades in arms playing it in the Barracks way back in 1987.
I personally feel that removing the Russian players first turn attack option isn't needed (nor fair), because there is something far more unbalancing than the awesomeness of the Russian 1942 counter-offensive, and that is the sxtreme exploit of being able to use an allied carrier or transport!!! Take that junk out of the game, ASAP, and then you have a viable Germany, else Germany is doomed by the end of turn one!
I am not sure what you mean. Can you walk through the scenario you're talking about?
@@JonathanMeyer84 First things first, I guess: I cannot seem to upload a still image to youtube?!?! I suppose that if I need to, I can make a very short telephone video, showing the rules and russia setup card I have. Anyway, If Germany is to have any chance of winning, the UK, USA, and USSR must not be allowed to put their ground units on each others transport ships, nor can they be allowed to place fighters on each others carriers. This is NOT in any of the official/optional rules that I have ever heard of, but does more for game balance than the "Optional Rules" in the back of the Second Edition manual. If you want to try this out, get a group together and play a couple games, both of which use the two rules I outlined above, and then try the axis advantage/USSR no 1st turn attack, and the other without those, and see which ones work best for your group. Alternatively/Additionally, we could arrange to play a game over a skype call, in you were willing.
I cannot explain better than by this example: Turn 1, USSR and Germany have done their stuff, and the the UK is up.
UK buys 1 aircraft carrier and 1 transport, and ends turn by placing both in UK sea zone.
Japan does whatever.
USA buys whatever, and flies her two fighters from both East/West USA, and land them on the UK carrier. Given that unless the Germans build ships on turn one, they probably don't have any ships left that can be used in the battle for the UK sea zone, meaning everything is air attack and air losses. To attack the UK on turn two, Germany is facing at least a UK carrier and a UK transport, 2 US fighters, and a US transport, and this is assuming all other allied ships were sunk by the Germans first attack.
Assuming that Germany didn't lose more than one fighter/rebuilt all but one lost fighters on turn one, then Germany has 4 fighters + 1 bomber to attack the above force. Math:
4@3 = 2 hit, and 1@4 ~ a hit, so mostly Germany can hope for three hits, allied counterfire >>> 2@4 + 1@3 +2@1 = at least two hits. Both sides take losses, the allied transports plus one fighter and half the Luftwaffe fighters bite the dust. If the Germans try for round two, its now 2@3 + 1@4, with likely 2 hits, and the allies loose everything else, but still get counterfire; 1@3+1@4, so, nothing cut and dried, but lets say they get one hit. This leaves Germany with just one fighter and one bomber.
If the USA builds two aircraft carriers on turn one, then on turn two, they move move to the UK sea zone. If the UK, after the German Luftwaffe is savagely mauled, moves 2 fighters to the USA carriers, then when the USA moves their carriers forward, they already have UK fighters aboard.
Rinse and Repeat, Germany ends up building planes and (at best) exchanging them with the UK/US, and so losses, as every fighter and bomber cost the Heer 4-5 infantry units.
For some reason your videos aren't showing up in my subscription feed despite me being subscribed to you
A good rule is Russia can't attack on its first turn it is very good and works
That is a plus for Germany, but all for not.
Personally, I hate that rule, but then I had my start teaching folks exactly what russia can do in the hands of an aggressive, yet cautious player. Too me, stopping the UK/USA/USSR from stacking fighters on each others carriers is far more important and fair, YMMV.
@@math080guy Ouch, I never tried that one. It is often best to have your own fighters on your own carrier but sometimes you simply need the defensive help, loaning your Allie a floating runway to protect a supply line should be concerned historically accurate but somewhat rare. A middle path rule (1 allied fighter only), since 1 game unit can represent dozens or thousands of actual units, you couldn't loan just 1 carrier.
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov I haven't been keeping up on A&A since the pandemic hit, but glad to talk about it again. For allied forces getting to stack on the ground, I have no ideas on how to make things better or more balanced, but one idea I had but never put into a video was no stacking of allied naval units. What I mean is, no co-defense, at all, so if Germany attacks the sea zone around the UK, the Germans get to pick which allied player they want to attack, so along with no troops/fighters getting to use an allied transport/carrier, no cooperation at sea.
One thing that always hurt our games was the UK builds a carrier on turn one, and then the US lands 2 fighters on it on their turn, preventing the Germans a chance to sink it before the British can land their own fighters on it on their second turn.
Using these two rules together, if the UK built a carrier and a transport on turn one, the USA couldn't land fighters on the UK carrier at all, so the Germans could attack the new UK fleet without the hitting power of the USA's two fighters, and if the USA stacked a transport of their own in the UK sea zone, the Germans could either attack the UK ships of the US ship, without having to fight the other(s).
For game where the troop shuttling from the US/UK is a big part of the strategy, this makes the gave far better balanced for the Germans/Axis. Land co-defense would be unchanged.
@@math080guy perhaps a rule variant is useful as a technology development, I like lots of free technology, every turn the Axis players get 3 to share and Allie's get 3 (1 each) rolling is only to determine what the free technology is ( house rules only) allied fighters landing on friendly carriers as a minor technology development would fix this early allied ability.
Axis can benefit from allied planes can land on allied carriers, but not often, Germany builds a carrier and if it survived the English turn, Japanese fighters can land on it.
The next technology development should be the 1st edition "Commander in Chief" rule, not so dangerous if only the axis have it, but the allies can be very decisive using it against the Germans.
Our standard opening move for Russia was taking Eastern Europe with infantry and fighters, then infantry and tanks take Ukraine. If Germany attacks Karelia with Finland then US takes Finland and drops a factory on it. Usually would take Manchuria to prevent Japan from putting a complex there on turn 1 so their complex is further away from Moscow.
That's a devastating opening for Russia in Europe and an excellent illustration why Russia should be weakened with the Axis Advantage rule. I did double check the board as I almost couldn't believe my friends and I missed that Eastern Europe/Ukraine opening (granted, we mostly played Axis Advantage) after our first few games. It looks like the odds of taking Eastern Europe with the fighters and just the infantry from Karelia is pretty low. That move on Manchuria is intriguing. An all out assault should secure the territory and prevent Japan from placing a factory there. On the other hand, they could place their factory in French Indochina instead. Did that ever occur in your games?
The move to take eastern Europe didn't work every time but if you didn't do it you were back on your heals all game. French IndoChina is one space further away from Moscow which makes a big difference in this game with much fewer territories. It would be better than Kwangtung but they also have China and India to deal with on turn one as well for putting a complex there. Kwangtung was the safest place to put it after taking out China. Taking out Manchuria on turn one makes taking out China more difficult for Japan on turn one because they have to settle for just China and have almost no chance of getting Sinkiang on the first turn because of lack of units on the Asian continent. If that happens then America moves 1 infantry a step back to Novosibirsk and drops a complex on it. Japan and Germany will be in tough if all of that happens. You could almost always tell who was going to win after round one. If America doesn't get a complex on round one then it could go either way. We had never heard of the rules that you're talking about but we had the game since it was released and they probably didn't think about it until later.
GeneralHandGrenade US can't build a factory on Russian territory. Did you mean you built a factory in Sinkiang?
Nathan Gayner I had the first edition of the game right when it came out. Some of the rules were different but it took some discussion between me and Jonathan to figure that out.
You guys are making this a lot more then what it really is, SAD. :( :( :(
first move should be build six infantry and one tank, then hit Manchuria with five infantry, one tank and one fighter from Moscow . land fighter in where you move up two infantry and two tanks from Moscow, plus move the last fighter up to where you have your other fighter. this means you have a counter attack on Manchuria while defending kareilia. non-combat move, place all infantry available in karelia plus reinforcements. caucuses minus one and Moscow infantry go to karelia. this slows down japan while keeping Moscow safe.
My buddy would often hit my Manchuria turn 1, when successful, his UK first turn attack was amphibious assault into Kwangtung, winning 2 out of 3 times and making china much more secure....very annoying and yet... challenging
ohh that games is just bad in its core even several editions did not change its formula... have you seen level 7 invasion? it takes major concepts of AnA but makes them so easy to use and fresh! but thanks for the video.
I hope you're not talking about the PUNCH drunk formulas. LOL!!!!!!
ohh that games is just bad in its core even several editions did not change its formula... have you seen level 7 invasion? it takes major concepts of AnA but makes them so easy to use and fresh! but thanks for the video.
I hope you're not talking about the PUNCH drunk formulas. LOL!!!!!!
Great beer & pretzels game, without house rules it's not so much fun, but free technology for everyone, every turn, that will remove much predictability. We'd start with about 20 technologies and never really needed more, but you could still buy tech tokens, following those rules...3 free allied technology per turn and 3 free axis per turn, each player rolling 2 dice and consult their own customized technology chart. Each player filling out their own 2 - 12 chart with 11 technologies, putting the one they want first on their 7 spot, 7 is more often rolled.
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov Any idea where you got this technology chart from? Was it house rules? Can you share it?