Axis and Allies - new vs old?

[Iron_Chef]

Official A&A Forum:
http://boards.avalonhill.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15

Subforums for the A&A variants (D-Day, Europe, Pacific) are there, too.

 

[Majere]

General comments:
2VC games favour Axis
4VC games favour allies as the axis needs to take a capital to win.
Japan needs some decent techs.

I personnally believe that:
1) Attacking is more costly than defending
2) Russia has less assets and less production than germany
3) Therefore Rusiia should resist the urge to get agressive early on and just mass her assets in her two IC areas and then try and pressure japan.
4) Without japan Germany is lost (One game as germany I was drawing over 60IPCs per turn and still couldnt break the allies when Japan fell)

There is also some advantage in building up a couple of transports in the mediterrainian as they can take infantry directly from italy to the caucans orr to the middle east to pressure india.

Majere

 

[Iron_Chef]

I just tried a G1 Sea Lion (40 IPCs into LRA, 1 INF + 1 TNK loaded on 1 Transport, all planes and Germany fleet to London. North Atlantic sub kills East Canada transport. Mediterranean fleet kills UK battleship. If it works (around 76% chance), you've probably won the game. You won't hold Uk, but you will plunder 30 IPCs, prevent the India IC build and totally screw up the Allies for many, many rounds. The result was Axis win. If Sea Lion fails, however, Axis loss is pretty much guaranteed.

 

[Iron_Chef]

I just tried a G1 Sea Lion (40 IPCs into LRA, 1 INF + 1 TNK loaded on 1 Transport, all planes and Germany fleet to London. North Atlantic sub kills East Canada transport. Mediterranean fleet kills UK battleship. If it works (around 76% chance), you've probably won the game. You won't hold Uk, but you will plunder 30 IPCs, prevent the India IC build and totally screw up the Allies for many, many rounds. The result was Axis win. If Sea Lion fails, however, Axis loss is pretty much guaranteed.

As an alternative, if you move the North Sea sub to Sea Zone 9 instead of attacking the East Canada transport, you block the USA from attacking UK, and then only the Uk can get 1 tank from East Canada over to try to take UK back with Battleship bombard...

 

[vulcan_idic]

Although the above poster who mentioned some of the extra optional rules seem a bit unbalanced I'd have to agree with.

Not knowing the specific unbalanced issues, but considering the game, I would have to say this probably has to do with real life inequities of power at the time and an effort to more accurately reflect the strategic situation of the time

 

[Iron_Chef]

Somebody suggested buying all artillery for Russia on R1, and always buying a lot of artillery to go with your infantry. I tested this out and it worked well for Russia. Russia can't afford too many tanks, so the artillery (if you have a number roughly equal to your attacking infantry) is a good buy (and $1 cheaper than tanks). The problem is they only move 1 and don't help infantry defend. Another optional R1 buy for Russia is 4 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 anti-aircraft gun. Why the AA gun? You will move the Russian AA gun to West Russia to help shoot down German fighters, then replace the Russian AA gun during your place units phase. This didn't work for me, but the extra AA gun ended up being useful when I moved it to protect the USA IC in Sinkiang from Japanese fighters and bombers. Saving the USA $5 isn't a good use of Russian money, however, but at least it was still useful.

 

[D+1]

It's been out for some time already, I know it was over a month ago that we picked it up. Played only one game so far and we were teaching a couple of kids the ropes of gaming in general as we did so. Still it was immediately apparant that old strategies and tactics simply did not apply anymore - and that was a good thing.

I have no problem with the graphic design of the board myself, but like everyone else the change in the number and arrangement of territories is a fantastic boon. The new units are similarly a terrific change to the positive without having sacrificed the beer-and-pretzels, traditional A&A flavor.

There is every reason to recommend the new version over the old (and even then you could [foolishly] stick to the old rules using the new board and still come out way ahead).

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Quick question. I just bought A&A Revised and there's no tray to keep the pieces in. Is this right? How am I supposed to store them?

 

[Gilwen]

I am going to try a very risky strategy with Japan. I am going to attack the US fleet in Hawaii and take Alaska in the same round. On the unlikely event that I can actually hold Alaska oh boy oh boy.
My friends and I have been playing together for years and have become accustom to standard opening moves, so I am goingt to shake things up a bit, I think this would freak out a new player. even though it's a risky strategy I think if I can pull it off the shock factor alone will be worth it. But it all depends on how the first round goes for Germany and if Japan can get long range aircraft (not totally needed but really helpful).

-Gil

 

[Iron_Chef]

Quick question. I just bought A&A Revised and there's no tray to keep the pieces in. Is this right? How am I supposed to store them?

No storage tray is provided. You're stuck with using ziploc baggies or salvaging a storage tray from another game. Risk Godstorm comes with a storage tray, as does A&A: Europe (the one I'm using). Pretty crappy for AH to charge $45 and not even give a lousy storage tray, IMO.