I played the Anniversary Edition

While I was at GenCon, I played the Anniversary Edition of Axis and Allies. I like the changes Larry Harris has made! The map is bigger and with more territories. The territories expansion was most significant in the Soviet Union and in China. Which is as it should be: both places were *big*, and Revised didn't fully take that into account. This one does.

Another improvement is that Japan is in a much more difficult situation with respect to land war. China is now a thorn in Japan's side, with one Chinese infantry appearing for every two territories China controls. (And there are a lot of Chinese territories.) However, non-Chinese Allied forces are not allowed to combine with Chinese forces.

It's also difficult for Japan to create a significant threat to Moscow, simply because there is so much space it has to cross before it can get there.

The research system from Revised has been significantly overhauled and upgraded. The way the new research system works is this: you buy research tokens. For each token you have, you get to roll one die. On a six, you get a research breakthrough. If your die roll misses, you roll again the next round. And the next, and the next, until you finally get a research breakthrough. Once you finally do, all your research tokens go away, and you get a new technology in their place. To determine which technology you get, you choose from one of two charts. (There are six items per chart.) After choosing an item, you roll a die. Whatever number comes up on the die is the technology you get.

Even if you buy just one research token, you guarantee yourself a tech sooner or later. But purchasing additional tokens before you get your advance will probably get you it faster. Examples of techs include radar (AA guns fire on a 2), heavy bombers (your bombers get two dice for strategic bombing raids and attacks), shipyards (your naval units cost less), mechanized infantry (each of your tanks can carry one infantry two spaces), improved artillery support (each artillery supports two infantry in any given attack), war bonds (each round, you roll a die, and receive that die roll in extra cash), increased production (each factory can produce two additional units), etc.

Strategic bombing raids work differently than usual. Instead of doing IPC damage directly, bombing raids cause damage counters to be placed underneath an industrial complex. To determine the maximum number of markers that can be under a complex, multiply the underlying territory's value by 2. So a 10 IPC territory can have 20 markers under its complex. For each damage marker, a factory's maximum output is reduced by 1. So a factory on a 10 IPC territory with 10 markers cannot produce anything. Additional markers simply reinforce this point. To get rid of damage markers on your factories, you must pay 1 IPC per damage marker. I think there's a technology which reduces this cost.

Another improvement to this rules set is that transports can no longer be used as cannon fodder. Transports sit out any given naval battle, without firing, and without being able to be taken as casualties. If your combat ships and transports are attacked, and if your combat ships are destroyed, your transports are automatically destroyed also. If you have naked transports, they will automatically be destroyed if attacked.

Game balance seemed to favor the Allies, at least in the '41 scenario. (The game also includes a '42 scenario, which we did not play.) However, this was our first time playing, and it's possible the mistakes Paul, Brian, and I made with the Axis led to the appearance of an Axis disadvantage. If the '41 scenario really is unbalanced, the problem could be corrected by bidding.

The game includes new unit costs: AA guns now cost 6, bombers 12 or 13 (I don't remember which), destroyers 8, cruisers 12, battleships 20, submarines 7, and transports 7. However, submarines now attack on a 2 and defend on a 1. Destroyers attack and defend on a 2, and cannot bombard. Cruisers attack and defend on a 12, and can bombard. Battleships are still two hit, attack and defend on a 4, and can bombard. Carriers now cost 14 (I think), with an attack value of 1 and a defense value of 2.

There are goals for each nation to achieve which will result in an income boost (typically 5 or 10 IPCs). For example, Italy receives 5 IPCs if there are no Allied ships in the Mediterranean at the end of its turn. Nations typically have two or three such goal. The bonus income is not a one-shot deal: you receive it at the end of each of your turns, assuming you'd achieved the relevant objectives.

I'll have to play more than one game of this before I say anything for sure. But based on what I've seen so far, this is the strongest game in the Axis and Allies series. The difference between this and Revised is bigger than the difference between Revised and Classic.

Sweet, give us more details!!!!

questioneer wrote:Sweet, give us more details!!!!

I can't think of too many more details, but I'll add a few more things. I played Japan that game. One of my main problems was that if I wanted to expand westward into mainland Asia, I had to contend with a lot of space. If I wanted to take a northern (i.e., north of Mongolia) route, I had to contend with plenty of 1 IPC Soviet territories. Plus the Soviet Union started off with a good 10 infantry in that general area, which were too far to the east to be of much use against Germany. (Not that he needed them there, as the Russians were doing so well against Germany anyway.) When Greg moved his 10 Russian infantry to the coast/Buryatria equivalent territory, I attacked and killed them at a favorable exchange. A move like that is a no-brainer in Revised, but I think it may have been a tactical victory but strategic mistake in this game. Because of my own loss of strength in that battle, I had many fewer units to stop the problem in my center (China) or the problem to the south (that India factory).

There are more territories in the general neighborhood of India, which serve as a sort of buffer against a Japanese attack. I never posed a real threat to that India factory throughout the game. Another advantage the Allies had was their starting income. Germany's was in the low 30s, Italy's was 10, and Japan's was 16 or 17. In contrast, the Soviet Union had an income of 30, the U.K. somewhere in the 40s, and the U.S. also in the low 40s. (This was the '41 scenario.) Obviously the Axis had to expand quickly before this income situation caught up with it. And there were some expansion opportunities: notably the East Indies and Borneo for Japan, and, in theory, Africa for Germany and Italy.

However, the Axis soon became bogged down. Germany was soon faced with an overwhelming number of Soviet units, which stalled the German advance, and relatively quickly pushed things back into what had been German-held territory. British units in Africa were able to thwart Italy's efforts there. Japan captured places like the East Indies and Borneo, but didn't take Australia or New Guinea. (The U.S. was plowing all its money into a Pacific strategy. It used its two starting bombers to bomb Berlin.) Japan starts with fewer land units on islands than in Revised, so (in combination with my low starting income) it was very difficult to make progress along my three land fronts. Plus the Chinese were a pain: they'd take territories from me, then collect one infantry per two territories owned. China was like an open wound, but I simply lacked the land strength to staunch the wound. Because of all my other problems, the British were able to build up their Indian force at a faster pace than I could build up the Indo China counterforce.

Each of the Axis teams spent money on research (5 IPCs for Italy, 10 each for Germany and Japan). In hindsight, this was probably a mistake. There was a long time between spending money on research and actually getting the technology. Once Japan's technology came, it turned out to be radar. That meant my AA guns fired on a 2. Fat lot of good that did me! Another mistake was that I built more transports than I needed.

With Japan, I made the mistake of trying to be strong everywhere, and was strong nowhere. (Although a portion of my problems were caused by bad dice, especially in China.) I'm not sure if Chinese units are allowed off Chinese soil. If they're not, it might be tempting to simply abandon China and focus on taking British and Soviet territory. But if Japan decides to take China, it should do so quickly, and with overwhelming force. Letting those Chinese infantry keep cropping up turn after turn is a drain on Japan's resources which it simply can't afford. If Japan (finally) makes it through China, it can then begin invading the Soviet Union from the south.

As Greg pointed out, the U.S. player had been in a position to sink my transport fleet--and there were quite a few of them. I'd left a transport as a sacrificial blocking unit. Moreover, I'd placed my main fleet between the U.S. main fleet and my transport fleet. However, you're allowed to assume that if you're fighting a battle, all your units will always hit, and all the enemy units will always miss. So the U.S. player was allowed to send one fighter to my main fleet, with the theory being that the American fighter would win the battle. Then the American player would have sent another fighter to my transports off the coast of Japan to sink them. An American carrier would (in theory) move through the sea zone where my main fleet had been, and which that first fighter would have theoretically destroyed. (In reality, both fighters would have been lost, but, technically, they were not kamikazes.) Then the American player would have sent a bomber to take out my sacrificial blocking transport, with two other fighters flying past that sea zone to attack transports located elsewhere. A carrier would then move through the sea zone where the sacrificial transport had been to pick up the second two fighters. This would have resulted in the destruction of my entire transport fleet, as well as the loss of 4 American fighters and a carrier. Even though the American player would have lost a lot, I still think he should have launched this attack. I needed those transports more than he needed that other stuff, and getting rid of them would have gone a long way toward pushing Japan off the mainland. However, the U.S. player decided to conserve his naval strength, presumably because that attack would have slowed his bid to achieve outright naval dominance in the Pacific.

My brother and I identified some things Italy could have done better. It started the game with just one transport. We've decided that on its first turn, it should have built another transport, while shipping units to Libya. On its second turn and thereafter, it should have shipped four units to Africa. This would have significantly accelerated the process of taking Africa, which would have given the Axis some desperately-needed income. (When the game ended, the Allies were still getting the Africa income, but the Axis was in a position to take at least temporary control over it.)

The Luftwaffe started with four fighters and a bomber. But it lost two fighters on its first turn when it attacked a British destroyer and cruiser with two fighters and a bomber. (The British lost nothing in that battle.) Germany later spent 20 IPCs replacing those fighters, and it also spent another 10 on research. In contrast, the Soviet Union spent basically everything it had on land units to throw against Germany. With a starting income of 30 IPCs, and with a hefty Soviet land force to begin the game with, it wasn't long before the German advance had turned into a German withdrawal. In hindsight, Germany should have taken a more cautious approach to naval battles on its first turn, and it should have allocated all its spending to an anti-Russian land war. Also, we should have arranged for the Italians to do most of the fighting in Africa, and for the Germans to end up with most of the African income.

In my last post and in this one, I've thrown out hints that the '41 scenario might be unbalanced in favor of the Allies. But bear in mind that we were playing without the income bonuses, which I suspect might help balance the game. While those bonuses would probably provide a roughly equal numerical benefit to both sides' income, the Axis would probably receive more of a benefit than the Allies, especially in the short term. Much of the Allied benefit would be absorbed by the U.S., whereas the Axis benefits would all go to nations which could throw extra units into the front right away. If I as Japan had had, say, 10 or even 15 more IPCs a turn, it would have made it a lot easier to deal with my three land wars (the Soviet Union, China, and the British down in India). Had I been able to achieve a strong local superiority along my central (Chinese) or southern (Indian) front, I could have permanently eliminated that front, while achieving an income boost in the process. Eventually I would have had to contend with the extra American ships the U.S. would have been building with its own income boost. But dealing with that problem could wait until later, and by then my overall land and income situation would have been considerably stronger.

Wow Kurt,

Great comments, thanks a lot...

Peace,
GS

how is the size of the board when compared to the previous size and cramped nature of the other AA games??

is there enough space in Germany and Japan to comfortably place all their units?

or does it still seem cramped becz of the additional 200 units overall?

are there enough pieces per nation?
or must we resort to chip towers early in the game?

in other words is the board big enough in light of all the extra pieces?

in other words are there enough pieces for each country so there is no searching for more infantry, artillery and having to resort to those chips?

finally, does each nation have the same counter mix? does Japan have more carriers than the Soviet Union and Germany? does the Soviet Union have more infantry than Italy?

I can't see playing Japan without the IPC Bonuses.

Yes they can quickly pick up a sizable amount of IPCs just from conquest, but the amount of energy (units/time) expended needs to be rewarded for them to be able to any kind of chance to win.

Craig

Constantinople wrote:how is the size of the board when compared to the previous size and cramped nature of the other AA games??

is there enough space in Germany and Japan to comfortably place all their units?

or does it still seem cramped becz of the additional 200 units overall?

are there enough pieces per nation?
or must we resort to chip towers early in the game?

in other words is the board big enough in light of all the extra pieces?

in other words are there enough pieces for each country so there is no searching for more infantry, artillery and having to resort to those chips?

finally, does each nation have the same counter mix? does Japan have more carriers than the Soviet Union and Germany? does the Soviet Union have more infantry than Italy?

Ok,

This is might be my only semi-negative comment but i have to be honest. The board is not a fold out board and it is in three pieces. It is not bad, I just would have rather seen it fold out. Not sure behind that decisions but it is what it is and it is awesome looking nonetheless.

As for space, I guess that is a matter of opinion again. I believe there is more room for pieces in general but then again, it all depends on how one plays. It could get cramped.

As for the chips, that is the only things that we noticed the game did not come with extra off, Plenty of chips. Now, we didn't have to get more during out game, but we did find ourselves having to cash in grey chips for read ones because we were running low...Hopefully you are not the kind that doesn't use chips and has 8 infantry and 6 armor in a country and none of them are chipped?

Counter mix? Not sure i am following this. I believe all countries have more than enough pieces to play with and at least one unit of every type for each country...but i did not count how many carriers the Russians have or Bombers the Italians have. Only the Chinese don't have any other units beside infantry...

That is my story and I am sticking to it...

Peace,
GS

Yoper wrote:I can't see playing Japan without the IPC Bonuses.

Yes they can quickly pick up a sizable amount of IPCs just from conquest, but the amount of energy (units/time) expended needs to be rewarded for them to be able to any kind of chance to win.

Craig

Craig,

This was my doing. I just wanted to play without having to worry about calculating that as well even though Eric really wanted to play with them. I just wanted to get our feet wet before jumping in a whirlpool...But I can see your point. It might have made a big difference. But then again, no one had them so back to even steven...

Peace,
GS

Constantinople wrote:how is the size of the board when compared to the previous size and cramped nature of the other AA games??

is there enough space in Germany and Japan to comfortably place all their units?

or does it still seem cramped becz of the additional 200 units overall?

The board is bigger overall, but that's largely canceled out by the fact there are more territories. If you want to have a lot of units in, say, Hong Kong, it's going to be tricky to manage. But overall though, I don't remember there having been too many space-related problems. Expect some minor nuisances here and there, but nothing too horrible.

Constantinople wrote: are there enough pieces per nation?
or must we resort to chip towers early in the game?

We typically used chips throughout the game because it made things neater, more compact, and easier to count. We never ran out of any specific unit type. But just because that didn't happen to us, in our one, truncated game, doesn't mean it can't happen ever. Overall though, I don't anticipate this being a huge problem.

Constantinople wrote: in other words is the board big enough in light of all the extra pieces?

It didn't seem as though the size of people's main forces differed that much from Revised. Most of the territories and sea zones seemed to be a little bigger than you'd expect from their Revised analogues. But there were a few places--such as Hong Kong--where the physical size of the territory was small. This usually won't be a problem, because the physically small territories are typically not places where one would usually put a main force anyway. But it will be a bit of a nuisance factor.

Constantinople wrote: in other words are there enough pieces for each country so there is no searching for more infantry, artillery and having to resort to those chips?

You should anticipate having to use chips in this game, or else things will get messy very quickly. The territories are simply not big enough to accommodate a chip-free style of play, especially in dense land theaters such as the area between Moscow and Berlin.

One note on the gameboard. As Greg mentioned, it comes in three physically separate pieces. I see this as a positive. When we had to move the board from one place to another, it was relatively easy to move it one piece at a time without knocking anything over. Moving the AAA board, 1/3 at a time, is a straightforward, one man job. I've also noticed that one piece maps, such as Revised, tend to have creases in the cardboard between the flaps. Sometimes pieces get caught in the creases, and tilt or whatever. With this board there were no such creases. The board laid nice and flat, and I don't remember having had any problems with the two physical separation lines between the three gameboard pieces. I think this arrangement is a step up from the Revised board.

Constantinople wrote: finally, does each nation have the same counter mix? does Japan have more carriers than the Soviet Union and Germany? does the Soviet Union have more infantry than Italy?

I probably should have paid more attention to this than I did. All I remember for sure is that there hadn't been any problems with any nation's counter mix: everyone had what they needed assuming they were willing to use chips. (Though as Greg mentioned, this game came with fewer chips than we would have liked.)

Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll do my best to answer them.

Kurt,

Thanks for the details. Very thorough. There is a lot that has been told, enough to contemplate over how this game will play out. I am hoping that when all the rules are laid out and used that the final product will be a balanced game. The bid in Revised is usaually between 3-8 IPCs, which is pretty good considering the slight Allied advantage. I wouldn't mind a 15-20+ bid on the game, but that would reflect a balancing flaw in it. Comparing the two games (Revised and Annie), there are 20 more territories added and 1 sea zone added (though several zones are recreated and adjusted).

I was just looking at my Revised game and specifically the map. After seeing the photos of Larry's new map to AAA it makes me feel like I've been playing "Chutes and Ladders" for the past 4 years! Incredible map and game. You guys are right, October seems like a lifetime! I hope AvalonHill lets Larry do a few of those pre game articles soon so that we can get more explanation on the rule changes.

G-Smo,
Would you consider allowing 3 man teams for this game next year? Will there be a Swiss system in Origins and/or GenCon for this game?

Kurt and G-Smo,
What do you think are the hardest aspects of this game that people will have to get over?

Questioneer

P.S. I guess our Caspian Sub boys will be working on some new sucker punches and gambits for AAA in the near future. I predict Strategies and Openings will change quite a bit, but the tactics of play will remain mostly the same.

questioneer wrote:
G-Smo,
Would you consider allowing 3 man teams for this game next year? Will there be a Swiss system in Origins and/or GenCon for this game?

Kurt and G-Smo,
What do you think are the hardest aspects of this game that people will have to get over?

Questioneer

P.S. I guess our Caspian Sub boys will be working on some new sucker punches and gambits for AAA in the near future. I predict Strategies and Openings will change quite a bit, but the tactics of play will remain mostly the same.

Questioneer,

As for tourneys for next year. I do NOT forsee having three man teams. I believe two are still in order. Just too much for the game at this time...

As for the tournament format, we will have to see. The game isn't even out yet. Me and my playtesters need to see how things play out over the winter months and then make a decision for next year. I can't imagine we are going to change anything except adding a AAA tourney, with what new rule requirements to follow?

Getting over the transport issue seemed to be on the front of rules changes issue.

Capian Sub? There was one...

Oh, and this is driving me crazy but could you somehow let me know, who you are...?

Greg,

Questioneer is me- Shiloh. Native guy with longer hair- well, now its short- remember I had to have the crazy guy you warned me about for a partner at Mega. I came to GenCon for the first time in 2006. I was a long time AA player since the game came out- 1984. I'm 33, happily married with 2year old twin girls. I also played some Catan that year which was great. Busy times have kept me from coming out to Origins and GenCon the last 2 years. Things are more stable now so hopefully in 09.

Lets see what else- oh, I was the ones who put a string of articles debating the "chess clock" idea. I am a Math teacher and a chess coach/tournament player regularly- although that has taken its toll also- gas, ecomony, blah blah. I also lobbied for the Swiss system which I think is great, though have not made it to Origins to play it. I wish it was at GenCon also, but anyway...I've played with Frog, Yoper, and Ben Ibach (and others in Michigan) a few times but it has been a while. Ben Ibach is very good, he's taught me a lot along with Caspian Sub. I predicted he would win the Mega in 2006- ALONE. I knew he would do it- he is a methodical strategist- he reminds me of some Expert/Master level chess players from some tournaments I've played in. Would have loved to see him play in the Masters.

He and CSub guys created all of the sucker punches and gambits that people have complained about the last 2-3 years. They got it down to a math-science. However, you live by the sword, you can die by it also- like the 3-point shooting team in basketball. I like the risk though, so it suits me fine. I play chess the same way- nothing but "e4"- sharp tactics and play.

I have had trouble finding a good AA partner. I know a lot of Catan players but not all of them are interested in AA. The ones that are, do not play at "tournament level". Those of us like you and me have "grown up" with AA so the transition isn't hard from one game to the next. But it takes a while for newbees to get good at it because there is a lot to learn and keep track of- let alone prepare for tournament competition. I've always described AA as Risk on steroids or chess with more dynamics.

I've been trying to teach my Catan friend who went to GenCon with me Axis and Allies but it has been hard because we have families and such. However, he is interested, and since AAA is coming out in October, I'll skip teaching him Revised and just go straight to AAA. Yoper and the others in Michigan are too far away to commit to playing regularly with them (gas prices and all)- so if you hear of any GOOD players that need a partner come tourney time, drop me an email.

Thanks,

Shiloh- "THE" Questioneer

P.S. Forgot a question- How do ya like me now???

questioneer wrote:Kurt,

Thanks for the details. Very thorough.

You're welcome, and I'm glad you enjoyed my posts.

questioneer wrote:
There is a lot that has been told, enough to contemplate over how this game will play out. I am hoping that when all the rules are laid out and used that the final product will be a balanced game.

Me too. With only one game under my belt (and that game played without the national bonuses), it's too early for me to tell if the '41 scenario is balanced. But the '42 scenario starts off more like Revised. By that I mean that in the '42 scenario, Japan begins by owning the East Indies, Borneo, the Philippines, New Guinea, etc., instead of having to take them from the US and Britain. Also, Germany begins the game with some Soviet territory under its control in the '42 scenario. I have the feeling that the Axis begins with more overall TUV (total unit value) in the '42 scenario than in '41, though I could be wrong about that.

As an aside, the '41 scenario has a different turn order than the '42 scenario. The '41 scenario's turn order is Germany, USSR, Japan, UK, Italy, US/China. I don't remember the turn order for the '42 scenario.

questioneer wrote:I was just looking at my Revised game and specifically the map. After seeing the photos of Larry's new map to AAA it makes me feel like I've been playing "Chutes and Ladders" for the past 4 years!

I know exactly how you feel. I've spent the last year developing a custom rules set for my idea of the way a WWII strategy game "should be," as opposed to the way Revised actually is. Many of the changes I'd envisioned--such as a bigger Soviet Union, a Chinese land war that's much harder for Japan to deal with, and a research system that's not synonymous with wild gambling--have been incorporated into the AAA edition. I view this as a major step up from Revised.

questioneer wrote:I hope AvalonHill lets Larry do a few of those pre game articles soon so that we can get more explanation on the rule changes.

While I didn't get a chance to read through the whole instruction manual, I read through enough of it (and learned enough from Greg) that I'm pretty sure my above posts cover most of the major rules changes. The main details which need to be fleshed out are the specifics of what each nation must do to receive its bonus income, as well as a more complete list of the technologies than the one I'd provided. (I just remembered that long range aircraft is still in the game, as is the rockets technology. I think both work the same way as they had in Revised.)

There are also a few extra things about China I should throw in. The American player cannot intermix the combat phase/combat resolution of the U.S. team with that of the Chinese team. He must choose option 1: do Chinese combat movement, then Chinese combat resolution, then American combat movement, then American combat resolution, or option 2: American combat movement and resolution first, then Chinese combat movement and combat resolution. China begins the game with one fighter and a respectable number of infantry. Once China's fighter is lost (which can happen on Japan's first turn), it will have no air force for the rest of the game. Therefore, its only attacks would be with infantry. Moreover, when China places its new infantry units, it cannot place them in a way which results in there being more than three Chinese units in any one territory. (However, it can achieve larger force sizes during other phases of its turn.)

questioneer wrote:G-Smo,
Would you consider allowing 3 man teams for this game next year?

That's not a bad idea in theory. However, there were some games in this year's tournament where the other team spent long periods of time in discussion. Adding a third person to the debate might lengthen it further; thus exacerbating the only real problem with the tournament: the lack of sufficient time.

questioneer wrote:Kurt and G-Smo,
What do you think are the hardest aspects of this game that people will have to get over?

When I went from Classic to Revised, the hardest part was unlearning my instincts from Classic, and learning new instincts in their place. With this new map in place, we'll have to unlearn our Revised instincts, and learn . . . something else in their place. I'm just not sure what this something else is just yet. With the bigger map, I'd expect a higher level of usefulness for mobile, flexible units such as aircraft. Reduced bomber costs make them a more viable option. I suspect that Japan should rely on transports, especially in the early game, rather than on industrial complexes. The number of land territories with which Japan must contend is quite impressive, and it would take a long time for a unit to travel by land from Japan's northern front (Manchuria/Buryatria) to its southern front (Burma/India). On the other hand, defending those transports is difficult, especially because they can no longer be used as cannon fodder. And now that I think about it, a Manchuria complex might well make sense, because it's a fairly safe assumption that those units would be needed either on your northern front (USSR) or your central front (China).

I suspect that another change for Japan's strategic thinking might be that it should try to clear away one land front at a time, rather than trying to win all three simultaneously. But I could be wrong about that, and that idea is subject to change if the national bonuses were added in. I'm not sure whether tanks will be more or less useful in this game than they were in Revised. The mobility of tanks will only help you so much with this map, simply because some distances have grown by so much that tanks no longer seem as mobile or as flexible as they once had. A large tank force might give you flexibility with respect to some local war, such as China. But you'd have to move that tank force for a turn or two to get it to threaten some other objective, such as the Soviet Union or India. At least for Japan, the Asian land war is now a series of local wars, rather than one general war (as was sort of the case in Revised).

The German player will find it difficult to push too far into the Soviet Union. There is simply too much space between the German factories and Moscow. With each advance Germany makes, it will take longer and longer for units to arrive at the front. This problem can be partially solved by capturing an industrial complex, such as the one in Caucasus or in Leningrad. We weren't able to effect either capture in that game. Capturing such complexes is difficult, because the closer Germany gets, the longer it takes for its newly produced troops to reach the front. Conversely, the path between Soviet factories and the front becomes progressively shorter as Germany works its way east. We tried to solve this problem with tanks, but found that a) we didn't have the money to build as many as we needed, and b) it took even tanks longer to get to the front than we would have liked. Or at least, this was the case for a while, until the front had been pushed westward.

questioneer wrote:Ben Ibach is very good, he's taught me a lot along with Caspian Sub. I predicted he would win the Mega in 2006- ALONE.

My brother and I won the Mega tournament for this year. Will we be seeing Ben in next year's Masters' tournament?

KurtGodel7 wrote:
My brother and I won the Mega tournament for this year. Will we be seeing Ben in next year's Masters' tournament?

Crazystraw (Ben) does not play tournaments anymore. So he is not in the Masters, and you wont have to face him.

The C-sub team that was in the masters just lost out, so you wont be facing them either.

However, you will have several tough teams to play against.

Thanks for all the info about the spaciousness of the board and the sufficiency of all the pieces.

There is so little info, good to know the 'insiders!"