Axis and Allies Global 1940 session report

In mid November 2012 I started a PBEM (Play-by-E-Mail) game of Axis & Allies Global 1940 (AAG40) (i.e. the combined game of Axis & Allies Pacific 1940 and Axis & Allies Europe 1940) against Han. We played for one and a half months. He played the Allies and I played the Axis. This was the second time I played this game, the first time being in Nov 2010. That time it was a face-to-face game. We spent almost the whole day playing and only got up to Round 5. We didn't finish the game. This more recent one-and-a-half-month game went up to Round 16, and this time the game concluded. We used the latest ALPHA+3 rules, which is also the official second edition rules. Here is how our game went.

Note: The screenshots are not in chronological order.

Germany (played by me) opted to go for USSR first, and did not contemplate Operation Sealion to invade UK at all. France fell without much surprise. In the ALPHA+3 rules submarines are very powerful in denying opponent income, so I sent three subs to attack the UK destroyer and transport off the western coast of England. I would be able to sink the valuable transport (a unit I greatly fear, despite being defenseless), and then on UK's turn I would deny it income. I had forgotten about the scramble rules. British and French fighters scrambled from England and Scotland and destroyed all my subs. Oops.

On the eastern front, the German units started pushing towards Moscow. The Soviets were ill-prepared for war, so Han had a tough time deciding where to concede. He eventually had to give up Novgorod, which was painful, because it meant I gained a factory quite close to Moscow. In this game, events in Europe unfolded in a familiar way. It was a race between Germany killing USSR or the Allies killing Germany. Germany spent money on techs, and obtained rockets, which allowed air bases to bomb enemy factories, air bases and naval bases. This was a major pain in the neck (and also another lower body part) for Han, because UK kept losing money to the rockets.

In Round 2, Germany sent all its ships, supported by its air force, to attack the British fleet. That was a major showdown, and all ships on both sides were sunk. The British and French fighters which scrambled to support the defense were also lost. Only German planes returned, and after that flew eastwards to support the push towards Moscow. The Germans had superior numbers. Such an attack was intended to delay the Normandy landings, so that Germany could focus more on USSR for a little longer.

Unlike previous Axis & Allies games that I have played with Han, this time as USA he decided to not focus on the Pacific theatre only, which he used to do quite often, to keep Japan in check. USA started sending ships and land units across the Atlantic from the early game, steadily building up a combined fleet with the British. Other than that early strike against the British fleet, Germany did not further commit any effort in pushing back on the western front, preferring to focus its energy on USSR and hoping the western front would hold strong long enough.

In the Mediterranean, UK had a good start. UK's turn comes before Italy, so UK attacked the Italians first, capturing Tobruk, and also sinking two Italian ships off Tobruk.

With few land units left in Africa, Italy decided to attack Malta instead, because of the two juicy British fighters there. The Italians attacked with overwhelming force, but the Battle of Malta went very badly. UK lost only one infantry, while Italy lost two infantry, two tanks and two fighters. The only consolation for the Italians was the small British fleet in the Mediterranean was destroyed.

Due to this early setback, the Italians never managed to push further into Africa. In hindsight, perhaps I should have tried harder as the Italians. UK sent it's Indian fleet towards Egypt to contest the Mediterranean. That left India vulnerable, but also deterred an Italian invasion of Africa. UK controlled Egypt and Trans-Jordan, which meant it controlled the Suez Canal. Because of this, my Italian fleet could not attack the UK Indian fleet on the other side of the Suez Canal. These two fleets had a nervous stand-off for quite some time.

The Italians could not sit still, and later sailed it's fleet westwards to capture Gibraltar. By controlling the Strait of Gibraltar, Italy denied American and British surface ships entry to the Mediterranean. Later the Italians became even more adventurous. By making use of the naval base at Gibraltar, it sailed three spaces to invade Central America and West Indies, and threatened the American mainland.

This was fun, and definitely something out-of-the-box. However, I underestimated the strength of the American Atlantic fleet parked off the UK coast. When the Italian fleet decided to return to the Mediterranean, the Americans struck, and destroyed the Italian fleet before it could return to safety beyond the Strait of Gibraltar. With no Axis naval presence in the Mediterranean, the UK Indian fleet could now arrogantly strut around the Mediterranean, and Han could now safely build a factory in Egypt to start producing units to threaten southern Europe.

In the Pacific arena, Japan spent the early rounds on careful manoeuvring, delaying the declaration of war until it's units were well positioned. Also Japan could focus on killing off China in those early rounds, and China could do little about it. French Indo-China was left alone, because there was a Japanese national objective that gave Japan extra income as long as Japan had not declared war and had not captured it. The Japan - USSR - Mongolia relationship was very interesting. Mongolia was neutral, but if Japan attacked any Soviet territory next to Mongolia, Mongolia would support USSR and become USSR controlled, except if USSR was the one attacking Japan first. So Japan and USSR danced a precarious dance around each other, neither willing to make the first move. Also their units along the Japan-USSR border were mostly infantry, i.e. poor on offense. Japan could more easily assemble offensive troops from Japan, but I didn't want to suddenly have to deal with Mongolian soldiers, when my land units in China were already stretched thin. It was much later that as Japan I struck first, and it was after I had stationed some land units around Mongolia to contain the new enemies that would spring up.

As Japan, I went for my usual approach - kill off China, and grab land. I usually prefer to do this because fighting for those tiny islands in the Pacific will only get me coconuts. Japan needs money. I built factories on the Asian mainland to help me push westwards. In this game I made a rule mistake of allowing a major factory on the Asian mainland. Major factories are only allowed on your own originally controlled territories. Thankfully we realised the mistake and agreed on a solution that didn't require us to undo our moves. I had produced one round of units at the time. I just changed the major factory back to a minor one, although I have spent $20 for the upgrade. Han said we could easily imagine some Chinese traitors accepting money from the Japanese to help secretly ship some Japanese units to the mainland.

USA split its money between the Pacific and European theatres, so Japan did not have to deal with the full economic power of the Americans. ANZAC was mostly shy, but still presented a threat that the Japanese navy had to be mindful of. Japan could have hunted the ANZAC fleet down, but it would require much commitment and it would draw the Japanese fleet far from the Asian mainland. Japan had many airplanes, which was very convenient, but the shortage of land units was a challenge. In Round 3 Japan captured Malaya, which had a naval base and was strategically important, but due to the shortage of land units, Japan could not hold on to it. It required a second invasion to hold it more permanently.

The Japanese ships stuck together, making them one powerful force that the US fleet hesitated to engage full-on and the ANZAC fleet avoided. Han made one crucial mistake in the Pacific arena in Round 6. At the time he had already built up a strong US fleet. My Japanese fleet had supported the initial conquest and subsequent recapture of Malaya, and my troops were pushing towards India. The Americans were coming, and many of my Pacific holdings like the Philippines, Borneo and Java were undefended. I positioned my Japanese fleet in Hong Kong (Kwangtung on the map), which had a naval base and would allow my fleet to move three steps instead of two. Han overlooked that, and split his US fleet. Half his ships struck south and captured Java. The other half turned north to threaten the Japanese homeland. My fleet swooped down to Java and destroyed his fleet, with few casualties on my side. His other task force was soon sunk by my planes attacking from the Japanese mainland. That was a painful loss, and Han had to rebuild his Pacific fleet from scratch.

Having lost so many territories, UK Pacific (in AAG40 UK is split into two separate economies and earn / spend money separately) became poor and could not compete with Japan's growing wealth. A new Japanese factory in Malaya produced lots of Japanese land units to invade India. Eventually India fell.

Japan used its three new factories on the Asian mainland (Kiangsu, Manchuria and Malaya) to keep churning out units to push westwards. However the distances were large and it was difficult to maintain a strong enough pressure. In the Pacific Ocean, the Americans continued to build up. With the Americans discovering improved shipyards, ships became cheaper for them, and they soon out-produced Japan.

In Europe, by the time the Germans amassed enough units at the gates of Moscow, the Normandy landings had occurred. Between Berlin and Moscow, the German forces were spread thin. The Germans had to seriously worry about defense on the western front now. The assault on Moscow was a once-in-a-lifetime chance. The odds were slightly better than average. It was the best I could orchestrate. I knew I had to take the chance at that point in time, because if I waited for another round, I would not be able to get more units into position than Han would be able to produce to defend Moscow. So I attacked.

It was a costly battle, but I managed to sack Moscow. It was immediately liberated afterwards by Soviet units coming to the rescue. USSR had a big setback. I had a windfall because I looted the Soviet treasury. But now I had to start playing defense on the western front, and it would be quite some time before I could try to attack Moscow again. USA and UK kept doing a one-two-punch on Germany. The control of Denmark was very important because it meant the control of the Danish Straits and access to the Baltic Sea and Berlin. The Americans, having captured Normandy, kept producing tanks there. I was unable to kick them off the European continent.

As Germany I tried to delay the advance of USA and UK while I worked together with Japan to try to choke USSR. Japan had been doing well, and at one point even managed to send jet fighters to help defend German territories. However USSR was robust and even pushed back against the Germans. One thing the Germans did was to let France be liberated. With the French government reestablished, USA must return all originally French territories (and thus the factories on them) to the French. That meant no more American tanks produced in Europe. Alas, Northern Italy soon fell to the Americans, and my nightmare of American factories spewing out Sherman tanks resumed.

With no Italian fleet in the Mediterranean fending off the British fleet, the Brits soon activated their allies in Greece and Yugoslavia. New Allied infantry popped up like rabbits. British subs also barricaded my Italian ports, grinding the Italian economy to a halt. I knew the European Axis were doomed, and my only hope was Japan being able to capture Moscow while Berlin and Rome fell to the Allies. The German and Japanese units near Moscow pushed forward desperately.

Soon, Western Germany fell, and Berlin was surrounded by the Allied forces. The isolated German army next to Moscow did not have the strength to assault Moscow. In a desperate ploy, I built three subs in the Baltic Sea hoping to target the Allied fleet, but that didn't quite work out, and only took away money I probably should have spent on land defense.

Germany fell to the British. UK needed the money more than USA, so USA let UK do the honours. Italy lasted longer only because it posed too little risk to the Allies.

Japan was by then the strongest single power. It had been churning out units from its three factories on the Asian mainland and moving them westwards across Asia. After the conquest of India, Japan added two more factories in India. However I might have been a bit too wasteful in my builds. I tried to keep up a steady stream of units, but I did not amass them into any single strong punch. Even now I am still not sure whether it would have worked better that way. If I hadn't kept up the constant but moderate pressure, USSR might have had too much of breathing space to properly build up its forces. As Japan I had a lot of money and didn't really plan my purchases very carefully. I might have been less efficient than I could have been.

At the height of Japanese expansion, my infantry unit went all the way to the Suez Canal to wash its dirty sand-filled socks. That closed the Suez Canal for a short while, until the Japanese were pushed back.

Japan did not manage to capture Moscow by the time Berlin and Rome fell to the Allies, and was nowhere near doing so. So I decided to concede. I had hoped to be able to create a new equilibrium and new world order of Japan vs the world, but without being able to at least capture Moscow, Japan's economic strength was too far behind the combined economic might of the Allies.

This next screenshot is Europe, North Africa and the Middle East at the end of World War II.

This is Asia at the end of the war.

In this game of AAG40, I (as both Germany and Japan) invested heavily in techs. Techs here work differently from Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition (AA50), in that if you fail to roll any 6, you don't get to keep any research tokens for the next round. The money is just wasted. So techs become a gamble again, like earlier versions of Axis & Allies. Germany wasn't very successful with techs (Einstein defected to the Americans very early in the game I bet), but the discovery of rockets did greatly annoy UK and USSR. USA's shipyards (cheaper ships) and long-range aircraft were very useful. It also had heavy bombers, but in AAG40 they have been toned down and are not as devastating. Japan benefited most from jet fighters, which made tactical bombers obsolete. It discovered long-range aircraft quite late, so that didn't help much. Most other powers were reluctant to gamble on techs, given how stretched their money was.

This was one very very very long game. The PBEM format meant I could take my time to analyse every move, consider all possibilities, and calculate the odds of every battle. I still made quite a number of mistakes though, some of which I paid for dearly. Having the luxury of almost no time constraint, I was able to appreciate the many intricacies in the game. Having now played a complete game, I could also put together my thoughts about the game. I asked Han to share with me his opinions of the game too. This post is already quite long, so I will write the thoughts about the game in general in my next post.

This game of AAG40 was certainly exciting. The TripleA software works well and we had few problems using it. The rules are slightly modified though, and a few detailed rules are not enforced by the software. You have to remember them yourself and make sure you don't violate them. The Calculate Odds feature in the game is very handy. It does the tedious maths for you. Before you commit to your combat moves, you can calculate odds, and then adjust your moves or even completely undo them. You have plenty of time to try to work out the best move. The game becomes a little chess-like, and that's without timers. There are many die rolls, but given the luxury of time and the convenience of analysis, you really feel like any bad move is completely your own fault. Don't blame luck. Well, except for that damned Battle of Malta!

AA50 session 1

On 13 Feb 2009 Han and I started a PBEM (Play-by-e-mail) game of Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition (AA50). The game lasted one week, and it was one of the most exciting and addictive games that I have ever played. Maybe it is because of the PBEM format. I was very anxious about the next turn, and kept thinking about the game, often lying awake at night for quite a while planning my next move. I used TripleA (version 1.0.3.0) to play. It is mostly good, with only some minor bugs. Hopefully the next version with all the bugs fixed will be released soon.

In our game, we played the 1941 scenario of AA50, where the Axis start with fewer territories but have more troops and are well positioned to make gains, and the Allies are much richer but have fewer troops and need to hurry to contain the Axis. Han played the Axis and I was the Allies. In our recent face-to-face game of Axis & Allies Revised he played the Allies and I played the Axis.

This is how the game went:

From the start, Japan was aggressive in conquering China. China was conquered quickly and had no chance at all.

In the Pacific, Japan did their Pearl Harbour thing, and had two carriers and four fighters remaining off the Hawaiian coast. USA launched a massive counter-attack with everything in range, including both bombers from both east and west coasts of USA. It was a good opportunity to wipe out a large portion of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Japan was not as rich as USA and would not be able to race against USA to rebuild a Pacific fleet. Unfortunately, that counter-attack went awry, and the Americans lost the whole task force and Japan still had a carrier surviving.

After this disastrous battle, USA gave up on the Pacific theatre to focus on the European theatre. It would take too long to rebuild the Pacific fleet. Thus Japan expanded in the Pacific without resistance. The Australian navy was also soon wiped out.

In North Africa, the Allies held on well and the Axis never made much headway. Some UK troops retreated from India to help defend Egypt. The Allies had decided that the Pacific theatre was a lost cause. The Italian fleet was a constant threat to the Allies, but later after USA had heavy bombers they used 2 heavy bombers to kill off the Italian navy. The Mediterranean Sea was cleared.

In the European East Front, there was an anxious build up of forces preparing for the invasion of Moscow. Germany captured Karelia and started producing units there. The Western Allies sent fighters to protect Moscow. Just before the German assault on Moscow, USSR decided to do a hit and run on Germany's 8 tanks and 1 artillery next to Moscow, using all its forces in Moscow. The idea was to kill off a majority of that stack and then retreat back to Moscow. That stack of tanks did not have infantry with them, and was a good opportunity for USSR to swap cheap infantry with expensive German tanks.

However, the Russian task force was too successful and won the battle (killed all German tanks) by the 2nd battle cycle, before being able to retreat back to Moscow. Oops. Sometimes being too successful is bad. This made the Moscow defenses weaker.

Despite having fighters sent from both UK and USA to help defend before Germany's next turn, Moscow eventually fell to the German forces.

Moscow was immediately liberated, but losing all its money, and being unable to bring in new units for two full rounds, was crippling to the Russians. The windfall was also a big boost to Germany, despite having lost most of its front line forces.

On the European Western Front, the Allies were successful at sea. The German U-boats assembled off the eastern coast of UK, and were quickly wiped out by the Royal Navy. The Russian submarine made a gamble and attacked the German cruiser and transport in the Baltic Sea, and won.

D-Day happened early, but things went back and forth a few times. The consolidated British fleet threatened the whole European Atlantic coast, and UK transported in troops to capture lightly defended territories and isolated territories. These were mostly opportunistic attacks, and the territories were usually soon lost. Norway and Finland were later conquered, and kept, since Germany was unable to reinforce them.

USA, having given up on the Pacific theatre, came to help and took some time to set up a shipping line for troops between France and Canada. The plan was to have 3 - 4 transports on both sides of the Atlantic at any one time. Units produced in Eastern USA just walk to Eastern Canada to catch the boat ride. This was to keep a constant pressure on France and North-western Europe.

After the fall of Moscow, UK decided not to try to capture France again, and instead attacked and liberated Karelia. I decided it was more important, to deny the Germans an industrial complex to produce fresh troops. They had a lot of money in the bank after looting Moscow. That attack also killed off four German fighters and two German tanks. German pressure on Moscow was greatly reduced, at least for 2 turns.

Japanese expansion was unchecked. In Asia, only Australia was left alone (probably they couldn't be bothered). India fell and a factory was built, but it was captured by the UK for one turn, slowing down the Japanese advance slightly. Japanese troops marched all the way to surround Moscow, but had not assaulted it yet. Japan captured Alaska and built a factory there. It was at this time that USA made a grave mistake of not realising the Japanese air force's threat to its transports on the Atlantic Ocean. All transports on the Eastern Seaboard were lost because they were unprotected. Japan had a long-range bomber in Alaska and 2 long-range fighters off the coast of Alaska.

After the monetary windfall from conquering Moscow, Germany built up a large airforce of bombers and some fighters, and destroyed the Allied Atlantic fleet. I had purchased fighters and destroyers to help boost the defense, but it was insufficient. I had thought I would have been able to repel the attack. That spelled the doom for the Allies. It would take too much time to rebuild the Atlantic fleet. It may be impossible even, since the Germany still had a strong air force.

On the next turn, the UK made one last desperate attempt to conquer Berlin, using troops that have landed in Europe, 1 bomber and 1 fighter. Well, miracles don't happen so easily afterall. Berlin held, and the Allies conceded defeat.

The decisive battles:

1. USA loss at Hawaii in the early game made it give up on the Pacific Theatre, and paved the way for unchecked Japanese expansion.
2. Destruction of German fleet allowed the Allies to set up for D-Day and threaten many coastal territories.
3. USSR's "successful" counterattack on German troops reduced defenses in Moscow, and Germany captured Moscow on the next turn, earning a big windfall.
4. Destruction of Italian fleet by 2 America bombers ended the Italian threat to Africa.
5. Recapture of Karelia was important for limiting German production to continue pressuring Moscow.
6. Poor USA planning allowed the Japanese air force to destroy all American transports on the USA east coast which were unprotected.
7. Destruction of the big Allied Atlantic fleet by the German airforce was a game-ending setback for the Allies to conquer Berlin.

The Allies had small victories here and there, but made some big miscalculations for some key battles. I wonder whether I played too conservatively, and thus lost ground gradually, which eventually added up to be quite significant over a number of rounds. And boy it feels tough playing the Allies in the 1941 scenario. Russia doesn't have a single tank at the start of the game.

The same feel of previous Axis & Allies versions is still there. The Axis need to attack swiftly before being worn down by the superior combined Allies' income. The Allies need to contain the Axis' advance and quickly build up their forces. The game can get very interesting if an equilibrium (or stalemate?) is reached, i.e. the Axis grab just enough territory to have about the same income as the Allies, and the Allies build up enough forces to match the Axis. Then the game may hinge on a few critical breakouts and key battles, likely huge showdowns. That's the excitement of Axis & Allies.

Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition

When Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition was announced, there was no doubt I was going to buy it. It was only a matter of when. I have been a fan of the Axis & Allies series, although I don't get to play them very often. Just a few weeks ago, when my sister was preparing to return to Malaysia for Chinese New Year, I asked her to buy the game for me in Melbourne. The retail price was cheaper than in Malaysia, because of the weak Australian dollar. She had a friend coming back to KL, who did not have much luggage, and he was happy to bring the game to me. Huge box, flat but very wide.

I have now played one game of Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition. However, it was not using my newly purchased copy. It was a Play-by-e-mail (PBEM) game with Han, using the free program TripleA (version 1.0.3.0). This was my first time playing a PBEM game. It was a very exciting, addictive and memorable game. I lay awake at night thinking about the game. I kept studying the map and planning my next move, and the move after that, and then the one after that, while waiting for Han's response. I studied his options and possible moves. It was so tense that after finishing the game and Han suggested another go, switching sides and playing the other scenario, I said I needed a break to play some Eurogames on BSW. :-)

I won't write about the game that we played, since that will be a long blog entry. I'd like to write about what I think about the game after having completed the first game.

I had read much about the game before buying or playing it. I thought the game would become much longer than previous versions, but it wasn't the case at all. The game is physically much bigger, but there really aren't that many territories added onto the map compared to the previous 2004 version. The changes in the map are minor tweaks, rather than a major overhaul to add many more territories. So I think the game will only play slightly longer than Axis & Allies Revised (2004).

There are many improvements and changes made to the game, and I think they are all for the better, although to different degrees, in my opinion. I like the national objectives (an optional rule). They give an additional aspect to think about. You need to think of achieving yours as well as denying your opponents theirs. I'm not sure yet whether they unbalance the game, maybe time will tell, but they do add money into the game, allowing players to buy more things. I like that transports are now defenseless and must be protected by other naval units. It does mean you need to buy more naval units to protect them, but naval units are cheaper now too, which helps. I think the new cruiser unit is good. It attacks and defends on 3, and can shore-bombard during amphibious assaults. I never bought one in my first game, because they are $12 compared to $8 for destroyers, but I think they are a valid purchase option and not a meaningless one that some players feel they are, being too expensive for what they can do. I did use my initial cruisers to do a lot of shore-bombardment.

Research is improved, but I still think it is quite luck dependent, in terms of whether you achieve a breakthrough, and which technology you get. But at least now the money spent is not completely wasted, in a way. I don't think it's good to make research too deterministic. So I accept it as-is. I can't think of any better way to implement it, to be not too deterministic and not too luck-dependent. Maybe every country gets a semi-random free tech at the start of the game? Or something like the national advantages in Axis & Allies Revised (which is removed in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition). I think the national advantages can be applied to Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition as a variant without much issue.

Italy is an interesting addition. I think it adds both strength and weakness to the Axis team. Strength because now between the UK and US turns, Italy can do something (damage control?), unlike in the past when Germany could not do anything and often suffered one-two-punch attacks from these two Allies. However Italy being a separate power also means Italian and German forces cannot do attacks together. In the past Italian forces were treated and represented as German ones. I think this makes things interesting.

In terms of the map graphics, I am in the minority, preferring the Axis & Allies Revised graphics and colour scheme. Most people seem to prefer the latest one or the original one. I think the map in Revised is cleaner and has a serious tone. The older one is a bit too light. The newest one is a bit too busy. Anyway, to me it's a minor thing, as long as the map is functional.

Bombers and naval units are cheaper now, making it more feasible to buy more of them, which I think is good. Strategic bombing runs are slightly different. I think it ends up just costing the victim money like previously, except there can be a delay in paying up, because the victim may decide not to repair his factory immediately. So, some flexibility for the victim.

A summary of my view of the main changes after just one game (+ means I like, = means I'm neutral):

• National objectives: ++
  
• Italy: +
  
• Strategic Bombing Runs: =
  
• Researth: =
  
• Unit costs: ++
  
• Map: +
  
• Graphics: =
  

I definitely will not go back to Revised, especially since Anniversary Edition really isn't much longer or more complex than I had initially thought.

The 1942 scenario setup. I have not had the chance to play my copy, but I still wanted to set it up just to gawk.

The Pacific theatre. Japan has already conquered most of the Pacific islands.

The European theatre. German troops are already at the gates of Moscow.

India, China and South East Asia. There are now Chinese troops, and they are controlled by the American player.

North Africa. Italy has a huge Mediterranean fleet. The game board is made up of three separate pieces. Thus the waterfall where the British destroyer is. I set up the game on an unused bed which is not exactly flat.

Playing a PBEM game gave me much time to think about the game and to explore the possibilities of every turn quite exhaustively. I never was an expert Axis & Allies player. Having played this very exciting PBEM game, I am reminded of the many strategy articles that I have read in the past (which were for the 1984 edition), and I am appreciating those strategies better. They are mostly still very applicable to the Anniversary Edition.

Axis & Allies is very much a game about... (some may be surprised...) shopping! You need to plan your unit purchases carefully. You buy units at the start of your turn, before you make combat moves, and you can only use your new units next turn. So you don't know what the battle outcomes will be for your current turn, and you need to already plan what you want to do in your next turn, even your next 2 to 3 turns. This is one area where Axis & Allies is much better than Risk. In Risk, the board is too dynamic. Often you get a whole bunch of units at the start of your turn, dump them into one territory, and use that big stack to wreak havoc, leaving a trail of destruction and eventually-thinned-out forces, until your stack runs out of steam.

However, despite the advance planning and strategic element of the game, Axis & Allies should be taken as a light game. There is quite a fair bit of luck in the game, because of the dice. Good players will be able to maximise chances of success and minimise risk, a better player will still win more often, but sometimes the best laid plans can be completely ruined by unlucky die rolls. So I imagine that when good players play optimally, things will boil down to calculated risks, and some gambles. The game should be enjoyed like you are watching events unfold, watching history play out. The game can be very enjoyable when everyone plays well, even if some players sometimes get royally screwed by bad die rolls. One should just laugh about those, e.g. when my lowly isolated death-wish British destroyer in the Indian Ocean attacked Han's Japanese carrier with 2 fighters, and killed 1 carrier and 1 fighter before being sunk. The captain deserves a medal of honour.

Another reason that I think the game should be played lightly is it doesn't really last that many rounds. Our game lasted 7 rounds. Strictly speaking the game had not ended, as in the required number of victory cities had not been captured yet, but we agreed to end the game as by that time the eventual winner was obvious. So although you can and should plan a few turns ahead, there aren't really that many rounds in the game. Well, I guess that depends on the players. Maybe among the top players the game can become a long stalemate.

When evaluating Eurogames I often think about whether there are many meaningful and tough decisions. When I apply that to Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition, I find that indeed there are many interesting and difficult decisions to be made. The game setup already contains many choices. The players have to decide where to attack, where to reinforce, which area to focus their effort, what general strategy to pursue, offensive or defensive. You need to decide how much risk you want to take. Bigger risks can mean bigger rewards. Or do you want to be conservative, which means fewers gains, and lower income, even though you conserve your forces?

The first one or two rounds may feel a little scripted, as there are only that many different options that you can think of based on the starting setup. However as the story unfolds, you will need to adapt to the new situation. The gameboard will gradually "clean up", as the initial troops at the front lines are worn down, and the troops that you have built during the game take up their positions. You will see more and more the results of your decisions since the start of the game, i.e. you don't have anyone else to blame now. As the board "cleans up", there may be fewer hotspots on the board, because you have consolidated your forces. Despite the fewer hotspots, I think the game gets more and more interesting, because you gradually see the fruits of your strategy. There will be some key fronts being contested. Sometimes troops will build up, and both sides hesitate to make the first major attack. There will be some skirmishes, but both sides try to conserve forces and consolidate forces, in preparation for the climatic battle. It is very exciting and I get very anxious and tense with anticipation. When is the right time to attack? Are my defenses strong enough to withstand the assault? What if I lose the battle, what next? What's my contingency?

The game can be chess-like, as in you will think "if I do this, then he may do this, and I would have to do that". It is very interesting to analyse the board and decide what you want to do next, because of the uncertainty in the battle results. You can calculate the odds, but the results are never guaranteed.

I find that I have a tendency to be bunch up my units, often at the cost of leaving many territories lightly defended. I tend to think of divide-and-conquer, i.e. if I have a few smaller / medium stacks of units, they can get easily destroyed individually. So I tend to group my units into big armies or fleets, with cheap units to take hits during battles, and expensive ones to deal maximum damage. However I'm not 100% sure this is always a good idea, because sometimes I tend to lose territories because of this, and even though the territories may not be high valued, every little bit does add up, and having more territories also means you more space for maneuvering. I need to rethink this in my next game.

I have never rated the previous versions and variations of Axis & Allies a 10. I think I may just do it for this Anniversary Edition.

Update - 12 Mar 2009. I wrote an extension to this review.