Axis and Allies Classic series: Video 5, Germany

[@phazeal]

Hey Goodcaptain, many thanks for all your work on the video series, I've been enjoying them immensely. I wanted to make a comment here about leaving the British fleet alone in Germany R1. I understand that you don't like the less convincing probability distributions, but that fight for the Germans is still a very likely winner. You have a couple of cannon fodder to soak up hits and at most (if you haven't been rubbing your rabbits foot) you will only lose a single fighter. The boon as you see it is having a stronger presence in Africa (and retaining all of your fighters), but I don't see a stronger presence really compared to Don Rae's essays. At the end of Germany R1 Don has 4-inf and 1-arm in Africa and an untouchable fleet (in the interim). In Germany R2 I shuttle 4-inf into Egypt with a one-off BS attack, wiping out whatever the British left there in Britain R1, and you have leftover forces to dead zone the west coast of Africa. It should leav you with 7-8 inf and 1-arm there. Looking at your own turns at the end of Germany R1 and R2, you don't seem to have more than DR would have (though you do have I think 2 more inf in Europe).The big problem with leaving that British fleet alone is that you allow the Allies to begin shucking in Round ONE, not R4 or so. Bear in mind that Don's essays are only assuming your opponent is playing optimally (if this isn't stated in the essays he most certainly said it to me several times in conversation back in the day). I can't be sure, but I would expect that if you played your Egypt takedown in Germany R1 and avoiding the British main Fleet against Don Rae, my guess is that he would ignore an Indian IC altogether and build 1-AC, 1-trans and 1-inf (I would). For combat, send 2-fighters to your transport and sub, sub can't escape so it's cannon fodder and you should be able to sink both. Make an amphibious assault of Finland with 2-inf on the transport, a one-off BS attack and the Bomber. That begins the shuck in round ONE. An alternative to that might be to still place the IC in India and buy 1-tr and 2-inf for UK, but I think Don would pounce and guarantee a game-long shuck of British troops into Karelia from R2, allowing the americans plenty of protection without having to provide the big ships for the Uk Sea Zone fleet. He would land both US fighters on the AC in USA R1.I think (having watched your Japan video already) having my entire Pacific Fleet intact AND my entire British main fleet intact, I would opt to still send something through Panama to link up with a US transport fleet, but I think I would spend a little bit of time annoying Japan in the Pacific just to keep them continually investing (even small amounts) in the pacific.From my perspective, the mistake you're making here is that you are treating some of your units with a little more respect than they are probably entitled. That Germany R1 attack on the British main fleet is a cracker, especially because you have two soak units to protect your planes. I regularly see a German sub leftover in the UK sea zone after the german planes fly home. The alternative is that they are cannon fodder for Britain next turn. I know it hurts having to 'waste' hits on a Russian sub and trans, but it's got to be done, and it's not like your own fleet are very useful.Same sort of thing applies over in the Pacific. When you leave Pearl Harbour alone, two things happen. You allow the Americans to move straight into Shuck mode as they now have 58 IPCs of fleet cruising through Panama to not only join the UK fleet, but will be able to peel off at will by themselves and land in Africa, threaten the Mediterranean etc with impunity. Now, consider what you are getting to keep for yourself after gifting the US 58 IPCs of ships. You get to keep your entire fleet intact. But look around at the board, there is almost nowhere that you will be able to ever use your 2 battleships. They only work for you in amphibious attacks and almost nothing requires it. You can take Australia, NZ, Hawaii, Madagascar or whatever with either no support at all, or with a plane (or 1 battleship as it is highly unlikely you would lose both).Taking out Pearl, AND running after the two ships that try to get away and sinking them as well, forces the US to either build replacement big ships, OR requires them to stay fairly close to the UK. At worst you will lose your sub (which is utterly useless to you anyway), maybe a bomber and a battleship (in sending 2-BS, 1-AC and 2-fi against those two fleeing ships I'd lose a battleship first). While the bomber is a bummer the other losses are pretty inconsequential for you, certain less painful than the US losing 58 very important IPCs of fleet that they need. Happy to discuss if you're interested, I love talking crap about this edition of A&A (Russia restricted, no tech), and your two ideas are very radical (talk about deviation from the mean!) and have been a heap of fun to watch and contemplate! :)

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Thanks for the comment! I'll just point out that, for the most part, this seems a rephrasing of the justification of the DR essays for which this series acts as a rebuttal. I've played approx. seven complete games on the forums since the release of this series against some pretty intelligent folks and a few grognards. I've won about as many as I've lost and most games have proven very competitive. However, I do now concede that RR is necessary to balance the game and will be rolling out a video in the near future to explain why. It sounds like you and I would have a good game if you were interested. My door's always open to stack more classic games.

[@phazeal]

I'd love to have a game, just not sure how to go about it :)

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@phazeal I'm trying to figure out how to PM you through KZbin. My handle is AcesWild5049 on the axisandallies.org forums if you can find me there.

[@phazeal]

Hey good captain, I've joined that website and have sent you a PM, ready to play! (though not sure how we go about it there). :)

[@TheSultan79]

Did you know that battleships were only 1 hit in this version it was not until the pc edition back in 1998 that it became 2 hits that’s why you have to use that German battleship wisely

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Oh ya, definitely. That’s what the conversation is about starting at 22:40.

[@jotacantc.8217]

Great video thanks!

[@jotacantc.8217]

I find that USA is the hardest to play since it’s so difficult to play both in Atlantic and Pacific and without push back… Japan grows too much and swallows up India and China and half of USSR!

[@nolimit7959]

I concur with attacking Egypt as well, though I'd probably go after Scafa Flow instead of the Canadian transport for it's just too many options open for that fleet!!!

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Too dicey for my taste. To each their own.

[@math080guy]

I too agree with taking Egypt first turn. Don's Essay's are a good thing, as far as they go, don't get me wrong, but they are hardly carved in stone, and there are other viable ways to play things out. The UK sub poses a 1/3 chance of a hit, and for that we should give them a turn with their forces intact? I say no, take the chance and get your troops on the ground. As for the UK fleet, I cannot see NOT making that attack, as things only get worse for Germany later on, and if you want the air-deterrence of a well stocked Western Europe to be enough to keep the USA out, they cannot have an easy stockpiling point left for them. I'd rather give up on Egypt turn one, than the UK fleet on turn one, but that is just my own opinion, YMMV.

[@CaptainVasiliArkhipov]

Hey, in this first edition could all battleships bombard with just one ground unit landing or does each battleship require its own infantry for shore bombardment ?

[@marionroark8237]

Hope anyone from Missouri would like to face to face and play this, i love this game

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Good luck my dude, it’s really an amazing game. If you would ever like to play online (via TripleA or VASSAL or whatever), don’t hesitate to drop me a line.

[@marionroark8237]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 I play all the time on line, Major Roark #5291 via steam axis and allies

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@marionroark8237 Ah, I assumed we were talking AnA Classic.

[@palious13]

I have always considered transports high value targets. I attack Egypt like you do, minus 1 fighter, that fighter joins the fleet action against the sub. I send the fighter from Norway to the transport at Canada. I send the sub in the Atlantic to attack the American transport. I attack the Scapa flow fleet with the sub 2 subs, and the bomber. My aim is not the battleship, I want to sink the transports. They can have as many fighters, bombers, and battleships as they want, with no transports, Europe, and my rear is safe while I concentrate on Russia. I also attack Karelia with all land forces in range, including 2 infantry from Germany via the transport. I have been fortunate that the players I have played against have split between Karelia and Moscow.

[@jaripojk]

A small curiosity here, but moving the AA gun from SE into the EE opens up a possibility for the allies to, in later turn, strategically bomb this area without incurring any risk. If strict neutrals are in place they can place both U.K. and US Bomber with infantry protection in Gibraltar? Just a thought, but great videos:)

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

In Classic, AA guns shoot at any aircraft flying over during the combat move. In this case, said bomber would be shot at over Western Europe on its way to SE. I cover this in my first video in the series. As for Gibraltar, yes the allies could do this but Germany would have time to counter the threat and move an AA gun in to SE to counter. Thanks for the comment!

[@jaripojk]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 but when they come from Gib. they avoid the flak dont they? Anyways its easy to countermeasure moving the AA back.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@jaripojk well, I’m glad you’re thinking about potential strategies! Glad you’re enjoying the series.

[@barresii]

I'm curious where you found Don's specific combat move recommendations for turn 1. In his essays I only find the purchase directive as well as some general strategies (ie don't attack Egypt).

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

That's true. He states several general directives for Germany and I say as much at about 4:05 in this video and give more details that should answer your question here. Glad to get a comment from someone who actually read the essays.

[@barresii]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 OK, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I can't find where it says to try and sink every single British ship, potentially at the cost of a couple fighters.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@barresii It's very much glossed over in these essays but when read in their entirety, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that Don Rae assumes German players are doing this by default. Here are a few lines from the text that support this: "Your British-based fleet will usually be wiped out by German Air and Fleet units by the Axis player.” Here is another: “The [British] carrier is placed after clearing out any German naval nuisances in British waters.” (infers the British home fleet has been eliminated). Here is another: “Always clear out any German fleet in the Atlantic using fighters and bombers.” -infers these are the only UK pieces left to do the job. Additionally, he advocates a carrier build on UK turn 2 to land US fighters on. Finally, and perhaps most damning, he advocates Germany building a transport while (incredibly, imo) freezing the battleship in place to protect them from a potential UK bomber attack on England's first turn. Freezing the German battleship in this way means it cannot be used to attack British naval units. Since he mentions nothing in regards to the existence of the UK's Mediterranean battleship or sub in this hypothetical British bomber attack, its only reasonable to infer he thinks they both don't exist ostensibly having been eliminated by German air units and the sub west of France. Overall, it appears he assumed German players would always do this so never took the time to say it outright.

[@barresii]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 thanks for the detailed response! On another note, he references an "advanced axis grand strategy" that I cannot find online or in your downloadable version. Does this exist?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@barresii sorry about the late response. I don’t know what/where that reference is. But you’ll get the general picture after reading his axis strategy.

[@PMMagro]

I whoudl get another tank into Africa and shift 1 tank in stead off infantry from Finland/Norway > Eastern Europe. Also build 1 tank & 9 infantry. I agree you will need loads off infantry to both be able to defend any western landings and make big pushes with. IF teh Soviest builds infantry probaly you are forced to do the same...

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

there is a video I made called "Waltzing in sunny skies" that explains the grand strategy for Germany. it does a better job articulating why G should stick with the all infantry build.

[@nathangiauque556]

Can’t Karelia take Eastern Europe on turn 2 with about a 70% chance of winning? That would eliminate that stack of German tanks and make things difficult for the German player going forward.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

This is not correct. This might be because I misspoke slightly at 29:57. There are 11 infantry in Eastern Europe at the end of the first German NCM, not 10. In this hypothetical, the attack has a roughly 60% chance of success if both Russian fighters survive the AA fire (a 42% if only one survives). This is intentional and remains my opener even in the Classic games I've played in 2023. It's highly unlikely the Russians will attack for, among several other reasons, seasoned allied players will not accept such a high risk so early in the game. After all, the “…game is imbalanced towards my side anyway. Why take the chance?" Running these percentages and playing strategic "chicken" with the allied player is key to winning the game as the axis. Accepting a few battles at near 50/50 in the early game will be the subject of a future video.

[@CaptainVasiliArkhipov]

Have you tried taking turkey first turn by German transport ? Taking Caucasus allows two Ukraine based tanks to non combat into turkey. Another slick move is two subs and 4 aircraft attacking the British home fleet, after the other 2 airplanes sink the Gibraltar battleship, the subs must both survive and retreat off of Spain, many lost airplanes can allow non combat of both German transports and their battleship to join both retreated subs off of Spain, bringing units from Norway and Italy to Algeria, it can be a difficult target for england to take out and if they don't...

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

I admire the out-of-box thinking on both of these strategies. However, at first pass here is what I notice about each. The German fleet consolidation strategy - four fighters and two subs vs the North Sea Fleet with Russian support - There is a 25% chance of all allied units being wiped out in the first round of combat. In other words ¼ of the time, the German subs will never be able to retreat to Spain and instead be stuck adjacent to the UK, alone. Ignoring that possibility, the attack will very likely cost two German fighters and 33% of the time it will cost a sub (if the Rus sub scores a hit, it automatically destroys a German sub since subs cannot hit aircraft). Finally, let’s say the plan works perfectly and you retreat with the German fleet consolidated off Spain. The UK counter-attack of transport-two fighters-bomber still has a 57% chance of wiping out the German fleet to say nothing of their purchase options against a much reduce Luftwaffe. The British forces in Egypt are still in play as well. I’m not sure the risk/sacrifice is worth the movement of an Afrika Korp into Algeria but again, I’ve never seen that and I really like that as a hypothetical.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

The Turkey strategy - this is a bit more interesting but...boy...this looks really dangerous for Germany, esp against a decent Soviet opener. (i.e. I always leave an inf and AA gun in Caucasus as USSR so Germany would/should send three infantry, no fighters). Doing this almost certainly surrenders all three territories of East Europe/Ukraine/Caucasus to the Soviet player on round 2 (not to mention Finland). You might be able to get away with holding EE by giving up Egypt but that’s pretty scary odds. I’m not sure what the gain is for Germany with this position. At any rate, if neutrals are in play, then the Allies can “Spanish Harlem” and I have yet to see that strategy fail. Thanks for the post! This was a kickass comment for sure. Love this stuff. If you ever wanna game, let me know.

[@CaptainVasiliArkhipov]

I don't recall British forces in Libya turn 1, Egypt Syria and south Africa, Egypt maybe has German units if their 1 tank and 1 infantry are victorious against the same 1 tank _ 1 infantry the British have.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov I have edited the 2nd to last sentence to read "Egypt" instead of "Libya". And yes, the Germans could task the Libya units to seize Egypt at 50% chance of success.

[@mikedearing6352]

I forgot to ask, I was thinking can the English transport be taken as a offensive combat loss even though no offensive naval units are present ? I think an attacking naval unit must be present in order for the transport to be taken into combat and used as a combat loss, nobody's going to shoot at the transport unless an attacking ship is trying to hide behind it, the attacking aircraft won't be protected by the unarmed transport leading the charge it seems.

[@belochai12]

Are purposely saving the 2 IPCs for a later purchase? Why not get 9inf and a 1tnk instead of 10inf?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Yeah, a turn 2 purchase of 12 infantry and save 1. Since tanks defend on a 2 and Germany is not going to be attacking Karelia on G2, no need for the tank. In fact, between the Atlantic wall and the east front, Germany is hard pressed out of the gate. Really needs every body. But I feel you. I clung to the 9 inf 1 armor purchase for a long time before realizing it’s much better to only buy infantry every single turn as Germany…

[@1CASSIODORUS]

I don't see the wisdom of attacking Egypt on G1. The risk of losing the battleship is simply too great imo.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

The goal of attacking Egypt on G1 is to destroy the UK units therein, add the IPC to German and setup a springboard to go deeper into Africa. The second order affect is that the UK will feel compelled to counterattack with India which helps Japan out. This is worth risking the battleship which doesn’t provide much after G1 except protection for the G transport (which shouldn’t be shucking after G2 anyway).

[@1CASSIODORUS]

Hey Thanks for the response . I'm an old A&A classic player who's brought the beloved game out of retirement as a result of discovering your video. The Good Captain indeed! I think the UK player will feel compelled to transfer its India units to Egypt if the German player follows Don's plan . If they do , I think Egypt will still fall on G2 , opening the door to Africa and still keeping the battleship . I also don't like leaving that Allied fleet alive around the UK. On Britains's turn, they can dump a force into Algeria and then be reinforced by another force from the USA. Plus they'll have the protection of the British battleship. The Russian fleet can then join that fleet on their turn.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@1CASSIODORUS My favorite comment is one where someone says they got the game out and started playing again so thanks for that, made my day. RE G2 Egypt: The UK armor will escape and if you're playing a savvy UK player, he should be able to use the forces in Africa to blunt most axis thrusts going forward. In my experience overall, things get worse for the Axis turn by turn in Africa, not better. So better to get after it now while the Allies are hamstrung by the turn order and initial setup. RE not attacking the allied fleet: this is part of an overall strategy for the axis. I have two videos that outline the argument for not attacking the Allied fleet around the UK: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iniYZqxrq96sp7M and not attacking the American fleet around Hawaii: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIKXaX-Aqtd0nrc Glad you're enjoying the videos and if you'd every like to play a friendly game or games by email, do let me know!

[@mranderson5668]

Can't the fighter from Finland be used with the other 3 fighters to attack the british/russian navy, and then go on to attack the Canadian transport?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Only one territory is allowed to be attacked per unit per turn.

[@mranderson5668]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 oh geez I guess I've been playing it wrong all along. Especially with the tanks, I would attack two spots, and use the bomber to attack multiple spots. This really changes how I will play. I guess that's why I see moscow empty?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@mranderson5668 you can download a free game called “TripleA”. It’s helpful because it runs this game in a way that you cannot violate the rules. Just google it and download and play solo and you’ll be up to speed in no time.

[@mranderson5668]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 not sure how to download it. thanks anyway!

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@mranderson5668 no problem

[@richarddefreitas2507]

The two fighters in Libya can not reach Iraq it 3 spaces to reach. And nowhere to land cause leaving the area they attack counts as one space. Fighters only move 4 spaces. Those two fighters would not be able to join attack against iraq

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

They can reach Iraq. Egypt and Trans-Jordan are adjacent territories. I think you’re counting the sea zone between these two countries which does not apply. I can cite the rule of you need me to. It’s on the first few pages of the manual.

[@math080guy]

One thing that is putting me off a tiny bit, is you did one thing with Russia in the previous video, but when we get to Germany, they have a different end of turn entirely?!?! Confuses me a bit, making things a bit harder to follow. Also, there was something like that with what the Germans were shown doing {maybe, I was very tired and fell asleep during the Germany video sever times, and not because your videos are boring, but quite the opposite, I spent the whole day doing stuff, and only at the end did I discover your content, and even though I was dead tired, I watched until I fell asleep, because they are so good!}, but that may just be because of the difference between Don's way, and your own. One thing that you did demonstrate, though, was an illegal move re the German armor blitzing south (a combat move), followed immediately by a non-combat move back north to Libya. Blitz moves need to end in an enemy territory, and no piece, land or sea, can move in both combat and non-combat phases of any turn. I'll rewatch this video, and then EDIT in the time stamp from where this happened. EDIT: this took place @8:32. You have some great videos, and thoughts, for A&A classic, and I must say I'm impressed and looking forward to more...

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Blitzing moves do not need to end in an enemy territory in AnA classic 2nd edition as stated on page 13 of the rulebook, 1st column halfway down.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Also, if something doesn't match in one video to another it's probably due to the dichotomy. I show Don's version and then my version in each video. They should line up.

[@math080guy]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 You are once again entirely correct, and I am once again wrong! Lol, if nothing else, I'm at least getting a good education on the stuff I've been doing wrong for 32 years! I was also not aware that the second territory could be a neutral one, so very good stuff here. While on that note, one thing I am currently researching right now, was when was the first bridge built across the Bosphorus straights connecting Europe and Asia, in NW Turkey. Seems one pontoon bridge was built way way back in ancient times, but I don't know when the first rail road bridge was built {Or even if one ever was}, but the reason for my asking this here is, can a german tank cross into Turkey directly from Eastern Europe? The 1998 computer game, in one version or another, would let me do that, but now that you have brought to light the actual blitz rules, what I was doing was an illegal move, as I was blitzing through turkey, and then attacking Syria/Iraq on the first turn. I thought that was to good to be true, and so it turns out to be, but is Turkey even enterable across the bosphorus in A&A 2nd edition?

[@math080guy]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 Gotcha! That is indeed what I was having problems with. I'll go back and post the time that we get the best view of each, in the Russian, German, and UK turns, so folks will know which positions match up with each other, and where to find them within the videos. I have a couple crappy little videos up, and would like feedback, especially with regard to lighting, camera focus/zoom, and sound, as I don't want to make anything like the series you did, and only then realise that no one can hear me. Anyway, thanks for this great series, and hoping to enjoy many more hours of these.

[@andrewfischer8564]

where can i play the classic i dont like 2nd ed

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

9 out of 10 times, when folks say “Classic” they mean 2nd edition. Can you be more specific?

[@andrewfischer8564]

@@thegoodcaptain1217 the one your playing the one that used to be on the msn game network i stopped playing when my computer couldnt play on the server they moved to. now i see a resurgance and i want to play..

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@andrewfischer8564 The one you see in this video is second edition Milton Bradley. The oldest online version you’re referring to is Iron Blitz I think? Email me at [e-mail]

[@robertsnyder1890]

after 4 months i have changed my opinion, slightly. everything you did is perfect except one thing. leave the transport alone in Canada and better utilize it somewhere else. one UK transport will not decide the game. save the 12 buck fighter, use it somewhere else. just trying to help.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

I disagree strongly about ignoring both transports but I appreciate that you have strong opinions. I again offer to play as many games as you’d like. Perhaps we will both learn something.

[@jeanniehogue4490]

Germany needs to take what they can in Africa as cheap as possible early. Stand their ground in Eastern Europe Round1. No need to be super aggressive and waist your pieces. Germany needs to be tough as nails. So it is impossible for anyone to penetrate. And just keep building. A steady diet of 6 infantry to 1 armor is great. Stay away from planes and navy. Then they just wait for Japan to get super big No Russia attack round 1 No new factories No weapons development That’s a fair game. I’d play either side

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

Almost fair. You’re missing Spanish Harlem.

[@jeanniehogue4490]

I don’t know Spanish Harlem. I probably would if I watched some more of your most excellent videos. I might no what your talking about but I would not have a label list Spanish Harlem

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@jeanniehogue4490 understood. Its not my label. Its the name the strategy was given on axisandallies.org and I have repeatedly learned the hard way that there is no way around it except to forbid the occupation of neutral countries. I agree with every comment you have made so far and hope we can play a game soon. You seem pretty sharp with regards to Classic and good players are harder to come by.

[@jeanniehogue4490]

I never enter neutral territory That is a very good house rule

[@robertsnyder1890]

FINALLY someone knows the importance of Africa. eight ipc available to whomever has Africa. if Germany, they are hard to fight against 35-40 ipc per turn. if UK they look at losing 8 ipc per turn so defend it with one tank and one inf per turn. 90% of the games i play, who has Africa wins.

[@robertsnyder1890]

this video is crap. if you want to show what happens then include rolling the dice. WAR is not a statistic reality. aircraft, might be windy and they miss the target. a drunk bomber pilot, raw infantry kids that get scared. if i played ever battle on statistics i would never lose. the dice add the anomalies that happen. and they do happen.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

I'll just point out that this isn’t war. This is a board game that is built on statistics. Also, saying that stats don’t matter but that if you yourself used them then you'd win every game is self-contradicting.

[@robertsnyder1890]

yes i know it is a board game but it is based on reality. think of a new player, they play the game this WILL work because the numbers say it will. then when it doesn't, they get discouraged and never play again. i am just saying there are anomalies in the game that make it exciting. so roll the dice and see what happens. do NOT say what SHOULD happen. but what does happen. i am bob and just trying to help.

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@robertsnyder1890 you should watch video 9 in my series, my critique of the don rae essays. In short, I totally agree with you. As an active Classic player, I still stand by what is said in this video though I’m troubled it came off as condescending to you. I haven’t gotten comments like this before at all. In future videos, I demonstrate probabilities more clearly using the TripleA battle calculator.

[@robertsnyder1890]

thank you for getting back to me. i understand what you are trying to do. with that said, who is this don rae essays because they have no idea what they are talking about. again, thank yo for your commitment to the game and your advice. oh, btw, i live in Concord NH. do you know anyone in my area that i can get a game with?

[@thegoodcaptain1217]

@@robertsnyder1890 no worries my dude. Don Rae was probably the first web based advice giver on axis and allies. His site is still up and has been since 1998. He is the one who first coined the terms "shuck" and "strafe" commonly used in playing axis and allies. With regards to finding players near you, your best best is this: www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/11/player-locator