Wait, who's Owen?

Luke's Uncle.

I think in Ep 4, there is something like this exchange between Luke and Obi-Wan:

Luke:  No, my father didn't fight in the clone wars, he was spice frieghter pilot...
Obi-Wan:  That is what your uncle told you.  He didn't hold with your father's ideals and said he shouldn't get involved...

Yeah, it wasn't well thought out.  He should have written it all as one story all at once and then divided it up for movie purposes instead of doing it one movie at a time.  Having new badguys every movie and stuff just wastes time b/c you have to introduce them and then of course he had to do double the work with Anakin b/c the first movie was set with him at 10 then you jump 10 yrs until he is 20.

I also would have liked to see Anakin joining Obi-Wan on some idealistic foolish crusade that didn't meet with Owens ideals.  Instead we get Anakin leaving at the age of 10 and Owen isn't even involved, and then 10 yrs later he's already a Jedi and meets Owen and there is no connection to what Obi-Wan told Luke in Ep 4.

The Clone Wars was handled poorly too.  That should have started in Ep 1 and Anakin should have joined up with Obi-Wan to fight.  I think you could set it with Anakin at 16 yrs old (played by a slightly older actor for the sequels, so you could have one actor doing all 3 movies) but obviously extremely gifted with the force and as a pilot.  Yoda thinks it is a bad idea to train him (too old) and tells Obi-Wan not to, but he ignores the advice still trains the young Anakin and they go off to fight in the war.  End movie 1.  The War is Movie 2.  Movie 3 sees the end of the War and Anakins final decline.

The whole story is there in the first part of Ep 4 and the Yoda scenes from Ep5 and 6, but for some reason it was ignored.   

When do you land with the US in Nor?

You can do it in Rd 2 with an Inf/Rt but you'll need UK Naval support in Sz 6 or 3.  Or do you land in Rd 3 or later?

I used to like trying to take both with Russia, but that seems to be harder to do lately since Germany usually has a decent sized stack in BST after G1.  Also I think having one of the other Allies take Fin or Nor is a good idea b/c it allows direct naval placement into Sz 5 (with an IC) which might be needed.

If you can pull off a US rd 2 landing, you can probably put the IC down on Nor on US 3 while you take Fin and then follow-up with the other IC.

I think we should assume Ger takes Egy in Rd 1, so what are you UK 1 buys and how do you deal with Afr?

 



 

I agree with axis_roll, with all the various Axis attacks (while seen as a potential dis adv by me) you also get a WIDE variety of setups and playouts, which I think is contributing to all the who has the adv and balancing stuff.  We are all just seeing lots of different scenerios simply because the results of round 1 are harder to duplicate than previous versions.

For Example in Revised, Russia Attacks Wrus and Ukr/Belo probably 90% of the time and the results are fairly predictible in that you can easily plan ahead for a G counter and then UK etc.

But in Revised the G1 attacks leave open lots of alternatives that make it hard to plan, does Russia attack Fin, stack Kar, pull out of Kar, stack Belo, counter Bst, counter Epl, counter Ukr, etc.?

And b/c it is harder to know exactly what you'll face it makes it more difficult to come up with the counters that may have worked in past games.  While the attacks are predictible the results are not thus we see the wide variety of Allies need X ipcs all the way to Axis need Y ipcs.

*waves hand*
You don't want to see that thread.

I think he plans on moving it back, but just wanted a cool down period.

Well, the bad stuff with axis round 1 attacks is that only a few can go totally bad, and even losing one of them will not hurt axis too much because of their huge default advantage. Axis losing some attacks here and there simply means allies have a small opening, but axis should have to lose most of them to give a balanced game. Egypt is not critical to axis, nor z2 nor even Yunnan or z12. But each one of these successing for axis is a bigsetback for allies and hurts them much since they cannot recover from them as axis can.

In resume, axis has much less to lose in that combats than allies

I disagree.  I think the Axis have a lot to lose.  I think leaving the UK ftr in Egy is a big shift for the Allies and the UK, as would be the BB b/c that likely means the UK already has 2 trns and a third if you bring over the Aussia trn.
Also depending on the G1 BST attack if the Russians get 1-2 hits then Kar might be stackable and Ger will have a real tough time ever getting the 3rd NO.  Japan failing at Pearl is a huge setback as well, since the US can essentially have an equal fleet at the end of rd 1.  Too many defensive hits in Sz 12 (or lost G planes) may mean Alg is an option in Rd 1 for the Allies, that means no two NO's for Ita without putting their fleet in immediate danger in Rd 2.  Japan losing to the UK DD at India makes Egy counterable or provides the UK with their 4 trn or might make a SAfr IC more viable.  The Allies can have a lot of options depending on the results it is just a matter of playing them out and getting a better feel for what works and what doesn't.  The game is only about 6 months old and Allied strat ALWAYS trail axis b/c they require much more coordination and realiance upon each other for back up.  We already are seeing some of it in the Tourney and League.  The Allies lead in the Tourney and the League, will it hold up?  I don't know, but it is definitely promising considering it is still early and the Allies are winning more than the Axis.  People are still trying to figure the best balance for the US and I still have a couple all out KJF strats I want to try even though just a few games ago I thought it would be impossible.  I now think there might be some definite openings.  KGF remains strong IMO (with the refinement of minimal support to hold or deter a J move HI - but that still means an 8 unit shuck is very playable).  I'm also starting to like subs a little more (even for the Atlantic but haven't really tested that much).

Just to add another thought, all unit bids are not the same.  For example 1 inf to Chi is not the same as 1 inf to Egy.  So in terms of casual games if you are just looking for "different" game playouts then try a few extra inf for China, or give Russia a ftr, or whatever you wanted to try.  You can use a declared bid (instead of blind bid) where you can bid specific units, ie maybe you want to bid a bomber to Russia, or another allied ship to the Pac or Atl, or an Ita DD, etc.  Likewise if you want to do cash that would work but as Func pointed out it is a lot harder to determine a good amount.  Also just like unit bid, not all cash bids are the same, 20 ipc to Russia =/= 20 ipc to UK =/= 20 ipc to US.

You also could just alter the set up (not add units but move).  Try just moving the China ftr to a safe location, move a ship or two around, etc.

But for competitive play I think the easiest way is simply to use a blind bid for units.  Typically the range gets narrowed down very quickly and you start to see a series of 2-4 different placements, usually reflecting a Power Europe play (PE), a Power Africa (PAfr), or a Power Asia (PA).

In AA50 if bidding for the Axis continues here we'll still probably see these variations with the Pafr broken up into an Ita focus or Ger focus, but if the Allies need bidding we'll probably end up seeing a European Defense bid (Russia units), Africa Defense (UK units), Pacific Defense (US units), or the China Defense.  I'm sure all would have +/- and it would come down to amounts and what you feel like playing or trying.

In all cases bidding does alter the game and you can't prevent that, but the issue at that point is do you want to play a game where before anyone even moves one side might have a huge advantage?  For on-line play competitive play the answer is no.

Generally small bids (1 inf here or there) don't mean much considering all that is is an extra hit on Off or Def in any battle or a successful SBR vs. a bom that got shot down right away, etc.  I'd put 1-2 unit bid within the margin of error any game played without a bid, but they are designed just to make the round 1 screw job a little less likely.

Your next in line when I'm obliterated by them... 

I object!   

My issue with the Axis is their round 1 attacks.  I think far too much depends on winning every battle and when you have a combined 14-18 battles some of those are going to go bad or you'll get sub par results and that in turn gives the Allies the Adv b/c they can see the weak links and respond accordingly.

Now if all the Axis battles are won with expected results the Allies certainly have their work cut out for them.

The main difference between a cash bid and unit bid is unit bids can immediately level the playing field (if the game is deemed unbalanced or it plays that way in your play group).  The general idea behind a bid is to give both sides an equal chance to win while changing the fewest possible things.

With previous games (Classic and Revised) the setup needed slight altering and cash just can't solve the problem.  Take a G1 Egy attack in Revised.  With no bid you attack, maybe win, but are easily countered on UK1 and Afr is lost for the entire game or not a real issue for the Allies and the Axis will lose.  It doesn't matter if Germany has 12, 15, 18 extra ipcs to spend on units on G1 b/c those units won't see the Russian front until G4.  By that time UK and US are landing heavily in Nor/Kar or threatening WE/Ger with a direct assualt.  The issue here is how do you help boost Ger's income long term for the mid game.  The answer is they need to be able to blitz Afr, thus they have to hold Egy on G1 and prevent the UK counter, so a bidded unit becomes necessary.  Simply placing 1-2 more inf on Lib is much better than the equivalent 12-15 ipcs needed in cash.  FIDA bids (split bids between land and cash) are typically double unit bids so if you bid 8-9 in Revised, you should be bidding 15-18 for FIDA and I'm assuming a straight cash bid would be even higher, I'd figure at least 21+.

Now for AA50 there's still a debate on side advantages, but again it all depends on what eventually becomes the standard G1 and J1 open.  Right now Ger attacks the 3 Russian Ter, Egy, Sz 12, Sz 6, and probably Sz 2, and Japan attacks 3-4 chi, kwa, pearl, sz 35, sz 56, phil, and takes the empty islands.  But as play on both sides tightens up if it is ever determined that one of these early crucial battles is vastly more important than the others then you'd need a unit bid to solve the problem.

For Example, I believe Egy could be this battle in AA50 as well.  I think leaving the UK with an arm/ftr or ftr gives the Allies an adv to win.  However, leaving the UK with a BB, DD, and 2 trns to start in the Atlantic isn't that great either.  Thus both should probably be attacked but in order to do both you have to take some risks (either no bom to Egy or sub(s) + ftr(s) to Sz 2).  If you win great, but if not, you could be in an even bigger hole.  So to remedy this why not just bid another inf to Lib and make Egy a little safer?  Again, if this battle is viewed as the most important of round 1 then giving Ger, Ita, or ��� cash won't help in winning the battle.  On the flip side if you think the Axis have the Adv in AA50, there is still going to be 1 key battle where you hope your Allied defense holds.  That will likely be Egy, a Russian Ter, or perhaps one of the naval engagements.  For simplicity assume the Allies feel Egy is the key battle.  Again giving cash will not help if Ger always wins in Egy, or if you think BST is the key batte b/c then Ger always takes Kar in Rd 2 and smashes Russia in Rd 4 or 5, why not just bid a couple inf there (or Kar) so Russia can maybe counter BST and hold Kar.  In the last scenerio giving Russia Cash will not help counter on R1 and may not even help in R2.  Thus you still lose the strategic goal and position for the cost a few inf.  All that means is if the Axis gain an Eco Adv it might take them an extra turn or two to crush Moscow.  In this case the cash bid never gave you an oppotunity to get the game to a 50/50 proposition.

In terms of the lightsabers, initially they were to have "weight" to them.  And you see this with the slower duels in Ep 4-6 and more two handed grips.  However, by Ep 1 the introduction of Maul and the double bladed saber and to increase the action, the lightsabers weight was pretty much ignored.  So the reason given was Obi-wan was old, Vader was half-machine, and Luke was a novice.  But this doesn't hold up either considering Dooku was at least as old as Obi-Wan (in Ep 4) and Palpatine was old as well and they could do flips and stuff.  Not to mention Yoda was 800 yrs old and could flip around and stuff.  Greivous was 100% machine and had no problem wielding 4 lightsabers so Vaders mechanical parts should not have slowed down any of his ability.

The real solution is simple, not enough thought was put into the prequel trilogy.

I think a lot was sacrificed in order to have Anakin being 10 yrs old in Episode 1.  It completely trashed the inital timeline b/c it puts him in his mid 40's in Ep 4 and Obi-Wan in his mid 50's however Shaw (in Ep 6) and Guinness certainly looked older.

I don't have any problems with the sound in space thing, lightsabers, lightspeed, and stuff like that because it is a completely made up universe and cinematic device as dinosaur points out.  As long as these are used consistantly throughout the Star Wars Universe it is fine.  The issue becomes when they aren't (ie dueling from Ep 4-6 vs. Ep 1-3).

Also there is the Qui-Gon thing.  I like Liam Neeson and the character, but the problem compared to the originals is Yoda trained Obi-Wan and was his master, not Qui-Gon.  Unfortunately this was rectified with Yoda "teaching" everyone as they start out as younglings.    Also Obi-Wan was supposed to be reckless and thought he could do better than Yoda, which is why he trained Anakin, yet in Ep 1 he basically sided with the Council and only decided to train him when he made a deal with Qui-Gon after he was stabbed.

I still do enjoy watching Ep 1-3 but they aren't nearly on the same level as the originals and I tend to look at them as a completely different set of movies rather than just one.

That could work, as long as the US has the option to build ICs on EI/Bor it would be fine.   

It might be neat to make Aus worth 3 too.  If you adjust the setup it might make a UK IC there more playable.

Here's an Example of the possible results of a LL battle:

6 inf, 7 arm vs. 9 inf, 1 arm.
27 pip vs. 21.

Result 1 - Attack hits round up defender misses each rd
Att takes with 1 inf, 7 arm

Result 2 - Attack misses rd up, defender hits each rd
Att takes with 5 arm

Result 3 - Both always hit on rd ups
Att takes with 6 arm

Result 4 - both always miss on rd ups
Att takes with 1 inf, 7 arm.

So for a medium sized battle you can still end up with a pretty significant difference such that all of a sudden your 5 arm are vulnerable to a counter, whereas 1 inf and 7 arm may not.

Essentially you can come out with a +/- of 1 unit per side for each rd of battle given the rounding effect in LL.  So you still get varience just not as much.  For example if you have a large scale battle that will go for 5 rds you can see a 10 unit swing in the battle results which certainly could lead to losing a battle b/c you are think no way will I miss every round up and the defender will hit.

Obviously you won't outright lose any battles if you assume worst case and are still projected to win, but given the nature of LL it is not enough to win the battle b/c you better be darn sure you can survive the counter, otherwise if you do get a slight roll down then you just left your expensive attacking units vulnerable.

Again per my example above,
1 inf, 7 arm can probably fight off a counter of 6 inf, 4 arm to a draw BUT
6 arm has no shot at defeating a counter of 6 inf, 4 arm and also leaves open the possiblity of a perfect strafe (could even counter with 5 inf, 4 arm).

LL is generally less forgiving on mistakes.

I think the best way to get Pacific fighting is to revalue the Islands.  First get rid of NOs and then make all Pac islands worth at least 1.  I'd up HI to 3-4, Mid and Wake to 2 and AL to 2-3.  Make Sol and Car worth 2.

I don't think NO's are enough.  The US can usually get by with just the bare minimum (maybe only buy a few subs to deter the J fleet)to maintain the HI NO.  Even if you buy 2-3 subs per turn you'd still have 30-36 to spend in Eu.

Also EI/Bor/Ngu/Sol should start as Japanese (I guess 42 setup), b/c in AA50 it is hard for the US to find any incentive to go heavy Pac.  They simply can't gain until they get to Phil and if you can get there in the mid game it is probably over for Japan and the Axis already.