After Action Reports

[axis_roll]

It is just like in Classic or Revised, the Axis need Egy in rd 1.  More specifically for AA50 the Axis need Ger to clear Egy.  Otherwise Italy is crippled rather quickly. 

Anglo-Egypt is very important turn 1, I agree.  Only once in our FTF gaming group have we forgone SZ2 G1 attack with the bomber.  Germany actually took A-E on G1.  Germany also developed Jet ftrs on G1 with 3 researchers. 

However, the Axis still lost.  Yes, the allies got some rolls in their favor that might have ended it much quicker than it could have been for the axis.  The UK navy was built UK1 and ruled the Atlantic from round one on.... trading France every turn, and with USA getting into the mix, Northwest Europe and Norway too.  UK had too much money for Germany too handle, and the US small but effective pacific investment bother Japan just enough to keep them several turns from threatening Moscow.

We agreed the axis mis-played the control of France, and future games may prove that the UK BB in sz2 is NOT the anchor to victory that she proved in this match.

The only thing I know for sure is that this game is very nicely balanced.      

[axis_roll]

The next time you guys play as UK, I want a detailed AA report of how you implemented this strategy and what the results were for you.  

As requested....

Germany bought the IC G1 but didn't try to attack Anglo-Egypt G1 as has been the history of our playing group.  Because of this trend, I developed the UK ftr base in Gibralter plan.  UK purchased an IC for Anglo-Egypt UK and 2 bombers.  Germany did indeed add to the navy in sz13 on G2 (2 DD and a/c).  This was costly but did save the Med navy as the allies figured it was best to move into Anglo-egypt strong and invest in a navy of their own in SZ2.  A desperation push on moscow (via an italian tank opening) by Germany on turn 3 failed since US developed long range US 2 to cover Russia with an additonal ftr and bomber.

[U-505]

J1, 3 loaded tpts and a full carrier (and maybe a cruiser) should be able to hit Trans Jordan J2 before UK can sink the Italian navy UK2.  In this sensem the UK  ftr is not as critical as one might think.

That would be an interesting opening. Do you ignore the Philippines to do that?

[axis_roll]

J1, 3 loaded tpts and a full carrier (and maybe a cruiser) should be able to hit Trans Jordan J2 before UK can sink the Italian navy UK2.  In this sensem the UK  ftr is not as critical as one might think.

That would be an interesting opening. Do you ignore the Philippines to do that?

Yes.  This puts max pressure underneath (Indian Ocean) and really limits what UK can do (India / Australia).  In fact, quite a few times both India and Persia (or Transjordan/Anglo-Egypt are attacked J2.

I know the Philipines are a $14 IPC swing by waiting until J2, but other targets are more important J1.  The US DD and Tpt are sunk by the BB on J1.

[U-505]

Yes.  This puts max pressure underneath (Indian Ocean) and really limits what UK can do (India / Australia).  In fact, quite a few times both India and Persia (or Transjordan/Anglo-Egypt are attacked J2.

I know the Philipines are a $14 IPC swing by waiting until J2, but other targets are more important J1.  The US DD and Tpt are sunk by the BB on J1.

Losing the money doesn't bother me so much as 3 TP's going to sz34 on J2 means that they would be 3 turns away from the Japanese IC so you'd probably have to build an IC near them and/or build a lot of extra TP's for unloading from Japan.

Normally, I like to have 6 total Japanese TP's (4 for Japan, 2 for the Pacific and later Africa) and the Japanese income soars so quickly that I find myself having trouble building IC's fast enough to keep up with the vast numbers of infantry I'm able to afford to produce so building any more than 1 new TP seems wasteful to me. I suppose the extra income from clearing the Middle East and Africa quicker would offset the cost of buying new TP's, but I'd have to see it in action to convince me to change my J1 opening.


And on a side note, I have been thinking about moving 2 Russian inf from Kaz to Per on R1. My usual Russian build when Egypt stays in UK hands after G1 is 5 inf, 1 arm, 1 fig with the fighter and armor being built in Caucasus to help reinforce Trans-Jordan in preparation for the UK1 bomber build in case only the UK fighter survives the attack. The reason I've been thinking about moving the 2 inf is because Trans-Jordan is subject to Italian and German suicide attacks with what's left in Africa to soften it up for a Japanese landing and 1 fighter, 1 arm from Russia might not be enough to hold it. And if it becomes clear that even the 2 inf won't be enough to help the UK hold T-J, then I've only diverted them away from the German front by one move so I haven't really hurt myself very much.

[axis_roll]

Yes.  This puts max pressure underneath (Indian Ocean) and really limits what UK can do (India / Australia).  In fact, quite a few times both India and Persia (or Transjordan/Anglo-Egypt are attacked J2.

I know the Philipines are a $14 IPC swing by waiting until J2, but other targets are more important J1.  The US DD and Tpt are sunk by the BB on J1.

Losing the money doesn't bother me so much as 3 TP's going to sz34 on J2 means that they would be 3 turns away from the Japanese IC so you'd probably have to build an IC near them and/or build a lot of extra TP's for unloading from Japan.

Normally, I like to have 6 total Japanese TP's (4 for Japan, 2 for the Pacific and later Africa) and the Japanese income soars so quickly that I find myself having trouble building IC's fast enough to keep up with the vast numbers of infantry I'm able to afford to produce so building any more than 1 new TP seems wasteful to me. I suppose the extra income from clearing the Middle East and Africa quicker would offset the cost of buying new TP's, but I'd have to see it in action to convince me to change my J1 opening.

What is your normal J1 buy?  We have been adding 2 more transports so as to allow the SZ34 transports and SZ38 (East Indies) transport to go to Africa / Australia.

And on a side note, I have been thinking about moving 2 Russian inf from Kaz to Per on R1. My usual Russian build when Egypt stays in UK hands after G1 is 5 inf, 1 arm, 1 fig with the fighter and armor being built in Caucasus to help reinforce Trans-Jordan in preparation for the UK1 bomber build in case only the UK fighter survives the attack. The reason I've been thinking about moving the 2 inf is because Trans-Jordan is subject to Italian and German suicide attacks with what's left in Africa to soften it up for a Japanese landing and 1 fighter, 1 arm from Russia might not be enough to hold it. And if it becomes clear that even the 2 inf won't be enough to help the UK hold T-J, then I've only diverted them away from the German front by one move so I haven't really hurt myself very much.

And if you do not do that (move to T-J), you can always move an inf or two into india R2, making Japan commit some units to taking India.  I usually w/d the UK india units to Persia and set-up a counter-attack if possible.  I noticed last game that my UK bomber can make it all the way to rhodesia (and be safe there).  This allows the bomber to hit India and land in persia.  I think the extra $5 NO for Russia for no allied units in Russia is a big thing not too hard to accomplish, at least for the first two or more turns.

Russia's roll in Asia is way different in 1941.  Since Japan's turn follows Russia, you can not cover Russia units that have counter-attacked advancing Japanese units with UK's air force.  this is a huge difference in the dynamics for the Japanese tank dash.

[U-505]

My normal J1 buy is an IC in FIC to get the ball rolling down south and J2 I build an IC in Burma if I hold it.

[DarthMaximus]

The only thing I know for sure is that this game is very nicely balanced.      

I'll agree for the case of multiplayer games, certainly if you are playing with 4-6 players then yes, esp with Tech since that always offers the trailing side a miracle option.

[souL]

Date:  Feb 11, 2009
special rules:  NOs
Victor:  Allies by concession
Game Length:  6 turns
Bias:  souL v. Uberlager... I don't know exactly but I certainly could have played better.
Description:  Total and utter failure in the Atlantic theater.  The Germans lost 3 battles in round 1, including to the two inf in Epoland, Egypt, and SZ 12.  Italy also failed to take Egy when it was reinforced.  This, of course, is a recipe for the Allies to do what they like to Germany.  Lots of fume and bluster but couldn't not save Germany in time.  Resignation after the stark realization that the Allies landed the final financial blow in France at the end of turn 5 and wasn't going back under Axis control.

[Subotai]

Seems like the axis have a slight advantage in the -41 scenario, using NO's, and also tech, but then I believe that tech shouldn't be considered a factor (in this matter) since both sides will usually get an equal amount of favorable techs, and also some players will get tech early, and others late in the game. The tech/luck factor will even out if enough games are played, and it seems playing balance has come to a conclusion, even if it's fully possible that the trends of the empirical data will change in the future.   

With over 50 games played it seems like allies have a hard time, I think this is mainly because of the NO's. While G+��� have an easy time collecting NO's, allies have problems getting most of the NO's, specially early in the game. The 10 ipc Russian NO are particularly difficult until several rounds into the game.

To me it seems like allies need bid in -41 with NOs. I think we will soon have players demanding bids, or demanding to play axis.
Even if I don't played as many AA50 games to say for sure that axis have advantage, I will not play allies in -41 with NOs without a bid.
Playing without NO's, I think allies may have an advantage in the -41 scenario.

[Nickwins89]

Title:  Technology Rules? Yeah, Okay. (1941)
Date:  February 23, 2009
Special Rules: NO and Tech.
Victor:  Draw. An Allied player dropped out so we stopped.
Game Length:  6 hours - 4 or 5 rounds.
Bias:  About Even, the two veteran players were split up. Me as Axis was paired with newbie.
Description: 
       The Germans exploded out, gaining all thier National Objectives, and kept them for the remainder of the game. They kept major pressure on the Russia by streaming forces across the Eastern Front. Besides a horrendous first turn at Sea, the navy recovered later in the game. Not much ground was taken after reaching the gates of Moscow due to the stacking, but Caucasus was taken late in the game but returned.
       The Russians did well to stem the tide of combat. They got Rockets in the middle of the game which was an annoyance to placing troops into Karelia. They stemmed the Japanese tide at Bury and never relented.
       Japan expanded a lot but played a more conservative game. They ended up with a nearly destroyed China and a weakened British Empire. Their fleet was growing quite large and prepping to engage the US fleet.
       The Brits had a shamble of a game. They did good to protect their empire, but made some bad attempts in France and the Atlantic, losing their fleet towards the end to German Bombers and the Italian navy.
       The Italians did good, without ever really expanding into Africa. They helped support Germany in France and were a pain in the British side.
       USA Did well, building up a large navy and prepping it for the assault on Japan. They made a late game mistake, wasting 15 IPCs on an IC in Brazil for no reason. They used their Bombers to harass the German economy, but to no real effect.

Observations/Recommendations:  This game, although every major power bought it, there wasn't much tech until later in the game, and only the Allies were successful with it. The NOs really add something else to the game, and allow for more interesting games. I was amazed at how much money Germany could make with it's NOs. I was so glad to be able to pump out so many troops.
          On a side note, Could the AA gun in Caucasus (If Russia has rockets) fire upon the IC in Rome?

[TG Moses VI]

     The Brits had a shamble of a game. They did good to protect their empire, but made some bad attempts in France and the Atlantic, losing their fleet towards the end to German Bombers and the Italian navy.

Why did Italy make the trip up to the Channel? 

[Nickwins89]

To destroy a large portion of the British fleet. I know it's usually bad news to have them leave the Med, but it was a gamble that worked in the end.

[TitusAndronicus]

Long time reader, first time poster.

Title: Smoked Out ('42)
Date: 2/25/09
Special Rules: Tech, yes (USA: long range, Japan: Heavy Bombers, Italy: Advanced Art); NO, yes
Victor: Axis, concession
Game Length: 6.5 hours (with cigarette breaks streching it out a bit)
Bias: Japan player's first game, but his Axis partners were experienced and guided him through.  Russian player was inebriated, but never did anything that would indicate an unstable state of mind, so to speak.

Description:

In the Pacific Japan got off to a slow start like you'd expect from a new player, but got a major break on turn 2 with heavy bombers.  Though America had taken every island except for Japan and Iwo Jima plus S/E Asia the US still had to tiptoe around the Pacific trying to avoid the 5 bombers that were teched to high hell.  Eventually US thought his navy would withstand the bombers and brought it out to the Carolines where it was crushed.  America was making 70 IPC's a turn so it definitely could've eventually taken Japan but by then the UK had fallen in disrepair and Russia was toasted.

Europe was bad.  Russia did not have the success it needed on it's first turn losing a lot of tanks in it's attacks to create a buffer zone around the production facilities.  Russia being Russia the funds were never around to rebuild those tanks.  The UK held Africa, India and Australia to the bitter end (mainly because Japan had to spend 110% of it's money to keep up with the Americans even with Heavy Bombers) but Germany had far too much money after taking Russia and launched an overwhelming Sealion.  America ignored Europe almost completely because it had to spend a lot of money to counter the Heavy Bombers with cannon fodder destroyers and free hit battleships.  Help came far too late for mainland UK which survived 2 consecutive German invasion attempts before finally falling.

Observations: America was far too preoccupied with the Pacific and although it gained a huge edge in production Japan's heavy bombers cancelled it out alone.  Long Range aircraft weren't enough to get all the planes from the pacific onto the UK.  Japan simply played the game to survive eradicating anything that got within bombing range while Germany smashed Russia.  Italy had almost no success in Africa and shifted all it's resources to claiming some of Russia's carcass.

[TG Moses VI]

Do you think if Japan hadn't unlocked heavy bombers, the Allies could eek out a victory?  I would suppose Russia would still fall to Germany, but with Japan toasted, the game might have been more of a toss up.