New Allied Strategies for Anniversary Edition


  • Interesting. Sinking TRNs may be an effective way to slow down Japanese reinforcing.
    Other than the real attack of the bomber it is useful the threat of the bombers attack, this will force the Japanese to spend IPCs in escort warships, reducing the IPC spent in ground units. However at this point the USA BMB in China are less a threat for Japanese shipping. The “soakening” is not an option and China have to fought on his own.


  • @Imperious:

    Lend Lease sent planes, tanks, trucks, and other equipment to both UK and Russia.

    No men were sent and the quantity of the material sent was far less than what the game represents. The game is army level.

    Lend lease in the game should be basically just IPC that Russia uses to buy stuff cheaper, except infantry for obvious reasons.

    The lend - lease act also sent boots, ammo, rifles, blankets and clothing.  I don’t see why that couldn’t include infantry.

    Another interesting fact about lend - lease was that the US would send supplies from Alaska to the SFE either in Russian ships or in US ships with Russian ensigns and markings.


  • Sending USA infantrymen to fight in the infantry regiment of First Shock Army? Hardly to do, IMHO.

    Moreover if there was a material that Stalin had plenty of were the men! USSR had shorcoming of bullets, shoes, cloth, bullets, truck, tires etc. Men vere in excess.
    USSR had a total of 20 Million of death in the WWII (soldiers and civilians) and at the end of the War the Red Army had no menpower problemes for sure.


  • The lend - lease act also sent boots, ammo, rifles, blankets and clothing.  I don’t see why that couldn’t include infantry.

    They sent EQUIPMENT… and the quantities they sent could not equal more than the total value of nearly what is represented by a ‘piece’. And secondly, the ‘piece’ represents the manpower, and lend lease had none of that.

    Plus the units are under independent command?  You send a tank over, but the Russian player receives the benefit of playing that force on an independent turn order, which is essentially saying the Soviet player gets to move pieces before or after his turn. No sir. An American piece sent over in the way the game allows it is not Lend lease. Its US forces landing in Russia (with Stalins consent) to fight on Soviet land against Germany.

    It should be a simple transfer of IPC, subject to interdiction by subs or warships or planes by axis…just like the real war.


  • @Imperious:

    The lend - lease act also sent boots, ammo, rifles, blankets and clothing.  I don’t see why that couldn’t include infantry.

    They sent EQUIPMENT… and the quantities they sent could not equal more than the total value of nearly what is represented by a ‘piece’. And secondly, the ‘piece’ represents the manpower, and lend lease had none of that.

    Plus the units are under independent command?  You send a tank over, but the Russian player receives the benefit of playing that force on an independent turn order, which is essentially saying the Soviet player gets to move pieces before or after his turn. No sir. An American piece sent over in the way the game allows it is not Lend lease. Its US forces landing in Russia (with Stalins consent) to fight on Soviet land against Germany.

    It should be a simple transfer of IPC, subject to interdiction by subs or warships or planes by axis…just like the real war.

    Interesting, as that is not to far from what I use in my house rules for Lend-Lease.  I have made Lend-Lease certificates, which are spent just like IPCs, to purchase equipment from the US.  The main difference is that the material is ordered at the start of one turn, and then delivered at the end of the following turn, to reflect the time spent in production and shipping.  The amount that each country receives is based on a die roll, sometimes in combination with a minimum guaranteed amount.

    The whole purpose of Lend-Lease was to combine the enormous production capacity of the US with the manpower reserves of Allies who could not produce enough miilitary equipment themselves.  The Act itself was passed on 11 March 1941, long before the US was at war, and was a decidedly un-neutral act.


  • Based on the following post by Krieghund, http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12415.0, where he states the following:

    The only time having more than one AA gun in a territory can benefit you is if they belong to different countries and both countries have Rockets.  That would allow each country to fire Rockets out of that territory on their own turn.

    It would appear that a valid tactic for the Allies, if both the US and the UK get the Rocket technology while trying for one of the Land/Production techs, is to have the US also place an AA gun in the UK, and both subject the German IC to Rocket attacks.  If combined with Strategic Bombing Attacks, even without Heavy Bombers,  you could get four D6 rolls on the IC, with an average for the four die being 14.  German IC production would be 10 units, 12 if the German player gets the Improved Production Tech.  It would be possible for the Italian player to put in an AA gun as well to hit the UK, but given the limited number of IPC that the Italians will be getting, I suspect that Italian research is going to be limited.  If combined with Heavy Bombers, it might be possible to really limit German production severely.


  • @timerover51:

    Based on the following post by Krieghund, http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12415.0, where he states the following:

    The only time having more than one AA gun in a territory can benefit you is if they belong to different countries and both countries have Rockets.  That would allow each country to fire Rockets out of that territory on their own turn.

    It would appear that a valid tactic for the Allies, if both the US and the UK get the Rocket technology while trying for one of the Land/Production techs, is to have the US also place an AA gun in the UK, and both subject the German IC to Rocket attacks.  If combined with Strategic Bombing Attacks, even without Heavy Bombers,  you could get four D6 rolls on the IC, with an average for the four die being 14.  German IC production would be 10 units, 12 if the German player gets the Improved Production Tech.  It would be possible for the Italian player to put in an AA gun as well to hit the UK, but given the limited number of IPC that the Italians will be getting, I suspect that Italian research is going to be limited.  If combined with Heavy Bombers, it might be possible to really limit German production severely.

    A good reason why we need a new LHTR. At least tech is “off” by default.


  • @squirecam:

    @timerover51:

    Based on the following post by Krieghund, http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12415.0, where he states the following:

    The only time having more than one AA gun in a territory can benefit you is if they belong to different countries and both countries have Rockets.  That would allow each country to fire Rockets out of that territory on their own turn.

    It would appear that a valid tactic for the Allies, if both the US and the UK get the Rocket technology while trying for one of the Land/Production techs, is to have the US also place an AA gun in the UK, and both subject the German IC to Rocket attacks.  If combined with Strategic Bombing Attacks, even without Heavy Bombers,  you could get four D6 rolls on the IC, with an average for the four die being 14.  German IC production would be 10 units, 12 if the German player gets the Improved Production Tech.  It would be possible for the Italian player to put in an AA gun as well to hit the UK, but given the limited number of IPC that the Italians will be getting, I suspect that Italian research is going to be limited.  If combined with Heavy Bombers, it might be possible to really limit German production severely.

    A good reason why we need a new LHTR. At least tech is “off” by default.

    Or quickly make another set up and start another game.


  • What about heavy bombers? Would that be in conjuction of rocket attacks be devistating to Germany?


  • @shermantank:

    What about heavy bombers? Would that be in conjuction of rocket attacks be devistating to Germany?

    Combining Rocket with Heavy Bombers, given the Anniversary Strategic Bombing rules, would probably stop all German production period. All the German player would be doing is repairing his IC.  He would have to build another IC out of range of the Rockets, but that would severely limit the number of units that he could build.


  • We been discussing building an IC out of reach in the strategy section and so far it’s not promising even as a naval base, everything points out to France being the most viable and it’s still in range of ennemy air force.

    As Germany, only viable way i see it would be to spent ipcs on techs until i get radar. Super subs and shipyard would still be good. Else i am of your opinion that you will end repairing ICs every turn.

    So, spend Ipcs on tech turn 1. If unlucky, surrender :P

  • 2007 AAR League

    @timerover51:

    Combining Rocket with Heavy Bombers, given the Anniversary Strategic Bombing rules, would probably stop all German production period. All the German player would be doing is repairing his IC.

    Ouch! Thinking about it - it sounds fricking murderous…
    Good thing that tech is random in  AA50!!  :-o


  • That’s probably a very good thing, if you’re the Axis. It would be, in theory, worse for the Italians, since would spend over HALF to almost ALL of their IPC’s in one turn repairing their factory. So, Italy would be screwed.


  • Techs may be random, but as the US player, I am probably going to be going for the following land techs:  War Bonds, Improved Production, and Paratroops (now that zero IPC Japanese islands represent a bonus to the Allies), which means that the likelyhood of getting Rockets is pretty good for the US.  The UK may go either way, but again, is probably going to go for War Bonds, Improved Production, and Rockets, since they are already within range and already have the AA gun.  If either one gets it, and one of them also gets Heavy Bombers, Germany is going to need another IPC really bad.

    Also, if the US gets Rockets, takes Iwo Jima, and puts in an AA gun, Japan is going to be hurting as well.


  • AA50 will be lots of trying and failing until we know more about what strats are good and what’s not so good.

    I would gamble with India IC, stacking as much as possible, or maybe leave India and try to stack Egypt instead. Both India and Egypt will have to be retreated, but 3 rnds might be profitable enough, and the units will move to either Persia or retreating Egypt forces south, hopefully slowing axis expansion in Africa.

    If Jap doesnt kill most allie naval units in pacific, then I would try KJF with US. Jap starts with 17 ipc production, and US with 55 ipc.

    Uk would probably be best of doing the usual Nor-Kalia shuck-shuck, or maybe even north Africa, not unfamiliar from AAR.

    I think China will be completely pwned by Jap forces, should be allowed to move these units out from China to Russia or India  :|

    I miss Russian ftrs in the 41 setup, they are dearly missed, more TT’s in EE means more trading.

    If Allies already secured Africa, then maybe US could try something Alaska-SFE shuck-shuck.

    Whats really nice with AA50, is that there are now good or bad strats, yet 8-)

    We know the map, and how much TT’s are worth, but we dont know the setup, yet. Most important is that we dont know what it will mean practically, because it has to be played out before we can make any conclusions on whatever strat we’re discussing.

    Those strats that are inferior in AAR may turn out to be really good in AA50.

    We can’t even say for sure that AA50 is unbalanced!!

    I’m really looking forward to play AA50 in TripleA, (not just the map) hopefully the TripleA version of AA50 it will be as close to the boardgame as AAR is today.


  • @Subotai:

    I think China will be completely pwned by Jap forces, should be allowed to move these units out from China to Russia or India  :|

    I think the very reason they forbid chineses go out of China is because of this. They want prevent a gamey KGF with Kuomingtan forces stacked at Stalingrad instead of defending the Middle Kingdom  :-P

    But this, sadly, leads to a bugged China-Japan front, with bombers or IC merrily stacked in FIC or Burma in front of loads of chinese units  :-P

    I’d say that better if they would have made China a normal playable power. If allies want ignore Japan and let poor Chiang and Mao alone, so be it and that Godzilla Japan punish the allies with 70 IPCs :-D


  • @Funcioneta:

    @Subotai:

    I think China will be completely pwned by Jap forces, should be allowed to move these units out from China to Russia or India  :|

    I think the very reason they forbid chineses go out of China is because of this. They want prevent a gamey KGF with Kuomingtan forces stacked at Stalingrad instead of defending the Middle Kingdom  :-P

    But this, sadly, leads to a bugged China-Japan front, with bombers or IC merrily stacked in FIC or Burma in front of loads of chinese units  :-P

    I’d say that better if they would have made China a normal playable power. If allies want ignore Japan and let poor Chiang and Mao alone, so be it and that Godzilla Japan punish the allies with 70 IPCs :-D

    Yes, I think china being its own would make more sense.


  • I think I would have made China its own just to eliminate confusion with any nearby US forces sizing up an upcoming battle if nothing else.

    LT

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 17
  • 25
  • 57
  • 134
  • 26
  • 5
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts