Yeah the history is known, but the highlighting is also new to me. It seems like a good feature.
What to do with Japan
-
BigBadBruce - great point about attacking Russia - the 12 IPCs shouldn’t be a deterrent because you get it back quickly - I hadn’t thought about it that way… looking forward to it the next time I’m the Axis…
Also - good call on the Solomons. That’s a thorn in the side of the Allies. It should be taken back pretty easily, but it would be an economic shift for a turn or two, which can mean a lot.
-
@Dylan:
Man I need to learn how to quote on here :?
click the quote button and don’t delete anything that comes up when your about to post.
If you dont delete anything, how do some people quote certain points someone makes and not all of them, and how do people split the quotes up and comment on each of them?
-
Japan has to apply pressure to Russia from the get go. They need to do this for two reasons. One, the Japs need to do everything in their power from allowing those 18 infantry to get to Moscow. 2, considering Germany usually won’t invade until turns 2-4, when they do, they will face a Russia that is not making 37 ipcs in income. Not to mention that it obviously gives Japan Ipcs as well.
-
If you dont delete anything, how do some people quote certain points someone makes and not all of them, and how do people split the quotes up and comment on each of them?
When you insert a quote on your screen, at the very top there will be a line that says "@:
". Then you simply get your cursor to the very end, hit “Enter”, and start typing what you want to say on the next line. Once you enter your post, go back an look at it. The other person’s quote should be in the blue box with your words underneath in the white box.
-
BigBadBruce - great point about attacking Russia - the 12 IPCs shouldn’t be a deterrent because you get it back quickly - I hadn’t thought about it that way… looking forward to it the next time I’m the Axis…
Okay, I don’t understand something here. When you guys are talking about the 12 IPCs, I am pretty sure you are talking about the NO that Russia gets when Japan declares war on Russia, right? Basically, Russia gets a 12 IPC bonus if Japan attacks thus violating their Non-Agression Treaty. You keep mentioning Japan “getting it back”. Are you actually taking 12 IPCs FROM Japan and giving it to Russia when Japan attacks Russia? I don’t think it works that way. Russia gets the 12 IPCs but it doesn’t come from Japan. It’s simply an extra bonus for the Soviet Union.
What about if Russia violates the treaty by attacking Manchuria or Korea with those 18 infantry? In that case, it is Japan that gets an extra 12 IPCs. You don’t take that FROM Russia’s income, do you? -
Correct. The 12 IPC (one way or the order) comes from “the bank”. No nation actually looses that 12IPC.
By “taking back” we mean overall income. Japan by attacking Russia, cause Russia (and allies to some extend) to receive an extra 12 IPC… but, since it Russia looses ground, so income, the effect or that extra 12 IPC is reduced by the losse of income (by loosing ground).Furthermore, and it’s my point, Japan will make more income. So Russia loosing 1 IPC (for Amur for instance) and Japan gaining 1 IPC (for invadind Amur in my example), causes a difference of 2 between overall income of those nations.
So, that Extra 12 IPC received for the non-aggression pact broken would be nullify in 6 turns if Japan holds Amur all that time. But since Japand won’t stop at Amur and will take surrounding territorries as well, I say that 12 IPC bonus will be nullify in 2-3 turns… and all following turns, it will be at Axis advantage.
-
Okay, now I get it. So basically, Japan takes Amur and gets 1 IPC while Russia loses 1 IPC, thus effectivly reducing the 12 IPC bonus to 10.
So, say Japan not only attacks Amur, but sends a couple of transports to take Siberia and Soviet Far East. Japan gains 3 IPCs, Russia loses 3 IPCs and the 12 IPC bonus is effectively reduced to 6. Assuming Japan holds all three of those territories for another round, the 12 IPC bonus is more or less nullified because Russia lost 6 IPCs over 2 rounds and Japan gained 6 IPCs over 2 rounds.Thanks for clearing that up for me. Guess I was thinking a bit too literally.
-
Okay, now I get it. So basically, Japan takes Amur and gets 1 IPC while Russia loses 1 IPC, thus effectivly reducing the 12 IPC bonus to 10.
So, say Japan not only attacks Amur, but sends a couple of transports to take Siberia and Soviet Far East. Japan gains 3 IPCs, Russia loses 3 IPCs and the 12 IPC bonus is effectively reduced to 6. Assuming Japan holds all three of those territories for another round, the 12 IPC bonus is more or less nullified because Russia lost 6 IPCs over 2 rounds and Japan gained 6 IPCs over 2 rounds.Thanks for clearing that up for me. Guess I was thinking a bit too literally.
Yep, you understood my point. No problem, this forum is all about sharing! :wink:
As I say, you never know before you learn it! -
What does everyone think about taking away the Russian NO for Japan attacking it? Meaning, if Japan attacks Russia, then Russia doesn’t get 12 IPC’s. Only Japan would get the 12 IPC’s if Russia attacked it. I think this would be a way to help balance the game. Sometimes Japan doesn’t attack Russia b/cuz it gives Russia 12 IPC’s if it does. This would allow Japan to attack Russia w/out any negative effects.
-
What does everyone think about taking away the Russian NO for Japan attacking it? Meaning, if Japan attacks Russia, then Russia doesn’t get 12 IPC’s. Only Japan would get the 12 IPC’s if Russia attacked it. I think this would be a way to help balance the game. Sometimes Japan doesn’t attack Russia b/cuz it gives Russia 12 IPC’s if it does. This would allow Japan to attack Russia w/out any negative effects.
But remember this is a game based on world war II a real war that happened, and in that war there was no contact between Russia and Japan (at least not until Russia attacked it in 1944.) Beside their air force can help them take over territory easily and get them that money back, so if you know what your doing it shouldn’t be that bad.
Your free to try it though.
-
What does A&A being based on WWII have to do w/my post? I’m simply talking about balancing the game, using different idea’s. I’m just curious if anyone’s tried it. And of course Japan can take over territory they’ve lost to the Russians using their airforce. Again, the point is balancing the game. Yes the game is based on WWII but it’s still a game at the end of the day so it has to be balanced, otherwise it’s no fun to play.
-
Alright then I guess your right, but still it’s always bugged me that Japan and Russia go to war, except when I’m Japan goggling territory from them.
-
There are a lot of things that bug me too about A&A, like the fact that planes can hit subs when a destroyer is present, even though that never happened in WWII. But at the end of the day it’s a game.
-
There are a lot of things that bug me too about A&A, like the fact that planes can hit subs when a destroyer is present, even though that never happened in WWII. But at the end of the day it’s a game.
Planes hit subs all the time. Thats why the Germans eventually equipped their subs with radar. They feared aircraft more than anything! Destroyers did not seek subs out for the most part, but rather stayed with the convoys to protect against wolfpacks. Actually later in the war planes were equipped with sonar and thus were able to take out subs independent of any destroyer.
-
The biggest things that annoy me are shore bombardment (it was used but had an absolutely minimal effect on outcome of major battles such as Iwo Jima, Normandy, etc.) and aircraft being able to take out infantry.
-
The biggest things that annoy me are shore bombardment (it was used but had an absolutely minimal effect on outcome of major battles such as Iwo Jima, Normandy, etc.) and aircraft being able to take out infantry.
Why can’t aircraft take out infantry?
-
@Dylan:
The biggest things that annoy me are shore bombardment (it was used but had an absolutely minimal effect on outcome of major battles such as Iwo Jima, Normandy, etc.) and aircraft being able to take out infantry.
Why can’t aircraft take out infantry?
I just think it is highly unrealistic. Infantry is very difficult to locate, pin down, and most of all, completely destroy. Sure you’ll inflict casualties but no single air division could ever realistically take out an entire infantry division. If they could the war in Afghanistan would already be over.
I think air power should be limited to damaging infrastructure (as is already represented) taking out heavy equip such as tanks, art, mech, etc, taking out ships, and possibly harassing infantry at most. Harassing could possibly be preventing them from movement our something like that.
-
Retreat from China. (Yea, you lose a lot of cash, but you save so much in resources it isnt even funny, and the Chinese can’t really come after you to hurt you!)
Invade Russia and blitz for Moscow!
Take Hawaii on J2, reinforce the crap out of SZ 26 (or SZ 25 if you cannot hold SZ 26)
Take Australia on J4/5
Take the DEI on J5/6
This represents a “perfect” world, however. One in which America does not go after you with 100% of their resources and crushing you through shear finances. If America is “honest” and invests in the Atlantic as well, this should be achievable.
-
I’m talking about hitting submerged subs, not ones on the surface. Yes planes could attack surfaced subs but the units in A&A represent a major force of units, not a single unit. Planes did regularly bomb ports w/dry docked subs and the occassional plane(s) would attack subs out at sea. But like I said, I was talking about submerged subs. The point I was ultimately trying to make is, A&A is a game. Therefore, it should be balanced and leave the win to the side w/the best strategy and of course a little bit of luck, due to the dice. Thus, being a game and making it balanced, historical accuracy and realism have to be sacrificed a little.
-
This is also what I discovered after a handful of Axis games. Why is Japan fighting China again? My Japanese objectives are not to capture VC’s, it is to make it easier for Germany to be victorious by distracting the Americans as long as possible and fighting the Russians. Fighting China is a waste for Japan and an empty black hole for units. Of course once you leave China alone for a few rounds, it will be next to impossible to return….
If you bring that army in China north, the Russians will not be able to stop you until you reach the moscow area and link up with the Germans.
Suggested Topics
