isn’t this on the wrong board?
(people needing the sheet will probably be looking for it on the 2nd Edition Board…)
Moved today :-)
A & A Just Seems Fatally Flawed - please tell me I'm wrong
-
I think 5 star is supposed to be “more aggressive”, where 3-star is supposed to be “more conservative”–although I’ve seen 5-star and 3-star USSR do the exact same things T1. One thing I know: the AI Allies don’t do s**t about Japan–making the computer game more or less useless for trying out strategems for Japan. As Japan, you can just WASTE the AI, 'cuz seems like no one will fight you…just my opinion.
And F.Spencer-I think you WAAYY overestimate AAA’s effectiveness and way underestimate Strategic Bombing’s. Strategic Bombing can easily push an enemy who is on a tightrope economically (i.e. Germany, USSR at the beginning of the game) into ruin, and as long as you don’t radically push your luck, can be very effective. The chances are only 1 in 6 you’ll lose that bomber: unless it’s got something better to do, why not go for it?
On the other hand AAA is necessary when you’ve got an IC in a territory that is vulnerable to Strat. Bombing, or when an enemy has scads of FTR’s and little else–but that’s about it. An enemy has to attack you with 3 planes for you to even have a 50%-50% chance of a hit–at that is only for the 1st round of combat. And if an enemy attacks with NO planes, your AAA gun is useless.As a comparison, an ARM costs just as much, attacks at triple the value, and defends at double–the only thing it can’t do that an AAA gun can is fight BMR’s on a Strat. Bombing run. Consider buying ARM (or even INF) instead…Ozone27
P.S. Oh yeah I almost forgot–an ARM can’t be captured by an enemy and used against you: which oughta be a BIG consideration when buying AAA guns…
[ This Message was edited by: Ozone27 on 2002-03-10 22:39 ]
-
On paper the odds for successful defence of your skies using AAA don’t look good, but recent games have given me an impression that AAA is punching above its weight. This might be the result of unusually favourable dice rolls of the CD game as described above, but for the sake of reducing somebody’s IPCs from, say, 41 to 37, I’d think twice before risking my only Bomber, even at odds of 6-1. The IPC loss inflicted would need to be a crippling blow to the enemy to strat bomb.
Cheers
-
Sure…if your enemy is making 41 IPCs. But what if USSR is making 26 IPCs? Then joint Strategic Bombing by Germany and Japan could be very useful. On (rough) average, you could score 6 IPCs each turn, which would definitely take the edge off the Russian threat for a couple of turns–until Japan comes in and starts gobbling up USSR territory. Of course the same is especially true of Germany (as most players already are aware)–knock off a few IPCs early in the game and Germany can become a hurting unit. Strategic bombing USSR (or UK) as the Axis is the only way I’ve found to be able to counter Allied Strat. Bombing.–unless your AAA can shoot them down, which as previously stated, only works about 1/6th of the time.
Ozone27
-
Look at it this way. Since the average damage a bomber can do is 3 IPCs that means that the opposing player is lossing one infantry a turn. Take USA and UK for instance. If they consistently bomb Germany each turn, at the end of the sixth turn (1/6 chance of a AA getting a hit) Germany would have lost 12 infantry. That makes a HUGE difference in the game.
-
Strat Bombing is dumb in the basic game. There is no real defence against it. if America, Britain and the Russians Strat Bomb Germany it gets sick really quick and theres nothing Germany can do about it. At least in AAE you can Defend with your fighters.
-
I don’t disagree. I’ve never liked the way Strategic Bombing worked in A & A, especially 'cuz my favorite power, Germany, bears the brunt most of the time. There really is NO defense against it (except, as stated, to do it yourself) and often favors the Allies since they’re the ones who can afford to buy the bombers. Worse, it’s (IMHO) historically inaccurate as well. American Strategic Bombing (as opposed to Interdiction, or Carpet Bombing–which was called Terror Bombing when the Axis did it) of cities was notoriously ineffective against German Industry. Until the Bombers could fly all the way to Germany and back with full fighter cover, US bomber command took extremely heavy losses. But in the original game, AA gets one shot at you and THUMP–bombs away!
The way its handled in A & A Europe sounds better (with the fighters involved) but I dunno if my buddies and I are ready for a game of 1-against-everybody-else. The teamwork in A & A is very fun. But I dunno I haven’t played A & A E (or pac.) yet…
Ozone27
-
Yes, the strat bombing is terribly one-sided when it comes to A&A. Whenever I play A&A, I too use the A&A:E rules for strat. bombing. However I did modify it so that bombers can actually fire back (at 1). Defensive fire from bombers did account for a lot of enemy aircraft downed in the European air war, espcially in the early days of unescorted missions.
-
We’ve come up with our own Air defence rule. Since It is rediculus to assume that you can’t strenthen your air defenses.
For each fighter you have in the target area you get an extra AAA die roll. If you bring an escort you negate the defending fighter.
If you think that is not enough consider that Fighters can’t reach germany from britian and Germany starts with 5 fighters. We belive this is just the right ballence, however time will tell.
-
I have a question then. For each interceptor do you have to provide one escort fighter to get rid of the extra AA roll. the way the current rule sounds is that just having one escort will negate all interceptors.
Anyways here’s my rules:
AA guns fire, hit units are instantly killed (do not return fire).
Defending fighters roll one die each: Roll of 3 or less is a kill.
Escorting fighters roll one die each: Roll of 2 is a kill.Bombers rolls one die each: Roll of 1 is a kill.
Killed units are removed and the dogfight is over if any player chooses to stop.
Attacking bombers roll one die each - amount rolled is surrendered to bank. -
Yes, If you get strat bombed as germany buy all of the allies, your screwed, however, russia cannot be spending money on Bombers if she wants to survive. The same with Britain. She has to build up a navy so they can invade germany. the only on who can build up bombers is the us. Also, I think it is quite strange that you cannot blow up AA guns. Could not a fighter fly down and shoot it??? Or are AA guns prtected by a supernatural Force Field?? Just a question. Obviously the AA guns at capitols cant be deystroyed, but why not in other places??
Why not say that a AA gun can be deystroyed by a fighter roll at say 1 or 2?? Just a suggestion.
-
Gul Dan all its takes is about 5 bombers to mess up Germany, Britian can very much afford to buy some bombers, you dont need to buy one every round, just maintain. Obviously, if youre taking money away for Germany, they will have a harder time defending their territory. This makes it easier to invade and hold German soil.
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-03-15 10:02 ]
-
TG: 1 fighter on 1 fighter
For example:
4 bombers and 2 fighters(escort) from Western Europe Strat bomb Britain which has 3 Fighters. Britain rolls 5 AA shots at a one. 4 for AA for the bombers and 1 for fighter interdiction. The two escort fighters cancel out 2 of the interdicting fighters.
Uh huhuhu huhu… he said interdict…
-
Ok thanks for clearing that up for me. Also that comment made by Gul’Dan is true. Ftrs. did make quite a bit of strafing runs (more like suicide I saw) against enemy AA-gun emplacements. However, I think that these abilities can’t be in start. bombing since that took place at a relative high altitude.
Also a question on building 5 bombers for the UK. However many turns will it take you to achieve five bombers by? Is it a more worth while investment then 25 inf.?
-
Yea I never really had a problem with the strategic bombing runs….if the allies continuously do it then you will eventually shoot them down. And if they keep buying bombers (15 ipc each) then you should be able to easily wipe out their remaining land forces. :smile:
-
I disagree with any statement that the game is “unbalanced”. If you have an experienced player vs a newbie – that’s an imbalance – and it hardly matters who plays which side. I have seen too many victories for both sides to agree with any bending of the rules to offer “a better balance”. The one handicap that could be considered is “Russia’s restricted first turn attack”. I argue that the game is equal if Russia is restricted on it’s first turn. This pits Axis’ # of pieces on the board vs the Allies econcomic Superiority. Who will win? It’s supposed to make for a good game!
It also makes for a very tense and frustrating game with the large element of luck that people don’t seem to talk about very much.
A&A is “flawed” in design not because of “imbalance” but because it combines the strategy of turn based war-strategy genre with a large element of luck (the die-rolling system). If you want to play a totally balanced and unflawed game: play Chess. You’ll find it’s not as fun. -
The first few times I played I couldn’t see how Germany could possibly win, then I couldn’t see how Germany could be halted, now I’m thinking that Japan is far too powerful. If all countries are equally imbalanced the game designers must have got something right.
-
From what I’ve seen, a experienced Russian player can cripple Germany within the first turn. And that’s even before the German even has the chance to get his pants on.
-
I would just like to say that I have never had a problem with the game’s “historical accuracy” or production, or front problems. I have consistently been able to win against allied players as Germany, even though they are about the same level of skill as I am. In fact, I think it is quite balanced the way it is set up. The only rules that I have trouble with are the strategic bombing runs and perhaps the rather vague transport rules. All other aspects of the game are quite balanced, IMO. Maybe its just me…
-
Hey, it’s just a fun game, for wialing out loud!
If you play the straight rules it’s almost impossible (except for bad rolls) for Axis to win-
1)If, on T1, Russia attacks Manchuria, Finland, and Baltic SZ…don’t forget to use SS from Barents SZ in attack with one fighter on German units in Baltic SZ and move Barents SZ TRN to UK SZ to support UK in expected attack by Germany(see STRATEGY on home page),
2)and, on T1, UK builds 1 AC, 1 TRN, and 1 INF to place on or around Great Britain (UK SZ cleared by UK air force if needed), in preparation for
3) US flying 2 FTRs from US to UK SZ to land on AC as fleet support, along with moving 1 TRN with 2 INF from US E. SZ to UK SZ (dropping 2 INF in GB for later movement leaving the UK SZ with at least 1 AC, 2 FTRs,
and 2TRNs in preparation for Germany’s next (weakened) attack…READY TO BUILD A POWERFUL INVASION FLEET. -
Everything seems pretty standard for an Allied victory, but with Russia, I am passive in the Far East.
Suggested Topics
