History can help you win

@KindWinds:

Thank you very much!  Do people play AA 50 on this site as well or no?

Yes, not 1941 and 1942.

Maybe they are Vichy France and want aid Aixs  :-D You know, that baltic BB for germans can really help for Sea Lion, specially with instant tech  :-D

@Bunnies:

@pequod:

Hi all,

quick update, got in two games this weekend against the hated foe….

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

and went 0 for 2, ugggh.  Foe went with same basic strgy.

Always in motion is the future.  Hmm?

One time I was playing USSR and allies were not ready for it and I could not get them to grasp the sit before it was too late.

R2-D2, you know better than to trust a strange computer.

Second time had some success playing USA.  US1 moved Trans/DEST w/troope from E-USA to Brazil and from there to W Africa.  Had to split my buys of all navies between coasts.

You just watch yourself. We’re wanted men. I have the death sentence on twelve systems.

It slowed me down but still killed JAPAN and took southern islands.

Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force.

GER attacked and sunk Atlantic fleet (I rolled horribly on defense) and did not weaken him enough for UK to take him out.  Lost the games but made headway on winning strategy.  It invloves heavy UK navy and air purchase, combined with USA devoting some resources to Atlantic navy, but I need to link up w/UK fleet early around SZ8 and taking it from there

Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes.

BTW Brazil move was a pretty good move, got units in position to either invade Africa and/or protect Brazil, just have to work on the unit moving timing

The fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side.

Judge me by my SIZE, do you?

The defeat this weekend: “Good, let the hate flow through you”

Thanks, i needed the laugh

The response for that Shadow is for Japan to not sweat. Calm, rational, deliberate action.

You don’t have to counter every single move as Japan. You don’t have to, for example, worry about killing the destroyer off Kwangtung. What threat does it really pose if your navies are defendable? Zero. Kill Pearl and China, bring your E Indies fleet to clean out the carrier and transport, and an inf/ arm to F Indo- most likely the Brits lost 2 infantry taking it (at least). Bring 5 infantry and 2 fighters to China. Sure it’ll cost more than normal but you’ll win. Send an extra fighter to wherever the British fighter landed (either China or off French Indo). Allow Russia to step into Manchuria. With a 3 transport (placed in SZ 61)/ 2 infantry build you’ll crush all 6 if they brought them. If less it’ll be even easier. Hey, they’re dead Russians, which is good. Do the normal Pearl strike. Expand as usual on J2 and beyond.

Yes these moves slow down Japan, but they make Germany’s life easier. With the moves you described German armor is racing south in Africa, and once Japan has taken out the Brits in the pacific theater on J1, India is ripe for the plucking for either Japan or Germany (G3 med fleet escape). Personally I’d rather conserve the British carrier, transport, and fighter. On UK4 they lock down SZ12 while the combined fleets are hemming in Germany in the north.

The first time someone sees an aggressive Britain in the pacific it might freak them out, and they might do something silly, but if you’ve been around the block a few times…

I’m not saying by any stretch of the imagination that these are bad moves Mr. Hawk. I’m pointing out how I would counter them and the game-wide ramifications, in my opinion.

The rule for holding VC’s is that at teh end of the US’s move (the complete turn of play) X number of VC’s are controlled by one side or the other.

8 VC’s is basically an Axis win (except in very special cases like a 2 turn limit test game where Russia goes suicidal in defense of the Allied VC’s)

Instead of 8, play for 9 for victory.

When one side or the other controls 9 VC’s at the end of a turn, then there is basically no doubt as to what side won.

There are a few threads already posted on bidding and how to do it…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=1146.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5580.0

Those should get you started.

You can also read the essays on the subject at DAAK
http://www.daak.de/indexe.php?sprache=e
(click DAAK-club rules along the left side, bidding is the second topic that will come up in the main window)

That should get you up and running.

If you still have questions after reviewing those, please feel free to ask :-)

Heh I really can’t understand why both you and donmoody keep using the word “arbitrary” like it has any meaning. Arbitrary means without reason, and I’m sure that the designer had some sort of reason to change the rules. Larry doesn’t like changing them very much, and for him to have done so in the first place means that he was receiving some sort of complaint or player feedback, which is more than a valid reason to tweak the game to be more understandable/accessible. Doing something for a reason, even if some people consider it “dumbing it down”, is not arbitrary. You can use the words “superfluous” or “irrelevant” or “unnecessary”, etc, but using “arbitrary” is just a wrong use of the English language. You can say the change did not improve the game or is not needed, but to say that there is no reason behind the change (arbitrary) is entirely a subjective and uninformed view of the matter. I would really like to know why both of you like to incorrectly use this term, it really bothers me. I can respect that you think the change wasn’t needed or that you liked the previous ruling, but to say something else entirely different, that it had no reason behind it, just makes no sense to me.

I can just as easily say that I think it’s more intuitive for fighters to land in seazones for carriers than it is for them to land in territories with complexes. To me, hey that’s where the carrier is going to be, so why not just have the fighter there already so you don’t forget to redeploy onto it? Why move units during the mobilization phase? It could very well be that you’re smarter and both are equally intuitive to you, but again, this does not make the change arbitrary (only to you perhaps). I’m sure Larry changed it based on player feedback, and since it is a game after all that requires changes and tweaks, that is hardly a reason to call it arbitrary.

Actually, it gives 5 spaces of movement either way because suddenly you can ‘land’ in an illegal spot.  Your range has still been extended by one.

By the way, more flawed reasoning. Extending a fighter’s range by one by allowing it to land in an illegal spot does not increase its range to 5. Prior to “illegal” landing, you could theoretically only move 3 spaces, since the 4th would be illegal. Thus, with “illegal” landing, you have increased the range to the full 4, not 5. You can never make it look like a fighter is moving 5 spaces under LHTR, while you can do so under box rules (deploying on a territory with a complex). And the space is nt really seem illegal because a carrier is going to be there, which is consistent with the other rules about fighter/carrier landing.