If you have the time, maybe you could enlighten me. I’d like to play someone who says the Allies are too powerful and will almost always win.
Posts made by 77stranger77
-
RE: The perfect game…
-
RE: The perfect game…
I try to get Japan involved in Africa starting around J4-J6 not counting Madagascar which generally falls 1 turn earlier. Round 8 or 9 seems reasonable for holding Novosibirsk. Round 7 seems reasonable for Germany to be limited to 3 territories but which ones? I often will turn Western Europe into a trading zone and then hold Germany, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. That way, Germany can trade Belo and Ukraine and maintain a threat on Karelia rather than trading Eastern Europe.
-
RE: The perfect game…
I’d really like to play the Axis against people who say that the Axis can’t win. Someone, please, teach me a lesson! :-D Maybe I’m missing something.
I know there are bid systems or advantages we could add, but i think a good game shouldn’t require that.
They could be disadvantaged, that was true in Revised and was balanced by a bid of 6-9. Having a bid for balance doesn’t bother me, different bids can make for different games and keep things fresh. But think how difficult it would be to perfectly balance a game of this nature before it’s released for sale. It’s actually impressive for a game beginning with so many units that the balance could hinge on 1-3 small units.
-
RE: Have a question about placing in hostile sea zone of the coast of japan
Unless Krieghund says differently, this is how it works. If America has naval units in z60 and z57 and Japan builds in z60 as you describe, then they can still make an amphibious assault. Before the dice are rolled for the amphibious assault, the naval battle must be conducted and then if America wins and they still have their transport(s), they will launch the invasion.
An invasion can sometimes be prevented with a small naval build because it is illegal to load transports in a hostile seazone.
-
RE: The perfect game…
I don’t know that an Allied victory is inevitable. That is to say, I’ve won with both sides against intelligent competition. Granted, I’ve played just 3-4 games of Spring 1942. However I have played many Revised games so I’m quite familiar with the map and the game.
Has Japan been contesting Africa in your games? I usually take Australia, sometimes New Zealand and Hawaii, and then take Madagascar and trade African territories with my battleships to bleed off Allied units so the Allies either send a constant stream of units through Africa or they concede Africa.
Are Japan’s fighters used as a tool to help Germany advance? Example, when they aren’t needed elsewhere, I like to land my fighters on French Indochina, India, China, etc. so they can support a German stack advance to Ukraine or Karelia so that the Soviets can’t make a favorable attack.
How long does it take for Germany to be broken? By that, I mean not captured but limited to stacking Germany and trading its borders.
If you’d like, I’ll take the Axis in an ABattlemap or TripleA forum game.
-
RE: U-Boat Positioning on G2
What I’ve been doing is sending the Baltic subs out to z7. If the z2 ships are sunk(I would use the sub there), then z7 threatens the most seazones. A good Allied player probably won’t leave themselves exposed to an attack on their navy on G2 so what will probably happen is your subs will retreat into the Baltic and will threaten an attack when the Allies move up to the North Atlantic. They are valuable for just the threat and might not even have to sink anything to be useful to Germany.
-
RE: AA 1942 IPC Tracking
That sounds like a good idea but when you reference a picture, I don’t see one.
-
RE: Research and the allies
I don’t know that tech means Allied Adv. Pointing out the obvious, both sides have a chance to research. I’m of lesser experience in Anniversary than many on here so I could easily be wrong. There are some great techs for Germany too - Heavy Bombers, Long-Ranged-Aircraft, Paratroopers, Mech Inf, Increased Factory Production. The first 4 I listed could win the game on that turn by increasing the firepower that could make it to a potential fight. A Soviet stack could be demolished, an Allied navy introduced to Davey Jones, or London razed by German Paratroopers.
-
RE: My Axis & Allies folding game table
wow i think i want to get the anniversary adition now….
Good luck unless they make new copies. I saw one at a game store recently in a brown cardboard box(as if it had been shipped in) with an 8.5 X 11 paper taped on for the cover art selling for $250 American.
-
RE: What should i do as italy?
In 42 Italy can position tanks in Bulgaria or preferably Eastern Poland and those tanks can go through Eastern Ukraine or Ukraine(since Germany would take/clear the territory and support an attack on Caucuses. Mixed in with 2-3 transports, Caucuses must be well defended to prevent an Italian capture.
-
RE: Axis SBR Campaign
Most people are playing with LHTR(Larry Harris Tournament Rules). You’re referring to Box Rules where one side can amass a stack of bombers and do a lot of damage. Now the limit for one turn for all bombers/rockets is the value of the territory being bombed. Check the bomber description on page 26. http://www.axisandallies.org/files/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf
-
RE: Jap transport bid
Japan going for the USA isn’t something that should be the Axis grand plan, it should happen if the Americans leave themselves vulnerable. You’re right on that. I’ll take Russia/UK vs Germany any time as long as Allies have Africa.
But you must consider the geography. If Japan is allowed to hold Western Canada, the Americans most cost effective defense for WUS is of course infantry. Then what happens when Japan shifts to Eastern Canada? America will need to move over to defend EUS so they’d better have a lot of tanks for mobility.
-
RE: My diabolical plan
- On turn two kill any boats which block the path of the two fleets to sea zone 7 with planes and minimal boats. This will allow your fleets to converge at 7 in the non-combat phase. Leaving you with a massive fleet of 2Bats/1Car/2Fight/1des/+1-3 subs, use this fleet and the land planes to waste any transports that are built. It should take the allies three hopefully four turns before they can get rid of your fleet and start buying transport materials.
]
UK turn 1 buys 1 AC and 1 DD, moves the Indian fleet to the Med. UK deploys the AC on SZ 7 (joining the 2 TRNs and the BB) and the DD on SZ6.
US turn 1 moves 1 ship to SZ 12, if the SUB from SZ8 moved to the Gibraltar attack move the US DD to SZ12. If it moved elsewhere sink it with UK/US planes.
R turn 2 moves 1 SUB to SZ 7.Now both G fleets can’t converge on SZ 7 during NCM. The Allied fleet is 1 BB, 1 AC, 2 FTRs, 2 TRN and 1 SUB. G can attack SZ7 with 5 FTRs and 1 BMR, odds are 80% for Allied ships left after combat. G’s Med fleet is gone on UK2 and the Baltic fleet won’t last long.
You prevent the fleet combine but London is in jeopardy unless the Americans sacrifice a transport to reinforce it, or the Soviets can lend a fighter, or if Ukraine was taken R1. The UK will have 2 inf, 1 art, 2 tanks, 1 fighter, 1-2 bombers(I like my bomber going to Caucuses UK1 for instance). The original poster has all planes in range of the UK.
inf, tank, 6 fig, bomber vs 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fighter, 2 bombers is a 66% win for Germany even with the Allies losing bombers first
In situations where the threat to London is minimal, this is a good counter.
-
RE: Us invasion question
If you are saying that the Allies are landing Western Europe heavily, even reinforcing with fighters when Germany can reliably kill their beachhead, then it’s probably a bad idea unless the Allies are so far behind they need Germany to get diced. I don’t go heavily into Western Europe unless I can hold it for the rest of the game or I can hold it for a turn and have enough transports that I can pull out most of my units before Germany overwhelms them.
-
RE: Agressive and pretty unorthodox R1 Strategy: Saving Egypt.
My response as Germany would be to go for Egypt. Taking out the z2 ships I think should take a backseat to beginning the elimination of the Allied strength in the MidEast. The Allies will have a few more boats to play with but Germany would have also saved 1-2 fighters. By taking Egypt, Germany forces the UK to temporarily cede Africa or counter from India. In fact, I view getting the Russian fighter as a bonus.
Because z2 was not attacked, Norway didn’t need to be defended. This means that Germany will often be able to stack Karelia. Russia can expect to have two tanks in Ukraine(if they commit the Karelia fighter and the attack doesn’t totally backfire like in the game I just tested this in) and they should expect to take West Russia with 5 inf, 1 art, 1 tank. Even if the Karelia defender hits, Germany has 8 inf, 5 tanks. The strongest build against the Karelia stack that the Russians could have made is 4 tanks, 1 art. Even in this case, given average R1 rolls the best odds at knocking Germany out of Karelia is ~27%.
Unless Germany holds Ukraine R1, yes that would prevent the attack on z2 but you lose a Russian fighter and give Germany a forward position so in my opinion it’s not worth it even in the cases where it costs Germany another fighter.
As a side note, not attacking z2 doesn’t mean the Allies get a totally free pass in the Atlantic. Say Germany commits a sub and 2-3 fighters to the Med cruiser. 2/3 of the time the sub lives. If Germany builds a bomber G1 and the med sub lives and the Baltic subs escape, they will still be able to kill a round one Allied move to z8 2/3 of the time. That’s 3 subs, 4 fighters, 2 bombers vs 2 destroyers, 1 sub, 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 1 cruiser, and 4 transports using this calculator. http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html
-
RE: Allied Strategy Discussion
In your calculations you aren’t including the Russian sub which in most cases will survive.
The Allies won’t always be able to merge in z8 first turn, we know that. By the end of US2, the Americans can have their starting cruiser, destroyer, and two transports in z8, plus their first turn purchase of as much as 42 IPC’s of defensive navy, plus the British can have as much as 60 IPC’s of defensive navy and you’re telling me that the Allies need to wait until round 3 to even consider a merge in z8?
How about a Play By Forum game to demonstrate this? It doesn’t look like you can be convinced or won’t take the time to look at the game file. We can type the purchase and combat moves then use the forum dice and use Edit Mode to recreate the results in TripleA and then attach the game file to the post. I’ll take Allies. Are you up for it?
-
RE: Newbie needs help countering Russian Black Sea Sub Build
@KaLeun:
I do think that with the Russian Black Sea Sub, the idea of buying a destroyer and not attacking Egypt on G1, is viable. The main thing I dislike about it is basically that the UK Egypt fighter lives.
On G1, Germany can move 1 tank 1 inf from Southern Europe to Libya. Now if the UK stacks Egypt and moves the India fleet to the Med, Germany can still take out both. In that case, as Germany I would also not attack the UK fleet in SZ 2, and use the atlantic sub and a few planes to take out the cruiser in SZ 13. So I can have plenty of German planes handy to attack either the fleet or Egypt or both on G2.
You’d better be attacking the UK destroyer in the East Med otherwise the British can hit your reinforced med ships with a destroyer, 2 fighters, and a bomber. Even if you did take out that destroyer, I think I’d still consider the attack as the UK knowing that the Russians can follow up with their sub and two fighters.
Not attacking Egypt is unacceptable so as Germany I would make the Egypt attack and do what I can to capitalize on the Russians being short $6 in units and that they won’t use their fighters on R2. If Germany has fewer units in Africa, in this case probably just an inf and art TOPS at the end of G2, the temptation for the Allies is to send less units into Africa. Japan in a few rounds can really make the Allies pay if they make the mistake of going in too lightly.
(I tend to favor transports over factories when playing with japan)
I preferred transports in Revised and probably will in 42 as well. They were best in supplying the Northern route to Moscow for Revised but if you’re facing a Pacific campaign in this Edition, they aren’t so easy to guard.
My main concern, is if the Black Sea Sub build is accompanied by a UK north atlantic strat as opposed to the UK South African IC build and bomber strats, how can Germany remain competitive economically or positionally? I find that with appropriate deadzoning, it’s really hard to push into Russia without a massive piece advantage, which is why I normally favor a strong German African strat.
Germany can’t try to do it all. At some point in the early rounds they should abandon Western Europe and work to secure a forward stack in Ukraine or Karelia. If Russia fails to liberate a border territory, Germany can land their fighters there and advance. If they can spare the fighters, Japan should position them in range of Ukraine to support a German advance to Ukraine. Every purchase of every turn Germany must evaluate how many tanks(if any) they need to build to prevent an Allied advance to Ukraine or Karelia, remembering that if the UK takes Karelia, then the US and Soviet fighters, and Red Army can also reinforce. It’s so much easier for the Allies to defend together than to attack together and Germany must make things difficult for them.
In a sort of unrelated question, how should the Japanese counter a strong US push? I think I ended up getting lucky, as the US player pushed out a little too early and exposed their fleet to counter attacks by the Japanese airforce. What’s the best staging area for a Japanese fleet stack? I think controlling the Solomon Islands in key, but stacking there seems problematic for supply reasons.
In Revised when Japan was faced with a US Pacific push they positioned most of their ships at the Carolines because it was adjacent to the Solomons and one move from Japan. The reason for basing at the Solomons is that if Japan stays in z60, then they can be blocked by a sacrificial destroyer while the US safely advances. Then they kept their transports(which then hit on a one and were legal casualties) in z60 with enough defensive navy to deter an all air attack. Japan had to purchase enough so that they could kill any American advance to Wake or the Solomons. There’s a whole article on this for Revised, many concepts still hold. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13764.0
Now in Spring 42 with defenseless transports Japan can’t reasonably defend z60 and sufficiently stack the Caroline Islands unless the American player is crazy and doesn’t buy a couple carriers. So this may mean that Japan funnels units through the Manchuria and French Indochina seazones instead so that the Japanese navy isn’t tied up defending transports.
-
RE: Allied Strategy Discussion
I cannot see Germany weaker in Africa either. Is it the russian black sea sub R1 or the Bomber and fighter UK R1 gamble on the batlleship that makes them weaker or what? Let us not forget that both moves are not without a price in that they leave Japan virtually uncontested from R1 which may prove lethal R7 in Moscow.
What makes Germany weaker in Africa than they were in Revised is that in Revised Germany typically got bid units to Libya so that Egypt would be held past UK1. Then the med ships are easier to sink because the transport can’t shoot back or soak a hit. G1 Germany takes Egypt with 1-2 tanks. UK counters with 2-3 inf, cruiser and fighter. Germany counters then their ships are sunk on UK2, they can expect to have 3-4 units in Egypt or split between Egypt and T-J at the end of their turn. The British have 2-3 inf on Persia that they then move to T-J if possible. On US3, the Americans can drop one or two transports down to Congo to clean out the Krauts. Germany can’t expect to make it very far in Africa.
I haven’t had problems leaving Japan uncontested. I’ve let the Kwangtung transport survive and abandoned the Pacific except for the US and UK starting subs which only force Japan to guard their transports and carriers. The only thing the Allies do in the early rounds is position planes in threatening places to Japanese transports, take free SBR’s on Japanese IC’s, or trade territories using the US and UK’s starting units in Asia.
Now, if I would buy one Bmb, 3arm, 4tnk R1, and atack the SZ 8 with 3figs, 2 bmbs and 2 subs R2 if the allies really dare to set up there, I would be very happy Germany player indeed. Against AC, dd, cr and 2 figs (assuming UK has not lost one sinking my dd) i would have 2 subs, 3 figs and a bmb and it gives me 94 % win, with 3,26 units left (if i have only 2figs and 2 bmbs as you suggest, it gives me 76 % a 2 units alive). In case you have build AC and 2DD UK R1, the math is 78%, 2,25 units with 3fig/ 50% 1,05 units left with 2figs.
I got lazy earlier and went with what I had heard from someone else on the G2 potential naval battle and bomber builds. So if Russia takes Ukraine and a Ukraine or Karelia stack isn’t an option, then here’s what I think Germany will/should do with their planes and we can evaluate from there. To attack z2, they need the Norway fighter and the bomber from Germany(as well as the Atlantic sub). To counter Ukraine, they will likely use their Eastern Europe fighter. To assist in taking Egypt, they will use the Balkans fighter. The Ukraine fighter is dead. That leaves two fighters to kill the British cruiser. 47% of the time the Germans lose one fighter, 9% of the time they lose both fighters. Being down to 3 fighters was a slight exaggeration but could happen about a quarter of the time between the battleship and cruiser. More likely the Germans will be at 4 fighters and a bomber plus any purchase.
Here’s the scene in the Atlantic.
Norway - 0-1 fighters, 1 bomber, assorted land units for protection
Western Europe - 2-3 fighters
Libya - 1 fighter
Germany - 1 bomber
z7 - 2 subs, destroyerIf the Germans have only 2 fighters on WE and builds a bomber, then the Allies can safely merge in z8 with a British build of carrier, 2 destroyers. If Germany attacks with 2 subs, 2 fighters, 2 bombers against my sub, 2 destroyers, cruiser, carrier, 2 fighters, and 3 transports the Axis will win only 30% of the time by TripleA’s calculator and 36% of the time by this calculator http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html.
If Germany has 2 subs plus 5 planes in range of z8, then the Allies can’t safely merge in 8 because 65% the Germans would sink them. In this case the UK can build a transport and carrier for z2 and a destroyer to block z8 if there are only 2 bombers in range of z2. If the Germans didn’t lose the Norway fighter, then the UK can build a carrier and destroyer in z2 and a destroyer in z8 to block with. Alternatively, the UK can save income and retreat the Canadian transport into American waters.
I’m curious where you’re getting your probabilities because I don’t think that the battles are as lopsided towards Germany as you say. I’ve been using the TripleA calculator and the one I linked above.
There’s no need to worry about the British losing a fighter killing the German destroyer because the Wus and Eus American fighters can reach sz8 to land on the carrier in the British fighters’ place. In fact, I prefer to send my British fighters to West Russia and my British bomber to Novo on UK1. The British bomber threatens Japanese transports and then on UK 2, if the Med fleet is in either the Egypt seazone or the Black Sea, it can be attacked by 4 planes. This move involves gambling the US bomber against the German destroyer but in my opinion, that’s an acceptable risk. 85% of the time the destroyer goes down and the USA bomber lives 55-60% of the time.
Since I would keep building a bomb or a fig a round, the danger would be omnipresent, while allies have lost 100+ IPCs worth of units on the sea and i would be in a position of sinking them once again while japan would be expanding fast, germany would be gaining in africa and keeping balance in the east front with ease.
Protecting convoys shouldn’t be that difficult as long as the Allies keep Germany’s odds to win around 40% or under. If Germany wipes the Allied navy out, starting from scratch is a real pain. The US will have a cruiser, destroyer, battleship, and will build a carrier. The UK will build a carrier and whatever else is necessary, two destroyers for sure if they can start in z8. If the Indian Ocean carrier is saved, that’s a “free” defensive ship and is a big addition when loaded with fighters.
With Allies not being able to set their foot on European soil before R4-5 and threaten Germany itself effectively before R8-9, with Germany being able to sacrifice their planes for the more dangerous of the convoys for at least one more time and with Japan taking on Moscow R7 with about 18 tanks lots of planes and enough infantry to have a good skew, i cannot really see succesful KGF without extremely lucky dice rolls.
In my two games I set up the Allies for a double landing on Algeria set for round 2. In both games, instead they both landed Europe and the United States landed Africa on the second turn. The Germans gave up WE on G2 and didn’t buy planes right away. My intent was to land Europe on round 3 and I doubt that can be stopped without Germany getting lucky or building more planes than they can afford to. Did you look at the game I attached last post? I think the version it was in was 1110. The game was in Low Luck which would eliminate the “extremely lucky dice rolls” that you claim would be required for a KGF game. The KGF I employed worked beautifully and when Germany was turtled in Russia turned it’s back and pushed Japan out of French Indo and then would have pushed them from India. With strong Allied play, don’t expect to grab Moscow on J7.
It seems to me that not giving the trannies any minimal defensive power (like 3 or less from two dice rolls) was really a mistake that makes it almost impossible for the allies to set up the convoys in time against a skillful axis player.
If it is impossible for the Allies to set up convoys in a veteran game, it’s not the fault of the rules. The rules can be kept, the Allies would just need to start with a destroyer in z2 or something like that and things would be pretty easy in the Atlantic.
-
RE: Allied Strategy Discussion
Still it seems to me that compared to the revised the rule changes substantially and quite oviously favour AXIS, at least in a classic KGF game.
I’m not certain on game balance having only played two decent length games. Germany is weaker in Africa, Allies are weaker in the Atlantic. Germany is also weaker in Europe because they’ll lose a lot more fighters as compared to Revised. Russia attacks Ukraine r1. Germany’s down to 5 fighters. Germany loses a sub and fighter against the British Battleship. Over half the time, Germany loses a fighter against the cruiser. Maybe the dice take a dump on Germany and they have to lose a fighter to close the Suez Canal. It would be typical to see Germany down to just 3 fighters and a bomber by the end of their turn. You can see how I played the Allies in a LL game I attached to demonstrate a KGF. You’ll need the previous version of TripleA.
If ruskies don’t do Nor (and to be sure of taking it, they must sacrifice there one of their so precious figs), Germany can take all UK boats but the SZ1 tran out of Atlantic R1 and with a sub move to SZ7 even prevent UK from putting anything on sea R1. Isn’t that crazy?
Losing the Battleship is probably a lesser evil than Russia having to take Norway and potentially sacrificing a fighter. My PBEM opponent has been experimenting with German bomber buys and he concluded that Germany needed to buy 2 bombers and lose only one fighter in their G1 attacks to prevent the Allies from merging in z8. Yes, this is accounting for the escaping Baltic subs. Unless the Germans build bombers, the Allies can take z8. If the Germans do build bombers, then the British retreat their Canadian transport to US waters, save their money and build fleet next turn and Germany is short on infantry against the Soviets.
I do not see how the allied startegy outlined above is dealing with the substantial shift of the balance of the sea battles in favour of axis and i tend to agree with the comments posted by funcioneta. In a typical sea battle in revised the D-count and D-punch was 3-4 higher (trannies) then it is now, which can be on its own equal to the bid of 10 or more.
In my opinion, the Allies can’t be given a bid greater than 5 if at all(unless you limit one unit per territory but I’m still not convinced it’s needed). With a bid of 10 as you suggested, I could bid 2 inf to Egypt and an artillery to Caucuses. With a bid of 10-11(depending on bid rules like one per territory), I can set Russia up to deliver a Russian triple, knocking out Norway, West Russia, and Ukraine first turn. With a bid of 8, I can give the UK a destroyer in z2 which makes the battle a lot closer, or in z1 so that the German subs can’t escape to z7 and menace the Allies merging in z8.
-
RE: The Official "Looking for AA50 Opponents" Thread
Sure, I’ll take the Axis and kick things off with Japan.