How long is this J1 taking!!!:-)
Posts made by Advosan
-
RE: Just What Was Bunnies Thinking? Russian Roulette (Triple) Game Ccmmentary
-
RE: Allies Strategy - SZ 5
I have always seen it like this:if the axis keeps his combined airforce in WEu,the combined allies should be landing through SZ4.If axis has the airforce in EEu,the allies should go in from SZ3-Nor.In both cases the allies can keep both a steady flow to Europe and slowly reinforce the fleet,away from danger,till it can move towards SZ5.
-
RE: Russia Round One–How to justify anything but inf?
Instead of 8 inf, I prefer 5 inf, art, arm. Having a few artillery pieces around really helps out in some occasions, and it is not THAT expesive.
IMHO, the typical trading territories assault package is 2 inf 1 ftr vs 1 inf. If I want to trade a territory but have no ftr to spare though, I would either have to dedicate 3 inf (and risk utter failure), or 1 inf 1 (precious) arm to the attack. Not to mention that trying to trade vs 2 inf gets even more complicated and risky. Artillery solves the problem. If no ftr is available (p.e. if a ftr has to be lost to a Norwegian Gambit, or dedicated to an attack against some Japanese frontmen in Novosibirsk) an art can fill the gap just fine. 1 inf 1 art vs 1 inf is good odds and the cost is minimally higher. When trying to trade vs 2 inf, a 1 inf 1 art 1 ftr assault package is way better than 2 inf 1 ftr and less expensive than 3 inf 1 ftr.
So imho some art pieces must lay around in order to get the russians out of a low-chances trading scenario.
As for the armor, I agree that it is better for the russians to try and do more than wait for death.
So, I go for a 5 inf, art arm R1 buy. -
RE: The Norwegian Gambit
I just tried the Gambit in dice and I think I like it, since I m a rather defence-oriented russian player.
There is also IMHO a positive side-effect in it: With the UK BB in the Atlantic, the US can spare a few IPCs and slowly buy itself a small Pacific fleet just to prevent J from cheaply snatching AUS and NZL by R4 or 5.There 's also a spin-off, “The Norwegian Gambit: Stalin goes to Vegas”. A 3-front attack in NOR (1 ftr), WR and UKR. If it works, the psychological damage to the Axis player will surely make it up for the russian ftr.
G can retake all 3 territories and destroy most of the Russian army in the process. And losing WR on G1 is bad for Russia.
:-D This is surely not a spin-off of the NG. If it was a move with japanese I would call it a seppuka move. Don’t believe in any psychological demage in AAA. The difference to real war is that the player can plainly sea all of the battlefield all of the time. So against a cold-blooded experienced player any attempts to do a “I-Will-Kill-You-Like-Hell-Before-You-Say-A-Word” move are likely to end up in a “I-Will-Kill-You-Like-Hell-Before-You-Say-A-Word” on the wrong side of the table. Never do a triple attack in V4.
I m just kidding :-D, I know you are right. Fortifying WR is the single most importand thing for R1-and for every round acctually. Losing WR “decapitates” the russian frontline, and this is IMHO the only major weakness of the NG: It leaves WR troops exposed to a devastating G counter, and combined with a 5 inf-5 arm purchase Europe will become a no man’s land for the Russians pretty fast.
-
Out of Africa
IMHO Africa is the single most important keystone to the allied game.
There can be no effective KGF if 1-2 panzers are gathering african IPCs in every round, making up for the losses in Europe. And there can be no effective KGF or KJF or an Allied victory in general if Japan establishes itself in the Persian Gulf. The UK will be reduced to nothing. Japan will hulk up. Russia will fall.
On the other hand, the Allies cannot risk winning Africa but losing the game to a fast Axis Moscow thrust.So, my questions are:
- In early game, how can the Allies oust the Germans off Africa ASAP and without compromising their european landings?
- Later on, how can the IJN be prevented from anchoring itself in the Persian Gulf, deploying units all the way from IEA up to Persia?
I usually have the UK to deal with the Germans (maybe with some US Operation Torch assistance), trying not to allow them to cross AES. Most times it works, but at a high cost.
As for the Japanese, I either use a US pacific fleet to keep them busy in the Pacific, or a UK airforce in CAU. Both startegies are expensive and ineffective. Some other ideas may be: AES IC, US Morocco landings, UK Morocco landings, US FEA landings (using Brazil for transit).I have the feeling that if the Axis is kept Out of Africa for a long time, there will be no way for the Allies to lose.
What do you think? -
RE: The Norwegian Gambit
I just tried the Gambit in dice and I think I like it, since I m a rather defence-oriented russian player.
There is also IMHO a positive side-effect in it: With the UK BB in the Atlantic, the US can spare a few IPCs and slowly buy itself a small Pacific fleet just to prevent J from cheaply snatching AUS and NZL by R4 or 5.There 's also a spin-off, “The Norwegian Gambit: Stalin goes to Vegas”. A 3-front attack in NOR (1 ftr), WR and UKR. If it works, the psychological damage to the Axis player will surely make it up for the russian ftr.
-
I lost to Hobbes because….
This is a thread dedicated to all those of us that have lost to Hobbes, can’ t get over it and keep thinking of what went wrong.
On my case, I had Allies and lost to a J capture of Moscow, without being able to take Berlin in the same round (though I tried a relatively feeble triple punch). Hobbes did a 3 baltic AC strat. The problems that occured for me:
- Russia was unable to move deep into Europe. I had established a KAR-BLR-UKR line that I kept trading, but couldn t move further without risking total oblivion until it was too late.
- UK was pinned to constant airforce buys in order to go after the baltic fleet. I finally sank the bloody whole of it, but it was too late. Meanwhile Japan was going wild. I lost India. I lost Africa. I lost the Middle East. Uk was reduced to 16 IPC.
- The US was having trouble surviving in the Atlantic without UK support. My shining US atlantic fleet was sunk off the coast of Morocco on a suicidal exodus of the baltic fleet. That delayed the KGF and gave the Axis the time to blow Moscow up.
But I 'll get you Hobbes… One of these days I 'l get you!! :-D
-
RE: First Batch of many questions
@Sir:
Sorry if these questions make me look like a dummy but here goes. My first questions are on movement.
- Am I right in thinking that a land unit needs a transport to move from, say, England to Norway? And that it would take two turns to do the move? i.e. Board the transport on move 1 and disembark on move 2?
a) Transport (aka tranny aka TT) and land unit of the same power (p.e. both UK): Load and offload at the same turn (during combat or non-combat move phase, depending whether it is an amphibious assault or a mere troops transportation to NOR).
b) TT and land unit of different powers (p.e. a US TT transporting a UK infantry unit-aka inf): Load and offload at a different turn, during combat or noncombat move. Say, load the inf on the first turn of the UK-aka UK1 (either in combat or noncombat phase), and offload it in UK2, after all the other players have played (again either on combat or noncombat).- How many moves does it take to move a plane from “Soviet Far East” to “Alaska”?
I cant figure out wether it is 4
(Soviet Far East –> Sea zone 62 --> Sea Zone 63 --> Alaska)
or just 2
(Soviet Far East --> Alaska)?
Do the land and sea zones count as two seperate move spaces or just one?
It takes 3 moves.
1)–----->SZ62
2)------->SZ63
3)------->ALK- Finally, if I am moving land units onto an Island (Midway for example), it is two moves the enter the islands sea zine and disembark or is that just one move i.e. you enter the seazone and disembark in the same move?
This is just a spin-off of the first question actually… :)
Thats it for today. Thanks in advance for any help you guys can offer.
Quej :?
-
RE: Say hello to Newbie (to the game and the forum)
@Sir:
Hi Guys
I am a total newbie to both the game and the forum. Just bought the A&A Spring 1942 edition for my son for Christmas and having read the rulebook, I am still somewhat confused about many of the rules.
I am hoping to be able to bug you guys in the know about the rules until I have a better understanding of the game (hope you dont mind).
Anyway, look forward to chatting with you all.
Welcome SirQ
-
RE: G1 sub buy
@Bunnies:
An old Caspian Sub paper proposed unification of Baltic and Mediterranean fleets in the Revised edition; that’s possible in this version too. Taking Gibraltar on G1 prevents the UK from landing air there (and thus attacking the German fleet). Combined with a G1 carrier build, that’s a proposed G2 combined fleet off Western Europe of 1 battleship 2 fighters 1 carrier 1 destroyer, plus assorted subs and transports. Anglo-Egypt is captured with the help of German air, leaving the UK destroyer stranded, and the G2 threat to London now uses two transports worth of troops.
But even this is not what I consider a “good” result for Germany. After seeing the G1 turn, the UK can respond with either an infantry build on London (or some combination of fighters and infantry), or the UK and/or US can use transports to move additional forces to London while still building UK air. (The transports are lost, but 5 UK fighters and a UK bomber on UK2 has a good chance of killing even the combined German fleet.
Just tried this in one of my last games. I bought 1 AC, 1 transport and 2 DDs for G1 and placed them all on the Baltic. I didn’t attack Egypt since the bomber went instead to SZ2 and the Ukraine fighter was destroyed.
On UK1 it bought 3 ftrs and attacked the BB/transport on SZ13 with a DD and the bomber, sinking it (50% for UK, 25% G winning). It also brought the 2 ftrs from the carrier/Egypt to W Russia.
On G2 I bought 2 carriers and a fighter. UK buys 1 bomber and 2 fighters, for a total of 2 bombers and 9 ftrs. The German fleet eventually gets sunk by the UK but it still manages to attack and sink the US fleet off SZ12 on US3/4. Meanwhile the Germans/Japanese overran Africa and the game ends with victory for the Axis on turn 10 or something.
I really liked how the German naval buy forced the UK to spend all its income on fighters. It cost them a lot of time before they could make any landings on Europe/Africa. Losing the Med BB on UK1 wasn’t in my plans (I should have built 1 DD on SZ14 to prevent the attack), since it would still be possible afterwards to combine both German fleets on SZ7.
I think next time I’ll try 1 AC, 3 DDs or 2 ACs, 1 cruiser.
I agree that a Med DD would have made a difference.
By G2, in SZ7 there could be BB, AC loaded and 3 DDs (plus any subs) while the best UK attack package could be 5 fgt, 1 bmb, giving an 84% G victory. Only if the UK1 brings both SZ35 and AES fgts to FrWesAfr there can be a decent hope against the conglomerated SZ7 G navy. Even so, G can continue the build-up and conglomerate in SZ7 at G3.What I understood is that if G has enough fgt to “spare” on baltic ACs it is really hard for the UK to move in for the kill. And the fgts that land on the Baltic have the anvantage of threatening both SZ3 and SZ4, and combined with subs and the bmb make it impossible for an easy UK landing in either NOR or ARC. Plus, there is no “safe” SZ8 Allied conglomerate, since G2 can send there a BB, 2 baltic ftr, any WEU ftr (probably 1) and the (probably 2) subs. No way for the Allies to survive, even if the UK BB is still alive the chances are for a G victory.
Another option for the Allies is to leave the Baltic fleet alone. But how can the UK assist Russia while 2 TTs in the Baltic throw 4 inf/turn in NOR or KAR? Not to mention the fgt threat, not to mention a possible Sea Lion.
2 rounds with no INF builds as Germany? What was RUS doing?
Going after Japan.
I tend to think this was a big mistake. But still, going after Germany with Russia alone is no easy task. Even after 2 G navy buys, Germany had enough forces in Europe to punish any Russian movement beyond the BLR-UKR line. This is why losing the US fleet off the coast of Morocco right before killing the Baltic fleet was the turning of the tide. Germany bought just enough time before an effective KGF could begin. And in the same round that Japan took Moscow, a triple punch (yet feeble) was delivered to Berlin, but failed utterly.
-
RE: G1 sub buy
Continuing to improve german subs and the Battle of the Atlantic is something I hope Larry Harris prioritizes for the next edition. Lots of aspects of gameplay have been made better and more historical in this edition, especially subs. But the way subs work in the Atlantic theater isn’t quite there yet.
German subs are a threat at the start but their value decreases once the Allies have sitting fleets with destroyers…… Subs can’t get past the Allied blockade. And as a deterrent, dual-use air power is more cost efficient.
It’s in the Pacific, where there is ample room to maneuver, that subs are most effective.
Lowering the price to 5 might be a start.
This is so right.
Maybe adding more sea zones in the atlantic will improve gameplay. It is exactly the ample space of the pacific that makes subs efficient. -
RE: Alliance Dynamics & Teamwork in Axis and Allies
This is quite interesting indeed.
Sometimes the objective will be simply to destroy enemy multipliers, no matter the cost, in order not to allow your enemy to gain the maximum out of his initiative. 1 UK fgt and 1 UK bmb are sent to destroy 2 J arm in PER, just in order to prevent them from garissoning a just-conquered G CAU, giving R a better chance to reclaim it. UK will suffer from the losses, but there s no point in loosing the war but keeping RAF unspoiled. -
RE: US invasion in Southern Europe
With a few minor modifications to the aforesaid scenario, the US can create a flow of 4 inf 4 arm to WEU (the first landing taking place in US3, a feeble 5inf-2art-1arm landing but still an 8-unit landing), using ECN as boarding location and rotating the 8 TTs.
This way there will be no need for a second UK fleet in the area, since the US can solo defend in SZ13 (maybe UK will have to add a DD, untill more US vessels arrive). And the UK will be able to perform its own landings.
Even more, the US can switch the flow in US4 from SZ9->SZ12 to SZ9->SZ7 for greater fleet defence and to prepare for a SZ9->SZ5 flow switch in US5 with UK as bridge.
So, the modified scenario is a US3 solo landing SZ13 that G4 counters, a US4 landing SZ7 that G5 counters, a US5 SZ9->SZ5 flow switch (hopefully UK5 will be able to fill the gap and perform a landing after 4 rounds of building and under the protection of a conglomerated anglosaxon SZ5 fleet) and by US6 the US are able to land heavily either in WEU (and distract G) or in KAR (and be reinforced by R).Plus this way the US can land 2-4 units in Africa (depending on the size of WEU garisson) on US3 and mess things up a bit.
What do you think?
-
RE: US invasion in Southern Europe
Thanx for the quick and thorough reply Hobbes,
I take it that where you write WUS you actually mean EUS.
There are 2 issues with this strat:
- If G keeps control of W. Eur and has fighters there (or Japanese ones) then you’ll need 2 fleets, 1 in SZ12, the other on SZ14, otherwise you’ll either be sending transports to their death or risk that your transport chain will be broken.
True, but if the US have 2 DD, AC+2 fgt, CC, BB in SZ14 and the UK 5 DD, AC+2 fgt in SZ12 (which is doable, plus the R SS) G has to attack SZ12 fleet with no less than 2 SS, 5 ftr and 1 bmb in order to have a chance. As for the SZ14 fleet is simply impossible to kill, G will have to either build SS in SEU or for an air army of something like 5 fgt and 3 bmb.
This means of course that UK has to dedicate both UK1 and UK2 purchases in defence vessels (AC, 2 DD and 3 DD)
I guess that s the only way to do it.- S. Eur is a dead end. Any invasion can be dealt using forces on Germany/ S. Eur. and usually G can send a force large enough to crush the invasion force prevent further landings. Worse, since the UK can’t land there, it won’t be able to reinforce it like an invasion on W. Eur/E. Eur/Karelia.
Germany can crush any invading army, since either Russia or UK can reinforce the US bridgehead. But are you positive that Germany can prevent further landings?
The US will be able to throw in SEU 4 inf 4 arm/round, plus the ftr, bmb support. How many forces will Germany have to dedicate in SEU to garisson it against this? What will be the impact of a SEU garisson on Barbarossa? The truth is that SEU armor can blitz straight to UKR and threaten Moscow, but isn t it a dangerous game for Germany? And even if SEU is garissoned, US can land in WEU and switch between the two regions, since Germany cannot garisson both, I suppose. -
US invasion in Southern Europe
I am thinking about experimenting on a US solo invasion in SE and the general plan I am thinking goes like this:
- US1 buy: inf, art, 3 TT, AC (42 IPC), place all in EUS, move DD, 2 fgt in EUS and BB+TT+2 inf in PAN
- US2 buy: 8 inf, 2 DD (40 IPC), place all in EUS, move BB and EUS fleet (5 full TT, CC, AC+2 fgt, DD) in BRA, move TT in WUS
- US3 buy: 9 inf, art, TT (38 IPC), place all in EUS, move 6 inf ECN, Atlantic fleet (5 TT) in SZ12, EUS fleet (TT+2 inf, 2 DD) in SZ 12. Invade ALG.
- US4 buy: 8 inf, 2 art, TT (39 IPC, if more available buy more art or arm respectively), place all EUS, move 8 inf ECN, move 3 TT from SZ12 to ECN, load 6 inf and unload ALG, move EUS TT + inf, art in ALG, move atlantic fleet (with 3 remaining TT plus survivors of ALG invasion) in SZ14, invade SEU.
- US5 buy: 4 inf, 4 arm, DD (40 IPC), move 7 inf, art in ECN, move TT +inf, art in SZ12.
Now I have a constant flow of 4 inf, 4 arm per round in SEU and I can reinforce my navy by a DD per round if necessary, without needing any UK asistance.
Do you think this is something worth trying, especially if Germany has lost its bmb?
Edit: Corrected WUS with EUS, thnx to Hobbes
-
RE: What should Russia do?
Really interesting posts.
The bottomline I am getting is that R1 NOR is a great plus for the UK, but an even greater minus for Russia.
Are there any other ways for Russia to prevent the G1 kill of UK’s BB (besides sending the SS to join as fodder)? Can the UKR ftr destruction really prevent a risky G player from dedicating the bmb to the BB kill? I doubt it. Nevertheless, imho there is no way to initiate a US pasific strat without that BB surviving G1.
-
RE: What's the best sea unit?
I voted the DD, it is the backbone of every defensive or mixed fleet.
The CC imho is the least usefull unit, but still has some use in large fleets. The question always is, why buy a CC and a DD with 20 IPC when the same money can get you a BB. Well, the answer is fleet volume.
When playing Dice, you can get lucky or unlucky. But, no matter how lucky you get, one BB will only get you one hit (in att or def) while one CC and one DD, if you are lucky, will get you two hits. So, for every second BB I buy, I prefer adding some pure volume in my fleets by bying a DD and a CC.Another equivalent is to buy 2 SS and one DD, but when def is a primary concern and volume is needed, 2 SS are no more than fodder, given the attacker will have a DD (or else his air hits won t be assigned on the SS, and they will be useless even for fodder…).
The optimum setup for a mixed fleet (for example a US2 pacific fleet aiming for south pacific in US3) is 4 SS, 3 DD, 1 CC, 2 AC loaded, 1 BB, 2 TT (carrying 4 inf). Total IPC cost 82 (buy US1 2 AC, DD, SS, US2 1 ftr, 1 TT+1 inf, 2 SS, DD).
-
RE: What should Russia do?
After a few online games with some formidable players (like Zukhov44) I am deeply troubled on my US pacific strat and in particular whether Russia can be saved.
The thing is that even if Germany is thrown off Africa, without US help Russia will be hard to survive, if at all.One prerequisite for this to happen is the survival of the British BB, and the only way to do this is a R1 NOR attack. Of course this means that R will loose at least one ftr (or even both…) and that russian troops will be scatered instead of consentrated in WR.
My question is, 1) what is the best buy for an aggressive R game? 3 inf 3 arm? 2) what are the chances for a R1 UKR and NOR attack to succeed and what will be the consequenses of a failure? Can R recover from it? and 3) Even if a NOR and UKR attack is successfull what are the consequenses of leaving WR in G hands (since the numbers are really bad for a triple UKR, NOR and WR attack)?
To make a long story short, is a R1 combined UKR,NOR and WR attack a good idea?
-
RE: Path to Berlin - which point to invade?
Kudos to Hobbes, for he pretty much described the ultimate AA42 Allied way to victory, there is really nothing to add to that.
I only want to say that taking out NOR, besides the 3 IPC, also deprives Luftwaffe from its airbases, making it much easier for the UK navy to build in the safety of SZ2. The Allies must perform Plan R4 asap, no matter the cost to shipping or manpower.
-
RE: USA Open ideas
If you’re counting Victory Cities, then if the Allies can win the game by just kicking Japan out of Asia.
London, Calcutta, Shanghai, Manila, Los Angeles, Washington, Moscow, Leningrad,
Stalingrad- oops, that’s only 8 cities, only 1 more to go.Usually, the Allies will be able to combine an anglosaxon landing in WE (with the UK watering down the Atlantic Wall and the US performing the actual capturing), thus ending the game with 9 VC by the end of US9 or US10.
Third, I suppose that with some of the points made regarding the subtle changes of AARevised and AA1942, it makes it easier for the US to do some real damage, I am sorry but if there is not an all out offensive against Germany, and they seem stronger now, your best chance at this strategy is a stalemate.
I have never played AA Revised. But in AA42, there can be no “quick” KGF. Even if the Allies throw absolutely everything against Germany, there is no way to get a solid foothold in Europe before US5.
I don t know whether this is because of the new navy rules (who make defence-oriented landing fleets extremely expensive and vulnerable, while attack-oriented SS fleets cheap and expendable) or because of the new Europe map (who increases the distance between Berlin and Moscow, making it harder for Russia and Germany to reach each other). But the fact remains, there can be no “quick” KGF. And a patient J player will hulk up by J4 to 42 IPC and will force Russia to look to the East, and by J5 will force the US tho look to ALS and WUS. And if merely G and SE are still in Axis hands, there will be no turning back from that point on for the Allies.Fourth, the idea that it might work depending on what Japan does on the first turn is valid, but if a Japanese player knows the consequences of letting an IC in China, there first move should always be to prevent it. Take Sinkiang always. If not, then what you have is a poorly played Japan.
Agreed.
Spending in the range of 2 full turns of Navy. Germany would go wild on Russia or Africa or both. Especially if Germany has a bid.
Just as there can be no “quick” KGF, either can be an easy thrust to Moscow in AA42 either. Germany has to throw 4 consecutive 48 IPC spendings (a. all inf+art, b. all arm, c. all arm, d. all bmb) that will reach and strike Moscow all at once in order to bend it, with Japan having Russia reduced to 16-17 IPC and waiting in position for a double-punch, if needed.
And there is no way for Germany to reach 48 IPC before G4 or even 5, depending on how AES turned out for the Allies.
I am not sure what a bid is and how it works…Just sounds all so crazy to me. I would love to play with someone who would try that stragety on me. Even more so giving Germany a decent 4 IPC bid.
Will look you up in TripleA :-D :-D