What I wonder is, if Japan ignores the Phil J1 (A move which I consider a usually better move) is an Indian IC viable?
Not unless Russia commits a lot of units to persia/caucasus tanks on R1.
Wodan thats not a bad idea cause really super subs are crap for allies anyways, its not like axis are going to build boats.
I disagree. With US buying Subs, Japan will HAVE to buy some DD’s.
Give the Subs some back up with a small carrier based fleet (loaded A/C, some DDs)
I would hesitate to incorporate house rules until you’ve tried many different strategies.
House rules should not compensate for poor strategies.
No, you can not designate part of your fleet to part of a battle, and another portion to support the amphibious landing via offshores.
That would be the land equiviliant of saying my tanks are attacking your ftrs in the embattled territory while my inf take on your infantry in the same territory.
I have yet to see a dominating performance from US against Japan.
Tech is another wrench in the wheel.
With US scoring some early techs, Japan can be dominated by the cash / resource RICH US.
I’ve seen it a few times.
The SBR Escorting Rules definitely reduces (if not totally eliminates) SBR’s from the game.
Others can debate which side/country that helps more/less.
I imagine in a very long game (12+ rounds) SBRs would become more and more ‘in-play’ as supply lines lengthened and initial expansion was reduced in the ETO.
The order is right, but this looks funny:
- Defender chooses the casualties from the Surprise Strike. Unless he chooses subs, those defending units are removed at step 7 and can’t defend later (since there’s no Destroyer)
The defending (and attacking) Surprise Strike casualties are always removed at step 7, whether they’re subs or not. The difference is that the subs will get to fire (in step 5) before they’re removed (in step 7) if there are no opposing destroyers. If there are opposing destroyers, the subs will be removed before they can fire, just like everything else.
Did you say that right?
I thought if my side (country) has destroyers, then the enemy subs have no surprise first strike. There for that bolded portion should read:
If there are friendly destroyers, the defending subs will be removed after they can fire, just like everything else.
I would either move the ftr further inland with another China inf added for cover or removing some J inf to make it unattackable or such a low odds attack that if they try and fail they could be royally screwed.
I’d also remove the restrictions on their movement and give them the ability to enter any China, Japan, or UK territory. Can’t go into Red (Russia).
You can’t do both. The chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO
I did this recently with our first look at the 1942 set-up with a friend.
Initially, Africa looks to be a very hard nut to crack for the axis. Lots more units for the allies as well. The one thing that may offset this is that the axis already have many of their N.O.'s to offset the extra allied units.
Loook at page 30 of the rulebook:
Submersible: … Whenever a round of combat starts and a submarine is in combat with only aircraft, it can submerge (before aircraft fire).
It says that it can submerge, doesn´t say it must submerge.
How can is possible such a mistake inside the first oficial errata?
Um. I think the RULE BOOK is incorrect and the Errata is clarifying it.
From everything I have been reading, without a DD, a plane can not hit a sub.
Whether the sub choose to stay and figth does NOT matter in this <absolute>rule</absolute>
Currently I am in 2 games, both as the Axis without bid. (Note that this is Revised, but in AA:50 it might even be better, considering the no’s)
Revised and AA50 are not the same game.
It is pretty established that a heavy ground unit game plan for Germany is one of the better (if not preferred) German game plans in Revised.
I agree totally with Jenn, if your strategy is so flimsy as to fall apart if someone rolled “Shipyards” or “Long Range Aircraft” then it probably wouldn’t hold up without techs.
The problem is there are a few techs that when achieved and used in that round, CAN be game breakers: Long range is the biggest one, Heavy Bombers as well. Paratroopers too if you have a few bombers, hell, even mechanized inf could swing a huge battle.
Getting shipyards will take a few rounds to affect a game.
So not every tech can have immediate game changing outcomes the round they are attained.
Someone else said this earlier, and I agree, that you can not defend against every potentially killer weapon (like the 4 I listed above). You would become paralyzed with paranoia and never leave your capital with your units. The game is about managing risks, and the odds are against your opponent getting these “Yahtzee” game winning tech dice.
I attack the Egypt the same as captainjack, and there are two things I have noticed. In most battles after round 1 you have a good idea which way it is headed. This means taking the transported infantry and armor as casualties and retreating the Libyan forces is always an option if things do not look good. I know what the odds calculators say but I would say that I have seen Germany win this probably a bit over half the time, and interestingly enough when Germany wins probably 90% of those times it has 2 armor left. Which is no where near what the odds show to be the expected results.
To me Egypt is worth taking a crack at. If I win great. If I don’t it isn’t the end of the world. If the UK does manage to sink the Italian navy that also is not the end of the world either.
I am coming to think that’s a wise move too.
I prefer to take out the UK fleet in sz2 with the bomber G1. This allows the G1 5 tank buy to be acceptable as UK can not really try to take France and if they do, there navy would likely lost as well. Actually, France is like cheese to the mouse…. bait
I disagree with this. In our games Russia did a tremendous job holding off the Germans. Realistically it’s VERY difficult for the Germans to capture Moscow baring some Russian play mistake or if UK/USA does nothing in Western Europe. In our games, the Germans never moved in position to attack Moscow for fear of reprisal. The extra territories really hurt the German supply lanes.
What I’ve seen is that either on it’s own in or conjunction with Italy, Germany threatens Moscow with a large stack of tanks (and some inf and planes) via holding Berlorussia or East Ukraine. Italy might punch the whole by taking the land, allowing German ftrs to land there before Russias turn.
By holding, I mean can not be counter attacked by Russia.
Eastern Ukraine is the optimal since it now threatens Moscow AND Caucasus, so then it becomes likely that Russia will lost Stalingrad (they have to protect the capital Moscow).
Very interesting, so I looked it up:
Germany (15) + Japan (15) + Italy (10) = 40
Russia (15) + UK (15) + US (20) = 50
So the N.O.s are NOT balanced.
Note I do not list ones that are usually gotten / lost, etc
Just looking straight at the math here for a basis for further discussions
Subs are a whole new animal in AA50.
I think subs as they are right now work just fine in the pacific.
Subs not hitting other subs makes them pretty strong. They are very offensive weapons. So a pacific ocean full of subs really threatens a surface navy.
Adding a 1:1 DD kill ratio makes subs too hard / expensive to kill (en masse as Cousin_Joe points out)
Have to think about a solution.
The lack of <viable>subs in the Atlantic is problematic.
CRD does make buying them more worthwhile.
how to tweak the CRD? I like that all subs (on surface or submerged~forced to dive) still inflict CRD, with the typical cost: $2 adjacent, $1 1 SZ away.
Not sure if we need to limit CRD to only the capital.</viable>
Glad to see the C_J playing the new game.
1 of the fighters from Baltic could land in Poland but I prefer it in Germany for hitting any Navy that comes to close.
The ftr in Poland can hit sz6 or 7 since you are going to be holding France. You could also hit E poland or baltic states with that ftr and land in France G2.
As far as Norway and Finland I do not think these are realistically defensible by Germany in the long run anyway. Besides they can always be regained after Karelia is taken. Think about it which would you rather give the UK 3 IPCs for Norway or 6 for France plus 5 more for gaining a National Objective. That is 11 IPCs to the UK anytime they take France!
OK, long range thinking. I can see your point. I still am not 100% agreeing with you that time is not on the allies side. USA buying tech every round has become our defacto standard. Along those lines, <almost>each round brings another tech.
One more thing allies_fly I am wondering if you are not carrying a bit of prior A&A baggage. Bombers are now the go to air unit.
1). If what you say is so true, why doesn’t Germany buy the bomber G1?
2). Where did you get the inference that I have a ftr preference? I do not think I ever said this. Bombers are the air piece of choice, I 100% agree.</almost>
Can I ask why Germany doesn’t land their bomber in France on G1?
Also why land a ftr in Germany in NCM?
Wouldn’t Poland be better if you would like range out east?
What you have is definitely a very solid europe that should hold up for a while.
Although I think you are allowing a quick allied atlantic fleet to be bought and norway and finland to be lost forever after G1. Every thing is a trade off, and you might be comfortable with this trade off.
In most games of A&A, time is on the side of the allies. Defense is cheaper and more efficient, and the Axis has more military pieces to start with then the allies.
In other words, the axis should strike while the iron is hot (As a general rule). However, I think it’s even more of a pressing issues with the advent of the National Objectives in AA50. You are rewarded even more than the territory value by attacking specific areas/territories. Conversely, NOT achieving these could be construed as a penalty.
I am not saying a safe methodical approach for Germany can not work. But you are playing into the allies hands. I also think that this delay allows USA to not have to spend money in the atlanitc if they do not want to. A slowly expanding Germany would probably be relying on Japan to grow agressively. This is much easier to do without any US backdoor pressure. USA can spend cash to keep the japanese navy home…. limiting the Japanese expansion. Now BOTH theatres of war are at a more leisurely pace. Advantage Allies.
These are my humble initial thoughts. I will look into your specific moves next.
Thanks for posting this because I too have thought about this. I have had some success utilizing the heavy push and tank buys with Germany. Tanks are indeed very good for Germany as to cover the vast spaces that are now a part of the AA50 ETO. Also in this sense, you do not need too many inf to support a large force of tanks and planes.