Topics created by bugoo

Well I guess you could do it another way

Like here’s Europe 40’s Axis and Allies victory:
Berlin, Warsaw, Rome, Cairo, Paris, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow
Heres Pacific 40
Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, Calcutta, Sydney

Now I guess you could take London and not take like Sydney so like taking 5 on Pacific and 9 on Europe.

The attack is way over 90 % but you will likely loose all of you inf and polly a bunch of mec infs and arts aswell (and if you are very unlucky a tank). And you wont take normandy in turn one. If it sinks you another battleship I would say its worth it.

@bugoo:

… which means alot of interceptors …

Good point! That would be a big deterrent to try to SBR the airbase.

These are just proposed for now, the goal is to reduce the incentive of a J1 DOW and to reduce incentive of an India crush, promoting a more global game.

Placement changes:

Removal of UK BB and 2 transports in SZ 37, replaced with a cruiser. Addition of a UK BB and 1 transport in SZ 39
Reason: Slow down UK DEI expansion and decrease J1 DOW incentive. Replacement of US bomber at Philippines with tac fighter.
Reason: increase SZ defense, also makes it harder to retreat the plane. Replacement of US transport with a destroyer in SZ 26
Reason: reduce dicey J1 pearl grab and sneaky sub J1 attack Addition of Minor IC to Manchuria
Reason: allow japan more build slots

NO changes
Removal of UK Kwangtung & Malaya NO, want to replace it with something but unsure of what.

ANZAC occupation of original jap territory to be for every round.

Replacement of US NO of Phi, to 3 of the following: Phi, Wake, Midway, Pearl.

Replacement of US NO of Iwo and Oki to 2 of the following: Iwo, Oki, Carolinas.

Replacement of Japan Haw NO to any 1 of the following: Haw, Mid, Wake.

Any thoughts.

1. That one always bugged me too.
2.yea that also seemed silly to me because you would think (common sense) that the main transport fleet of a power would right next to the capitol.
3. Yea that seemed silly to me as well by my guess
would be that maybe the placement is historical in nature?
4.  Those has always bugged me even in the first game I played. They were completely out if place to attack were they would be needed.

I will offer up a rationale for the tac/tank combo. Think about Panzers and Stukas for a moment. The Panzers are used to pin down the enemy in known locations. Then Stukas are sent in to finish off enemy defensive positions before the Panzers blitz the line. If it weren’t for the Panzers pinning the enemy units, they would be harder for the Stukas to hit.

I may be talking out my a$$ though…

Let opinions be heard. Jennifer does not even open her games… they are all sealed in the plastic wrap.

Plastic bits appeal to men anyway. WE like toys.

AA42 is a game for new people and not for the hard cores.

OK, my five cents on how to expose weaknesses:

Germany: weak in number of troops, this should be countered by killing infantry ASAP and to outbuild the Jerries with USSR and UK especially. Counterattacks by the Russians is the way to go, especially the first three turns. Landings by UK at the Baltic coastline is a nice way to disrupt the infantry chain as well. Needless to say, threatening France and splitting reinforcements between both fronts is a game-winning strategy in mid- to late-game.

Russia: weak in IPCs and vulnerable ICs, hinder any expansion and try to take territories. This means Karelia especially where you can hinder Soviet control of Scandinavia and threaten the Archangelsk bonus. An early build of a chain of infantry towards Karelia is dangerous. Later you can take Caucasus which will cripple Russian economics, even a trade of that area can make it difficult for the Russians since they might get short on IC placement sites.

Japan: doesn’t have many weaknesses, basically logistically in the deployment of units on the mainland is the only thing. So if you can do some timely counterattacks versus Siberian, Chinese territories and India that can earn you valuable time. Retreating India’s troops to Persia and then attack back is nice, also Russian counterattacks with air support is good and one or two fighters really come in handy.

UK: navy and IPCs are both very vulnerable. We all know about knocking out the UK navy from A&A editions past and it still applies. Even more important though is to negate the Egyptian NO and grab Africa ASAP. If you take Southeast Asia and most of Africa UK will be down to 20 or so IPCs and that’s really crippling!  :-P

Italy: navy is what keeps the Italians dangerous, so hitting it early is the way to go. If you can get at it before they build a CV that’s perfect, so even a suicidal attack by US or UK can be worth it if that means your ally can finish the fleet off. This means turn 2 or 3, not later! After the fleet is destroyed then Africa lies ripe for the taking, Italy’s economy is miniscule and UKs economy secure, a key to winning the game.

USA: long supply lines and a split-up front. If you can make a heavy attack at mainland USA it can easily disrupt the build-up vs. Europe and that should be a goal of Japan. Polar express not as a game-winning strategy but as a tactical move. Also when you take Midway or Hawaii they can serve as landing bases for bombers that are built in Japan and that strike at the West Coast. If you’d rather send the bombers towards Russia, you might still have made USA spent valuable IPCs on its Pacific fleet, the last laugh on you!  :evil:

@Subotai:

You still think allies need a $12 (+NOs) (or higher) bid to survive?

Not sure. But a thing is clear to me: 8 or less is not enough. I can try playing against a 12 bid when I have more time (after june, 12th). Of course, whe are talking with unit bids. With cash bids, I guess 20 is the minimal

And with the rules we have for league (deleting starting cash to axis), well:

You can lose 17 IPCs as Japan without any problem Germany can lose 1 IPC (and buy 10 infs) Italy can lose 1 IPC (and buy 3 infs)

So I doubt any bid higher than -20 will do much. I think a proper bid with that system would go near to -30. I’m not sure, but I guess I could dare with -28 and buy only 10 german inf as Germany and nothing more to axis round 1 or even if I feel very confident, -31 and buy only 9 german infs

But the easiest way of solving the things is a official fix from Larry for China’s setup. They made it in AAPacific, so I guess it can happen again

@Adlertag:

@bbrett3:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Italy has a 6 IPC complex.  If you can hold for 1 round, how is it hard to reinforce?

It’s not reinforcing it I’m worried about, it’s holding it for one turn with Germany adjacent to your north

Germany is adjacent to Italy ?

Are we playing Revised or AA50 ?

ugh, still stuck in the past, disregard that

bringing USSR troops down out of the Eastern Front is usually a queasy move, but the chance to sink the Italian Fleet and really cripple their chances in Africa and then turn on Japan is nice.
3 BOM maybe a bit more costly than IC and troops over course of the game but could get you into action more quickly.

i am liking how some of the strategies coming out of AA50 are more reminiscent of history than AAR.  i know there are some complaints about that-too limited, too scripted- but much of the strategies at least for the Allies were not done just out of necessity, but thinking they were good ideas.  Airpower-bomber/fighters really crippled the Italian fleet and more or less took them out of the war.  …and now back to the original topic…

@bugoo:

I was wondering if it would imbalance the game or add to it if there were locations where nations could build only inf on a territory as if it had an IC.  For example, I would allow the UK to do this on Egypt, India, Australia, and Canada.  I’d remove one of the Russian ICs and make it function in this manner, or perhaps all but the one on moscow.  Also, allow Germany to use Algeria, and either Norway or Finland in this manner.  Thoughts?

yeah you could just let any territories with 2+ IPC deploy infantry
its easier for gameplay to have a system than to short list territories

On turn 1 UK can easily drop an AC-destroyer-trannie or 2 plus whatever survived, which is plenty, then US can add a destroyer a turn if needed.  I"m not advocating ignoring japan, that would be bad idea.

Nah, axis-roll’s idea of 3 trans, 1 AC, 1 inf, 1 arm is better and what i’m  using now.

So far, I still can’t quite pull the trigger on taking Australia T3 or T4 with Japan (even with 6 fighters and really threatining and holding back the US/UK Navy).  That being said in the 3 games I played, I have been able to really try Japan up in spectacular fashion, but it becomes irrelevant as it still swells up into the great Satan somewhere between turn 6-9.  All the while the allies look like they do good on Germany, but not quite good enough to kill it by the time Japan turns into the unstopable juggernaut.  It is starting to look like the Allies can not afford to give Japan this much attention, though I am still curious about this IC and more importantly the moves done w/o the IC to tie up Japan.  Also I am starting to wonder, why not just use America and have Australia as “home base” for them, the Brits could build an IC late in the game if the opportunity presents itself.  This is only 3 games though.  It is almost as if the axis recoverd 3 times from the brink of disaster and still win.

The tactic described here is the basis of a KGF strategy. It only works to go to France on turn 2 if Germany does the IL tactic of building all tanks and going for Russia.

You force the Germans to take back France instead of mini-me (Italy) and thereby weakening the power of the Moscow push severly. However indeed you need 8-10 units of UK to force the Germans to commit. 2-4 units won’t work since Italy can take care of them.  :wink: