Once US gets into the fight, there bonus will boost the allies over the Axis.
Posts made by Caesar-Seriona
-
RE: Is there currently an average bid(or even a bid) in G40 2nd edition
-
RE: Is there currently an average bid(or even a bid) in G40 2nd edition
I don’t like the bid system anyways due to the logic being the Axis have the advantage on turn 4 because all three can ride non aggression and that is somehow not fair for the allies who already have a higher GDP than the Axis.
-
RE: Usa Stragegy
I always like the idea of building a navy that matches Japan in firepower and then turn around and build fighters and bombers on the east to put them on London to stop Axis bombing as well as in a pinch, moving them to USSR if needed. After that, build a navy with landing craft and target Italy first.
-
RE: What should Germany do with the Scandinavia troops?
Problem I have with using German air units is that you’re now removing another possibility to stop Allied naval forces when you move then to Finland.
-
RE: What should Germany do with the Scandinavia troops?
Indeed if the US is strong enough to get there those 7 inf will not stop him anyway.
Norway is unfortunately a necessary lose for Germany, not much you can do to stop anyone from landing on it.
-
RE: What should Germany do with the Scandinavia troops?
It’s hard to say. When I deal with passive Japanese forces that don’t bring any other allies into the fight, I try to reinforce Finland to help with the invasion of USSR. I can’t see any other reason beyond that. I guess you COULD pull them out and save them for homeland defense however you might help USSR get 11 dollars for Norway and Finland.
-
RE: Sea Lion Discussion
@Caesar:
Except that argument is pointless to me. Even if you cripple London by taking away Canada, the Axis regardless will have the advantage in the early game however the Allies will always win in the end due to having more numbers and a higher GDP.
Then again if canada only has 5 ipcs it can not build ships so it has to save money, giving the allies in effect less income.
No need to split up the game into even more parties with less income it just does not really work that well.
My argument for Canada is to just reshape there territories. I have already come up with several (I guess) good NO for them however all the territories in CA should be Canadian and have a value of at least 1 and give there capital a value of 3.
-
RE: How to counter Dark Skies+J1 attack?
@hcp:
@Caesar:
How about add 1 mech to burma for india.
Against dark skies the allies just need a bit more fleet to call the bombers out. Attack and you trade your bombers dont attack and ill invade you.
The one mech is a good idea too as I would instantly use that to get over to Persia and bring them into the fight.
Thanks ShadowHAwk. Mech is a good idea!
Caesar: I am thinking one additional option that the Burma mech can do is to retake FIC from Japan in normal J1 attack (or attack Siam planes if there is no inf left in J1 Siam) . Then we might delay the J2 MIC in FIC (or kill Japanese planes in Siam).Usually in my games, Japan camps on FIC and factories it since it is can be used against India and China.
-
RE: Sea Lion Discussion
Except that argument is pointless to me. Even if you cripple London by taking away Canada, the Axis regardless will have the advantage in the early game however the Allies will always win in the end due to having more numbers and a higher GDP.
-
RE: The Russian Expiditionary Force in Iraq
@Caesar:
@Caesar:
I’m probably misunderstanding here as I admittedly didn’t read the whole thread, but UK and USSR splitting iran would make sense for a pro allies neutral game wise, to represent the fact the allies controlled them.
I agree with your point that iran wasn’t pro uk or ussr. Don’t think they like anybody but themselves
We’re taking about how USSR can abuse the spread of Communism national objective by taking Iraq, the closest nation to do it and if we think it’s a good idea or not to which we got the topic of neutral Iran and Iraq.
In historical context, Iran was pro Axis for sure. The leaders expressed interest in Germany which didn’t make UK or USSR happy because we not only didn’t want them to get oil from friendly nations but also would give the Axis powers a back door.
The NO should really be restricted to europe only, not middle east of afrika, the allies would have never helped russia get those countries ( except for the invasion of neutral Iran )
In historical context, Iran was the only Neutral country. It traded with both germany and the allies. In contrast to the US which was waging an illegal war against germany at that time.
The allies wanted iran to join them, and hand over german nationals that where living peacefully in Iran, when iran wanted to stay neutral they invaded the country to force them to join them.Irak was anti-UK because they where oppressed by the british since WW1.
The problem with Spread of Communism is that it technically make sense for Africa and the Middle East. Stalin wanted Europe to see USSR as a European nation. However he wanted to take an advantage any where he gets, he knew that Japan was going to be a thorn in his side which is why he invested interest in Japan true enemy, China. However as history has shown, he willingly joined UK in an invasion of Iran. So it makes sense he can get Communist bonus out of Iraq and Africa. However the African bonus is the bigger issue. I try very much in the early games to get Italy to leave its colonies and destroy there military just to get USSR to take all four of them in Africa for a total of 12 dollars plus 2 for the territory value.
The allies would have never allowed russia to invade or occupy any neutral country ( except iran but they promised to leave once Iran surendered and lend-lease materials could go through )
For the NO bonus in Irak ( which was a british colony at that time ) or afrika the allies have to make way for the russians to invade areas that they wanted themself and not invade them.
For sicily its even more silly as russia needs to get on a US or UK transport do invade those spaces. Russia should never be allowed to go on any persons transports.If you go for historic accuracy the allies wanted to invade through greece and the balkans to prevent russia from getting those countries so it does not make any sence that the allies help russia take more.
And besides we all know what really happened. And that was UK who wanted to do that and that is ALSO what Germany assumed the allies were going to do. This is actually why Turkey wanted to join the allies sooner than it did but US wanted them to stay neutral as it didn’t give Axis forces in Greece an excuse to invade another nation. US wanted to go right into Southern France from Africa but the agreement was knocking out Italy right then and there.
And as for the USSR being on transport, that is something I never thought of however if I am going to do that, I’d just have the Red Army land on Rome.
-
RE: Sub warfare out of whack?
@Caesar:
Ok, lets take a step back.
So, should Subs be able to bypass Denmark and go into the Baltic? Who cares, really? Lets just say the house rule is subs can enter the Baltic Sea. Is the UK or USA going to invest in subs to enter the Baltic for the sole purpose of killing off the German fleet? There are no convoy routes in the Baltic so that is in essence the only purpose of them going in in the first place.
Germany has a DEST with their fleet and a AB on W. Germany with planes. It is a suicide mission by the Allies to send in a sub or 2.
In the big picture of the game, it is a total non factor.
Same scenario with Italy. Lets say the house rule says subs can go through the Suez. What? UK is worried about a stack of 6 Italy Subs rampaging through the Suez? It is not even a point of discussion and thus a non factor.
Except the Suez and Panama are a moot point because those are canals that have locks which I agree doesn’t make sense however in the context of the Turkey, Denmark, and Gibraltar, submarines could in theory sneak pass these zones and historically speaking, did.
Denmark strait was pretty heavy mined, there where nets and underwater microphones. So yes a lone sub might get through but not nearly viable enough to make it for the context of this game. Units are not just a single unit they are a group of said units. Scapa flow was also at risk from subs with its many outgoing channels and yes 1 sub managed to get in it does not mean that the whole base was crap.
Well Allies going into that German area is foolish. Home Fleet just blockaded that region anyways however the others had enemy and neutral ships passing all the time.
-
RE: How to counter Dark Skies+J1 attack?
@Caesar:
@hcp:
@Arthur:
Add in that most attacks against Moscow are happening on G4+, and it doesn’t have nearly as much impact as additional units to swing key battles during the first round. An extra 20 PUs of bid results in an additional 20+ PU swing in net battle casualties, leading to a 40+ swing of units in key areas, leading to 60+ swing of units by the fifth turn.
AB Harris: might I ask where are those first round key battle areas that the bid can offer such large PU swings? I can only identify North Africa sub+Tank+2 art to have such large effect.
If I have 40 bid, where should I put the 20 additional bid to counter patient Dark Skies + J1 attack?
I think the only thing with the J1 would be giving the Red Army East an offensive ability against Japan by liberating Chinese territories forcing Japan to rely even more on transports and thus navy making them more able to be sunk by US. As for dark skies, I can’t see anything beyond more infantry and artillery unless the other solution is to give the Northern Red Army more offensive ability to get Finland and Norway which is 6 dollars of Spread of Communism on top of 5 dollars for both territory value.
How about add 1 mech to burma for india.
Against dark skies the allies just need a bit more fleet to call the bombers out. Attack and you trade your bombers dont attack and ill invade you.
The one mech is a good idea too as I would instantly use that to get over to Persia and bring them into the fight.
-
RE: Sub warfare out of whack?
Ok, lets take a step back.
So, should Subs be able to bypass Denmark and go into the Baltic? Who cares, really? Lets just say the house rule is subs can enter the Baltic Sea. Is the UK or USA going to invest in subs to enter the Baltic for the sole purpose of killing off the German fleet? There are no convoy routes in the Baltic so that is in essence the only purpose of them going in in the first place.
Germany has a DEST with their fleet and a AB on W. Germany with planes. It is a suicide mission by the Allies to send in a sub or 2.
In the big picture of the game, it is a total non factor.
Same scenario with Italy. Lets say the house rule says subs can go through the Suez. What? UK is worried about a stack of 6 Italy Subs rampaging through the Suez? It is not even a point of discussion and thus a non factor.
Except the Suez and Panama are a moot point because those are canals that have locks which I agree doesn’t make sense however in the context of the Turkey, Denmark, and Gibraltar, submarines could in theory sneak pass these zones and historically speaking, did.
-
RE: What to do with the India transport
Traditionally, I just start converting Dutch island but because I have been playing against a Japanese player who tends to move his fleet south. I will take the transport and knock out Italy.
-
RE: Size of units and French pieces
Thanks but those are Soviet copies which I am sure you know as well. Hopefully we actually get some French units soon.
-
RE: Finally Bought E40 and P40 2nd Edition, notices some interesting things
Mine were brand new. I don’t ever want to buy a used AnA game due to things like this.
-
Size of units and French pieces
I have two questions:
1st: What size are the units used in Axis and Allies? I think it’s 1/72 but I don’t know.
2nd: Does anybody know where I can get French pieces other than infantry for Axis and Allies?
-
RE: How to counter Dark Skies+J1 attack?
@hcp:
@Arthur:
Add in that most attacks against Moscow are happening on G4+, and it doesn’t have nearly as much impact as additional units to swing key battles during the first round. An extra 20 PUs of bid results in an additional 20+ PU swing in net battle casualties, leading to a 40+ swing of units in key areas, leading to 60+ swing of units by the fifth turn.
AB Harris: might I ask where are those first round key battle areas that the bid can offer such large PU swings? I can only identify North Africa sub+Tank+2 art to have such large effect.
If I have 40 bid, where should I put the 20 additional bid to counter patient Dark Skies + J1 attack?
I think the only thing with the J1 would be giving the Red Army East an offensive ability against Japan by liberating Chinese territories forcing Japan to rely even more on transports and thus navy making them more able to be sunk by US. As for dark skies, I can’t see anything beyond more infantry and artillery unless the other solution is to give the Northern Red Army more offensive ability to get Finland and Norway which is 6 dollars of Spread of Communism on top of 5 dollars for both territory value.
-
RE: Sea Lion Discussion
I never understood the logic of giving Canada there own roundels and then continue to press them into UK while giving ANZAC there own nation. Hence why I argue Canada should be played as its own.
-
RE: Aircraft being able to fly over hostile navy question
@Baron:
@Caesar:
Nope. Facility aa only fires at the bombers directly attacking it. Unit aa guns only fire if their territory is being attacked.
Side note, it would be cool if aa could chose to defend air or ground combat. Like german 88s being used as anti tank guns and 20mm being used against infantry and lite vehicles. Oh well. Back to the game.Right but AnA will never have a version where each unit has its own attack against certain units. I do think about AA guns should have the ability to shoot at infantry on defense. Each nation in WWII AA guns could be aimed at the ground and I am sure you can find evidence of everyone doing it at some point.
AnA will never try to have a unit that can do better or worse against different units. IE fighters rolling a 3 against other fighters but a 1 against a battleship and G40’s rules for fighters on strategic bombing doesn’t count.
Submarines (and Destroyer somehow vs Sub) and AAA got special targeting. And these units saw various changes.
I saw no outright evidence against more room about special targeting. Do you ?