3 NOs round 2, you guys are crazy. You don’t even know you’re buttering Russia’s pancakes.
Posts made by Capt. Winters
-
RE: How to get german boots to the russian front?
-
RE: How to get german boots to the russian front?
Pvt. Patterson,
The only problem with your plan is a high chance of failure if your opponent has any idea what they are doing. Now that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but your gamble will cost the entire game.I’m looking for a direct and effective push against the Russians without the Hail Mary, or in your case two Hail Marys (G1 Karelia, G2 Caucasus?? Come on!). The Russian opponents I’m facing are buying 6 ARM Round one and mixing ART and ARM Round 2. The England opponents I’m facing will have a drop off in Poland, splitting your line from reinforcememnts and waking the Bear with a roar. They’d be lighting a victory cigar after you pull that G1 even if you win.
I’m planning how Germany will be strong even if the attack on Moscow Round 5 doesn’t work.
Germany is the most unforgiving and demanding player on the board. No half-court shots here.
-
RE: Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
Yes. I didn’t state it correctly there. The point is stacking up warships with the intent of Bombardment can be negated pretty easily with this rule.
-
RE: Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
@Capt.:
In this context, especially the business of buying a Destroyer to offset a coastal bombardment. Does this add strength to Germany industrializing France?
yes it CAN if the Allies are going to employ a CA/BB heavy navy that can do alot of Bombardment damage.
However, I think that adding an inf & tank might be a better buy than a DD that can do no damage to a large allied navy with a BB that can absorb the DD’s retail shot.
It depends on how many CA/BB’s there are in the allied navy
I’m with you, but I don’t like this buy or move in a Destroyer and there goes your bombardment rule. This really hurts Japan the most. In my games I have got to think invading Western US, and this gives them a cheap way out of opening round hits. I see the argument, I’m a little crabby about it though.
-
RE: Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
In this context, especially the business of buying a Destroyer to offset a coastal bombardment. Does this add strength to Germany industrializing France?
-
RE: After Action Reports
My friends and I are conventional in our play. We passed over AAR, playing only a couple games, and now we’re big on AA50. We usually do not buy tech dice, unless a nation can afford the risk. At the start of the game, it still is not attractive enough to waste not buying units all out.
To me, this game is about tempo, just like chess. The Axis start out with it and the Allies need to come up with a big push early. I’ve seen US stack up Transports for a Euro-landing round 3 or 4. Germany can’t wait to pin Russia down by then. To me, the US and England need to get everything they can going on Round 2. I know this is risky, but then so is throwing everything at Russia for the Germans.
Taking Italy before France is viable depending on the board, but it’s also a big waiting move (tempo loss) seeing that it doesn’t really effect Germany financially.
-
RE: Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
Now that’s something of interest. The Russian Sub, or any subs, would choose submerge and to attack at 2 rather than defend at 1, to take a chance on that Battleship, or not. This allows the bombardment, provided Japan doesn’t bring in the Destroyer, good call.
-
RE: Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
@Unknown:
Can the attacker split his attacking Navy to accomplish both the naval battle and the offshore fire for landing troops
The rulebook clearly states that this is not possible, so no.
So I cheated a couple times, won’t happen again. :wink: I’m trying to get the full definition of a hostile seazone and offshore/landings. Japan can take Phillipines on J1 just no bombardment, got it. Thanks again.
-
RE: Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
Could transports and landing party in Hawaii enter into a contested/hostile seazone if US buys the Destroyer and make the landing without offshore fire?
The rules say a player may only enter an amphibious assualt into a non-hostile seazone. Would the loaded transports have to already be off the coast of Western US? I’m not seeing the point here.
-
RE: Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
Okay, let’s say the seazone in question is off Western US. If Japan owns the seazone and there is an impending Amphibious Assault and the US buys a destroyer or even a transport in that seazone, that would negate an offshore fire, and the whole landing? Are you sure about this?
-
Bombarding territory that has a fleet?
Can the attacker split his attacking Navy to accomplish both the naval battle and the offshore fire for landing troops, or is the battleship automatically used in the Naval battle? If Battleship needs to be used in the Naval battle, what if he dosen’t have to fire? If a split is possible, the battleship would have to be brought into the Naval battle if the dice go horribly, right?
The argument is whether this is actually a foul, seeing that there is a pending combat movement (the landing).
-
RE: Is this game balanced well?
I have yet to see a dominating performance from US against Japan. And Germany and Italy need more attention than just England and Russia. But it all comes down to The Bear. Russia won World War II. In actuality, they lost the most, but they won. Why do you suppose the US used Atomics? For me, balance has to do with the strategist, and winning always comes down to the big battles.
-
RE: Defending against Subs
Very good Ogrebait, “prodigious breeding at a ratio of say, 10 females to 1 male.”
On the matter of multiple detroyers for fodder, why not bring more subs instead of more destroyers? I figure a fleet should have at least one destroyer for the fighters, and 3 subs protecting. Subs also give you attack possibilities, where a couple Destroyers will most likely stick with the fleet. Of course these subs do you no good against a pure airstrike, so it depends on the positions.
I love the new sub defending at 1 and costing 6. Great attack, great fodder or submerge.
-
RE: After Action Reports
Title: The Bear was more like The Bunny
Date: February 17th, 2009
Special Rules: NO’s + Tech (no one bought)
Victor: Axis Victory by Concession/Projection
Game Length: 7 Hrs. Concession Round 5!
Bias: 4 players, 1 new to AA50. I (3 games) played Germany , two (2 games) took the allies, smart rookie took Japan.
Description:
Allies: Not organized. England and US started off balanced, then tried KGF. Too late, Russia was behind early and needed to defend Capitol and Caucus from 3 columns. Allies bought aggressive, but slow-played.
Axis: Japan stayed after the complex built in India, Russia could only offer limited support. Japan took over some Russia, India and island hopped. America did not invest early enough and was stacking up a stalemate in the Pacific. Germany literally set the pace, Japan right behind. Germany took Russia on Round 4. Okay, they had a huge victory in Karelia. Italy never had any opposition and played an important role in making all this happen.
Observations/Recommendations:
Everyone was totally intense. The first three rounds seemed to fly for the Axis. And the money, OMG, Germany collected 57 round 2. Japan was nearing 50 at round 3. US has got to do something substantial Round 2.
Russia can not purchase all tanks the first two rounds, they need total units. England should’ve scrapped the factory in India and invested heavily against Germany, by the time England and US got into France, Germany took the Russian Capitol. Say what you want about KGF or KIF, if the US is going to take on Japan, England needs total commitment vs. Germany.
Oh, and there was a 45 minute argument about Submarines. Got it worked out, thanks Krieghund! -
RE: Defending against Subs
@Capt.:
Okay. Let’s go with subs being undetectable and therefor undefensible when they are attacking a fleet without a destroyer. Here’s my problem with that. If subs cannot be destroyed, why would they ever leave the battle? Surface ships would be completely helpless, and any accompanying aircraft would ultimately look for a friendly landing spot or be scuttled. It would be like taking pot-shots. IMO, the most affordable naval unit should not have this kind of power. All this creates is an esclation of destroyers, and more subs, and so on.
Nobody said that subs were undetectable if you don’t have a destroyer. Sea units can hit subs regardless - it’s only air units that can’t hit subs without a destroyer. Surface ships are only helpless if they’re hit. Their ability to take two hits makes battleships a potent defense against lone subs, or even small groups.
@Capt.:
And, on your position, let’s say there is a destroyer defending a fleet. If the fleet is attacked by say, 6 subs, and hits the subs make (without sneak attack) cause me to send carriers and cruisers to casualty, to ensure my destroyer stays alive to give the fighters a second chance, well that’s an enormous amount of power. Isn’t it?
If the enemy has built up six subs, you probably need to have more than one destroyer to deal with them. At any rate, on average only two of the subs will hit in the first round, and a fleet of any size will have a good chance at making sure that most of them don’t get a second chance.
The bottom line is that you need destroyers when there are subs prowling about. In general, you need less destroyers than there are subs. The offensive power of subs is considerable when there are no destroyers to thwart them, but this is offset by the fact that they are pretty easy to kill when there are destroyers around. The real power of subs is that they force your opponent to spend IPCs on destroyers, and I don’t see a problem with that. It seems pretty historical to me.
Oh Man, I’ve been totally playing this wrong. Destroyers for Aircraft, not Destroyers for All Ships. New rules mistake on my part. Please, I beg your pardon.
So I can attack a sub fleet with a surface group without having a Destroyer, just no planes? That’s huge!!!
-
RE: Defending against Subs
Krieghund,
First of all I respect you for your commitment to the game and for Larry, I’m a big fan. The rules for subs are vague, indeed. Personally, I feel you have set a rule here that has a tremendous impact on all naval operations for every country with a boat. A cheap group of subs leads to a massive escalation of defending destroyers and subs. This is power.
To say, just buy one Destroyer is not enough. A fleet of subs are capable of irradicating a surface group even with a destroyer, seeing that they can only hit surface units. So, who cares if I lose 6 subs(36 ipc) if I can take down a surface group worth 60+ ipcs. The only way to avoid this is to escalate more destroyers per surface group, or buy subs myself, to take hits?
Now I should attack that fleet of subs, with the advantage of having a Destroyer, but that requires at least a second Destroyer to stay home with my surface group in case any subs survive.
This is how my boards are looking, in both the Atlantic and Pacific. And under these rules, even with a Destroyer, Subs are king of the sea.
Some suggestions -
Return subs to their status of being “exposed” when attacking even without a Destroyer so the surface group can defend themselves.
Reduce subs to a one roll attack/defense and force submerge at the start of Round 2, unless they are defending with an attacking Destroyer present.
These make a sub fleet strong still, but not a cheap and easy underwater game changer.
-
RE: Frood HELP! HELP!
Mmmm… Not too sure about this, yeaaah, I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on this one. Mmmmm…
-
Defending against Subs
On the matter of attacking subs and defending ships/fighters.
Pg. 29 - Additionally, your aircraft may attack enemy submarines.
This says nothing about defense.
Pg. 30 - This special attack only happens once at the
start of the attacking units fire step. Then, the combat sequence continues normally.This says to me, the sub rules are somewhat comparable to the previous versions. A sub gets a special attack. A sub may submerge if opting not to attack or defend. Subs may be ATTACKED when there is a Destroyer to find them. Ships/Fighters may DEFEND against a sub attack as usual. A sub is not an invincible unit unless there is a destroyer!
If this is not understood to be the accurate assesment of the rules, please consider, the alternative is making a pretty good unit (as intended), the sub, into a dominating unit (not intended) and the whole game kinda silly.
To think otherwise, is like saying, “Oh my gosh, they built one sub, my entire fleet is dead unless I buy a destroyer?” Or “What was that? A torpedo! Good thing it missed. Uh-oh, here comes another one. What do we do?”
-
RE: AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A
Krieghund, I think I sunk you.
On the matter of attacking subs and defending ships/fighters.
Pg. 29 - Additionally, your aircraft may attack enemy submarines.
This says nothing about defense.
Pg. 30 - This special attack only happens once at the
start of the attacking units fire step. Then, the combat sequence continues normally.This says to me, the sub rules are somewhat comparable to the previous versions. A sub gets a special attack. A sub may submerge if opting not to attack or defend. Subs may be ATTACKED when there is a Destroyer to find them. Ships/Fighters may DEFEND against a sub attack as usual. A sub is not an invincible unit unless there is a destroyer!
If this is not understood to be the accurate assesment of the rules, please consider, the alternative is making a pretty good unit (as intended), the sub, into a dominating unit (not intended) and the whole game kinda silly.
To think otherwise, is like saying, “Oh my gosh, they built one sub, my entire fleet is dead unless I buy a destroyer?” Or “What was that? A torpedo! Good thing it missed. Uh-oh, here comes another one. What do we do?”
-
RE: Frood HELP! HELP!
El Capitan!
Is this an odds calculator? I’m looking for an AA50 Battle/dice simulator, like on frood.net. Pure luck! How are people running online tournaments? There has to be something out there, please!!
Nothing against odds calculators, but throughout history battles have had legendary outcomes against impossible odds. I for one love to see heroic efforts on the board!