I don’t think this is BS at all. Remember the combat in Axis and Allies represents combined arms not just dog fitting etc. Additionally, air is already pleanty powerful in the game as is, and if it were anymore so it might not make sense to built much else. Axis and Allies is realistic in the regard that most industrial output of any nation will be guys and tanks not planes.
Posts made by DethSkwad
-
RE: Air has to be fixied
-
RE: Need help : UK is dead before they even start…
LimitidHole-
There are a couple of things I think you are overlooking which should apply to any ruleset even your house rules. First, in A+A defense is much stronger than offense so for this reason an offensive campaign has a much higher level to reach to be feasible. Secondly, the game as is was not unbalanced because of some minor rule or procedural incontigruities but because of a severe material shortcoming for the Axis in terms of force on the ground at the start of the game. The Allies can too easily remove too much too early so that no matter what rule changes you want to affect it isn’t going to solve this. Thirdly, transporting troops is effective because it is possible for the Allies to use Russian space that is put their troops into Karelia to help defend there. Some house rules don’t allow this but even so this doesn’t deter a “shucking” strategy of men from the US and Uk to Europe. Instead the focus will shift from Karelia to WEuro, a little less ideal but certainly still workable. Ultimately, the Axis as the protagonist cannot afford to spend many ipcs on innanimate objects like transports or factories, both do nothing but produce real units so unless there is a dire need for this as in the case of Japan it is best to avoid doing so as is the case for Germany.
-
RE: Poll on German Strategy
Well I think the likelyhood of Japan taking both China and Sinkiang is very low in fact. If you think about it Japan starts with only 7inf on the ground and 3ftrs bmb for offense. China with 2inf ftr is more dangerous than one would expect and because of this it is my feeling that you must send at least 3inf ftr bmb just to guarantee a good shot at clearing it. Additionally, Sink can only be attacked with 2inf + some air and is a lesser priority so in fact it is safe to assume that one of these will go badly. Further Japan spreading out its offensive ability on turn 1 is a high risk high reward move as you could also lose all these battles which will really slow down Japan. Losing say 6inf just to kill an irrelevent 2inf ftr or an extra 2inf is not a good idea. Further, if the Brits pull just 1 Indian guy or 1 Syrian back to Persia they will have an opportunity to attack the infantry put in India by Japan. If the Brits can nibble at these forces while spread out, and the Japanese hurt themselves by spreading out then it is far easier to slow Japan down than if you play defense where Japan will maintain its relative strength by virtue of not attacking.
Secondly, what gain is there to moving 2inf from India to Sink anyway? If the Japanese want to risk it they can still attack it, and if they do you risk losing more of what little strength in Asia you do have. Additionally, Japan can still take India, and Britain is still left attacking with 1inf + air to clear it so what’s the difference?
Finally, your primary reason against abandoning India is that the IPC swing is too great but in fact even with a defense of India or Sink Japan can still attack one or the other, and for that reason the IPC swing is almost as great so in fact the vacating of India actually costs the Brits very little. Whether the British are in India or not the Japanese should be able to take China and India or Sink which is a 10ipcs swing. The difference is but only 1guy which is more than worth it for the British.
-
RE: US 1 Purchases
In AA there are no battles that are sure things so from this point of view it is perfectly valid to use a bomber for insurance rather than to scrap a little more from your opponent. Additionally, SBRs are not sure things either since 1/6 bombers will be shot down.
I would say a bad player is one that mistakes givens as absolutes rather than understanding them to be probabilities.
-
RE: Poll on German Strategy
I frequently vacate India as it isn’t defensible. I will maintain a counter attack option with 1 guy or so but beyond that its a waste. Japan will get India sooner or later and putting money into it is stupid.
SUD
What about an Africa which goes grey and just as it is being liberated the Japanese make it yellow? I’ve found this is really the best the Axis can do there, and it really frustrates the Allies to lose Africa right after liberating it.In response to another thread about German strat I really don’t think the Germans can be played “intuitively” because very often they must protect themselves and even their units from loss. It’s not so much that the tradeoff isn’t beneficial but rather that the Germans start with units if various players whereas as the game develops they will be unable to sustain this so they must take advantage of it while they can. For this reason the Germans should fear a Uk counter of Egypt and should either not attack if they can’t hold, or attack it with so much that they can.
-
RE: Violating Neutrality
This isn’t so crazy but I think it would work best in lieu of fleet purchases and not with them. I’d say one should either commit almost completely to a naval approach to supplying guys or an IC approach, and one can start building ICs on Japan1. If for example Japan builds an IC in Manchuria on turn 1 they are no worse off than if they bought 2transports and 3inf since on turn 2 Japan will have moved a total of 10inf arm to Asia or will have moved and built 11inf into Asia. Turn 2 you can build a factory in FIC or Manch depending on where you built one on turn1 and turn 3 in India. From there you would want to probably wait and a little and build some in either Sinkiang, Yakut or China as a less desirable option. Japan should be able to crank out 13+inf which is where they normally would be, but also don’t have to worry about the lag between Tokyo and the front and don’t have to invest 40ipcs in boats. While 4 factories would cost 60ipcs it should be remembered that 7trns don’t actually achieve full mobilization which is very hard for Japan to do with a naval approach.
Downsides of this are as follows…First since India becomes necessary to produce and will build guys it also becomes a nice target and its not too hard for the allies to slip guys into Persia so this with armor in Syria/Cauc can threaten to take it or strafe it, and since you’ve invested heavily in India you can’t afford either. Secondly, as alluded to it does cost a little more, but this comes with the gain of quicker mobilization. Also this approach necessitates that you leave these factories vulnerable to SBRs since you are building so many that it will be cost prohibative to cover all with AA guns. On the flip side the free SBRs will be tempting for the Allies and will reduce pressure on Germany which is what most say a good Japan strat will do.
Upsides as follows…Quicker mobilization=more pressure on Russia, as well as double stacking infantry and armor. Usually with Japan under such aproach I only build infantry for a few turns say up until turn 4 and then switch to all armor. This means units build on turn 4 would move to pressure Novo on the front while the build is placed into FIC/Manch,India. If you have factories in Yakut or Sink they can build guys and depending on how many transports Japan has you can dump 2-3 armor from Tokyo. In otherwords this allows you to take and hold Novo while creating and maintaining longterm pressure on Russia, even without a lot of fresh infantry purchases. Ultimately with this approach the game can be forced into a battle over Karelia/Russia, and the Allies must keep all their troops here while still risking getting hit too hard in a strafe of either. Should one happen then the Axis can take Moscow whether it is by Germany or Japan.
-
RE: Violating Neutrality
Which is why I said the means to cover that is to put 2arm in Panama, and violate Columbia when Japan moves to Argentina. This way Japan will not make any money off Brazil.
-
RE: Violating Neutrality
Brazil is merely a nuissance move, nothing more. For this reason an analysis of it based upon economics is not really worthwhile. If for example the Japanese lost 2inf and a transport in exchange for just 1US infantry but it did something to the US gameplan then this would be worthwhile. So to me the question is how do you make Brazil as much of a wash as you can, and I still come back to columbia and armor in Panama. Yes the US will lose an arm probably but the cost is still good for the US and more importantly this is a reactive move so that when Japan invades Argentina the US invades Columbia, and if Japan pulls back you can go from Panama back to the WUS.
-
RE: Poll on German Strategy
What??? I really don’t get why you are so hostile I just checked this site out for the first time yesterday and right away I get this. Why??? I don’t understand why you think some have less right to say what they think than others. All I know is from what I’ve read about you says you haven’t won any games so maybe you should be a little less rude to others. You seem to be like this with others too what’s up with that?
-
RE: Violating Neutrality
She brings up a good point…the best way to get the US out of a naval buildup is to go heavy against Russia. One of my favorite techniques is to build infantry for the first 4 turns while building factories, NO transports, then switch on turn 5 to all armor production for a Dethstryke around turn 8. If the US is messing with a navy in the Pacific then it should take them until about then to really get going. Ultimately the loss of Borneo, New Guinea, Okinawa, and even the East Indies won’t matter that much but Moscow always will and certainly if it is taken by the Japanese.
-
RE: Poll on German Strategy
Why don’t you practice speaking and writing in complete sentences before you go making claims about beating anyone ehhh Glass Joe.
-
RE: Poll on German Strategy
Wow how delightfully rude of you to post the same unintelligent remark in two threads. Didn’t I read somewhere on this forum that you’ve never won a game?
-
RE: Poll on German Strategy
How about neither :?
I always say kill the armies which protect the squares and the pieces will fall into place. In order to kill the armies you must have superior strength unless you wish to rely on luck. So for this reason a Karelia that has been vacated because the Allies retreated will have less value than an Africa where a handful of units can pin down large numbers of forces.
-
RE: Violating Neutrality
Here’s a nifty trick using neutrals….
In my old group there arose the opinion that Brazil was somehow of value to the Japanese and that it could not be defended because it is on an island more or less. Often the Japanese moving into Argentina or Chile would force the US to build new and unnecessary transports in EUSSZ in order to counter such an action, and this itself was much of the point of the move because from Argentina Japan can hit Austrailia, Nz, or even Africa depending on where in Argentina they are. My counter to any potential Brazil move is actually quite simple which is move armor into Panama and violate Columbia. It is true that if the 2arm must attack 2inf the US will still lose more Ipcs than they kill and protect but the benefit of this is that 2arm in Panama is such a noncomittal that should the Japanese try to use Argentina as a feint before going to Africa or Austrailia they will find they have only wasted time. Should they committ to it they will lose 14ipcs of units(because I will try to kill with air the boat) while I should lose only 8ipcs of my own units(-3 Brazil and -5 for 1 tank). This is basically the cheapest, easiest way to defend Brazil, and at the same time should Japan decide its not worth it those tanks can easily slide back into the supply chain in WUS towards Europe without losing much time.
Because of this I would say avoid going for Brazil as the Axis since it should cost you more to possess it than it will for the US.
-
RE: The ADS vs. LL debate
-Squirecam,
You’re proposed Russia 1 attack against Ukr and EEuro and or Finland is risky at best, and as someone else said assumes no units into EEurope. In fact Finland is not a good place to attack on R1 most of the time because it offers a diminished return over other spaces. That said even in Lowluck to attack Ukr and EEurope would entail assuming a large amount of risk on your part. Remember that LowLuck does not mean no luck, it just means that there is narrower range of potential outcomes. For example, in Ukr on Russia 1 with dice there is a chance that even with bringing the house the Russians could roll no hits while the defenders roll 5-6. Adding more units via a bid only increases the potential range of outcomes and therefore the risk as a deterrant but it does not eliminate the problem, and for this reason a greatly overmatched opponent could attack even an all Ukraine bid just for the lucky shot of it permanently tilting the game into their favor. In LL however I would argue that the dice are still quite important, perhaps moreso because you are always rolling fewer of them, and its for this reason that in LL all your moves must be sound strategically and not mere crap shoots. Back to the original proposed Russia 1 attack on Ukr and EE, were you to do this you would find that almost 1/3 of the time this would fail because the German defender in Ukr rolls a 2 or less, and in LL once a battle tilts against you it cannot be turned around by luck. So in this case 5inf and 2arm against 3inf 2arm ftr where the first round of combat results in 3 hits would almost certainly mean Russia would fail to take the fighter out. Additionally, the same remainder of two will occur in EEurope on the second round of combat there should you attack with 3inf arm 2ftrs there, so in reality in order to get two fighters you must roll very very well as the chances both 1/3s miss does not have winning odds. Ultimately, what you are really gambling then is whether you can avoid both of these hits to get both fighters.
The converse is that if one did make this Russia 1 combo and it didn’t go well that is both of the extras in EE and Ukr hit then the Germans end up with a very strong advantage that will remain for the rest of the game. And this is certainly compounded with the likelyhood that as someone else said there will be a large number of units bid somewhere else, probably Africa which will guarantee Germany a very strong income base with which to pressure Russia. So as a German player I’d be highly tempted to not bid a guy into EEuro if I thought people would actually attack it. The odds that Russia gets lucky versus the odds Germany gets lucky are 4:1 which is just not enough to gamble away the whole game on.
I agree that 23ipcs is a good amount for a bid, but not that an Euro bid takes less skill than an Africa bid. With a European bid you are gambling that you will be able to quickly amass a force and overwhelm Russia using armor with some infantry. If you are even a little bit off with your predictions of their future troops strength when you make your move then its curtains. However, with an Africa bid you can grind down your opponent using brute strength, if the Axis never relinquishes control their production advantage the Allies should have problems. With a bid that is heavy in Africa you can easily afford some minor mistakes, but this is not so when the bid is largely in Europe.