@Playing-Kid said in Just Got Axis And Allies Nova:

@DoManMacgee

I couldn’t tell you how the game is like as I haven’t played it yet. (In fact, I don’t even have anyone to play it with!)

But some notable differences is that there is a tech in which each country gets their own special ability.

Soviets can move factories

Germans have the Panzerkorps, a tank which attack at 4, def 5 (only one at time)

British have Home Guard, when defending “United Kingdom” infantry defends at 3

Japan has Kamikaze, planes do not need to land, just eliminate them at the end

And America has the Marines, infantry in an amphibious assault attack at 2.

These remind of me of the completely absurd “National Advantages” you could use in Revised, which I think did mostly the same thing as these.

The rule about Neutrals is actually very interesting. A different take on the “Axis/Allied aligned Neutrals” that G40 had. I like how it creates incentive to attack but also lets you bypass them if you want to “go for the throat” so to speak.

The nuke sounds absolutely hilarious to play against. Not even remotely close to being balanced but a great deal of fun.

I’ve never actually seen this version before aside from the occasional picture.

Just looking at the map there appears to be a number of differences between this edition and the Gamemaster Edition. Just at the bare minimum, USA owns Saudi Arabia and Venezuela? 3 China territories instead of two? Southeast Asia is similarly split into like 3 different territories instead of “French Indo-China”, similar story for Australia and South Africa. Special shout-out to German-controlled Ethiopia. IPC values look different too.

What’s the overall gameplay like Vs. Classic?

I think the issue here is less the being able to place units you buy, and more the exploits that become possible by buying a unit you never intend to place.

For example, if I buy a CV on a UK turn, I can hypothetically fly a FTR from Moscow to attack a German Navy in the Baltic Sea, even if Karelia/Norway/Germany/Poland/Baltic States are all German-owned, because I can hypothetically land those FTRs in the SZ adjacent to the Baltic Sea and UK during NCM. However, as is, I can carry out this attack even if it’s a blatant suicide mission, because as soon as the FTRs are dead I am no longer obligated to place the CV I bought earlier, meaning I can save placing it for next turn, effectively giving UK 14 free IPCs towards their next naval purchase and denying Germany a chance to pounce on a vulnerable CV for free value.

EDIT: Thanks for the clarification @JuliusBorisovBeamdog. Glad to see you and the team are still working hard at making improvements. The game has come a long way since launch quality-wise and I’m sure everyone here appreciates the continued dedication.

EDIT #2: I guess what I’m saying is that the purchase system should be left as-written in the rules. Players should be punished for bad tactical decision making. Otherwise all games would just come down to a combination of luck, basic knowledge of the map being played, and which side the map being played is biased towards. It’d be more of an exercise in optimization than an actual game.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog What was changed about Fighters, out of curiosity? I have not been able to play AAO in a few days because work has been extremely busy, but I’ve been watching things from afar.

I saw the email this morning noting that there was a patch, but I can’t actually ready the notes from work. Does this fix stop the “Fighters float in the air when their Carrier is destroyed” exploit that I remarked on a few weeks ago?

I won’t cite chapter and verse for you, but other rules demonstrate that you cannot unload.

1. Non-Combat Movement can only be performed under two circumstances:
   a. Air Units that need to land after having participated in combat.
   b. Any unit that did not conduct a combat move

2. The scenario you have described implies that a Combat Move did indeed take place (whether it was the loading of your Land Units onto the Transport or the act of moving the Transport into the enemy Sea Zone).

Therefore, as your Transport and the units on it conducted a Combat Move, they cannot offload during the Non-Combat Movement phase, as per point #1 above.

I’m sure someone smarter than I will provide exact rulebook citations. Sorry, but your Australian/Kiwi friends are in a bit of a bind.

The actual answer is “it depends”.

Yes, by the comparison you gave, Artillery are superior. Even in the editions where TANKs cost 5 IPC (Revised/AA50/etc.), INF/ART pairs are still superior because of the fact that you can buy 2 INF/1 ART (3 HP, 6 punch on defense) for the same cost as 2 TANK (2 HP, 6 punch on defense).

However, you also need to consider the advantage that TANKs have over INF/ART in that they can move two spaces. This is incredibly important and should not be overlooked. For example, let’s say we’re playing on 42SE, I’m playing as Germany, it’s my turn, and I have Karelia (Factory) and West Russia occupied currently. Let’s say that Moscow’s defenses are light at the moment, but in 3 turns or so the US/UK will be able to land enough troops in Europe to give me a serious headache unless I pull the luftwaffe back to defend France/Berlin/wherever. Under these circumstances, I’d prefer to be able to take down Moscow before the US/UK become a serious threat 3 turns from now, so I’m going to build 2 TANKs for the Karelia factory so they can 2-move to Moscow (Karelia -> West Russia -> Moscow) on my next turn to participate in the hypothetical Moscow takedown. If I was acting purely on being cost-efficient, I would buy some combination of INF/ART instead, allowing me one or two extra INF to defend against UK/US with, but lessening the amount of punch I’m going to have against Moscow and slowing my push down to the point where I may not be able to finish off Moscow for several more turns, if at all.

Similarly, most Japane strategies on several maps devolve into “build 1-2 factories on the Asian Mainland, then build as many TANKs as you can and head for Moscow/India)” at some point or another. They’re choosing TANKs over INF/ART because the 2-movement points of the TANKs allow Japan to rack up IPCs incredibly quickly, which makes up for your inefficient use of IPCs by giving you more to work with in later rounds. Of course, as the game drags on, Japan will switch over to INF, but the initial rush is almost always with TANKs.

I know the above example is a bit contrived, but you can see examples of it in practice in a lot of Axis openings, especially in G40, where players often opt to open with Strat Bombers G1, in spite of them being extremely cost-inefficient units, simply because of the incredible benefit that their 6 movement points provide.

Personally, I prefer TANKs as a whole, but not to the point where I’d build only TANKs all the time. A Russia player with their back to the wall in Moscow should not be building TANKs, for example. Neither should a Germany player who has lost the offensive initiative (and is instead playing defense while Japan wins the game).

EDIT: Grammar.

As long as we’re talking about the combat phase, I just remembered a gripe I’ve been meaning to bring up for a while now:

Why is Column Rolling (where, during combat, you roll the dice for each column and assign hits in-sequence, rather than rolling all dice before assigning hits. Ex. If attacking with 3 INF/1 TANK, I would roll my INF dice for “1s”, then my opponent would take hits as needed, then I would roll for my TANK) in-place in this game? I thought Column Rolling literally only existed in Classic 2nd Edition (maybe 3rd too, I don’t remember completely).

I bring it up because, although it really hasn’t impacted any of my games yet due to the whole “asynchronous play” thing. I can see it being an issue when you’re attacking another territory and are squaring off against a large number of enemy units that have a diverse range of combat stats. Something like:

• I attack with 2 SUBs, 1 DD, 1 CV, 2 FTR

• Opponent defends with 3 SUBs, 1 CV, 1 FTR

• I do my roles, blah blah.

• Opponent rolls for the subs, miraculously gets 3 hits.

• Because of the way AAO works (column rolling), I need to pick who dies to the subs before the opponent rolls for the CV and FTRs.

• This creates a tough situation for me. Do I lose the SUBs and DD, hoping that the CV and FTR won’t kill my carrier, do I lose 1 SUB/1 DD/1 CV to try to keep my Submarine alive, assuming at least one more hit (which would be assigned to a FTR), or do I lose 2 SUB/1 CV to allow my FTRs to get off one more round of hits, ensuring that the enemy navy is sunk even if it means sacrificing the FTRs (assuming they can’t NCM to safety).

In a normal game, a conundrum like this would not occur, as the defender would roll all of their dice before I assign casualties. Column Rolling adds a level of strategic depth/risk-taking to the game for sure, but it’s not a 1:1 recreation of the rules of 42SE.

I doubt this is surprising to anyone, but DOUCHEMANMACGEE checking in.

@COJOH said in Beginner - questions:

• Optional rule russian revolution : is it advised to play this option while playing for the first time WO I ? Why do they introduce this optional rule ? To fortify the position of the Central powers ?

For a beginner (or beginners) playing their first game, no. It’s an optional rule to balance out the fact that the Central Powers are far weaker than the Entente. There is an updated “tournament rules” document in this board that even expands the “Russian Revolution” rules to apply to every other country in the game.

No clue on your other two questions, sorry. Just wanted to say hi to another 1914 player.

I think you’re putting words in my mouth by implying that this is a great strategy. Personally, I believe it’s sub-optimal, and prefer to just use the starting Indian troops to hold out for as long as possible before eventually dying or retreating up to Caucasus until the European Axis are contained/defeated.

@Xlome_00 said in India Complex for UK - usually a bad idea?:

It sounds like the taking back and forth of India by the UK is actually a really great strategy to halt the Japanese spamming of tanks, and will hold off their ability to really open an effective new front against the USSR. Because they never get to establish a full turn with the IC.

In reality, trading India repeatedly is sub-optimal, as you have no other source of unit production from UK and using Russians to do it is unsustainable long-term because of how strong Germany’s starting position is. Having to tie down Soviet TANKs to ensure India holds is a desperation move more than anything, and if you have to send them to liberate India more than once you’re opening the very “effective new front” between Japan-USSR that you’re trying to avoid.

And if you take the 60-40 spending ratio for the US which @DoManMacgee was mentioning, and buy one bomber a turn to send to UK and SBR Germany every turn…I don’t see how the Axis can win.

I do not recommend SBRs, or buying Bombers with USA. It’s too slow of a strategy if you’re being faced with an effective Axis player and if NOs are enabled Germany will be making far too much money by G3 for your ~6-8 IPCs of damage/turn to be more than a speed bump on Germany/Italy’s way to can-opener’ing their way to Moscow. You need either a Fighter Conga line via Carriers or a dedicated naval force to threaten multiple points in Europe simultaneously.

…and if Japan then gives up on India realizing how much money is has wasted, US can flip the ratio and spend more on the Atlantic to start landing forces in western europe or add even more bombers and just go after Italy.

I don’t see Japan “giving up on India”. If Japan cannot secure India then they’ve failed their objective (i.e. they’ve failed to accomplish one of their NOs, failed to significantly reduce UK’s income, and failed to establish a base of operations from which they can strike at Russia and link up with the European Axis).

So I guess the real question is what can the Axis do against this? Roll for a Radar Tech and hope for the best with the Can Openers into the USSR?

Tech Rolling is a bad habit to get into in general. Assuming US is spending its income on Bombers and UK is spending a fair amount of its income on keeping the India Factory up, by round 3, Germany/Italy are going to either be stacked in East Ukraine (if the Allies are employing the “do nothing and turtle in Moscow” strategy that’s favored on this site), or will have destroyed/significantly reduced the main Soviet Army (if they tried to stack East Ukraine). Both are losing positions because either Germany/Italy will have compromised the Russian position (by being able to threaten Moscow/Caucasus simultaneously), or they will have crushed the main Soviet army, which cannot be rebuilt due to how frail USSR’s economy is compared with Germany+Italy’s in this version, doubly so when you’re playing with NOs turned on.