Can paratroopers transport inf across sea? In triplea they can not.
Posts made by dondoolee
-
RE: AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A
-
RE: What is the USSR sub useful for?
It has varying degrees of uses. If there is a fleet perched by a still living Italian fleet it can be provided as very useful foder. Also, if the UK decides not to kill the German cruiser UK1 the Sub (particularly if you bought russian air R1) can be used as an attack on the cruiser, this could leave the UK with much better options UK2 and the UK does not risk losing a valuable plane. It can also slip through the med or the panama canal in some games and screw around with Jap shipping and/or provide the US Pacific fleet (perhaps linked with the UK Aussie fleet) with a potentialy important fodder unit .
Both of those options are semi common. The sub is certainly not universally useless, nor do I think it’s a fringe piece that provides virtually no value in an overwhelming majority of games. It is a fairly useful and unique unit so long as the Soviet player wishes to dedicate time and thought into using it (and there is NO reason not to), I am glad the soviets have it. I wouldn’t be suprised if it would contribute to a definate game winning strat in a few cases.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
Just play with tech as all we should. There are many techs that reduce SBRs damage, directly or indirectly.
So you are saying that those ‘other’ techs are strong enough counters to Heavy Bombers?
What if you don’t play with Tech?
HBs are strong, but not a game killer. Improved Industry and Radar work well, Super Shipyards and War Bounds also. You can always develop Rockets or your own HBs
If you play without tech (a pity if you ask me, you are losing complexity), there are no HBs too. How many bombers you need for a SBR campaign? Against Germany, you need 3-4 bombers each round to average damage (11-14 IPCs) or 6 for a 21 IPCs average, 7 if you count the possible aa gun hit. All just to make Germany have to pay 20 IPCs of repairings. The point is that if you buy so many bombers with USA/UK, west axis will have enough time to consolidate Europe and earn 40-45 IPCs with Germany and 9 with Italy. You can still buy 9-10 units with west axis and Japan will be at Moscow’s (or LA’s) door if you don’t buy a Pacific fleet or a solid D-Day. Axis will have economic advantage if you don’t fight Commonwealth and Pacific IPCs, and you cannot do that while supporting a full SBR campaign
On the reverse, axis suffers the same problem. If Japan gets too obsesive with SBRs, it will lack the punch needed for retaking Africa when west allies arrive, or consolidate India and China if needed. You will lose in land that you won with SBRs
A balanced approach is always better. Cover all your fronts with the proper amount of resources. Too much spent in one theater (KGF) or strat (obsesive SBRs campaign) and the opponent can exploit obvious weakeness that will appear in other places
A balanced approach may be better sometimes/most of the time, but when the Axis do something significant it can be a trigger to call for a different way to allocate resources. Sometimes in a radical way.
For example when Italy is buying an expensive navy, Germany is buying an IC (particularly G1), Germany is buying a navy, The Axis are doing a heavy blitz to Russia, Japan is doing a heavy harrasment on America, The Axis had EVERYTHING right/wrong for them T1. These are all fairly dramatic starts/strategies that allocate a heavy and somewhat inflexible amount of resources to a specific area. This could change the whole way one would approach balance I would think.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
Something else to consider about the cost of bombers:
You have to add in the speed in which they can make an immediate effect vs when a US landing party can make an immediate effect. Being that the US may have to invest insane amounts of resources into worthless transports and other naval units that take longer to get to the destination than bombers and may have not as immediate effect on IPC value as bombers I think the bombers value can change. Also add how the bombers can add to a potential landing parties attack value, or how there range may be able to effect more pressing matters if their services are needed. Also add how they may serve another purpose of seriously hampering Italian naval/African ambitions.
Obviously this can change from game to game, but an SBR campaign may actually be of more value due to speed, IPC reults, and costs than a more marine focused campaign.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
Something else of interesting note: While I am not usually one to play with techs, and even if I do I hardly role for tech; Buying a factory in a tech game would virtually eliminate Germany from rolling for techs. Previously they would have had 2-5 turns for some good solid conservative rolling that would have a good chance at getting a tech. This would make the German play at least very predictable in not getting a tech, and I would imagine due to the lack of pressure it could be something that could instigate more allied roles for tech (UK may be able to roll 1 die for tech every turn and maybe 2-3 roles for UK1 and UK2, a relieved Russian front could now role for tech, and america may have nothing better to do than buy bombers and role for tech).
And as far as having the UK funnel troops through Russia, I still like the idea, but my 1 game I play tested I could not hold Japan. I had the US split forces in the pacific and med and tried to keep 3 bombers. I couldn’t sink the Italian navy (which was HEAVILY re enforced by Japan) until late in the game. I could make absolutly no gains in the Pacific (as my navy was completly contained by Japan), I had massive russian armies in India and China. Britain kept getting bombed (by 2 Jap Bombers and 1 Ger bomber). Both fleets were under stress due to the potential double/triple hit from Japan Italy Germany as Japan kept sending wave after wave of air to hold europe. The game took about 14 turns however before it became inevitable that Japan was overwhelmingly powerful.
Like I said I still like the idea, but I certainly have to revise my thoughts on how to implement it.
-
RE: Australian Fleet
In most cases you have to link them up with the US carrier fleet, and use it in coordination with that. In some cases (if japan has only 1 airplane that can hit the fleet) you can move it towards Africa w/o the Americans if you want.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
I’m wondering if Germany builds an IC out west, if the UK should just funnel troops through Russia. That may be able to take off enough IPC’s from the Eastern front to negate the 16 unit builds, it also means that Germany is really going to have trouble moving her troops up to the Eastern theatre. It would also help for defense against Japan, and may come in use for taking Egy.
If the UK did that the question would be, what should the US do? It could focus on Japan. Build bombers, secure Africa/cripple Italy, use remaining bombers on an SBR campaign, then focus on Japan. It could double up with the Brits and funnel troops through Russia, the whole time threatening France and Germany. It could destroy the Italian fleet and funnel men through the Caucaus/Baltic region. Or maybe find a way for it to nab Norway to build an IC, and it could do some type of balancing act.
If the US is funneling troops through the Russian front, it is stalling Japan out, if it is going straight to the Pacific it is fighting Japan directly. Point being, I don’t think a heavy SBR campaign is the only way to counter a French IC.
-
RE: Russian defense against a Combined German and Italian Offensive
I employ a similar strat a lot, except I think you really should go after Egypt with Germany and Italy if you must. If you can get rid of the forces with Germany, it leaves any UK forces lingering about in South Asia dead by J2 unless the USSR makes a heavy commitment (which is going to weaken them against your Axis blitz). It also is a way to get quick cash for a few turns with very few resources (particularly for Italian NO’s). I also prefer stacking in East Poland w/ Germany rather than the Ukraine, as it offers more diversity.
If you use this type of set up I think it works better for Japan to not take out the Phil on J1 (wait until J2), and really set up as many troops that can reach India/Persia for J2. Also make sure you move your 2 carriers at Midawy down towards Aus, to put them in striking range of stragling Allied navies and in striking range of Australia. And keep trying to pump fig into europe, and hopefully harass Africa if you can.
-
RE: Brazilian IC
BRZ complex only has one purpose. To control Africa.
If G1 and I1 are REALLY good. Britian is hammered and there are tanks free to blitz Africa, a BRZ complex is a good idea.
Outside of that… shucking units though ECA with a fleet in Sz12 to ALG is a superior option (As long as you have control of the rest of the continent)
“Of note”: A BRZ complex in AA-Revised is the golden nie/unbeatable Allied strategy. Combined with close monitoring of aircraft placement and maximization of units on the board. Because Control of Africa, means Control of enough IPC’s to constantly have more per turn than the Axis.
While I haven’t really played with it too often, it does seem like it would be an option on the table to counter a great axis open. I am always hesitant though to allocate that many resources away from Europe, particularly if Germany is buying aggresive builds and Japan is focusing on south Asia.
-
RE: Allies lose every game.
A typical UK1 move involves ending with atleast 3 trannies within range of norway/finland. Defending that factory is gonna be difficult unless you take Kar hard, fast, and early with a huge stack.
This is not usually the case with me. At the start of UK1 the only navy I have is the Australian navy, and about 70% of the time the Des and tranny in SZ 9. If I have anything else left I consider myself highly blessed. Germany could have all of her planes on the coast as well as a cruiser and maybe a couple subs lurking about. That set up is not unusual at all.
By the end of UK1 I try to have 2 trannies in range, but even that is not a guarantee.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
I don’t see how the French IC is a liability given Axis can hardly trade France and expect to win the game. I’ll agree it’s vulnerable to SBR though.
Methinks taking and holding Karelia is not realistic against a skilled Allies. Cauc is probably the more realistic goal but that can be tough to grab early. So the choice is basically between buying the IC (G2…NEVER G1) or spending the extra cash on planes or a tank rush.
The Cauc is a target that can get triple hit by the Axis. If things go wonderful for Germany in Egypt, Japan can eliminate the rest of the UK troops lying about central Asia unless Russia makes a large comitment to Persia, meaning Russia is in serious trouble by R3.
The French IC is probably not a MAJOR liability if it is built on G2 and Germany has enough spare cash to build the IC and produce a significant number of military units. I still prefer a more aggressive Germany building a decent amount of air units though, with Japan able to supply some defensive backup with air/carriers/ harrasing Africa and USA when convienent.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
@Cmdr:
No, what signals the allies to go heavy bombers is the 32 IPC dmg count on Germany. Very significantly higher than 20 IPC damage count you can do starting out. If you can only do 20, then America only needs 3 bombers to do significant. But if the Axis are just going to blow money on an IC, make them really PAY for it.
15 IPC to buy it
12 IPC a round to use it!I think you missed my point, that is that Germany doesn’t HAVE to repair the French IC if they don’t want to… so now the allies have built all these bombers as a result of a German IC build only to yield the same SBR results as a Berlin only IC.
So are you REALLY making the Axis pay for the $15 IC (or 5 inf as I pointed out)?
There are no ABSOLUTES in this game. If Germany has a different strategic direction (like pressure Russia as fast and hard as possible), then yes, an IC in France is probably not a good as 3 tanks….
But if your Axis premise is to play a safer European game plan, creating a very strong fortress Europe situation where their goal is to buy the time needed for Japan to threaten/attack/take out Russia, then an IC in France might be the better choice. Already I am seeing more of the same game plan from Revised: Pressure Germany first. USA trying to go toe-to-toe with Japan can be an uphill battle. Which is why I advocate waiting until G2 to decide on the France IC: What did USA decide to do? Are they splitting forces? Are they putting all their efforts into Attacking Germany/Italy?
If germany can build somewhere between 8-10 units on that turn AND bulid an IC and then build 14-16 units for the next turn or 2 it may be worth it. It is still not a T1 build though, that seems suicidal.
As far as SBR’s. If the Allies shut down France and Germany doesn’t repair it, the extra SBR’s can go into Italy, while the Allies would then plan on being in a position to double hit Germany. The Allies can probably shut down France before Germany would get a chance to use it as they would probably have at least 3 bombers in position by T2 which means Germany would be in no position to turtle.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
The Franch IC need not be bought G1. Early game is better, but that IC bought on G2 can make up for less grunts bought on G2 because you can drop the units there on G3. The IC adds strategic flexibility/options for Germany
Even though I still doubt I would want to buy an IC after T1, my main argument is against a T1 purchase. That is something I think that should be a big no no. And I would still fear a massive SBR campaign even w/o a T1 purchase.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
If you don’t build ground units G1 your income will not get that high against a half decent allied player. They can and will stack Karelia with the 2 UK figs / 1 US bomber and everything russia can get there. So sure, take it on G2 and loose nearly every unit you have left on the board. Allied players that are going KGF and just give up Karalia on turn 2 are being foolish, esp if germany will not have any more units coming at them until turn 4 at the earliest because she bought an IC.
If you want to threaten the allied navy all you must do is build a plane a turn, or 2 if you can afford it. Also, German fighters on france are amazing to defend against the allied drop, and to harrass allied shipping. On G1 buy 7 inf and a fig, or a bomber and 5 inf, 1 art. On G2 buy another fig or bomber, etc. That means the allies have to drop more than a cruiser a turn to keep there navy alive. When UK is only making high 20s or low 30s, that is tough for her. Now yes they can merge fleets, but then the area you must defend is reduced, best way around this for allies are UK carriers with US fighters but still the more boats they buy, the fewer troops they land.
This sums up most of my thoughts, though I have become increasingly attracted to a merged fleet style of play, particularly if the Western Axis skimp on buying land units T1 (as the merged fleet would allow for a greater number of produced land units, while the axis bought very few). After testing the French factory twice, I could not produce the number of IPC’s claimed that Germany would be making.
-
RE: Allies lose every game.
Recently found the boards, love them. Currently our group is playing AA50, alternating between 41/42. We also had experience with AAR and Europe. However, it is only amongst our small group of friends. I have a few questions if some of the more experienced players could help, or anyone for that matter :-D.
1) What is a ‘bid’, as mentioned in previous posts in this thread?
2) How does Germany defend Norway/Finland if they choose not to go after Karelia?
3) Does anyone actually use Japan through China, I usually ignore China and put pressure from the North and India. If you do use China, please explain your strat. I usually let China build up to an enormous army and we can all laugh at the uselessness of them.Also, have not played with NO’s yet. I am assuming that is the optional play where you get extra IPC’s for owning ‘said’ territories. I think we should start this though as I am guessing it shortens the games a bit.
I look forward to some feedback.
- A bid is a handicap for a certain side. For example if you think the allies are at a severe disadvantage you would bid on an extra amount of IPC’s to play them.
2)It is next to impossible to efficiently defend Norway/Finland after T3 if the Allies want it. More importantly, sending resources there can usually be wastful than helpful as it is out of the way from where German troops need to be. There is more money to be gained elsewhere for Germany.
3)Did you know China can take Manchuria, Hong Kong, and Kiangsu? Did you know that you can completley obliterate all Chinese forces T1? Plus by going through China you are taking a shorter more valuable route to Russia than through heading through the Russian North. This means that the Russians are essentially defending on not worthwhile land for the allies and are not able to make more determined defenses on more valuable routes.
While you may not have to kill China off completley, I would think it would be wise to kill off her forces on J1, then do whatever you want with Japan.
- A bid is a handicap for a certain side. For example if you think the allies are at a severe disadvantage you would bid on an extra amount of IPC’s to play them.
-
RE: Gibraltar
@Cmdr:
I’ve amended my German 1 to take Egypt as well as sink the entire British fleet (less the destroyer in SZ 9) but man, it really thins you out and leaves you very little margin for error.
I still like pulling units out of Africa to hit Ukraine. But I know I am in the minority.
That is my usual open, with SZ 9 being the lone variable. I used to love going for the Ukraine but it doesn’t seem top help as much as going for Egypt. I think if you can knock off that fig in Egy, Japan can put significant pressure very quickly on Russia via the India route. I think the attack does pressure Russia more; just more from a Japanese ,and to a lesser extant Italian, standpoint.
Plus if you pull everything off: all UK ships sunk, Egy taken, no major Russian fiasco, and have a significant portion of your airforce (and maybe a sub or 2) alive and on the Atlantic coast, the Allies are in dire straights very early on. The game is most likely at that point the Axis’ game to lose, rather than the Allies game to win.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
Curious for those who advocate a French IPC; what do you expect the total AVG defense of units purchased, the total AVG offense of units purchased, and the total AVG units produced for T1-T5? To make this easier, pretend the Allies are not SBRing you.
-
RE: Germany must ALWAYS build IC to win game in Anniversary?
I don’t like the idea of spending 1/2 of my T1 income on a unit that doesn’t move/attack/defend and is subject to “free SBR’s” (unless of course you wish to spend ANOTHER 5 IPC’s on an AA T1). The math at first glance doesn’t add up. However, if one gets a good G1 turn and the UK fleet is completley dead and the UK fig on Egy is dead as well, anything is possible I suppose.
-
RE: Italian fleet kill on US3
Well I can agree with that only if the Allies are preventing Italy from achieving NOs. Sure, if Italy pours all its income into carriers that’s pretty inefficient purchasing and maybe its better to let the fleet stand. But honestly if Axis is going to put fighters on those carriers I wouldn’t mind buying even more bombers as USA and bagging the whole shebang.
My theory is if the Western Axis are putting money into defensive naval units, it would probably be best for the Allies to get very aggressive with land units. This would probably lead to a more unified fleet, rather than UK up north and the US down south.
It is kind of seen as a window of opportunity to put as much pressure on France as possible while simultaneously being able to double hit one Axis capital. If the Axis put money into a defensive fleet that can be succefully ignored, you may as well ignore it. It would mean the Axis wasted money on a unit that does next to nothing for them. My guess would be that the Axis power that would buy the naval unit essentially just volunteers itself for the Allied SBR campaign to exploit their purchass even more.Let’s say Italy decides to build a Destroyer. The Allies would then Unify the fleet on Algeria and open their SBR campaign against Italy. Italy would probably not be able to move the fleet due to fear of invasion, they would be lacking in ground units, and France would be threatend.
To be fair though this would not be as amplified as Axis Carrier builds. I think that is something that the Allies could really exploit. Ex: if Germany bought a carrier, it just spent 1/2 of it’s T1 income on a unit that can not attack/bombard/and without an airplane it only defends at 2 and is only good for expensive fodder if it attacks; this seems like something the Allies could use to their advantage by simply ignoring it and SBR Germany while putting heavy pressure on France from algeria quickly, while once again double threatening Italy. The Allied fleet is maintained, it has a better chance at holding France sooner because of a unified fleet (which allows more land units to be built) and Germany would be lacking the ground/air units she would normally build due to the Carrier build/SBRing.
It’s not that I think there is never a reason to build Axis naval units, I would just rather wait until after US1 to decide if I wanted to build ships or not. Even if my Allied strat is completley wrong, I don’t think there is much reason to build naval units for the Western Axis T1. And even if one insists on a naval build it should probably be a more aggressive ship. A Cruiser allows for land bombardments at least. Subs can be clever builds too I suppose. Like I said, even if I am dead wrong, I can’t shake the feeling that defensive T1 fleet builds by the Western should be something an Allied player could somehow exploit.
And as far as keeping 10 Italian NO’s, can you? What goes on in Egypt/ Central Asia is probably one of the bigger variables of the game. But as far as T1 or even T2 is concerned I don’t see Italy having 10 NO’s a forgone conclusion in the early stages of the game. A UK stack in Persia, a UK1 counter attack on a German Egy, A UK1 Attack on Libya, Germany not attacking Egy G1, Russian tank/air/inf counter attacks on R2 are all very real possabilities. That coupled with quick unified pressure would keep Italian movement greatly mitigated. Also note that the UK may be able to afford sending her 3-4 ships worth of gear towards Egypt every turn while the US just builds up an invading force, making it impossible for Italy to do anything of note in Africa, even with a navy. The UK force could then continue to head towards India/Persia/Cauc making the marching forces still very relevant and useful.
And yes, I have played against such builds, and have won and lost against them. I most certainly have not played any 1 strat with much consistancy though to show any empirical evidence. Which is odd considering I have probably played around 30-50 games of the Aniversery edition.
-
RE: Italian fleet kill on US3
@Cmdr:
How does your attack hold up under an Italian Destroyer buy? (Or Aircraft Carrier + Fighter buy adding the second fighter they start with to the fleet defense?)
Ignore the fleet. As long as you have a big enough fleet that can’t be sunk what’s it matter? If the Western Axis want to waste money on building defensive fleets make them pay by building ground units. The game is simply not designed for the Western Axis to effectivly rule the waves. If it was it would be a serious design flaw, making the game virtualy unwinnable for the Allies. If the Western Axis manage to overpower the Allies in the Atlantic it is simply because the Allies are allowing it due to mistakes/poor play/ very bad luck/ or some other strat the Allies are employing that willingly does not involve dominating the Atlantic Ocean.
The Allies’ mistakes/willing concessions cause the Axis to win the Atlantic, not superior Axis play.