When I first got into these games, one of my friend who had been playing for quite sometime before me stated that each round of turns was roughly 6 months. I like the idea of keeping track of the years/months to see how things are going, compared to the real war. I think maybe looking at how long it took, average wise, to produce a mix of combat units (air, land, naval) and building a time frame around that would be a cool idea. Interesting post though, I haven’t really noticed anyone else talking about something like this.
Posts made by Gharen
-
RE: Chronically deducing Axis and Allies Pacific & Europe 1940
-
RE: Scrambling - Too strong?
I say let planes scramble from any airbases anywhere anytime, even land lock airbases. The defending player still has to make the same choices of where to use his planes to benefit him the most. Capping it at 6 would be easy to accept and figure out. Just so long as you make it 1 plane for 1 point of damage on the airbase, so like 5 damage points on an airbase limits it to 1 airplane that can scramble. You could make exceptions for airbases on capital cities or even for VCs in general, like unlimited scrambling.
-
RE: Saving the UK if Japan goes all out to capture Calcutta
People may be just giving up after one of the factions fall to Japan, other than China of course. Sometimes you have to continue the game on and see what develops. Also, be aggressive when attacking the Japan fleet with the USA. They are the one ally that can trade blows with Japan and try to really pull off pressure off of Calcutta and even Sydney.
-
RE: Repairing Capital Ships While Your Capital Is Occupied
It would be hilarious if you traded capitals with someone and what would be even cooler is if you could keep building and deploying, basically just switched factions with someone!
-
RE: SBR's
I have yet to see a strategic bombing raid in any game I have played so far. The interceptor escort rule should have been implemented in past AAA games. It really balances it and makes it more of a huge risk to bomb industrial areas like it was in real life. That being said, I haven’t seen it used because I haven’t seen a SBR yet :-P . Only worthwhile doing if you have a massive airforce, like Japan.
-
RE: India crush, how to stop
The whole point is guys, if the USA is doing this attack, Japan is pulling forces back. They wont be spreading like a plague on the mainland and wont be gobbling up the DEI. The whole point is to continually attack in and around the main island of Japan herself as stated before. If I am playing Japan and I see this, the threat to my capital is far more important than trying to knock out another capital. Honestly, the USA can put immediate pressure on Japan really fast. If you argue that defending ships and planes would thwart or deter or slow the USA advance then you are right. But also think, what are those units NOT doing, killing India. It isn’t hard to see.
-
RE: Saving the UK if Japan goes all out to capture Calcutta
So far from the handful of games I have played, if Japan doesn’t go for India its gonna have a hard time not breaking down and losing. Korea seems like a great tactic for the US. I agree with you Make_It_Round that the US should be attacking in that direction if Japan is going all out for India. Because lets face it, massive amounts of units would be devoted to taking southeast Asia and India while only minimal force would be in and around Japan herself. If there are tons of units defending Japan, then India is taking less of a beating. Basically, Japan can go all out for one faction and risk a massive counter attack and lose the game. Or rather, which I think can work against most convential thinking, go for a steady expansion against all the Allies. ANZAC, UK, and China should work together and support one another while I think the USA should drive right into the heart of Japan. It just seems everyone is playing the USA as a support role to forces in Asia instead of playing it as a “diversion” faction that should be hitting high value Japanese units and should be making Japan divert considerable more forces just to counter US movements.
-
RE: Saving the UK if Japan goes all out to capture Calcutta
12-18 IPCs is quite a lot, that could be 4-6 more infantry on the board for Asia. I still honestly think that most players aren’t going for broke against the main island of Japan with the USA. Sure he could scramble lots of planes to kill your fleet, but those planes are NOT hitting India and other vital targets. Don’t get sucked into the “cold war arms race” which I have seen happen in several versions of AAA. Not saying that it happens all the time in this one. I think most of you are aggressive at getting America into the war fast after a J1 attack, the question is, are you getting those units to defensive positions only or are you killing Japanese units asap?
I know its redundant that people say just keep playing the game, but not all strategies are figured out in the first 3 months of a AAA game. They take some time, some fresh thinking, because you can easily get sucked into buying the same things the first few rounds while trying a new tactic that still ultimately yields the same end result.
I know that if India falls it really hurts the Allies but if you are trading blows in the Pacific and are wearing down the IJN to practically nothing then the game may not be over quite yet.
-
RE: Making Airbases Required for Flight/Landing
This is probably one of the most inventive house rules I have ever read. It is the most real one as well because what do planes have to do in real life? Take off and land at airbases. This would severally limit EVERYONE in the game and thus I think, balance the game out tremendously. Having to build forward bases makes the game take longer and I think could make it more interesting. Carriers would be bought quite more often and this would turn the Pacific into what it truly was, several nations jockeying for position and having to take islands, build air fields, and move on. I really like this.
-
RE: Does J1 Attack "Break" the games?
Basically making everyone wait around to fight, other than Japan and China, could be a quick fix to the problem. But sersiously, what is everyone doing with the US, are you guys just trying to get forces into central and south Pacific ASAP? Have you guys tried out muscling the defense force around Japan herself and go for the win? Just curious if everyone playing the USA is more worried about getting everything down to India instead of going for the win and making Japan call units back to defend its homeland.
-
RE: Hearts of Iron 3
I agree with the games taking forever but they are immersive and in depth. Wanna talk about time consuming, Empire Earth, the original was insane. As well as Sins of a Solar Empire. In both of these RTS games, I have had one single game last several days, DAYS. Had some LAN parties back in high school and spent one weekend doing 5 humans versus 3 AI allied on the hardest difficulty on Empire Earth. We never finished it because in the first 5 hours one of my friends got routed from his island and we spent the next 12 taking it back for him and taking some smaller islands in the middle of the map and tried several times to establish a beach head on one of the AI’s islands.
I would like to try HOI 3 online with other people, probably have to speed up the game speed a bit cause it would just take too long otherwise. It seems to be a better college game, one that you play with a roommate.
My best so far in it was starting in 1938 as Japan and instead of island grabbing I went with the tradition AAA style attack and took most of China, southeast Asia, all of India, and the Phillipines. My German Allies were in the midst of fending off D-Day in 1941 and Italy was gobbling up Africa. I ended up quitting that one cause I basically starved my country of all resources and came to the conclusion that Japan took all of those islands for a reason, resources.
-
RE: Scrambling - Too strong?
finnman: From what I understand in the global game, they will give more benefits, I read it somewhere on this site. I assume the same would go for naval bases. If anything, there should be more airbases at the start, maybe 1 for flying tigers etc etc.
-
RE: Saving the UK if Japan goes all out to capture Calcutta
Yeah I get the point that whatever Japan wants, she can take with brute force. Finding the weak hinges and attacking Tokyo itself is what can lead to a victory in my opinion. Purchases are as crucial as ever with the Allies, I think the sub/DD spamming may not be the most beneficial way to go if Japan is winning most of the games. I think you go for the head of the snake as America and end it before it gets too out of hand.
-
RE: Saving the UK if Japan goes all out to capture Calcutta
I am more curious as to what the Allied player is doing with the USA. Have you guys thought about trying to just go for the jugular and hit Tokyo? I know the IJN is out on the high seas but putting direct pressure on the main island of Japan herself would force him to pull back and divert some forces to deal with the US. I know there are several different tactics but the Allies win by taking Japan right? I think it comes down to the crucial first few turns the US has and building a strong naval invasion force could win or at least drag the game out longer, keeping India alive longer, any thoughts?
-
RE: Your Favourite Nation
I vote ANZAC because they have the smallest income at the start but yet have quite a bit of impact on supporting their Allies. They have to make all the right moves with what little resources they have and have to get the biggest punch out of them.
-
Hearts of Iron 3
Not sure if any of you are quite the video game enthusiast as myself but I just recently discovered a franchise a few months back that makes quite the intricate WWII simulator. The game starts in 1936 and goes to 1948, but there are several different years you can start in, like 1939 or 1941 or 1944. This is NOT a turn based game but a real time strategy. You can play as ANY country during the time of WWII; USA, Germany, France, Belgium, Japan, etc etc. You can run the country’s diplomacy, intelligence network, unit production, research, government infrastructure, and of course combat units. There are 14,000 territories in the game to move units around and normal game speed is 1 minute real time is 1 hour in the game, which of course can be speed up considerably.
The game is fascinating in the sense that you can align your particular country to one of the 3 major factions; Allies, Axis, and Comintern (Communist). This game is not for the weak hearted and has a big learning curve. You have to deal with supply and logistics, morale, unit commanders, weather, terrain, even the time of day and season impacts the game. Its very detailed and intricate but quite fun to play a country the way you want to play.
I kinda think of this game as the ultimate Axis and Allies game because you can play it multiplayer with several people, supposedly 32 on a LAN if you could get that many. One suggestion for those who do want to buy it, in the game settings, turn off the counter markers for units cause instead of being just blocks with the units information on them they will turn into infantry, tanks, mechanized units, etc etc if you zoom all the way in on them.
-
RE: Scrambling - Too strong?
I like letting any airbase scramble rather than island only airbases. And as stated before, you could just go around the mass of aircraft that are parked in the Phillipines. I think this could be a problem for why people can’t win with Allies, they are always worried about taking out huge clusters of units and/or letting that deter any attacks they might make. Its a nickel and dime war. Back to topic, I think its fine overall, just have to know when to attack near an island that can scramble or just bypass it. Hell, the Allies won the war cause we just said the hell with attacking strong points far away from anything, move past and strike deeper into enemy territory. I think the same notion applies here, just attack around stacked airbases.
-
RE: China not being able to enter Korea
I think China is fine the way it is, maybe a few more guys here and there just to help better represent the masses of troops they had, although not well trained ones but they had just as many guys as some countries had bullets. As for other special kinds of movements or rules etc etc, isn’t the game already getting complex enough? Why add tons of more stuff to remember and deal with, with just a small faction in the game? I say wait on the global game when Russia is involved in the Pacific theater then you guys might change your tune about the game being fine. You gotta realize, we are essentially playing with only half a AA50 board here. Interesting point made at trying to change things for the betterment of China but I think its a lost cause. I think the game will be fine with the global version in play.
-
RE: Scrambling - Too strong?
Well I was thinking since you can only do 6 points of strategic bombing damage to airbases why not limit the amount of aircraft it can scramble to 6. Although, if the base is at all damaged it can’t scramble to begin with, even 1 point of damage. I think that is the counter balance to your “infinite” amount of planes that could scramble from one base. I do understand the arguement, allowing 10+ planes to scramble is quite alot. You also have to think that you can put dozens of ships into one seazone, so in the end, I think the scramble option is fine the way it is.
Same arguement could be made for naval bases and their enhancement they offer. Good post.
-
RE: Which would you rather play - 1941 or 1942
Well definitely 1942 because of the fact that the Allies have a much better chance of winning and don’t start so far behind in the arms race as in 1941. However, I do love the new rules of AAP40 and can’t wait for its sister board this summer, AAE40. I do agree the 42 setup does provide some more variety and doesn’t see the Allies get completely hammered on the opening turn time and time again.