If one side play very aggressive and makes a do-or-die strategy, its often over after 4-6 hours. But if both are playing conservative, you often play at least 10 hours. After 10 hours, when our wifes are calling freneticly, we often decide together who would be ah probable winner, by the overall positions on the table.
Posts made by hakan
-
RE: How long should a game go for?
-
RE: Artillery
Thanks for all comments.
Art should be purchased in those cases:
- USSR needs having a couple just in case they have not enough aircraft to trade
- Germany takes Caucasus and prepares the final assault on Moscow (build 4 art in that IC)
- You receive improved artillery tech and you have many land fronts
Yes, this is also under this premisses I should build. And yes Jennifer, I agree that now when USSR don’t start with any fighter, there is a much stronger reason for Russia to have a couple of artillery! (However, last game I actually got a fighter quite early for trade off.)
But… Isn’t it possible to somehow calculate this a little bit? Let’s say, for example, that you will attack a territory with 30 inf (90 IPC). At what “stack cost” do you have to beat this stack 70% of the times?
a) 46 inf (138 IPC)
b) 26 arm (130 IPC)
c) 32 art (128 IPC)
d) 26 inf + 8 arm (118 IPC)
e) 16 inf + 16 art (112 IPC)Surly, the cheapest stack is inf+art in different combination, but it’s not that big difference if you compare it to the inf+arm stack. And with panzer you have the flexibility. So, I don’t know. It’s quite even steven…
I used to think that a sound combination would be some 70% infantry and 30% panzer, but I might start buying a few artillery after all. Perhaps a combo with inf+art+arm is the best after all?
-
Artillery
I asked the same question on an other forum, and I just might ask here as well:
Does anyone of you ever build artillery? Me and my big-stacking-friends only build them if for example UK is lacking 1 IPC to buy a tank. I think that infantry + panzer is worth so much better in the long run, than infantry + artillery. Not only are panzer more flexible, but they also get more hits per IPC in bigger battles (both when attacking and defending).
As I see it, the only time artillery could be useful, is in small front-line battles (2inf vs 1inf+1art) but then we rather support our offensives with air power (2inf vs 2inf+1ftr).
Do you ever build artillery? And the ones who do: In what situations do you build them and how do you use them?
(We actually had to introduced a house rule to boost the artillery.)
-
RE: Since this is a Ltd Edition game, are there any shortages out there?
They have been talking of this for many many years here:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/index.php
//Håkan
-
RE: Since this is a Ltd Edition game, are there any shortages out there?
There might be an “Advanced” version coming - or “Delux”. However, I don’t like the idea of that. If you want more advance war games, there are already much better ones out on the market.
A&A should be kept simple. Just like A&A, A&A rev. and A&A50. No more units, please. And no more rules!
-
RE: Since this is a Ltd Edition game, are there any shortages out there?
I got my hands on A&A50 the very first day it came to Stockholm, Sweden. 4 hours after the shop opened, there were only a few copies left. None of my A&A hardcore friends got it. I just don’t think Avalon Hill really understand, how much compassion we have for A&A. I wouldn’t sell my copy for all the money in the world.
The famous chess player Siegbert Tarrasch said that “chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy.”
I say “A&A, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy.”
-
RE: GB Heavy Bombers
I totally agree. If two strong players play each outer, and US (or UK) get Heavy Bombers, the Allies simply cannot lose. I don’t think that any serous players use this rule, but rather the A&A Revised tournament rule:
“Roll two dice each on attack or defense and use the better result of the two dice. On a strategic bombing raid, roll two dice, take the better result, and add “1” to that result to determine the damage done by that Heavy Bomber.”
And besides the obvious that the Allies will win if US or UK get this tech, I think it quite bizarre to make Heavy Bombers so effective against factories. After the war, it was quite clear that SBR were not so effective as the US-propaganda said. At least not until late in the war. Surly, the barbaric terror-bombing at the end of cities like Dresden and Hiroshima, were killing everything in its way. Both factories and civilians. 135 000 in Dresden and 129 000 in Hiroshima. But, this was very late in the war.
On the other hand, this is just a fun war game, and you should not think “historically”. Because if you do, an even more bizarre thing is that primitive terror weapons V1 and V2 can fire 1 d6 against factories! Come on. If the V1 or V2 would hit a cow eating grass on the fields near London, the Germans should be happy! But hitting a factory with 1d6 every turn?? Nah… don’t think so… :-)
Damn… when you think of it… Perhaps one shouldn’t use technology at all?
-
RE: Serious Game Flaw
I agree with Die Flottenmörderin. I don’t say it’s a bad strategy, but I simply don’t dare go north with the Germans, as long as the UK (and US) fleet is intact. I have burned my self to many times up there, with the only result that I lost the game. Nowadays, I seldom gamble with high variance. I rather trust that I will be victorious after 6+ hours of sound gaming.
-
RE: Are SBR's Broken?
although for the u.s. the idea of a S.B.R. against japan, is a stretch too far, without the technology of long range heavy bomber’s a u.s. S.B.R. against japan would be impossible, without control of iwo jima or okinawa
If Japan punch hard south, leaving Russia and perhaps China alone for a while, you might try to SBR unprotected factories Manchuria from there. I did it the last game. Quite effective, especially if there are no AA there. This might force Japan to divert their units, hitting Siberia, which is good if you have a UK IC in India.
-
RE: Are SBR's Broken?
In my next game I will buy one German bomber + infantry the whole game. Just to test how effective they are (with NO, optional rules and the A&A rev. tournament rule for Heavy Bombers). It will be interesting. Has anyone already tested it against a strong player? If so, how did it work?
-
RE: Lack of German naval strat: problem or not?
In some WWII games you have “off map boxes”, so simulate the economic warefare. But I think that it might be somewhat difficult to actually simulate the economic ware fare in A&A. A&A is a simple and fast played war game. Not a hard core game like WiF. But that’s the soul of A&A. It is the simplicity that make it so fun!
However, in the optional tournament rules for A&A revised, you actually have one German economic warfare sub-rule. I have never played with it, but perhaps you like it?
1. U-Boat Interdiction
During the collect income phase of the U.K. and U.S. turns, subtract 1 IPC from the collecting power’s income for each of your submarines on the game board. -
RE: Lack of German naval strat: problem or not?
I also agree. But I have, on the other hand, never bought a Hochseeflotte. I have always spent all my German IPC to fight the communists in the east.
However, if you have Super Submarines and/or Improved Shipyards, you might build a few to be used as quite cheap cannon fodder. However, I think that bombers and fighters are so much more flexible for a German player. Just as they should be.
Regards, Håkan
-
RE: Where to build allied I.C.
Just a few comments, how I sould do. There are no right or wrong:
-
If the Japanese on their T1 don’t focus all out on India, but divert their forces (edit: and if German T1 is not to strong and Soviet T1 is not to weak), I would go for a IC in India. But then you are committed to defend it hard. Move some Russian infantry as a reserve to Persia, prepared to move to India if threatened. Also have a reserv of T-34s in Caucasus. Move in as much UK equipment as possible, including the two RAF fighters in England. Also try to get as many US fighters as possible to India in US T2. If necessary, I will use the UK destroyers to slow down advancing Japanese Naval Movements.
-
I would not go for an IC in the East Indies, I think it will take to much effort to defend it. And Japan will, if they want to, take it.
-
My enemies have from time to time bought an US IC in Brazil, but the IC has never done anything to change the outcome of the war. And you don’t want to loose it to Italy. Or German bombing raids etc. Personally, I think that an IC in Brazil it is a waste of money.
-
Yes, we have played with a “house rule” saying that China collects income as normal and buy Infantry at a cost of 2 IPC, and if they capture an IC in China, they may produce as any other nation, but their Infantry still only costs 2 IPC. However, as the rules states, China was not an Industrialised Country. So I don’t know. But, perhaps one could argue that if Russia liberates a Japanese IC in Manchuria, there could be a “house rule” saying that the territory is Chinese, but the IC is Russian. I.e. Russia don’t colect the 3 IPC, but they may build 3 units there (I have read Winston Churchill’s memoirs from the war, and Stalin had interests in Manchuria, but after negotiations with Chiang Kai Chek there were only some minor border changes - some modification after the war 1904, the Kuril Islands, etc…)
-
-
RE: Bombers a broken Unit, Observations
By the way: When I played Axis last time, I got 1 Japanese bomber each turn, and they were VERY effective against US naval activities, mainland China and then the final assault on Moscow. However, I didn’t feel that I could afford Germans bombers. Do you also buy German bombers? I am planning my next game, and it seems as 1 German bomber each turn actually could be a quite dominant strategy, because of the range. Hitting the east front, beachheads in the west and threatening British Naval units in the Atlantic.
What do you think?
-
RE: NOT ONE STEP BACK!!!
In our groups, we seldom dare attacking Leningrad. I have not seen that move in many many years. We have simply lost to many panzerkampfwagen to UK/USA naval counter attacks…
-
RE: AA50 NOs
Hehe, well… You might have a point. Every solder knows that: “No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy”. So you have to be flexible… :-) But when playing a strong enemy, you are better off if you study a strong opening and try to stick to a sound strategy. Just like in chess. The problem in A&A is however the damn dices! You don’t have those bastards in chess! :-)
Regards,
Håkan@Unknown:
A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins.
I disagree on both accounts. :-D
A&A is obviously quite different in many respects. A big one is that new pieces are constantly coming on the board in addition to pieces leaving the board. If you have more material coming on board than the opponent, it doesn’t really matter if your opening is suboptimal.
As for chess, openings are important but very overrated. A better midgame/endgame player will beat a better opener virtually every time.
-
RE: AA50 NOs
Personally, I don’t like the NO, yet I understand that it is a simple way to simulate the “real war”. All games has their way to “simulate” history. In World in Flames you have a tension table towards the entry of USA. Here you have the NO.
I have changed my mind. I also think the NO’s are brilliant! Not only because they make the strategies look more like in the real war, but also (don’t bark at me Krieghund) because you can balance the game yourself, or to simulate for example the “Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact”, just by adding a few lines in the NO. Much better then to add complicated Optional Rules.
Two examples so far:
Soviet National Objective
Stalin would never sacrifice Soviet troops to defend British territories, and Churchill would never allow them to enter. Hence, you may add the following line in the soviet National Objective: “Gain 5 IPC if no other Allied forces are present in a territory controlled by the Soviet Union, and if no Soviet forces are present in any other Allied territory, and if the Soviets control Archangels.”Japanese National Objective
During the war there was a Non-Aggression Pact between Soviet and Japan. To simulate this, the rule above give a 5 ICP penalty if Soviet attack Manchuria (hence enter a Allied territory). To make it less favourable for Japan to attack Soviet, you also may add this line in the Japanese National Objective: Gain 5 IPC if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Manchuria, Kiangsu, French Indo-China/Thailand, and if no Japanese forces are present in any Soviet territory."//Håkan
-
RE: Bombers a broken Unit, Observations
@Subotai:
Instead of changing the game and making house rules, it’s more clever to think outside the box and make up new strategies.
Quote of the week. +1 to you, Subotai!
I agree, however making house rules are quite fun! At least when you have played the same game for a few years. But to be frank, how often do House Rules actually work? :roll: I have probably made 100 over the years, but only a few has survived. Survivors are rules concerning passage to the Black Sea (also an optional rule now), Gibraltar and the Baltic Sea. And obviously some other of the House Rules that we have used, are quite spread, coz many of the House Rules that are found in A&A 50th (transporters, subs, China) are exactly how we used to play A&A rev and A&A original.
However, Krieghund, concerning Bombers we don’t have to use House Rules. If you want to balance the strategic bombing, you just have to use the official optional rule for the fighters. And to balance “Heavy Bombers”, you just have to use the official tournament rule from A&A rev. (Take the best dice of two, and add “1”.)
I think it’s lovely with the new less expensive units, so you don’t only buy infantry and panzer, as you used to to. Last game I even bought a Soviet bomber!! My friends was chocked!! “A Soviet Bomber???” However, it became very useful both supporting small front battles, and bombing the Japanese factory in Manchuria!
The prize for the bomber is just right, I think. The game is soooo much more flexible, than it used to be. I love it !!
/Håkan
-
RE: Fighters attacking question with nowhere to land.
Yes, the rules are quite clear, but I remember that I asked the same question when I played the game my first time:
"You cannot send air units on “suicide runs”, deliberately moving them into combat with no place to land afterward. If there is any question about whether an attack is a “suicide run”, then in the combat move phase, you must declare, prior to rolling any battles, some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking air units to land safely that turn. This could include a combination of combat moves. It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier. If it does include noncombat moves by a carrier, then the carrier may not move in the combat move phase.
In order to demonstrate that an air unit MAY have a safe landing zone, you may assume that all of your attacking rolls will be hits, and all defending rolls will be misses. You may NOT, however, use a planned retreat of any carrier to demonstrate a possible safe landing zone for any fighter.
If you declared that a carrier will move during the noncombat move phase to provide a safe landing zone for a fighter moved in the combat move phase, you must follow through and move the carrier to its planned location in the noncombat move phase unless the fighter has landed safely elsewhere or has been destroyed before then."
-
RE: Fighters attacking question with nowhere to land.
The rules are very clear that you always must have a theoretical landing place for all fighters, i.e. if you take “0” losses during the battle, all your fighters must have a place to land. No Kamikaze are allowed.
A fighter may be able to move 4 spaces to a sea battle, but only if a carrier could be there by the
conclusion of the mobilize units phase.