Yes to everything being said so far. If you calculate the math for the income earned/lost for the first 2 turns, and considering either J1, J2 or J3 attacks, the J1 option is the one more profitable for Japan. Plus you kill the UK BB and TRNs, US transport, fighter and bomber on PI.
Posts made by Hobbes
-
RE: The 40 IPC Myth
-
RE: German Strategies
Considering those odds it’s amazing how many times the Egypt fight has gone bad when me and my friends play, and that’s with the Ukraine fighter since Russia usually just straifs Ukraine.
One thing are odds, another the actual results. Odds are merely mathematical predictions, the actual results may only reach those percentages after thousands or millions of rolls. One example are the battles where the defender wins although he only has 0.1% odds. But if it can happen mathematically, then it can happen any time during the game (even twice or more in a row), because dice have no memory of past rolls.
-
RE: German Strategies
Has anyone tried to take out both Anglo Egypt and Trans Jordan on round 1? I ask because I botched my Egypt attack last game and IMO that’s ends the game since the UK can cross the channel and destroy your navy and cut you off from Africa for good.
Is it better to try and win Egypt strong or give yourself another opportunity to close the channel?
If you only take Trans-Jordan then the UK player can still kill the German Med fleet, using the fighter on Egypt, the bomber from the UK and the fighter onboard the Indian ocean carrier. To allow the German fleet to survive you need to take Egypt.
I know this makes it harder to take Egypt. I was hoping for someone to give me a breakdown of the odds for both fights. Depending on what happens, Germany could buy 15 inf on round two if they went up five.
Assuming R has killed the German fighter on Ukraine here are the odds if you try to go for both territories:
Trans-Jordan: (1 inf, 1 arm vs 1 inf) 89% attacker, 6% draw, 5% defender
Egypt: (1 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, 1 bmr vs 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr) 76% attacker, 8% draw, 16% defender - keep in mind most likely you’ll have to lose a ftr and probably even the bomber to allow for the tank to survive.Just attacking Egypt with everything available (excluding Ukr ftr):
(2 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr, 1 bmr vs 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr) = 99% attacker
Just attacking Egypt without the bomber (instead sent to SZ2)
(2 inf, 2 arm, 1 ftr, 1 bmr vs 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr) = 91% attacker, 2% draw, 7% defender
-
RE: German Strategies
Has anyone tried to take out both Anglo Egypt and Trans Jordan on round 1? I ask because I botched my Egypt attack last game and IMO that’s ends the game since the UK can cross the channel and destroy your navy and cut you off from Africa for good.
Is it better to try and win Egypt strong or give yourself another opportunity to close the channel?
If you only take Trans-Jordan then the UK player can still kill the German Med fleet, using the fighter on Egypt, the bomber from the UK and the fighter onboard the Indian ocean carrier. To allow the German fleet to survive you need to take Egypt.
-
RE: German Strategies
More precisely, as a rule I do on G1 5-6 attacks. Assuming standard Wrus and UKR R1, I send
1. SZ2 sub, bomb, fig
2. battleship SZ 15
3. fig, 2inf, 2tnk AE
4. 3fig SZ13
5. Counter UKR with whatever is appropriate
6. Taking Karelia either with whatever is appropriateOn non-combat I station the figs in France and I move all the ships to different zones.
I buy 6inf, 2 tnk and 1 bomb to be able to deter the allies from merging SZ 8 and to be able to continue trading ukraine and to continue pressure on Africa.
The strategy then is to get as far as possible in AFrica, trade Karelia and Ukr and keep allies honest which basically means make them to keep their navy united.
The problem with the opening is that it seems almost 50-50 that one of the critical battles will fail. Sometimes i do not sink the SZ 2 battleship, sometimes i lose two planes SZ13, sometimes the A-E fails and I have also once lost ma battleship SZ 15.
So are there any ideas for better openings?
I do exactly the same attacks as you described. The odds for any of the attacks against the UK failing are quite low actually:
1. SZ2: 89% attacker wins, 5% draw, 6% defender wins
2. SZ15: 95% attacker, 4% draw, 1% defender
3. AE: 90% attacker, 3% draw, 7% defender
4. SZ13: 99% attacker, 1% defenderIt is quite common for me to lose 1-2 planes on the SZ2 and SZ13 attacks.
-
RE: German Strategies
Should the Germans buy a navy to try and counter any US or UK Amphibious threat?
I would advise against it. G starts with 3 subs, 1 is usually lost on the attack on SZ2 and the remaining 2 plus the airforce can usually deal with any landings on algeria. Any additional naval purchases for G are usually not worth the effort since the Allies can use destroyers to block any attack by the german navy. On the other hand buying 1 or even 2 bombers (if you can afford it) will refrain the allies from major landings until they can build a fleet capable of defending against the german airforce and the subs.
-
RE: Revised still best of A&A as strategy ?
@Yoper:
I am especially interested in this simply because of how this will affect my use of it in the A&A tournament that I run. Being that it is a timed event for the individual games, I am curious as to how the extra need for naval units will slow down the Allies in building up for their attack into Europe.
I’d say it can slow down the Allies from 1-3 turns. It really depends on how many naval and air units G has at the start of G2. It might be enough to sink the AC and 2 DDs that seems to be the regular UK buy for UK1, depending on where they are placed. It also depends if the US landed on Algeria on US1 or not and how Africa is going for the Allies.
-
RE: Japanese Strategies
cant keep all the subs in one sz. jap will send 1 dd and lots of planes and wipe out all subs in 1 attack. have to keep all subs spread out, force jap to spread out her dd’s.
Not at all. If Japan sends just one or two DDs and a bunch of planes the subs have a good chance to survive. Remember, the subs allocated their hits against the DDs, not against the fighters. So under most normal circumstances the Japanese would only get one round of shooting. The subs would survive, especially if you have more than 5 of them sitting off the coast of Japan.
To really get the subs the Japanese player would have to allocate either a ridiculous amoutn of aircraft to ensure they can kill5+ units in the first round (thats a lot of aircraft) or allocate a lot of other forces (BBs, CAs). Even then, the efficiency by which the subs do their thing would force the Japanese to allocate considerable forces to defend the homeland - forces that the Japanese player would probably like to use elsewhere.
But it is better to force Japan to spread its DDs over several SZs so that more subs can attack them afterwards. It will increase J losses regarding cost of units.
-
RE: Rules clarifications
Which version are you playing? Revised or 1942? Because there are no National Advantages such as Wolf Packs, Island Bases and so on on AA1942 and the answer to the other questions depends on the version.
-
RE: Guam & Naval Base on Wake?
Japanese fighters can scramble from Japan even if amphibious assault is on Korea. So USA needs plenty of escorts.
If Japan takes Hawaii and then shifts forces to Australia make sure Japan has plenty of DD’s to screen potential US attacks on Hawaii.
I am pretty sure Hawaii can be held by US. It’s the dual threat of US invasion and Hawaii attack from Midway (after naval base has been built) that makes this so nasty for Japan. It’s a given US will be spending at least one turn building defenders for Western US.
Also, if US is foolish enough to move fleet to Hawaii, 4 Tac bombers from japan can reach (to go with 4 fighters on the CVs).
The irony is I had thought I had discovered a great strategy for USA, building a NB on Midway…
On my J1 attack I occupied Wake on J2 with the Japs and placed the 3 ACs and the 2 BBs there just to threaten the US advance. Midway with a NB is sounding ever better after reading the ideas here.
The Allied counter is to push on Asia as much as possible and prevent Japan from taking all of the DEI by landing all UK fighters in one of the islands, possibly even sending ANZAC transports to reinforce them. And 1 minor IC only produces 3 units: China/UK will be producing at least 7 units per turn.
-
RE: Convoy question
kinda what i thought.
then that seems to be a good strat against jap. lots of subs from all allies to dirupt convoys. keeps jap buying dd’s instead of boots for asia.
Historically it crippled J’s merchant shipping. It can be useful on the game since you’re trading a 6 IPC for an 8 IPC unit, plus the loss of income from any convoy disruption. But you can only send 1 sub to each SZ, otherwise J will kill stacks of subs using only 1 DD and a lot of planes.
-
RE: Japanese Strategies
@The:
Well I’m a perfectionist so I spent a lot of time thinking about a Jap strategy and I think mine is going to be soon unbeatable (in my humble opinion :-D ) after a bit more revising. There are a lot of logistics involved, but i sent my Caroline islands transport, battleship, and carrier to celebes, and then have a tac and a fighter land on them at the end of the turn. this easily protects them against the small British fleet (the only 2 units that can reach me if I remember correctly).
That’s what I imagined. On my J1 attack I simply send it unescorted and let the UK sink it. I wanted to keep the AC and the BB on the Carolines to prevent the US fleet from moving into Hawaii, which worked out nicely.
-
RE: Convoy question
maybe i am doing the whole blockade thing wrong.
lets say jap controls phillipines. in order for the allies to blockade sz35(phi), do the allies have to control an island(bor, pau, cel, guam, or dgu) adjacent to the blockaded sz?
makes a big deal. we played a f2f recently and the US bought 3ss each turn, anzac bought 1ss each turn and sent them out to disrupt convoy routes. this hindered the Jap income greatly after several turns. instead of the 50ish ipc they should have been getting, they were only pulling in 30something, china and the UK to advance.
need some clarification. thanks.
The submarine needs to be on the SZ with the convoy marker. In your example the Allies would need to have submarines on SZ35 in order to conduct convoy disruptions. Subs in adjacent SZs have no effect.
The only way to prevent convoy disruptions is to sink the enemy subs/warships on the convoy areas.
-
RE: Are Cruisers ever worth it?
I get one or two for the US since I tend to make buys of all types of ships after it enters war, with the exception of battleships. It’s a decision of either getting them or instead buying a bomber with the same IPCs. The cruiser to increase the defense of the US fleet, the bomber for quick offensive power.
-
RE: Japanese Strategies
@The:
Yes, I like building 3 transports as well as Japan R1. But I believe that the best way to kill the allies is a J1 attack on the 4 chinese territories, Shan State, French Indo-china, Kwangtung, Phillipines, and Celebes. I take all of these on round 1 and then take all of the DEI R@.
How much fleet do you send to protect the transport going to Celebes? Otherwise the Japanese transport will be sunk by the UK preventing Japan from taking all of the DEI on J2.
-
RE: Locations of Air and Naval Bases
@Brain:
Lisabon
It’s Lisbon, not Lisabon (I live there)
-
RE: Revised still best of A&A as strategy ?
It’s really impossible to make conclusions about playtesting without input from insiders like Krieghund.
Completely agree with that. Unfortunately due to their non-disclosure agreements we might never knew anything about the whole process.
42 may be a little more open to KJF tactics–it looks that way (even though Allies are in a poorer positoin in Europe and the Atlantic). Still, Revised may offer greater strategic variation. For example, German navy is a much better bet in Revised than 42. But it’s too early to make conclusions.
Again yes. 1942 right now seems to be the underdog, since people on the forums seemed to be more focused on AA50 and AAP40 and waiting for AAE40. But as time goes by more tactics will be discovered, like R buying a sub on R1 to kill the Med fleet on R2.
There’s a difference I’ve noticed during my games, but probably it’s just that I’m changing my gameplay. On Revised the goal is to kill either Russia or Germany as quickly as possible. On AA42 I’m leaning more towards gaining and retaining control of key areas to keep my production above my opponent, specially when playing as Allies.
-
RE: Revised still best of A&A as strategy ?
I have no proof of this, of course
But, since WOTC politic is lowing costs without caring for game balance or quality, the logic conclusion is that they didn’t any playtesting for AA42. As much, a couple of games but I doubt even that: they would had changed at least z10 (2 tra, cru) to at least 2 tra, dd, cru to ensure no gamey killing of the whole USA’s fleet. Same could apply for z2: rules changed balance greatly here as well. The changes for America’s map simply are horrible, preventing Polar Express and thus backing to 100% KGFvsJTDTM fanmania … if allies manage beat Kriegsmarine, and that is a serious task in this edition
Hmm. My game experience so far with 1942 has showed me that a good way to defeat the Axis is with a Pacific strat, otherwise Japan can send plenty of planes to Europe and that can make things very difficult for the Allies on the Atlantic. I don’t think that was an unintended consequence of the rule changes since the new naval rules shorten Japan’s abilities at J1: the 2 allied subs are impossible to sink unless the allied player decides to, and if the UK submarine moves to New Guinea and the US sub is left on Hawaii then Japan needs move BBs to protect any ships that are not on SZ60 (assuming a DD buy for Japan), otherwise the subs will sink any unescorted transports and place the Japanese carriers at a great risk.
I suspect the change to the North America map was made also to give Japan a chance, to prevent the US bomber to reach SZ60 and land on Buryatia (I usually move the 6 Russian infantry there to add more to Japan’s problems). It busts your Polar Express strat but it helps preventing Japan from being crippled due to bad dice on J1.
This is my experience playing so far, after some 30 something games but I haven’t played yet as Japan against a Pacific strategy by the US - I’m guessing players so far are too conditioned by their own experiences from Revised to trying such a strategy.
Also, the weakness of the Allies on the Atlantic balances against the weakness of the Germans on the Med/Africa/Eastern fronts, since there’s no bid to shore up German strenghts there. And trying to sink both the UK/US fleets is a gamble for G. G can reinforce the Kriegsmarine to delay the Allies further but that will leave it weakened against Russia, or worst, allow Russia to add to Japan’s miseries if there’s a Pacific strat going on.
All of this makes me think that all the changes were considered previously with playtesting. One of the reasons of many of the changes between Classic and Revised was to try to increase the fighting on the Pacific but it failed because players soon realized that a KFG strat was the best way to win the game as Allies, despite the designer’s intentions. When I started playing 1942 I assumed that they would continue to make the Pacific a viable option for the US, so I decided to try that strat as much as possible. So far, I haven’t played a game that made me change my mind but that can change. -
RE: Guam & Naval Base on Wake?
Hmmm. In games we’ve been playing, the Japanese have been taking Singapore on J2, then building a major IC there on J3. That starts the clock ticking for India.
OK, that makes sense for the US to move to Wake if the main body of the IJN is focused on Malaya. However, I can’t think of another reason to move most of the fleet south other than to help in the conquest of India. 1 AC, 1 BB, 1 CA and 1 DD should be more than enough to defend itself from any aerial UK attacks and the remaining UK ships will have to retreat to the corner of the map or be destroyed.
That leaves the main Japanese fleet (as I described above) to sink any US naval movements to Wake or to support an amphibious attack on Guam on J3 in case the US/ANZAC planes get there.
This might be a good idea if the Japanese player is caught unaware and unable to deal with those planes. But when playing Japan I usually take Guam as soon as possible though to prevent US bombers flying from Queensland and hitting J transports off Asia.
-
RE: Amphibious Assault Sub Block
Your interpretation is correct. Since the planes can’t hit the submarine it will remain in battle and any defending hits will have to be assigned to the transport.