Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Kavik Kang
    K
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 4
    • Posts 29
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Kavik Kang

    @Kavik Kang

    0
    Reputation
    19
    Profile views
    29
    Posts
    0
    Followers
    0
    Following
    Joined Last Online
    Age 24

    Kavik Kang Unfollow Follow

    Latest posts made by Kavik Kang

    • RE: About subs…

      @Veqryn:

      great article

      I would agree about the zone of control that Submarines (and equal navies) project.
      I also like your idea of making single surface warships be able to stop only a limited number of ships, rather than infinite ships.  I would argue that a rate of 1 to 2 would be better than 1 to 1 and that this hold for any kind of ship, that 1 destroyer for example could stop up to 2 subs or other ships from passing under it, or that 1 cruiser could stop up to 2 destroyers/warships from passing through it too, but that all other ships could continue past the single guy.  An interesting idea for sure.

      I will make one point regarding these navy conflicts though.  Because fleets are defensive in nature, the Japanese can sit back producing only half of their income on navy while the Americans can produce 100% of their income on navy, and in the end will still not accomplish anything beyond taking back a few islands.  Sure, the US can get the Philipines, Solomons, and perhaps a couple other islands.  But in the mean time, Japan has their army (even if it is small) taking India, a few Russian northern territories, and all of China.  After 2-3 turns, Japan is making more IPCs than America.  Meanwhile, Russia and Britain are left to face Italy and Germany all alone.  Without American help, Africa will fall by the 3rd or 4th turn.  Even without africa, Italy and Germany will out produce Russia and Britain as they both lose territory to Japan.  Unfortunately for those people who want to have fun in the pacific with Japan and America, the Pacific is merely a distraction where Japan and America can hold each other off for infinity, while Japan still makes gains in Asia.

      My friends and I came up with a cool idea we have yet to try (we have a lot of these).  A 5th National Objective for America: If america splits her spent income (within 5 IPCs), between producing in Western US and Eastern US, she gets an additional 10 IPCs during the collect income phase.  On top of this, if the US player decides to collect this additional income, any units built in Western US may not travel East of the Central US, and any units built in the Eastern US may not travel West of the Central US.

      This is actually what led me to look at what the US can do to Japan to keep them from hitting Russia so fast.  As things currently stand, as I mentioned in another post, there is nothing that can prevent Japan attacking Caucusus on turn 5 with 25-30 units.  They can do it every game and there is nothing that can be done to even slow them down in any way.  So I looked to the pacific to see if I was missing something else that might prevent them from doing that.  There isn’t.  The initial setup is broken and Japan can hit Cauc too hard on turn 5 every time, they can even afford to just run and hide down near India and their air force if the US presses hard and still get that turn 5 attack on Cauc off before they absolutely need to turn to face the full-bord KJF USA.  While this is a broken setup, I still believe everything I wrote in the India post after working this out, I think I have found a way to cut off any follow up from Japan after they initially easily take Cauc on turn 5.

      England has to go for Africa and must build ICs in SAF and Eygpt.  They can’t afford to use their fleet to harrass Germany, they have to take Africa strong in a race to Persia.  They build SAF IC turn 2, and Egypt turn 3 (as the Royal Navy destroys the Italian Navy in the Med).  The British need to race Japan to Persia so they can cut it off and force the Japanese units in Cauc to attack back into Persia instead of holding Cauc for Germany.  Then the British and Japanese can fight in Persia to keep Japan out of Cauc.  But the British need to mess with Germany, too, so the US needs to force Japan to buy ships.  The US can force Japan into a naval arms race but trying to invade the island of Japan.  The US must do this.  They set up at Hawaii in a full bore KJF opening, but then move their base from Hawaii to Iwo Jima on turn 3.  The bombers relocate there to strategic bomb Japan and support the fleet in an attack.  The US builds all ships until gaining the upper hand navy wise, then switches to all transports to take the island.

      Japan has no choice but to abandon the fight for Persia to defend the home island after getting the initial Cauc attack off.  With the US threatening Tokyo, the British will easily win the fight for Persia and could finally, around turn 6 or 7, turn their attention to Germany.

      This is the only counter I have been able to come up with to the 30 unit slam into Cauc Japan is capable of having in place at the end of turn 4… and I think it would leave Germany so powerful they wouldn’t need Japan’s help.  Right now India really is broken, Japan can’t be allowed to roll over India as if the Allies aren’t even there as a part of their opening move.  Too many Japanese transports can reach India on turn 2.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang
    • RE: About subs…

      @beerbelly:

      I rarely build submarines.  I believe destroyers are better suited as the ‘infantry’ of the seas.  For 2 extra IPC you have a superior defensive unit.

      In your hypothetical ‘air strike’, the Japanese navy loses a destroyer and 2 planes.  The US navy loses 2 destroyers and 4 submarines in the air strike.  I would say the US comes out negatively in that battle.  The Japanese lose 28 IPC while the US loses 40 IPC.  The US hasn’t really strengthened their position.

      I agree that navies are defensive in nature.  However, I disagree with your statement that if two navies are the same size they cannot move within range of each other.  Navies can move as close as they want to each other if they are the same size.  They just can’t initiate an attack.

      Because navies are so defensive in nature, I feel that works against the strength of submarines.

      EDIT: I wanted to add that my responses are only meant in the context of the A&A game.  Many of the points you make may very well apply to real naval combat.

      The sub/fighter/bomber airstrike is what keeps them from moving within range, and especially Japan who can’t afford to lose ships and planes while the US loses submarines.  If the US fleet is comprised well it will take the lead in the race for naval supremacy if Japan allows it’s fleet to be hit by an “air strike”.  The IJN needs at least 4 “protecitve” units (destroyers or subs) to safely take an air strike.  Destroyers are better on defense, but the subs are really your “torpedo bombers” and are vaulable for that purpose.  Then, they can also die in a fight as long as the enemy has a destroyer present.

      The most effective airstrike does not send destroyers, only subs and planes, because then all air hits must be taken on ships or planes and the target fleet cannot choose subs as casualties while the attacker loses all subs.  This really works very well.  Part of my point was that, as most others, your impression is not correct.  Fighters defend at 4 and attack at 3, so on the surface it appears that equal fleets cannot attack each other.  But early on the fleets are not equal.  Japan has a lot of expensive naval units, but no protection for them.  Until they have at least 4 escorts a well comprised US fleet will wreck the IJN with an airstrike.  This means that during the early turns a well comprised US fleet can cover most sea zones in the pacific from Hawaii, which importantly reaches both Phillipines and Australia in one turn.  You can re-take all 3 NOs from Hawaii and only Aus can be re-taken by Japan without being exposed to the airstrike.  Until the IJN has some protection, a well composed US fleet will hurt it bad if it comes within range.

      The US can only be this strong so early, of course, by almost completely ignoring the Atlantic.  But if they can get Englands NO’s early like this, then they didn’t need to really be there anyway.  England can do more sooner than you would have done if you can get their 2 Pacific NOs early in the game, and the US can usually afford to start helping a couple turns later.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang
    • RE: About subs…

      @beerbelly:

      I also wanted to comment on your assertion that a navy may be in a better position after performing an ‘air strike’.

      In the scenario you outlined where the Japanese have 3 CV, 6 planes, BB, CA, DD against the US 2 CV, 4 planes, 2 DD, 4 SUB, you explain that defensively the US will be in a better position because they traded submarines for planes.

      Yet, in that example, the US has greatly weakened both their defensive position as well as their offensive position after the air strike.  If the US elects to forgo the air strike and let the IJN attack it, the IJN will have about a 67% chance of winning when both navies are at full strength.  However, if the US chooses to perform a preemptive air strike, the remaining IJN force of 3 CV, 4 planes, BB, CA against the US 2 CV, 4 planes will have about a 96% chance of victory.

      By performing such an air strike, you have squandered the fodder you desperately need to defend against the superior naval task force.

      But if the US player is trying to gain naval dominance of the Pacific then he has more destroyers and subs arriving at the end of the turn.  In this case, it was a turn 3 strike on the IJN based on what I would have at Hawaii at the end of my turn 2 if I were going all out to take over the Pacific (which the US can do).  What I would have arriving from turn 3 builds would actually be a 3rd CV and a destroyer.  So what the rememnants of the IJN would actually be facing on their turn would be 3 CVs, 6 fighters, and 1 DD.  They can’t attack that and must return to Japan to build navy.  To catch back up, which means they are not building ground units for India.  I also would actually attacked with 2 more bombers from Hawaii and probably hurt the IJN even more than in the example.  I was being as conservative as possible in estimations like that.  If the US is set up like this and uses a sacrificial transport to take Phillipines on turn 2, Japan can’t take it back that turn.  It might look like they can, but the air strike will lose them the pacific 2 or 3 turns down the road if they do.  The air strike is very powerful against an “unprotected” fleet.

      I agree with the poster who said that DDs are better defensive units than Subs.  The US focuses more on subs, while Japan should be more focused on destroyers… but Japan should match a sub to each plane, to theaten their own air strikes as well.  “Fleet subs” are simply a part of the carrier strike wing, at least that’s how you should think of them.  They are defensive during an airstrike, but almost useless cannon fodder when the full fleets meet in the same space.  You might actually think of “Fleet Subs” as your carrier’s torpedo bombers, and the fighters as the dive bombers.

      Finally, not just in navy but in ground combat as well, IPCs are not the whole story.  Position and situation are equally important to economics.  The US trading a sub for a fighter with Japan, for example, is worth a lot more to the US than the 4 IPC difference that trade represents.  The US can afford to build lots of subs, Japan cannot afford to build lots of planes.  The US has no pressing goal other than defeating the IJN, Japan needs to save Germany through India or their side will probably lose.  Japanese units are just more valuable that US units are, due to the situation.  Another example of this concept can be found in Germany.  Germany’s greatest difficulty in defeating Russia is a lack of Infantry on the front lines (this is why I consider Mech Inf the best tech Germany can get).  An infantry in East Poland is simply worth more than an infantry in Germany is.  I’d say as a rule-of-thumb guideline you might say that, too Germany, and infantry is worth +1 IPC for each space between it and Germany.

      The fleet is a lot more important to Japan than it’s actual IPC value, so anytime the US is killing Japanese naval units they are hurting Japan much more than the IPC value of the units destroyed.  This is not the case with the US, who’s only pressing goal is to gain naval dominance in the pacific and get the UK’s NO’s for them.  All they want to build is navy, Japan hopes to build as little navy as possible.  This makes trading naval and air units a good deal for the US, such a good deal for them that it is usually worth it to the US to lose 4 units if it means Japan will lose 2.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang
    • About subs…

      I’ve been learning AA50 by playing it and trying out different openings offline and watching other people play and what they do.  One thing I’ve noticed in watching other people play is that almost nobody, even the very best players, seems to understand the ramifications of how subs work within the new AA50 rules.  I’m an old man for a gamer and I’ve been playing games for over 30 years.  My favorite games have always been naval combat games, and AA50’s new sub rules are based on how subs work in certain other, more complex games.  So I already have a lot of experience with the concept, and a pretty good understanding of naval combat.  So I thought I would provide this little primer on subs and naval combat within AA50 in the hopes that Japanese players will stop sailing within range of my well composed US fleet thinking that they are safe just because they have 1 more carrier than I do… and then dying to the AA50 version of a carrier “air strike”.

      First, the main sub users in AA50 are USA and Japan.  England generally has little use for subs, other than maybe for a single attack on the Italian navy.  Italy might build some “fleet subs” as cannon fodder in their fleet, but without carriers have no real need for subs.  Japan also only has a need for “fleet subs” (which I will explain later), but has much more of a need for them than Italy does because they have carriers.  Once you truly understand how subs work in AA50, you’ll understand why they are such an essential part of any fleet.

      Subs are defensive units and they are “the infantry of the sea”.  The most important thing to keep in mind about subs is that, if a destroyer is present, they can’t safely move within range of enemy units.  One destroyer and as many planes that can reach will get to take one round of shots at your subs (more rounds if the destroyer survives the first round) and they will attack your subs, which only defend at a 1.  You can’t move within range of enemy destroyers or you will die.  But if your subs are supported by air units… the enemy fleet can’t move within range of your subs, either.  That last point is the crux of the issue.

      The point most seem to be missing is that subs are meant to die.  It doesn’t matter that they only attack at a 2, subs are “defensive attacking units”.  The best example are what I call “fleet subs” within AA50.  “Fleet subs” are subs that travel with a carrier fleet.  Their sole purpose is to die in an “air strike” on an enemy fleet.  In the real world carrier planes fly out great distances to hit enemy fleets, they don’t sail up and get into a close range fight with them.  This is actually how carriers work in AA, as well, except that the carrier planes need to be escorted by subs.  The subs are only there to die, and you would ideally have as many subs as hits you believe you will take in one round of combat with the enemy fleet (against the IJN, this means 4- 6 subs).  This has a huge impact on the stand-off between two fleets such as the US and Japanese fleets in the Pacific.  Let’s look at a typical stand-off between two typical carrier fleets and what happens to one of them if it allows an “air strike” supported by subs from the opposing fleet.

      Let’s say that the Japanese fleet is, as usual, more powerful than the US fleet.  The Japanese fleet is more powerful, so the Japanese player moves within 2 spaces range of the US fleet at Hawaii believing that he is safe.  The Japanese fleet consists of 3 carriers (with 6 fighters), 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, and 1 destroyer.  The US fleet consists of 2 carriers (with 4 fighters), 2 destroyers, and 4 subs.  The US fleet performs an “air strike” with 4 subs, 2 destroyers (using them because he didn’t have enough subs to send in this instance, and 4 fighters.  The carriers stay in Hawaii.  The battle calculator will tell you that we will lose this fight badly, but the battle calculator isn’t taking everything into account AND assumes that we will stay for multiple rounds of combat.  We won’t be.  We are the attacker and we can retreat whenever we want.  In this particular example they will almost certainly have to take one shot and leave because all the subs will die in round 1.

      So we shoot and get 4 hits (average), 1 sub and 3 other hits.  The Japanese player takes the free hit on the battleship from the sub, loses the destroyer… and then must chose between a plane, cruiser, carrier, or battleship for the other 2 hits.  He probably kills 2 planes.  The Japanese fleet shoots back and gets 6 hits (1 better than average)… the US kills the 4 subs and destroyers and then retreats all 4 of his planes from the battle (if a DD lived retreat it as a blocker).  The US fleet in Hawaii is 2 carriers with 4 fighters.  The remains of the Japanese fleet are 3 carriers, 4 fighters, 1 battleship, and 1 cruiser.  The US mostly lost only subs which contribute very little defensively too the fleet other than dying instead of better units, the Japanese lost fighters, the primary defense of the fleet.  They have to withdraw and rebuild expensive fighters.  The US just needs a couple more subs and destroyers… which if they are in a stand off with the Japanese navy are probably already arriving from the west coast at the end of this turn allowing the US fleet to remain in Hawaii.  We lost 2 more units (we “lost” 4-6) than the Japanese navy did, but due to the nature of the combination of subs and airplanes attacking, in the grand scheme of things, we clearly won the fight.  Had the Japanese player had subs and destroyers “protecting” his planes and larger ships all we would have done was whittle down each others sub/destroyer forces a little.  The US fleet in this instance had a superior composition with its combination of subs and fighters so the larger Japanese fleet comes out on the short end of the stick.  This is actually even worse for the IJN because the US would actually also have 2 heavy bombers attacking from Hawaii that I intentionally left out to show just the matchup between the fleets alone.

      The key factor is the effect that and “air strike” has in relation to the defensive strength of the fleet.  If you trade subs for fighters with an enemy fleet, when the battle is over your fleet is stronger defensively than the opposing fleet was before the fight.  You lost subs, they lost fighters.  There is a chance that the enemy fleet is too weak to withstand yours now, and if not the next “air strike” will probably achieve that.  As soon as the enemy fleet has been sufficiently weakened you can eventually forget the air strikes and move your whole fleet in for the final battle.  Every time you trade a sub for a plane, cruiser, or battleship you are altering the balance of power between the two fleets in your favor.  In an air strike, the more subs you have the more rounds of combat you can fight.  You usually only have enough subs for 1 round of combat, but later in the game it is possible that you have enough subs to protect your planes for multiple rounds of combat.  In these cases you can do serious damage to the enemy fleet without exposing your own to any real danger.  Subs are the “infantry of the sea”, there is little difference between 8 Infantry and 4 fighters in Moscow and 8 Sub and 4 Fighters in Hawaii.  The main difference is that the Infantry and fighters in Moscow will sit there and wait to be attacked, while the subs and fighters will attack the enemy as soon as he comes within range.  The combination of subs and airplanes are “defensive attackers”.

      You Japanese players need to trade some of those ground units for destroyers and subs to protect your fleet.  I can’t count the number of times I have watched the IJN sit there with the US player having the power to hurt it bad, sitting with within range, but not realizing that was the case.  The initial Japanese fleet will get hurt badly by the turn 3 US navy if it doesn’t add some protection on turn 2.  All those nice ships and planes need at least 2 destroyers and 2 subs for protection (Japan eventually wants at least 4 destroyers and at least a number of subs equal to the number of fighters on their carriers).  The starting Japanese navy is essentially naked, and most players just leave it that way.  This is why the IJN usually loses when they finally fight.  The US player built a lot of protective ships early on out of necessity, so when the fleets finally meet those 3 or 4 extra escorts make all the difference and the Japanese player is left insisting he must have rolled bad because he had an extra carrier.  The way the dice actually play out, once you’ve got 3 or 4 carriers involved then subs and destroyers actually become more useful in the big fleet battle than an extra carrier.  They keep the big numbers rolling longer where the less protected fleet begins losing the big numbers early.  Once you have enough protection, relative to the size of the enemy fleet and land-based air that is within range, then adding more carriers again becomes better than more escorts.

      Fleets are highly defensive in nature.  When two fleets are equal in size they cannot enter within range of each other.  If the fleets are well designed, the one who enters range first loses.  This means that fleets exert a strong “zone of control” within a 2 space radius of where they are, due to the strike range of their subs/destroyers and planes.  Another way of putting it is that a carrier fleet provides “coverage” of spaces within that range.  So, for example, with this US fleet in Hawaii facing the 3 carrier IJN fleet in the above example, the US could safely retake the Philippines (if it is empty) and probably hold it for a turn or 2 or maybe for the rest of the game.  All they need to do is sacrifice a transport to get 2 inf there.  To retake it the Japanese would have to sacrifice 2 transports, or have a bomber in range to help 1 transport, because any naval units they send there will die to the air strike we just covered.  In fact, attempting to re-take Philippines is usually what causes the air strike we went over above… they get it back, and lose their naval superiority for the rest of the game.

      Once a defensive position like this has been established the player with the coverage over the islands is free to re-take them with sacrificial transports.  If you have enough destroyers, you can cover the landings with 2 destroyers if the Japanese don’t have any subs to strike with their planes, hoping to kill planes with your destroyers, otherwise just sacrifice the transports to take any islands you want.  This effect can also be achieved with a combination of subs and bombers.  Once in place, it just isn’t safe to approach such a position without at least 4 subs and/or destroyers defending the fleet.  The Japanese don’t have this early on, so a US player going KGF can cause great difficulty for Japan early by placing 6 subs and 4 bombers in Hawaii.  You can get by in the Pacific with subs and bombers in Hawaii, and a few transports to re-take island that this force “covers”.  This relatively small force can seriously harass Japan for most of the game at relatively little cost.  This can’t be done if the Japanese destroyer is alive and in range at the end of turn 1, but it almost always dies to the battleship.  As long as the destroyer is not there, the 5 subs and 3 bombers the US can land in Hawaii on turn 2 will cause Japan problems all out of proportion to their cost to the US player.  A single transport can take Philippines as soon as they are in place, for example, and the Japanese will have a hard time taking it back any time soon without sacrificing at least 1 transport to do it (or by sacrificing a significant portion of his fleet).  This is a very cheap way of focusing almost all of your attention on Germany, if that is your plan, while still causing some serious problems for Japan during the early turns AND forcing them to buy at least 2 destroyers and 2 subs for the pacific fleet.  It takes several turns for Japan to build enough protective subs/destroyers to safely get within range to threaten your subs unless they are willing to not build a lot of things they would normally build during the early turns.  When he finally does move within range, suicide the subs into him and fly the bombers back to West US and on to Germany from there (assuming you are still going KGF).

      The effect of destroyers in a fleet battle deserves mention as well.  The important aspect of destroyers in a fleet battle is that the presence of an enemy destroyer means that his planes can hit your submarines.  In a fleet battle this actually works against the enemy fleet as it allows you to take subs as casualties from airplanes.  If no destroyer was present, all air hits would have to be taken on airplanes, but because an enemy destroyer is present all hits can be taken on the subs.  There is no way around this, fleets must have destroyers, it’s just they way it works and it works well, actually.  This is another advantage of the sub supported air strike… you have no destroyer present, so the enemy must take all of your air hits on his planes while you can take air hits on subs because his destroyers are in the fight.  Sometimes, though, such as the US have an opportinty to hit the Japanese fleet on turn 2, you have no choice and have to send your destroyers in too… but Japan probably doesn’t have any subs on turn 2 anyway so it doesn’t matter in that case.

      Do this experiment with the battle calculator.  Enter a typical US airstrike on the IJN.  The US has a “defensive position” of 6 subs and 4 bombers at Hawaii and the (still not completed with subs and destroyers) turn 3 IJN foolishly enters range.  We’d actually have a chance of winning this fight outright, which allows you to see something in the battle calculator that might surprise you.

      US 6 subs and 4 bomb v IJN 2 carrier, 4 fig, 1 batship, 1 cruis = US win 15%.
      US 6 subs and 4 bomb v IJN 2 carrier, 4 fig, 1 batship, 1 cruis, 1 destoyer = US win 35%.

      If you add a 1 destroyer to the Japanese fleet… Japan has a 20% greater chance of losing because that extra ship is there.  This is because with the destroyer present the US can now take hits from the defending fighters rolling a 4, on subs that roll a 2, instead of on bombers that roll a 4.  But this doesn’t mean you don’t want destroyers in your fleet, it just means that you want several of them.  Start adding DDs in the battle calc and watch the percentage drop back down.  More importantly, consider the trade on hits you will now make if you suffer an air strike.  At least 2 destroyers and 2 subs are required for the protection of any fleet… and this is very realistic.

      A Note About German U-Boats:  Unfortunately, Germany is not a sub user.  So close, and yet so far.  With a single small rule change subs would become a vital part of Germany’s arsenal in keeping the British navy away.  If Germany could keep 4-6 subs in SZ 5, which they can afford to do, they could cover SZs 3, 6, & 7 and keep the British navy out of those SZs.  It would be really cool, and make subs a vital weapon for Germany as they should be.  But the nature of subs is that they must be outside of range of enemy ships beforehand, so that enemy ships cannot enter within their range.  They cannot enter range of an enemy fleet to attack, the enemy fleet must come to them.  This almost works for Germany, they can get into position in SZ 5 with 3 subs and their air force on turn 1 and keep the British navy out of important sea zones (3, 6, and 7).  It all falls apart with the unrealistic ability of a single ship to “block” an infinite number of ships in AA50.  This means the British can simply place a single destroyer in SZ 6, blocking the German subs, and put their navy in attack range.  The subs can’t reach the navy, so they can’t attack.  And on the following turn the British navy enters SZ 5 and destroys all of the subs.  This means that it would be a huge waste of money for Germany to try and use subs because all England has to do is sacrifice a single destroyer to kill the entire German U-Boat fleet.

      This would be simple to fix with a simple rule from other naval combat games.  Instead of a single ship being able to block an infinite number of enemy ships, which is ridiculous, blocking ships should only be able to block an equal number of ships.  This rule works much better and would correct several different problems associated with “blocking” naval units within AA50.  With this rule if the British tried to block SZ 5 with a single destroyer the Germans would simple be required to leave a single sub behind to fight it (they could leave more if they wanted, but must leave a number of ships equal to enemy blockers as they pass through that SZ) while the rest of the subs continue on to attack the UK fleet.  The blocking rule is the only major problem remaining in A&A naval combat, and it alone prevents subs from being useful to Germany.  With the “picket force rule” in place, naval combat in A&A would work very, very well… and Germany would be buying subs every game.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang
    • RE: What do these A&A abreviations mean?

      @DarthMaximus:

      KGF - Kill Germany First
      AC - Aircraft Carrier
      DD - Destroyer
      FTW - For the Win
      SBR - Strategic Bombing Raid

      This thread in the Revised Forum also had other common Abbreviations:

      http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7842.0

      Yes… A&A players using “AC” for aircraft carrier can be confusing.  In military terms “AC” is an abbreviation for “aircraft”.  A fast way to talk about ships would be to use the real-life abbreviations which are:

      CV = Aircraft Carrier
      BB = Battleship
      CA = Cruiser
      DD = Destroyer
      SS = Submarine

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang
    • RE: India on turn 2?

      @DarthMaximus:

      The problem with this assumption is I see no Allied resistance at all.

      What if Russia stacked Bury on R1?
      Is Japan still going all out for Ind.

      What if UK stacks Per instead and Russia stacks Cauc?
      Per can be deadzoned.  Making a J move to Per susceptible to a strafe from Russia via Inf in Cauc and arm from anywhere in range.

      In 4 turns Russia places about 40 units alone.

      What if UK/US shuck to Arch?
      It is only 2 turns from UK to Mos.  3 turns from Ecan to Mos.

      What if Fra falls to UK or US on turn 3, 4, or 5?
      Puts Ger in quite a situation.

      What if Ita falls to US on turn 3, 4 or 5?

      My point is, there are plenty of things the Allies can do.  Yes reinforcing India isn’t easy, but the Allies will not automatically lose the game if UK retreats from Ind on UK 1 or UK 2.

      This is the entire problem, there is absolutely nothing the allies can do if Japan goes all out for Caucsus from their opening move.  Even if the US goes full bore at Japan, Japan still has time to hit Cauc with 25-30 units (varying only by the loses incurred running over what little resistance stands in your way) on turn 5.  They US can’t seriously threaten Japan until turn 3, and that initial threat can be ignored for the first turn considering our whole navy except one carrier is already there defending the pacifc, which allows Japan to get this huge force into Cauc and then turn to face the US, if they are even there, on turn 5 as that force does it’s job in Cauc.  As long as the US is not seriously, very seriously considering the Pac IJN on turn 4 was already 4 Fig, 2 CV, 1 CC, 1 CA, 1 DD, and Sub in the position I wound up in at the end of turn 3 that I posted above, Japan can then just keep putting 9 units every turn into persia.

      It’s really the only opening anyone should be doing with Japan, slam 28 units into Cauc on turn 5 then either turn to face US or continue funneling in 9 units every turn to Persia if the US isn’t spending all of their money in the Pacific.  I don’t see how the Axis can lose considering that there is nothing in Japan’s way of doing this.  A bid won’t solve it because it is such a massive force.  It’s about 23 or 24 units that hit Persia on turn 4… what exactly were you planning on having done about that before the end of turn 3?  Something like 12 or 14 had units hit India on turn 2…  There is nothing in the way, and only Russia could even slow it down… by sending 6 infantry to India on turn 1.  They obviously can’t do that, and it’s not worth it anyway because all it will do is slow it down by 1 turn and make the turn 6 hit on Cauc all the more powerful for it in the end.  Any pressure from the US won’t happen until the initial force is already on it’s way.

      A bid can’t fix this.  It’s way too much.  The initital setup needs to be changed so that no more than 2 transports can reach India on turn 2, and I would also move the destroyer and transport from India to Africa.  That give the UK player the option of staying there for a SA IC, or getting those inf to either Eygpt or India (India would be a good idea:-).  That navy still dies every game, just on turn 2 instead of turn 1.  It also allows those to inf to defend India while putting them 1 turn away so they can’t attack from India on turn 1.  I think with those changes Russia sends two Inf, UK brings the inf from Africa… and India becomes a place where Japan can still steamroll, but only if the Allies let them.

      I really like AA50 a lot, which is why I bothered coming to the forum to bring this up.  If you really look at the end of turn 3 position in the post above, and realize that there is nothing in the way or that can be in the way and they can be in this position every game if they want, then you see why the Allies need to be able to put up a better fight for India.  It should be possbile for it to fall on turn 3, but not on turn 2 as an extension of Japan’s opening move.  As long as Japan can do this, the Allies can really never win.  Russia will die on turn 5 or 6, maybe 7 they really can hold out sometimes, every game.  Certain territories are “lynchpins” and India is the best example among them.  I, personally, think it is the most important one on the map.  Even more than Caucusus because it keeps Cauc alive, Cauc is what dies if India falls.  It’s the Allies back door, it can’t go down for good turn 2 every game or the game won’t work.  But I am not ripping on the game, I am trying to help by pointing this out.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang
    • RE: India on turn 2?

      @Subotai:

      @Kavik:

      I don’t think it can be fixed with a bid, the Allies are a long, long way from being able to put up any kind of fight at all for India and with nothing in their way it’s just simple math that 26-29 Japanese units are going to hit Caucusus on turn 5.  There needs to be a fight for India, not just Japan waving as they pass through on turn 2.

      Well, then I suggest I take allies with 30 ipc, one unit pr. TT, NOs and no tech. You can decide if we’re playing LL or ADS.

      I see you in the unstable lobby pretty soon   :-D :-) 8-) :lol:

      But then you will build things to hold India far too well, which is why it can’t be fixed with a bid.  The balance is simply off in India.  I have a game saved now at the end of Japan’s turn 3 with turn 3 builds placed.  With turn 3 builds placed, this is the situation in India at the end of Japan’s turn 3.  And since the Allies can do nothing in this area of the world this early in the game, Japan can just do this every game if they want.  You tell me how the allies survive this Japanese position at the end of turn 3.

      India: 10 inf, 1 art, 1 tanks, 1 fighter,  newly built IC
      SZ 35: 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 2 transports (lost 2 fighters round 1 so we are actually a fighter short here with 4 out on the carriers)

      Burma: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 bomber, IC built on turn 2
      SZ 37: 2 transports

      East Indies: 2 inf, 2 tank
      SZ 38: 2 trans

      SZ 51: 2 carriers, 4 fighters, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer

      SZ 62: 1 transport, 1 sub

      There are 5 inf in China and I own all but Chinghai, ready to take next turn with 3 inf.

      Turn 1 Build: 2 transports

      Turn 2 Build: 2 IC (East Indies and Burma), 1 destroyer

      Turn 3 Build: 1 IC (India), 3 tanks, 2 inf, 1 bomber, 1 sub

      Japan can build 9 units per turn with the 3 ICs.  Tanks built in Inida reach Cauc and bomber built in Burma reach Cauc on the first turn after they are built.  We also have 6 transports and the 2 inf/2 tank per turn built in East Indies arrive in Persia the turn after they are built every turn due to the 4 transports dedicated to making that happen.  So an additional 9 units each and every turn hit Caucusus because this chain is already established when you strike due to the turn 3 pause/consolidation, but it is very unlikely that there was any way it survived the initial attack on turn 5 and really these follow up units are for taking Moscow.  If the German player was aware of this plan and spent the first 4 turns preparing for it instead of trying to take Moscow, then Russia will almost certainly die on turn 5 every game.  Germany will be stronger playing for the turn 5 nuclear weapon Japan will set off instead of sparring with Russia and risking units.  Germany can focus on the west, in a small way, for the first 4 turns just wating for the killing blow to Russia to arrive in Persia.  It’s really bad once you start thinking about what this allows Germany to do.  I’d certainly suggest 3 subs any time the British fleet leaves range of the bay, sine you can afford it, the British have a hard time coming back with 3 subs to protect German planes from hits.

      This is what lands moves into Persia on turn 4, Caucusus on turn 5, and, assuming Germany doesn’t do it first, Moscow on turn 6…

      14 Inf
      2 Art
      7 Tanks
      3 fighters (would be four if Japan only lost 1 on turn 1 instead of losing 2)
      3 bombers

      Three of the tanks and two of the bombers are not currently on the map, but get built within range to hit Caucusus on turn 5 at India and Burma.  This is 29 units into Caucusus on Turn 5.  Japan can do this every game if they feel like it and the allies can do nothing to stop them.  Even the US building a fleet could be ignored until after this force was built because it happens so early with India falling on turn 2.  And if you hadn’t noticed, I even added 2 ships to the fleet while doing this and bombers are also very useful against fleets… you don’t even ignore the Americans in doing this!  I don’t see how the game works when Japan can do this every time with nothing in their way to stop them.  India is very important, it can’t fall for certain on turn 2 as part of Japan’s opening move.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang
    • RE: India on turn 2?

      @Subotai:

      @ Kavik Kang, how high bid do you think allies should get then? 10 ipc or more? I also assume we’re talking ADS setting.

      I don’t think it can be fixed with a bid, the Allies are a long, long way from being able to put up any kind of fight at all for India and with nothing in their way it’s just simple math that 26-29 Japanese units are going to hit Caucusus on turn 5.  There needs to be a fight for India, not just Japan waving as they pass through on turn 2.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang
    • RE: India on turn 2?

      @Lynxes:

      30 units turn 4 seems to be over the top, but yes, Japan can do something like you’re saying and it’s something of a standard opening to the game. But if we look at it from new things in AA50 you must take into account:

      1. Russia builds for 30 IPCs for several rounds and rarely falls below 25 the first five turns. That means they are much in stronger than in any earlier A&A edition.
      2. Getting Africa is not very difficult for the Allies, Italy is slow to build up and by turn 3 or 4 at the latest the Italian fleet should be sunk. You shouldn’t be caught out with all three Axis powers against Caucasus as a competent Allied player, by the time Japan is in striking distance Italy shouldn’t be. And from Africa you can threaten India.
      3. USA has a much stronger position in the Pacific than in AAR (see my “Those pacific builds…” thread). 4-6 fighters against Caucasus is something you can avoid if you force Japan to park fighters on carriers. If Japan ignores you, grab Phillippines, Borneo and East Indies and the Allied IPCs will be skyrocketing.

      All the same, the set-up might be too much for the Allies in the end, and some people think a bid is needed for them. India, Egypt and Yunnan are all crying out for some infantry if you allow bids. Maybe those tournaments will show more of how balanced the game is?

      No, you can have 26-29 units within range of Caucusus on at the end of Japan’s turn 4 if you use the transports right in sending everything there, and building ICs in Burma, East Indies, and India.  Since the allies have no means of getting anything else there by turn 2, there is nothing at all that can be done to stop Japan from doing this (other than pinning the IJN at Tokyo and forcing them to build nothing but ships).  If Japan is allowed to spend money on anything other than ships then they can have 26-29 units hitting caucuses on turn 5 every game and the allies can do nothing about it.  They can’t get enough force into Africa in time to be there, either.  There is no reason for Japan to make any opening move other than this, because it absolutely gaurentees the Axis win on turn 6 (probably turn 5).

      There really needs to be a change in the opening setup to prevent this.  A bid doesn’t save India and it would suck if the US had no choice but to just force stand-off shipbuilding contest every game.

      The balance with India is clearly off.  The allies should at least be capable of putting up a fight for it and as it stands now only Russia can even try to help because it happens on turn 2.  Japan shouldn’t have a chance at India until turn 3, after the allies have had time to get things there to at least put up a fight for it and delay Japan for at least 1 turn from when they arrive, 2 turns from when they currently fall.  Russia can afford to send 2 inf per turn.  If the fighter in Epypt lives it can also be in India on turn 2.  2 US fighters and 2-4 more Russian inf can arrive on turn 3.  The simplest fix, too me, seems to be to move the British DD and Trans to Africa where it can bring 2 inf to India before it dies, and change Japan’s opening setup so that only 2 transports can be within range of India on turn 2.  This would give the allies the one turn they need to at least put up a fight for India and prevent 26+ units attacking Caucusus on turn 5 like clockwork, every single game, because it is impossible for the allies to do anything about it.

      Japan should be able to take but not hold India on turn 3 if the Allies have defended it, hold it if the allies have not defended it.  Just rolling by India like it was nothing as part of their opening move really is a big problem.

      I see your points.  In another thread I described how to force Japan into a naval arms race with the US and was already thinking that in AA50 with India falling on turn 2 the US doesn’t have a choice anymore and must do this.  But that makes for a boring game, always being forced to do the same thing or lose on turn 4.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang
    • India on turn 2?

      I haven’t played a ton of AA50, maybe 20 games of it by now, but I played the original literally from the day it game out and I am an old man.  I recently realized, from someone doing it too me, that if Germany kills most of what is in Egypt and Japan goes all out for India, that Japan can take and hold India on Turn 2 and the Allies can never even think about taking it back.  The only way the allies could possibly prevent this is for the Russians to send 6 infantry to India on turn 1, they go before Japan and that would save India.  It’s the only thing that the allies can possbily do to save India and obviously the Russians can’t afford to send 6 infantry to India on turn 1.  Unless I’m missing some way of saving India, I really think this is a serious flaw in the opening setup.

      India is the most important country on the map.  If it falls on turn 2 either Russia concedes on turn 4 or dies on turn 5.  The allies have nothing in this area of the world, and have no means of getting anything there other than the Russians who can’t afford to send 6 infantry on turn 1.  So there is nothing to prevent Japan from having 10-12 inf, 5 art, 6 tanks, 4-6 fighters, and a bomber within striking distance of Caucusus on turn 4.  With Turn 2 ICs in Burma and East Indies and a Turn 3 IC in India (3 tanks for 30 IPC:-) that is what Japan has to hit Caucuses with on turn 4.  They’ll have 10-12 more units within range on the following turn, and 9 per turn after that as the ICs chain forward their production each turn.  Caucusus might survive turn 4, but Russia will be dead on turn 5… especially if Germany knows the plan and is playing for it from the beginning.

      India is the most important territory on the map in many ways, if Japan can just take it strong right from the beginning of the game then the Allies really don’t have much of a chance.  It’s Russia’s “back door” and if it falls on turn 2 they are going to die as quickly as they are capable of dying.  I really think this is a flaw in the opening setup, and Japan is nuts to do anything else.  I let Kwantung and the Chinese fighter province live on turn 1 to get as much to India as possbile as quickly as possible, nothing else really matters other than taking India.  It’s Japan’s primary objective in the entire war and they are able to just take it right away.  That really is a serious problem in my book.

      A bid can’t really fix this because there it would have to be too high, I think the initial setup would need to be changed subtly, in some ways like only allowing two Japanese transports to be within range of India on turn two and moving the British ships from India to Africa so they can bring those 2 inf to India or Persia before they die.  India has to be able to survive until turn 2.  If the allies go all out to defend India they should be able to at hold it for at least one turn of trying, to at least delay Japan a turn and kill some of those units that have made it all the way to India.  India living just that one extra turn allows time for 2 US fighters and 4 Russian infantry to arrive and allow the allies to at least make a fight of it in India even if they will inevitably lose.  If India dies on turn 2 only Russia can try to save it, and they can’t afford too.  The allies, at the very least, need the option of delaying Japan in India if they choose to do so (and because they absolutely have to).

      I know most won’t agree, but too me personally this is a game killing flaw in the 41 scenario to the point that I am not even interested in playing the 41 scenario anymore.  Maybe it is just the way I play, but I don’t see how the allies can win outside of extreme luck, or bad play from an opponent, if Japan can always hit Cauc with close to 30 units on turn 4 every game and there is absolutely nothing the allies can do about it.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      K
      Kavik Kang