Topics created by Lynxes

We’ve been starting to play with a variant that Japan completes an immediate victory for Axis if they control all VCs on the Pacific side of the board except San Francisco. This is to force the US and British to defend the Pacific and contain Japan’s growth. I.e. a “political” victory condition since the American and British voters wouldn’t have accepted surrender of this theater of operations.

To balance things out we have been using bids for the Allies, but we also think about adding 10 IPCs to the US “home NO”. In this way they would outproduce the Japs and it would be a slightly quicker game. Our experience is that US need to send units to Europe in order to stop Germany as well, but we don’t want every game to end up a “Kill Germany First” with the US just stacking West Coast with land units. What do you think about this variant? Would another idea be to use the Convoy disruption rules from A&A 1940 so that you pay an IPC price for ignoring Japan, has anyone tried this? US would then lose 13 IPCs/turn to Jap convoy attacks, question is if that’s enough to prevent KGF?

I’d throw 8 IPC into the water if it meant I kept both Italian NOs (10 IPC a round.)  I was just wondering if you played against a destroyer build. (Or even a carrier build since you have a fighter that can land on it, and Italy could really use the fighter starting in the med so it can attack both theaters of operations.)

CmdrJennifer, I modified the build which was from the start 2 bombers and 1 carrier, in order to have some fodder units instead. It is true of course that Italy has three builds before US3 and can build more than 1CV+1DD which US alone can beat with my proposed US1 build. My idea then was to use the UK navy to finish the attack, probably on the turn after US strikes, UK4. You then send in air and fodder units, 3-4 DDs or subs, and spare your CV and CAs in sz12 to minimize losses to the UK invasion fleet. (A Russian blocking attack against TRJ is then needed to hinder Japanese deployment into the Med., and if Italy survives with a CV don’t forget that figs can be flown onto it before UK moves!)

This is a simplification, of course, because you might try to hide ships in sz15/sz16 as Italy and so forth. I haven’t played this myself that much yet, when I tried it Italy has acquiesced in losing their fleet but for one game where I built two bombers US1 and didn’t have enough fodder units.

UK doing the killing alone I think is a bad idea. They need to be invading and sending the fleet into battle first does too much harm to it. In the example above of a double US/UK strike at the Italian fleet, you can survive with the core of your Royal Navy if you play well. In this scenario you can’t invade FRA/NWE for a turn or two for a long-term benefit of destroying plenty of Axis IPCs.

There should be no difference in the cost or function of units in AA50 and AA42.  That way makes it easy for a player seasoned in one version to try out the other.  So far I think we’ve had five A&A theatre scale games, and five different rule sets for subs!  One can get confused sometimes.

@dondoolee:

No rough terrain should be more for tactical type games, A&A is a strategic game.  All you need to know is what terrain one can move through.

actually
never stood still by the difference between a strategic and a tactical game
you’re right 😄

Something else I’ve been pushing for for years is a wider Atlantic ocean. Make it a minimum two turn hop over the pond and the Germans might just have a realistic chance of stopping the US from pumping in troops here, and perhaps force them to think about a Pacific assault.
Making subs cheaper might have helped, but then anything that delays the Axis from moving maximum units to Caucasus/Moscow ASAP seems pure folly… that damned capture the capital rule really does narrow down the options when playing to win at all costs.

OK, voting is over, China inf bids won but by a very small margin. I’ll move the discussion over to the League discussion forum and we’ll see what people think there! Join in and we can influence how the game will be played!  🙂

Assuming 1941 setup and using NO’s, here are a few minor, simple, yet helpful setup changes to the board.

1.  Exchange the sz4 Russian sub for a Russian destroyer.  In Revised, Russia had an 8 IPC, 2 attack, 2 defense unit which could block ships, so give it back to them.  This both helps Russia and Germany, because if Germany wants to, it can hit it.

2. Exchange the sz56 US transport for a US cruiser.  This seems to make Japan’s opening moves a little more clear and it means that the US cannot immediately take a Pacific island on its first turn which helps Japan, but having a capital ship, helps the US as well.

3. Add 1 Chinese infantry to Yunan.  I know that many people want more than this, but I think that this would force Japan to be more careful with its first turn moves, but I think that Japan could still do just about everything that it wants to.

These changes actually give the Allies 10 IPCs worth of unit/unit upgrades, and with all of the talk about the Axis having the slight advantage, maybe these changes would help.

I agree with must of your post, Subotai, excepting by tech issue (I don’t think it’s really broken in AA50, but that’s matter for a new thread) and the bids issue. Of course, 1 inf each territory in soviet frontier and Egypt would crush the balance, and that is the reason for not bidding allied units: Europe and Africa are NOT broken, it’s Asia the one broken, mainly China (but also India and swarm of jap starting trannies).

If something is not wrong, don’t touch it. Fix the broken one instead -> China. Restricting bids to chinese units is the solution. And so, we should bid like this:

I’ll take the allies if chineses receive 5 infs No way, pal, I’ll take allies if chineses receive 4 infs OK, dude, you get allies

(Or something similar)

@Lynxes:

As I said UK will gladly spend 8 IPCs to block several subs from being used against the invading fleet.

One DD can only block 1 one sub.

Ger attacks with 1 sub and air (66% shot UK dd misses), then Ger Non-Coms remaining subs to other szs and replaces new sub in Sz 5.

Now the Allies need a DD to take out the sub (if survived) in Sz 6 as well as the other subs that could have moved to Sz 3 or sz 7.

Just like the Allies aren’t going to move a fleet to Sz 6 if Ger can attack heavy, Germany isn’t going to move a bunch of subs so 1 DD and tons of Allied air can sink them.  It is a bit of a cat and mouse game, but 1 Ger sub can force the UK to use at least TWO DDs (one to block sz 6, which gets killed, and the one needed to sink the Ger sub in Sz 6 if suvived the attack on the DD).  The Allies then need additional dds to sink any remaining subs that scatter.

At somepoint the Allies need to go to Sz 6 fairly heavy, just to stop the negative trade of 1-2 dds for 1 sub.  Thats a worst case +2 for Ger and potentially a best case +10 ipc for Ger for one turn.  (depends on how long or how many rounds the constant trade of sub for dd lasts).

One of the benefits of the south african IC is that you do not need to care about the italian fleet. Let the bad boys with their 10 IPCs bombard egypt or caucasus - so what? As long as the United Kingdom can occupy the italians in egypt all is well. If you sink the italian fleet you still have no additional fleet that helps in the mediteranean. The bombardment doesnt kill you and the U.S. world bombing tour can start in asia, where it can wear down the japs. Remenber, the seazone japan lies in is 4 seazones away from western united states and has 3 adjacent russian airfields. That means that the lone presence of bombers in WUS can tie down a whole fleet in front of japan. By the way, how many ICs does Japan build in J1 and J2 in your games?

Why do people use a 4x4 for a polar express.  a 2x2x2 can get 8 units a turn into alaska with transports going with 3 steps.

Step 1: Move from SZ 62 to 64 and unload
Step 2: Move from SZ 64 to 62 and shuck to Bury
4 transports do this, 2 each step per turn
Step 3: Move from 64 to 63, load, drop in 64.

Its odd how you have to stagger it, but with a bit of troop buildup and extra transport or two to get it started, or a few units in bury to start, will prime it very easily.  Start with 4 transports in SZ 62, make sure you have 4 units in bury first, send all 4 to alaska for drop.  Following turn 2 shuck from bury, 2 go back to 62, and 2 new ones from 62 go to alaska.

Lynxes, you are so right, bombers are such a tremendous force now that they only cost 12.
with the new system you can seriously cripple an economy with 3 bombers.

And by experience, I think it is important to invest in the pacific as USA if the japanese go for a mitghy naval force. You gotta give them a decoy to go after, and maybe try to get it to China/India to keep the huge japanese navy busy.
It will be actually expensive but might save you from a japanese invasion.

but I disagree though about the Indian IC. I guess it’s important to prevent japan from becoming too strong. with the uk fighter in Africa and the russian tanks they might spare on turn 2-3, you can possibly keep it alive if the japanese player went with some conquests in China.

i have just completed a game of KJF in '41
it must of been the shortest game ever
but made crucial mistake with russians, i’m not that good in AAA
japan can be stopped, it really can
but problem is: europe
i tried to put some pressure with brits on germany at the north, and with an IC in India(wich i held pretty firm) i was fighting japan
US was liberating big IPC islands
problem is: in 41 you need to be quick in KJF, russia holds i think 5 rounds at max
you need you need to have achieved something by then
'42 is of course easier against japan, but isn’t germany even stronger?
i attack belo and eastern ukr with russia and build pure inf trying to hold the archangel-caucasus line

So Italy really wasn’t a large factor? Did they conquer all of Africa? What were their builds?

Italy built 1 trs and 1 CV and then mostly land units, adding 1 DD later on. Africa wasn’t important, Germany sent a tank down there which manoeuvred to avoid 2 UK infs (landings in West Africa were not done but probably would have been a good idea). Italy was a factor in that it distracted from attacking the Germans and I think a balanced approach by the US and the UK is probably more effective, i.e. landing in both Norway and Algeria, having fleets both in North/baltic sea and West Med, SBR against both Germany and Italy, and this necessitates a lot of US involvement.

For such things as India IC, this is a detail which o/c we just have to try and fail to see if it can be held, more than 4-5 rnds?

In this game there was no India IC, India survived because Japan focused on China and Australia. In an other game an IC was built and defended with the help of some Russian troops but the jury is out on if this really is viable if the Japs really go all-out vs. India. I hope there’s more UK ships to start with since that would make defending a built IC so much easier! We’ll see very shortly when we get the UK set-up.

Well latter i did figure out what the rule was and amended my house rules along his idea ( except its really the old AAE rule on fighter escorts).

On night bombing raids… i got 50% effectiveness, but no escorts/interceptors…or AA

notably American fleet carriers Yorktown and Wasp

and i thought it was the Japanese planes from the Hiryu that did her in.

The only capital ships that went down solely by subs were Wasp and Shinano.

If Japan sunk the Yorktown by subs ( i am quite sure she didn’t), that’s after the battle, while it was sitting and listing.

IN any case by AA standards subs dont interact with warships in WW2. It does not meet the threshold in terms of ability and hard numbers.

I do use a tech to represent ASW, but that can be easily made from a rider on “shipyards” technology as you have.

Also, a convoy zone can be as simple as placing a token on the sea zone from a list for each player. Thats not ‘advanced’ at all. Sea zones are not advanced idea and used in AAE and AAP. MY only change is the IPC they represent is now represented by the new occupier should the attached income now be under new control.

@Perry:

I’ve said a few things about what I felt was strange/in error , in this thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12584.15

Anyhow, if there are only a few pieces that need to be added, and no pieces deleted, I would hope for the following (based on three games playing the GenCon setup), sorted from in order of importance to play balance:

1) Addition of US naval units in the Pac!
I’m afraid we’ll see few/no US Pac games, unless this one turn out to be true…

2) Addition of starting Infs to China
'Nuff said…

3) Some more addition to UK navy
Don’t quite know where, but maybe the Pac…Just feels a tad bit weak, right now.

4) Some more land units added to WUS and EUS
Not of very big importance. I just think that there are an Inf left out in WUS and an Arm left out in EUS…

5) Redistribution of Infs on The Jap Pac Islands
Don’t know, they just feel wrong now…
1 Island empy (Iwo)
1 Island has 1 ftr (For)
1 Island has 1 inf (Oki)
1 Island has 3 inf (Car

Actually, that’s just about it…
1 & 2 are important. The rest are minor issues.
Hope I’ll be correct  🙂

I agree. This would make the game better. And Bluestroke, I agree. The one who gets A&A 50 first must spill their guts to all of us.

Meh,  i choose the route that i think will be more profitable example :  i can send 2 inf. and 2 tanks at  place that is 5 ipc’s and has 2 infantry on it or a territory that has 7 infantry worth  2 ipc’s and you can send 3 fighters 5 tanks and 4 infantry!  hmmmmmmm which 1 like southern or northern what makes you get a better chance!

if i am italy (asia or africa and when we are losing support on main land italy + france0h)

Anyways what i see is more battles in africa (i am hoping to look forward to pacific battles which i love!)

I play this game called b.net and this guy made a a&a europe and a&a pacific on it and it is pro but he wanted to make the full map but not enough space!

This game is very similiar except not turn basis and (fighters like the spitfire lancester hurricane you can buy seperate planes and tanks like germany panzer 3 panzer 4 king tiger (like germany has 20 different tanks)

These games rule except a&a pacific leans towards the allies!

thanks  for agreeing

You could also set up a trap for allied navies, by sinking the dd and leaving your subs posted there.
If, by any chance, the german player was to be attacked by an english navy that would not dispose of a destroyer, they could trap them by submerging prior to the battle and coming back to attack the fleet on their turn, using planes togheter with the subs.

I don’t exactly remember the initial setup of the game and if uk disposes of a lot of destroyers, but in my opinion, this tactic could work at least once against inexperienced players.

Just play w/o them in first game then play with both tech and NO in second game. Start out slow.

@Bardoly:

I had a thought about Heavy Bombers, since so mant people seem to think that the tech is broken.

Why not let them be a 5 on Attack, a 2 on Defense, and their SBRs be an automatic “5”.

Never defense at 2 bombers were never meant for defensive purposes and thats why the the bomber gos 6 (that way you can hide behind a line annd still attack with the fighter(s)who are hiding behind another line!