I’d be very interested in this. Though, as this would be my first giant map, can anyone tell me the best way to print it out for use? :|
Posts made by MistuhJay
-
RE: Should Imperious make a map for this?
-
RE: Sea Lion
One question, Hobbes: what’s stopping UK from sinking your battleship with its BMR/DD?
An interesting theoretical possibility:
G1
- Buy 1 carrier (place in Baltic), 9 infantry
- Attack SZ10 and SZ7. Attack SZ14 and land 1 inf on Gibraltar.
(UK buys ground units for India and 2 fighters, attacks SZ37, US goes KJF)
G2
- Buy 5 transports, 1 destroyer or 6 transports (if UK did not buy air for London)
UK buys 6 infantry, 2 arm, for a total of 8 inf, 1 aaGun, 1 art, 3 arm, 4 ftrs and 2 bombers (1 UK, 1 US)
G3
- Attacks with 7 transports (7 inf, 7 arm, 5 ftrs, 1 bmr) - wins 59% - if there’s an 8th transport… or the 6 German fighter…
To work the question is really about the UK1 move - if the UK (and the US) focus completely on KJF and leave the German Med fleet alive and in position on SZ14 until G3… and the German fighter on Ukraine survives… interesting…
-
RE: Are bombers broken? : Axis bombers lead to allied dismay.
Hey, JamesAleman. I’ve been following this thread on your bomber strategy for sometime, and admire its creativity. This last weekend I was able to play my second game of Global (face to face), and got to play Germany, so I gave your Dark Skies a go.
While it wasn’t perfect, the threat projection of my bomber stack worked rather well. The Allies evacuated the Mediterranean of every ship (other than subs) due to the threat. It also slowed down his attempt to drop a fleet in the channel. At the end of seven hours of play, I had a decent stack outside Moscow (though not nearly enough to definitively take it.
Mistakes we made: Japan did not commit to fighting only Russia and China, but rather went for a traditional DoW turn 2. I feel this would have helped Germany pressure Russia earlier. Also, I made the mistake of strat bombing Moscow turn FOUR instead of turn THREE, allowing him another full infantry buy. To compound matters, I was struggling to get my Italians to the front line (though I’m not sure I was coordinating them with the Germans properly…).
One question I do have, is how do you defend Germany’s Western front, if you’re devoting so many troops to the east right off the jump?
Also, what is the best use of the Italian fleet?
Thanks for this strategy. It definitely helped this noob a lot in his second game of Global. =D
-
RE: Larry Harris 1914 Tournament Rules ( "potential rules" using his language)
F-man’s point is that these rules encourage the CPs to take X amount of Allied territories, then dig in and defend those territories until time is called. Thus, any incentive for the CPs to press on is gone, as victory is achieved through holding more of your enemy’s territories than he has of yours.
It not a house rule - its a suggestion for making the Potential Tournament Rules work effectively, which the Economic Victory conditions clearly don’t, since they’re in effect a default Central Powers win.
It takes a long time for the Allies to occupy more CP homelands than they have lost of their own even when the Allies are doing well in a long game. The CPs have to be encouraged to keep attacking somehow.The ‘encouragement’ to keep attacking is called ‘working to win the game’.
-
RE: First Game - Allies in A Rout
AH softening France’s air force up to open the way for Germany to have air supremacy: this will henceforth be known as the “Happy Artillery” strategy. Thanks for making my day, WB.
@WILD:
Yep, makes sense for the CP to have Germany go full tilt in one front, and Austria the other. We have seen Germany push France back to the brink, and Austria start off defending against Russia (and those damn Italians) then actually gaining the upper hand on their front as well with an aggressive Russia (they will need some inf from Germany, and the Turks). It is also helpful to have say a 10 unit friendly force with you to take out smaller adversaries, or grab more land so you don’t splinter off your main force. This can also help you to gain air superiority for the larger partner. Like Austria sacrifices a few inf and ftrs into a French stack just to force a dog fight and kill off a couple allied ftrs. Then Germany goes in full force, finishes off the air, and has very happy artillery.
-
RE: First Game - Allies in A Rout
So… let Germany unilaterally attack France with full force, while AH takes on Russia by it single-handedly?
What you wrote on splitting forces makes a lot of sense, but I’m trying to figure out how it can help in an actual game. =/
It’s pretty fascinating to me how splitting up forces over different fronts really hampers the CP.
100 Austrians and 100 Germans (to use nice round numbers for the sake of clarity example) attacking the French (100 inf) in a territory is far weaker than 200 Germans or 200 Austrians
Austrians 100@ 3= 50 hits
French 100@ 3= 50 hits50 Austrians, 50 French lost
Germans, 100@3= 50 hits,
French 50@3= 25 hitsThat’s 75 on the CP, whereas if a force of 200 had attacked instead of 2 100’s, the casualties would have been 50.
It’s worse to have a multinational army since the defender gets to fire at you twice. At first I thought that this was silly, but then I realized that there was a lot of disunity and lack of coordination between powers in WWI, so it is actually pretty cool (although then I guess it is a bit weird that there is no penalty for defending, but whatevers)
This isn’t really news to A&A, but it seems in our games players are tempted to have multiple powers attack one territory more often than in other versions, which makes it pretty salient in WWI A&A.
-
RE: Larry Harris 1914 Tournament Rules ( "potential rules" using his language)
Are the current Russian Revolution rules being replaced by the new Economic/Political collapse rules?
We’ll try out the EPC rules our next game.
-
RE: Leaving Normandy-Bordeaux to the French
If US saw this, what’s stopping them from shipping nothing but fighters to London, while UK builds transports/land? US could land fighters in Normandy, UK sends its troops there… Am I missing something?
-
RE: The UK beast
Planning for a Sealion is definitely thinking outside the box. While I am of the opinion that it is not viable, I still appreciate the discussion/debate.
The three issues I can see are:
1.) The UK can rebuild its fleet-and fast. And it will, at the first sign of German transports. Combined with French reinforcements (BB/CA in sz8), UK can drop 2 BBs or BB/2 subs UK1 if it wants (although a UK2 navy build is far more common). This will make keeping any German invasion fleet alive that much harder.
2.) The British Isles start with 15 land units. These units usually consolidate in London on UK1-2. Thus, Germany needs 8+ transports, and even then will probably not be able to take London cleanly in 1 combat. Which brings me to my last point…
3.) UK can drop 30-40 IPCs of land units in London on its turn. If Germany’s fleet survived the mines/UK fleet, if London was invaded and contested, this will end any hope of Germany conquering it on their follow-up turn.
It has been suggested that Germany take its fleet to sz4 and drop in Scotland. If I’m the Allies, I would one-two the German fleet with France/UK, and drop enough units in London to destroy the German army in Scotland. In the meantime, Germany’s efforts in Europe proper would be severely hampered by the land units (16) that are in Scotland and the 48 IPCs worth of Transports (8 trn, right?) that could have been used for, say, 16 Infantry.
It has also been suggested that Sealion will slow down Britain in India by having to spend money for London. As soon as the German navy has been dispatched, Britain can easily spend its full income in India again. US should also be involved in the war effort by now–not a pretty picture for Germany.
On the other hand, German fighters from Belgium can reach London; perhaps this can help offset the cost of transports/troops to invade?
-
RE: Larry Harris: 2-Space-Movement & other ideas
I believe it is assumed the Zimmerman note is what is triggering American entry; under your rules, the US could plausibly be kept out of the war indefinitely. This would cause some serious balance issues…
Declaring USW should be something that you as Germany really have to consider,
and has to be worth bringing the mighty US earlier than R4 into war.I’ll go a step more realistic, the US shouldn’t be allowed to declare war until it has been hit by unrestricted sub warfare at least once, if not twice.
-
RE: Larry Harris: 2-Space-Movement & other ideas
It feels simple, which I like. Much easier to explain to new players than Strategic Movement.
-
RE: Cow guides polling
@Cow:
I tried to do something for the allies, but it proved to be very difficult. G1 and J1 dice results and purchases vary heavily.
The best I can do is give overall strategy stuff.
That is understandable. Perhaps you could give an overview of various Allied responses to common Axis openers? (I.e. best defenses against India Crush or Sealion?)
In any case, thanks again for the Germany/Japan playbooks, and keep the good work!
-
RE: Cow guides polling
Picked up Europe/Pacific 40.2 a couple weeks ago, and running through a few of your openers was extremely useful. Thanks for putting in the time and effort!
I’ve got my fingers crossed that you do something from the Allies’ perspective.
-
RE: Russia
Agreed. I’ve noticed the earlier Russia loses a stack, the faster they fall.
@Uncrustable:
Massing on Poland R1 would be a gift for the CP
Germany attacks G1 then AH joins in AH2, Russia has less reinforcements then do Germany and AH and must retreat, now Germany does not have to commit as many rounds of troops towards moscow -
RE: Rate AA1914
Maybe if I had put up a poll to find out what people wanted to see in a “Rate 1914” poll…? =)
Sometimes you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Forums are for opinions and you know what they say about opinions…
“Opinions are like A$$hol#$, everybody has one and they usually stink”…
:| -
RE: Rate AA1914
I think this poll is a little skewed because “good once rules are adjusted” covers a LOT of ground.
shrug Was just trying to get a general idea of what people thought.
-
RE: Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic
Great point about Spain, I hadn’t thought about that. Also, Britain could move North from India and be directly engaging Austrians by turn 3 with these rules. Oh, the possibilities!
@Uncrustable:
With this new rule i think it would be in the Germans best interests to kill Russia first.
They could send plenty of units to do the job and use strategic movement to pile on France once they have all the Russia tts.Also with this new rule France would have more incentive to take Spain as they could send an overkill of units to take it F2 and then strategic move them to the front.
-
RE: Ottomans first strategy
What do you think about possibly pulling the two German subs back to SZ 4? First, they wouldn’t have to dodge 2 mine rolls (and Germany has enough to kill Britain’s home fleet anyway). Second, you’re set up to make a joint attack on SZ 8 turn two if Britain should try to drop a fleet. A G1 build of a BB in SZ would help (a battleship could likely survive 2a mine rolls on its way to SZ 8).
I haven’t tried this yet, but it might help a Paris or Bust strategy (preventing British reinforcements to France).
-
RE: Who Wins
@Uncrustable:
Texas you did say that you would ‘bait’ the french into attacking lol
what does one do do achieve this in an axis and allies game? dangle bacon over the board?
Heck, I’d sign an armistice if bacon was involved!
-
RE: Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic
I see there is some debate as to calling it strategic movement or railroad movement but why don’t we just call it teleportation or ‘beaming’ like they do in Star Trek?
This made me laugh. Seriously, though, I think ships would HAVE to have increased movement in order for America to help the Entente keep up with the CPs railroading all over the map. Turn one, Germany will be able to cart a massive amount of troops to the contested territory of their choice (40+ troops?)