Only time I ever waited until turn four to make a big move was when I went for Washington with the Germans, or Operation Cloverfield (someone on the board came up with this name but I can’t remember who).
Failed once, worked once
Only time I ever waited until turn four to make a big move was when I went for Washington with the Germans, or Operation Cloverfield (someone on the board came up with this name but I can’t remember who).
Failed once, worked once
I think four player is the best. As the Allies it’s easier to be on the same page and everyone has a more to do.
The setup I prefer:
Germany & Italy
Japan
Russia, UK, France
USA, China, Anzac
The USA player should control Anzac since they’ll be working closely with them.
I’m with Pancake on this one: it’s too much for Germany to try to do. I’ve never been a big believer in Sea Lion anyway, nor do I fear it as the UK. With good Russia and US play Sea Lion isn’t a threat (unless the UK player leaves absolutely nothing in London of course).
I can’t imagine a game where China would get five units per attack. Japan would not be able to make any progress in China and would soon find themselves in trouble, especially if the Allied player likes to use the Siberian troops to harass Japan.
Based on my groups’ games I don’t see how Japan would ever win in the Pacific under these circumstances
@Young:
The only problem I have with the AA idea is, wouldn’t battleships and aircraft carriers also have the same ability?
To some degree yes, but I think the real intent with the rule is to make cruisers specifically a bit more useful in the overall game dynamic. Carriers can launch planes, battleships take 2 hits plus have a great roll value. Cruisers are just not that special. Giving them the AA capability, even if historically shared with other ships, is a very small concession that is still accurate. Heck, even destroyers had AA capability though it was inferior to cruisers. I think that Marc is just pointing out that in A&A we assign characteristics to certain units based on their general purpose. (For example many cruisers had anti-submarine capability too, but since it was most commonly an activity for destroyers and corvette type ships… we assign that ability to destroyers.)
Cruisers and destroyers were generally the first ships to begin defending against air attack on a fleet as they would be positioned on the outer perimeter of the formations with battleships and carriers towards the middle for protection. So in that way, AA fire for a cruiser is very accurate.
Besides, the US Navy at the very least built Anti-Aircraft Cruisers. These were geared specifically for that purpose and had the armament to match.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta-class_cruiser
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juneau-class_cruiser
I agree with all of this. Make the cruiser ten, give them an AA roll and I’d start buying more
I’ve always been a fan of 10 IPC for Cruisers, but I’ve never heard the AA idea. That’s a great one.
I would absolutely pay 12 for a C if I knew I’d have AA hits in sea battles
@Shin:
I like giving Germany Southern France, Yugo, and Greece. Lots of options to go heavy Med if needed later on.
I share this philosophy. Italy is too small to spread out and take a bunch of territories. I’d rather let Germany take those and have Italy focus hard on one or two objectives.
One thing I do from time to time, if the board allows it, is drop guys in Syria and back it up with a couple of German planes. Throws the Allies off if Italy is sitting next to Iraq after one turn
Keep in mind the retreat rule is after one round of combat. What you’re proposing would more like attacking a territory, losing 3 planes on the AA roll and then saying “Damn, I’m going to withdraw before the battle.”
If the tac’s could withdraw before the AA hits then essentially it would just be a way to skirt the “only fighters can be escorts” rule
So just to be clear:
Q:
Can planes be sent as escort even if they don’t bomb? For instance, if I have 15 french strategic bombers in Paris, and I want to bomb the major factory in Western Germany, but Germany has 5 fighters there, may I send all 15 french strat bombers to take place in the air battle or to discourage one, but then after that only have 3 of those bombers actually bomb a facility and risk dying to AA fire, with all of the other bombers simply turning around and flying home on the non-com?Is the answer this?:
No, all French bombers in this instance must bomb a facility, and all must be subject to AA fire.
Your answer is correct. Once you bring the tac’s and commit them to the SBR of the air/sea base they are there for the long haul.
If my understanding of the rules is correct, and I didn’t misinterpret your questions, here are your answers:
1. Once you’ve committed to the bombing raid and rolling has begun you are locked into that.
2. You can bring TB’s to strike the air base and take them as hits against any interceptor rolls
Do people not find that, after a certain number of turns, the Central Powers have lost their window of opportunity to win?
With America fully commited, the Allies should always have the resourses to win if they haven’t already lost.
Have the CPs ever won a game of more than 10 turns, if so what were the Allies playing at?
Agreed. If the CP haven’t won the game by turn 8-10 just call it for the Allies.
@Young:
Japan has to almost have a perfect game to take India round 4 by not losing any land units on the islands and taking out ANZAC’s DD + TT round 1.� There are no guarantees in a dice game.
Exactly.� On top of that, even if Japan does take India round 4, how does it look on the rest of the board?� Japan can’t take India round 4 AND dominate the waters AND completely wipe out China AND take care of the Siberian troops (most games I’m using those units to attack Manchuria or Korea) AND completely control the money islands.�
If Japan goes all out to get India by round 4 the Allies can cause them a lot of headaches elsewhere.�
I think new players favor the Calcutta crush, while experienced players understand other priorities.
And I’ll fully admit that Calcutta crush can appear unstoppable to new players who find themselves on the receiving end
Japan has to almost have a perfect game to take India round 4 by not losing any land units on the islands and taking out ANZAC’s DD + TT round 1. There are no guarantees in a dice game.
Exactly. On top of that, even if Japan does take India round 4, how does it look on the rest of the board? Japan can’t take India round 4 AND dominate the waters AND completely wipe out China AND take care of the Siberian troops (most games I’m using those units to attack Manchuria or Korea) AND completely control the money islands.
If Japan goes all out to get India by round 4 the Allies can cause them a lot of headaches elsewhere.
Good memory! (That or I’ve said it way too many times)
Yes, I absolutely believe that a heavy US buy in the Atlantic turn 1 and 2, combined with heavy Pacific spending the rest of the way, is part of a winning formula for the Allies.
By the end of US2 the Atlantic usually looks like this if I’m playing the US:
8 loaded transports, loaded CV, DD, C (this can vary: maybe one less loaded transport and an extra CV or a couple more DD, etc. Depends what Germany looks like). From there I spend the rest in the pacific each turn, save for a couple of loaded transports, or men in a complex, etc.
I have to think that much focus on Russia would leave Japan too exposed in the water and on the coast.
I agree that a 4 turn rush at Germany is too much for the US. If you spend all of US R1 and most of R2 on the Atlantic map then you’ve done enough to combat a Sealion and make life tough for Germany. But if they don’t refocus their efforts on the Pacific after that then I agree Japan will become too powerful to stop.
I’m in CT. Willing to travel for games. My gf plays too and she’s always up for a game
I understand this doesn’t help you right now, but the gf and I are moving out your way next fall. Once we live there you’ll have two players
Agree completely. I’ve said it many times on this board: I like heavy Atlantic US buys in rounds 1 and 2.
At that point the key is for the little guys to pester Japan. I know there are those on this board that think if American focuses in the Atlantic for the first couple of turns Japan becomes unbeatable, but I disagree. China, Anzac, India and the Siberian troops can do enough to pester Japan until America goes heavy in the Pacific.
Not saying they’ll succeed every time, but it is definitely viable.
No, Japan is way too far away from Moscow to threaten anything so early. By the time they get close to Moscow, the Russians may already be in Berlin.
Soviets are usually stopped long before they reach Berlin
In a Sealion game? The only time I’ve seen Russia fail to invade Germany in a Sealion game was when the US did absolutely nothing to help in the Atlantic. If the US puts significant resources into the Atlantic early on then a Sealion is doomed to failure