I’m having a hard time seeing where, with Alpha 3,
This is a significant part of our disconnect. I had never heard of Alpha 3 until a couple days ago and play with the original rules.
Absent Sealion, the only way the Luftwaffe threatens UK is strategic bombing if Germany builds the bombers. UK fighters have generally been sufficient to stop that in any game I’ve played.
Luftwaffe certainly threatens the US fleet seeking to make D-day possible. The US fleet will build quicker when IPs are spent on carriers & fighters than when IPs are spent on extra fighters in UK.
Now certainly board position means everything in A&A, and situations arise where US fighters in UK makes sense. But as a general strategy, I’m having a hard time seeing it.
How I go about this: US fighters to UK. If you are lucky and get longrange aircraft, this is much easier. So roll for tech a time or two.
UK is able to recover economically and begin preparing their army. Meanwhile, US is taking Med/Africa. UK sends in their force to the weakest point, while the US either does or bluffs an attack on Greece/S. France/Italy. After that it’s just finding the weak spot, landing with light losses, and hoping you hold.
Other than defending UK against Sealion, what is the purpose? US fighters need carriers for mobility. I feel the US should rarely build more fighters than it has carrier capacity.
If you’re an amazingly keen observer, tactician and strategist, in a normal game you can PREDICT with 80% accuracy the winner by about Round 7 if Barbarossa, Round 9 if Sealion. Of course, it depends on dice/the situation, but I think that’s the middle ground. For normal people, it’s probably Round 10/11.
I’d say that 20% margin of error is worth playing out. Only throw in the towel when there is no path to victory whatsoever. More than one victory has been snatched from the jaws of defeat through an incredible blunder by one’s opponent or an incredibly lucky major battle - and those are the games that are remembered.
If USA is going whole hog for the Pacific, it will quickly have a fleet sufficient to hold its own against the Japanese fleet as long as the Japanese aircraft cannot join the assault. As such, you want to be closer to the action than Queensland. Hawaii -> Caroline Islands keeps the pressure on Japan itself, which forces Japan to keep a large force at home defending itself. If the USA is in Queensland, the Japanese fleet is free to threaten the lucrative East Indies.
this idea is crazier than it actually happening but…
back in OOB europe, USSR took Berlin…via AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT!
he left his capitol lightly defended (something like 4-5 inf) and russia sacked it with 1inf, 1arm, 2 ftr, 1 tac & 1 BB offshore! lol
shame they took that tran away…
The exact same thing happened to me as Germany once. I failed to account for Russia being able to purchase aircraft carriers for planes to land on, thinking his planes could not reach from Leningrad. They could reach. I lost.
If you are playing until one side gives, I have lost while playing the Axis with Germany having conquered Russia in the same general situation you are describing.
KNP how many players do you play with usually?
And how long do those games of total annihilation go?
A buddy and I play head up until one of us gives (VCs are ignored), for which, both of us are so prideful that we won’t give until there is no possible path to victory.
Longer games can last for months of real time, with the board staying permanently set up in my basement awaiting our next free time. We are currently on our 19th game since it was released.
War Bonds – 0 Japan
War Bonds will generally pay off its cost with interest, so its always at least decent.
True that it is never worthless. However, since Japan is typically the wealthiest player in the game, a couple extra IPC a turn is less important for Japan than any other player. The crippling factor is the opportunity cost of not getting some other technology. Of course, what is Japan doing rolling on chart 1 in the first place?
Mechanized Infantry – 1 USA, 3 Russia
America doesn’t use Tanks much, and when they do, they are almost always moving 1 space. I question the wisdom of Russia buying that many Tanks at all. F
Mechanized Infantry for USA is pretty much only good for re-conquering Africa for the Allies, and then, keep shuttling troops through the Middle East toward Japan. The utility it gives in Africa makes it worth the money.
I don’t understand the way you play Russia. It pretty much only purchases infantry and tanks in every version of Axis and Allies I have ever played (along with just enough aircraft to get the job done) – and AA50 is no exception. Russia absolutely needs offensive ground units that can take a land and hold it, with the Russian tank force often rivaling Germany’s after several rounds.
I am very curious on what you spend Russian IPCs if not tanks and infantry.
Rocket – 1 USA, 0 Japan
Japan can grab the AA in India and bombard Russia. It can also move its other AA to Alaska or Midway. America can move an AA to Britain and Algeria to bombard the Axis powers. Also, can multiple Rockets bombard the same IC on the same turn so long as they are in different territories? That makes a significant difference in their power levels.
Multiple Rockets owned by the same player may not bombard the same Industrial Complex on the same turn. Germany’s Industrial Complex could, however, be Rocketed by Russia, Britain, and USA once each. Both USA and Japan have to invest quite a bit of effort to get a Rocket in position to attack.
Advanced Artillery – 0 USA/Brit/Japan, 1 Germany/Russia
I think you are under-rating their usefulness. They allow you to have an Infantry force that is almost as good on the offense as it is on the defense. Given that Russia starts with 35 Infantry and Germany with 19, its well worth it for them. Less so for the powers that operate mainly at sea and/or away from ICs.
Heavy artillery production has been a fool’s gambit. Slow units that don’t attack any better than the defending infantry is a recipe for disaster. Have you won many games against an equal opponent when focusing on artillery?
Jet Fighters – 1 Russia
Fighters are useful to Russia, but they really can’t afford them if Germany goes all out. They are more useful for long games.
In any game that is not decided in the first 2-3 rounds, Russia needs to have purchased at least a fighter or two. They must be able to trade territories on the eastern front.
Radar – 0 Japan
Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack. That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.
If USA is in a position to strategically bomb Japan, the game is over and the Axis should forfeit.
Shipyard – 1 Germany R1, 0 Germany R2+, 3 Japan
I agree with the Japan value. However, Germany can build Sub fleets inexpensively. Subs are generally safe from UK’s air force, and unless Britain has a Destroyer close by when they are built, will remain so.
UK spends the majority of the game with its fleet positioned to attack the Baltic Sea. It will crush subs as soon as Germany places them. If necessary, it can afford a 1 destroyer screen to be left in SZ6 while the fleet does other things.
There are situational times when purchasing a German fleet can work, and certainly if you start from the first round.
Super Subs – 1 USA/Japan/Germany R1, 0 Britain/Italy/Germany R2+
Super Subs are again quite uber. USA can use it to clear the pacific and keep it cleared, Japan can use it to keep USA at bay, Germany and Italy can dominate the Atlantic, Britain can counter-dominate. Britain and Italy, I think should be reduced to 1.
We clearly have a difference of opinion on the utility of submarines. I do enjoy the humor of Russia’s Red Oktober who has spent many games leisurely sailing around the world, visiting different ports of call.