It’s more like Lizards of the Coast since they only think with the reptile brain which always wants to eat (make money).
Posts made by spectre_04
-
RE: Disapointed
-
RE: Allied game plan VS J1 all out attack
Vareel,
Although this is a bit off topic since it happened in a J3 attack game. Since my opponent went for India and china all out, which he got of course, I was able to build up quite an anzac fleet. What I did was purchase a sub on Turn 1 and save the 4 bucks. Then I purchased a destroyer on T2 and saved the six. Finally I purchased and ANZAC carrier on turn 3 with the 16 IPC’s. So I had a fleet of 1 TR, 2 DD, 2 SS, 1 CV with 2 Fighters on the end of turn 3. Since Japan had not taken India yet (due to awesome Anit aircraft rolls by myself!!) Australia was not threatened, so I did the same thing again. It’s turn 8 now, and although I don’t have any additional land units in Australia, I have a fleet of ANZAC 1 TR, 2 SS, 2 DD, 2 CV and 4 fighters plus a US fleet of 3 CV, 1 BB, 1 CR, 2 DD, 2 TR, and 3 Tac bombers and 3 fighters all parked off the shores of Queensland.
Although Japan has a huge fleet, I mean huge 6 CV, 4 BB, and all sorts of smaller ships, I plan on using this combination to move in conjunction and threaten the Islands and Asian Territories Japan has captured. Japan technically is making more money than the US, so eventually he will hit Australia or Hawaii and win a victory of attrition on me. I have to get aggressive and creative to draw him back from the other victory cities. Im hoping the ANZAC fleet will help with taking and holding Islands. -
RE: Triple A is AWESOME
Any updates on if AA 50 (anniversary) 41 and or 42 has a stable version with a lobby yet? Also, is anyone working on AA Pacific 1940?
-
RE: Movies to watch while playing AA
I Love Stalingrad and old Sam Peckinpah’s “I will show you where the Cross of Iron Grows”. STEINEEEEEEEERRRRRR!!!
-
RE: Convoy quirk QUESTION
Can a ship be used both in a combat move and also to disrupt a convoy in the same turn?
That’s the way I have been playing it although I am not the ultimate source. The question came up in my game last night and after combing the rulebook and the FAQ we couldn’t find anything saying you cannot. If your sub is submerged then it cannot be “on station” but if it is surfaced and survives the combat phase then it can be put on station at no penalty.
It says somewhere that you have to “declare” that you’re disrupting the convoy. Is this in there to clarify that, if not at war, you can be in that sea zone and NOT disrupt the convoy? In other words, once everyone is at war with everyone else, is officially “declaring” disruption necessary, or can i just move my ships around in the non-combat phase with the assumption that any ships in enemy convoys automatically disrupt things? This might just be a matter of house-rule-etiquette, but just wondering
I believe you are correct about the first part of your question and announcing whether or not you are “on station” or not early in the game involves whether or not you want to provoke war, or just be in a convoy sea zone. For later in the game I think that you still need to announce whether or not you are on station because it would be your responsibility to remember to do so. If your non combat and collect income phase are over and you have not declared any ships or subs “on station”, then you cannot go back and say they were later when it’s your opponents turn.
-
RE: Borneo airbase
Well I can’t say I disagree with you Flashman.
I don’t know if they rushed it or Wizards got sloppy or what. I am sure that many of us on the Forum would wet our pants to get a hold of any new version of an AA game and play test it like a beta version before its officially released. Knowing WOTC though I doubt they would ever do something like that, they wouldn’t want to give anything away for free or cheaply, they also wouldn’t want to create any special collector item by doing it, and I would guess they are probably overconfident in their own R&D playtesters (do they even have any for Axis and Allies?)Perhaps they cleaned house when they acquired Avalon Hill, I have noticed some new names in the rulebooks lately.
-
RE: Allied strategy to get U.S.A into the war AFA report
I don’t have anything personal against national objectives, I was just leaving them out of my first few games for simplification to learn the new mechanics and strategies first. If NO’s are not optional I suppose I had better start playing with them, being that I want to be competitive in tournaments and must therefore play by standard rules, even though house rules are often very fun. Didn’t think about the “wartime economy” being a national objective, but there it is in the rulebook, I stand corrected.
-
RE: Scramble from airbases
I would have to agree with Autarch on this one.
The coasts of the USA and Australia were vast when compared to some of the tiny pacific islands. If you look at the aerial photo’s of places like Iwo Jima and Tarawa the entire Island was basically the airfield and AA and other defenses. The Idea of the scramble off the Island is to allow airpower to protect your fleet when it is cruising off the coast of the Island and serves as a carrier that can land unlimited aircraft as well as bombers (although they don’t scramble). The extra range bonus given by the airfield also makes the aircraft’s movement operate as if they were on a carrier in the surrounding sea zone. The airfield also helps the defender to keep the island by making it more difficult to destroy the surrounding and defending naval fleet for the invader before they can land any units to attack the Island. This is also advantageous because you can now park a fleet outside of your island airbases and reinforce it with fighters and tac bombers much faster than ferrying infantry to it by transport.
I think that perhaps it would have been better to have created maybe two types of units, the airdrome and the airbase. The airdrome would operate exactly as the current airbase does in AA PAC 1940 giving the scramble ability on Islands only as well as the +1 movement bonus. The new “airbase” would not allow scrambling but would give a +2 to aircraft range if they flew two and from an airbase or airdrome, using the airbase either upon launching or landing. This airbase would be more useful in light of the inability for scrambling on non-island territories, especially in the upcoming Europe with UK, Moscow, and Germany. I would guess it could be developed into a house rule with Airdromes being cheaper, 12 IPC’s I guess and Airbases remaining 15.
-
RE: Convoy quirk QUESTION
Once your at war, I have found it possible and advantageous to attack with subs or a minimum of surface vessels (1-2 destroyers) and subs in convoy zones containing enemy vessels on either sides combat phase. So long as you win the engagement (which is usually minor and sometimes just a transport murder) you can have your sub stay on station and then it is up to your opponent to knock out your sub and or surface ships to save his convoy or not. I also see how a sub/destroyer team is also very powerful because it not only allows you to take 2 IPCs from the convoy with your sub being on station but it also allows you to block with your destroyer. Blocking I have noticed is a big part of this game since you have longer range fleet movements due to Naval bases and also because of the lack of the combat air patrol ability.
-
RE: Movies to watch while playing AA
Everyone should watch a Russian film called “Come and See” about partisans in Belourussia. Extremely graphic, it is published by KINO and is available through Netflix.
-
RE: Borneo airbase
Yes Razor, you are right about that, we made a setup error. I also couldn’t agree more with you about constantly reading and updating the FAQ. These games are so complex that it takes a while and allot of playing to work out all the kinks.
-
RE: Allied strategy to get U.S.A into the war AFA report
perhaps its not a good Idea to move Brits into the Dutch colonies since I am not playing with National objectives. I am think about building a minor factory and naval base in Alaska and an airbase in the aleutians, giving the US a staging and striking position against mainland Japan.
Thanks for all responses. Playing a rematch tonight. Merry Christmas.
-
RE: Allied strategy to get U.S.A into the war AFA report
The game was played 1 on 1 without national objectives. I was also shorted teh BB and transport in malaya due to setup errors. Japan did take the Dutch colonies but only after Anglos had attacked them.
Vareel, If Japan attacks the Dutch zones, then US is at war with Japan correct?
-
RE: Question about Political Situation
One more thought.
If Japan does not attack any Allied Power through Japan’s first three turns it’s possible, although very unlikely, that it will only be at war with United States at that point. If Britain/ANZAC refuse to commence hostilities against Japan and Japan does not attack them or the Dutch either, only the U.S.A and China would be at war with Japan come round 3.
My point is… maybe the British/ANZAC player should be patient (if possible) and let Japan attack first– because a Japanese attack automatically brings America and its huge income into the war, too.
If Britain and/or ANZAC attack Japan first, Japan can retaliate without provoking the U.S, therefore limiting the U.S IPC income until round three.
I couldn’t agree more!
-
RE: Borneo airbase
was UK able to buy a battleship? You dont mean the cruiser that they start with do you, or did I set up wrong and does UK have a battleship outside india?
-
RE: So how do the Allies win again?
Please see my new post about playing the game as the Allies (lost) 1 on 1 with a familiar opponent, without national objectives.
-
RE: Why wait as Japan?
Please see my new post about playing the game as the Allies (lost) 1 on 1 with a familiar opponent, without national objectives.
-
RE: So how do the Allies win again?
Please see my new post about playing the game as the Allies (lost) 1 on 1 with a familiar opponent, without national objectives.
-
Allied strategy to get U.S.A into the war AFA report
This is my first post and my first AFA for PAC 1940.
I played my first game of AA PAC 1940 tonight against my best and most frequent opponent as the Allies vs the Axis. Loosing to Japan on Turn 8 (forfeiture).
I was playing against an enemy I knew well, tactically and personally. I was at a slight disadvantage because he purchased the game this time, it was his turn, and had it for a week before I ever got to see it. To better prepare myself, and due to the lack of a PDF rulebook from WOTC (get on that guys!) I read as much as possible on here about the game and strategies. I knew he would play as Japan, and most strategies on the website dealt with strategies for Japan, so I decided to base my strategy around how my opponent usually played in the origional Pacific game. This was ultimatly a major mistake primarily because of being too agressive as the anglo’s and china and my inability to get the US into the war until turn 4.
My opponents traditional pacific strategy was to go all out for india, whilst simultaneously conquering as many valuable islands and making his primary objective the capture of Calcutta (capitol in the old game), secondary objective Victory points, and perhaps some faints towards Australia. As all of you already know, that dont work in this game!
I had read many posts that advised Japan to attack Asap or sooner than later. Assuming this would be his strategy I began very agressively as the Chinese and the anglos. Japan inded Dutch and French territories on his first turn as well as hitting the Burma road. On the allied first turn I made the tragic mistake of attacking Japan and giving them the advantage by allowing Japan to fight the Anglos and China while US was helpless.
Japan did go for Calcutta and took it more easily since I spent so much material attempting to keep the Bhurma road open. I recognise this as a mistake now because I never even got to buy an artillery for china! Although Japan had to sacrifice lots of airpower, they cut the road every turn until they took the whole mainland. They were also now free to take as many valuable Islands (save the philipines) as they wanted.
I now think (just based on my very limited experience), that the allies need to bait Japan into attacking them first and getting the US into the war or else suffer a lower income early in the game. Although there were some good battles and I did some good defenses, it was only a matter of time before Sydney fell and the US couldn’t stockpile fast enough while having to send so much to the slaughter trying to save Australia. It looks like the allies are hurt very badly by having all of Britain falling, especially just when the US finally gets into the fight on turn 4. I thought that aggression would help and the Bhurma road would be worth the sacrifice in the begging hoping that Japan would attack the US, however if Japan does not attack the US, they can easily focus on either Sydney or Calcutta (probably not both) and have no challenge from the US until too late. the whole time Japan was gaining IPC’s in Asia and the indies the US only got the pitiful 17 bucks! Although I am not disrespecting anyone’s strategy here, I don’t see how it is helpfull to attack the Allies as JApan the first turn. Granted, I have only played once, but next time as the Allies, my preffered side, I will do my best to make it incovenient for Japan to not attack, only giving them china and the nonplaying territories and thus a low income as well. I ended up with the worst situation, Japan got way more money and the US didn’t get in the game until way too late.
THoughts??
-
RE: Movies to watch while playing AA
I would think only allied players would prefer Downfall right?