Do you think if Japan hadn’t unlocked heavy bombers, the Allies could eek out a victory? I would suppose Russia would still fall to Germany, but with Japan toasted, the game might have been more of a toss up.
Posts made by TG Moses VI
-
RE: After Action Reports
-
RE: Tech with planes seems just way to over powered.
I think that’s why the Allies have such a tough time in this game. UK and USA require a blue water navy to operate. For certain Italy needs to maintain a fortilla, but Japan is so well insulated, being able to halt any American movements with planes or through factory building in Asia.
-
RE: After Action Reports
The Brits had a shamble of a game. They did good to protect their empire, but made some bad attempts in France and the Atlantic, losing their fleet towards the end to German Bombers and the Italian navy.
Why did Italy make the trip up to the Channel?
-
RE: Plastic Playing Pieces
Hobbes, those were succinct, laudable points that you made. I too am weary about adding new units to the game - especially beyond what is offered by the tech charts.
Another point to keep in mind is that several of us play A&A competitively, whether online or at cons. I would be hard pressed to see those tournaments accepting new units (fighter-bombers, bunkers, commanders, etc) not sanctioned under Larry Harris or Avalon Hill. Professional players would see little use of those units beyond the occasional “pet” game.
Anyways, everything that we speculated about remains just that, speculation. New pieces are still far, far away. It will be a year - at least - before we even see prototype molds.
With that said, I think the “correct” build order is:
1. Italy First
2. Other country specific units + unlockable tech units
3. New Custom Units -
RE: Plastic Playing Pieces
Yes. Everyone can agree, Italy First!
-
RE: After Action Reports
The next time you guys play as UK, I want a detailed AA report of how you implemented this strategy and what the results were for you. ;)
-
RE: Latest optional rules; escorting fighters & closed bosporus
I’m pretty sure fighters faired better than 2 for 1 against unescorted bombers (not that AA50 isn’t ahistorical in many ways however)
I’m pretty sure that AA guns hit at less than a ‘1’ in reality.
The main reason is for play balance. ;) -
RE: Latest optional rules; escorting fighters & closed bosporus
My idea for the Escort Fighters:
How combat is conducted
1.
- AA guns fire -
Attacker takes any causalities
- One Round of Fighter to Fighter combat only -
Both escorts and interceptors hit at a ‘2’
3.
- One Round of Bomber to Fighter combat only -
All surviving interceptors get one chance to fire at the bombers at a ‘2’
Bombers defend at a ‘1’4.
- Remaining bombers SBR -
5.
- Air Combat Ends -
This rule is a bit more complex than the officially listed one, but it doesn’t nerf SBR as much. It gives the defender an advantage, but only a slight one. Also, it feels more historical. ie, interceptors have to penetrate the escort screen, then attack the bombers, which themselves aren’t defenseless.
An alternative to this rule is that the defender must choose between AA shots OR sending up interceptors. He cannot do both.
-
RE: After Action Reports
Great minds think alike. :-D
I also had the same strategy in mind.This involves USA keeping Japan off balance by sending subs to the Pacific. It isn’t a full fleet, but forces Japan to extend. Secondly, USA must liberate Africa at all cost. Morocco is closer to USA than France. UK has the dual role of harassing Axis industry and navy, while also striking Germany where she’s weakest. Russia does what she always does.
I haven’t thought of a guaranteed way to sink Italy’s navy UK2. How’s that been working for you?
Yes, Italy is the key to the game. An invasion of the boot is far fetched. But we must focus on containing her.
-
RE: After Action Reports
My friends and I are conventional in our play. We passed over AAR, playing only a couple games, and now we’re big on AA50. We usually do not buy tech dice, unless a nation can afford the risk. At the start of the game, it still is not attractive enough to waste not buying units all out.
To me, this game is about tempo, just like chess. The Axis start out with it and the Allies need to come up with a big push early. I’ve seen US stack up Transports for a Euro-landing round 3 or 4. Germany can’t wait to pin Russia down by then. To me, the US and England need to get everything they can going on Round 2. I know this is risky, but then so is throwing everything at Russia for the Germans.
Taking Italy before France is viable depending on the board, but it’s also a big waiting move (tempo loss) seeing that it doesn’t really effect Germany financially.
Finally. Someone who uses the phase “tempo” correctly. :wink:
- USA cannot face Japan alone: they need chinese aid (China? rolleyes), UK aid (from were?, play 1942 or Revised) or soviet aid (Moscow is too far)
So KJF is not a viable move as it was in Revised
Several other reasons why KJF does not work:
-
Russia can’t do anything meaningful. The stretched Siberian front works both ways. The most Russia can do is send troops through China.
-
Japan goes before UK. This is HUGE. The Allies cannot dogpile Japan Rd1. And provided Japan knows ahead of time that the Allies will be pursuing some kind of Pacific first strategy, they can put themselves in good position to attack India J2.
-
The Axis make more money - especially Japan. By virtue this makes any KJF strategy more difficult to employ
-
Japan starts the game with too much beef. USA has to wait until at least USA2 (assuming all naval builds early) to match Japan’s starting navy
- Planes! Japan, I feel has, too many planes in 1941. This means they can stymie most Allied counterattacks.
By now, the only thing allies can try without axis mercy is try kill the italian fleet as soon as possible, but it’s costly if Italy buys enough boats. Only when italian navy is dead can allies really start trying landings in Europe
I agree. Stunting Italy’s growth may be the Allies best way of dealing with the Axis.
Perhaps USA focuses on keeping liberating Africa, while UK bombs Italy’s navy?
-
RE: After Action Reports
From a big picture view, the game really comes down to UK and Russia vs. Germany and Italy. And Japan vs. USA.
Japan > USA
Germany-Italy ??? UK-Russia
What makes the game so difficult for the Allies is that I’m not convinced UK and Russia combined can take down Germany and Italy. Germany is very strong in 1941. UK is strong too in 1941 and Russia does what it always does. Where the game comes down to is Italy. Italy is the wildcard. And with NOs, Italy grows too strong too quickly.
The main alternative is:
Germany-Italy < USA, Russia, UK (KGF)
This is the strategy most players are familiar with. But by leaving Japan unchecked, can the Allies win the game? I’m not sure about this yet.
-
RE: Plastic Playing Pieces
talking about changing the colours of the units is all well and good, but you have to keep in mind that if we change the colours of a nation, then we have to replace every piece that nation comes with in the standard game (instead of just adding to)
I believe FMG said that he’s looking to replace every unit type in A&A:50. That doesn’t mean each country specific unit will get a unique mold (I think that’s impractical), but we’re getting replacements for every single unit, Tin Snips. ;)
While it would be nice to change the color of a country (like Italy), at this point it would be more reasonable to stick with what we were given.
If every country kept their colors EXCEPT for Italy, I would be more than happy. Italy and Russia still look too much alike.
-
RE: After Action Reports
Looks like the Axis are rolling again. :roll:
-
RE: Plastic Playing Pieces
I agree with Constantinople. From a distance Japan and UK’s units look the same color.
I much rather stick with British khaki and Japanese yellow.
-
RE: After Action Reports
Hey guys, try to follow the formatting guidelines as closely as possible. This isn’t aimed squarly at you guys, but to everyone in general. It makes my life easier as well as everyone following this thread. Here’s the format.
Format
Title: MUST include Scenario played
Date:
Special Rules: Important
Victor: VERY Important
Game Length:
Bias: ImportantThanks!
-
RE: After Action Reports
Stoob,
You aren’t the only one. Based on the first 50 games played, the Axis winning margin has been 62%. Hopefully this will start to change now that better Allied strategies have been developed and players are learning to work in unison. But if it doesn’t, we’re in trouble.
TSS,
German began DOUBLE assault on London & Moscow and sucessfully taken both! London was taken by fleets with transport from both sz 5 and sz 12 with bomber carrying paratrooper. On Russian side, German pushed 3 tanks, 1 artillery, 1 infantry, 4 fighter, 1 bomber with paratrooper into Moscow, sacrificing its fighters to keep alive the land units. Too happy & forgot to retake France. Total IPC end of turn is 130+.
Twin assault. Haha. Haven’t seen that before. I guess paratroopers can have a dramatic effect on the game ;)
-
RE: Art Deco map
Agree, agree, agree with what everyone else has been saying. This thread is definitely hall of fame worthy.
Personally I prefer more “detailed” WWII era maps compared to Art deco, but you should’ve been hired as the art designer for Axis and Allies revised.
How did you make the control makers (the ones with the tiny flags)? If you can produce them in bulk, I would line up to buy a set. :-D
-
RE: Comparison of tech rolls: Classic vs. Anniversary
Great analysis Lema099!
It really puts into perspective the average cost of unlocking a tech vs. the average turn of unlocking.
Interestingly, you can compare unlocking a tech to purchasing and IC or aircraft carrier.
-
RE: After Action Reports
can find it here under Alternate setups folder:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=db7389213b434449d2db6fb9a8902bda
Moses, I believe you have no taste for those alternate setups. I can appreciate, you hold the game designer has achieved a delicate balance on his setup choices.
I merely find the alternate options fun to explore and experiment, perhaps discovering what the game designer saw, and the reasoning for his final choice for the setup.To me simplicity and balance defines Axis and Allies. People like add their own pet rules to the game, and that’s fine. But for me to bat one eyelash, that rule has to have simplicity and balance, as well as being worthwhile and fun.
I like the idea of invadable neutrals. They add a new element to the game, giving the invader a strategic as well as monetary value. What is the penalty for invading a neutral? Do you only have to defeat the native troops stationed there?
Tin Snips,
ah … this is incorrect (unless i’ve missed a major rule change). islands count as any other land territory. it’s one move to get off the island and into its corrosponding sea-zone. you aren’t already classed as in that sea zone
Read closer. Bluestroke stated this was an OPTIONAL rule. ;)