So if a nation such as the United States is about to engage in an offensive battle against the Japanese fleet, are they permitted to send their air craft carriers into battle? I understand the rules say that fighters move independently of carriers in the combat movement plus, carriers have no attack value but I’m not 100% sure of this rule myself. If so, do the carriers have to remain undamaged in the battle to land the aircraft?
Posts made by TheDesertFox
-
One more Question on Carriers and Sea Combat
-
RE: How would you stop this?
Wish I had a time traveler to take us into the 1950s now that you mention it… problem solved at that point. I actually managed to figure out a solution myself that involved… well… retreating, as the Russians.
-
How would you stop this?
How exactly would you as the Russian player stop this? It’s currently R3 right now and they have a multitude of things they can do however one small blunder or one mistake can cause the downfall of the Soviets on the first turn they’ve been attacked. Any thoughts?
-
RE: Allied Transport Q
Scenario B would be correct. The rules specifically say that while it is legal to onload troops onto friendly transports, they must onload on your turn, and may only be offloaded on your next turn. The U.K may not offload the troops for you or you may not hop scotch using a transport.
-
U.K 2 Economies Question
So as I understand it, the UK is one nation, one army, but two economies split between the Pacific and the Europe side of the board. If units from the Pacific side (let’s say India) take a transport that starts on India over to a pro allied neutral (Persia) and capture the infantry and territory, does the territory marker go to the Pacific UK or the Europe UK? I would imagine it goes to the Europe UK since its on the Europe side of the board however I’m not 100% and dont want to assume.
-
RE: Stopping the Allies?
Exactly, it strictly becomes something that just isn’t efficient but may work if you actually tried it, I dont know. Point is, should the U.K set up a task force in the Atlantic then the Germans would need to build up a strong enough force close to Moscow to make one final assault whilst building up an airforce and somewhat of a navy to stop it, other then that the U.K have much more free range then what they would in global 40.
-
RE: Stopping the Allies?
An interesting and definetely new opening, I may just have to try it sooner or later. My only point that I would put into question is the act of attacking sea zone 12 with 2 fighters since granted while removing those two ships from the board would be beneifical, you’re also heavily costing your own much needed aircraft.
I think really one of, if not the only way you could defeat/halt the UK is to invest heavily in a powerful airforce solely meant to attack British vessels in the Atlantic to slow down transport shucks. Essentially, prevent them from landing in Norway/Finland at all costs, but then the other question comes into play as to how long could they afford to do that before the Russians arrive?
-
Stopping the Allies?
I used to think the Axis in the 1941 set up and even the 1942 set up as well were unbelievably strong to the point where the Allies could never even dream of countering them, however the more test runs I have made with the Allied nations, the United Kingdom in particular, the more I’ve come to realize just how strong they can truly become.
To start off with Germany, really you can only effectively destroy the British vessels in SZ 2 and 4 while the other ships remain for the most part out of your reach to the point of overextension, leaving them with a suitably sized navy to build up with from the get go. The other problem that I have found happen a countless amount of times is Germany’s inability to hold Leningrad properly. This is not because of the Russians liberating it by any means, but the British liberating it by means of taking Norway and Finland after they’ve already destroyed the Baltic fleet. Once Norway and Finland are seized that’s a whole entire 5 IPCs that you will essentially never get back and on top of all that, your chances of taking and holding Leningrad drop exponentially. The problem with the Germans that many others before me have highlighted is they simply do not have the means to fight the British on their turf in the Atlantic. Egypt is another problem as well. While the Germans are capable of taking it on G1, it is a rather tedious gamble that could cost you a multitude of essential units that could have been better spent holding Northern Africa from the Americans when they land. Setting the United States aside, the British have the ultimate authority and jurisdiction of containing the German War Machine down to it’s last atom.
In regards to the Pacific front, really it’s a coin toss in a way. Although I strongly dislike the idea of Japan pulling the classic lightning strike on India by turn two, allowing for an industrial complex to be built on India is signing away your chances of winning in the Pacific. I’ve found that the Americans alone do not have a force adequate enough to take on the Japanese, which is why I experimented in building a British fleet composed of multiple carriers and a battleship and some other smaller vessels in the Indian ocean. This fleet in particular was meant to act nothing more then to act as area denial for the Japanese in places like the money islands and the Philippines. Not only that but the British with national objectives are capable of outproducing the Americans in IPCs handedly making them a threat to the Axis powers alone.
So all in all, I want to know that if an industrial complex on India was in fact built, would there be a way to stop the Allies? Any suggestions and things I may have missed are welcome.
-
RE: A question on components.
Oh you know what you’re actually right on that, my apologies for the historical inaccuracy, even still the F6F Hellcat was manufactured in large numbers even before that, though that fighter was used primarily on carriers and in the Pacific front of the war to counter the Zero.
-
RE: Allies strategy
Even if you lose Karelia G1 by the Germans the UK landing in Norway and Finland will be inevitable so it won’t be permanent.
-
RE: A question on components.
@leebear said in A question on components.:
@thedesertfox
I’ve done 8 battleships and 8 carriers for both the USA and Japan. Probably half that for everyone else. I’ve done probably 20 fighters for each as well.
That 1941 set is a nightmare in terms of limited pieces. I ended up combining 2 sets but since then I’ve swapped a lot of pieces out for the unique, nation specific sculpts. I actually like the 1941 game for its simplicity though. The fact that you can’t build IC’s actually keeps navies relevant for the whole game. (Particularly for Japan).yeah i definteely agree. I played that game throughout my beginnings of A&A with a friend of mine until I upgraded to Anniversary, then 42’, and finally Global 40’. I also forgot about those custom American fighters that I atleast thought were selling in Historical Boardgaming. They were the ones different from the P-38 Lightning, the other model was the Chance Vought Corsair, the plane with the bent wings. I honestly prefered those over the twin engine models since first off, those weren’t standard issue planes in the second world war, and second, I just think the Corsairs look way cooler.
-
RE: Allies strategy
To me Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia feel like “No Man’s Land” if you know what I mean. Eastern Poland for Germany is often what I would consider the base of operations for the Axis since any and all units on E. Poland can reach anywhere in the Soviet Union. All the same should either the Russians or the Germans enter into Belorussia or Eastern Ukraine it will make countering that with a consolidated force from either side all too easy.
One more thing, Germany starts with 6 tanks, taking all 6 of their tanks and hauling ass for Leningrad would be a rookie mistake and would very soundly hand the win to the Soviet Union, yet all the same that’s not going to stop the Germans from going heavy on it either.
-
RE: A question on components.
Only other piece variance I wish I had more of would be more German and Soviet tanks. Even though I dont think they exist, some IS models would have been pretty cool. Not only that but the Tiger tank, which does exist only in the 41 edition, only problem is there’s not enough of the pieces to go around.
-
RE: A question on components.
100%. As what you said with battleships I didn’t so much run out of battleships as I did aircraft carriers and fighters. As Japan I would consistently strive to have atleast 5 aircraft carriers on the board fully loaded with fighters already using 10 of my fighters. I typically dont like to divert fighters from my carriers to the land since that gets to be a bit tedious and too confusing so I typically will also like to have fighters strictly prohibited to land fighting. So in turn, having tokens on my aircrafts carriers to represent 2 as well as then having to put tokens on my fighters would make for a super confusing combat experience on the battleboard but it goes both ways as well with each piece.
-
RE: Allies strategy
Oh… and also just one last thing, while I was a bit reluctant to believe in the effectiveness of the infantry stacking strategy, I definitely see what you’re talking about though now after a recent playtest as Japan…
To make a long story short, I was attacking with roughly 7 infantry, 3 tanks, and 3 planes and a bomber against a stack of 12 Chinese Infantry, and well, it was an absolute formality against the Japanese. Seriously, the number of hits the Chinese were scoring against the Japanese beyond astounded me. Maybe there was a bit of luck in the dice but on the first roll, the Chinese scored 6 hits killing almost all of the Japanese infantry.
-
RE: A question on components.
There’s an overall abundance of each piece for each nation and each piece that I did run out of I simply supplemented with the 70 grey tokens that come with the game.
-
RE: Allies strategy
@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:
@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:
how are you supposed to effectively trade territories with Germany to slow their advance and limit their income?
I am not going to trade territories. Most of the territories you are talking about are worth $1. Why am I going to lose a $3 infantry for a $1 territory? Also, Germany has multiple planes! At least 4 to 5. Russia has 1, if you buy one. Therefore, Germany has a huge advantage in trading territories. Why play to their strength?
In terms of trading territories, from a technical standpoint, yes you would be correct. Trading 1 IPC territories wouldn’t be very cost-effective whatsoever. The only time I would see trading territories with Germany as being useful per se would be if it stopped a German National Objective.
Though alluding to the idea, I think what he’s trying to say here is when it comes to trading territories, it’s less about how much money you’re obtaining from it as a result and moreover how many German units you’re destroying each turn.
Ultimately, this is just a differing of play styles. You go about the wide and cheap angle of using infantry for defense, which there’s nothing wrong with that. All the same I, and I think Dom as well are more inclined to defend key areas and consistently find places to constantly counter-attack Germany in specific areas not just to slow their advance but to really make them prioritize on mobilizing a single unit that they’re running short on, for instance, tanks. And, from what it sounds like, to me it seems like both of these strategies would work just as effectively as the other so long as the Allies are doing their thing in Norway and North Africa.
-
RE: Allies strategy
Exactly as I thought before. See, I defintely see what you’re saying, it is absolutely clear that Japan starts off with a much bigger fleet then the United States but even so it’s better to build atleast something up then going in with absolutely nothing because as I’ve said before, the time will come for when you’re going to need to take down the rabid dog, and I’d personally like to do it with a little something to start with then absolutely nothing at all.
Now obviously from the beginning to mid-game, the United States won’t be in any position to take on the Japanese fleet, no questions asked. However, one thing I did discover is with the combined strength of a British task force in the Pacific, they can. This unfortunately is largely not possible due to the fact that Japan’s lightning attack on India is pretty much unstoppable. This is honestly why I much rather prefer the 42’ scenario because of the UK’s much better changes at placing a factory on India. Though without it, yes, ,you are correct. You’ll surely be outmatched by the opposing Japanese fleet without a task force.
Though with this I’m speaking from a personal experience that I’ve had playing against someone else. Yes, my American fleet was ultimately outnumbered when facing the Japanese fleet at the Philippines but with the British taskforce I mobilized made up of a couple of destroyers, 2 carriers and a battleship i was able to even those odds out, so it just all depends really, but from a technical stand point, you are correct.
-
RE: Allies strategy
@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:
@andrewaagamer said in [Allies strategy]
National Objectives: I think, while the game plays differently, with or without NOs both versions are balanced the same. I would want a minimum $6 bid as the Allies with or without NOs. $9 is perfect.
Please explain how NOs are balanced and not majorly in favor of the Axis. I’m legitimately interested in how you came to such a conclusion.
I know you didn’t ask me but it’s America so I’ll answer anyway.
A baseline that I think should be established is the core difference between the Allied and Axis national objectives. As we know, the reason we deem the Axis as having such a huge advantage with NOs is because of how easily accessible their national objectives are. The Allies on the other hand are limited to very select few amount of national objectives that they’ll always have, with everything else lying at the top of the mountain, to put simply, not as easily accessible as the Axis National Objectives.
The Axis, mainly Germany, can and will get their National Objectives quickly. They already get one for controlling core territories, they get one for controlling at least 3 of the 5 given states of the USSR, and one for controlling Stalin/Leningrad, one or the other. Part of what makes these NOs so easy to get is their quick and easy accessibility and close proximity to Germany. However, that still resides as a weakness to the Germans. Germany can and will lose these national objectives just as fast as they will get them. The same can be said for the Italians and Japanese. This right here is the prime weakness that the Allies are very much capable of exploiting.
The Allies, while their national objectives are more beyond arm’s reach, there is one core difference that should be noted. One specific NO that belongs to the UK is to seize any originally controlled Japanese territory. Granted while you may not do it right away, once you get 3-5 turns into the game it’s likely that the British will have pushed the Japanese out of French Indo China or the Americans landing at practically any one of the core Japanese islands territories such as the Caroline Islands or Iwo Jima. Once the Japanese have lost either of these territories or even both for that matter they aren’t going to have the means nor the strength to take it back because they’re going to have many other things to focus on. The Soviet Union as well can be used as an example. Granted while their 10 IPC national will remain out of reach for quite a while, once Norway and Finland fall to the British, that leaves only one territory left for you to take in order to get that national objective at least once, leaving the Germans on a much more precarious and difficult predicament. This right here is the overall theme of the Allies’ NOs and playstyle, once you start to gain some traction as the Allies your National Objectives will kick in, and trust me when the Allies get the majority of their national objectives they seriously start snowballing.
So just because the Axis get theirs quicker doesn’t necessarily put them at an absolute advantage. The Germans will lose Leningrad just as fast as they took it and the Japanese will lose any one of the out-of-reach originally controlled territories from the impending British/American threat, because like I spoke of earlier, the Japanese have a vast and wide sphere of power for which they cannot protect all of it at once. Honestly, if anything the Allied National Objectives are better than the Axis National objectives.
-
RE: Allies strategy
And yeah, I thought this was the case, I just wanted it to be confirmed that I was wrong or missing something about that. I can definitely understand that for ships since each ship gets a movement of two spaces but I feel like that rule maybe a little too stretched to apply to tanks. I feel like part of what makes tanks so important is their maneuverability and efficiency at getting from one place to another and if their movement stops even with one space left that just feels like a setup for which very few will look highly upon the unit as a whole.