Posts made by Umgar

@Cmdr:

I love nothing more as Japan or America than seeing my opponent putting submarines in the water because I know I can manipulate the situation to give me the edge no matter what happens.  You can’t block with submarines, so I can ignore any submarines you have and you cannot run submarines past my destroyers on picket duty, so I can block your fleet to my advantage.

As Japan if you spend enough time and $IPC to build an entire “picket line” of destroyers to counter a handful of US subs then the subs have done their job and the US has won that battle.

The point of the US throwing subs into the Pacific theater is not to take down the Japanese navy; it’s three things:

1. force Japan’s ships into a defensive/consolidated posture which is less flexible on offense and more importantly slower to expand.
2. force Japan to spend $IPC on something other than the land war in Asia
3. do #1 and #2 as cheaply as possible and make it cost more for Japan than it costs the US

I have a similar experience as a previous poster; games where I’ve seen the Allies win were KGF.

~However~ in the games that were decisive Allied victories the US did not ignore Japan, they spent a portion of their IPC’s to harass Japan in the Pacific. How do you best do this as the US?

Subs.

and later in the game… subs + bombers.

Just building 3 subs off the US west coast for the low price of $18 on US1 causes a serious headache for Japan. First, if Japan went for a US aggressive strategy on J1 that left their carriers deep in the Pacific, placing subs off the US west coast forces an immediate retreat. Aside from that scenario a couple of subs per turn changes the tactical situation in the Pacific dramatically. Japan can’t send transports around the pacific theater willy-nilly unescorted (unless they’re OK with sacrificing the transport… but this results in a net positive IPC trade for the US). Otherwise Japan has to keep their fleet consolidated into 2 (maybe 3) groups; meaning much less flexibility and slower expansion. Japan is also forced to build destroyers to counter subs, and destroyers cost more than subs so again this is a net IPC gain against Japan.

In the end subs in the Pacific become a money-grinder for Japan. They have to spend $IPC to replace lost transports and build otherwise useless destroyers. Every $IPC spent by Japan to counter a US sub is an $IPC not being spent on land units into China/Russia. Meanwhile, the US still has plenty of $IPC leftover to send troops into the European theater and take down Germany.

US subs seem like the most “bang for the buck” way to slow down Japan while the Allies methodically take Germany apart… my .02 ;)

Now that I have a handful of AA50 games under my belt my feeling is that the game is fairly well balanced (at least the 1941 scenario, have not played any 1942 yet).

Axis are set up to get an early lead on overall IPC generation but the Allies are placed in a better position to work together to slowly wear the Axis down. My take is it’s a game of patience and careful planning for the Allies and a game of balanced aggression for the Axis. I’ve seen an equal number of Axis and Allied wins in the games I’ve played.

Technology, however, can completely ruin this formula :)

I’m still on the fence on whether or not I like tech in the new version… I definitely like the new implementation where research you buy is “banked” between turns if you miss your tech roll. In the previous edition of AA I rarely spent IPC’s on tech unless I was already in an advantageous position and could afford to just throw away 20+ IPC’s on a gamble. Under the new system small incremental investments will eventually pan out and get you something.

Sounds great on the surface but this is a double edged sword. You can count on at least 3 powers having at least 1 tech by turn 5 (if not more and sooner). It definitely makes for some interesting/varied games which is good but there are some (in my opinion) broken tech/power combinations which effectively end the game for the other side if obtained at the right time. This is not fun to play against, especially when you’re talking about a game where the short version can easily take 6+ hours.

Example: Either Germany or USSR gets mechanized infantry on turn 1 or 2. Pretty much game over for opposite side unless they get lucky and score an equally powerful combo.

Even so I still like playing with tech; I just don’t feel that this particular part of the game is balanced. There are certain combinations of powers/techs that are clearly broken and can just about ruin the fun of the game for everyone playing.

From my experience Germany can only do one of the following on G1 (it can attempt to do more of these, but typically will either outright fail or barely succeed; losing too many forces to actually hold newly acquired gains and then be back in the same boat on G2).

Germany’s choices are:

• Take and hold Karelia

• Obliterate the UK Atlantic fleet

• Take and hold Egypt

To do any of these 3 things well, the German bomber must be committed. Otherwise the attacks are very risky. The Egypt attack is dicey even with the bomber but will usually succeed with at least 1 tank left, and arguably that’s all you need to roll most of Africa.

In any case… my point is if you want to take and hold Karelia on G1 - yes it can be done. However, in order to achieve this you must leave the UK Atlantic fleet partially intact and/or forget about taking Egypt on G1 (you might be able to soften it enough for Italy to finish the job… but it’s very risky leaving that UK fighter alive in Egypt).

So ultimately it comes down to what you think is the lesser of 3 evils. You can only do one of the 3 things above well.

Anchovy, thanks for the tip on VMware Fusion. It’s working great!

Now I just need an opponent  :-D  If anyone is interested in an AA50 '41 NO’s + Tech game PM me.

I’m looking for an opponent for an '41 AA50 game (NO’s and Tech). This will be my first forum game so I appologize in advance if I make any newbie mistakes. I’ve read over many of the games on the board to familiarize myself with the etiquette/procedure of forum play and have ABattleMap ready to go.

As far as actual AA50 play… I have plenty of games under my belt, just no forum play yet ;)

PM me if interested.

That is a pretty elegant solution if you think Bombers need to be nerfed.

I’m not convinced it’s needed though, I need to play more AA50 games before I make up my mind on technology. Based on my initial plays I see some techs that are weak compared to others, but none that stand out as a clear-cut best. It all comes down to which power rolls it and what stage of the game. Many of the techs have the ability to be game-shaking provided they are rolled by the right power at the right time.

In the last game I played the German player rolled radar on turn 1 o.O  Let me tell you it is a lot harder to slow the German advance when the allies cannot IPC-bomb the Germans every turn.

Similarly, have you played a game where Japan got jet fighters on turn 1? Almost makes you want to concede right there and start a new game…

Howdy all,
I’ve just discovered the axisandallies.org community and am anxious to get into some online games. Just curious if there is a way to play AA50 online on a Mac (other than bootcamp + dual boot Windows of course  :-P )? From what I can tell ABattleMap is Windows only.

I have a PC but would really prefer to run it on my Macbook so I can take it with me :)

Thanks!

Umgar