WOW! :-o
How do I get one? :-D
Here it is for 1 tech breakthrough
Yes, now we’re talkin!
It might also be interesting to see how things change if you buy 1 additional token per turn until you get a breakthrough. So, for instance, you get 1 roll on the first turn, 2 rolls on the second, 3 rolls on the third, etc. until you get something.
I do feel that a bomber is more effective when trying to take out 1 INF with just 2 INF and a plane, which Russia must be able to do.
Well, this is true. However, you are only about 3% more likely to take the territory using a bomber as opposed to using a fighter (96% vs 93%), and I’m not convinced that this is worth the sacrificing the fighter’s defense and those precious 2 extra Soviet IPCs.
I think there are basically 3 really good options for what to buy on I1:
My standard has been to buy the fighter. As long as Germany attacks Egypt (with the bomber), you can be reasonably sure that Italy will get collect both NOs on their first turn, giving them 21-23. So you don’t need to save for the carrier on I2, you’ll have the cash. With the fighter buy, you’ll have the carrier loaded as soon as its built, instead of having to “borrow” a fighter from Germany. Plus you can use the second fighter on I2 if need be.
The trans + inf buy is my preferred one, since it gets land units into Africa as quickly as possible. But it depends on what the UK does on their turn. If they have bombers, I’d rather not split my fleet up to protect the transport, so I wouldn’t buy it in this case since the fleet will be in sz15 at the end of I1. However, I find that often the UK loses its bomber on their first turn when they clear out the German Baltic fleet (so they can land both fighters on a carrier). In this case, as long as the Egyptian fighter isn’t still hanging around, nothing will be in range of the transport so you can go ahead and buy it without worry.
Lastly, saving your income could be good if the fleet is being threatened by bombers and you want to plop down multiple ships at once for protection when you return to sz14.
he U.K navy near gibraltar…1 dd et 1 cruiser…if still alive…they attack the Italian Navy with 1 bomber and 1 plane.
Yeah, you must kill that fleet in sz12 on G1 for this reason. At the very least, you need to kill one of ships, because you can’t guarantee that the Egypt fighter will be killed. Even if you bring the bomber to Egypt, that fighter is still ~20% to survive. With a dd, ca, ftr, and bmr attacking the Italian fleet on UK1, they have about an even shot at taking it out, which will cripple the Axis.
I’d say sz12 is a higher priority than the BB in sz2. You can do both, but then it’s a little thin and sacrifices must be made elsewhere. I’d rather have the bomber go to Egypt than to sz2, so I’m thinking its probably better to leave the BB alone on G1.
Wow this is pretty cool. Why not show it for 1 tech breakthrough though, as opposed to 2?
I am really pissed off about the History Channel changing into the “Not necessarily about History” Channel.
LOL so true. Kinda sad really :(
I really like the idea behind this. China should be an independent power, and Japan should not be able to wipe them off the map in a couple turns.
However, the Axis are at a severe disadvantage with these changes. Which is not good, because many people (including myself) feel that the Allies may already have a slight edge. Yes, there are more IPCs in Asia for Japan to conquer now. Yes, they have a capital to sack. But the this just does not make up for the fact that by the time Japan finally overcomes China, the Allies will be throwing a V-E day parade in Berlin.
I think you need to beef Germany up significantly for this to be balanced. In fact, I’m not even sure you can balance this without rewriting the victory conditions. But I do like the idea as part of bigger, all-encompassing mod, perhaps.
I think giving all ICs a limited production capacity was one of the better improvements made on the the classic A&A rules. However, the rules as they are now are still flawed IMHO. In a 3 IPC territory with an IC, you can produce a max of 3 infantry. Or 3 tanks. Or 3 bombers. Or 3 capital ships…
It seems to me that an IC cranking out guns n’ ammo for a few infantry divisions should have quite a different production capacity than one which is capable of constructing multiple BBs in a single turn (lol). So, instead of capping the number of units produced at an IC by the IPC value of a territory, why not let the total value of those units be the limiting factor?
Of course, production limits will have to be raised. So here’s what I’m proposing:
Multiple ICs in a given territory are allowed (use chips).
The production capacity, in IPCs, of a given territory is equal to the number of ICs in the territory multiplied by its IPC value.
The maximum damage that can be sustained from an SBR in a given territory is equal to the territory’s production capacity (rather than 2x the IPC value).
So, for example, an 8 IPC territory with 2 ICs has a maximum production capacity of 16 IPCs worth of units each turn. It could produce, say, 2 inf and 2 arm, or 1 ftr and 1 arm. However it could not produce a BB. If a 3rd IC was added, the limit would be raised to 24, and the BB could then be purchased.
I’m thinking the cost of ICs would also need to be lowered; maybe 10 would be appropriate? Another problem is that the starting setup would likely have to be modified to include additional ICs (especially for the Axis). However, it could be neat to have a more limited Allied war-machine at the start of the game. You’d be able to force the USA to invest in additional war-time infrastructure, before the Axis have to face the full brunt of their superior economy!
Additionally, I like the fact that low IPC territories are much costlier to develop than high IPC territories.
What do you guys think?
Yup, I can’t disagree with any of that.
I was merely pointing out that a direct cost comparison between the two is quite difficult.
2 trns only cost 14 ipc
Well this part isn’t exactly true. With TPs you have a very high up-front investment you need to make building up a fleet to protect the TPs, whereas you do not with the IC. This needs to be factored into their cost somehow.
Your other points are definitely valid though, and I agree with your overall conclusion about TPs being more effective.
no… since the baltic fleet is dead anyhow, one might decide to attack sz6 with the SS + CA instead a fighter.
I suppose that’s true.
Yeah, the NO only counts surface warships. Subs don’t count, sorry.
I have yet to find a use for that stupid sub. It must have been included in the setup as a joke or something by the designers.
Fighter from Egypt will have nowhere to land because Gibraltar was taken.
It can land in French West Africa, or alternatively, Moscow. That way it can be in either sz6 or Britain at the end of UK2.
Also, if you build such a massive airforce, the Italian fleet will probably stick to Sea Zone 13, meaning you can only hit them with your Bombers, causing you to lose most of them.
Well, 4 bombers still have decent odds to kill the whole fleet. But, more importantly, if the Italians are in sz13 they cannot threaten sz6 or the US east coast. I guess they could try to hit Britain with their single TP. :lol:
That’s assuming that on G2 Germany doesn’t simply move some or all of its forces to Sea Zone 6 or 7.
2 points: (1) I can still build in sz6 regarless, and (2) you need your fleet in the baltic to protect your TP build on G2.
The main problem is that I assumed that a typical British build would be navies, not airforce.
Yeah, I think this is it. A big difference with AA50 from other incarnations of the game is that bombers are extremely powerful due to their cheaper cost. They’re fleet killers. They’re support units. They do SBRs. They have the longest operational range of any unit. There are multiple techs which enhance their abilities further, inculding the best one in the game.
Perhaps they’re too good now? I guess time will tell.
Oh, and wodan, I’d be willing to play it out sometime if you want.
Perhaps you’d like to try it out on someone who hasn’t thought about how to counter it yet though, as Comassion points out. That way you’d keep any element of surprise you might have with this. :evil:
part of the beauty of this strategy is that the Allies are unlikely to see it coming the first time.
The UK and the US get to see both Germany and Japan’s opening moves before they do anything. With Germany buying all navy and Japan sending every single transport towards the US west coast, I think they would see the danger pretty quickly.
I mean, what else would 5 loaded TPs be doing around Iwo Jima?
I think this is one of those plans that looks good on paper when you’re playing solitare, but versus a good opponent who is aware of what’s going on, and will do everything in his power to stop you, it’s just not going to work. I suppose this might work on an inexperienced player, though, and it would certainly be fun to try out if nothing else. I just don’t think its “good” strategy overall.
Yes, ElCapitan is correct. The TPs only die if there is something left to kill them.
If you Build 5 Infantry and 5 Tanks, all of your starting money, they only win 75% of the time. Add in the Infantry from Central US as well and it drops to about 60%.
Not sure where you’re getting your numbers, but against a defeding force of 6 inf, 5 arm, 2 ftr, 1 bmr, 1 aa Japan is only about 38% to take the territory, not 60%. The US can make these odds even worse by sending in the EUS fighter, but let’s suppose they send it to Britain.
If Japan simply takes Canada, they will be… slaughtered by an Infantry/Tank force
Correct. So what can Japan hope to accomplish by doing this?
Whereupon Italy takes Western US instead
Nope, cause the Italian fleet is dead the moment it sets foot out of the Med. On UK1, they buy 3 bmr, 2 inf. If Italy moves their fleet as you describe, Britain pounds it with 4 bmr, 3 ftr (1 ftr from FWA, escaping from Egypt on UK1), winning easily with no fighter loses.
If Britain builds a navy on B2 to block Germany while sinking the Italian force, Germany simply destroys the blocking fleet and invades Britain
Uh, not quite. With the 1 IPC saved from UK1, they have 44 to spend UK2 thanks to the Axis opting not to attack british holdings in Africa, Asia, or the Pacific. They buy 2 cv, 2 dd and place them in sz6, along with the dd and fighters already on board. The US adds its dd and fighter on US2 for a grand total of 2 cv, 4 dd, 4 ftr.
So G3 comes along and, if we’re extremely generous and suppose Germany’s entire airforce is intact and in range of sz6, they have 1 ss, 1 ca, 1 cv, 4 ftr, 1 bmr to attack with according to your builds. That gives them at best 20% to clear sz6 for the invasion force. If they choose not to attack, we all know what will happen on UK3…
Why would they build Bombers to merely eliminate a Carrier group or two?
Ha, this made me LOL, sorry. “Merely” eliminate a carrier group or two. Good one. :roll:
If Germany loses all of its starting fighters and 28 IPCs worth of carriers, its GAME OVER. A better question to ask would be: why in the world would Britain not try to kill a German naval build immediately?
And America is able to do that how? Given that they lost 1 of their Bombers…
Ah, I missed that you’re taking out the bomber J1. By “West Coast” in the OP I thought you meant you were attacking sz56. My bad.
I still don’t see how the strategy is effective though. The US can simply plop down a stack of inf and/or arm on WUS, landing the fighters from Hawaii and sz44 there. Good luck taking it with only 8 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, and 6 figs. Then the moment you land in W. Canada your force is pre-emptively attacked and killed.
As for Europe, UK buys 3 bmr, 2 inf on UK1 as I mentioned, then if Germany bought more navy G2 (which they will have to), UK simply wipes out the Italian fleet in sz12 instead and drops a massive fleet into sz6 to box the German fleet in.
Have you tried playing this out before? Or is this all just hypothetical. Honestly, I don’t see how it could possibly work if unless all 3 Allied players are comatose.