@axis_roll:
Yep, Germany turtles up with ftr support from japan, Japan wins the game (just like the old days)
except it’s a LOT easier for Japan these days. Easily over 70+ IPCs per turn… Godzilla she is!
Tsunami is also a good Japanese word to use as an analogy. Especially if the Allies completely turn away their attention.
The ratio of strength of air power to naval power is much higher in AA50. Perhaps too high.
Battleships should get additional anti-aircraft capability to make their purchase worthwhile, like an AAA shot or something.
Not neccessarily. I think that it is one of the ways that Germany can defend against mass Allied SBR campaigns. You aren’t going to be building bombers for SBR’s if you can’t land units to take advantage of them.
I understand the need for the Allied Atlantic fleets to be properly defended against Axis air power but, if you alter the rules to make it easier for one you may be just tilting favor to the other side which you will then have to fix by adjusting the rules again.
@Mazer:
But there are a few things I’m sure of:
- Without some mod, SBRs should be done every round to maximum damage. Bombers are very cheap, the ROI is excellent, and once a power is taken out they supplement other attacks.
But here’s the thing: SBRs are the element of the game with the least skill and the most dicey outcomes. If SBRs are good then you should always do them, and then there is just a questions of who gets lucky.
That’s a lame strategy game.
The fixes I’ve heard just make SBRs more gimmicky. The escort rules detract from strategic game play because with expert play people will either park ftrs on an IC or they won’t. It won’t be an interesting strategic element.
SBRs should be disallowed.
Yes, SBR’s are profitable. I believe that it is roughly 5 IPC’s per bomber purchased. But there are things that offset the benefits to one side or the other.
SBR’s work both ways. And both sides have countries that can spare the income to conduct SBR’s. If the Allies are building bombers against Germany and Italy, what is stopping Japan from doing the same to Russia?
And Germany has a large enough initial income to have a large aircraft purchasing plan. While maybe not being able to make advances, they can at least keep the Russians at bay. If the Allies are building for an SBR campaign, then they could have problems trying to keep control of Africa because their shipping is at constant risk. And once it finally gets to the point that Germany is unable to maintain the air purchase plan then they can also shift to using their bombers to start SBR raids against UK or Russia.
I have always been a proponent of modifying the rules as a last resort. As much as I would like to find ways to keep bids to a minimum, if the game is unbalanced, then lets just go with a bid. At least that way there is potential for variety due to bid placement and then we don’t have to go and do things like sh*tcan entire sections of the rules.
- To say Italy can be reinforced from France is not to say it is “easy” unless you consider weakening France to be a good thing :-D
Now, why would the Germany player leave himself in a weak position in France when moving units into Italy? You are making an assuption that the Germany player is not smart enough to replace the units that moved from France to Italy. If Germany has to reinforce Italy to prevent an Allied landing, then it isn’t usually France that will suffer a loss of units, it’s the Russian front. And if it ever comes down to the point where reinforcing Italy forces Germany to leave France in a weak position that is susceptible to attack, then lets work from the assumption that the Germany player will simply abandon France altogether.
And that’s my point: there are 4 critical invasion zones in this version of the game: Italy, France, NW Eur, Berlin. That stretches the Axis mighty thin and wreaks havoc with NOs.
In this case, defending Italy, France, and Germany is identical to Revised. If the Allies are splitting their landings between Algeria and Europe then all 3 territories are defended and if the Allies are focusing in one direction or another either the units normally in Italy are used to bolster the Germany/France defenses or the Germany units are added to the Italy/France defenses. In any of those cases, the number of defending units doesn’t change, it’s their position relative to how much the Allies can land and where.
The exception is NWE. But, NWE is never defended. It is just traded if the Allies land there. And the Allies rarely have the opportunity to gain a foothold in NWE in the early portion of the game so it’s a moot point. NWE doesn’t become a problem until Germany starts collapsing in the midgame against a KGF, but that is simply the natural progression of the game and by then Russia is usually coming under heavy threat from the Japanese.
- I’m expecting to be a KIF player. I haven’t played a lot, but that sure looks like the weak link in the Axis chain. You can SBR them into oblivion and threaten them with significant force round 3 or 4. That’s gonna be a problem for the Axis.
That is one way to do it. I prefer to neuter the Italian fleet and reclaim Africa but then move on to Germany once that is accomplished.
- Spending US money against Japan is almost surely a waste. How much navy do you need to counter Japan? Certainly a lot. How much does it protect? Certainly very little. You can’t really stop Japan, and I don’t think that with a focused Japanese player you can even slow them down very much.
I never said that the US should spend money against the Japanese. Personally, I think that the majority of resistance to the Japanese in Asia should come from the Russians and the Russian supported Chinese.
An infantry here and there or an armor or 2 with aircraft based in Cauc or Russia to support both fronts can go a long way to slowing down or even temporarily halting a Japanese advance in one avenue and then be gone to threaten another while the Japanese are moving to reinforce the first position.
@DarthMaximus:
@U-505:
I don’t think we have played the game long enough to be certain that a Pacific strategy is not worth it. It appears that right now the Allies need some help in the form of excessive casualties by Japan on J1 for KJF to even be viable, but we need to explore every avenue thoroughly before we can solidly declare it’s not working, I think.
I’d agree, but wouldn’t necessarily limit it to J casualties. A poor Ger showing can also give the freedom to the US to go Pac immediately if they want regardless of how well J went.
Yes, but that lends itself more to KGF to take advantage of Germany’s misfortune.
@DarthMaximus:
I find ignoring Japan early may be the best approach. Barring bad dice or just plain terrible moves there is very little the Allies can do to stop their intial expansion (rds 1-3).
I disagree. I think that any units the Russians can spare from the German front from the beginning of the game should be immediately allocated toward stunting Japan’s growth with mobile units like armor and aircraft being especially useful. Since Russia is the hub by which all avenues of the game radiate, like I said before, it is easier for Russia to shift their focus to areas where the Japanese are weak and then be gone to threaten other areas once the Japanese have wasted enough time working to break that Russian roadblock.
@Funcioneta:
You cannot ignore Japan now, it’s a no-brainer strat invade Alaska with 5 starting trannies unless USA defends Pacific with some boats, and if Japan makes a solid foothold in American mainland, it’s game over
I have always said that the US doesn’t neccesarily have to build any navy in the Pacific and I’m still sticking to that belief. With a properly set up troop train from W US through WCan, it becomes more expensive to the Japanese than the US to implement the Polar Express.
@DarthMaximus:
I think Germany needs to take Kar early and hold, hopefully they can hold in rd 2 (rd 3 at the latest), otherwise I think you might stall out a bit too soon, which ultimately allows the Allies to box you in and then make it 3 on 1 vs. Japan.
I wholeheartedly agree. Germany must make an effort to claim Karelia from the beginning of the game and Russia must make it their number one priority to prevent this for as long as possible. If Germany makes it’s mind up to take Karelia, it will happen, but the longer the Allies can keep Germany from taking and holding Karelia, the better off they are. Even trading is acceptible, as long as germany can’t build there. Holding Karelia just opens up far too many income opportunities for Germany.
