@Krieghund Thanks! (For completeness, I should have been more clear in that Germany controlled Persia at the beginning of its turn in this example. i.e. there was/is a legal landing zone for the fighter)
Fixing the PowerEurope hole
-
@221B:
- Unlike a PE or PA bid, the Axis does not gain any territory (like Africa under a PA bid or Karelia, Ukraine, and possibly Caucasus under a PE bid) that it would not otherwise take and hold eventually anyway. Therefore there isn’t a great economic gain to be had from the bid alone. To gain extra territories and boost their economies, the axis will have to work for it (maybe the Japanese can afford to take Australia and NZ sooner but thats about it).
Don;t know what board you are looking at, but automatically, Japan is up an extra 2 from Sinkiang in J1. And they have the forces there to raid further very quickly.
UK is oing to be dropped by 7 IPC’s by the end of J2 (Australia, India, Persia), US is down 4, and Russia is down 4.
In J3, UK loses another 1, Russia another 2.But in J4, UK REALLY takes a hit as the Aussie TRN makes it’s way back to Africa, and the land forces marching across Southern Asia reach the Suez.
You can;t ignore Japan. To do so is to lose.
-
As to Agents question, Avin game me an idea, what if you make all bids Cash bids?
You may have to adjust it up to maybe a 27-30 bid or something because of the damage Russia can do, but here you have 59-62 IPC’s to spend on G1.
This might open up some options.
As to Power Asia,
Germany gets bottled up too early, and opens up the potential for Russia to turn her army against Japan, similar to our game NCS.
Example, Russia can kill baltic ships, strafe Ukr leaving them with only 1 ftr or 1 ftr, 1 arm, and protect Kar with ~15-16 inf, 3 arm, 2 ftrs.
That would mean G1 would be 6 inf, 5-6 arm + planes vs Rus stack. Russia holds easily.
R2 - buy 3 inf, 3 arm.
Still Hold Kar easily.
R3 - buy inf Retreat what you need to Mos. Now when J moves to Novo you can strafe the heck out of them with your inf, 7 arm, 2 ftrs.
I don’t think Germany can provide the needed punch to really threaten Russia allowing Russia to focus on Japan.
-
In the earlier version with USSR attacking Norway… no problem.
Against YOU…
I’d have to play it through, but, without a Sea Lion Scare I just MIGHT pucll it off…
-
Attacking Norway on R1 is a bad choice anyway IMO… Strafing Ukr is still the best move. Ukr will become a deadzone.
In a pure PAsia Germany is under heavy pressure too fast. First of all because you will lose more fighters on round 1. If Russia did wel your sub in the atlantic and the baltic fleet is gone so you are gonna lose fighters. So that will weaken FE… -
@ncscswitch:
@221B:
- Unlike a PE or PA bid, the Axis does not gain any territory (like Africa under a PA bid or Karelia, Ukraine, and possibly Caucasus under a PE bid) that it would not otherwise take and hold eventually anyway. Therefore there isn’t a great economic gain to be had from the bid alone. To gain extra territories and boost their economies, the axis will have to work for it (maybe the Japanese can afford to take Australia and NZ sooner but thats about it).
Don;t know what board you are looking at, but automatically, Japan is up an extra 2 from Sinkiang in J1. And they have the forces there to raid further very quickly.
UK is oing to be dropped by 7 IPC’s by the end of J2 (Australia, India, Persia), US is down 4, and Russia is down 4.
In J3, UK loses another 1, Russia another 2.But in J4, UK REALLY takes a hit as the Aussie TRN makes it’s way back to Africa, and the land forces marching across Southern Asia reach the Suez.
You can;t ignore Japan. To do so is to lose.
But Japan could take Sinking onJ1 if it really wanted to and in most games Japan gets Sinking on J2 or J3 anyway without a bid. Unless there is a PE bid, Germany almost never gets to keep Karelia, Ukraine and Caucasus. With a PAfrica bid, Germany can hold Africa for much longer than normal and perhaps even most of the game.
The ultimate growth of Japan in a PAsia bid (short of actually taking Russia) is the same as it would have been in a regular game. Therefore, in terms of an economic victory, or at least having economies greater than the allies (75 ipcs); Power Asia doesn’t work as well as PE or PA.
I’m not saying to ignore Japan, nor that a PAsia bid won’t work. I’m just saying it does not ramp up the Axis economies like the other types of bids.
-
How can Japan take Sinkiang on J1? I see no possible way… (assuming you can’t blitz trough India) So how can Japan reach Sinkiang?
-
How can Japan take Sinkiang on J1? I see no possible way… (assuming you can’t blitz trough India) So how can Japan reach Sinkiang?
On the Classic board, FIC and Sinkiang border each other in northwest FIC. So you can use your FIC ground forces (augmented through a Power Asia bid) plus AF to take India and Sinkiang. India falls to Kwang forces plus AF. Manch is retaken with Amphib and AF, or the Manch forces take SFE and/or Yakut (depending on stacks, etc).
On average, with a strong push by Russia in R1, using PAsia, Japan would be plus 7 after J1. After J2, they would be +10 to +12
Exception:
If UK does the Kwangtung Maneuver in UK1, then Japan is going to be slightly slowed in some areas, speeded up in others. For example, India falls easier (only 1 FIG max). Sinkinag may be delayed for a round while Japan re-takes Kwang. China still happens with the PAsia forces, and Manch is re-taken with the usual Amphib assault.BUT, trying to slow Japan on a PAsia with these two moves leaves the Allies wide open in Asia from J2 forward. Russia is spent in the east, and unless they divert forces, Japan takes SFE and Yakut on J2, Sinkinag on J2, Persia and Kazakh on J2. Australia on J3, New Zealand on J4. AND Germany is not going to get counter-attacked in Egypt on UK1, so Germany will take IEA, BC, and Kenya/Rhodesia on G2, Syria via amphib on G2, and South Africa on G3.
Yes, there are some counters to be considered here, but by the end of Turn 2, UK is going to be down to 18 IPC’s. That is going to reduce the number of UK trannies that can be in the water and filled each round… 3-4 trannies max. And Russia, while probably up Ukraine, will be down SFE, Yakut, and Kaz end of Turn 2, reducing their income by 1 INF division, and end of Turn 3 they are down 7, nearly a third of their income. Add in SBR’s from Germany and Japan, and Russia is not building much…
A PAsia build speeds up the run on Moscow by a round, and makes it far more powerful when the initial run gets there, meaning Russia has to pay more attention to it sooner, and drawing forces off the German front, allowing Germany to make a break-out attempt in G3…
BTW: I am rapidly becoming interested in playing someone this game! LOL
-
I like the idea of capping units per territory. But if it can be demonstrated that the 8 inf bid (split 4-4) can be easily beaten by the Allies, then it ceases to be a viable option.
It can be beaten but I don’t think beaten easily would be apt. Remember that a 4inf Ukr bid is still large and it should still require almost all of the Russians to attack it, and even with only 10Germans there there is a significant risk of rolling killer dice either as Russia or Germany. Assuming LL Germany could even choose to place its bid 4-4 btwn Finland and Eeuro and deflect some of the Ukr issue. However even with a LL PE bid split this way should Russia attack Ukr they stand a strong likelyhood of getting counterattacked in Karelia and therefore likely have to surrender karelia as the cost of this move, and considering that they will probably be giving up an equal exchange of units I think this would be a wash.
Maybe if you mandate that Japan must get at least 2 units of every bid???
I think that would be unnecessary and dangerous as it dilutes PE too much. IMO PE is the weaker players best road to victory against a strong opponent.
It seems to me that a PE bid should naturally be lower than a PA bid in order to make a fair game. Perhaps in the bidding process, the choice of bid type, PE, PA, or PAsia could be specified? That way you could get a 23 ipc bid for PA or PAsia, but perhaps only a 18 ipc bid for PE.
No this is one of the fallacies of the game 7units of a bid is the same wherever it is placed the only difference btwn any bid package is how much that quantity of strength is concentrated and therefore the hardest for the Allies to dealy with by forcing them to make concessions somewhere else. Consider that IMO it is a very bad idea to attack Manch against a PE bid with 7-8units in Europe b/c Germany and Japan should still be able to overwhelm Russia. However in a PA game where there aren’t at least 1 unit bid into Asia you should count on Manch to be attacked. This is b/c the bid in Africa is very far away from Moscow and therefore not an immediate threat.
Maybe I am naieve, but I would think a Power Asia bid would be FAR more valuable than a PE bid.
I suspect you could bid 9-10 guys into Asia and still not win. This is b/c for every extra unit bid into Asia Russia can take a guy from Europe to compensate to slow down Japan. Germany will be so weak in Europe that they will not be able to capitalize and Africa will be quickly lost so the US/UK should have an abundance of income to use against the Axis.
More IPC’s are lost to Russia more quickly via a PA bid than a PE bid, dramitcally crippling Russia and making them reliant on Allies for defense. PA could also seriously weaken UK very quickly, allowing Australia to be taken in J1, as well as India (plus China)
The problem is the Russians have numerous techniques to guard some not all of their eastern ipcs. Yakut and Sfe will be lost but Russia through some wise tank builds can protect Novo/Even/Kaz for a very long time. In the end without Germany posing a threat in Europe the most Russia loses is 4ipcs which isn’t enought to make them weak. On the other hand a PEurope game deprives Russia of Ukr,Karelia,FinNor as well as Yakut and SFE. This makes the Russia base so small that they are very vulnerable to small scale bombing say 3bmbs. With these terms Russia would have 17ipcs and lose ~9 a turn and so produce only 2-3inf a turn.
Even worse, a mixed bid, Mostly POwer Asia, but a few forces in Africa as well, and UK is also initially crippled economically
But the UK doesn’t need a lot of money to be effective in the game. Further, the Allies if they know how to play will be able to wrestle Africa from you in order to provide the UK with cash. Africa is unholdable for the Axis.
The whole in your theory is Germany.
If, as you post, Russia takes Norway AND places 4 INF in Russia, Germany is taking Karelia on G2. Not a question of taking, only question is with how many forces left.
So um… which forces do you want to now use to take back Karelia and which do you want to have stop Japan?
The problem is that Russia can largely ignore Japan for 2-3 turns while they fortify Europe, wait for the Allies to take Africa, and get their troops to the continent. Once that happens the Russians can begin to send troops eastward to confront Japan. Remember that tanks are great for offense but loosy on defense b/c they mean fewer #s of units. So even if you could take Novo on J2 whats to say that Russia won’t retake it on R4? Japan still will not have its supply network caught up enought to hold so they are then playing the seesaw game with Russia where Russia pushes Japan from either Sink or Yakut on alternating turns.
Also IMO you gravely overestimate Germany’s strength in Europe. With this bid as Russia I would attack Ukr on R1 with 6inf 2arm and should take with 1-2 armor. Along with this I can attack both the BalSz and the Spain sub so that Germany has to spend another ftr as well as its fleet to kack the UK battlefleet on G1. At the end of G1 the Germans should have only ~9inf 5arm in Eeuro against Karelia. The Germans should have 14inf arm 2ftrs. There is no way you can take karelia on G2 even if you build all tanks on G1. In the east Russia retreats westward and fights another day.
As to Agents question, Avin game me an idea, what if you make all bids Cash bids?
The only problem with this that I can see is that with an all cash bid the amount is going to have to be excessively large b/c you cannot leverage a placed bid against your opponent. That is you cannot use a PE bid to protect Manch. For this reason I think bids of 35+ will be common and 40+ likely. Further, I think the game would be all but decided on R1, depending on how much Russia rolls over or under its expected totals will determine the Axis fate. With this format I would still likely press around 4 turn1 Russian attacks if they go very well the Axis never catches up b/c you must assume they will only bid just enough to win with average dice.
-
I think the R1 attacks are just too powerful. If you win all 4 attacks, strafe Ukr/EEU, take Manch, kill Baltic fleet and kill the german sub in the atlantic, the Axis are simply done playing… They have to use fighters instead of subs or trannies. They are behind in the IPM build-up and are delayed so much that the Allies have even more time to regroup. That makes the PE (bid of 22-24) the only viable option to win for the axis and even then it is a race against the clock.
So I am for the RR variant with a bid of 8-12 IPC’s. It willl stabalize the game a lot. Playing RR is also historically correct. It is not early 1942 if you start the game, because Pearl Harbor is not destroyed yet and the Russians didn’t come to the offensive till the end of 1942 or early 1943… So IMO RR is a correct way to play the game… -
I also came up with another idea. Maybe the German lands should have more IPC value, I mean Germany and Seu. If you give them a few more IPC’s around, say 3-5 and lower the bids a bit you might come up with a more even game…
Another option is to give Russia only 1 attack on R1 and the axis a bid of 12-15… Maybe changes some things. Let me hear what you guys think…
-
I like the idea of revaluing the German territories. Perhaps a slight increase combined with RR sounds like an ideal way to play, for the points Bashir mentioned on why RR. I’ve never much favored RR because I’ve always found the R1 attacks to be quite fun regardless of which side I’m playing, but if it makes for the most balanced bidding I think I’d be willing to change that opinion.
-
I think the R1 attacks are just too powerful. If you win all 4 attacks, strafe Ukr/EEU, take Manch, kill Baltic fleet and kill the german sub in the atlantic, the Axis are simply done playing…
You are talking about my 4/4 bid split idea. I have to completely disagree. First the Manch battle is largely independent of the Europe battles and therefore the reasons for or against making it are not can you take it but rather should you and therefore this is largely irrelevent to what bid is put down. As for Europe any attack even on a 4unit Ukr bid will likely require all attackers including air in order to pull it off with enough gain to make it anything but a disaster. Once you start bringing in a ftr to Ukr you make it all but impossible that the Russians can attack both the Spanish and Baltic navies. yes they could go ftr trn versus sub trn but whether its LL or ADS you are taking an enormous risk somewhere. In LL you should be concerned that you don’t clear the fleet and maybe even lose a ftr if you get too jumpy, and in ADS the Ukr battle has just enough bid to make this a potential landmine. In otherwords the bid is strong enough to force Russia into making 2 very strong attacks as opposed to 3-4.
So I am for the RR variant with a bid of 8-12 IPC’s. It willl stabalize the game a lot. Playing RR is also historically correct. It is not early 1942 if you start the game, because Pearl Harbor is not destroyed yet and the Russians didn’t come to the offensive till the end of 1942 or early 1943… So IMO RR is a correct way to play the game…
Except that there are too many problems with this the least of which is the amount of the bid. Remember I said that by in large its the quantity say 21+ which is vital to the Axis not just the spacing of turns etc. So even a good RR bid will never be adequate and almost always necessitates a PE approach with even a modest 3-4 unit bid the Axis should succeed with PE but again this is not enough to affect a viable Africa strategy ever.
As for the other suggestions you cannot disregard the value of units on the ground over potential strength later. Potential later is great but if Germany is bottled up in Europe and Africa it has little affect b/c this bottleneck works in the Allies favor.
-
Sorry to jump in late.
I’ve not really played with bidding, but I could see it necessary when you get in a game with expert players.
Honestly, I think you underestimate a PA (not prince albert), and NC has the right idea, but might not be expressing the right points. One thing that would probably happen if I got a bid of even 8 IPCs for Japan is that you’d see a mainland IC almost immediately - it depends on the battle outcomes. If you bid me 3 arm, 2 inf for Japan, then that’s a definite. Maybe you factored that into your round listing, Baker, but it’s something to think about. When you play an experienced Japan player, you can see they are a powerful force. Even a meager bid to them can bring large results. Also, I’d think that with the addition of 3 arm, 2 inf, you are going to see the Japanese not only cut a line to Moscow, but clearing southern Asia to connect with Germany. That’s very dangerous for the Allies. UK may have to write off it’s holdings in Asia/Australia immediately, but that makes it so much easier for the Allies. If UK is being whittled, as is Russia, and spends most of its money defending Russia, US defending Russia & UK, then you are going to find a problem. You won’t be able to put enough pressure on Germany to back off, and simply put, Japan can apply pressure to the US as early as J3 to distract them (even with no bid). If left alone, Japan is a tiger; if left alone with a bid, Japan is a tiger with wings.
One thing that everyone is guilty of, though, is trying to estimate the way the game would play. If you are playing experienced players, which I’d assume all of you are, then you’d know that while you formulate an overall strategy, the best one is adaptable. Baker, in the case of your scenario, I’m not sure what you were expecting Germany to do. They may decide to strengthen the front and hit a weaker UK. The best thing about A&A is that there is plenty of room to maneuver, and the more fluid your side is, the better you tend to do. Can’t do anything about those bad roll days, though. When someone finds out about that, let me know.
In another thread, I proposed giving straight cash rather than actual units placed, as has been mentioned here. It may help to sustain certain strategies by going this route and help balance things. But as pointed out, that’s a major G1 buy. Perhaps you could do a combination of those two, or allow the placement of new units under certain regulations (no more than 1 new unit per territory). Or, allow IPCs that can be used only to upgrade existing units, i.e. spend 2 IPCs to upgrade an inf to an arm. That could get interesting, and adds somewhat of a gamble to the upgrade.
-
Honestly, I think you underestimate a PA (not prince albert), and NC has the right idea, but might not be expressing the right points.
No an Asian bid is largely unworkable perhaps with 30ipcs(maybe more) but for that price I could just bid into Africa and get Africa along with Asia. Further, I’ve seen games lost as the Axis where the bid was 25+ mostly in Africa and no one here seems to be saying that Asia is better than Africa so it seems very possible to lose a game with an Asian bid of 30+
One thing that would probably happen if I got a bid of even 8 IPCs for Japan is that you’d see a mainland IC almost immediately - it depends on the battle outcomes.
Big deal! If you aren’t building extra fodder ships for your fleet then you should count on losing your fleet should you get too lucky/unlucky in Pearl and if you lose this battle fleet count on the US or Britain taking away your island IPCs even if you have ICs and a large Asia bid Japan losing 8ipcs in SE Asia will be a huge loss over time.
Maybe you factored that into your round listing, Baker, but it’s something to think about.
Yeah right b/c you do something that Baker doesn’t with an Asian bid. In fact there is very little you can do with this bid but push towards Novo so in my mind its nothing but a bluff and a poorly executed one at that.
When you play an experienced Japan player, you can see they are a powerful force.
Yes yes Japan is very powerful, but not as much as Germany and in terms of the most powerful in the game only somewhat ahead of Russia in third but a lot more so than Britain in 4th and a lot more so than the US in 5th. I know how to play Japan and its not to overbid them in order to make a bunch of yahtzee attacks on J1 which will either make or break you. The only reason I’ve ever understood for a large Asia bid is so that Japan can make a bunch of unnecessary and irrelevent battles that won’t in the long run matter much. Russia pulls 3inf arm from the East to Novo and 2inf to Yakut so japan can attack 2inf in Yakut and Sink but in doing so they likely lose 2inf themselves and don’t take any territory that will absolutely be held that is I can counterattack. China regardless of the bid is lost and the Brits in India can be more effective if moved somewhere else including Sink, Persia, or Africa. But considering your bid Sink is eliminated as is likely Persia but this only means that the Japs aren’t really killing any troops with their bid only taking ground which they would have anyway.
Even a meager bid to them can bring large results. Also, I’d think that with the addition of 3 arm, 2 inf, you are going to see the Japanese not only cut a line to Moscow, but clearing southern Asia to connect with Germany.
No friggin way! Yes Japan will get a very strong push in Asia but largely b/c the Allies will fall back to a more defensible position there largely conceeding it when confronted with such a large force there. At the same time with little to nothing bid to Germany in either Europe or Africa the Allies will not have to spend much if any effort to recapture Africa from Germany and karelia will be safe for a very long time. The only likelyhood for Germany japan to link up is if Germany can take Karelia b/c the rearguard pressure of Japan gets to be too great. However in such a scenario the Russians probably just fall back to their capital(b/c that should always be defended as first priority) at which point the Japanese will not be strong enough for probably 4-5 turns or so to hold and have to fall out as a response. If Germany tries to move into Karelia it is a dead zone and will get attacked losing troops it cannot afford to replace w/o holding Africa. What I think you underestimate is the responsiveness of a good opponent to not just force you into a game you don’t want to play and their ability to avoid getting attacked in unfavorable situations. That is sometimes retreating can be more effective than defending a meaningless deadzone. Even if I’ve been outplayed and there is a likelyhood that even upon falling back to my capital I will lose a turn or two later I will still do it b/c it forces my opponent to overextend himself and enter my deadzones. The mistake most noobie players make is they assume Russia is a punching bag when in fact they aren’t.
UK may have to write off it’s holdings in Asia/Australia immediately, but that makes it so much easier for the Allies.
First of all the UK only has one assest in Asia and that’s India both Persia and Syria are geographically close enough to a center of power that they can be defended from Europe and Africa respectively. As for Aust I love it when Japanese players do this, and IMO this is really the only reason to make an excessively large Asian bid. The drawback is that you probably have to ignore Pearl and in doing so risk your fleet in the short and longterm. japan w/o a battlefleet to protect its transports is a paper tiger even with ICs b/c they cannot threaten Africa, and they cannot protect their southern island colonies which while only 8ipcs are worth taking back if unopposed by a Jap naval pressence in the Pacific. Most of the time it can be done with the most minimal of commitments as well.
If UK is being whittled, as is Russia, and spends most of its money defending Russia, US defending Russia & UK, then you are going to find a problem.
How is the UK being wittled? All I see is India, Austrailia, NZ and perhaps Persia under threat. However the UK should gain Libya, Alg and possibly FinNor to offset this. Even modest projections show Britain should be at ~26-7ipcs or 8-9inf a turn. Or to steal from myself in another thread the UK can build some inf for a few turns then switch to 1inf 5arm. At which point I can roll Japan back in Asia by threatening its flanks and cyphoning off its strength to India/FIC.
You won’t be able to put enough pressure on Germany to back off, and simply put, Japan can apply pressure to the US as early as J3 to distract them (even with no bid). If left alone, Japan is a tiger; if left alone with a bid, Japan is a tiger with wings.
Now I know that you don’t know what you’re talkin’ about! Japan can never “pressure” the US. Simply put the US can produce to much and Japan is too far away. Even if Japan rolls up Asia as you propose they are going to top off at about 48ipcs a turn or 16inf a turn which only leaves about 8inf a turn to go to NAmerica. The US on the otherhand can easily produce between 10-11 units a turn. What’s more even with a great Asian push to start the game in the long term japan will need more than 8inf a turn to Asia to cause Russia any real problems. Remember you don’t win the game just by gaining a lot of ground but by consolidating that and defeating one of the Allies namely Russia. Anything which detracts from this is irrelevent.
One thing that everyone is guilty of, though, is trying to estimate the way the game would play. If you are playing experienced players, which I’d assume all of you are, then you’d know that while you formulate an overall strategy, the best one is adaptable.
Not me. I’ve seen just about everything there is to see in A+A. What a lot of newbies overlook is that while the game does have an almost infinate amount of variations only a few of these will lead to victory b/c victory in the game is narrowly defined as defeating a rival alliance. If the game was merely to compete and everyone one worked for themselves then some of what you said might be true but then again I doubt anybody would be giving Japan and Germany bids.
In another thread, I proposed giving straight cash rather than actual units placed, as has been mentioned here. It may help to sustain certain strategies by going this route and help balance things. But as pointed out, that’s a major G1 buy. Perhaps you could do a combination of those two, or allow the placement of new units under certain regulations (no more than 1 new unit per territory). Or, allow IPCs that can be used only to upgrade existing units, i.e. spend 2 IPCs to upgrade an inf to an arm. That could get interesting, and adds somewhat of a gamble to the upgrade.
Why? My suggestion was simple, flexible and allows for more variety of game playouts. Your’s ties the game to R1 dice rolls which is always going to be problematic but for LL. In which case b/c no bid is made they will become the dreaded standard, and so ultimately so will the bid amount and the playouts that are dictated from this.
-
In response to your post, Agent Smith:
I don’t have the time to breakdown every single thing you wrote.
Like I said, I’ve not really played with bids, but I’m not a noob. In fact, I don’t know why you are getting belligerent about it. I also understand that this a PE thread, but the topic of PA was already discussed, so I thought I might mention a few points. The reason I like a PA bid is to take the convention (the game is up to Germany vs. Russia, i.e. it’s all up to Russia - which I disagree with) and turn it on its head. Fine, give me a PA bid of 30+, that would be a fantastic game.
Now, I doubt your experience with Japan, on either side of them. First off, the reason Japan is powerful, yet restrained, is not because they have the 2nd or 3rd most pieces on the board, but that there already are deadzones around them. It’s a blessing and a curse, but it buffers them from Allied advance, usually. Most of the time it makes the allies concentrate elsewhere. Second, for the very generic things I said, I don’t understand how all of the specific counters you said would take place in the same game. Not possible. They may be viable counters, I’ll give you that. But like I said in my first post in this thread, a flexible strategy is the best. You move, I consider it and roll with the punches. Third, I responded mostly to Baker’s specific counter of NC’s proposed PA bid. I know NC has a very different approach with Japan, but I was offering some insight to Baker specifically based on what he said.
Russia may not be a punching bag, but they aren’t a punching glove, and the Allies are susceptible to the same overexertion as the Axis. I’m not going to charge in blindly with inadequate forces. So, you have to kill troops to make a bid successful? Nonsense. You just end up taking the “same” territories that you took the last game and every game before that with less losses, and possibly in better time. I also understand the concept of retreating & consolidating - without them you would lose quickly.
[q]How is the UK being wittled? All I see is India, Austrailia, NZ and perhaps Persia under threat.[/q]
Do you understand the word “whittled?” Because you’ve proven what I said with the second sentence. It doesn’t mean blown out of the water, it means a gradual loss of territory/IPC. Which is exactly what Japan needs to do. 25 IPCs won’t get them much of anywhere, and they need to move with superior initial forces. Wake up. And where in Asia would UK build 1 inf 5 arm to push Japan back if Japan has evicted UK?
Persia and Syria are in Asia. You take India, you move on. It’s not a hard concept. If Germany is still in Africa, even better. With a PA bid, I can take Africa too, so why bother with a power Africa?
Japan can pressure the US if the US is focused on reinforcing UK/Russia, as Baker outlined. I’m not saying defeating, I’m saying pressure. It’s all about the distraction. I’ve stalled the US as Japan and kept them mostly out of Africa and Europe before, it’s not difficult.
My question to you is that if you’ve seen everything in A&A, and that it really is just a “yahtzee” that you say you don’t like but admit it is, then why do you play? Japan distracting the US IS relevant. Extremely relevant.
My suggestions were merely suggestions. They weren’t meant to supplant yours. And no, they wouldn’t bring the game back to a “yahtzee” standing. I know you haven’t tried the things I suggested. Why don’t you try them and then see - in this case, “try” would mean multiple times, not once. I’d love to try them now, but it’s not possible. Maybe you can catch a game with Switch.
-
Honestly, I think you underestimate a PA (not prince albert), and NC has the right idea, but might not be expressing the right points. One thing that would probably happen if I got a bid of even 8 IPCs for Japan is that you’d see a mainland IC almost immediately - it depends on the battle outcomes. If you bid me 3 arm, 2 inf for Japan, then that’s a definite. Maybe you factored that into your round listing, Baker, but it’s something to think about.Â
A mainland IC is less flexible and can deliver less goods (three tanks vs. 4 infantry) than two transports. Their only advantage is they can deliver at a location closer to the battle lines. But they have the disadvantage of free SBRs from the UK and US…so you will need spend an additional 5ipcs for an AA gun. Since your idea seems to be taking Asia more quickly, I think you would be better off selecting forces instead of ICs, where you can directly attack on J1. Â
When you play an experienced Japan player, you can see they are a powerful force. Even a meager bid to them can bring large results.  Also, I’d think that with the addition of 3 arm, 2 inf, you are going to see the Japanese not only cut a line to Moscow, but clearing southern Asia to connect with Germany. That’s very dangerous for the Allies. UK may have to write off it’s holdings in Asia/Australia immediately, but that makes it so much easier for the Allies. If UK is being whittled, as is Russia, and spends most of its money defending Russia, US defending Russia & UK, then you are going to find a problem. You won’t be able to put enough pressure on Germany to back off, and simply put, Japan can apply pressure to the US as early as J3 to distract them (even with no bid). If left alone, Japan is a tiger; if left alone with a bid, Japan is a tiger with wings.
Agent Smith already addressed this point, that the UK will not be reduced to nothing. Particularly when the Allies take back Africa which will happen nearly as quickly as UK loses its Asia/Australia holdings. What I am saying can be done with a PAsia bid is to simply contain Japan, then take out Germany. Germany without a bid is not a serious threat. Containing Japan, even with a very large bid (AS says 30+) is easier than it seems for the reasons I pointed out earlier…even with a PAsia bid, the Allied reinforcements arrive in Moscow before the Japanese forces.Â
Also, I think my statements with regards to the economies also are valid. If the game goes long (and the Russians can stall for a long, long time) the Axis needs an income at least equal to that of the Allies for any hope of victory. With a PE or PAfrica this might be possible…but it isn’t possible with a PAsia as the Axis doesn’t hold or gain any extra territory.
And don’t think the UK/US cannot reach Asia…it is not that far fromKarelia/Moscow to the rest of Asia. The US and USSR could knock out your forces at Sinking (or Novo if Japan gets that far) and the UK can then send its tanks through most of Asia. Or the UK could do this by itself by blitzing from Karelia through Caucasus into Persia. On the next turn India and possibly other territories may be open to attack (including any IC’s you might have there). This could be a real headache for Japan to recover…not because of the forces used to do so, but because of the time lost for Japan.
One thing that everyone is guilty of, though, is trying to estimate the way the game would play. If you are playing experienced players, which I’d assume all of you are, then you’d know that while you formulate an overall strategy, the best one is adaptable. Baker, in the case of your scenario, I’m not sure what you were expecting Germany to do. They may decide to strengthen the front and hit a weaker UK. The best thing about A&A is that there is plenty of room to maneuver, and the more fluid your side is, the better you tend to do. Can’t do anything about those bad roll days, though. When someone finds out about that, let me know.
I cannot see anything that Germany can do… Even though Russia will need to divert troops to Asia more quickly than in a standard game, Russia can afford to do this and still (with Allied help) hold Germany in EE trading Ukraine. Germany will be kicked out of Africa in a couple of turns by the UK/US (as the Allies I invite Japan to try to send forces into Africa :evil: ) and will be stuck in defensive mode in Europe. Maybe Germany at some point will try a desperation hit on Karelia…hoping for the equivalent strike from the Japanese side…or maybe Germany will stay defensive in Europe hoping for Japan to do something. Maybe Germany will try to push infantry through Ukraine to Caucasus…but this leaves EE, Ukr, and Caucasus open for easy strafing from Karelia and the Allies should be able to retake Caucasus and Ukraine. But unless the dice were bad or the Allies played poorly, I don’t think this will win the game for the Axis.
-
I want to nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand.
Jermofoot,
Don’t take anything Agent says personally. That is his posting style. He is very harsh on what he considers inferior strat or weak moves. And yes, according to him his way is always the right way. You’ll get used to it. :-DAgent,
Maybe, lighten up the tone slightly. It has been a while since you posted here and not everyone is familar with you and your style.Both,
Lets make sure we don’t attack the players or their experience. Lets stick to the strats.A simple post of:
“I’ve seen that many times…and you can counter by…”is much better than this type of post:
“you’ve clearly never played anyone good…b/c that move is so weak…”They get across the same idea, but in two very different ways.
One highlites your exp, the other degrades the other players.Now keep up the good strat talk! :-D
-
@AgentSmith:
Maybe if you mandate that Japan must get at least 2 units of every bid???
I think that would be unnecessary and dangerous as it dilutes PE too much. IMO PE is the weaker players best road to victory against a strong opponent.
But was that not one of the points of the thread?
Aren’t we trying to dilute PE?Example, if an 8 inf bid must be split (6-2), then would that not encourge PAfr? Which is what we want, right?
Even with a 22-23 bid, you can make a powerful PE play BUT if you must give Japan 2 inf, then with a 23 bid (6 inf, 1 arm) you immediately have to look at 4 inf, 1 arm for Afr and 2 inf for Man. Because if the 4 inf and 1 arm were in Europe it could be very problematic for the Germans.
-
Baker: thanks for your response. It offers some insight into some of my strategies. I think the difference here is that I don’t get to play often, so I don’t get to test certain “standards” that are assumed by many in this community. On the other hand, I’m not rooted in convention and have a few thoughts on certain things I’ve not seen discussed here. I hold back expressing those in case I might be able to use them. :-) Also, I didn’t think any of your statements were invalid, I was just enjoying the discussion of them, in good style. I’d like to discuss your new points as well, but not at this time.
DM: thanks for your disclaimer. However, posting like that is not a “style.” Generally, disrespect is reserved for 12 year-olds. I don’t mind that AS countered my points, it was how he presented them. Baker showed that it can be done in a tasteful way, per your examples. I might be tolerant of that tone if this were AgentSmith’s weblog, but it’s definitely not the case.
AS: I respect your experience and strategy, and love to hear ideas - just like everyone else’s. I may not have the advantage of years of play or months of posting/reading on this forum, but that’s exactly why I’m here. I don’t expect to have someone jump down my throat because I’m discussing things that I’m new to and they are not. Like DM says, tone it down a bit, and I am glad to read whatever you post.
-
Don’t take anything Agent says personally. That is his posting style. He is very harsh on what he considers inferior strat or weak moves.
Yes I am the Simon Cowell of Axis and Allies, or I am really Simon Cowell :wink:
Maybe, lighten up the tone slightly. It has been a while since you posted here and not everyone is familar with you and your style.
Well its not that I try to hurt people’s feelings or step on their toes but this is how I’m used to writing. When you write a persuasive argument you have to believe in it and leave no doubt to anyone else that you believe in it. Yes I am right until someone can make an argument that persuades me otherwise, and it can and does happen as there is substantial elacity to what I say.
Example, if an 8 inf bid must be split (6-2), then would that not encourge PAfr? Which is what we want, right?
Not necessarily I could see an 8unit bid of PE being fairly equivalent to the same for PAfr. Now what you choose to do with it is a matter of preference but if I assessed myself as inferior to my opponent I’d probably go for PE.
Even with a 22-23 bid, you can make a powerful PE play BUT if you must give Japan 2 inf, then with a 23 bid (6 inf, 1 arm) you immediately have to look at 4 inf, 1 arm for Afr and 2 inf for Man. Because if the 4 inf and 1 arm were in Europe it could be very problematic for the Germans.
Right which is basically a NO PE rule so why not make it such and simplify it. Remember that if it were found that even a 24-26 PAfr bid was not enough then with a 9unit bid you might again find PE to be a problem. For example, the 2unit bid to Asia negates PE for a 21-23 bid but for a 9unit bid 27+ I might try a bid of 5inf-Ukr, 2inf-EEuro and 2inf-Manch and this would be stronger than any PAfr combo you could throw at me.
DM: thanks for your disclaimer. However, posting like that is not a "style." Generally, disrespect is reserved for 12 year-olds. I don’t mind that AS countered my points, it was how he presented them. Baker showed that it can be done in a tasteful way, per your examples. I might be tolerant of that tone if this were AgentSmith’s weblog, but it’s definitely not the case.
And other than refuting every point you made what did I say that was disrespectful? I looked and couldn’t find any instance where I called you a newbie and the worst I found was when I said “Now I know you don’t know what you’re talking about” which was about an extremely questionable move. Yes its very likely that some of the Newbie mistakes I detailed are ones you make or have made but what a lot of newer posters do not understand is that for those of us with a great deal of experience it is quite easy to tell how much of it someone else has by what they write. Also, I can’t tell you how often someone comes to a MB w/o any or much online experience and procedes to tell everyone how “inexperienced” they are. In your own message there was more than a slight intonation of that and I’ve always felt that it is better for people to learn the truth earlier rather than later. Home experience is almost worthless compared to online experience, and to really improve your game you need to be extremely open to what others here are saying.
As the Axis I haven’t gone after the US with Japan for probably 100+ games to show how rare this is, and I’ve probably only played 1 in a 100 maybe less where this did happen(excluding endgame scenarios). Out of the 100-125 games I’ve played lifetime of A+A I’ve also only seen the very heavy Asian play once or twice. This too should tell you something about them. And when played neither of these were successful.
On the other hand, I’m not rooted in convention and have a few thoughts on certain things I’ve not seen discussed here.
Which is probably why you felt disrespected. Playing at home against 1-2 other people allows you to be complacent and play the player not the game. If you know your opponent will never make a KwangBang then you are not going to place very much importance on the threat of such a move. However, when you start playing dozens of other people each with their own proclivities you’ll find out what is more close to the truth.
The reason I like a PA bid is to take the convention (the game is up to Germany vs. Russia, i.e. it’s all up to Russia - which I disagree with) and turn it on its head. Fine, give me a PA bid of 30+, that would be a fantastic game.
Yes well okay that’s where we disagree the game is entirely built around the Germans versus Russia there is no simple way to get around that meaning but for major changes to game dynamics the game will always be about what is in the center of the board.
And as for a 30ipcs bid in Asia I have not doubt that it could be beaten easily as I think a 26ipc bid for Africa is not a slam dunk either.
First off, the reason Japan is powerful, yet restrained, is not because they have the 2nd or 3rd most pieces on the board
No this is entirely the source of their strength along with being the furthest away from any Allied center of power ie a Capital.
Second, for the very generic things I said, I don’t understand how all of the specific counters you said would take place in the same game
B/c it is a very generic bid the best that can be done with it is to push to Novo take it and hold it forever. Specifically what will happen as seconded by Baker is that Britian will not be widdled down too much b/c it will replace Asian IPCs with Africa or even European ipcs. So you can assume to see most of what I detailed almost every game. Secondly, I believe I game my R1 plan which you should assume you’d see in almost everygame and would if you played me. These are an attack on the Baltic, SpainSz, and Ukr. This means Germany loses 1ftr and likely has to sack 1-2 more on G1 to kill the Uk fleet which is not what you want to see on G1.
Russia may not be a punching bag, but they aren’t a punching glove
Totally disagree! Russia can and should be played to be powerful. They are far more dangerous than Britain or the US is seperately and maybe even combined.
and the Allies are susceptible to the same overexertion as the Axis. I’m not going to charge in blindly with inadequate forces. So, you have to kill troops to make a bid successful?
Yes and no the Axis is the protagonist and therefore must defeat the Allies failing this the Allies should exhaust the Axis evertime.
A bid must, MUST, get you territory or force the Allies to play into a corner so as to give the Axis a window. For example, in PE bid the Russians are backed into fighting exclusively in Europe and therefore the Japanese and Germans should benefit.Do you understand the word "whittled?" Because you’ve proven what I said with the second sentence. It doesn’t mean blown out of the water, it means a gradual loss of territory/IPC. Which is exactly what Japan needs to do. 25 IPCs won’t get them much of anywhere, and they need to move with superior initial forces. Wake up. And where in Asia would UK build 1 inf 5 arm to push Japan back if Japan has evicted UK?
Right but do you understand that Germany will quickly lose Africa to the UK, and that the only Asian ipcs the UK should lose is India, Aust and NZ? Japan can be kept out of Africa and for this reason it means the drain on the UK stops at 28ipcs which if Japan tops off at 48ipcs is still quite a bit, and since Germany loses Africa and FinNor they will be at ~28ipcs as well.Â
Persia and Syria are in Asia. You take India, you move on. It’s not a hard concept. If Germany is still in Africa, even better. With a PA bid, I can take Africa too, so why bother with a power Africa?Â
But do you understand the difference btwn taking and holding territories. Geographically speaking Syria and Persia are considered part of Asia but Japan cannot reach Syria without going through either a sea zone or Persia. The problem with Persia is that it is too close to a major center of production/distribution of Karelia and Moscow. To keep Japan out of persia all the Allies have to do is make it a deadzone with either British or Russian troops in Cauc which cannot be attacked. Then with armor in either Karelia or Moscow they can attack without giving up much on defense. So for practical purposes Syria is part of Africa and Persia is unreachable for Japan. You might sneak a few units through early on but these will be isolated and destroyed and there is no long term gain in that.
With a PA bid, I can take Africa too, so why bother with a power Africa?Â
No they can’t b/c it is extremely cumbersome for Japan to get troops into Africa b/c they have to go by sea and in doing so they cut themselves off from their supplies in Japan as well as exposing their fleet to attack. Trying to stack Persia is also problematic b/c like India it means softening up in Novo against Russia which means Russia can breathe which means Russia can put inf in Kaz and hold arm in Karelia to attack. This means Japan goes to India-Russia goes to Kaz, Japan goes to Persia-Russia attacks. Russia only needs a handful of Infantry to do this and Japan must overcommit to compensate allowing Russia to do likewise. If you go to Africa these troops with either be attacked or quickly isolated and are extremely difficult to reinforce which means this advance is unsustainable.
Japan can pressure the US if the US is focused on reinforcing UK/Russia, as Baker outlined. I’m not saying defeating, I’m saying pressure. It’s all about the distraction. I’ve stalled the US as Japan and kept them mostly out of Africa and Europe before, it’s not difficult.Â
No there is not distraction b/c the US has an advantage in NAmerica against Japan and always will. As the US all you have to do is build guys and send them to Europe its that simple. If Japan tries to get cute and go after Panama, Mexico etc then that’s great b/c that costs them more than it does the US b/c it means moving out of range of Tokyo for several turns, and even better if I start even modest air builds I can force the Japs to send some cap ships to protect their transports which means either they can’t go to Africa or I can attack their merchant fleet in Tokyo by air in Russia/Novo. Aust, Nz, Hawaii are all lost causes so I don’t even bother defending them and wouldn’t be distracted.
My question to you is that if you’ve seen everything in A&A, and that it really is just a “yahtzee” that you say you don’t like but admit it is, then why do you play?
I believe what I said is that PE as it is currently played is a yahtzee move.
And where in Asia would UK build 1 inf 5 arm to push Japan back if Japan has evicted UK?
Don’t forget that armor are extremely fast moving units, and that armor stationed in Cauc can strike as far as India. So by this reasoing it only takes a tank 2 turns to go from being dropped off in Finland to India, and only 3 to go from production to India. As Baker noted don’t think the Brits can’t reach Asia. Now obviously the British doing this will not by themselves be a serious threat to japan, but if Japan is stacking Novo after a PAsia bid then I would definately consider using the British this way b/c 1)the Germans are weak, and 2) the threat on Asia might allow Russia some breathing room which once gained will swing the game by potentially making Novo a long term deadzone. If Japan concedes India all the better.
Or the UK could do this by itself by blitzing from Karelia through Caucasus into Persia. On the next turn India and possibly other territories may be open to attack (including any IC’s you might have there).
Yes my point exactly, and might I add this is a good way to deal with an opponent who goes crazy with ICs including building one on turn1. If you can threaten them you can force the Japanese to defend these and not their front against Russia which opens space and opportunites for the Allies against Japan.
I don’t expect to have someone jump down my throat because I’m discussing things that I’m new to and they are not.
But I am not trying to “jump” down your throat only directly challenge some of the contentions your gameplay is built on so that you might understand ‘why’ to change them rather than conforming to a new orthodoxy which will not make you better. IMO its always better to get the honest truth sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, I had to play a lot of games before I got this b/c most players would not be honest in their discussions about strategy and would cloak or couch what they said to keep their strategies to themselves. In otherwords they wanted the benefit of discussing strat but wouldn’t really give much away of what made them successful. I could discuss strategy without saying much but what would be the point. I think I have given a very clear insight into my thought processes which make me conclude that Japan versus the US is bad for Japan and why the Asian bid is not viable. I’ve not just told you the how this is so but also the why which is far more valuable and which I often find lacking for other strategy discussion forums.
Suggested Topics
