B.O.B.C.A.T. vs Beancounter Challenge (players needed)

@marshmallowofwar @crockett36 et alii

In the Pacific and in general-- BB is the way to go, IMO.

Personally, I prefer CV SUB FIG over either BB or CA/DD in bulk. Having 2-3 BB is intimidating (psychological), has soak (adsorbs hits), has bombardment–and the BBs are the last stuff to survive in a pyrrhic battle where both sides took great losses.

Numbers have an advantage, and so having 2 units might be better than 1 because they are more flexible.

However, the reason the CA (Cruiser) is so weak is that it can’t defend (either itself, or the fleet) against the subshot. Whether this is psychological or odds-driven, all your CA must be given up before your last DD is. Moreover, the DD is required to cover each fleet, and block other squares–so it has a much higher utility value.

I’ve tried to design a “Cruiser Crush” KGF/ATL and it wont work. You need ##s… the small advantage of novelty and bombardments isn’t worth it. With 5-6 CA in SZ 91, you’re going to get creamed, and you’ll have to lose your higher units first!

To broaden the conversation, the cruiser isn’t overpriced…its correctly priced. There are two rules that nerf it out 1) 1 bombard per amphibious unit drop 2) any interference (scramble, killing defenseless unit or sub, prebattle) blocks all shots.

I think all the rules work flavorfully, though imperfectly with one another. So to make the cruiser better, something has to give which is why people try to repurpose or reprice the cruiser.

Summation: Go big, Go BB instead.

@ShadowHAwk:

@simon33:

@thespaceman:

But remember any destroyers built in japans turn are attacked in the US turn. Only 3 scrambles can join battle. Destroyers must be taken as casualties because subs cant hit planes. Once no destroyers left planes cannot attack.� �

Us can also add in planes flying out of Aleutian islands or russia in order to keep the seas clear of destroyers.

Unless you’re talking about bombers, they can’t fly out of the Aleutians. You can fly off CVs though.

Still, if the USA are dominant enough to pull this off, I feel like it’s a missed opportunity to not take Korea. Unless there’s tonne of units on it I suppose.

You build the destroyers slightly out of range, now the subs stay out of the convoy zones or you just kill them.
If you place only 1 sub in SZ6 i can ignore it if you place 2 then ill sink them at maby the cost of 1 destroyer

1. The deal with the subs vs destroyers. Its not going to be 1 or 2. If US commits to building 2-4 per round then by turn 3-5 when the attack goes in its going to be 5,10 or even 15 subs. 1-2 subs is a minor nuisance for Japan and can easily be defeated. 10 subs is another story.

2. If Japan is using its mainland factories to relieve its home Islands then this has already achieved the purpose of the blockade which is to shut off Japanese production of ground units and shift their focus north away from Anzac and UK Pac. It also has stopped transports shuttling troops between Japan and China.

3. The Korea factory as opposed to taking money islands allows US + Russia working together to start to rebuild China. Once China can start to regrow its units safely in the north Japan is now under attack from 5 directions

1. UK-Pac in Burma/Yunnan
2. China
3. Russia from west and north
4. US from North East
5. Anzac from South East.

Japan no longer has a safe area and the mainland factories will soon be under attack.

We had a game where Axis totally dominated, I mean, allied pieces were basically off the game board, put away, done. We called it day, left the game as it was, one of the players came back over the next day, and it was Germany/Italy VS Japan, where within 5 hours, Japan ruled the world :)

We only did something like that once, but was a cool variant. I don’t think I would like to start that way, but continuing a war after its over by a new declaration or war was a nice touch.

We know about that one - most Russian players just keep the sub there for some reason.  I guess for the possible defense when a destroyer/plane go to take it out to cut the bonus.
The Russian sub is usually kept there, as Variance said, for the purpose of Convoying Norway / Germany. Kind of a little Russian jab that just sits there, taking 2-3 ipc’s per turn, until Germany does something about it.

@Young:

@edfactor:

When Japan grabs the money islands, malaya, hong kong, FIC and the philippines its income nearly doubles, with a little push in China - Japan can outporoduce the US.  Japan only starts hurting when Japan plans poorly and doesn’t make a massive land grab on its first turn of war with the allies.

To be honest, I’m not sold on the idea that Japan can do all that plus hurt China. That doubled income may not last very long.

Depends on the Chinese player, mainly moving their stacks from air attack range.

However, if the Japanese player is consistent in striking Yunnan, denying China materials, it can be done. Trust me.

The real problem comes if Britain decides to do a can opener with tanks and mechanized infantry.

so it cant move through an unoccupied enemy territory. perfect. that’s just like i thought it should have been. and now i know the purpose of blitzing.

thank you sir.

@Alsch91:

Normally I think UK could take back both Shan State and Yunnan on UK 3 before pulling back to Calcutta.
Thus your planes have no landing spot.

Might be costly, but also might be worth it for the reasons you suggested.

@fanofbond:

T Where as aa42 would, in my opinion leave me felling I had just chosen to play a lesser game

I wouldn’t say AA42 is a lesser game. It is definitely shorter and smaller but for people like me that don’t have the room to set up an AAG40 game, AA42 fills the niche nicely. I added in NAs, NOs, a 1941 setup (thanks to Hobbes), and research and development to AA42 to make it a little better, or more like Revised with AA50 rules. And AA42 does not have all of the errata or set up changes to balance the game. Also, at retail price it is about $150.00 cheaper than AAG40.