New Anti-Air Unit useful for Moscow or Calcutta?

So for the Airblitz part, are we talking a hit on Szech J1, even with the Russian inf and British fighter? Or like Kazakh on J2? Or you mean just like quickly moving them to the eastern front for defensive position? No bid?

Usually I’m landing the fighters in Kwang regardless, since they don’t need to be on the carriers, and it’s optimal after all the mainland battles as a landing spot. Kwang gives decent coverage at sea while allowing you to throw them westward if Germany gets an opening. But going forward into Caucasus on the second round seems like an option that would only present itself occasionally.

I guess as a counter you could try stacking the British in Persia with an India tank buy (if the transport in 61 is handled you can move a small force into position.) Might be enough to threaten a suicide sting, before Japan lands, to shave off enough German hit points to make a Russian counter more viable.

G certainly has a lot on the ground that could get in behind the lines, especially if no bid to knock Ukraine down.  Couple solid inf purchases by G to open the game, and Moscow is on the ropes. That’s a lot of Japanese fighters in Caucasus, but isn’t that what the Axis want anyway hehe. Japanese air cover to G. :-D

I think it’s pretty hard for the Allies on this map, if Russia doesn’t have enough to strafe or take Ukraine. All in on W. Russia you’d probably get forced back anyway if facing down such a heavy Ukraine stack. Even 6 artillery in the first round isn’t enough.

If Germany is committed and Russia only attacks W. Russia, then G can have a total of 11 inf, 7 armor, 1 art, 6 fighters and a bomber in Ukraine at the end of G1. With 5 infantry 1 artillery and 4 armor in Poland and Bulgaria (plus any mobile units you bought in Berlin) to back up the play.
Gives up the canal, but you can still take out the British battleship at odds with the cruiser and subs alone.

Against this Russia has a likely 10 inf, 3 artillery, 4 tanks in West Russia. No chance to counter Ukraine, even if they bought armor at moscow. For dead zone on Caucasus you could add to that like what 6 art, and muster 2 inf and 2 fighters at Moscow? Still not nearly enough if Japan sends fighters. So definitely a bind for the Russians to leave Ukraine alone against an aggressive Axis player out for blood. Center crush for sure.

Thanks.  :-)

MarineIguana, it sounds like you play very much the way I do. I’d love to see how I’d fare against you. Would you care to try a Triple A game and put that streak to the test? We could make it a live game, a forum game or a PBEM game, as you prefer.

@ossel:

The conclusion the other thread reached was that the best solution was to permanently award whatever Victory City was bombed to the attacker, and maybe damage production. This reflects what the use of these weapons in WWII was trying to accomplish.

I read and that does make sense. I will just have to experiment some time when I have the chance.

Thanks again for showing me that thread.

they look really good

and I play A&A only with that kind of aiding cards, it’s something that should be part of the material in the game box

@UrJohn:

I think to make a WWII game that is realistic, balanced, and fun to play and has a historical starting point you need to give it an earlier start and more vibrant political rules and victory conditions. You could start the game something like 1938 and have a buildup & influence period of a couple of rounds. Each major power should have its own victory conditions. For example, if USSR wound up conquering all of mainland Europe, that would be a total victory for the Soviet player, a total defeat for Germany and France, and a defeat for UK and USA.

Wouldn’t you then end up with the USSR attacking Western Allied troops? Otherwise i like the idea, although I guess a 1 September 1939 start date would do fine.

I always play a new A&A game the same way. First time through I play the new game as the old rules with a new setup and a new unit or 2. Second time I read the rulebook first and play through checking the rulebook on every move as I go. Takes forever but I normally only do this for 4-5 rounds. Third game is playing the game start to finish trying to remember the rules without checking the rulebook but if I have to then oh well. All 3 of these games are a me vs. me games just to learn the rules.

This learning tactic is what made Battle of the Bulge and D-day such a pain in the ass to learn.

so far I’m still calling them AA guns.