National Advantages

If you play NA´s i would encourage you to just do away with super-fortress (USA NA)  Invulnerable SBR bomber is so incrediable unbalanced not even funny.

So I played a quick game against a friend last weekend (we agreed it was experimental and would not count towards our scoreboard).

I was the axis and picked two national advantages: naval night-fighting and nazi scientists.

The allied player insisted on also having two national advantages, so he picked colonial garrison and flying fortresses (I forget the name, it’s the non-LHTR national advantage; US bombers are immune to AA).

Colonial Garrison gave me a lot of problems!  He placed the IC in India, which I went for right away, but the allies managed to trade it for a few turns, and then the US player waited till I was in a bad situation and bought two factories in china and sinkian.

The battleship advantage was not that great.  It was fun for a couple of battles, but then the US player just avoided my battleships.  I was a few turns from opening the suez canal, and my fleet was prepared against africa, but the US player was going to provide quite a hassle.

The game ended prematurely; I suspect I would eventually have lost.  The nazi scientists got me a tech upgrade only after 10 tech buys.

Yea, NF and MPB are pretty darn good if you are encountering KJF.  Otherwise, MPB and Tokyo Express are better,IMHO.  (NF doesn’t work for bombardments, so they are very mitigated if America flees from Japanese supremacy in the Pacific.)

Banzai’s too nerfed in LHTR.  If it was more like how they are in enhanced, they’d be much better, IMHO.  (You can use them in conjunction with artillery, armor, fighters and bombers in enhanced, but not in LHTR.)

Fighters are great for Germany.  I think every other round they should be building at least 1 fighter to replenish losses.  However, I do not ascribe to the Germany’s on the defense theater of thought.

Once you get it in your head you are defensive with your power you are going to loose the battle.  No nation can fight a defensive war against an aggressor and win.  This is why the South invaded the North in the Civil War (they did so too late, IMHO.)  Likewise, the option of 100% infantry is a turtling maneuver that slows you down WAY too much, in AAR. (in classic it’s a different story, you don’t have 3 eastern fronts to defend, only 1.)

With Germany you have GOT to keep a ratio of 3:1 infantry to armor and at least 5 fighters to defend France.  More would be extremely better!!!

Go on the offensive IMMEDIATELY.  Keep hammering away.  Leave Fin/Nor and Karelia empty if you have too, but put as many troops on the Muscovite border as humanly possible as fast as humanly possible.  This will force Russia to consider pulling eastern troops away from Japan, meaning Japan doesn’t have to kill htem, just gobble up the land.

Remember, it’s going to take 3 rounds for America to get that BB to England.  That’s 3 rounds you have to destroy any British forces you can find, so that when that BB does make it, it’s not as protected.  (A few subs will help here.)

Basically,

Buy 1 Carrier R1
Buy 1 Fighter R2
Buy 1 Sub R3
Buy 1 Fighter R4
Buy 1 Sub R5

etc.

5 Subs, 1 DD, 1 Trn, 1 CV, 2 Fig is a pretty strong offensive force.  Especially if you can manage to get the BB/Trn from the Med to join it.

But in order to do that, you have GOT to be grabbing land.

I have to agree with Duke that Germany is the hardest to play :D

GG are you there, so please answer my question. :-?

@prof_tc:

1: Are you sure the Superfortresses aren’t too strong? Then again, it is historically accurate.

2: what happens as you lose tanks with the Ger. heavy tanks?
I know you tested all these new rules, and I’m sure you made a decision. I assume that the first is a heavy tank, and then every 4th after that.

1. The superfortresses advantage is now counterable for the Axis, but cost a lot to develop Jet Fighters! However to old rule of mine that I have in these revised NAs may be a better choice since now the U.S. needs to develop heavy bombers as well. This variant with one additional die per bomber in a SBR is not really playtested! But compared to the original one, I am sure it wont be worse to the Axis as long as they can counter it with jets! :wink:

Damage caused by heavy superfortresses (Heavy Bombers development and Superfortresses advantage) against an IC protected by jets (Jet Fighter development):
5/63(1/61+1/62+1/63+1/64+1/65+1/66) + 5/61/610 IPCs = 10,1 IPCs

Damage caused by AA fire and intercepting jets (on a 1:1 ratio for fighters and bombers) on bombers in a SBR:
1/615 + 3/615 = 10 IPCs

This means that the German and Japanese player needs to develop Jet Fighters to an average cost of 30 IPCs and have as many fighters protecting each IC as there are U.S. heavy superfortresses within reach for a potential SBR! The allies would just have a slight advantage to the axis if conducting a SBR with heavy superfortresses, it is even less then for a regular bomber that conducts a SBR on an IC only protected by an AA gun!

2. this is from another thread about “Heavy Tanks”:

First cycle of combat:
Put the first 2 tanks on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. At the end of the combat remove casualties.

Second cycle of combat:
Remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting the first 2 on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard… and so on!