Is there a Axis and Allies Revised Computer game out?

Omg thank you so much!!! I will definitely donate, thank you! @Midnight_Reaper !

@Yoper:

I am especially interested in this simply because of how this will affect my use of it in the A&A tournament that I run.  Being that it is a timed event for the individual games, I am curious as to how the extra need for naval units will slow down the Allies in building up for their attack into Europe.

I’d say it can slow down the Allies from 1-3 turns. It really depends on how many naval and air units G has at the start of G2. It might be enough to sink the AC and 2 DDs that seems to be the regular UK buy for UK1, depending on where they are placed. It also depends if the US landed on Algeria on US1 or not and how Africa is going for the Allies.

quite simply, transports have to be defended, and the allies can put have in range alot of threatening airpower before japan’s second turn…  and every ship that’s left defending them reduces your ability to cheaply destroy the various allied fleets that might be making a mess in the pacific on turn one.

Other than that, the additional transports allow for 6 units a turn, similarly to the IC’s.  The additional transports give you the ability to grab guys more quickly from the islands, as well as the ability to push on india and africa faster and harder.  But each of these require some tradeoffs (ideally, mass troops in manchuria, but if india looms you may have to deal with that, slowing the flow of 6 units/per turn.

transports assuming a factory build later also ends up reducing the flow of fast moving armor, if that’s necessary.

Don’t get me wrong, i’m a big fan of transports, but they have their drawbacks too.

@ncscswitch:

To get THAT much Japan hardware in range of the US for J2 would mandate that Japan was effectively going KUSA, with commensurate loss of income in Asia.

Not really.

7 Infantry, 2 Fighters attack China with the two fighters coming from Manchuria and FIC.  These fighters can land in Japan.
3 Fighters, Battleship, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine, Bomber attack SZ 52
Fighter, Infantry, Armor attack Hawaii

2 Fighters from the SZ 52 battle can land in SZ 45 on the carrier and battleship from SZ 37

now, without building a darn thing you already have:

2 Battleships
2 Carriers
6 Fighters
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
1 Submarine* (If it was not lost)

vs

1 Battleship
1 Transport
1 Destroyer
3 Fighters (Assumes the fighter was lost in Hawaii)
2 Aircraft Carriers

I did not give up anything in Asia, but I did station everything in range of America.  The transport in SZ 52 can easily pick up units in Solomons to attack Australia with two bombardments if I don’t need them.

Or, don’t attack Hawaii and add 1 fighter to the defensive forces, but don’t risk losing your infantry and armor in the process.

Odds:

Attacker: 2 Battleships, 2 Carriers, Transport, Submarine, Destroyer, 6 Fighters (2 Fighters in SZ 52 can attack and land back on Wake), Bomber (assumed stationed at Wake where it can again land)

Defender: Battleship, 2 Carriers, Transport, Destroyer, 4 Fighters

(note, this does not take into account any builds for Japan that may or may not be in range of SZ 55.)

I have the Japanese winning over 99% of the time with losses of transport, submarine, 2 fighters.  I believe that is a rather good trading position for Japan.

@Craig:

@tekkyy:

Yeah I think over time the rules will become more logical.

Depend on which post you read (at harrisdesign) LHTR 2.0 was just short of some changes.
To me it should have been called LHTR 1.4 or something.

There are reasons (that will become quite evident eventually) why an thorough edit good was embarked upon and put forth as v2.0.

Craig

You know, I used the same reason at a bar posing as a government agent.

“Young miss, there are reasons - that will become quite evident eventually - why you must remove your underwear right here right now.”  8-)

“Orly?”  :?

“Yarly.  We is teh gub-mint.  We don’t lie.”  8-)

“Uhm, okay?”  :|

@CrazyStraw:

Howdy.

I hadn’t weighed in on this thread, but I just got a story to tell.

Yesterday I played a game against a good player.  It was time-limited.

No joke, in a 5 round game I built 9tra 1car with Germany.

And it WON the game for me!

It was ridiculous!

It was absurd!

It was outrageous!

It was sublime…

So German boats can be good.  That would have been excessive in 99% of the games I’ve played, but yesterday it was exactly enough to get the job done.  Simple lesson: the Baltic is important.

I begin to see the value in LL / No Luck games and in non-time limited games.

My entire strategies in my tournament game had to change because of a time limit.  It caused a waste of two turns because I forgot to take into account that there was a time limit in each round.  (not a round limit, that would have been easy to work with, but a time limit.)

needless to say, I’m never making that mistake again!

This discussion needs moved to House Rules

@Seador:

Personally I find Banzai to be one of Japan’s best advantages as it is. It allows them to forgo expensive art and tank buys and just use Inf for ground wars.

My group uses full NAs too BAGM; for Japan we did the following based on LHTR:

Combined the Suicide NAs into one,
Altered the Fanatical Defenders to "Japanese Inf defend on a 3 in the first cycle of combat when defending a yellow territory. Japanese Inf on islands are not subject to Battleship bombardment.

and are still playing out various “new” NAs. Our current option up for testing is “Total war!”, allowing Japan to build an unlimited number of units on its home territory.

I also come up with something of a new Fanatical Resistance (Dug-In Defenders):

Fukkaku Defenses
The Japanese introduced the tactic of endurance engagements intended to inflict maximum casualties. This tacic called Fukkaku included bunkers and pillboxes connected by tunnels.
All your infantry on islands and Japan are immune to shore bombardment and defend during the opening fire of combat.