ok, i have not played A&A in years because friends of mine started to drink, drugs and women and thought games were for kids.
anyway, how can you play over the net? i would love to!!!
Email your moves back and forth and get a neutral server to roll the dice.
DAAK.de has one
AAMC has one, forget if it’s an org, com or net.
We have one here, but you need to know the syntax to use it.
my first post hear… soo
@nuno: that was a vary in muture statment that you started with. enough said on that.
@tenth8sphere: i know what you are saying and i personally hate playing USA, they are my least fav, but i do play Japan and have used this stratagy on a smaller scale with them for my conquest of the pacific rim in USSR, India, and USA. Japan may not have the economy that US has early on, but they start with the navy to pull it off against smaller fries (India factory, USSR supply lines to the East [if they even try], or Alaska supply lines). now this isn’t what your saying exactly and i know that. BUT i think it is a valid stratagy and i think you don’t need to get up to 10 Battle Ships, but could do it with say 5, a few Destroyers as Sub deturents and then the UK builds up there Infantry/transport numbers and sends supplies in the form of Infantry to USSR via Norway (US can clear it and it’s supply line the turn before, to get rid of heavy resistance and reinforcments) then march east to build a secure supply line. then as the US ships clear the German lines the Germans will divert the majority of there troop production in Italy to keep the troops alive for a few turns. this leaves France and Germany clear for the taking. if the German player focusus on deffending Germany then they lose troops each turn at low US cost and the USSR can push slow into Germanys East front and then the UK can supply there deffences for counter strikes, or even become the leader and leap frog to Germany. after a few turn UK should have a Transport fleet there capable of landing a large force. they do so, Germany retaliates or just takes the lose of France, ether way it’s end game for Germany.
i think this will work, it’s a long game, but should be fun and diffrent… i hate Bomber runs and my friends and i come up with any way to get around using them as a desisive stratagy.
Each BB you buy will have a 4/6 chance of killing a defending Inf each round - so it can net you on average 2 IPCs damage on the enemy each round.
At that rate it will take you 12 rounds to have each BB pay for itself. In the meantime, you have no ground forces to help keep territory from the enemy.
I’s a neat concept but not economical.
If DD’s could bombard by default, then it might be closer to being worth it.
You don’t have DD’s in Classic!
the idea is not for the US to gain the territories early, it allows the UK to build a supply chain of just Transports with no real threat to them and with say 4 BB’s you are forcing Germany to keep Infantry back allong the north Europe coast. they leave France with a small force then the US bombards it and then Germany has to pull more men that way then from the USSR front to keep the UK from landing there. the Germans also have to be carfull of luck by the US, they can’t leave just 1 guy over what the US has in battle ships as if the US gets lucky and hits with 100% and then lands with there solo infantry (or if the US has more there and feels like being lucky they try to go with more) and gets a hit with that infantry then Germany is cripled. should the Allies count on that happening? no, but Germany has to be carfull that it dosn’t happen so they got to have atleast 2 more units in the teritory then the US has BB’s. and all that will be Infantry as who wants to lose tanks, or fighters to bombardment. so not only are you keeping extra Germans from the front line, you are also killing men, and giving the UK a safe resupply rout to the USSR.
i think the next time i’m an Allie i will try this just becouse i think it has lots of potental.
I pretty much thought this whole US BB strat was just bogus, but people start to get serious with this… I will give my 2 cents.
=> Waste of time for the allies in my book.
I have to agree with Bashir. There are cheaper and faster options at your disposal for the US. Depending if you want an offensive navy I would use FTR’s and maybe a few BMR’s. Per say you wouldn’t need to engage them at all.
Most Navy conflicts are dancing around the other Navy because it costs way to much to support one and owning an ocean territory at the end of a turn doesn’t pay any thing.
So just having an intimidating Air Force in range could be a deterrent.
I know some of you are going to explain how now the US will leave its TRN’s open for the picking but a BB’s is not the unit you would want taking the hits in that scenario either.
as i said, i would try it the next time i was Allies.
my results were not as good as i had hoped, the results from the battle ships were good, they just took to long to arive with any real force. i did not go with one ship per turn, i stoped after 2 as i saw the need to start ammasing for a landing.
i’m not sure if it’s because i’m not the best US player, or what, but it won’t be something i do again…. atleast for a long time.
Bashir:
The BB strat is more for Killing Japan, then Europe. And you’re right, Carriers + Fighters are more effective unless you turn on 2 hit battleships, then battleships become kings at sea again (still need carrier/fighters! but a few battleships sprinkled in can really turn the tides on a japan only producing submarines to counter you.)
Anyway, for revised I’ve started going heavy battleships again. They can take a beating and keep sailing saving money over the life of the game (since you don’t have to replace units.)
vs Japan it is still kinda useless,because Japs can just build a 1 round full Sub build and eliminate the BB threat… If you see the USA buy BB’s you are stupid if you don’t think ahead and buy a sub or maybe even 2 for each BB. Fun fact is that on avarage you need only 2 subs (16) for every BB (24 ipc’s) => Still a waste of money and time…
You only need 2 submarines if you think America’s dumb enough to fight to the bitter end.
What’s to stop America from hitting you with 5 battleships, getting 4-5 hits, and retreating? Now you lost 32-40 IPC and America lost nothing.
I can’t believe this is being discussed seriously. Therefor, I will refrain from arguing against it, other than to say this: try it against me, and you will lose. Of course, you will say: “Oh but you knew my strategy in advance, so this isn’t a good test :cry:” Yes, I would shamelessly exploit this knowledge and build LAND UNITS (as usual).
What’s next - an All-Bomber strategy? The Firepower!!! The Range!!! omgz0rz!!! :-o The ability to take and hold land… :cry:
Problem with your statement, is that Japan does what Japan wants regardless. It doesn’t matter if America attacks you at sea or attacks Germany. You don’t intend to change your plans at all anyway, so nothing America does or does not do has any bearing on your attacks. Thus, you will go down in infamy because you will NOT build ANY fleet outside of transports and will be over whelmed. Sorry, can’t have it both ways hun. You either stipulate that you WILL change your strategy, or you are barred from building anything but transports since that’s the classic Japan strategy.
I think I misspoke myself. If US starts buying a big pac navy, I buy subs with Japan. Lots and lots of subs. Whether US is building their fleet the smart way (subs, ACs, Ftrs) or some crazy way (all BBs), I’ll still stick with the smart way. The ultimate goal is to preserve cash for the land way, so I go with the most cost-effective naval unit, the sub.
Subs have their own flaws. They can be hit by fighters without cost.
And I’m not saying go ALL OUT battleships. However, I have found that +3 Battleships +2 Carriers +5 Fighters seems to be pretty good at keeping Japan at bay, especially if they build up submarines. Hit you with Fighters if your subs are solo, bring in the fleet to absorb hits if you have fleet there. (2 Carriers can support 8 fighters in a naval engagement. 4 Fighters flying 4 spaces in, 4 fighters flying in 1, and out 3.)
I don’t even NEED to build submarines.
(Units listed above are in addition to surviving starting forces and assume SZ 52 was cleared on J1. if SZ 52 was not cleared, reduce by units left alive in SZ 52.)
For the same price as your US fleet, Japan can build 19 subs. What do you think happens to your BB/AC/Ftr fleet when they are hit by 19 subs? They score six hits in opening fire (avg.), sending 3 of your capital ships to the ocean floor, leaving only two to to even fight back. Those plus the 4 Ftrs that were on the ACs take out maybe three subs.
The remaining 16 subs make short work of the remaining navy, and your fighters splash or land on some god-forsaken pacific island after taking out two more subs.
Japan loses 5 subs, US loses 3 BB 2 AC, and possibly 4 fighters if there was not an adjacent allied-controlled landing spot.
It would work with fewer than 19 subs, I imagine - this is a bit of overkill, but its the same commitment in terms of IPCs, only much more effective. And this is excluding the US and Jap starting navies, of which Japan’s is bigger.
And please, for 2 ACs to support 8 ftrs in an attack, you need a very specific arrangement. Japan is not going to leave its fleet in any sea-zone where you can pull off this stunt.
Well, part of the problem is that Japan cannot BUILD 18 submarines that fast without giving up entirely in Asia. IN which case, I don’t HAVE to advance my fleet, I can retreat it to the Atlantic and be MILES ahead. (Your submarines are now completely worthless, meanwhile my carriers can still be floating air bases and my battleships can still shell the shores in Europe.)
The other part of the problem is that Japan has to run away in order to avoid the 8 fighter/bomber/transport/4 battleships/destroyer/2 carrier attack. Otherwise, they’ll get boxed in.
The point is, for a naval slug-fest, subs are a better buy than BBs. Just run subs against BBs in AACalc at a 3:1 ratio (since you can afford 3 subs for 1 BB) and see what wins.
Yes, a BB can absorb a hit, and they attack at 4. Whoohoo.
3 Subs attack at 6, in opening fire. If they take a hit, they then have a punch of 4, same as the battleship, but still in OFS.
After a 2nd hit, the BB is dead.
The 3 sub force after 2 hits still has one surviving unit.
A further benefit is that the subs can submerge if they want. BB can absorb a hit, but has to stand and fight.
But the problem with your analogy is you are assuming SUBMARINES vs BATTLESHIPS.
The real battle is fleets vs fleets. And the real strength of the battleships is their ability to strafe enemy fleets, which is what I am attempting to tell you.
Sure, 18 Submarines vs 6 Battleships run to the end results in submarines winning.
However, do 2 Battleships, 2 Carriers, 4 Fighters, Destroyer, 18 Submarines beat 5 Battleships, 3 Carriers, 2 Destroyers, 10 Fighters, Bomber, 8 Submarines?
That’s what each navy COULD look like after 7 rounds of play.
That’s with America earning an average of 40 IPC a round and Japan spending 20 IPC a round on fleet. Presumably you would want to build at least SOME ground forces against Russia, so I deducted a portion for that.
The sims have the Americans surviving that with all battleships in tact. Granted, America would have won with submarines instead of battleships, but then America would be denied shore bombardments and would have lost equipment (at least another 40 IPC worth of material they did NOT lose because the battleships absorbed that damage.)
This is NOT a care of ONLY submarines vs ONLY battleships. It’s a case of which makes the navy stronger in the Pacific? And hands down, the answer is Battleships added to the fleet as well as carriers and fighters, not ONLY submarines added to a fleet already containingbattleships and carriers and fighters.
