Looking at if from the standpoint of someone that will likely only play Allies, I probably would hold out for 15 to win the game, at least for the 1941 Scenario. We do not know enough about the 1942 scenario to make any sort of decision there.
Don’t you want to conquer the world for the Axis (edit out the rest)
Didn’t Larry say victory cities were going to play a bigger role in AA50? Seems pretty misleading since they actually play a lesser role in each of those victory conditions vs. Revised OOB ones (13 requires controlling more territory than 8, 15 more than 10, 18 = 12). Unless there’s something else special about victory cities, they still seem rather pointless, even at 13 for a win. 13 now seems to be about comparable to 9 in Revised, for Axis at least. I think adding Ottawa as a VC was a pretty big mistake, Cairo seems like a better spot, something that is actually going to be fought over.
I generally try not to gripe about problems in AA50 when it’s not even out yet, but I just don’t see how VCs are any more significant than they were in Revised. If the game were balanced for an Axis win at 11-12 VCs with the Allies having an advantage as far as a domination game would be concerned, but having something like a 13 VC win (only because they start '41 with 12), then I think VCs would actually bring to the game what they should.
I personally don’t like using marshalling cards/task force markers, preferring to keep all my units on the board (sometimes it gets too crowded, obviously). The bigger board should allow enough space, and I guess that’s why they didn’t include any type of markers for large armies/navies, aside from being cheap.
Japan
Manchuria+Formosa+French Indo-China=5 IPCs
Actually, this is Manchuria, Kiangsu (which contains Shanghai) and French Indo-China/Thailand.
Actually having an inf in Lib makes taking Egypt more likely than having a fig to send from Ukraine if you send Germany’s bomber + 1inf/1tank from Seur to Egypt in both cases (96% vs. 92%), even though you have more of a chance to kill off everything in Egypt with the fig. And if you’re thinking ahead to UK’s possible Egypt counter, the chances of Germany having 2 tanks or more to hold Egypt with is 87% with 1 more inf vs. 70% with 1 more fig. Of course in the long term you can take Egypt back again on G2, and having the extra fighter is certainly a plus.
As for Ukraine, 1 extra inf makes the attack a 74% chance for Russia to take with at least 1 tank, 88% to clear with at least 1 fig, vs. the normal 89% chance to take with 1 tank+ and 96% to clear with 1fig+. In this case, if Russia attacks and wins (still decently likely), Germany’s Egypt attack with 2inf/2arm/bom will have an 84% chance to take, but only 62% to have 2 tanks+.
Woodstock. There is no problem in playing the game without bids. But the poll is for a bid that makes the game balanced, meaning both sides have as close to equal a chance as possible to win given equally skilled players (very important for tourneys, etc.). You seem to agree that the axis is at a disadvantage because it is more fulfilling to win as the axis, so you’re really agreeing that a bid is needed to balance the game. But again, for games where you’re just playing for fun, and not in a tournament or other group where your record matters, playing without a bid is fine if that’s what you want.
player 1 - Germany + Italy
player 2 - UK + US
player 3 - Russia + Japan
If Germany is buying a Romania IC 2 transports for it, Germany doesnt have sufficient ground forces to just roll over the USSR.
Russia wont be fallling anytime soon…
Yes, but are you taking that German IC as a given most games? Func seems to be saying UK has to build an IC in both India and SAf every game, which is what I was responding to because I completely disagree. If he meant they need both ICs if Germany goes Med, then I guess I misunderstood.
And Lynxes I don’t find building 2 ICs to deploy nothing but inf because you’ll otherwise be unable to build in UK very effective. /shrug
IC in India + IC in SAf means UK isn’t doing crap in Europe. They won’t have the money to build up any type of navy if they’re spending it all in SAf and India, which means they can’t land in Europe because of German air/navy. So, wish Russia luck holding Germany off on its own?
I didn’t know about Revised until accidentally running into Gleemax this summer, heh.
I challenge you to a game of AAAv, IL.
@Greand:
: can the planes defend? (no Destroyers in the defending fleet)
: can planes be takes as cassulty?
no and no
Borneo (4), East Indies (4), New Guinea (1), Hong Kong (1), Burma (think that’s what it’s called, 2), Anglo Egypt Sudan (separate from Egypt, 1). Total = 13, 30+13=43
In '42, I believe Japan starts with all of those except AES.
Germany goes before UK, allowing them to place subs in the Baltic before UK can move DDs into range of the Baltic. Then when the UK DOES move a DD in range, Germany takes the DD out with sub + air. I believe that is what he wants to happen. And then if the UK tries to move its entire naval force to land, it will be in range of the subs. The problem I see is with UK moving 1 DD to block (subs can’t bypass destroyers, right?), while moving the rest of the navy into a sea zone behind it for a landing, then taking out the subs on their next turn.
Since Gleemax came out, I’ve played tons of ‘true multiplayer’ games (edit: and to clarify, Gleemax obviously is an online site where the games I’m playing are with people I have never met before, and most of the time I don’t run into the same people from one game to another). And in most, if not all of them, as long as I communicate with my teammate(s) we can generally come to some type of general agreement for the course of movement. Every move of every turn does not need to be agreed upon.
I’d think anyone seriously discussing strategy in this board is at least somewhat serious about the game strategically, right? And those types of players will generally play with like-minded players. Those strategic players will generally play with the scope of the entire war in mind, not just “oh, this british unit will hinder Italy but won’t do anything to me as Japan, so I’ll leave it alone”.
If you’re playing the type of game where you aren’t really playing to win, just playing to have fun and laugh at each other when you screw up, even if it’s your teammate dooming you to a loss, then it seems you aren’t playing a very serious game strategically and that doesn’t really hold much weight in this discussion. Certainly, the game should be fun for casual as well as not-so-casual players, since that’s how AA got where it is. But when discussing 1st round moves in-depth in a thread as we are, the assumption should be that pretty much every player in the game is serious about winning, and has a good bit of A&A experience, and thus understands the big picture of how each player’s move impacts the entire war.
Comments about “well your moves in Africa will depend on Italy (or Germany), so they’re invalid” are completely counterproductive to the purpose of this thread.
(thus 4 players games don’t need bid)
Really? You should notify the 2v2 tournament going on a few sections down of this news.
You are being somewhat optimistic about cooperation from the other Axis players. Why should the German player loose those units in Africa if you are going to get the benefit?
Because you win as a team, and if you’re playing with anyone intelligent they’ll understand that also and cooperate. If Lynxes is playing Italy and Germany doesn’t think hitting Egypt on G1 is a good move (as I don’t really), then no Germany probably won’t hit Egypt and the attack there will be delayed for a round. Any decent German player should see the importance of punching through Egypt so that either Germany or Italy can claim the easy IPCs south.
Being optimistic about cooperation? In Revised, I’m pretty sure that no matter whether it’s a multiplayer or 1v1 game UK will liberate Karelia more often than Russia. And a UK player with someone else playing US/USSR, hitting a somewhat weakly defended W Europe knowing they wouldn’t take it, but also knowing that hitting it would force Germany to restock those infantry, taking pressure off Russia is certainly not being optimistic about cooperation. I think that people will generally play with other people of their same skill-level, so whatever strategy Lynxes finds to be good, people he plays with will probably also find merits in it. I think that expecting an opposing team to not communicate about moves before they make them would be optimistic…
But, Japan moves before UK and I think destroying that Indian fleet will be a standard move. They have 2 ftrs on a CV outside of Formosa who can destroy the fleet easily.
A good point, but that move would mean shifting a carrier west, farther from the US Navy that will be threatening soon. Also, if Japan designates 2 fighters for the India fleet it looks like it won’t make nearly as much leeway into China on J1.
But again, that’s a fine move and if Japan takes out the trans UK will abandon Egypt before Italy has the chance to take it. But in this situation UK has the chance of taking Egypt back on UK2 since Italy can only get 4 ground troops there, and UK can still shift their bomber down. That would also open the door for more stalling once the SAf inf made their way north, with air cover to support their attack. And by that time, with Italy alone concentrating pretty much everything on Egypt, the UK/US should be able to make a solid enough landing in Morocco to push east, and more or less seal off N. Africa. This is the problem of not having any German Med. support, and seems to be a big problem to me.
- India reinforcement, 2 inf
Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 4 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 17Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 1 arm, 1 ftr.
Huh? How? 1st, only 2 ships can bombard because you’re only landing 2 ground troops. 2nd, the chances of taking Egypt with that attack are very small…if you hit 0/2 bombards it’s not gonna happen, 1/2 bombards gives a 13% chance to take, 2/2 bombards gives 37% chance to take…And I forgot to mention the UK can move his India destroyer through the Suez before i1 making bombardment impossible.
- No india reinforcement:
Italy: 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr, bombard: 1 BB, 2 CA= 10 shore bombard, 16 attack.
UK: 2 inf, 1 tank, 1 ftr= 13Probable end result: Italy takes Egypt with 2 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr.
Again, only 2 can bombard, if 0 hit it’s again 37% to take, 1 hit = 69%, 2 hits = 93%. So yes, in this case if UK does not ship units from India and does not move the destroyer through the Suez you should make that attack. But that would be a bad move by UK. If he will neither move the units from India to Egypt nor move the destroyer to prevent bombardment then he should move out of Egypt, either toward SAF (if he wants a SAF complex?) or toward India. Or he could still reinforce TJ and then counter-attack Egypt on UK2 because your 4 ground troops won’t be able to hold it vs. what he can bring and you have no German troops to help defend it because you threw their trans away.
I doubt if UK actually can take 2 inf from India and build an IC, since then it won’t be defended. And I wouldn’t pour troops into India to be killed and lose India in the process. UK will fight Africa either from a South African IC or from landings in North or West Africa.
So nr 2) is the probable scenario, and here Italy can afford to leave the BB outside of Italy and build a TRS safely and not fear attacks by that BMB, and still win the fight.
I can’t see why Germany needs to get troops into Africa. This is an italian theater of war!
1: As I said Japan might not even have anything to threaten India until J3, and then maybe not much. By then UK can move troops back from Egypt to India if he held Italy off, and that 1 round of stalling is worth a lot. With Japan having to deal with Russia in the north, China in the west, and the US probably building a decent Pacific navy, I’m not sure how heavy he can go after India.
2: As I said, UK can bring the bomber down to the Mid-East on UK1, and then the BB+trans in sz 14 are threatened by fighter+bomber, good odds for UK.
3: I agree that Italy is going to be focusing on Africa much more than Germany, but I do not agree that Germany should not care about reserving its Med. trans to move guys to Africa if need be. If the battle for Africa goes poorly for Italy in the the 1st 1-2 rounds then a German trans moving a couple guys can really help in a theater where a small amount of troops means a lot more than a dense area like Europe.
Egypt is simple: it’s going to fall on Italy’s turn anyway and in the long run a German campaign in Africa is too much waste of resources, it should be an italian theater of war. I prefer using that BMB vs. the Royal Navy!
Egypt will probably survive with anywhere from 1 fighter to 1 fighter, 1 tank, 1 art. Regardless it means your German trans will be dead and Germany probably won’t be able to transport any unit to Africa for the rest of the game. If he lives with just the tank+fighter, and ships 1inf, 1 art from India + 2 inf from TJ, you won’t take Egypt with Italy. He could also move his bomber down, forcing you to keep your navy bottled in sz 14 on I1 to protect a transport if you build one (which I prob would). And on UK2 he can transport the 2 inf from SAF to Egypt. Not to mention that depending on how you move he could practically force you out of Africa with just UK troops that started in the area. Even if he doesn’t, an Allied landing in Morocco will probably be happening in the first few turns, and if you haven’t taken Egypt solidly by then you can forget about Africa.
It might seem like he’s leaving Japan alone, but if Japan goes hard @China and the Pacific, UK can probably build an India complex that won’t be threatened until like J3. And I’d guess the US will be building some type of Pacific navy.
