Posts made by 77stranger77

If we want to tinker with the setup for an earlier point in the war, what’s to be done about France for '39 and '40? I think we’d have to redraw the map over there. It’s only one territory so there’s no room for maneuvering and it’s directly bordering Germany and Southern Europe. Unless we introduced political rules, if France isn’t ridiculously outgunned, she could probably take the weaker of the two, Southern Europe. Or if turn order dictates that a wise Germany would attack France before she can take a turn(or do something significant), then doesn’t game balance hinge on the dice in one early large battle? Even if the odds are massively in Germany’s favor, “extra” losses will really hurt the Axis and vice versa.

Just from a gaming standpoint, it could still be fun if the alternative setup didn’t follow strict historical constraints. In a way it could be easier to design.

As a result of the new transport rules, one thing can’t be stressed enough. The Allied fleets must stay together. In Revised, the UK and US fleets could operate in different seazones. Early in a Revised game, I would often have the UK in Norway via z6 with the US in Algeria via z12. This is no longer practical because of the extra amount of protection needed from the Luftwaffe.

A further repercussion of this is the added difficulty to supply Africa by the Allies should Germany threaten seazone 12 with fighters on Western Europe. I can’t speak from a wealth of experience on this one but has anyone found Africa harder to control as the Allies in Spring 42 compared to Revised?

It depends what you have in mind and no single unit will get the job done. The reasoning behind having a navy is either to protect your transports or to sink enemy ships to prevent them from using transports. The composition of the navy depends on what the opposing side has.

If my navy was strictly for defense from enemy planes and maybe a few odd ships, it would be a mix of loaded aircraft carriers with destroyers for fodder.

If my navy were on the offensive, it would first need to be able to defend so it could be in range to attack the enemy. Loaded carriers and destroyers would be the best for that role. Subs are the most efficient offensively and would make great fodder once in an offensive position. With 3 or so battleships, you might push the opposing fleet around even without having the offensive advantage. The opposing side would either need to match your battleships or risk a strafe with lopsided losses.

What might be interesting is to set a pricetag and see what the ideal blend might be.

This article can teach you a lot on playing Germany especially. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14466.0

For the Axis to win, they need to break the Allied economic advantage. Japan should be snatching the easy territories in the Pacific and Africa and taking potshots with her battleships but the primary focus should always be Russia. For the Allies to win, they need to control Axis expansion and if they do that, they will eventually overwhelm the Axis.

My best advice is don’t make mistakes. Great strategy can be beaten with a silly oversight. Make smart purchases. Germany needs infantry early and Japan needs transports early. Look at what the Allies can do at least one round out every turn so that you won’t leave an opening for them. Use the turn order to anticipate their next move and to determine which units are already committed. Be aware of canopeners. US clears Novo/Kazakh and Russian tanks get Japan’s fighters in Sinkiang. UK liberates Karelia and US tanks from Norway support an amphibious assault on Eastern Europe.

Depends on your strategy and the current situation. Bombers are the best offensively and their range is great but they are no good for defending a territory or seazone. It just depends what you need it for.

If it were practical, it would be best to do from WE, not spending on a Norway IC. That said, the US can outproduce any Axis efforts on the ground in North America. But to be totally honest, the Germans would be incredibly lucky to get any units across the Atlantic, given how much they have to defend against. Supposing they had shipped out enough units to be considered a pipeline and had spent the necessary income on navy to get across, they would still be smeared all over Europe by the USSR, who would at the very least be trading Ukraine.

@nutbar:

i play a&a and almost always lose. i really need help. my main opponent is a better player than me. please give me strategies. thanks in advance.

Concepts are generally more important than strategies. If you’re solid on those, the strategies will leap out at you. The number one thing to understand is the basics of waging a land war. You say you’ve lurked the boards for a while so chances are you know all probably first turn moves. Going back to old Classic A&A, this is explained in Essay 4. Even though this is a past A&A game, deadzone concepts still hold. http://donsessays.freeservers.com/

The extension of this knowledge is a grasp of when to build infantry/artillery and when to throw in some tanks.

I don’t know how he beats you. If I could play against you, or see a game you lost, then I could give a lot more detailed advice.

Now we’re getting somewhere. At 5-10 IPC’s with unlimited placement, they’re way too cheap. Think about how overpowering that is to nations with enormous far away production - Japan and US. If the USA can hold Norway long enough to get a factory rolling(or just hold Sinkiang) then they have no need for a navy and won’t need to invest income into transport protection. Their whole 40+ production can go in a territory just 3 spaces from Germany. Persia would be a great factory location for the UK because of how much easier it is to defend than India. This would again defeat the purpose of defenseless transports - making it expensive for the Allies to get units to the front. And on the Axis side, can you imagine Japan placing 50 IPC’s of units all on Yakut?

The current rules provide simple constraints on factories that prevent them from becoming too powerful and overused. I like how factories don’t move. Germany’s SE factory would be moved immediately to a more aggressive location in Eastern Europe then forward from there. Then how is Italy significant besides being worth six? Russia would move the Caucuses factory before capture which removes incentive for Germany to take it over West Russia in most games.

Lowering the price slightly, say from 15 down to 12, as done in AAR enhanced might be reasonable. The economics are supposed to be against the USSR building a factory. I’m not trying to dismiss this because it’s a fun argument, but economics are also against Russian navies and a whole host of other ideas but there aren’t suggestions to change those rules.

@strategic:

nutbar likes to play with no ipc unit per territory, and he plays with magical you-can-build-any-unit-in-any-quantity-as-long-as-you-own-the-territory-and-you-have-the-$-rule.

ps hes my main opponent/ aka brother

Little brother, right?

Let me get this straight. By his rules, there are no factories, you can build as much as you like in any territory you own, provided you can afford the units - a lot like Risk. Germany would benefit a lot in Europe but the Allies building in Asia and Africa is a gamebreaker. US gets Sinkiang, UK gets India. The US can get Norway and pump out units there unless Karelia is stacked.

On the surface it sounds fun just because it’s different but it’s sure to be unbalanced in some way or another. Maybe put up with him until he catches on that whoever gets the Allies is bound to win or vice versa.
@nutbar:

I hate factories and my brother won’t let me play without them. Factories are overpriced and have extremely unfair rules. Can you give me ways to convince my brother to let me play without factories.

Nutbar, how are factories overpriced? What would a fair price be? What is so unfair about their rules? Is it that a hypothetical factory on Madagascar could only produce one unit per turn? Is it because they discriminate against neutral territories? This is the first time I’ve heard those assertions of factories being a bad addition to the game and I don’t understand your argument. It’s much more than just your brother who will insist on playing with factories, your best bet is finding a like-minded opponent or someone who wants to try something different.

There’s only one way I can see factories being unfair and it’s if you remove the ability to buy new ones. Japan is automatically limited to 8 units meaning the Allies have an incredibly easy task of KGF. When I say unfair, I mean benefiting one side, the Axis, more than the Allies. In this case, the unfair addition of factories to aid Japan in Asia is great.

@Keredrex:

Interesting… your making a lot of assumptions here…
I like your Turn 1 strategy.  but your need for Japanese fighters in Western Europe is Weird.

* The UK/US will keep spending money on fleets instead of ground units.

Your assumption of what the allied player(s) will continue to spend their money on  in later turns is a bit short sided. 
starting in R1 UK could choose to rebuild the Navy or become an Airforce.   what would you do if UK decided to send fighters every round to defend Russian territories… Allowing Russians to more actively engage other areas with their fighters cause britain Fighters take over for defense.  Dont forget American fighter can also do the same… and america has the money to also build a fleet.

Also, why would  the allies not at some point change their strategy?  with UK losing its fleet entirely in round 1 america may choose to build a complex in sinkiang.

I simply cant see everything you described panning out unless your playing an inexperienced player.  You can’t assume a veteran player wont see what your trying to do early on and force you to change your strategy.
for example if i see japanese planes flying to germany… then im going after japan as hard and fast as possible.

The need for Japanese fighters on WE is to disrupt the UK/US 1-2 move on Germany. If the UK moves say to the Baltic, then Japan can likely sink one of the two fleets because the US and UK are split in between their turns and during Japan’s. With only German fighters to consider, the Allies can jointly defend against ~4 fighters, 2 bombers. With Japanese planes to consider, the Allied fleet can’t move unless both can defend against Japan’s planes. The Allies either concede the Atlantic, stay in one place, or build enough defensive navy to have the freedom to move around.

The assumption of what the Allies spend on(fleet) is totally logical. If they are to have a convoy system to Europe they need to stay afloat. The alternative of just sending Allied fighters into Russia is inefficient. It does nothing to threaten the German coastline and leaves Russia virtually on their own. Plus, how do they liberate Africa?

If the Allies go for a different strategy, Axis goes for a different strategy. If the Allies go for Asian IC’s and a Pacific campaign, Germany can basically tank dash while Japan tries to build income and play defense.

If the US goes after Japan midgame when their fighters are in WE, how do the Allies keep control of the Atlantic? Suppose US4 is the turn. US builds in z55. J5, there’s no big moves in the Atlantic, so they fly their fighters, probably not all of them, to z34 to be recovered by the IJN’s carriers. Japan’s transports are hiding in either z36 or z61 if there isn’t any naval protection but they’re still serving their purpose of offloading from Japan. US5 move to Solomons or Wake Island. Japan 6 move z34 to z36, US ships are toast if they advance. What have the Allies accomplished and at what cost?

Sure this stuff will pan out, it’s a winning strategy. Give some details of how you’d go after Japan hard and fast, I’m probably not following you.

The transport dies, the sub lives. If a sub submerges, then it cannot be protecting the transports - they would die if they are unescorted.

@Wilson2:

@Fleetwood:

I have lost as the Axis even with Germany taking Russia but it was in Revised, this could just as easily happen. The Allies were playing split focus with Russia and UK against Germany and the US was basically trying to tackle Japan on their own. It was really my game to lose and I learned from that game, especially when I wrongly stopped building navy as Japan when I somehow thought I needed more Japanese units to take Russia(while Germany did all of the attacking). The US eventually had factories on all of Japan’s valuable islands, then captured Japan’s factory on French Indochina, then China and into Asia. Meanwhile, the UK was able to trade Western Europe and eventually stack Karelia to branch out from there. Germany tried to keep control of all of Eurasia, they just can’t especially with the Allied economic advantage. It was one of the longest games I’ve played. If you’re interested, I still have the TripleA file but you’ll need an older version of TripleA(1003 or 1032, I forgot which) and it’s too big for me to email the installer.

I think my problem was that Russia fell 1 turn too early. If Russia had held for 1 more turn (Germany did a 55% attack that could have easily lost) then I would have been able to get up a US Norway factory early game and it might have gone differently.
About your game. Did UK manage to keep Africa in it?

Germany had a presence in Africa for a while. The med fleet went down UK5. In the end, Germany was kicked out by the UK MidEast units, the six Canada/UK units, and the 4 East US units. The Allies liberated South Africa on US7. Japan later broke into Africa on J8 and was cleaned out a few turns later. In hindsight, this was a big mistake because it meant a stop to fleet building. My consideration at the time was a break for the Atlantic through the med. US8 was the fall of the islands and US9 was when factories went up on East Indies, Borneo, and Philippines. Russia fell on G11, Germany getting lucky to take it with so much - 20 tanks and a bomber. The US was all over Asia and the UK was all over Europe. It was the Axis’ game to lose and this game taught me a lot.

@reloader-1:

3. How do you prevent politicians from using welfare to buy votes?

@calvinhobbesliker:

3. What exactly is wrong with that? I need this clarification before I answer.

Are you familiar with the cycle of democracy?
http://www.wrisley.com/cycle.htm

I was playing a four player LHTR Revised game with friends. We rolled dice to determine NA’s, one per nation. Allied NA’s were what I called at the time the KJF combo meal: Non-Aggression Treaty, Colonial Garrison(India), and Chinese Divisions(Sinkiang factory, I think). Japan left Tokyo vulnerable to a favorable US attack but it was still uncertain. The US fleet from Solomons moved up and attacked with 4 inf, 4 fighters, bb shot. Japan’s aa gun claimed a plane. Then the US fires. My fighters were okay but my infantry went 4/4. That sealed the battle and the game.

I have lost as the Axis even with Germany taking Russia but it was in Revised, this could just as easily happen. The Allies were playing split focus with Russia and UK against Germany and the US was basically trying to tackle Japan on their own. It was really my game to lose and I learned from that game, especially when I wrongly stopped building navy as Japan when I somehow thought I needed more Japanese units to take Russia(while Germany did all of the attacking). The US eventually had factories on all of Japan’s valuable islands, then captured Japan’s factory on French Indochina, then China and into Asia. Meanwhile, the UK was able to trade Western Europe and eventually stack Karelia to branch out from there. Germany tried to keep control of all of Eurasia, they just can’t especially with the Allied economic advantage. It was one of the longest games I’ve played. If you’re interested, I still have the TripleA file but you’ll need an older version of TripleA(1003 or 1032, I forgot which) and it’s too big for me to email the installer.

Something similar to this was tried against me in a current game with MrMalachiCrunch. He bought 2 bombers, 4 inf, art on G1. Germany attacked z13, Egypt, Karelia, and Ukraine. On G2 he bought another bomber. Germany never made a strategic bombing raid against the Soviets, probably because of his conservative play. Russia had a lucky defense of Ukraine so it stayed in Russian hands from R1 onward. On G2, Germany had to evacuate Eastern Europe(the alternative was ditching Western Europe) and still hasn’t left Germany in force. So, Germany was pushed around in Europe as a result of a weak G1 build and this was put on the fast-track by a set unlucky rolls in Ukraine. Germany couldn’t SBR Russia without landing on Japanese soil and Germany couldn’t bomb Caucuses without a) moving bombers from WE to Germany or b) landing on Japanese soil with either move being acceptable to the Allies. On the whole, Russia gaining ground helps a lot to offset the damages of the bombing raids where a few aa hits can change the whole course of the game.

@Cromwell_Dude:

Imagine the look on the face of the Axis player when the US builds a navy with 4 battleships, 3AC, 5 destroyers, 10 subs, and 20 transports, on EACH coast on move 1!  The war is not in doubt now.

Great economic parody. I hate to be a spoil sport but the US would run into factory build limits in any game but A&A Classic.

I haven’t done this yet and must put it on my to-try list. The G1 purchase would probably be something like AC, transport, 4 inf, art. This can get the Axis a strong hold on Africa but Europe might not look so good. Germany will fall behind in the count in Europe and might have to concede Ukraine to Russia. As a consequence for keeping 4 units per turn in SE, Germany and EE may be thin on units. Plus, the fighters on the AC won’t be guarding land.

A J1 attack on India shouldn’t happen as long as the Kwangtung transport is killed off. Russia should position at least 2 tanks in range to liberate India.

Here’s a risky idea for J1. Attack the US z55 battleship, transport with a sub and a fighter. Attack z52 with a battleship, carrier, cruiser, and planes at your discretion. The odds on the battleship aren’t brilliant but ~60% you’ll at least get the battleship making it often worthwhile. You’ll have to build factories or something to protect newly built transports and the UK can’t have caused very much trouble for this to work.