IL’s map is bigger than original size and there’s a thread that will tell you it’s dimensions, I don’t remember off hand.
In noncombat move, you aren’t limited to a set number of moves. If the moves are all legal, you can make any number of them. Remember that planes can’t land in a territory just captured that turn.
hey every body the only reason i posted in this board is cuz the house rules and stratagies are gona be about spring 1942 edition cuz dats the 1 i always play so what should we talk about?
Welcome. Threads are generally started with a clear topic in mind, example some people were discussing British strategy or Japanese strategy or alternative G1 moves all in their own appropriate thread. 2 much numb3r5 and slang 4 me cuz its hard 2 folow. Sorry, couldn’t resist. Anyhow, feel free to steer the conversation anywhere you’d like, you’ll get plenty of opinions on different ideas within the game.
@turkey:
ok heres 1 how do u get more stars and become more than just “infantry” like im apparently an infantry within the fourms and i have 1 star and then IL has like 5 stars and is a heavy bomber how do you get more stars and a diff. name or rank?
Nobody really cares about the rankings. Promotions are automatic and based on post count. So, anybody can work their way up even without posting anything of substance.
In response to Dylan:
1. India IC is important if you play it but you really don’t have to(and probably shouldn’t). But with the initial 15 IPC investment on UK1 and subsequent investments of about the same, the Germans will rule the Atlantic. No, the Germans won’t have many ships but the UK won’t be invading anywhere. Without investment, the German ships will be killed by Allied air, not Allied ships. With no Egypt counter, by the time a South African factory comes to mind, it will be German owned. With a competent opponent, the Russians WILL NOT be pushing Eastern Europe/Balkans without a LOT of Allied help, pardon the capitals. There’s little use having the UK wait to take any German territory when it won’t cost them their ships.
2. Sure, if you play for India, that’s one way to do it. For a gambler, the UK has a 60-40 battle if they launch an amphibious assault on French Indochina with cruiser support. This is a big hurt to the attack on China when successful.
3. The 2 IPC’s are nice to have but not worth fighting for alone.
4. Russia needs more help than you seem to let on. They aren’t quite the big boy you mentioned in #1. Trying not to lose Africa as a side note is difficult when the UK has only one transport on UK1, can’t counterattack Egypt with their Indian factory, and cannot afford to build a navy. If the US bails them out in the Atlantic and Africa, it means they aren’t spending enough in Asia or the Pacific to make a difference and Japan will steamroll the Brits.
No problem with the questions, it keeps the boards active.
The Allied strategy I generally use requires Allied dominance of the Atlantic. That’s not to say they should go out of their way to build battleships and carriers. Buy only as much as you need to keep transports afloat. The Allies will liberate Africa early on by landing Algeria and then land Europe. As an experiment, an Indian complex and Anti-Japan strategy can be fun but the Axis will probably be at an advantage if they know what they’re doing. If you plan on this, make sure your partner(s) agree to it and commit right away.
As far as early purchases go, so much depends on G1’s purchase and combat move as well as Germany’s early dice. Advise your Russian comrade to attack Ukraine first round. Did Germany build a bomber? Did Germany attack z2, the med cruiser, and Egypt? Did Germany bring their 2 subs out of the Baltic? Let’s assume that Germany attacked z2 successfully. Ideally, your UK1 build will be a carrier, 2 destroyers(or 2 carriers if the German subs didn’t come out) and that will go in z8 to meet the Americans and Russians. That build’s purpose is to get the most defense in the water. The problem is that sometimes the most isn’t enough. If Germany has 2 subs and 4 planes, the battle is about 60-40 Allied favor and that or anything less is acceptable. If this isn’t safe, I would advise saving your money, moving the Canada transport to US waters, and moving out the next turn for a big fleet build that can withstand the Luftwaffe. Consider a UK1 bomber to set up an attack on the German med fleet. Remember, the US can protect you from German planes but not from Japanese planes which would attack between the UK and US moves.
The sun will probably set on some of the British Empire. Germany makes early gains in Africa and unless the US goes Pacific, Australia, New Zealand, and Madagascar can be written off eventually. India can’t hold very long unless a factory is put down UK1 and that takes a lot of commitment. I’m not an expert on those strategies. The UK will have to make up for some of those losses in Algeria, Libya, Norway, and various European territories.
Russia’s fall is a good thing. It means Russia’s winter is coming. Really, flow units to Russia through Norway/Karelia/Archangel. I try to stay in z6 until I’m ready to commit to the Baltic(seazone 5) or the Barents(seazone 4). The advantage to z6 is it allows reinforcement of Norway and (if possible) trading of Western Europe and building additional ships. We’ll assume both zones are safe for the Allied fleet. If the Allies can reasonably attack Germany, Eastern Europe, or stack Karelia and Russia isn’t in immediate danger, go for the Baltic. If Russia’s fate is uncertain, and the Allies can’t play aggressively, flow units into Russia through Archangel and trade Karelia for the Russians. The Barents allows the Allies to flex their economic muscle but if WE isn’t defended, it won’t allow the Allies to trade it. It also let’s the Axis drop her guard in the protection of Germany and Eastern Europe.
I’ll buy a destroyer on J2, but maybe J1 is better. Even if the US leaves Japan alone, they can choose to submerge their sub at Hawaii. In that case, Japan has to protect their transports from a US sub, a UK sub, and probably some Allied planes. If Japan builds a destroyer, the Allies will have to move their subs out of range or count on losing them. Once the Allied subs are out of the picture, Japan has more flexibility with where the IJN sails. If no destroyer is bought, the subs are a constant threat and Japan will have to dedicate naval units to protect seazones around Japan, around FIC, around the Indian Ocean. The subs can cover quite a range, and then there’s the Allied planes to complicate things further.
@SAS:
Higher than the US in? I think you are following the example of Bill Maher’s ‘recreational use’ a bit too much. Or is is the number of blah blah blahs typically uttered? In any event, knowing the rules of the game is paramount in being able to play it or offer advice on it. For the record Dylan, in Spring 42 (not sure what version of AA the rule changed in, anyone?) you can leave planes in a SZ where the carrier is to be built during your non-combat moves, moreover, newly built planes can be placed on your carrier if it is in a SZ adjacent to an IC. Newly built planes CANNOT be built on allied CVs however.
(Emphasis mine)
This recently came up in an AA50 game I played, and according to the Anniversary Edition rulebook pdf I have on my computer newly built fighters CAN be placed on existing carriers in an adjacent SZ. I learned to play A&A from 1942 here and I’ve always remembered what you just mentioned here about new fighters NOT being able to be placed on existing carriers, only on new carriers. I assumed AA50 was the same way since the rules are almost identical between it and 1942 (so that 1942 is often described as Revised with AA50 rules), so I was confused because I did not notice that change in the rulebooks. So I thought it would be important to others to point out this one difference between AA50 and AA42, if this is indeed the case.
Krieghund has the final say but I’ll take a crack at this. Fighters CAN be built on existing carriers in an adjacent seazone. However, newly built fighters CANNOT be placed on a friendly carrier of a different power/nationality. This rule would be true for Spring 42 and AA50.
That’s a great battle, at the very least see the first cycle of combat. Wilson ran the odds and an exchange of 2 subs and 2-3 fighters is a great trade for battleship, carrier, cruiser, destroyer, 2 fighters, 3 transports. The more income the Allies spend on fleet protection, the less they can spend effectively against Germany.
Dan, did the Russian build of a bomber on R1 cause you not to attack Sz2 in G1 for some reason? If so, was the reason because it could hit Norway and perhaps the german fighter would be lost as you used those troops against Kar in G1 there would have been no defense for the surviving bomber?
No, it wasn’t the bomber build that stopped the attack on z2. For other readers, here’s the situation. R1 build is 4 inf, bomber. Russia takes West Russia with 7 inf, art, tank and takes Ukraine with art, 3 tanks. For the precise move: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19028.0
In short, I wanted a Karelia stack on G1. Germany couldn’t afford to defend Norway if I did this. I would be more afraid of surviving German planes on Norway being attacked by the UK’s potential inf, tank, 2 fighters, and bomber. Realistically, if the German planes are naked, the Allies don’t need to commit so much. Also, the German destroyer to z3 could force the UK to peal off a plane from the ground attack. Any time a Russian plane dogfights an Axis plane on fairly even odds is a good day for the Axis. I’d invite that bomber versus fighter battle.
I don’t question the numbers. It’s not just a question of stats and economics, it’s a question of risk management and is therefore totally subjective. If all goes well on G1 how you have it laid out, the Allies can probably say good game. However, if Germany misses out in z10 and loses or ties in z2, then it’s grim for the Axis. Often, sending the sub to z2 will save Germany a fighter and every fighter counts in a competitive game. The Axis doesn’t need to take all those risks G1 to start off the game on the right foot, this can easily derail the game one way or the other. If you don’t expect to outplay your opponent, go for it.
Kudos for starting something in revised. I like a focus on the southern region but don’t know if the East Indies IC is the way to do it. Granted, I haven’t tried it before.
The big drawback is that it ties down 2 transports that will either go from East Indies to FIC or more likely from East Indies to India every round. To do it the way you suggest, getting inf to Persia every round, you’ll actually tie down 4 transports and that’s just not efficient. Compare it to an Indian IC. The drawback to India is that you place one less unit and have to wait to build the factory. That’s not all bad because Japan won’t necessarily have the production to support it. On the plus side, the Indian factory is one turn ahead of the East Indies factory(Build East Indies, transport to India, walk to Persia vs. Build India, walk to Persia).
My preference is transports on J1 and ideally in KGF up to 6 transports by J2 with my first factory going down on J3. It utilizes Japan’s original factory until Japan’s income can support multiple factories.
@Dylan:
@Dylan:
@Dylan:
Damn it, I was doing that (bombarding after the fight,) but I then just send the bomber instead I guess.
You can send the bomber but just the 2 inf, 2 arm and 1 ftr give you 87% of winning Egypt on G1. I prefer to send the bomber instead to attack SZ2 .
I just (sometimes) send in the fighter from Norway, to kill the transport.
In Z2?
yeah.
If you want to kill that transport, you have to kill the battleship first and have at least one attacking unit survive. So, sending just the fighter is unlikely to do the Axis any good.
Everyone talks about the importance of Germany hitting Egypt on G1. How is this usually done and for what reason? It’r not an easy fight to arrange for germany (especially on G1) and this doesn’t seem like a critical move to me. So what’s the importance of closing the Med? Is this to prevent UK’s destroyer from escaping to the India fleet? I just kill it. Is this to prevent the UK fleet from retreating toward the Med? Usually our UK players move aggressively against the Japanese instead…
So what’s the deal?
Here’s how the attack is arranged. Germany moves the inf, tank Libya to Egypt. They send two units by transport escorted by the German battleship from z14 to z15 to offload into Egypt pending the naval battle. Because of the importance, most people will also send a fighter from Balkans and I’d send the Ukraine fighter as well if it survived.
What’s essential about taking Egypt on G1 is closing the Suez Canal and starting an attack on the British paycheck. The Allies have a significant economic advantage and to help mitigate this, the Axis must make some early gains in Africa to boost their income(because Germany has little to gain in Europe, she’s initially being pushed back). Allied troops will be needed to liberate Africa and those troops aren’t going to Europe, it’s like an essential diversion. The Allies can’t afford not to liberate Africa. The tank and fighter guarding Egypt are also valuable units to destroy. Many players will counterattack Egypt from India, accelerating Japan’s advance.
Let’s say Germany didn’t attack Egypt G1. The alternatives I see are doing nothing or bridging units to Libya in the central med, building naval units in the central med, or attacking the cruiser and taking Gibraltar(to prevent 3 UK fighters from attacking). If Germany stays put, they are vulnerable to an attack by possibly a destroyer(West Med) and for sure 2 fighters(one Egypt, one India seazone) and a bomber(UK). If Germany moves for Gibraltar, they better have taken out the destroyer and taken Gibraltar or they can expect an attack. I can’t see any of these as more productive than attacking Egypt, although the Gibraltar move might not be all bad with the additional pressure it brings in the Atlantic.
Try this except replace semicolons with colons. Hits and misses are a lot clearer.
;aaa 1@1 2@2 3@3 4@4 5@5 6@6;
The standard Allied strategy is Kill Germany First. The Allies don’t normally commit to Asia by building factories. That’s not to say Indian factories are impossible but the Allies need to do other things to keep Japan busy. Some ideas are Russia stacking Buryatia, the UK killing the Kwangtung transport, sending their sub to try to sink Japan’s sub, and placing their bomber somewhere threatening to Japan(such as Novosibirsk), and a US Pacific strategy. There are several articles you’ll find interesting on this page, anything with KJF in the title. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=55.0
Japan shouldn’t be able to get away with taking India J1 if you kill their Kwangtung transport. They’ll have(theoretically) 2 inf, 4 fighters, and a bomber to the UK’s 4-5 inf, fighter, and aa gun. This leaves only 5 inf and a fighter in range to attack China. The economics of the India attack don’t work out, the USA will have a great start to the Pacific strategy because their ships weren’t attacked or they’ll have a counterattack on Japan, and Russia should have 2 tanks in Caucuses to retake India for the UK(allowing the Brits to build on UK2).
I’m not tech savvy with all this new Apple stuff, don’t even have an iPod but can’t you download TripleA with an iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad? I suppose the iPad is the only one with a screen large enough to be of any use.
@Dylan:
@Cmdr:
I’ve had Russia liberate India or reinforce chihang. But then, I do a lot of America vs Japan games (both sending and receiving) so it usually works out to send 3 armor, 5 infnatry that way, just as a stop gap.
How can Russia do that, aren’t they too busy against the Germans.
e.g.
For PBF
NCM:
…
2 inf Kazakh to Persia
2 inf Novo to Chi
…
For actual board
Pick up infantry, move to adjacent territory of choice, set down carefully.
Okay, Russia won’t be lost if they siphon off a handful of infantry east. The loss of infantry may mean Russia can’t hold Belo or Eastern Ukraine a few turns in, yes, weakening her position. It’s a sacrifice that may need to be made if the Allies won’t accept losing India or Chi.
Tangent?
Echoing Jeff’s point, flexibility is crucial. Most of my experience is with Revised and starting on Spring 42. German fighters and bombers on WE greatly limits the Allies’ options. The US and UK must be together at the end of each round or must build double protection. Fighters(and TANKS depending on Axis gameplan) on WE serves another purpose of pushing more infantry East. Japan’s fighter placement is also key. Early on, they should be in range to help defend important German territories if the need arises such as in Ukraine or Egypt. Japanese fighters to Europe will not only defend but can also disrupt the Allies 1-2 attack on a territory or can disrupt fleet movements.
It’s something to consider if you don’t mind skipping the attack on z2 OR you consider your opponent the stronger player by a good margin and want to gamble for an early lead. For example, in a current game I wanted two fighters helping countering in Ukraine where Russia took with 4 units and wanted a G1 Karelia stack so Norway couldn’t be defended. In this scenario, an attack on z10 may be a good idea, although I sent my sub to z13 to save a plane if the cruiser hit(or to prevent a hit with a sneak attack).
Rolling 10d6: