Posts made by a44bigdog

I haven’t had the chance to really mess with this to find any bugs, however; my recommendation for the final release would be to change the Kanji for Kamikazes from their present dark blue color to red as this will make them more visible.

I prefer the look of the original pieces, probably because I have been using them for so long. Yes I realize they are different so it was a bit more than a simple drag over, Although it seems the original destroyer piece is now the cruiser piece but I can fiz all that up with photoshop anyway. Most people here would hate my battlemap as I keep using the original icons and just modify the new tool piece bitmaps as they come out. Maps too for that matter. I have the original gray Italy in my AA50 stuff.  :-D

I think most of the users like the look of the new fancy looking maps and detailed tool pieces. I just like things simpler, although I will say your Pacific map is not so detailed that I will change it.

Again thanks for the help and your hard work on the module.

Disregard I opened the wrong folder that time. I just need to re download your version and drag over Attila’s tool pieces and I should be set. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the help.

That link leads to a P40.gim folder that does not contain an EXE file.

I just downloaded the P40 gim from the front page and no EXE is in it. The 80 version from the front page is the same 80 version that I have that is 78kbs. It loos like Atilla may have rearranged some things. Hopefully he will give you the option of distributing the functional version.

Thanks Stoney, I need to go get the version from your post and not the 80 version I downloaded from FOE. I would recommend leaving the NO boxes even if they are not actually manipulating the IPCs as it just makes things a bit easier to track.

Great Job on developing this and I am looking forward to your E40 and G40 modules as I do not have a table big enough for the combined boards so we will have to use ABattlemap on the lap top for face to face play.

Stoney I seem to be experiencing the same issues jim010 had with regards to the convoys. Putting control markers in captured countries does adjust the IPCs correctly but many of the NO boxes do not do anything.

I updated my EXE to .80 and then installed your Pacific 3.1 I also have your older Beta version which shows up completely separately so v3.1 should be functioning correctly.

Have I missed something are is there still a bug to be fixed?

I have seen it still in stock at some places online. Some of these places did unfortunately have some outrageous prices on it since it is out of print.

Gamerman I find it funny that you think '42 is less of a “fantasy” scenario than '41. It is much easier to win as the Axis in '42 it is not even funny. Germany can build a navy from the get go and use it to freeze the UK and put some very heavy pressure on Russia. So far I have sen only one Allied win in a '42 game and that was a fluke.

It is not so much the pressure put on Germany in this strategy but the presence of 5 UK transports that can hit NW. Europe, France, or Italy at will that forces Germany to hold back troops for defense. As far as a G1 naval build I have yet to see that in a '41 game. If I did I would obviously use a different approach.

I take a much different approach than most of the community with my J1. I buy an IC on J1 that will go in either FIC or Kiangsu. Buy buying this factory instead of the normal transports I do not have to pull back any ships to cover seazone 62. This leaves me free to set up a hard take of Australia J2. Australia is a NO for Japan and eliminates one for the UK. Also Australia is 2 turns away from the US west coast. This means the US will have to buy ships and then take two turns to get there, meaning it sill be Japanese for at a minimum 3 turns.

While in Revised Japan wanted transports before ICs I think this is reversed in Anniversary. Japan starts with ample transports and has the income to spend on ICs. Also ICs on the MAINLAND of Asia frees up the Japanese Navy for other task. For this reason I do not place Japanese ICs on the Islands except in some very rare circumstances. While my J1 locations are only 2 IPC territories they both have some benefits. With Kiangsu on J2 I can build 2 transports in seazone 61 out of reach of US bombers if I need them. Also this IC along with the one I will build in Manchuria on J2 or J3 depending on board conditions are in Chinese turf. That means Japan can lose them but they can not be used against Japan. FIC allows me to start building a presence quickly in southeast Asia and this is what I have been leaning towards more on J1. Once Burma is secures I will build a factory there as well, and then eventually an IC in India.

Again my thoughts are that Japan can afford to drop ICs all over the place in AA50 if they desire, they certainly have the income for it. With that said I do not like the island locations even if they offer greater production as they tie up Naval assets, both for transport and protection. My take on Japan can bee seen in my test game with Darth. While there is an Allied IC in India, it did not influence my IC placements.

I have seen one of the Eastern front attacks fail for Germany twice. Once with me and once with JWW as Germany. Both crippled the Axis.

I think Germany can safely put off Egypt to G2 allowing the bomber to go to SZ2. I think this hurts the UK more overall as that Battleship is a very high cost Naval item for the UK to replace. A failed G1 attack on Egypt is another animal completely as opposed to a delayed attack. A failed G1 attack in Egypt can be quite bad for the Axis.

I think SZ12 is not so bad. While it does give the UK a shot at the Italian Navy if that attack goes bad for the UK it will leave them in a less than desirable position. I have seen that happen a couple of times.

As far as Japan a failed Philippines can be bad news as it opens up some US attacks. Also a failure to secure Fukien round 1 can be bad in a tech game if the US gets Long Range as this also opens up some US attacks.

I also feel that unlike Revised the Axis can be a bit more methodical in their play and win. I strongly feel that the Axis can jeopardize their chances by trying tor rush to Moscow too quickly.

I could be wrong on this but I may have figured out why the TrippleA players have a different take on the balance. I have noticed that some of the people here that say AA50-41 is balanced are fighting in the Pacific. The TrippleA players seem to all be in agreement that KGF is the way to go. Just something to think about.

I will say something in regards to the Pacific that I think is true for the US and Japan. And that is that it takes time to learn what works and what does not. I don’t think it is something that will be acquired after just a few games either.

@ Zhukov True it is easy enough for Japan to sit in its home waters and defend its fleet. If that is the case the US is doing the wrong thing in the Pacific. The US needs to be taking islands and FORCING Japan to respond. This is when it gets far less easy for Japan.

Well I checked out the latest version of tripleA and  I still don’t care for it. While the map zoom  can at least be changed now the portion of the screen devoted to the map is still to small for my taste.  I much prefer ABattlemap. As far as time constraints on moves that I don’t have a problem with, I regularly play face to face and am used to making moves based on about a 5 to 10 minute cycle. I do that here with forum games anyway.

@ Subotai I might give TripleA another chance, I tried it years ago and just did not care for the program. The view of the map was to small and the handling of carriers was a pain. I alos don’t particularly care to play Axis and Allies where I have to constantly be at the computer and can not even wander off to smoke a cig.

@ Vareel Yes Germany buying 10 tanks a turn will probably call for some changes. There is nothing that says the UK HAS to land in Africa instead of reinforcing Russia or landing in France or NW. Europe to draw off troops from the Eastern Front. When the US navy moves out into the Pacific many times Japan has at least 2 loaded carriers that can hit seazone 56. These are turns that the US can buy ships and troops for the Atalantic if they desire.

@ Veqryn The UK has the seazone 9 transport and destroyer in probably 95% of games I have played at least. That leaves 3 more transports to be purchased in the Atlantic over 2 turns. So some capital ships being bought is a given. The German air force sinking them in round 2 is complete BS if they are parked in SZ2. If there is any more than 1 bomber and 1 fighter in Norway then seazone 12 was not attacked.

I am also not buying that if the Allies did not place 2 to 3 infantry somewhere on the board, that may not even have been in Egypt, that Germany AUTOMATICALLY takes Egypt round 1 or that Italy AUTOMATICALLY gets both its NOs for the first few rounds. Sorry fellows I have played a few too many AA50 games to buy that. I have also played too many no bid games where Karelia did not AUTOMATICALLY fall round 2 either.

Subotai for your information I have seen a few games where Japan was reduced to Japan or Japan and East Indies and Germany took Moscow and it was not enough for Germany to win in the end.

As an aside to that I think often people give up to soon. I know I certainly have seen some strange reversals in games that were played out until the bitter end.

I am one of the crazy few who think AA50-41 is balanced. Funcioneta asked me to post what I was doing with the Allies so here it is. Is it the greatest Allied strat out there? Probably not but it has worked for me. I also think it avoids the mistake of ignoring Japan and then trying to fight them with 3 nations that have half the map when they are one nation that has half the map and tons of units in the territories they control.

Russia
Stacking Bury is fine but I only send 1 infantry into an open Manchuria instead of the whole bunch. It is too easy for Japan to eliminate this stack leaving the entire Northern approach vacant. While I do this I pull back all but 1 infantry from Buryatia to Stanovoj. This forces Japan to commit a few forces to retake Manchuria if taken and to take Bury. If I think I can delay the Japanese for a turn or two, I will attack their forces in Bury with the Stanovoj stack. This entire front is fought as a delaying action. That means I will attack, withdraw or hold as the situation appears to warrant. I attack Finland with an eye at taking Norway on round 2 and Deadzone Karelia. I find that Russia can generally not hold Karelia but it can deadzone and set it up for trades. As long as Germany is not producing anything in Karelia, other than the NO and 2 IPCs for the territory they have not gained anything that will immediately harm Russia. At a minimum the Novosibirsk Infantry are going to China and if at all possible the Kazakh duo as well. The longer Russia can hold up Japan in China the more free infantry China can produce, the Japanese income expands more slowly, and Russia has some less concerns with defense. I try to keep a steady stream of 2 or so infantry headed this way backed up by an armor or air power if such looks favorable.

UK
Normally the UK Atlantic fleet is reduced to practically nothing so I will spend round 1 and 2 building this up. I will also buy up to 4 transports for this new fleet. This is what goes against the normal thinking, but the Pacific Transport should load 1 infantry and 1 Artillery from Australia and sail east. On turn 3 it and the new Atalantic fleet can dump up to 10 units in Algeria. The 4 Atlantic transports can send in 8 units on round 4, while this transport can bring over the Canadians for a second dump of up to 10 units. Depending on what had to be purchased for the Navy there may even be additional units in the UK for it to ferry over on subsequent turns. More than likely though it will be of better use sailing south and liberating sub-Saharan Africa. By doing this a steady stream of 8 units can be landed from the UK in Africa every turn. If this transport is used in the Pacific it will most likely only be of an actual benefit for one turn. The UK proceeds in force across North Africa to fight Japan in Persia and India. While it will take some time to get there, I have found that when it starts to encounter Japanese forces it will have numerical superiority. Also the UK may find itself in a position where it can start to think of IC purchases for Egypt and or later India.

US
Other than the initial Eastern US troops going to Africa to reinforce the British and the starting bombers being used for SBRs it is 100% against Japan in the Pacific. With the US actively fighting in the Pacific it should maintain its second NO and make 48 IPCs per turn. This works out very nicely to 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 transport, 2 fighters, and 1 carrier EVERY turn. Naturally there will be turns where other ships or perhaps additional bombers are called for but this is THE primary purchase. While it will go against all traditional Axis and Allies thinking to be purchasing a transport every turn I have found that this is vital in the Pacific. The chances of setting up any transport chain are almost nil and many times an entire fleet may have to be sacrificed. Many times the transports themselves WILL be sent to take islands where they will be destroyed by air power, while fleet strength itself is preserved. Any island Japan has to retake is troops not headed to Russia, or Africa, or anywhere else of great concern for the Allies. If Japan engages in a naval race with the US that is fine as well, as it reduces the amount of troops available in Asia. Also there are many islands Japan would LIKE to cover but most likely can not. While you may find yourself in a position where both neither Navy can eliminate the other by sending out a steady stream of transports it overloads Japan. In my opinion if the US wants to contest the Pacific they need to do so with a credible navy. Subs alone are to easily countered and mostly ignore by Japan with a few cheap destroyer purchases.

That is the basic ground work. The situation may dictate for the Allies to start assisting Russia directly which by the time it is needed if everything went according to plan the UK will
be able to do with some or even all of its stream of troops across the mid-east starting to divert north. The US may also have to start sending some units across Africa as well. While in my mind this is not A KJF because the US is really the only power actively engaging Japan it can become one. It has been my observation that the Allies can hem up Italy or Germany and they can wait for Japan to take out Russia and come to their aid. However if things go bad for Japan there seems to be very little the Axis can do, even taking out Russia with Germany may not be enough. Keep in mind that Japan does not have to be taken. If Japan is reduced to Japan and not much else they can be penned in with just enough forces to keep them there and sticking to defensive buys.

I am sure the detractors will be along shortly to shoot a million holes in this, so here is my challenge. Instead of thinking about what he Axis can do and bitching about what the Allies can not do; think about what the Allies may be capable of. That is the only way Allied strategies will be furthered.

Actually the non-aggression pact came about as a result of Japan getting its butt handed to them by Russia.

China was somewhat of a sideshow for Japan. They wanted to conquer China or at least parts of it as a means of becoming an Imperial power and gaining respect from the West for being an Imperial power.

Their primary reasons for going to war were raw resources which Japan lacks. Primarily oil, tin, and rubber. The Japanese Army wanted to seize Russian oilfields in Siberia, even after its defeats by Russia, and the Japanese Navy wanted to seize the oilfields in the East Indies along with other resources there.

Unlike Hitler Japan wanted to carve out an Empire in the east and then sue for peace. As lopsided as it is I think the original Axis and Allies Pacific portrays this well with the Victory Points. The idea was to seize the resources in the Dutch East Indies and then build up a ring of outer defensive Islands. The Japanese knew they could not defeat the US and UK but hopped that they could make the cost of taking back what Japan had claimed too prohibitive for the Allies to undertake.

Also along historical notes I think China should be able to send units into Burma and FIC as they did do this in the Actual war.

I haven’t given any thought in Anniversary but I thought in Revised the Australian and New  Zealand forces should have been US as they were under US command.

Battlingmaxo if you haven’t figured it out now, all us people that play here at AA.org are a bunch of stupid newbs and the truly elite players play at TripleA  :roll:

Rodger.

Will start it sometime this evening in the PlaybyForum section. I am interested in seeing what you have in mind.

Darth I will be around daily through Sunday after that I go back to Fridays through Sunday being online. I would be more than willing to play out whatever you have in mind to test. I don’t mind in game discussions and I do have plenty of AA50-41 games under my belt.