Posts made by a44bigdog

This is for 1941

Take the infantry from Manchuria and attack Suiyuan.
Take the infantry from Kiangsu and attack either Fukien or Hupeh.
Use the transport in the Japanese sea zone to invade Kwangtung with an infantry and a tank.
The fighter from Japan can be used in Suiyuan, Fukien, or Kwangtung.
Take the infantry from French Indochina and attack Yunnan.
The fighters from Formosa and Manchuria go to Yunnan and land in French Indochina.

The most important of these battles is Yunnan as China’s only offensive piece is there. Taking Yunnan is not important. Killing the Chinese fighter on round 1 is of the highest priority and if it takes loosing the Japanese fighters to do so, do it.

The above battles are the safest approach to China on round 1. This leaves China with the ability to produce 2 infantry.Depending on the results of these battles and any reinforcements from Russia China can easily be unable to produce any infantry after Japan’s second round.

1942 is similar, and again the destruction of the Chinese fighter is of the utmost importance. Japanese fighters can be replaced. When the Chinese fighter is gone, that is it. This leaves China without any offensive pieces and merely infantry that can attack at one.

I am also not sure where you think Japanese resources would be of better use. All the Chinese territories equal 12 IPCs that are very hard for the Allies to liberate. Normally the only nation that can liberate Chinese territories is Russia and this is drawing Russian units away from the fight with Germany.

See this thread for a more detailed discussion of Japan in the 1941 Scenario.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13244.0

@tcnance:

where is bigdog and morden?

Both of us are only around on weekends.

I was not going to sign up due to this, however since we seem to be going for a full field of 32 I will toss my hat into the ring. While I may only be available on weekends I can be available at any time on a weekend.

Since HolKann dropped I will put my name in his place.

1.  DM
2.  Jennifer
3.  Uberlager
4.  flesh_pile
5.  Danger Mouse
6.  Lynxes
7.  Questioneer
8.  a44bigdog
9.  eudemonist
10. MatildaMike
11. Perry
12. Funcioneta
13. anchovy
14. BigRedOne
15. Bardoly
16. Ogrebait
17. tcnance
18. Botider
19. atarihuana
20. P@nther
21. DY
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

Since I started this thread I think I get to be the one that defines conservative. Conservative means taking no undue risks with Germany in the opening rounds. My first post lays out attacks against 3 Russian territories, 2 seazones, and Egypt. The battles on the Russian front are decidedly in Germany’s favor. The seazone attacks can be withdrawn from before a valuable German air asset is lost for negligible gain. Egypt is probably the lowest percentage battle of them all and the forces from Libya can simply retreat if round 1 goes south.

I do advocate INITIALLY setting up trade zones on the eastern front for the 2nd national Objective. I never said Germany was going to spend the rest of the game trying to turtle up in western Europe. I did however say I thought and still do think it is suicidally stupid for Germany to rush head long into Russia merely to run out of gas. As a matter of fact in my original post I advocated taking the battle to Russia on your terms.

Part of this strategy is offensive and part of it is defensive. France is played defensively from round 1 onward. This includes stationing almost all of Germany’s initial fighters there on round 1 and all of them after. Also a minimum of 1 infantry a turn is sent from Germany to France. Backed up by bombers in Germany this makes France a very tough nut for the Allies to crack. Due to the Luftwaffe they must have a large fleet to cover their transports. Due to the expanding infantry in France they also have to have a large invasion force to even have any hope of success. The Russian front is played offensively although this does not mean that Germany will attack every Russian Territory it can shove pieces into on every round.

As far as buying ships for Germany round 1 that is not being conservative either. It is much too easy for the UK and/or the US to purchase air assets and remove what Germany could have spent much better.

Pretty much what Jenn said. It really depends on the country, the amount of money they have, what techs they have or may need, and the board situation.

Generally I want Germany the US and Japan to have at least 2 researchers at all time. However I rarely go over 4 unless I specifically want something and have a high probability of getting it (ie. I have 4 of the other techs on that chart) or it can deliver a crippling blow if achieved. Normally with Germany I purchase researchers 2 at a time, with the US 1 at a time, and Japan really just depends on what I want. Normally I have purchases in mind for Japan and any surplus cash past this is what I use. Also Japan is probably the country I care least about getting tech with other than probably Long Range.

I find that Italy, Russia and the UK can find the money to keep 1 researcher around and sometimes with Italy 2. I have even spent Italy’s initial 10 IPCs on researchers. Anything on chart 1 can be made to work for Italy without having to get overly creative.

I rarely have problems getting techs because in most situations I am investing money in tech to some degree with some of my countries either Axis or Allied every turn. Again like I said I do normally cap my researchers at 4, because I feel at 4 I a very likely to get a breakthrough either that turn or the next so I will fore go the expense of additional researchers.

I prefer playing with techs as  I feel they make the game much more dynamic and interesting. I also do not fell any 1 tech will automatically win the game for you to included the highly touted US round 1 Heavy Bombers.

The answer to EM’s question is no and it is clarified in the FAQ.

Darth a slow pace is fine by me. I am only around on the weekends anyway so even the games that me and my opponents play hard in tend to go a while. I will even make an exception to my policy of not playing no tech games as this is a test game and techs can greatly change and influence strategies.

I also agree with your statement about test games, heck I have done things in the past in games just to show they are possible. I also find that many times the conditions of the game totally invalidate what was to be tested in the first place. I could be wrong but I think in a KGF scenario Italy would about have to be destroyed first. I also understand that you may pressure Japan, however I do not expect to see the US dumping nothing but ships off the California coast for the first few turns. I will get G1 up in a bit.

Darth if you would like to test how deadly that KGF approach and ignoring or delaying attending to Japan let me know. I would be more than happy to play against it as the Axis.

Now lets remove this from the accounting sheets to the game board.

What nations have fleets?
The German Navy is usually gone after UK1 and isn’t all that important anyway.
The Italian Navy is on borrowed time as well.
The Japanese start with a huge fleet.
The Americans have to have a fleet to go anywhere.
The British also for most intents and purposes have to have a fleet as well to go anywhere.
What Nations will normally acquire Heavy Bombers?
The US normally starts working chart 2.
Japan normally starts working chart 2.
The UK sometimes works chart 2.
Germany normally works chart 1.
Italy normally works chart 1.
Russia normally works chart 1 and if they are buying bombers and working chart 2 why is the game still in progress?  :-D
Where will targets for Heavy Bombers be found?
The Atlantic/Mediterranean theater is cleared early and easily enough of Axis ships to negate discussion of such.
With the potential strength of Japan I think a pure KGF is folly in the extreme so I will conclude limited Allied ships in the Atlantic(mostly UK).
The Japanese are strong in the Pacific at the start.
The US should be pressuring Japan in the Pacific.

Given these parameters I think it would be safe to state that most HB vs Navy engagements will be fought in the Pacific. Most of the HB vs Navy engagements will be between Japan and the US. This is WHY I brought up the issue of landing zones for the bombers. Without long range utilizing air assets in the Pacific can be a major headache requiring a fleet to go forth and acquire territory for a landing zone. That right there is money taken away from the pure purchase of HBs. Without working in coordination with Destroyers the HBs cannot touch subs which can neutralize the fleet required for the aforementioned landing zone issue. The aforementioned subs can be dispersed further complicating the issue of pinning them with destroyers.

I am aware in your example you were trying to provide an equal IPC equation to illustrate the fleet killing abilities of heavy bombers. I would not consider a lone fully loaded carrier a fleet nor would you either I suspect. Look at what happens when a well rounded fleet anchored by two or three battleships that can freely soak hits is attacked by a pack of heavy bombers. Watch how quickly the striking power of the heavy bombers goes down as units are lost. Again keep in mind the points I made above about the need to acquire landing zones so I suspect the fleet and air armada of Heavy Bombers will not be comprised of an equal IPC amount of units.

Summary of a long wall of text. Yes Heavy Bombers are nice for attacking fleets but I do not believe they are the be all end all that some people are mentally projecting them to be.

I am not 100% certain but I am gaining the feeling that I would spot the US having Heavy Bombers on round 1 if I could have Paratroopers with Germany on round 2.

Yes. The only units barred from ending the turn in a newly conquered territory are air units.

Perry that statement is totally flawed as it is using Revised prices and defense stats for the fleet.

HBs can hit a fleet hard. However they do not stand up real well to the counter-fire. You also have to have a landing zone for the bombers.

3 tanks have a 14.9% chance of successfully attacking 5 infantry, yet I don’t hear anyone lamenting how weak tanks are on offense or how over powered infantry is on defense.

Let me clear up some of that for you. I am 39 and have my own house, heck I left home at 16. I only play online on weekends when I am at my girlfriends house. It may sound sophomoric at my age to have a girlfriend, but I was married for 13 years and will pass on repeating that experience. For online games I use battlemap. So when it is my turn all I have to do is open that file to see the board. For my face to face games I also use battlemap to record the status of the game board. That allows me to have more than one game going on my physical game board and keeps me from having to remember where everything is when my cat gets up there and scatters pieces. I have an IQ of 157 but I suspect it does not matter all that much as there are several of us that play multiple games at one time. They are all different and once you look at that map what is going on clicks into place. Me personally I spend probably at most 5 or 10 minutes debating on board conditions for a turn. I also suspect that is a side effect of playing so many games. I don’t have to ponder for ever on end because I have probably already seen the outcome of game moves in games past.

For those of you that have not discovered playing here through the forums I would urge you to give it a try. There are many advantages. Games can last as long as they take. No more trying to play an Axis and Allies game in one night. Games can be found at any time. No more trying to round up players and again find the time to play in one night. A player is also exposed to a wide variety of play stiles. If you game with the same people you are limited in what you see to what they do.

I quit counting games at 30. That was a few weeks ago. I currently have 8 games of AA50 underway at the moment, 6 on the forums and 2 face to face games. I can easily see Jenn having 100+ games, as we have played quite a few against each other. However since I am mostly an online player and do not attend Origins or GenCon I know my opinion is not worthy of consideration. :roll:

I will offer it anyway. '41 with NOs is balanced. '42 with NOs is a huge Axis advantage. I know the opposite appears true looking at the board but so far in the 7 or 8 '42 games I have played the Allies have not really had a chance. China is not really much more of a speed bump either. The fighter still goes on J1, roughly the same amount of Chinese territories fall, and the few extra infantry are really irrelevant.

I also would like to hear the play testers answer to Funcioneta’s questions, because China in either version is much too easy of a kill.

There is a thread in the Find Players and Game Discussion section for people looking for AA50 games.

That is correct and it would be foolish for Italy to liberate Germany if they and the Germans could not hold it for the very reason that the UK would collect all of Germany’s money twice.

Lately I have been withholding the Cruiser from the sea zone 50 battle and moving it in non-combat to sea zone 51. At the end of J1 I have 43 IPCs, at the end of J2 I normally have 55 IPCs so I could care less about losing a carrier or some fighters to the Americans. I have way more ships than them and after round 2 I am making substantially more money. 1 of the carriers would also be my first loss in combat, my fighters can land in the Carolines after combat and I have another carrier and can easily purchase more if I should desire them.

Also I have had the US do the attack on sea zone 51 without having the Cruiser present. It hurt the US way more than it hurt me. They lost units that they had to replace and I lost units that I did not HAVE to replace.

I got a question far you Kreighound. What happens to a countries research tokens when their capitol is lost. I assume they keep them as under the section on conquering a capitol it states that a country without a capital cannot conduct research however no where is it clearly spelled out what happens to a countries research tokens in the above situation.

Look at the upper right hand corner of abattlemap. Clicking Del will bring up a “crosshairs” to delete units with. Same functions for adding apply to delete, ie. holding shift is multiples of 5 holding control is multiples of 10. To go back to the arrow icon from the delete crosshairs click on ESC also at the top right.

It is lost Darth. I think the wording in the rule book “of at least one six” somewhat spells this out.

There is no agreement per say. Normal common sense dictates the losses in most battles. Sometimes someone will post an OOL (Order Of Life) for a potential upcoming battle. In large battles especially naval battles the defender will be asked to name their losses. The defender always has the right to say hold on I would have lost something different and the battle would resume from that point.

I made no assumptions.

I merely posed realities that can happen. Heavy Bombers is not an automatic win. Period Full STOP. I never said any of those outcomes were the likely outcomes.

And as Far as Japan you might want to count spaces from England to the Pacific. Not ALL coastal Seazones are in range. At most the US would probably have 4 bombers in the US. Japan also can send in unguarded transports too if they are so concerned with capital ship losses.