Posts made by a44bigdog

Between Jenn’s and IL’s strategies I think the aggressive Germany has been well covered. However these are not the only options Germany has in the '41 scenario. I prefer a much more conservative and methodical approach.

Purchase 7 infantry and 1 fighter. Use both subs from sea zone 7 along with the NW. Europe fighter and the bomber to take down sea zone 12. Attack the lone destroyer in sea zone 6 with the Baltic sub and Norway fighter. Transport 1 infantry from Norway and Finland to Baltic States with Cruiser bombardment. Also joining here are 1 infantry from Poland and the 2 remaining fighters. The remaining troops in Poland attack East Poland and the troops in Bulgaria attack Ukraine. Transport 1 infantry and 1 armor from France to Egypt and bring in the Libyan troops. Baltic and Egypt are the only 2 close battles and the Libyan forces can be retreated from Egypt if that goes poorly on round 1.

In non combat land the bomber back in Germany and the two fighters at sea in France. 1 of the fighters from Baltic States goes to France and 1 goes to Germany. Reinforce France with the infantry from NW. Europe, 2 infantry from Germany, and the 2 armor from Czechoslovakia. The 1 infantry and artillery left in Germany go to Poland.

On all following rounds purchase at least 1 bomber per turn. Keep all of your fighters in France and your Bombers in Germany. Bombers and Infantry can be used for trades on the East front. Every turn send 1 infantry from Germany to France. It can be helpful to have Italy bring their AA gun up to France and buy a replacement. They also can contribute some reinforcing troops for France as well. On the second turn Germany will most likely want to pull back and leave out 1 infantry in the 3 western most Russian territories. Do not attack deeper into Russia just because you can. Only attack into Russia if trading territories for the National Objective or making a heavy push for a major objective such as Karelia or the Caucasus.

The general idea behind this strategy is to first secure Germany’s position in central Europe and THEN take the war to the Russians on YOUR terms. France can be kept secure if Germany starts about it on Round one. It is also very easy to over extend into Russia and loose your initial assault forces with no meaningful follow on waves. So just avoid doing so. There are plenty of territories between Germany and Russia, sometimes it is in your best interest to back up and consolidate even if you have to give ground to do so.

It is the proper choice to make if the first round goes badly and why Egypt without the bomber is not as big a deal as some here would proclaim.

The 1 infantry 1 artillery and 1 armor that came from Libya can retreat. Only the infantry and armor from France must fight to the death.

That is exactly how it works with existing fighters roguepanzer.

Since we are running an '09 Revised league how about keep that the way it is for the technophobes and launch the AA50 league with the OOB full bells and whistles so we will actually know what is broke and what aint broke. And that means no bids as it remains to be seen if bids are even needed.

I think using the NFL vs College football is a very bad analogy. Case in point last years Sugar Bowl. Hawaii, undefeated WAC champion vs Georgia, 2nd in the SEC east (but bumped ahead of Florida due to their loss to LSU in the Championship game). Georgia destroyed Hawaii. If Hawaii had played teams the caliber of SEC  teams they would not have been undefeated. I am interested in seeing good football games at the college level between good teams. I don’t care if they have a few loses along the way. The last probably comes from watching football in probably the most competitive conference from top to bottom.

Germany can be in quite good shape against Russia turn four as long as it prepares for it and doesn’t attack  Russia like a drunken Rhino.

38 days 1 hour and 40 minutes and counting

There are some others besides you tc.

1 more problem. Quite a few people for various reasons can not download .rar files. I know it is supposed to be better and all that but .zip files can be down loaded on any Windows machine without having to jump through any hoops. I myself had to go get a time limited trial version of winrar just to download the maps and you can bet I sure aint paying for something winzip does for free.

I am not sure about the “two best” teams playing in the conference championship as that just gets back to too much subjective poll based nonsense. I do like the two division winners playing in the championship. When the SEC first implemented the championship format I thought ‘great another way for our teams to eliminate each other’. But what has happened is some loses are more critical than others and teams do not give up on the season after having one loss.

And as far as not all conferences having championship games that is an easy fix. The NCAA simply says if you want to be included adopt this format. The current system with the automatic BCS berths to certain conferences is a joke. I mean does any one want to argue the Big East was a stronger conference this year than the Mountain West?

Does anybody remember what a beauty contest College football was before the BCS?
4 loss teams getting destroyed in major bowls because they “traveled well”

What irks me with the current system is that too much emphasis is put on having any loss never mind more than 1. With the current system the looser of a conference championship game is dropped to 3rd place and the best team that couldn’t even win their division is advanced ahead of them.

What I would like to see I know will never happen, but to be eligible a conference must have a championship. The winners of the conference championship games would advance to a play off tournament. The losers of the conference championship games would go to the current BCS bowls along their conference affiliation as is now. ie SEC Sugar, Pac-10 Big-10 Rose. There are plenty enough bowl games to accommodate the 3rd and 4th place finishers in conference. If anything there are too many bowl games as it is now. I watched all but I think 2 or 3 of the bowl games and to be honest quite a few of them should have been named the inept bowl.

I am not convinced at all that the Allies need a bid. I would recommend we start with rolling for sides and perhaps re-evaluate this decision some time down the road after more games have been played.

I have said my piece on tech but I do want to ask Darth if he has even tried any games of 50 with tech?

Axis-Roll the dice server here hates me with a purple passion. I can go find more than 1 dice roll I have made this week with a less than 1% outcome.

Again I think the tech system is fine. I think people are just so used to re-writing the rules of A&A games that it has become an ingrained habit.

I don’t like your directed purchased tech either for the reason that Japan will “buy” shipyards the US will “buy” Heavy Bombers, and Germany will “buy” Improved Industry. Baring the standard luck that is imposed on all the countries now. Italy, the UK, and Russia will be left without.

Try this with Germany Guy. Start fortifying France from Turn one. Purchase 1 bomber a round with Germany for taking down Allied fleets and trade battles on the east front. Send 1 infantry around to France from Germany. Do not over extend with Germany into Russia. Sometimes it is better on the east front to either hold you ground or even back up a bit than to just run out of gas on Moscow’s doorstep.

@a44bigdog:

Where should Japan position the sea zone 57 carriers and why?

I like to position the sea zone 57 carriers in 51. This allows the aircraft on them to take down Australia on J2. Even if the US Flies the Hawaii fighter and the sea zone 44 fighter to Australia these fighters with the sea zone 37 fighters (from sea zone 35 attack) will be enough to take Australia. I will also sacrifice fighters to take Australia if necessary for 3 reasons. 1.) It is a 5 IPC NO so 2 rounds of the NO will replace a fighter. 2.) It removes the UK NO whether Egypt falls or is liberated. 3.) It is a good ways from Japan to Australia so I think it is best to get the job done from the start rather than have to try and come back latter.

@a44bigdog:

When do you build an IC, where do you put and why then and there?

I build a Japanese IC turn 1 and save 2 IPCs. This allows my carriers to be off projecting power and not at home protecting transports. On turn 2 I can produce with this IC the 1 or 2 transports I need to start emptying Japan into sea zone 61 so that the transports are again safe from American air. On turn two either the sea zone 37 carrier or one of the sea zone 51 carriers can move to sea zone 61 to join with these transports. I build a second IC in Manchuria on either turn 2 or 3 depending on what the Russians have done. Remember Russia can only liberate Chinese territories, Russia itself can gain no benefit from them. Any Russian force that comes south from Buryatia can be dealt with at my choosing. My primary immediate goal in Asia is to eliminate the ability of China to produce infantry by the end of J2. Remember Chinese infantry are free. All others have to be paid for and shipped to Asia.

@a44bigdog:

What are your responses to US naval builds and why?

I have been counter building against the US navy once they start to match my fleet in size. I am beginning to think this is no longer entirely necessary or even the best course of action.
One mus task oneself what are Japan’s goals, and are my actions contributing towards those goals. I think America makes too much money for Japan to take down in AA50. So that basically leaves Russia. With that in mind I am thinking Japan should do as Jenn stated after the initial land and money grabs in the Pacific. Pull the fleet back to Japan and start dumping 8 units a turn out of Japan and 5 Armor a turn from the 2 ICs. The transports at Australia and New Guinea at the end of J2 can be used to grab remaining money islands without being protected. They are too far from Japan to return home in much time to be of much use and the money they earn through captured can go to their replacements if any such are even needed.

You can place Chinese Infantry in any Chinese territory that does not contain more than 2 Chinese infantry. Other Allied infantry do not count. The number after placement also does not matter. This question has been officially answered I believe in the Rules Errata thread.

I would have to do some digging to find the exact numbers since I have played so many games. With over 20 played '41 with NOs and tech seems balanced.

With 3 or 4 games of '42 played I have yet to see the Allies win.

Its a shame a good discussion of Japanese strategies got derailed by an argument about subs. Let me see if I can’t throw out a few things to get us back on track.

Where should Japan position the sea zone 57 carriers and why?

When do you build an IC, where do you put and why then and there?

What are your responses to US naval builds and why?

I don’t see where a compromise is needed. Classic was screwed up. Revised had to have LHTRs. I am not convinced that there is anything wrong with AA50-41 yet. I just think the community has done got used to HAVING to re-write the rules to the point that they are looking for stuff to change right off the bat.