Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. aagamerz13
    3. Posts
    0%
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 55
    • Posts 6,455
    • Best 55
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by aagamerz13

    • RE: Going to try Bright Skies strategy in my current game

      Ichabod and I played the experimental bright skies game where he bought bombers only for the first 3 rounds for US.  The bombers definitely slowed Japan down as UK had Kwangtung and china had almost all the land from manch to fic and to the west at round 7 when the game ended.

      The problem was that Germany and Italy combined to take Moscow on round 7.  Italy also moved strong into nw persia round 7 with German planes ready to reinforce it on round 8.  The game ended here.

      Without US pressure, Germany and Italy were way too much for UK and ussr to handle.  Although Japan was weakened, they still had income of 43 from islands, fic and ne ussr lands.  Tokyo was under no threat to fall.

      This was just one game under bright skies and the next game under these rules might be different.  But, without US pressure, Germany and Italy can steam roll USSR, which is what I’ve said earlier.

      Also, if I had played Ichabod under normal rules where US can apply pressure in europe, the results might have been different and he could have very well beat me as his base strategy seemed solid.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • Air attack and air defense raid rolls often dont happen

      If you check the dice stats in history, sometimes the air attacker and air defender rolls for factory raids happen and sometimes they don’t.  This is likely a triple a bug.  Can someone post this as a triple a bug?

      posted in TripleA Support
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: Going to try Bright Skies strategy in my current game

      Ichabod: I accepted and sent a PM to you.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: Going to try Bright Skies strategy in my current game

      Heh.  The US should never be able to completely switch to ger/italy without losing west australia permanently the next round against a good Japan player.  Alot of people post allied strategies here that work against weak players or if they get lucky against good players.  It should take a long time to beat a good axis player.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: Why do you buy a sub G1?

      @Elsass-Lorraine:

      @KGrimB:

      @aagamerz13:

      @Herr:

      My specific reason for buying that sub is, to kill the SZ111 UK battleship G2, while keeping the German battleship alive. On G1, I like to to take out SZ110, but only strafe SZ111, and then retreat the German battleship. Ideally, this would leave the UK with only a damaged battleship in SZ111, and that battleship can’t escape from the range of the German sub and bombers. But I’d rather not loose a bomber when attacking the battleship G2, so that’s where the sub comes in.
      If the strafe doesn’t quite go as well - say that the UK cruiser has also survived - then as Germany, I still have a fair chance of killing  both ships with 2 bombers plus the sub if the ships stay together. Or, if they split, I’ll probably just go after the battleship and leave the cruiser alone.

      It’s always best to destroy the uk batt G1 even if you lose your own batt uk1.  The allies can easily make it so you either have a low odds fight g2 to destroy the batt or you have to use so many planes to scramble protect you are light in planes for other objectives like the med uk navy counter.  Also, the uk will likely use their destroyer as fodder in the counter against the batt and any surviving subs, which means when u destroy it g2,  if it happened to survive uk1, the sub u purchased g1 can take the 125sz NO from ussr without any counter.  Also, the uk will need to use planes with that destroyer to defeat the fleet left in 111, which means they might go a little light in some med battles, which can open up opportunities there for italy if you have above average dice in those battles.

      Are you referring to ignoring sz 110 and instead of strafing 111 you suggest to take it instead?

      If you ignore either SZ you�re leaving a battleship alive so probably that�s not what aagamer was going for.
      However, responding to aagamer, I doubt that leaving a British BB alive would hurt you in the short term, especially if you can keep your own alive. There�s not much Britain can do with it early on, maybe it can go to the Mediterranean to help defeat Italy but britain usually is able to make Italy a non factor even without the BB.

      Wipe out both 110 and 111.  That way, allies will only have a fleet if usa spends a lot for it.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: Why do you buy a sub G1?

      @Herr:

      My specific reason for buying that sub is, to kill the SZ111 UK battleship G2, while keeping the German battleship alive. On G1, I like to to take out SZ110, but only strafe SZ111, and then retreat the German battleship. Ideally, this would leave the UK with only a damaged battleship in SZ111, and that battleship can’t escape from the range of the German sub and bombers. But I’d rather not loose a bomber when attacking the battleship G2, so that’s where the sub comes in.
      If the strafe doesn’t quite go as well - say that the UK cruiser has also survived - then as Germany, I still have a fair chance of killing  both ships with 2 bombers plus the sub if the ships stay together. Or, if they split, I’ll probably just go after the battleship and leave the cruiser alone.

      It’s always best to destroy the uk batt G1 even if you lose your own batt uk1.  The allies can easily make it so you either have a low odds fight g2 to destroy the batt or you have to use so many planes to scramble protect you are light in planes for other objectives like the med uk navy counter.  Also, the uk will likely use their destroyer as fodder in the counter against the batt and any surviving subs, which means when u destroy it g2,  if it happened to survive uk1, the sub u purchased g1 can take the 125sz NO from ussr without any counter.  Also, the uk will need to use planes with that destroyer to defeat the fleet left in 111, which means they might go a little light in some med battles, which can open up opportunities there for italy if you have above average dice in those battles.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: How to do a succesful Barbarossa?

      I might have said this before, but most allied players might not be using the best strategies.  They typically take the allies at too low of a bid.  And then they win by either extremely good luck or they are playing a newer player who can’t take and hold the two key non-capital points on the map by round 4 or 5.  I’ve won probably 90%+ of my games as axis lately by a simple strategy:  use an odds calc to determine the ipc value gained by destroying allied units +2 *(times) territory value gained by these attacks + national objectives gained by axis + national objectives lost by allies.  If a player does this math for the first two rounds, they will have a very strong opening strat as axis.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: USA Sub Spam Counter?

      As many have said, for this to work US has to spend all ipcs against Japan to replace the destroyed subs and destroyers.  US fleet has to be in range of Japan fleet to do this so they also need blocking ships which you can use a sub backed by planes to defeat.  So, the net gain for US is pretty low.  Also, Germany and Italy should be rolling against USSR and GB.  I’ve won many games where US under-spent on the Europe side of the board.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: USA Sub Spam Counter?

      As I said the problem with the sub strat is they cant defend.  Say for instance the USA puts 6 subs on 6 convoy spots.  And you counter with 6 destroyers each backed by 2 or 3 planes.  In about 5 out of those 6 spots, a destroyer will be left that the next wave of subs has to beat.  And the destroyer defends at 2 so its an even fight 1-1 when it’s attacked by subs.  Given that JApan starts at +13 planes over USA, this favors Japan.  Also, without any USA pressure, Germany should be running wild.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: USA Sub Spam Counter?

      Japan has 3 turns to act before the USA purchase can attack Phillipines or Malaya.  Adjust your defense as necessary.  Also, subs are the worst defensive unit in the game.  One destroyer at cost of 8 has same attack as 2 subs at cost of 12 have in defense.  If they buy too many subs, move your planes onto the carriers u hopefully bought into range of their sub heavy fleet and make them defend Hawaii or NE Australia.  A lot of times they will either pull back or waste cruisers or destroyers to block, which is a good trade for the 2 or 3 subs at a cost of 6 in your fleet.  Eventually they will run out of destroyers/cruisers to block and pull back or start to buy defensive units.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: USA Strategy. Green Seas/Skies

      @calvinhobbesliker:

      @aagamerz13:

      The main critical point in WW2 that many miss is that, at a certain time around mid 1942, USSR only had about 1000 armored vehicles and a few thousand planes left with which to fight Germany.� This fact alone is not significant.� But couple it with the fact that, at that very same point, USSR had received about 5000 armored vehicles and many thousands of planes from UK and USA, and a clear picture emerges.� So, at this point and probably weeks to months earlier, USSR would have been out of WW2 because they would not have any heavy weapons to fight with.� All the territory they gained or held with lend lease weapons would have gone to Germany with low losses.� If US/UK had not done lend lease or had done it at a lower level, USSR was out.

      Do you have a source for this? In any case, the Russians produced about 24000 tanks in 1942, or an average of 2000 per month. They were not in danger of running out of tanks.

      The second chart shows they were down to 6k total at one point. �However this is over the period of several months and doesn’t show the absolute minimum or subtract out the Far East tanks. �So, from link 1, USSR received about 6k armored vehicles through end of 1942. �So, even though 6k is not the minimum, if you use the 6k total and subtract out the 6k received by lend lease through end of 1942, USSR had zero net armored vehicles. �Now, subtract out the far east tanks to deter Japan from attacking and USSR had negative tanks on Eastern front to fight Germany. �So, the USSR would have been out of the war or would have been pushed back 500+ miles due to lack of armor to resist the German blitzkrieg.

      I can’t find the reference to the book chapter which did the analysis to find the minimum USSR tank strength to prove they would have been knocked out of the war without lend lease tanks and planes in 1942. But, this is close enough. I’ll look for that as I have time.

      Not letting me post links.

      Search the terms below.  This will bring up plenty of articles

      ussr tank losses 1942

      historynet . com  lend lease  USSR

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: USA Strategy. Green Seas/Skies

      When people talk about WW2 they often talk about how, at the beginning, US had the 14th to 16th largest military in the world, while, at the end, US had produced more war material than the rest of the world combined.  What people often miss is there were critical points in the war where things could have swung the outcome of the war in other ways in the 2.5 years it took USA to land troops in France.

      Most people know that the German decision to attack Stalingrad instead of laying siege to it like Leningrad was a disastrous decision.  Germany lost just one military casualty for every 6 military casualties the USSR suffered during the Leningrad siege.  This is one reason why it lasted so long.  This is also despite the fact the north was able to be supplied by Allied convoys.  As there were no Allied convoys to Stalingrad, simply laying siege to it (even with a higher loss ratio of 1 to 3 or 4), as many German staff wanted, might have been enough to win the war, instead of attacking it and losing an entire army for nothing.

      The main critical point in WW2 that many miss is that, at a certain time around mid 1942, USSR only had about 1000 armored vehicles and a few thousand planes left with which to fight Germany.  This fact alone is not significant.  But couple it with the fact that, at that very same point, USSR had received about 5000 armored vehicles and many thousands of planes from UK and USA, and a clear picture emerges.  So, at this point and probably weeks to months earlier, USSR would have been out of WW2 because they would not have any heavy weapons to fight with.  All the territory they gained or held with lend lease weapons would have gone to Germany with low losses.  If US/UK had not done lend lease or had done it at a lower level, USSR was out.

      There are literally dozens of close critical moments that could have swung the war one way or the other if things had been slightly different.  A few are the almost complete lack of military production by Germany’s European allies, the decision of Finland to not help Germany take Leningrad when the opportunity was there early, the battle of Midway which should never have happened, the German tendency to split their attack power among smaller armies in 1942 and beyond instead of concentrating their force against USSR for an almost guaranteed big win, etc…  This game simulates the fact that WW2 wasn’t over as soon as USA joined since it took 2.5 years for USA to build up and land troops in France.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: How to counter Dark Skies+J1 attack?

      This seems like an easy strategy to counter.  According to odds calc, a bomber at cost 12 only beats 1inf + 1AAA about 28% of the time while costing 4 IPCs more.  2 bombers only beat 2inf + 1AAA about 38% of the time while costing 13 ipcs more.  So, this is not a great tradeoff for axis if other players make lots of inf.  The counter is for US/UK to go to Spain round 3.  Germany should only have 4 or 5 bombers in range so they cant attack the fleet on round 4.  USSR should be making all inf + 1 or 2 AAs per round.  Germany is in trouble as they have low ground units in Europe to counter because of the early bomber buys.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • RE: Rule clarification needed sub naval occupation

      Ok thanks Simon33. This is in the global europe rules which I found.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • Rule clarification needed sub naval occupation

      I’m new to AAglobal.  There is an issue the game allows.  A sub can move into a fleet without a destroyer and submerge without combat so that it’s occupying the same zone as an enemy fleet during that fleet’s combat move.  I’ve been told multiple times that transports and subs don’t block any movement, so I can move out during combat movement.  However, I can’t find this rule anywhere in writing, so I’d like to clarify it here.  Thanks for the responses in advance.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      aagamerz13A
      aagamerz13
    • 1
    • 2
    • 319
    • 320
    • 321
    • 322
    • 323
    • 323 / 323