Posts made by Admiral T

@Romulus:

It is interesting, a balanced strategy works.

I think that it could be seen as KI-WEGJ = “Killing Italy While Engaging German and Japan”.
I mean spending with USA on both front allow for hindering Axis powers effort of focusing on Russia.
At same time, however, Allies are not able to deal a quick and deadly blow to German or to Japan, IMHO, so the first objective remains, as in the History, Italy, which
have to be defeated as soon as possible.

The question is? Really this strategy may pay more than a KXF approach?

KIWEGJ is a longwinded, but good name for this strat! Great coining Romulus!

As for not being able to deal a quick and deadly blow, I had those same fears while the game was going on. I worried that Germany would get a series of absurdly lucky rolls (or a tech) and would have spanked the Russians. But, it would seem that by having the Allies harassing the major Axis powers, they had do divert much of their limited resources and were thus unable to fully engage the Russians- which you pointed out. This is true with Germany especially, who simply cannot produce enough units (10 a turn is so low!).

As of now I think this strategy does pay off. Once Italy is a ravaged mass no longer capable of doing much of anything, the Western Allies should be at almost full strength and the Axis should have lost their momentum due to ‘house keeping.’ The Americans get almost all of their NO’s from the Pacific theatre, and the Brits maintain their one NO while getting the Japanese territory one and continually getting a stab at the Balkan/France one. All of this stuff is ingredients for Game Over Pie for the Axis.

Patience is a virtue.

I actually didn’t tell the German player that my cat had left marred the German pieces until after he finished setting them up. When I finally broke it to him (I couldn’t contain myself any longer) I swear I thought he was going to faint. It was hilarious.

The Japanese player had to invest in his naval power, because after my first round purchase (aircraft carrier and a cruiser), I bought primarily fighters and submarines. I sent the submarines every which way, while my surface fleet (supported by lots of fighters) slowly but surely made its way to the islands. The Japanese were severely overwhelmed with submarines threatening both their main fleet and their transports from all parts of the ocean. They had to purchase lots of destroyers and disperse them throughout the Pacific to counter this submarine threat, which if left unchecked, would have spelt doom for the primary Japanese fleet in a combined American submarine/surface fleet/ air attack. I hope this makes sense axis_roll.

I have good news, and I have bad news.

Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.

Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus  to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.

Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory.  Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.

In the first game I played with my friends, we played the '42 setup. The Allied team decided upon this strategy: UK vs Italy then Germany, USSR vs Germany, USA vs Japan. Needless to say, it went horribly.

First, even with the USA going full tilt against Japan, it was unable to seriously bring it down. By the end of the game, the Imperial Navy was still strong, and the Japanese army had made major grounds in China and the Soviet east. Allied victory in the Pacific seemed far off, despite gains in Borneo, the Philippines, and long range aircraft (which really helped speed things up).

Second, while the British campaign against Italy initially went well, it became a protracted campaign that wasn’t really going anywhere. The intention for the British was to quickly destroy the Italian navy and then  take Rome before it could adequately defend itself. The first part of the plan was a glowing success, but the second, not so much. Italy proved to be a tougher shell to crack, and Germany was becoming too powerful. Thus, the British decided to let Italy be and focus on D-Day landings.

Third, the German campaign in Russia went really well. They had advanced artillery and paratroopers, and really gave the Soviets a licking. The Russian military collapsed rather quickly, mostly due to over extending themselves when they should have probably been more defensively minded. It wasn’t long until Moscow was surrounded and under siege. Moscow fell two rounds before the Allies gave up.

The game could have probably kept on going, but it was getting late, and no one was interested in a protracted war of attrition.

Endgame incomes with NO’s (approximations)
USA- 65ish
UK- 35-40
USSR- 0

Japan- 33
Germany- 70-75
Italy- 9

From page 17 in the rule book…

‘Roll one die for each battleship and cruiser. Battleships hit on a “4” or less, and cruisers hit on a “3” or less (their attack numbers). For each hit, the defender moves a defending unit to the casualty zone of the battle board (used for land combat below). These casualties will be able to defend during the land combat step before they are eliminated.’

Local hobby shop finally got its delivery! Going to pick it up tomorrow!!!

@Woodstock:

Shotgun + Doorbell = no option?

LOL!

Yeah, I’m considering making a trip down to Seattle if nothing surfaces in the next two weeks or so. I’m reluctant to do so as it is such a huge hassle (border line ups, currency exchange, buying medical insurance, full tank of gas).

@Woodstock:

Try Holland…it’s impossible to find…

But the real irony is that you live halfway around the world from WOTC headquarters… I live a 4 hour drive away…

We also have a VC!!! Go Ottawa!!

Please come to Canada AA50. Canadians love you.

I live in Vancouver Canada, and have looked/called EVERYWHERE. No stores are carrying the new game… Even the specialty board game store doesn’t have it. What gives???

AA Religion = Larrism

I’m a strict adherent.

I’m so happy that the 23 has finally come and past! Now I can utilize this whole weekend and monday that I booked off to play the new Axis & Allies!!

Oh wait, the release date has been pushed back. Now I guess I have to pretend I’m playing it all weekend. Curses!

Wow! According to the poll, there is quite a wide range of opinions on how jet fighters should work. I didn’t expect such results!

Hey IL, I did my homework after your first reply to this post. I indeed overlooked a few details regarding jet fighters, and it seems that you were right about a few things. However, I would like to point out that you are sorely mistaken when it comes to the British Meteor. The V-1s were a massive headache for the British government, and they input massive amounts of resources to counter them. You rightly pointed out that piston driven airplanes were utilized to combat the flying bombs, but with great difficulty. The V-1’s flew much faster than any propeller craft, so the airplanes had to be heavily modified and commit to unique maneuvers in order to nudge the V-1’s of course or to shot them down. Both tactics proved risky and difficult. Thus, in an effort to improve the defense against these weapons, the British designated the Meteor to help intercept V-1’s. Consequently, in the summer of 1944, the jet aircraft saw combat in that endeavor.  While the Meteor didn’t participate in the defense from the Vengeance weapons for long due to its late introduction, it was still used nonetheless.

If anything, the only benefit to attacking that jet fighters should provide, is an immunity to AA fire.

I have a question about one of the Air/Naval Techs:

"Jet fighters - fighters now attack at ‘4’ "

I was under the impression that the true fighter jet technology developed by the British and the Germans during WWII was applied to defensive interceptor craft. The Brits used their jet fighters to intercept V1’s, and the Germans used theirs to intercept Allied bomber squadrons. In addition, these jet fighters could only fly for a few minutes before running out of fuel. So, with all this in mind, why has the AA50 jet fighter technology raised the attack value of fighters to 4, essentially making them cheap bombers? The AAR version of this technology seems much more appropriate given the history of these early rocket propelled aircraft (raise the defense value of fighters to 5).

Perhaps a more appropriate name for this technology would be something along the lines of ‘advanced tactical fighter bombers’?

My thoughts exactly Imperious Leader!

@Lynxes:

This TTT discussion is interesting, but shouldn’t you throw in National objectives as well, the big change in AA50? You now have a reason to hold on to specific territories that weren’t worth much in AAR such as Gibraltar, Midway Island, Karelia and Algeria. Maybe that will go some way to lessen the dreaded TTT?

Yeah, I was thinking about this also. I think that the income you collect from completing the new NO’s are meant to represent an increase in morale from your citizens- and therefore and increase in production. Again, it would make sense to collect this bonus income at the beginning of your turn!

Anyways, you are absolutely right Lynxes, these NO territories are going to lessen the amount of time people spend trading IPC territories. We will now be focusing on worthless territories a lot more, effectively attacking the morale of your opponents citizens. Good stuff these National Objectives. :-)

Collecting income at the end of the turn does encourage people to attack, but it encourages attacking on faulty logic! How can France, a 6 IPC territory produce 6 for the Germans, then 6 for the Brits after they conquer it? That means that France produced 12 IPCs in one round! Ridiculous!!!

By collecting income at the beginning of your turn, it would encourage aggressive play, but in a different way. Lets take the France exchange as an example again. If the British take France, they don’t gain anything this round per se, but they deny Germany 6 IPC’s of income the next round. In turn, the Germans would want to counter attack in order to deny the British their income from France. This means that this zone, which is continuously being overrun by armies and having its infrastructure being destroyed in the battles, is unable to produce anything until it finally sees a bit of peace. If you want to gain an income from a certain zone, you have to earn it! Take it, and by god HOLD IT!!

AA guns are already overpowered to begin with… The radar tech makes them absurdly effective.

Putting my gripes about AA guns aside, I think all nations can benefit from this tech. Russia, Germany, Italy, and the UK for obvious reasons. As for Japan, building a few beefed up AA guns and shipping them the key islands, can really put a wrench in the Allies plans. Think of the headaches the US would have if they were unable to take islands because all of their planes have been shot down (or they are afraid of their planes being shot down). Also, radar guns on a few islands would make a pacific paratrooper campaign REALLY risky- if not impossible. They would have to put more money into land units, meaning that their navy would be less powerful, meaning Japan could put up a better fight in the Pacific… you get the idea.

The benefit of AA guns for the USA is less clear however. The first thing that comes to mind for me is shipping a few AA guns to Europe. For example, replacing the AA gun in England with an American Radar AA gun which would really help the UK player. Also, the Americans could install a radar gun in France and/ or Northwest Europe, making it much more difficult for the Germans to take those territories back.

As for adding AA capabilities to ships… Man, I would lose it if a single cruiser shot down a bunch of planes in addition to its normal defense roll!!! I think this idea wouldn’t work. It effectively gives these units two or three defense rolls. It’s WAAAY too much… And to put this into a historical perspective, battleships, while powerful, were extremely vulnerable when faced by attacks by airplanes. Just think of the Yamato!! The mightiest warship of the second world war… sunk by an American fighter squadron which lost only a dozen men in the attack!

I personally think the best method to counter ‘trading’ territories, would be to make an incentive for one to hold it continuously. More specifically, collect your income at the BEGINNING of your turn, THEN purchasing your units. It doesn’t make much sense to be earning x amount of man hours towards your war effort if that territory was just a war zone. It takes time to coordinate masses of people and having them change their economy as to benefit your own war effort.