here is the scenario
japan has a sub in sz1
usa combat moves 2 battleships into sz1
japan submerges the sub in sz1
usa wants to non-combat move a destroyer into sz1
can a player non-combat move a destroyer into a sea zone in which there is a submerged enemy sub?
@Panz3r:
yes it’s all right but you are forgetting the antiaircraft rolls lol with that concentration of aircraft surely some aircraft will fall down :) and your 35% chance of win will drasticaly go down!
i did not forget the anti aircraft gun. if the usa happened to move the aagun out japan wins 85% of the time.
Well this strategy doesnt work if the UK can capture japan. the allies win if they control tokyo, no matter what.
assuming you are COMPLETELY ignoring the coast. You will lose siam and french indochina to UK before the J3 collect income phase, along with some chinese territoreies. So that will lower Japan below 30 IPCs for J3 collect income phase. Meaning their J4 purchase will be 9 inf or less. Can UK get through. I dont feel like doing the math at this moment because……
japan will not be captured by uk. if we use your example japan has j3 and j4 purchase to fend of the 2 loaded uk transports.
more importantly the uk fleet will sunk by j air and/or js sz19 fleet
US can blocade alaska on US1
By moving combat ships into SZ 7, SZ 15.
Japan cant take alaska on J2…. You have been defeated…
US sacrifices 1 destroyer and 1 crusier and this West Coast Crush is no more.
yes usa can blockade on usa1
this does stop the j4 attempt to capture west usa. however, it does not defeat the japanese.
now japan on j2 attacks the uk, hawaii, moves to caroline islands to threaten anzac, or any other move.
you have shown how to effectivly stop the attempt to capture west usa. i still want to find out if an attempt is made if it is possible. and if it is possible if it is a winning strategy.
AWNIL has 4 inf, 8 inf, then 10 tanks. An extra inf, or an inf changed to a tank, could make a difference given the % is 45. It may be reduced to below 40%.
[EDIT: 1 extra inf drops the % from 44 to 37% Two extra inf down to 28%]
can you show us a usa purchase that would be better? or if i have made a mistake in the usa purchases where the mistake is?
Correct me if I’m wrong here….
1. You posted USA as buying 4 inf Round 1. They can actually get 5. So your total was off by 1 USA inf.
2. UK can sail 2 inf from Malaya to Queensland UK1, then follow up to land in USA on round 3. That brings two additional inf.
But the 1 USA inf alone makes it bit better than a 1/3 chance.
thanks for catching the usa1 purchase error.(i am ebarrassed for making such an obvious error) that does change the odds to 1/3
your second point is also correct, but i discount it because japan has not attacked on j1 or even made movements towards usa. i do not think an allied player would move uk units to queensland as j2 could be an attack on the uk.
i have modified the original post to include your correct usa1 purchase
Corbeau Blanc, i agree with your assessment of carriers/fighters compared to cruisers.
do not be fooled by posts of players trying to create a very rare scenario whereby a cruiser is the best purchase.
i am sure there is a very rare scenario in which a opponent has put your navy at risk and you are next to an industrial complex and you only have 12ipc and the cruiser really is the best purchase for this oddball scenario.
so once in a game one power would be best to buy one cruiser. this is not basing a strategy around cruisers as it is a inferior strategy compared to other options.
this does not make a cruiser a very usefull unit.
…Its a good challenge for the Japanese player - and it makes transports super important. Moreover, its a fun dilemma.
However, once Japan builds one of those minor ICs the dynamics change too drastically. Instead of having a key vulnerability, the ability to create minor ICs allows Japan to circumvent the pressing needs of transports and simply produce whatever land units it needs and whatever point it needs. The challenge of balancing long term strategy and the transport requirements to fulfill that strategy are not eliminated outright, but severely reduced. For me, this makes the Japan position a lot less fun.
Does Japan need minor ICs to win the game? No, not in my opinion. Thus, I’m thinking for all future games of AAP40 my friends and I play we are considering using one or both of these house rules:
Only Japan and ANZAC may build new IC - and then they can only do so in their home provinces (Australia or Japan).
Building a new IC takes two turns to come into play from the round in which it is paid for.
Thoughts?
well said. i also think the japanese logistics dilema is very fun. i also agree that a complex, especially a major complex, ruins the logistics dilema.
however it is annoying to make house rules, as you know that is not the same game that everyone else is playing.
AWNIL has 4 inf, 8 inf, then 10 tanks. An extra inf, or an inf changed to a tank, could make a difference given the % is 45. It may be reduced to below 40%.
[EDIT: 1 extra inf drops the % from 44 to 37% Two extra inf down to 28%]
hi squirecam, thanks for the input.
you are correct that an extra inf, or and inf upgraded to a tank would reduce the odds below 40%. but i beleive i have shown the maximum defensive purchases for the usa.
can you show us a usa purchase that would be better? or if i have made a mistake in the usa purchases where the mistake is?
right now with maximum japanese assault purchases and movements, countered by maximum usa/anzac deffensive purchases and movements, JAPAN CAPTURES USA 45% OF THE GAMES.
then the US is spared
The UK has to do something stupid to save the US to beat this strategy
Kwanngtung would have 2 infantry, a tac, and 5 fighters. Japan can punch through this but it takes them a turn out of position for west coast crush. Then the US makes mad money and the UK has to sit on its hands till india falls
if the uk does something stupid to save the usa, like loading kwangtung with all its airforce and building an complex, then japan gets to easily smash all uk air units, steal the new complex on japans 2nd turn. they abandon the attempt to capture usa and win the game easily.
again this does not show that a capture usa strategy can work, just that this uk counter strategy is not the best play. i really want to find out if the strategy is possible, and if so, is it a winning strategy.
come june this wont matter one bit
eastern US stuff and money makes this strat impossible in the global game
you are right that in the global game there is no possible way to capture the usa. but you are missing something important
the pacific is a game unto itself. it will still matter when playing the pacific game. i find this game very fun and see myself continuing to play it after europe is released, if for no other reason the global game will take even longer to play.
I predict this strat will never be beaten!
i disagree.
this shows the strat will fail 55% of the time. and the 45% of the time j can capture usa, i still do not know if it is a winning strategy, or if uk can win the war.
UK 1 All fleet to SZ 37 All air units Kwangtung Minor Factory Kwangtung save 4 IPCs
UK 2 Fleet to sz 20, 4 infantry from malaya to Kwangtung, fleet to SZ 20, build Carrier, transport, infantry
UK 3 Attack Japan with 6 infantry, fighter, tactical bomber, crusier bombard, battleship bombardCan you completeley ignore the possibility of this?
what can you build on j3, 10 infantry?
whatever you leave behind to stop this takes away from the attack on the US
hello oztea, thanks for the ideas.
i am just trying to figure out if a usa capture is possible(not if it is the best strategy, and all the ripple effects)
no you can not completely ignore this. but like hobbes smartly pointed out on j2 you abandon the attempt to capture usa and take the mainland factory. this is not showing that the capture of usa is possible, but does show this counter does not work.
j1 purchase 3 transports, move sz33 units to sz6, capture french indo china and 4 available chinese territories.
j2 purchase 5 transports, declare war, capture alaska with 1tank, 3art, 8inf via sz1 with 6 loaded transports, land all air in japan
j3 move 10inf from japan to alaska, move all air units to alaska(except 6 figs on carriers in sz1)
j4 attack west usa with 18inf, 3art, 1tank, 14figs, 10tacs, 4bombers
usa1 purchase 5inf, move phil air to guam, move all ground and air units to west usa
usa2 purchase 8inf, move guam air to wake
usa3 purchase 10tanks, move wake air to west usa
anzac1 move tran to queensland
anzac2 move 4 figs to hawaii, move tran to sz27
anzac3 move 4 figs to west usa and unload 2inf to west usa
west usa battle is
japan attacking with 18inf, 3art, 1tank, 14figs, 10tacs, 4bombers
allies defending with 22inf/art, 11tanks, 8figs, 3tacs, 3bombers
japan wins 35% of the time
with optimal purchases and moves on both sides(only considering a kill usa first strategy) japan has 35% chance at capturing usa. looks like the game designers did a great job at making kill usa a viable strategy that is not over powering
I dont think it was THAT bad…just a couple of typos…
typos like the incorrect spelling of palau are not THAT bad.
not enough tac bombers
the wrong setup with missing naval and air bases, additional minor complexes, and wrong type of complexes
a difficult to understand/incorrect rulebook
control markers made of cheap cardboard that is too thin to pick up
cheap carboard instead of plastic pieces of anti aircraft guns, industrial complexes, naval bases, and air bases
game boards that came warped and will not lay flat on the table
the two game boards that do not line up perfectly
these are THAT bad
this is a shame as the game is very fun to play. despite all these major problems it is still the most fun axis and allies game i have played
the only way to have an allied player focus on the pacific is to create an incentive to put units into it or a disincentive to keep units out of the pacific.
currently the incentive is to capture japan. this is less effective than putting units into europe and capturing germany.
currently the disincentive is to stop japan from taking the pacific islands. after japan’s first turn in 1941 or 1942 scenario the allied islands are australia, new zealand, and hawaii. these islands total 4ipc out of the games 178ipc. if playing with national objectives it becomes 24ipc out of 268ipc.
to create an incentive you could play wih a rule wich forces bids to go into the pacific or surrounding area(china, india, pacific, or pacific islands). this will make it easier to capture japan in relation to capturing germany.
to create a disincentive you could play to 11vcs wereby the axis can win without taking, or being on the path to taking moscow. this forces the allies to defend india, australia, or hawaii.
Ok, so I guess what i’m asking is…
Does a non aggression rule for Japan/Russia imbalance the game?
it will unbalance the game. it will also reduce variation in strategy. it will not encourage usa to fight japan. after japan crushes china in a couple of rounds and has secured all the islands in the pacific, they can only build up for an invasion of usa.
meanwhile the usa will keep up the kill germany first strategy and only place a mass amount of ground units in west usa when japan forces it to.
japan then can only spend all its resources to try the impossible task of taking over the usa which is very cost ineffective compared to usa’s defense.
the only way to have an allied player focus on the pacific is to create an incentive to put units into it or a disincentive to keep units out of the pacific.
currently the incentive is to capture japan. this is less effective than putting units into europe and capturing germany.
currently the disincentive is to stop japan from taking the pacific islands. after japan’s first turn in 1941 or 1942 scenario the allied islands are australia, new zealand, and hawaii. these islands total 4ipc out of the games 178ipc. if playing with national objectives it becomes 24ipc out of 268ipc.
to create an incentive you could play wih a rule wich forces bids to go into the pacific or surrounding area(china, india, pacific, or pacific islands). this will make it easier to capture japan in relation to capturing germany.
to create a disincentive you could play to 11vcs wereby the axis can win without taking, or being on the path to taking moscow. this forces the allies to defend india, australia, or hawaii.
@Imperious:
If you want more options for strategy do this:
Give everybody ( meaning each nation) X amount to spend before each players first turn. The total of each side would be different to reflect the bid for balancing issues based on the scenario and options played.
this is a great idea that creates more variability in game playout, for me this simple rule change would add alot more enjoyment to the game. however it does not change the grand strategy of race to berlin/moscow. infact it will just encourage it as the pregame units for each nation will go to areas that help in the race.
@Imperious:
Second thing is you keep the non aggression pact with Soviets and Japan as discussed earlier, so japan can just fight USA and USA must focus on Pacific.
this just reduces variation in strategy. it will not encourage usa to fight japan. after japan crushes china in a couple of rounds and has secured all the islands in the pacific, they can only build up for an invasion of usa.
meanwhile the usa will keep up the kill germany first strategy and only place a mass amount of ground units in west usa when japan forces it to.
japan then can only spend all its resources to try the impossible task of taking over the usa which is very cost ineffective compared to usa’s defense.
cousin joe, i really enjoyed your axis and allies revised enhanced rules.
i hope you create a ruleset for anniversary that is as enjoyable as aare was.
the reason that aare was so fun was there were many strategies and a wide variety of playouts.
i do not believe the half price industrial complex is the answer to more strategy.
the main reason the half price industrial complex in india/australia is to force the allies to play in the pacific.
a more simple solution is to play to 11 victory cities.
this encourages the allies to play in the pacific.
unlike the non aggresion pact it does not outlaw history altering strategies like japan going after russia.
unlike the industrial complex in india/australia it is not a static unit/static location which means streamlined playouts = less variability and strategic options
@Subotai:
VCs are irrelevant in AA50, it doesn’t matter if it is 13, 15 or 18 VCs. Decent players concede when they think they can’t win. I have never achieved 13 VCs in AA50, and neither have my opponents.
VCs are only for new players who don’t know how to play, and/or end the game, but it doesn’t take many matches to learn the basic understandings of the game.
if playing to 13, 15, 18 vc then vcs are irrelevant because you are essentially playing a game untill domination.
if playing to 11vc then vcs are relevant