Ok, so I guess what i’m asking is…
Is there a way to stop the usual playout of Japan moving to take russia, and Germany/italy can stand and win on their own without Japan’s help.
yes play to 11vc. this forces the allies to play in the pacific.
like axis roll said a bid helps balance the game but enforces the build up for a capital race of berlin/moscow.
i do not see a scenario where 13 victory citys is a different playout from take moscow/berlin.
for a vc # change to make a difference you would have to lower it to 11vc
India/australia/hawaii/karelia/caucaus.
No Moscow required.
if axis own and can hold after a usa turn the following; germany, italy, france, poland, karelia, caucaus, india, australia, hawaii, japan, kwangtung, and kiangsu the game is cleary one sided and should have been conceded anyways. the vc reduction has done nothing to change the playout of the game. except maybe shortened the game by a round or two if you are playing an opponent that refuses to surrender when it is clear they have lost.
there is only one way a victory city reduction makes the game play out differently to the current capital capture.
if the number is low enough that one side can reach the designated vc number and hold it after the usa’s turn, and if the game continued that side would lose the war.
13vcs do not change the playout of the game.
i do not see a scenario where 13 victory citys is a different playout from take moscow/berlin.
for a vc # change to make a difference you would have to lower it to 11vc
the more pieces is the key. lets say you have transports that need to be defended from your opponents potential attack with 2 fighters, you can defend with either 3 destroyers or 2 cruisers. if you choose to defend your fleet with cruisers the attacker will sink your fleet 42% of the time, if your choose the destroyers the fleet is only sunk 27% of the time. if there are subs in the attack then destroyers are even better.
Darth is correct, here. More pieces is the key to DD’s only as long as the fleet is being threatened. On the other hand, CA’s are ALWAYS useful. As long as you make it unprofitable for your opponent to attack your fleet, then CA’s will simply be a better choice. Unless he or she makes a calculation error or there was a tactical advantage to be gained, no good player would allow their opponent 50/50 odds (2 fig vs. 2 CA) at sinking their fleet, so the above example is really a moot point.
the example was only one example, you can make up your own example and do the calcualtions, you will find that destroyers or loaded carriers is a better defensive buy compared to cruisers.
Furthermore, with respect to fighters having better range, in order to maintain the fleet’s defensive integrity, those fighters must return to the CV’s every turn which is a limiting factor to their range. And as stated before, it is further offset by the fact that territories protected by AA do nothing to discourage attacks supported by CA’s.
loaded carriers do have better range, even when landing back on the carrier. they can make a sea attack 3 spaces away, and attack land locked territories. cruisers do not have this type of range or flexibility. the aagun is the one disadvantage the loaded carrier faces, however there are very few aaguns and they are expensive to build and do not totaly negate fighters.
i do know what i am missing. i am missing inferior purchases.
i can not quantify the ability to bombard every turn, but i can qualify it compared to other purchases. cruisers are a bad purchase compared to others.
But you can’t assume that you will always have 20+IPC’s to spend in one turn to buy a bunch of DD’s, CA’s, or a fully loaded CV to make the quantity advantage immediately significant. If you have 15 or less IPC’s to spend on defensive navy in one turn, which one of these units is a better purchase: 1 DD, 1 CV, or 1 CA?
well a carrier with existing fighters is the best defensive purchase, or a dd and an infantry is very cost effective. i am sure there is a way that we could come up with a very rare situation were a cruiser is the best purchase, but it would be very rare and not relevent to most games.
The DD is superior as an offensive and defensive purchase solely in the case of quantity and only in the water. The cruiser is superior individually and, I would argue, overall because of it’s it’s bombardment ability. Eventually, the CA’s pay for themselves. The 2 CA’s that I spent 24 IPC’s to buy cost my opponents an average of 1 dead infantry every turn, while those 3 DD’s you bought for the same price are earning you, what exactly?
when buying a navy to protect transports from an air assault carriers are the better buy. when attacking land forces carriers are a better buy. when buying a navy to protect from an attack by another navy carriers are the best buy, then destroyers, then cruisers. when attacking another navy and you ignore the extra flexibility loaded carriers have, destroyers are the best, then cruisers, then carriers(but only very slightly less than cruisers)
i would be happy to play anyone that thinks cruisers are a good purchase. i could show you how never buying a cruiser for any power is a winning strategy. or show how any nation that buys many cruisers as part of thier stategy is a losing one.
if gamerman, emporer molari, or anyone else would like to play, i would be glad to be your opponent. but we must use triplea as i can not stand the tedium of abattlemap.
Blah, blah, blah. This may come as a shock to you, but we’ve heard this kind of noise before. I even went to the tripleA site a long time ago to school a guy on how to defend against the German mass-armor build that he was touting as the unstoppable strategy.
there is some miscommunication here. in all my posts i am not trying to anger anyone, but it seems i have angered you. i never touted a german mass tank purchase. it is a suboptimal strategy. i was offering gamerman, emperor mollari, or anyone else that wanted to see the theory in practice, not insulting them(check out my made up nickname)
Playing with abattlemap may be tedious to you, but what is even more tedious is when I(we) have to go to your site just to prove that we can take you guys every time one of your representatives shows up on our doorstep proclaiming our inferiority. Do our people go to your site and talk smack? I’m guessing not. But, if they did, then I’m sure you would say the same thing I’m about to say to you:
abattlemap is very tedious for me. i am confused of your creating of teams here. i do not represent triplea, and i do not think you represent axisandallies.org. i did not proclaim your inferiority. i do not have a site for you to come to talk smack.
Bottom line, if you want to talk smack HERE, then you back it up HERE. Otherwise, troll somewhere else. Have a nice day.
i did not come here to talk smack i came here to talk strategy about axis and allies, that is the reason axisandallies.org. i was not trolling i was using the site for its intended purpose.
i know you were not serious about wishing me a nice day. but i am serious, i hope you have a nice day.
emporer molari
It’s Emperor Mollari. The least you can do is have enough respect to spell his name correctly. I mean, you can copy and paste it for Christ’s sake.
i doubt he is upset that his made up nickname on a boardgame site was misspelled by a stranger. i think me an mollari are having fun talking strategy.
Hi!
Looking at the very first pictures of AA40P which squirecam took
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15181.0
(or at the back of Pacific board), we can see that between the border of China and USSR is another territory. The color of this territory is not red (so it is not russian) it looks more like yellow, so I assume that this should be impassable Tibetan Plateau.
What do you think?
This means that even when Japan conquers all China Russia will have to just control two territories (Timguska and another one) at the border to protect from Japanese invasion from China.
Also when you look carefully at the back of Pacific board or at these pictures you can see that western part of India will be pro allies-neutral territory.
when i first read your post i thought you were crazy and confused. but after your follow up post and pictures i see that you were very perceptive. good catch tomekhello
@Brain:
Heavy Bombers is atomic bomb rule.
i do not think that heavy bombers is an atomic bomb. heavy bombers are best at taking out fleets. they work well when combined with attacking land forces at taking out defending land forces. they do not act like an atomic bomb at all.
Is anyone else starting to think that giving carriers 2 hits, cost 2 more IPCs, and removing the attack value basically does nothing for the carrier. Once hit it can do anything for planes until its repaired unless it has allied planes on it. But I think the fact that planes can’t land on a damaged carrier just defeats the purpose of moving them even remotely close to combat. Battleships still retain bombard capabilty even when damaged. Why shouldn’t carriers be allowed to at least land their aircraft and not be able to launch them until repaired, giving the player the option of trying to save his planes instead of losing countless more ships and aircraft just to save a moving/non attacking airbase?
Just curious if anyone else thinks that this change weakens carriers.
i do not think the change weakens the carrier, i think it makes it stronger.
however, the framing of your question seems wrong to me. i think it is important if the change makes the game more fun, not if the unit is stronger or weaker. if a unit is comparatively too strong or too weak(see cruiser), it leads to easy purchasing decisions which means a boring purchase.
i think the carrier’s effectiveness to cost is pretty good. i am having lots of fun making my purchases for japan, usa, and anzac as unit costs and effectiveness is pretty good. there are a couple of exceptions as cruisers are never considered aswell as uk and china purchases are boring because they only purchase infantry.
i do wish the carrier was the same as guadalcanal with 0 attack value and 0 defense value with the ability for 2 hits. i do prefer the 2 hits but wish they were not such a defensive piece.
@Emperor:
I’d be most happy with an opponent that never buys cruisers. :-D
Me too.
You guys don’t know what you’re missing, who are dissing cruisers.
You can’t quantify the ability to bombard every turn, and don’t forget the threat of bombardment (or the potential ability to bombard) that the opponent must take into consideration.
i do know what i am missing. i am missing inferior purchases.
i can not quantify the ability to bombard every turn, but i can qualify it compared to other purchases. cruisers are a bad purchase compared to others.
i would be happy to play anyone that thinks cruisers are a good purchase. i could show you how never buying a cruiser for any power is a winning strategy. or show how any nation that buys many cruisers as part of thier stategy is a losing one.
if gamerman, emporer molari, or anyone else would like to play, i would be glad to be your opponent. but we must use triplea as i can not stand the tedium of abattlemap.
Both destroyers and cruisers have a punch to cost ratio of 0.25 (2/8 & 3/12), so I don’t see how destroyers are better defensively except that you could get more pieces (3 destroyers for 24 IPCs vs. 2 cruisers);
the more pieces is the key. lets say you have transports that need to be defended from your opponents potential attack with 2 fighters, you can defend with either 3 destroyers or 2 cruisers. if you choose to defend your fleet with cruisers the attacker will sink your fleet 42% of the time, if your choose the destroyers the fleet is only sunk 27% of the time. if there are subs in the attack then destroyers are even better.
however, that’s like saying you should ONLY purchase infantry for defense and never purchase tanks or fighters (though the punch/cost ratio correlation is also different).
if you are only looking for defense then infantry is the best purchase and not mixed buys with inferior tanks for fighters. the one exception is if you have more money than the production limit of the industrial complex.
While it’s true that infantry and destroyers are the most efficient defensive pieces because they’re cheaper and you can get more of them, you also want some pieces that will boost your skew and be more likely to score some hits per round of battle.
yes infantry and destroyers are the best defenders. buying other units is an inferior defensive purchase.
however its not all about defending. infantry do not have the range of tanks, attack power of artillery and tanks, or flexibility of fighters. when looking at destroyers vs cruisers destroyers or carriers vs cruisers, cruisers are always a bad purchase.
That’s not true about the bombardment. One of the benefits of bombardment is that it doesn’t matter how many defenders there are. With 2 inf and 2 cruisers you can bombard every turn and essentially try to trade 2 inf for 2 inf. But you cannot do this attack with 2 inf and 2 ftrs b/c you’d lose the ftrs.
it sounds like you are recomending to attack a large defensive stack with 2inf and 2 destroyers. if so that is an awful trade for the attacker. attacker loses 2inf and defender loses on average 1inf. so you have spent the 24ipc for the benifit to trade make a bad trade.
I like having at least 2 bombarding ships with the UK, but will try to get it to 4. Given how many European countries boarder the sea, its nice having the free bombardment and not having to worry about an AA gun.
if you are looking for uk to attack german land units loaded carriers are a better purchase. fighters get to attack at 3 every round unlike cruisers that get just one round of attack. (the loaded carrier also defends better than cruisers.) if you want to threaten all 8 european countries that boarder the sea the loaded carrier is much better. you do not need to worry that your opponent is going to buy aaguns for those 8 territories, you should hope for it.
Also, I don’t really trust 2’s on defense. Even if you have one loaded AC you might want more real punch for defense but you may not want to commit 34 to another loaded AC, but you can probably spend 24 on two cruisers and get the extra defense you needed and still get some offensive punch and have 10 ipc to spend on whatever. You can even buy a ftr to go with your two crusiers.
if you want defense for your fleet carrier is the best choice. a loaded carrier costs less than 3 cruisers and defends better. and you might have existing fighters that could be placed on your carrier, lowering your investment but still getting a better defense than cruisers.
even if you do not trust 2’s on defense, the dice stats are clear that loaded carriers are a better defense.
cruisers are a very poor purchase. i am shocked people are voting anything more than not very usefull.
if you want fleet defense or attack, destroyers are a far superior purchase.
a loaded carrier is slightly worse when attacking fleets, but better on defense and way more flexible.
cruisers’ bombardment pale in comparison to a loaded carrier’s land attack. the loaded carrier is more flexible in its attack aswell.
cruisers are garbage.
each game box has 6 compartments. each piece of paper creates 2 compartments. the 3 folded papers fit snugly into the game box so there is no need to glue or tape the folded paper to the game box.
however, when the 3 folded pieces are placed in the game box 2 flaps of paper do not lay flat against its neighbouring paper and i taped them down.
thanks for your template bob.
my pieces are now very organized.