Posts made by axis_roll

@taamvan said in 1941 Balance?:

@Seadog

I find this discussion very unusual. In both versions, I find a MASSIVE allied advantage. That’s without tech or NOs, but the advantage is even bigger with NOs as I see it (because France is worth $11, $16 if its held over both powers turns, and even more $22 if they both capture it on one turn).

This has to do with the geometry of the map–its an easy path to get fighters to moscow. Also, Russia has plenty of troops to start the game. KGF is devestating on Germany–even buying subs and infantry all game the fleet that comes is not going to be stopped by a cruiser and half a dozen planes and subs because both US and UK have strong fleets.

The tournament has some different rules, but it still shows a 9-7 victory for allies at a <6 bid. I’d say a realistic bid is somewhere more like 13-22 for Axis and I still dont know how they’d win.

I would LOVE a bid of 14 in AA50-41, OOB rules, no tech, NO’s, Dardenelles open! Even with pure luck dice, Africa falls by round 3, at the latest, India J2 (trading is fine with Japan) and Italy gets both NO’s, and then some.

@PizzaPete said in India Complex for UK - usually a bad idea?:

, if the German fighters go to India, you can trade Russian armor for German fighters,

Germany wouldn’t be ftrs in India if they’d be lost…

@PizzaPete said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

1. Anyone here ever try putting a Japan IC in East Indies Round 1?

YES! That was the first reply in this thread

@axis_roll said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

@Soviet-Steamroller said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:

1) where to put my IC? (F.I.C. or Burma directly under UK’s nose?).

East Indies. It produces 4 units per turn, you’ll have a navy nearby in SZ35 after J1 (for a J2 build of a tpt and 2 inf, perhaps AAA if the allies get cute with a USA bomber in australia

A decent UK player would probably put an IC in India in response but also could muster 1 inf from Persia and 2 Fighters (Egypt & Australia). On my J2 i would be facing 4 inf, 2 fighters and 1 AA!

@PizzaPete said in India Complex for UK - usually a bad idea?:

I think the UK factory can work, but as others said it has to be part of a coordinated and balanced allied effort. If you expect the IC alone to stop Japan, all you’ve done is bought Japan an IC to use against you.

If I go with a India IC (in 41 or 42) I like to keep some soviet armor and air in Caucasus as an insurance policy. If Japan takes India with just one or two land units surviving, Russia can recapture it, and UK can place three new units before Japan can takes another strike. This means that Japan either has to hit India with such overwhelming force that they can take AND hold, OR be able to take it AND have a strong follow-up attack ready, and both of those scenarios take time.

well not necessarily. The Axis can work well together too! German fighters in range can land to protect 2 Japanese infantry before the Russian counter attack. ftrs in Egypt or Eastern Poland or Ukraine are close enough to do the job.

@taamvan said in India Complex for UK - usually a bad idea?:

The allies have a very easy way to win both versions of this game–buy fighters and send them to moscow. The middle is lost to the Axis–but Russia has tons of room to maneuver, plenty of time and pieces, and its 1 step for fighters from USA to london and 1 unblockable way from London to Moscow.

Last night, there were 11 fighters, 4 bombers on Moscow by Turn 3. That and the unfavorable geometry for Axis control of Russia (all the contestible zones are right next to a well-defended moscow = dance back and forth all game, no way to stack up next to moscow before KGF comes knocking) means Axis has little chance of taking Moscow out and therefore winning.

My thoughts: Sure Allies can do this to survive longer. Axis can do a similar move to keep Germany alive with Japanese ftrs in Europe and hold Europe ground longer as well. Meanwhile Japan will be making $50+ (NO game), and slowly either taking all Russians territories (income) or units (if Russia trades).

Maybe because we play low luck, the crazy dice that MIGHT bite Germany and Japan during the first round WILL do so… Just looked at a dice simulator. G1 on Egypt is 95% win (no UK units left) with low luck, 80% with pure luck. Wow. Now I remember WHY we play will low luck.

I bring this up because an early fallen Africa in German/Italy hands weakens UK, especially with Japan’s focus being the south pacific to also take money from UK. These dollars help Germany beef up her France defenses while keeping the pressure on Russia.

@Xlome_00 said in India Complex for UK - usually a bad idea?:

@axis_roll - yes, but having that complex in India would allow a trading back and forth for Caucus as well. It also puts the Axis in danger of losing Caucus from Russia and India then. With time being on the Allies’ side, I think an India complex is a good strategy while US and UK slowly build an invasion force and negate a Japanese front against Russia…

A competent axis player will take that IC from UK, and a defensive Germany can hold long enough for the Axis to survive. Japan has enough to hold out against any USA “less than 100%” KJF strategy.

This IC is not the Allied panacea that you seem to believe it is.

@Xlome_00 said in India Complex for UK - usually a bad idea?:

It sounds like the taking back and forth of India by the UK is actually a really great strategy to halt the Japanese spamming of tanks, and will hold off their ability to really open an effective new front against the USSR. Because they never get to establish a full turn with the IC.

So I guess the real question is what can the Axis do against this? Roll for a Radar Tech and hope for the best with the Can Openers into the USSR?

The Axis (G1) attacks Egypt round 1, Japan moves everything it can on J1 in range of India. G2 pressures the Caucasus as much as possible (maybe even with Italy on their first turn). It’s not something the Allies will be able to employ every game, the axis have a say in allowing the Indian IC to even be an option.

If the proper situation allows for the UK India complex, you can sustain it, but it is costly, and only if the following things happen:

1). Germany does not attack Egypt G1. You’ll need the tank and ftr to help hold india.
2). Russia can afford the infanctry to help support India through Persia. 6 inf can be pushed south R1, and moved into Egypt IF UK decides on their turn 1 to invest in the IC. A tank purchase in Caucasus is helpful as well, if possible
3). Japan does not move all/most of their forces into burma/FIC.

I would say the best Axis moves for a no-bid AA50-41 scenario is to squeeze the middle, this involves a G1 attack on Egypt (some will advocate to wait till G2), and a strong Japanese move to south east asia, especially seeing a huge Russian Persia build up. If this happens, you probably will not want to buy the Indian IC UK1. You can always move the Russian persia force home if needed or to be cheap fodder to try and hold India, making Japanese expend some more infantry (long supply lines) to take India J2, while UK units in Persia (having withdrawn on UK1) can be set to take back Indian UK2.

@squirecam said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:

@axis_roll

…They simply give the axis alot more money to start with, unbalancing the game.

If there were a purpose to it besides just more income, then it could be fine. But it doesn’t add anything of value.

Your point was MY original point:
“I think the issue with NO’s is that the extra money may benefit one side (axis) more than the other.”

@squirecam said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:

@axis_roll

Give each country $50 extra a turn. There will certainly be more units all over the board. But it doesn’t make the game itself better. Just longer.

More money = more choices for units that a country would not normally buy. Sure, you can be a dork and buy more infantry or experiment with a Naval strategy for Germany, or Japanese thrust on USA…

The lack of income forces choices among the players. Japan must choose navy vs infantry. These strategic choices make the game better. JMHO.

So you probably buy into the marketing theory that:
“LESS is MORE”

Generally, my experience has proven that equation does not add up

@taamvan said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:

@axis_roll Russia never falls. It has way too many infantry, cheap tanks are its pat buy, and the pile of UK fighters sitting on its army means the Germans are on the defensive.

The 42 scenario is more balanced because some of that income is already allocated to the Axis

Then that is poor axis play. Germany can cover Japanese advances, Russian income gets too low, and caucasus will eventually fall to combined axis pressure.

This is from our game play experience

@squirecam said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:

More $ doesn’t make the game better.

Well, more money to spend DOES give each side more strategic options, so in that sense, I have disagree with your contention that it doesn’t improve the game.

I think the issue with NO’s is that the extra money may benefit one side (axis) more than the other.

@taamvan said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:

also the 41 setup is really easy for allies to win–UK buys 4 fighters UK1 and flies to Russia UK2.

I don’t see why this is such a ‘winning’ move…

Sure I get that this helps to cover any Russian thrust against Germany. But a German player worth his own salt will keep this incursion from ever causing Germany from Falling, especially before Japan wins the game from pressure on Russia from out east

@squirecam said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:

AA50 with 42 start and without NO’s is the most balanced version. Bids are usually a single unit.

If you want balance, don’t use the tech rules unless you want to add too much of an element of luck, IMHO.

@Xlome_00 said in Chicago, IL area players ?:

Got into A&A less than a year ago and haver become obsessed. Looking for more players. Message me or reply to this thread if you are in the general Chicagoland area and would look to set up a game and create a network of players in the area.

I’ve seen a few Player Locator threads on here, but they look really out of date and not kept up with.

A&A 50 1941 and 1942 have been my game of choice as of late, but I am open to others ( in particular, Global 1940).

How many games have you played of AA50? My play group in chicago has over 120+ games played, most as part of creating and perfecting our house rules: Chicago Rules. If you have lots of Anniversary gaming experience, PM me your email and I can shoot you the rules. They are based on the 1941 set-up.

@Xlome_00 said in Operation Sea Lion - Is it possible for 1941?:

He ended up squandering that $43 from taking London on a Navy which just sat there the remainder of the game. That’s how we pulled it off.

Where was Russia during all this? … on holiday?

@Xlome_00 said in Operation Sea Lion - Is it possible for 1941?:

Just checked the rulebook. Looks you are correct. My buddy accidentally cheated.

I am glad you were able to confirm this in the rules. You can then show this to your friend.

My odds calc that I use shows a 13% chance of a G1 sea lion win with the <illegal> cruiser offshore, losing all planes 7% of the time…

Without the cruiser, drops to about 7% win. Losing 3 planes G1 and forgoing many other key targets is not a good G1 plan, IMHO

Well the good thing is that my teammate and I still beat him even after losing the UK on G1, ha!

Funny that you should mention this, because in Revised, you can buy enough tech to have a good chance to get long range on G1, and conduct a sea lion G1. It seemed to us to be too costly for Germany as they would forgo a ground unit buy, and USA (or even UK) could retake UK, while Germany could not conduct another sea lion G2… assuming the russian player had half a brain.

@Xlome_00 said in Operation Sea Lion - Is it possible for 1941?:

I thought you could pick which naval units you want to participate in each battle. So if for instance those subs would’ve NOT taken out the destroyer, than the Sealion invasion using the Cruiser would not have been able to take place…

Is there really a rule where you can’t partition which naval units take part in each phase of the battles?

I thought I explained the reasoning behind why the cruiser can’t just sit and wait to do his offshore, because he would be moving into a battle after the conduct combat phase has occurred.

If the cruiser goes into SZ6 during combat movement, he is involved in the battle in that Sea Zone because it is occupied with enemy forces. He can not do both, fight the navy in SZ6 AND then offshore.

So a short answer to your question is, no, the navy can’t pick and choose what units fight which battle (ships vs offshore). You enter the SZ, you battle the enemy naval forces, no splitting your attack.

@Midnight_Reaper said in Happy 4th of July America:

@axis_roll said in Happy 4th of July America:

It’s called “Independence Day”.

We don’t call yell “Merry 25th of December” on Christmas…

–Barnee, not a personal slant against you, just in general.
I just never understood why the Holiday is so mislabeled.

But we do say, “Happy Fourth of July”, so I don’t see why he should get chided for it.

I said it wasn’t a personal slant.

It’s not like he was saying, “Happy Eleventh of November” on Veterans / Armistice Day…

What? Your analogy makes no sense. NOBODY says that.

My point was that the holiday “Independence Day” is, for some unknown reason, better know as the “4th of July”. To me, this denigrates the whole purpose for the celebration.

@Xlome_00 said in Operation Sea Lion - Is it possible for 1941?:

He used all available aircraft, Cruiser bombardment and a Tank + Infantry on the transport after knocking out my destroyer in SZ 6 with his subs.

Sorry to say, but your opponent had made an illegal move.

The cruiser would not be available for an offshore into UK. This is because the cruiser would have to conduct a combat move into SZ6 AFTER the subs have already conducted combat (clearing SZ6). The cruiser can only be involved in clearing SZ6.