Posts made by AxisOfEvil

@TG:

In your opinions, do you think giving Cruiser’s ASW capability make up for their pitiful status?

what is ASW?

@DarthMaximus:

As for 3 boms vs. 1 ac + 2 ftrs.

Yes bombers are great, but people sailing around an AC/2 ftrs with no fodder deserve to get them sunk.  There is really no reason that person shouldn’t have a 1-2 dd for fodder.  I don’t see this as a particularly likely scenerio.  Maybe you catch someone napping but I wouldn’t count on running across this scenerio a lot.  I guess with the Italian ships but that’s part of the setup.

Yes you can add fodders units to the AC + fighters. But then, to be fair you add them to the battleships as well.

Attack Fleet #1: 2 fighters/AC/3 DDs  or

attack Fleet#2: 2 BBs/3 DDs  with bombers?

Id still be more wary of the Battleship fleet. Lets say our opponent hits us with 6 bombers. Thats an average of 4 hits. Fleet #1 loses 3 destroyers, and 1 fighter (cant take the AC, as that would auto kill remaining fighters). After 1 round, they are left with 1 AC and 1 fighter. -34 ipcs. Defensive punch remaining: 6 –  Fleet #2 takes those 4 hits and loses only two destoyers. left with 2 BBs and 1 DD. -16 ipcs. D-Punch remaining: 10. True, fleet #1 had a 33% better chance of taking out an extra bomber on round 1, but fleet #2 has a 66% better chance to take out an extra bomber on r2.

The greater  Punch left after round 1 of combat, as well as the IPCs saved, make the battelship fleet alot less prone to strafe attacks. And make a better than average first round of dice by the defending battelship fleet much more scary to the attacker.

Anyone else ever notice that Jens arguements seem to morph as it goes on, in order to re-enforce her original theory?  And what is really annoying, is debating someone who repeats her 9 aa gun theory, even though i stated 7 max, as cauc is not in need of more than one aa gun cover. Does she respond to that assertion? no she counts the territorities she asserts we have to cover with AA = 9. Also, her language and tone seem inflammatory, as if we have questioned her religious beliefs? The axis SBR is an interesting strat, i just posted what i thought to be a reasonable counter to it.

You says things like russia buys 2-3 aa guns on r2, or magical russia buys aa guns every round and defends itself. However, in my arguement, I stated that russia buys 2 aa guns max, and more likely even just one aa gun to counter. Cuz we have GB, and they can bring over 1-2 guns via Arch. And eventually, the us can get a gun there, rd 3-4-5. Does she address allied help with aa guns? no, now her summary of my counter is Russia is spending its entire paycheck on AA guns. lol.

A few arguements that seem to make no sense.

1)  The russian player has no insight into the Axis players strategy, even though they have purchased 3 bombers in r1? Ok so the Fantasy Axis player is sooo insightful, they can find landing bases all over the map to get around any aa gun mine field, but the allied player is so obtuse, that they cant see a SBR strat coming until the moment they lose their enitire paycheck?  lol. classic.

“HEY NO FAIR!, You told me those funny things with the long wings in china were paper weights, now you are saying i get no income??”

further note: As  eumaies alluded to, your strat relies heavily on being able to maximize SBR damage, with a min of two bombers hitting moscow. He suggested you needing less than 7 aa guns to severly disrupt this plan, and I think he makes a good point. In order for russia to need to use the max of 7 aa guns, you would need 2 bombers planted along every flight path to and from moscow. Dem alot of bombers. Seems logical russia can use less then the max 7 to block your flight paths.

2) The russian investment of 5-10 ipcs (Russia buys 2 AA GUNS MAX; I repeat for the selective readers: Russia buys 2 AA GUNS MAX  is counter productive in the land struggle in europe, however, the 45 ipc axis have invested in round 1 alone actually improve their position in europe.  :?  Then she goes on to rattle off all these other useful uses for bombers other than SBRs. Well ok then, use them. Buy bombers and dont even SBR moscow, use them for all those wonderful, “magical”, purposes you have listed.

3) The russian investment of 5-10 ipc is a gamebreaker in eurrope for the axis? She goes on to tell us that the aa guns are useless in the land swapping. However, she presented us with a strat she characterized as “game breaking”. That russia has NO INCOME by round 4. Yet, she poses that the alternative, spending 5-10 ipc to prevent collecting no income on round 4 is wasteful. When you consider those 5-10 ipcs would have been bombed anyway into thin air, the tangible assets of 1-2 aa guns is much more than just a wise investment.

Oh and one more time:   Russia buys 2 AA GUNS MAX

@toblerone77:

I’m going to try incorporating cruisers more into the game. I think alot of folks are already writing them off whereas I think they may have some value as a ‘poor man’s’ battleship.

Im not buying the cruiser so far. If you are truly poor, and need a capital ship that can bombard, you are wasting money buying a cruiser. For 8 ipcs more, you get more firepower, save a fodder ship in every future naval battle, increase your chance of hitting in bombardment by 1/6, which increases your chances of saving land units in battles. Battelships quickly pay for the diff in price, and then save you so much more in the long run.

@toblerone77:

Carriers and fighters are the best combo as far as I’m concerned on offense or defense.

I’ll guarantee a CV/FIG combo with destroyers will make most think twice about using bombers. :evil:

I would attack 1 AC and 2 fighters with 3 bombers. Would i attack 2 battleships with 3 bombers? Umm hell no! And against the AC + fighters, if i throw in a 6 ipc sub, now I have an 1 in 3 chance in every round of combat that i dont even need to kill the fighters. I just sink the AC, step back and watch them die? Do battelships have that vulnerability? no sir.

@Romulus:

Units “doomed to die” in the A&A set up are a constant presence. For example in Revised the UK BB in the Western Med, the Jap TRN in sz 59, the USA fighter in China etc. And I am not considering the German Army in West Russia, or the English Army in Egypt…

I might argue that the german army in W Russia is more doomed to die than the TRN in sz 59. If i were inclined to argue  :-D

I dont see anyway the US can do anything of significance in the pacific in the 41 version. Maybe simply make japan keep her fleet closer to home in fear of a sucker punch, but thats about it. The US would be much more efficient in destoying italy first.

my only 41 scenario FTF game lasted 7 1/2 hours.  way too long to get new players involved!!

@AxisOfEvil:

@Cmdr:

Lots of players say bombers are immune to AA Guns they are flying over.

OOB says you take AA Damage flying over a territory, attacking a territory and flying back.

Didnt realize lots of players “say” that. Does that mean it isnt a rule set like LHTR, but simply house rules? Im not aware of many house rules, so its hard to respond to a strategy based on the house rules if they arent specified.

More on this, why have players made this a rule? I think rules that restricts an approach that simply buys bombers to win should be encouraged, not changed!!

@Cmdr:

Lots of players say bombers are immune to AA Guns they are flying over.

OOB says you take AA Damage flying over a territory, attacking a territory and flying back.

Didnt realize lots of players “say” that. Does that mean it isnt a rule set like LHTR, but simply house rules? Im not aware of many house rules, so its hard to respond to a strategy based on the house rules if they arent specified.

@Cmdr:

Lots of players say bombers are immune to AA Guns they are flying over.

OOB says you take AA Damage flying over a territory, attacking a territory and flying back.

---

UK +1 AA, USA +1 AA that’s only +2 AA.  There are 6 avenues of approach to Moscow and 3 avenues of approach to Caucasus.  You’re going to need a total of 9 AA Guns to force the axis to fly over two guns to each target (and even then, they can go by SZ 16 to hit Caucasus if stationed in the right place.)

Assuming 3 AA guns for India, Caucasus and Russia (the 3 that almost always end up in Russia anyway.)  This means you’ll need to buy 6 more.  AA Guns coming from America are going to take forever to get there or such a large investment their worth will be utterly mitigated in the grand scheme of things. (AA Gun from E. USA to Algeria walk it to Caucasus or build two big fleets one for the med and one for the Atlantic to ship it there or the same up north.)

That means your guns are almost certainly coming from England/Russia.  That means 9 guns, -3 starting, purchase 6 guns, 5 IPC each cost 30 IPC.  Seems low until Russia starts losing fighters trying to liberate land from the Axis after they lose it.  Remember, Germany and Japan can easily trade Inf/Arm for a territory.  Can Russia do the same?  Over 6 territories??? (That would be 3 each for Germany/Japan, but at least 4 for Russia with America/England trying for the other two.)  Remember, there’s now an AA Gun on all of them.  And if you don’t liberate them ALL, the axis are just going to pull that AA Gun back out of the way forcing you to buy another one.

And don’t forget, the axis are not locked into attacking your AA Guns.  They can do something else like obliterate England’s IC for a turn instead while they steal a gun and open a hole.  You, on the other hand, are now locked into all these AA Guns that cannot attack anything and are now a huge liability because of the increased threat to your (Russia’s) fighters.

lol, dont know where u got 9 guns from. But i guess if it helps your theory, mgiht as well throw it out there.

Caucasus, due to the sea zone, will only have 1 aa. The risk/reward for bombing caucasus is in russia favor, as it still has a 1/6 chance to kill the bomber, however, the damage is capped at 4. I did not suggest to place a gun in persia and/or india. allies wont be able to hold them normally. U need 7 guns to surround moscow. russia gets three in normal play, (1 from india). Uk can send another 1 in one turn to Arch. for a 5 ipc cost. USA can get one to arch by 3 or 4, for no cost. This leaves russia to buy 2. or you could have uk buy 2, and have russia buy 1. With Arch/W Russia/Caucasus/Kazakh/Novo/Evenki/moscow covered by 7 guns, at a cost of 5-10 ipc for russia, 5-10 ipc for uk.

This makes bombing moscow unfeasible. Sure you can do other things with those bombers. And you might as well, since you spent all that money on them. However, Russia is not being threatened signifcantly more by them, and now russia has an advantage in ground units, as germany and japan put mucho bucks into the air. Trading the territories that surround moscow is very managable, especially when japan is much slower in bringing enough stuff to threaten eastern moscow in the early game.

@Cmdr:

Perhaps.  If you play with the always active AA Gun then investing in guns would shrink the advantage or force the axis to take land adjacent to Russia.

Always active means they fire at any planes that fly over? This is an OOB rule right? Another rule set eliminates this for revised? I know the AA50 version wont allow firing at planes flying by.

@Cmdr:

Perhaps.  If you play with the always active AA Gun then investing in guns would shrink the advantage or force the axis to take land adjacent to Russia.

However, you have to build the guns, you have to move the guns and you have to protect the guns.  Remember, AA Guns are double edged swords.  Germany and Japan can afford the extra units needed to take your territories without risking fighters if they want too.  Can Russia afford the same?

And if you don’t replace the guns, what’s protecting England from -16 IPC a round from bombers?

Uk normally ships it Indian aa gun to russia anyway. The US usually ships on of its aa guns to europe or Africa. The US can afford many AA guns. Russia can even afford 1 or 2. I mean you are talking about reducing Russia down to no income, i think a 5 or 10 ipc investment by russia to prevent that is quite worth it. The Uk would never leave London without an aa gun obviously. if they sent an extra on top of the indian aa gun, they would replace for 5 ipc.

Lets assume after germany and japan buy bombers r1, the allies see whats coming. Russia can build aa gun r2 and/or r3 once seeing the amount of bombers being purchased by the axis player. UK will have one aa gun  in caucus r2, shifting the caucus gun to an adjacent terrirory. Also r2, uk can purchase an aa gun and ship its gun to arch r2. If US normally ships an a gun north, it can have a gun in arch by r3, shifting guns east thru moscow. Else, for sure by r4.  Thats 7 aa guns, 3 extra buys, (2 by russia, 1by UK) by r3 or r4. So for a total of 15 ipcs, bombers now have to face 3 aa shot to do an SBR, which I doubt any sane player would.

As far as trading territoy now, on the east side, you wont have to worry about the japs for awhile r6 maybe? Then if you cant defend the eastern swapping areas, you pull the gun back. But at this point, you are far ahead on land units, as japan has invested heavy into bombers, so you might be able to hold those eastern territory for some time. In the West, well those territories aren’t being swapped normally anyway. And they especially arent if germany bought 2 bombers in the first 2 rounds. Kareila is usually held by allied landings, caucus + W Russia held by russia.

Could a few aa guns counter this strat pretty nicley? Us could bring 2 or more, Uk can bring 2 or more. And russia can buy at least 1 to save all the SBR damage. Now bobmers are dodging three aa guns firing for each raid.

And when this is countered, the axis powers are way behind with all those bombers, and few land units.

@TG:

The short answer:  Probably.

Whenever a new iteration of A&A pops up, among the first things veterans asks is, “What’s changed?  (and a bit later)…  Can I still go KGF?”

I think you are incorrect here. I think all the players were hoping for reasons to meddle in the pacific with this version. I for one was, and I am disspointed that it isnt there. mind you, i havent played 42 version yet. that ultimately might be the version to play with this game.

@Constantinople:

Just scanned the Western USA part of the map.

Then enlarged it to an appropriate size by guessing what size would still fit the map and not look too bad or obviously “home made,” but still would be larger enuff to fit my needs of a larger Western USA.  Kind of hit and miss on the enlarging. I initially printed out a couple of drafts on paper to see how well it would fit once I was ready to place it.

I had to darken the scan somewhat to get it to be same tone as the board colors.

Then I selected a semi gloss photo paper and printed it.

Then trimmed the map down to the coastline leaving the “light water” edge on the map. I also trimmed the northern part of enlarged map to allow it to fit better into the already existing coastline where it joined to Canada and voila it was done!!

I secured it to the map with tiny strips of double backed scotch tape.

The only caveat is that it allows Mexico access to sea zone 56 and it covers up the 55 in seazone 55 and it partially obscures “San Francisco,” but I’ll either let that go or relabel it Los Angeles! Go Dodgers!!

Boy, you must of really hated any pieces hanging off into water huh?

Battelships make up the cost difference of a cruiser after the first naval battle. That is if you assume Destoyers are the new cannon fodder. Each consecutive battle, battleships are paying for themselves. absorbing hits is the best way to maximize your TUV trade in naval battles!!

@Romulus:

Krieghund already explained that it is a problem of wording, the word selected “attack” should have been “surprise strike” or “surprise firing”, if I am not making a mistake.

I am not english born but I am considering that “surprise attack” has been not used to indicate the “attack” but the roll of the dice trying to hit the enemy. I do not see the need for a specification for the sub being in defense being able to perform a surprise strike. It is a sub ability to stay hidden and strike by surprise. It do not depend by the role in the battle, the sub is  aiming to hit the enemy in both case, attack and defense, acting in the same way: lurking below the surface, hidden and dangerous.

given this logic, which I am not disputing, why then do subs defend at 1 and attack at 2?  :)

@P-Unit:

In my second game I, as the Ally player, focused the USA on Japan, the UK on waaay to many objectives including Africa, Normandy and Eurasia, and had Russian keeping Germany busy and trying to apply pressure to Eurasia. The USA destroyed Japan early in the game, sinking it’s entire Navy by turn … 2 or 3. The USA made two attempts at invading Japan, one with overwhelming odds and another with desperate odds. Of course, USA rolled horribly when they had overwhelming odds and didn’t take Japan. The second battle had average rolls and the USA invasion force was destroyed.

We played with tech and without NOs. USA didn’t get any tech until turn ~9, Japan had some insignificant tech. Keep in mind, niether of the players (we played with two people, 1v1) are AA50 experts so I’m sure there were some mistakes made.

Are you sure you are not referring to the '42 scenario??  I see no possible way that the usa sunk 3 AC, 6 fighters, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 5 trans with 1 ac, 1 sub, maybe 1 destoyer if japan does not kill it, 4 fighters, 2 bombers by round 2 or 3.

has anyone solved this issue yet?

I am convinced the US cannot take Japan on its own in the 41 scenario, like it could in Revised. The UK needs to help. Can the UK/US take on Japan and Italy? They would also have to run interference with germany. I am not sure if Russia can defend herself against an unchecked Germany in this version. But all that may be required is the threat and/or ocassional landing in WE. Thoughts?