@Cmdr:
I wonder how much it would cost us? After all, if WOTC is claiming that the profit margin on Axis and Allies is so pitiful, they wouldn’t charge us too much for the rights, eh?
hmm if, the profit margin on this game is so pitiful, older versions of the game must have lost money.
Yes this seems to be the rule. Not intuitive though, for why a defending sub gets a “surprised attack”. I guess the reasoning is that the sub is viewed to be invisible, even as a defending unit.
A lot of the tech’s breakthroughs can be a killer. Heavy bombers can lopside a big fleet battle or long range aircraft can cost you your invasion fleet or para’s even your capital……
That’s why I personally hate techs. I like to win a game because one plays a better strategy not because one dice roll for 5 IPC. On the contrary, I don’t like low luck, the dice are part of the game and is something you need to take into account when making up your strategy. Against tech you can’t defend. :cry:
You must take in count the possibility of LRA and paras, so protect England and over-protect your fleet. Against HBs or rockets, there are 4 techs to counter this: Improved industry, Radar, Warbounds and Shipyards (that’s good against naval HBs). You can also have your own HBs and rockets. I think this new system enforces a tech race, if you don’t spent something in tech, you can get obsolete and have no counter. I like it. I’d say if you are losing the game because of paras, you are getting careless, so you are not playing so good. You can still mod HBs and preserve the other techs
This sounds ridiculous to me. You say the game encourages a tech race, but that if you are losing the game due to an imbalance in tech, its a fault in your strategy. :? Well i have played only one game, but i have found that some countries have more room to invest in tech as others. no surprise!! Russia cannot. They start with virtually no high end piece (tanks/planes). they need to accumulate some, and replace all the dead inf!! Tech is still a gamble!! SO if the game mechanics encourage a tech race as you say, now the game hinges on whether you roll a “6” or not. In my game, UK and US both bought tech tokens early, but took forever to hit anything, then UK got super subs!!! and had no subs!! US got radar. umm useless! Can you imagine the let down when it take 5 turns to roll a 6, then get radar with the US!!! ugh! You have implied that there are tech counters. Well ok, you are now implying a strat in which tech you develop. But its random which tech you get. So you can keep developing in a branch until you get the “counter” you are looking for, but this could take ALL game to achieve!! It isnt a viable “strategy”. Id like it better if it had the revised way of picking which tech you were going for. This would add more of a strategic approach to tech. But tech may be a change of pace for the game, in that it changes the dynamic of the game. But it is a randomizer, and I just cant buy the notion of turning into a strategic approach to winning.
Title: The Rising Sun
Date: 11/29/2008
Setup: NOs+techs 1941 scenario
Victor: Axis win, ended with Japan sacking Moscow
Game length: lost track of rounds. 7 1/2 hours!!
Bias: Nearly equal skill level. I would be more experienced. I played Allies and lost
Description: The germans took Karelia, Baltic States, West Poland, and Ukraine all round 1. Soviets were not equipped to counter all of this. The germans took karelia with all that could reach, and had only one loss. I could not retake my IC for some time. I purchased 2 fighters with russia right off the bat. I figured the only way to fend off the german onslaught would be to swap as many NO terrorities i could with as efficient TUV trades as i could manage. Russia got bad dice early, and it looked like it would be a quick defeat. In the pacific theater, I was looking for a way for the US to contend. Japan killed the battleship at pearl as expected. However, they left my destroyer/tran alive off of LA. (I think i would have sent two fighters to kill these targets. just need one hit to kill both ships worth 15 ipcs). My opponent made an error by leaving his ACs at pearl, and giving me plenty of firepower to counter. I wiped out 2 ACs and 4 planes round 1. You would think that this start encouraged a US KJF strat. A few reasons i did not go this way. I did manage to surive the AC from my pearl counter. However, i was still far behind the japanese naval power. And they equaled US production r2 or 3, and surpassed it soon after that. The japanese naval strength, combined with germany’s aggressive strat (He bought many tanks, and tried to finsh russia quickly) forced me to go to the atlantic exclusively with the US. Allied pressure in Africa and WE soon wore on the German offensive. What looked like a quick russian defeat, soon shifted. Italy was not used effectively by my opponent, and they never contended much in africa. I did buy an Indian IC for the brits, and kept AE well defended. This game was very close, and took forever. Germany began to turtle in the late rounds, and Russia started to collect all of its NO bonus. Allies had a foothold in WE, and UK just took Italy, WHEN, Japan couldnt be stopped in taking moscow witha huge stack of tanks.
Observations/recommendations: The game does seem to favor the Axis, however, in the game I played, the allies could have had a victory. they were delayed by lucky axis dice, as well as early UK naval losses due to lucky dice in an German air attack. I was hoping that the US could contend in the pacific. It does not appear to me they could. A more experienced Japanese player would not let his ACs be slaughtered. With the HUGE lead in naval power, three FULLY loaded ACs!!! BB and cruiser!! 5 trans!!! And the exponentially growing production, the US CANNOT handle the Japanese by themselves. NO WAY! I was shocked to see how weak the US was to start the game! However, the UK start out as a monster in production. 43!!! So i do believe that there may be a combined allied approach in the pacific that could bottle up japan. It would be very difficult, but i see the potential. For one, the japanese strength is far north of the Indian Ocean to start, and a sea zone was added. If the UK did a double IC in India/Austrlia or India/SA and built up a navy, at the same time, the US built up navy in hopes of combining their fleets before the japs could crush either. umm, it might work. But would it be more efficient then just killing italy first? i dont think so.
Jeez, where do I go to find out what are truly the best board games out there? I dont need a list of what games won the best marketing campaign!!! Everything has got spin on it, is that the ticket?
Played my first game of AA50 last week. We used NOs and Tech. The game last for over 7 hours!! Are your games lasting this long? I really doubt I can get people to play too many 7 hour games, i dont know enough geeks like me!! This was the 41 version, and I am hoping the 42 version is less lengthy.
Some notes, I was aliies, and I am not an inexperienced player, however, Gemrnay was able to take Karelia, Baltic States, W. Poland, and ukraine all r1. The russian, having no planes, and only 1 armor, did not have enough counterstrike to take back Karelia. The germans held karelia for several rounds. My opponent made a tactical error, in buying only tanks every round. he felt that russia was too weak, and would fall soon. And it looked bad early, as russia was having bad dice. I had to use the classic KGF strat here. To take pressure of of Russia. Eventually, German pressure dwindle, and russia was able to reclaim Kareila. If my oponent took a longer term approach, i think germany can hold on to karelia for the game, unless UK comes to rescue, elimintaing the russian NO bonus. Is Karelia undefensiveable in your games?
The japs are way too strong in 41. My opponent even made a big mistake by leaving his 2 AC carrier in Peral for a counter. I wiped dem out, but still didnt see a chance to match the Japanese naval strength. They start with such a lead, catch up to the US in production r2 or 3, and soon pass them. The only way to KJF woul dbe for the UK to get a factory down there and pump out some navy.
One thing that hasn’t been discussed so far is that techs might be a strategic option. Yes, they are random but they produce similar effects. If you pick chart 2 (Air/naval), super subs and shipyards will really boost your naval strat and if you get H bmb or jets your air attacks vs. both land and sea targets will be boosted. So if USA chooses from that chart they have a 4/6 chance of getting an advantage vs. Japan. I think that NOs and tech go together, since NOs seem to balance towards the Axis and then you need techs which are Allied-biased.
this makes no sense to me, as both sides have equal chance to acquire all techs
1941 unbalance is clear before playing because of J1-killing-China problem. Ahistorical, KJF and KGF killing strat, this needs heavy bids for China. There is not a slight bias to axis, there is a very big bias to axis.
1942 seems more balanced. We should play many 1942 games to know if it’s so
Ok, Ill favor your statement, " its a big imbalance in 1941. " I am still reading Players who are doing typical KGF strategies. Players follow what they know, until forced to find a new route. If the japanese setup is this strong, we should begin to see KGF failing in 1941. Of course the player, strong or weak, can he/she take advantage of the Japanese position and options. I like the challenge. I hope we begin to see many wins for the Axis in the 1941 setups. This would proof the concept. Its early yet, many games to play before the natural tendencies of each setup can be stated proof positive. Again I find the unbalance of each, 1941for Axis and 1942 Allies as a balance unto itself,
if this proves true, maybe we can have tournaments where we play each position 1941 and 1942 or maybe each round alternates setups.
A balanced imbalance? interesting concept. hmmm. What players seem to be very concerned about is a fair fight given optimal strategy and average dice. I certainly would like a game that accomplished that, as i doubt i can find time to play 2 fulls games in a session. But perhaps you are right, that this version of A and A has been designed to be unbalanced. I hope this is not the case, but it would explain the reasoning for 2 scenarios. Only the game designers can reveal this for sure, and Im sure they are going to let this game speak for itself for some-time, before giving us the clues.
When i play this with my borther for the first time, I can see an arguement ensue when i try to explain all of this to him, and it is not clearly stated in the rulebook. ahh well!!
Ahh. so in naval battles with air and subs, air units must be rolled seperately from naval units? This isnt in the rules either, but a logical conclusion from this thread. How else so you know what are air unit hits or not. On the converse, a DD present allows air to hit subs, but not vice versa. So if a DD is present, then subs must now roll seperately from other naval units. Well, i guess they are the only unit that defends at 1, so this is a mute point on defense, but on offense, it an annoyance. This is complicated!!
So in the '42 scenario, If uk or Usa take territory that germany begins the game in control of, but are '41 russian controlled, the territory goes back to russia, and russia loses the NO income of not having allied units in her borders?
Quite funny that two of my post are removed from this thread, yet the original post I responded to, or the posts that have quoted mine are still in here. A moderator on his toes for sure. :-D
So those damage markers stay on for the duration of the game? I think we all agree that the OOB rules on SBR in revised was broken. You could reduce germany to no income, and the game would end soon after that. So there was no way i wasnt playing without TTL. this new game throws TTL out the window. Does this new SBR strat break the game again? Germany would be pretty crippled, if the allies had a goal of keeping 20 markers on berlin, and 12 on SE. Or wait, where is germany second IC, do they have one?
ahh. Just read that transports cant be taken as fodder. Hmm. Ithink this tips the scale evenr further toward the battleship. In the 60 ipc capital ships scenarios, the battleships provide three free fodder ships. With the cruisers, you will need to purchase fodder ships, and replensih them when they are destroyed. Although fodder ships have their own value as well. I guess what im trying to figure is if the battleship unit makes the cruiser unit not viable, or vice versa? Or is there times when it makes more sense to go with cruisers over battelships. For defending your fleet, i think the BB is more effective. But for assualts, and inflict damge on enemy fleets, the cruiser is more effective with higher die points per dollar. I guess thats what might both units vaible. Leaning toward defnse, BB, leaning toward offense, cruiser?
Im really curious to hear what the thoughts are on the viability of the new Battleship unit in AA50. In revised, the battleship was the only unit that provided an amphious assault support. Now there are two. the cruiser. Which unit is more vaible, the cruiser or the battelship?
The differences between the two pieces are:
1) cost
2) attack/defend
3) BB absorbs a hit
So:
at 12 ipcs, a cruiser is 3/3 in battle. that is 4ipc/die point on both attack and defense.
at 20 ipc, a battleship is 4/4. that is 5ipc/die point on attack and defence.
Right off the bat you can see the the cruiser gets more bang for the buck in battle. But does it? The ability to absorb a hit is pretty valuable. the cheapest ‘fodder’ unit is a sub at 6 ipcs. But depending on naval make-up, transports at 7 ipc will be used alot as fodder too. So the battleship purchase save you one fodder unit per combat, on the attack or defense. the ipc diff between the unit is only 8ipc. the cost diff is nearly made up the very first naval battle. Over the lifetime of the purchase, the battleship saves so much more money.
if you had 60 ipcs to spend on capital ships, would you buy 3 battleships or 5 cruisers?
60 ipc
3 bb
–—
12 attack
12 defend
6 hits
15 attack
15 defend
5 hits
the battleship are at a disadvantage with die points. However, the three battleships can absorb 3 hits with no ipc loss. Does the increased attacking and defending ability of the cruisers make up for the IPCs saved by the battleship? I dont think it does, cuz the BBs have hidden attack and defense value. those three units that they spare have attack and defend value right? That has to be added to the value of the battleships. but wait, there’s more:
Shore bombardment - The cruisers can bombard the same as the bb for less cost. thats roughly a value of 2/3(3ipc) or 2 ipc per amphibous assault. Does the more cost efficient method of inflicting damage on the enemy tip the scale in the cruiser’s favor? Our 5 crusiers now bombard at 2/3(15ipcs) 10 ipcs damage per assault vs 3 BBs 2/3(9ipcs) 6ipcs per assault. a diff of 3 ipc per assault.
In your guys opinion, what the best purchase here? Is the more cost efficient assaults more viable then the more cost efficient naval battles?
You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.
And, to discuss the OT, A baltic carrier was and IS still a viable strategy.
Do not listen to the nay-sayers, but think out of the box and you will have much more fun playing.
…. And the world is flat. Don’t listen to the heretics. Umm, what does saying something IS without any reasons to back it up accomplish? Why should the OP listen to your YAY versus our NAY? anything useful to contribute?
AC costs 16 ipc. The baltic fleet buys germany 2 units 1 extra space. So lets say we wanted to stack Karelia. By round 3, the surviving baltic fleet can have 4 extra inf. Or maybe 2 inf and 2 art. for a cost of ac = 16 4inf=12 or 2inf2art=14. or 28-30 ipc. With no AC buy, you can have 10 inf in kareila on r3 (mixed with any art). Clearly, for the cost, its better to buy more inf and march them east, then to buy an AC for minimal benefit.
The AC purchase to me was an idea that was meant to throw money at an issue that people tried to avoid as a “sunk” cost. The blastic fleet is a sunk cost. I sometimes bring it out to bate UK. or try a unifiication, but any benefit i get is a “nice” to have.
that is definitely one of the reasons to build transports at first with japan. Another is flexilbilty. transports are much more flexible than ICs. But the best reason, you want to ramp up to max production as fast as you can with japan. So you need a min of 4 transports on the mainland to transport your 8 units max per turn. I like 5 transports before my first IC build, as I use at least one to grab islands with/ or retake islands from UK/US.
@LT04:
You absolutely dont want to build island ICs that you now have to defend against a building US navy.
Also, Why do we give Asia to UK and Russia? Thats a big mistake. I would still land grab normally in Asia. The difference i would make is, instead of buuilding an IC in India, I would build it in a defendable position, like manchuria.
What about FIC? It’s still 1 transport move away and gives you a wider base w/o sacrificing Japan’s ability to reach it.
LT
You can prob defend FIC fairly well. Its in range of your navy and AF. But Id be concerned about advancing troops from Indias direction. Manchuria and Kwang-Tung are easier to defend. The closer you get to mainland Japan, the easier to defend.
You absolutely dont want to build island ICs that you now have to defend against a building US navy.
Also, Why do we give Asia to UK and Russia? Thats a big mistake. I would still land grab normally in Asia. The difference i would make is, instead of buuilding an IC in India, I would build it in a defendable position, like manchuria.