Posts made by Bardoly

I agree that a Russian navy build is not very useful, but if England put the hurt on Italy’s navy on UK1, then perhaps on R2 or R3, Russia could consider putting a Sub or 2 in the water.

@Cmdr:

I would not use any of Germany’s starting money on technologies.  It’s too risky and you need equipment moving into Moscow.

I guess that my play group and I play a little differently than a lot of the people I see posting here, because the players who play Germany almost never go all out against Russsia.  We like to pound UK pretty hard along with hitting Russia, so usually in our games, we follow history pretty well by playing a 2-front war against both UK and Russia.  Maybe this is not the best winning strategy, but it is rather fun to play.

However, I would say hit SZ 2 and Karelia hard.  (Inf, Art, 2 Arm in Karelia, SZ 2 cleared, 4 Inf, 4 fig, bmb, AA gun in Norway)

Please clarify this.  Where are you getting the Inf, Art, and 2 Arm to have in Karelia after you take it?  you may only attack it with 2 Inf from Finland and 1 Transport load, and if you take any losses, are you going to sacrifice Fighters before Infantry?

Also, how are you getting 2 extra Infantry and the AA gun to Norway?  You only have 1 Transport.  And are you taking no Fighter losses?  I am confused.

Attack Egypt with 2 Inf, Art, 2 Arm, retreat an Inf/Arm to Libya if round 1 goes bad, or press and hope to take out the fighter.

I see this, but it seems that ensuring that you take out the Egypt UK Fighter is more important than the emphasis which you are placing on it.  I do agree that it is more useful to Italy to capture Egypt, than for Germany to do so, but if Germany doesn’t take at least 1 of the three (Gibraltar, Egypt, or Trans-Jordan, then it is impossible for Italy to get his second NO on the first turn, and the extra 5 IPCs helps him quite a bit.  Also, if Germany takes either Gibraltar or Egypt, then UK loses his NO.  If Germany takes, Gibraltar, then UK has the ability to take it back, but if Germany takes Egypt, then UK is just plain out of luck.

England’s going to have some MAJOR league headaches.  They CAN attack Italy with Destroyer, Cruiser, Bomber (possible Fighter from Egypt) but that’s not stellar odds either.   WITH the Fighter from Egypt, you’re looking at 50% odds to survive with just your bomber.  Without the Fighter, they drop to 16% and odds of Italy surviving goes up from 35% to 75%.

Exactly my point, you need to kill the Egypt UK Fighter.

Even if you do sink the SZ 14 fleet, life is not over for Italy.

Well, of course Italy is not put out of the game, I mean he can produce a whopping 3 Infantry per turn with which to defend France with.  That is big leage right there. :wink:

Joe,

I agree that the BB is a very tempting target, but one must decide which is more important, taking Egypt, or taking out the BB, because you can’t do both very well.  I am assuming that destroying the UK SZ#12 navy is an absolute priority so as to keep the Italian navy afloat.  I mean, if the Italian navy is destroyed first turn, then Italy is just about sidelined for the rest of the game.  I feel that helping Italy collect 20+ IPCs on the first turn is more important than taking out the BB.  If I’m that worried about it, then I can just build a Bomber or 2-3 Subs on the first turn to force UK to either invest in a larger navy or to hold the BB out of range.

Because of this thinking, it seems that taking Egypt is more important than taking out the BB.

The big problem for G1 is that you need the Bomber to be in 2 places at the same time, because both Egypt and the SZ#2 BB & TR are very important.

What is the solution?  Why Long Range Aircraft, of course!  :-D

If you are playing with techs, I would probably purchase 1-3 research tokens on the first turn on the off chance of getting Long Range, because, with Long Range, I can probably take out the entire Allied Atlantic fleet!  If I got a tech, but not Long Range, my moves would be changed accordingly.

No, seriously.  I know that going for tech is very chancy, so I don’t assume that I will get Long Range.  It is nice when it happens though.  I have played Germany a couple of times and have gotten Long Range on the first turn before.

So, assuming that I didn’t get Long Range, or another tech which would alter my first turn move, I have to say that I believe that the following moves are the best for G1.

Purchase units phase:
Assuming that I spent 10 for Research Tokens, my G1 buy would be 7 Inf, although I might buy 3 Inf and 1 Bomber instead if I feel like it.

Attack phase:

1. SZ#9  Attack UK Destroyer and Transport with 2 Subs from SZ#7.

2. SZ#6  Attack UK Destroyer with Cruiser and Sub from SZ#5.

3. SZ#12  Attack UK Cruiser and Destroyer with 3 Fighters. (Norway, Northwestern Europe, and Germany)

4. Egypt Attack 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm, & 1 Fighter with 2 Inf, 1 Art, 2 Arm, and 1 Bomber.  Attack with the Libian army(1 Inf, 1 Art, & 1 Arm), 1 Infantry and 1 Tank from France on the SZ#13 Transport, and the Bomber.  (I changed using the Infantry from Morocco-Algeria to using one from France, because the Fighter(s) landing there need a little support defense-wise, but if anyone is worried about losing France on UK1, then just use the Morocco-Algeria INF rather than the French one.)

The above moves, I feel very good about, but the following moves, I may tweak just a little more.

4. Baltic States(3 Inf)  Attack with 2 Inf, 1 Art and 1 Fighter (the one from Poland).

5. E Poland(2 Inf)  Attack with 2 Inf and 1 Art.

6. Ukraine(2 Inf)  Attack with 2 Inf and 6 Arm.

(You can switch the units attacking E Poland and Ukraine.  I still haven’t decided which I like best, the central location of E. Poland or the pressure on Caucaus of Ukraine.  Because of the non-combat move to Finland, to put pressure on Karelia, I am leaning toward my current move setup which will probably stress Russia out over worries of first Italy, and then Germany nailing Caucaus.  Depending on what Russia does, Germany may move those Tanks back to E. Poland or to Baltic States on G2.)

Non-Combat:

Move 2 Inf from Norway to Finland and 1 Inf / 1 Arm from Poland to Finland on SZ#5 Transport.  (Yes, I realize that I’m leaving this Transport wide open, but, it may force UK to split his attack, and since the German Baltic fleet is a joke anyway, I figure, why not?)

Move 1 Inf from Northwest Europe, 3 Inf from Germany, and 1 AA gun to France.

Land 2 Fighters on France.  (At least 1 should have surrvived the SZ#12 Battle.)
          (This will leave a total of 5 Inf, 2 Fighters, and 1 AA gun to defend France against the maximum of
          1 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber, and 1 BB Shore Bombard.)

Land any other remaining Fighters (if any) from the SZ#12 battle on Algeria.

Let me know what y’all think.

Axis_Roll,

I have to agree more with Jennifer than I can with you.  I will be the first to agree that some techs (namely Heavy Bombers) ARE quite powerful and perhaps this tech should be tweaked slightly, but techs were an integral part of every country’s national budget during WWII, and to not have them in the game is ahistorical.  Just look at the stats in the Battle of the Atlantic for Allied losses to German Subs before and after Radar was utilized by air units to basically NULLIFY the German Sub fleet, and you will see how important tech was to the war.

@Rakeman:

As for the baltic sea, how about something simpler- treat the space between Denmark and Norway as a Canal- no ships can pass through it unless the owner of the ships owns both of those areas (Western Europe + Norway in revised, NW Europe + Norway in Anniversary).  Add a few canals…

Actually, make the SZ next to the caucus the same way- you need to control Turkey and the Balkans to enter.  Use Neutral rules to make that possible, as you suggest.

I agree.

@Cmdr:

We have a cheap fodder piece against air units.  The Destroyer.  It’s the submarine of AA50.

Perhaps the escort carriers could cost 8 IPC, Att 0, Def 1, Carry 1 Fighter, Move 2.

I’m sorry, but with the cheaper Bombers (which I do like), Transports which can’t soak hits, AND the fact that an air force attack against a naval force can’t hit Subs, the air wins every time (as far as IPCs are concerned) against the nerfed navy.  Yes, naval units are cheaper, but basically in every AA50 game which my group has played, the navys of the world have been gobbled up by air units.  (Yes we do play with techs, so Long Range, Jet Fighters, and Heavy Bombers all helped in this destruction.)  So, either unit costs should be lowered a little more, or if we want to keep the OOB units as they are, then just add a cheap “fodder” unit.

I agree that if you have the escort carriers, 7-8 IPCs is much more realistic than 10.

I also like IL’s Pocket Battleship/Battlecruiser idea.

Weaker Escort Carriers for 10 which can only hold 1 Fighter?  Why would anyone every buy them?

What the game really needs for naval warfare is a cheap “fodder” piece to defend against air fleets since the Sub can no longer be used as fodder and Bombers are cheaper.

That said, I would agree with making destroyers a 1 on attack and a 1 or 2 on defense for 5 or 6 IPCs.  This would allow you to have the Light Cruiser piece.

If one doesn’t want to alter the OOB pieces, then add an escort destroyer with a 1 on attack and a 1 on defense for 5 IPCs.

I’m in for $50.

@a44bigdog:

So what happens to your intsa-win when the AA guns shoot down all your bombers (has happened to me in more than 1 game). Hmm again that is another random dice thing. Maybe we should just get rid of the dice all together. How effective are your Hbs if your opponent has Radar or improved industrial? I think HB is nice but I don’t think it is an automatic win. Personally for me if the '09 league is without techs I will not be playing. If I wanted to play a no tech game I might as well just play Revised.

Sorry the argument I see against techs is this: “I had a turn by turn strategy worked out and was playing by my script. Then the conditions changed and I couldn’t adapt.”

I quite agree.

Yes, I’ll grant you, playing with techs makes the game a little more volatile, but that’s exactly what this is, a game, and techs definitely make the game more fun/interesting.  I’m not opposed to tweaking some of the techs, but leave them in the game.  I mean, what ended WWII anyway?  The atomic bomb, a tech.

@Comassion:

@Bardoly:

Good thought Black Elk.

Several ideas for a Naval NO for Germany.  Perhaps to make room for it, remove the Karelia/Caucaus NO.

1. For every one of the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) in which there is at least 1 Axis Sub, Germany receives +1 IPCs during the Collect Income phase.
   I would rather this be received at the beginning of Germany’s turn so that the Allies have a chance to nullify it, or for this to be minus IPCs from UK or US, but doing it in this way fits it into the current NO system.

2. If Germany controls at least 3 Subs total within the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) at any time, then all German subs within those sea zones are +1 Attack and +1 Defense.

3. If the Axis control Iceland, then all German Subs within the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) are +1 Attack and +1 Defense, Germany may place up to 1 Sub per turn in sea zone #2, and Germany collects +2 IPCs during the Collect Income phase.

4. If there is a German Battleship in at least one of the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12), then, in those same sea zones, no UK/US transports may move during the combat phase, and no UK/US surface warships may move except to attack or move toward the Battleship.  (This NO is a little strange, but this replays the sinking of the Bismark, which was a very historical event.)

Are the attack and defense bonuses for 2 and 3 cumulative?  And are they cumulative with super subs?

Mwahahahaha….

The thought was that 1 of these NOs (1-3) would replace the capture Karelia/Caucaus NO.
The #4 NO would not really be a NO, it would just be a special rule to use.
Yes the Attack bonus would be cummulative with Super Subs.

I know.  It’s great isn’t it?  Every day I grow fonder and fonder of bombers.  It’s only historical.  The dramatic rise of airpower during the war signaled the eclipse of the world’s navies.

All jesting aside, I believe that the cost of SOME naval units should be lowered.  To me transports, subs, and destroyers are priced fine how they are.  By virtue of how essential the transport is, we should set that as the baseline for determining the value of units.  In that case, I believe Cruisers should cost 10 IPCs, Carriers 12 IPCs (and their defense bumped back up to 3), and Battleships cost 18 IPCs.  Sounds fair?

I’m okay with this, although perhaps keeping the ACs at 2 defense is best, and Battleships could even go to 16-17 IPCs in my book.

The thing about cruisers though is their endless supply of bombardments with no risk of loss.  Since the UK will routinely dropping off 8 units and has multiple targets in Europe, having 4 CA at your disposal might be better long term considering you’re probably going to lose 2-3 bombers taking out the Med fleet.

The shore bombard rules have been somewhat nerfed in this version’s rules, so I don’t see this as a big problem.  Someone in another thread, I believe, suggested that if the naval costs for Cruisers/Battleships were lowered, then perhaps the shore bombards could also be lowered.  (i.e. Cruisers bombard at “2”, and Battleships bombard at “3”.)  I would also be okay with this to get the naval units’ price lower so that they are not so tempting to my opponent’s Bombers.

Here is a NO that I thought up for China.

At the beginning of the US turn, if China controls less than 5 of its 9 territories (That’s less than 50%.) then during the Purchase Units phase, China receives 1 Infantry for each territory it controls to be placed during the Place Units phase instead of 1 Infantry for each 2 territories which it controls. Also, any 1 US Fighter which lands on a Chinese territory this turn may be converted into a Chinese Fighter subject to the same rules as other Chinese units.  Once converted, this unit may never be converted back to US control.

@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:

Not too much in the games that my group has been playing.  I’ll just send in the Bombers with a few Subs/Destroyers thrown in if I need fodder, and if we are playing with tech, and the Bombers ever go Heavy, then I don’t even need fodder.  This has happened in most of the games which we have played.

I do agree with you though, that for naval purchases if you must make them, that loaded ACs with a few fodder pieces (Destroyers if going against an air force, or Subs/Destroyers if going against a navy) are the best.

Good thought Black Elk.

Several ideas for a Naval NO for Germany.  Perhaps to make room for it, remove the Karelia/Caucaus NO.

1. For every one of the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) in which there is at least 1 Axis Sub, Germany receives +1 IPCs during the Collect Income phase.
   I would rather this be received at the beginning of Germany’s turn so that the Allies have a chance to nullify it, or for this to be minus IPCs from UK or US, but doing it in this way fits it into the current NO system.

2. If Germany controls at least 3 Subs total within the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) at any time, then all German subs within those sea zones are +1 Attack and +1 Defense.

3. If the Axis control Iceland, then all German Subs within the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) are +1 Attack and +1 Defense, Germany may place up to 1 Sub per turn in sea zone #2, and Germany collects +2 IPCs during the Collect Income phase.

4. If there is a German Battleship in at least one of the following sea zones (1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12), then, in those same sea zones, no UK/US transports may move during the combat phase, and no UK/US surface warships may move except to attack or move toward the Battleship.  (This NO is a little strange, but this replays the sinking of the Bismark, which was a very historical event.)

Bombers are WAY better than Fighters in all aspects other than the following:

1. Defense on land.
   The Bomber is weaker than the Fighter, but with the extra range, it can usually get back to a safer position than the Fighters can, and since neither can land on newly captured territory, as long as your Bombers land behind the front lines, they are rarely in danger of ever having to roll for defense.  Usually the only times that Bombers ever roll Defense is when other Bombers (or sometimes Fighters) are attacking them.  For land defense, 3 Infantry or 2 Tanks are quite better than Fighters, so why ever buy Fighters in a land war?

2. Defense on Carriers.
   Fighters are the “Queen” of Fleet defense, so if you are building fleets, then you will be purchasing some of them, but at 34 IPCs for a fully loaded AC, versus 3 Bombers for 36 IPCs, I would much rather be the attacking player with 3 Bombers.  For an extra 2 IPCs, the odds are that you kill the fully loaded AC at a loss of 2 Bombers.  That’s trading 24 IPCs for 34.  Keep that up and you’ll win the game.

@toblerone77:

One of goals for AAR was to encourage combined arms. The bomber drop is a good thing. Lower cost brings up demand. The drop from AAR to AA50 is just a refinement of this ‘combined arms doctrine’. I’m all for it.

My group and I like the cheaper Bombers, but after playing several games, with them, we have basically come to the conclusion that either Heavy Bombers needs to be adjusted/eliminated, or the cost of Naval units need to be lowered even more.  There is such little interaction between Land units and Naval units, that lowering the costs shouldn’t hurt the game at all.  I mean, come on, compare 20 IPCs for a 2-hit 4  on attack/defense (Battleship) to 4 Tanks with 3 on attack/defense for the same price.  Where is the incentive to build navy versus land unless you must? (i.e. USA)  Germany was after a World Empire, not just a European one.

I agree with what most of you are saying.  USA or Italy would both be okay, but I feel that Italy might be a little better/easier for him, especially if you, the father, are playing Germany.

Also, Risk would be great for him to start with.  I fondly remember the many times as a young child (not that long ago) playing Risk.

@Romulus:

Try to start a discussion for balancing the initial set up… .and you will discover how many different opinions there are, which one should be the one to be used for fixing the setup?

Well, after a few months of play, if it is obvious that there will be bidding, then we could petition Larry Harris to release a re-balanced setup.  (Just like after one buys a new set of tires, it is recommended that he get the tires re-balanced occasionally.)

@Black_Elk:

-If the game is unbalanced in favor of the Axis, then my favorite solution would be a starting factory for the British in India or Australia.

-If its unbalanced in favor of Allies, then we should give Germany a starting factory in Poland or Romania.

Or maybe try both, and see if that balances out so we don’t need a bid anymore. You never know right?
Just a thought :-D

I much prefer a solution like that to the pre-placement bid.

I agree.  Instead of a bid to fix a lopsided setup, why haven’t people just fixed the stup itself?
Then you have the option of deciding before the game begins whether to play OOB Setup or the “Fixed” Setup.  Then there would be no wasted time of bidding, seeing who got the bid, then deciding what to buy and where to place the bid.  By that time, a non-bidding game may already be finished with the first turn or two!

I also feel that E Canada, Australia, and Czech-Hungary should all start with ICs.  Not only would it help to balance the game, but it would also be more historical.