Posts made by bugoo

It is far too easy for G to shove nearly 10 armor a turn into russia while Italy plays can opener and defends France when the US goes pacific.  There is no way to keep G from all 3 NOs without UK/US aid once you have to defend moscow from the can opener, and at that time G is making far too much money.  Europe is where the underlying problem is, without significant US aid you cannot keep germany in check, and even going all out pacific you cannot keep japan in check, so we are left with attacking the closer threat, germany.  Also, you go where the money is, going against japan will net the UK a few extra bucks and the US one more NO.  But going all out against G will net you a 10 IPC russian NO, plus when you take france that makes up for the cash you loose in the pacific, as well as finland/norway and the territories you are trading like Poland or NWE.  In my typical KGF games russia is making 40+ by turn 4 on average, UK is back up near 40, and US stays at nearly 50, while germany and italy struggle just to keep 1 NO combined around turn 4.  If I go pacific my income is no where near that nice!

As far as splitting the US between pacific/atlantic, that is foolish as well.  It will take you several turns before your even a threat to Japan and by then she is making her 70 IPC anyway with the factories up and running and your still fighting to keep your 2nd pacific NO as US as you bet i’ll sac a trannie or two for the steal.  All Japan needs to do is keep her starting carriers, build some figs and sprinkle in a few subs if you get too large, with 3 starting carriers she can drop 12 figs on you typically with good positioning, and she usually has around 8 left after turn 1 to start!

Right but the problem with saying ‘allies have to hope a few attacks go bad’ is that the game is decided on turn 1 axis combats, not a good thing.

Bids are still the best, only debate left in my mind is cash only or units.  To actually fix the game would require alot of work and be best as a mod.

And the big thing that will determine if KGF will work, is if you can get russia her 2nd NO before japan gets there in force (turn 3-5) which can be done.  Another thing is US armor trucking threw africa to rally in persia helps big time, as does dropping a pacific fleet as US once you start to trade france, or if J went polar express its even better as you can waste her IPCs directly.  8-)

I did think of one other change that would help the allies out.  Cruisers with AA gun ability.  That would be nice, and they did have alot of AA guns during the war.  But honestly, does anyone use cruisers in this game?  I build more battleships than cruisers typically, they just seem so worthless for the cost.

Persia is the true center.  When it falls, allies are usually screwed.  If held, Berlin typically falls.

That is one nice thing about a Japan IC in FIC, bombers get to rome in 1 turn for some atlantic fleet sinking or London bombings  :-D

Although I would be careful of how many units that Japan sends to germany from her navy, as it is not at all uncommon for the US to drop a fleet on turn 3+ if the pacific is empty, esp if she has fighters to spare.

Hey now I didn’t say I was positive they were on par, only that a bid is the best way and that time will tell mate.  But just for fun I will play a LL game with ya over TripleA.  I’m usually on during the weekends.

Ok to refute the argument on LL is less complex, um, there about the same.

With dice you do what you do praying the dice don’t take a dump on you, sending in more units than needed is still wasteful because the dice could just take a larger dump on you.  With LL I have to be more aware of strafes, as well as cascading dice failure is a huge issue in LL, something i regularly expose my opponents too.  In LL I have true risk management when i send either a DD and a fig at that sub, or a DD and a bomber.  Or 2 inf and a fig to trade, or 2 inf and a bomber against that 1 inf.  2 inf + 1 bomb vs 2 inf in LL can turn into me loosing both inf, I still have your ‘risk management’ to deal with.

With dice I just hope for the best, I have no true control over what the dice will do.  In LL i have to choose to send the extra units to ensure the result, or not to.  I cannot begin to tell you the number of battles that come down to that AA gun hitting, but they do exist.  Or the time when my DD+fig missed that sub and it hit, then sunk a tranny next turn.

They are different styles, and neither is the ‘correct’ one, how about we all stop arguing over it.  Its like watching a political debate.

Two big changes that would need to happen would be a larger Atlantic where it took the US a bit longer to get into the fight against Europe, and a stronger Russia that could actually fight Germany.  In all honesty though it would take a large change.

And I still say KGF works.

You also don’t know your enemies entire military deployment, maybe we should have all our units writin down on paper and then we can roll ‘intel’ dice to see if we know what the enemy has in the territory before we declare attacks!  And why do fighters attack inf, honestly a fighter group would run out of ammunition before he would kill that many inf, oo maybe we should have ‘build times’ for units that take longer to build like some of the boats, that would be awesome, and why do we even have territories, we should use measuring tape to see how far the units can move, hey lets add an oil resource too!, etc, etc, etc.

To even remotely compare AA50 to a true stimulative game and use that to defend dice is laughable.  You want realism?  Dont play AA.  If you like dice because it is more fun to you to have that large random variable, and if i want to play LL because i prefer smaller, random variables (and yes there is a variable, like when 1 dd, 1 ac, 2 figs kills 1 dd 4 figs attacking them, or a sub+bomber both die to a DD) because I feel the large random variable is not fun then just say that, you don’t have to defend a preference.  Its like trying to defend a TV show preference, you just like it or you don’t.

I personally like the idea, as it is very close to how LL is to begin with, perhaps just say each side always rolls 5 dice if they have atleast 5 units, 1 die is the LL die, choose the units for your other 4 dice, or something to that effect.  Maybe a 2 or 3 die LL system could be designed along those lines, where you always roll a small number of dice.

I’m sorry but i still have yet to see a polar express that worked.  Japan can be ignored.  My shuck begins in LA, because of that at best around turn 4 or 5, when G is already about to be on the ropes, i have to redirect units to fighting Japan, but that is planned for anyway as the US in no longer needed to finish off Germany.  Also, a skilled Japan player can ignore almost any and all US pacific action using just her starting fleet for enough turns to get the massive economic advantage with standard openings.

Lastly, the main contribution of the US in my typical KGF is bombers, figs, and armor into africa while threatening Rome and a double drop on france.  The beauty of this is against a polar express the planes can come home for a round, if no polar express the armor helps hold Persia.  My standard US1 buy is 2 bomb, 3 arm.  US2 2-3 trannies, destroyers if needed, more bombers, figs and/or armor.  I only transport enough inf to load the trannies once and leave 'em in algeria, all other inf i stack and leave in LA they are just too slow.  But with the US dealing with Italy/Africa and threatening Rome along with the nice SBRs, UK/Russia push germany back very quickly and very easily.

The problem is with the way the NOs are setup it is better to pound on one power and deny them there NOs and get yours, as without all that pressure you cannot keep the axis from achieving an economic advantage.  If i loose my 2nd pacific NO but gain france in exchange, it was worth it.

Look at this this way, even if Japan gets to 70 IPCs, if Russia is bringing in 40+ (both NOs), UK 30+ (i love france or even a russian balkan invasion), and US 50+ (france, again), and G is down to 1 NO minus finland/norway, and Italy down to 9 ipc, allies have economic advantage, and location advantage.  Europe is worth more than the pacific and closer than the pacific.  It is easier to defend trannies in the atlantic than the pacific.  You actually have units that live past turn 2 in Europe.  There are more places to attack in Europe.  Etc, Etc, Etc.  By the time polar express becomes possible logistically, it is too late my units are already in place.

The UK can get 8 land units into Europe on turn 2, the US can land in africa turn 2 in force if desired.  What can the UK / US get into the pacific that quickly?  A few boats that can’t even defeat Japan’s navy, or an IC for Japan to take.

It is what it is, there is no simple ‘tweak this area and the game is fixed’.  Hence, I believe bids are the best way to do it, as with a bid I can decide what is needed, and where it is needed, in my opinion, to fix it, and so can you, each and every game.  Maybe even cash only bids.

Typically in the end Japan has around 5-6 units in china, and china has 2-4 inf left in Ching, along with a small russian force Japan is bottle necked along the center route, which I believe was the original intention of china.

Also, as far as stating Japan is the problem, why is it that Russia is about as pathetic as China without US/UK help?  The entire setup and typical axis turn 1 movements force the KGF tactic, which works, it works very well.  Until that changes, axis turn 1 that is, the game will continue along this pattern.  Perhaps more baltic fleets, or japan taking away the 2nd US NO on turn 1, or Egypt not getting hit on G1, etc etc would lead to a different playstyle among the allies as well.  But as long as G typically pumps out armor going for russia’s throat, and Japan tries to make herself money and setup on India instead of Hawawi / Australia, this trend will continue.  I’m confident that in time allied strats will be shown to work against these typical openings, I’ve gotten very good with a KGF style beating players on TripleA who I believe are better players than I (note: I never did win a game of revised on TripleA lol).  I feel in another month the bid for allies on TripleA will be as low as 3, even in LL.

I have found it is best to have the US threaten Italy while she retakes Africa as the UK stays in the north reinforcing Russia’s front with germany.  This threatens so many territories that you can keep germany and italy spread out.

What I was referring to in my earlier post as far as only inf + planes to defend France, if UK has 4 loaded trannies, we’ll give the US 2 trannies and anywhere between 4-6 figs and 2-6 bombers.  When that lands on NWE it is a bit tough to dislodge with just inf and a few planes and whatever you purchased last round as G,  and that is a conservative drop during a KGF in later turns.  As early as allied turn 2 you could drop with ease 5 inf, 2 art, 3 arm, 2 bomb, 4 fig.  And strafing NWE as G?  Thats crazy talk when its worth 7 IPC to germany.

If allies are going for hardcore KGF you want to pull back from russia a bit, forget about the 3rd NO and focus on keeping your backdoor’s safe and preventing russia from getting its 10 ipc NO and it is not easy.

The Italian fleet leaving the Med has the same effect as destroying it, meaning it is no longer a threat.  And as for a KGF, you just have to get Russia its 2nd NO and deny germany it’s 3 NOs and then the axis do not have an economic advantage, with all 3 allied nations gunning for Europe its not that difficult, US goes after Africa/Italy, UK goes after the north, norway, finland, karelia, and russia just kills German units.  There are various flavors of doing this, but that is the general concept that works fairly well.

NWE is also an ideal location for a double drop if it is undefended and france is defended mainly by inf.  When UK/US merges both of there fleets and the US lands a large number of planes as backup as well.  Moral of the story? Leave a tank or two as G in France as well.

I have to agree with Sub here, China exists for the single purpose of slowing down and blocking Japan’s advance down the middle, the extra territories slow her down in the north forcing a showdown in south asia.  This is the way it is designed and we must accept that.  Not to mention giving china that many inf can screw with that theater of the war much more than an inf in egypt and/or kar do, those just remove a small number of options from the axis on turn 1.  China having 4-7 inf plus a plane on there first turn would really change the pacific and impact the game for many turns, it is not a balancing it is a restructuring of the game.  There are alot of changes I personally would love to see in the setup and I may make a mod someday with my vision, but that would not be AA50.

And honestly, first time I did a KGF it failed, the more I do it the better I get at it and the more it works.  Someday we will see a pacific first strat that works, I hope.

Just to add one little thing, I know everyone thinks that the Europe half of the map is designed properly but the Pacific is where the problem is, I disagree.  If Egypt could hold till UK1 with most of its units Italy isn’t as big of a threat, that fig can reinforce India on turn 1, armor can attack India turn 2 with the TJ inf, it adds more options this way.  Also, the G1 setup is messed up, there should be absolutely no way to get all 3 NOs without serious risk, and there really is none on the G1 Kar.  With the G1 Kar and/or Egypt you force specific allied responses or they loose the game.  Also, the simple fact that Russia cannot last at all against a G push without serious UK help is another reason for the KGF format.  If egypt alone could keep its armor/fig on turn 1 that would open up some serious possibilities in the pacific in my opinion.  If Italy wasn’t making almost what russia was at the end of turn 1 and germany what russia and the UK combined almost, maybe the UK/US could focus a bit more in the pacific.  Perhaps if the UK didn’t have to invest every penny they have into a navy they could afford an IC on UK1 a bit easier.

In a typical KGF, it is better for the US to go after africa/rome, and the UK to go after norway/finland/kar/berlin.  Also, US2 can typically sink the Italian fleet, US3 almost always.  And you really dont have to worry much about that fleet if the US can threaten rome anyway.

I don’t like the idea of cash only bids for one reason, in LL axis turn 1 with no unit bid is disgusting.

G1 Kar, Egypt, sinking of all UK boats except dd/trans.
J1 Flying Tigers, US BB, 2 DD/Trans’s, all 3 islands + burma +kwang.

As yes, i know the game isn’t supposed to be played LL but all those attacks can be done in dice as well, and axis have good odds on all and none are game ending if they fail.  Annoying yes, but not game ending.

But at what cost?

It really depends on G’s turn 1 buy as well.