The French fighter is worth even less? With that mentality no wonder some of those French patriots left the RAF to fly Yaks for the Soviets. Besides, we mustn’t forget that France has a unique ability no other Allied power possess: going after Italy. Sometimes that French fighter can he a pain for this very reason.
On a more serious note, are you not bringing in submarines to attack 110 in your 111 strafe scenario?
I noticed a problem: as the game goes on, the Commonwealth starts to have quite a few more troops at the front that Britain and even exceeds the UK’S income sometimes. To remedy this exaggeration, 8 IPCs in NOs have been removed from Canada and South Africa and given to UK Europe.
EDIT: The minor industrial complex on Ontario was restored.
I think I see what was confusing me, Zhukov. You’re comparing the total units lost in a non-scramble battle versus a scramble battle. Even though the UK is going to lose more units on average, what you’re saying is that the scramble tightens the gap and forces Germany to lose more stuff as well. Good point.
Simon, I’m interested in your reasoning of why the Allies should scramble 110 if you’re doing a 111 strafe. Does this logic also apply to a standard wipe-out attack on both 110 and 111? In a 11 strafe, are you leaving more submarines to hit other places like 106 and 91?
@aequitas:
If you are below 40 take a ten sided dice and roll:
1= Episode 1
2= Ep 2
3= Ep 3
4= Solo
5= Rogue 1
6= Ep 4
7= EP 5
8= Ep 6
9= Ep7
10= Ep8
I’m below 40—way below—and I almost feel offended that the younger generation is stereotyped as “role the dice and follow.” It’s sad how much my generation doesn’t care. They call me “old-fashioned” and “boring.” I guess a fellow can’t like Axis and Allies and be a “normal” teenager.
Oh, I forgot to mention that I don’t have a ten-sided die.
:|
…why are you looking at me like that?
Excellent points everyone. I now feel like I have a geninue argument against letting 110 live. This will greatly help me explain the necessity of destroying 110 in Axis strategy talks.
Perhaps now would be a good time to begin the argument for letting 111 live or just strafing it. I always used to strafe 111 if I wasn’t going all in on killing it, but perhaps leaving 111 alone will open up other options like good odds for 106 and 91 that were the basis for my playing the devil’s advocate for 110?
110 is pretty much the next most-targeted area for Germany to attack after Paris. That means a French cruiser has to die. Well, so much for that plan.
Very good points but I don’t understand why you’re sending 6 planes to 109 and four to 111. 109 can manage four scrambling fighters. You only need five planes to make it a battle in your favor. If UK scrambles, it’s Sea Lion time. 111 needs the five planes though to be safe. I also fail to see how the TUV is in UK’s favor:
Sea Zone 109:
1 submarine, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 strategic bomber vs. 1 destroyer and 4 fighters:
CALC: three hits average both sides.
1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber, 1 strategic bomber vs 2 fighters
CALC: 2-1 hits average
Surviving: 1 German strategic bomber plus another plane. Even if the Germans lost all but one plane, a British destroyer and transport went down in exchange for a sub, making up for the slightly higher value of tactical bombers.
–This is three planes for four=battle in Germany’s favor. Of course the Allies could get lucky, but so could Germany.
Sea Zone 111:
1 battleship, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 1 strategic bomber vs. 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, 1 fighter
CALC: 3-2 hits average
1 battleship (damaged), 2 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, 1 strategic bomber vs. 1 battleship and 1 fighter
CALC: 2 hits both sides (giving UK the luck)
Survivng: 1 German strategic bomber, tactical bomber, and fighter.
–This is 1 battleship, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber for 1 battleship, 1 fighter, 1 cruiser, 1 and destroyer.
Therefore, the odds do not help the UK with TUV. I don’t give two infantry for players who make moves hoping for luck.
As for the risk with the Canadian and Gibraltar battles, there is an even bigger risk in the typical G1 attack in which we have only one submarine attacking the Canadians. Of course, the outcome of these battles will determine if Sea Lion is an option or not. The 92 consolidation is a problem for Germany, but it effectively leaves Italy free to do heavy damage. Stopping Taranto is a big deal.
I’m still unconvinced. Someone save me before I lose the next game trying to pull this off.
All this talk about Star Wars has piqued my interest. Would Solo be a good choice for me to watch even if its my first impression of the series? I know that the movies are all connected yet not chronological or necessary to watch in order, but it this a good one for someone new to Star Wars?
I think we forgot to mention that every new player is going to complain about destroyers and cruisers being too hard to distinguish from one another.
I have yet to remed this issue without marring the pieces. Even long-time players sometimes (like the old guys who can’t see very well) forget the differences after not playing for many months. The only thing I can do is constantly confirm, “Yes, that’s a destroyer.” “No, that’s a cruiser.”
I knew a player who used the American destroyer and cruiser units interchangeably. :-(
The barter is this: give up 110 to ensure the destruction of 106, 109, and 91. In the typical G1 attack, the UK loses 2 (1 if lucky) destroyers, 2(3 with French) cruisers, 2 battleships, and perhaps a transport. Germany generally loses all its fleet with possibly a submarine or two or a damaged battleship surviving.
In an attack on all of British Atlantic sea zones except 110, the UK will typically lose 3 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 1 battleship, and two transports. Germany will typically have around 3 submarines available.
Here’s the difference: 1 British battleship and 1 French cruiser for 2 destroyers and 2(or 1 if Germany gets lucky in the standard attack) transports. Germany will typically have three around three submarines surviving for round two versus the typical one in a standard attack.
I agree on the versatility of the standard atttack, but this calculation makes me question the norm. Is the type of units what makes the difference? Are heavy ships more threatening than a few light ships and some transports?
The things I like about skipping 110 but killing all the rest are no British destroyers to kill my submarines, no transports to reinforce the UK or take a key area or land early, and one less cruiser to hit Italy. I see the understand and even share the desire to destroy as many valuable Allied naval units quickly, but can someone explain WHY it makes a difference?
I want to keep hitting 110, but if I can’t seem to find any real evidence that it makes a difference, I might be tempted to try this opening. Of course, I’m assuming that Sea Lion is not off the table as in a G1 attack on Russia, or a quick push for Moscow.
If you’re not going to build a fleet and are looking for an early Russian victory, yes, I definitely agree. But if you’re open to the options of Sea Lion etc., and you take the necessary steps to ensure everything is in place, that fleet should not escape alive unless it retreats. Notice these problems:
1. You did not build a carrier or other sea units with which to threaten an attack on Sea Zone 109 turn two.
2. You had planes in Northern Italy that aren’t really doing anything.
3. I don’t believe you took the opportunity to sink EVERY other UK ship in the Atlantic.
Supposing you manage to kill the four other UK fleets without getting seriously diced and you have 10 planes in Holland, West Germany, and Sea Zone 112, there is no way the UK can safely stack 109. If all the other UK ships are gone G1, the UK will have the following maximum to defend 109:
From SZ110 2 CV 1 BB
From Gibraltar: 1 FTR
From United Kingdom and Scotland: 4 FTR
From purchases: 29 IPCs (or fewer ir you convoy 106)
Germany will have
4 fighters, 4 tactical bombers, a cruiser, a destroyer purchased, 2 strategic bombers, an aircraft carrier to take hits, and between 2-4 submarines.
That’s a sure win for Germany.
Like many of you veterans, I almost always clear out Sea Zone 110’s British cruiser and battleship and French cruiser in any G1 layout, but recently I tried making an Atlantic assault that did not include such an attack. I’ve begun to wonder whether or not these heavy ships are so important to get rid of immediately when there are other opportunities presenting themselves. Can Germany successfully destroy the Atlantic, help Italy, and leave 110 alone?
Observe this following attack formation:
Two submarines attack the cruiser near Gibraltar in 91
Two submarines attack the destroyer and transport off Canada in 106
One submarine attacks the destroyer and tranpsort near Wales in 109
One battleship attacks the destroyer, cruiser, and battleship off Scotland in 111
Germnay must send 4 tactical bombers, 4 fighters, and both strategic bombers to cover the attacks in Sea Zones 109 and 111. An aicraft carrier purchase is necessary. I recommend a destroyer and submarine too.
Let’s observe how the battles should go. The cruiser should be toast, and most likely you’ll have one or two submarines by Gibraltar alive. The Canadians should go down and you should have a submarine or two left there. You should have five planes attacking Sea Zone 109 to make a scramble a poor decision for Britain. You should have five planes attacking the navy in Sea Zone 111 to ensure success. You might have a submarine and maybe even a damaged battleship left near Britain afterward.
You build your fleet in 112 and provided that you land three planes in Western Germany, the UK can’t attack you back even with the cruiser and battleship you spared them. So what have you done? Well, both British destroyers have been sunk so you should have between 2-5 submarines alive next turn to create havoc. Britain has no transports to ferry troops from Canada or make a silly landing. The cruiser near Gibraltar has been destroyed and cannot harm the Italians. You’re in a very good position to do Sea Lion, and you’ve helped the Italians a bit by sending your last two air units in Poland and Hungary to Southern Italy.
The UK can still do Taranto, but it might require them to strip two fighters from London. The really important thing is where are the British battleship and cruiser and French cruiser going? Probably retreating far away where they can do no harm OR going to Sea Zone 91 or 92 near Gibraltar. This can really hurt Italy.
Once I saw this move, I thought that leaving 110 alive was indeed a bad idea. But take a closer look. If the 110 fleet moves against Italy, Germany can kill it. You will have a sub or two near Gibraltar, both strategic bombers, and your planes on Southern Italy to attack (make sure Italy takes Southern France so you can land.) The only way the UK can safely move the 110 fleet to the Mediterranean is if the carrier fleet in 98 joins up with the rest in 92. In order to do this, Taranto will be spared.
I therefore come to the conclusion that the 110 fleet is not as important as it looks. Taking out the British destroyers, transports, and cruiser near Gibraltar can hurt a lot more. This attack helps Italy and also leaves the door wide open for Sea Lion.
What do you think? Where is the flaw that I’m missing? Is this indeed a good move? If the UK scrambles, will you lose too many planes (even though the UK will lose more on average)? Please share your thoughts.
This is a very good question. I often see new players get frustrated when someone pulls a sneaky move on them, or their plans get ruined by a small technicality in rules. The key is not to play for them, but make them think with probing questions:
“Is this fighter going to do anything this turn?”
“Are your AA guns going to sit on Holland all alone?”
“How are you going to deal with that Italian cruiser and battleship?”
“Wow, did you know that four planes can scramble to protect Sea Zone 109?”
“Are these guys in Australia going to just sit around while Japan eats my China?”
“Can you try to knock out that ANZAC destroyer and transport so they don’t take Brazil?”
“What if Japan built an airbase on Kwangsi?”
“Do you think you could successfully kill both British fleets?”
“Whatcha gonna to do if my French AA gun kills three of your planes?”
There are to ways to subtly point out a possible problem by requesting the destruction of a certain enemy force as a teammate or making a somewhat cheeky comment as the enemy: “You’ll be ‘rekt’ by my Luftwaffe, hehe.”
Another good one is to simply point out the units that the new player is forgetting to move: “Are those guys in South Africa going AWOL?”
When suggesting strategy, don’t make specifics. Instead, argue a certain theory: “I think that Italy can become a beast if at least two of its transports survive.”
This might be needles to say, but don’t belittle anyone or give the blame for anything. Although you should never go easy on new players (the hard way is the best way to learn), take an active interest in adapting to your opponents’ weaknesses by trying new strategies yourself.
As a teammate, point out enemy weaknesses and tell your buddies where they are not defended well enough. Strike up conversations about advanced tactics such as blocking, blitzing, and bridging. If possible, introduce them to the shorthand of calculating odds: “With six tanks, you should average three hits on the first round because…”
I really like Grim’s idea to try to speed up turns. Getting bored because of delays is sure to make your new players angry, especially if they wait an hour just to get diced in the battle they engaged in. Strongly stress the randomness of battles and the fact that nothing is guaranteed. Give them the analogy that although it is the general (them) who decides operations, it is the troops who have to do the fighting; the dice represent this.
And most importantly, have fun and keep a fun atmosphere ever present. Tell WW2 jokes. Play some GI Jive in the background. Talk about future games and ways to improve. Rolplaying and comraderie among teammates is sure to brighten the dark days on 1940.
Maybe we’re better off with ANZAC into the Middle East.
:mrgreen:
Bulgaria was nerfed.
Now, Bulgaria may never declare war on the Soviet Union unless attacked by the Russians, and Bulgaria will not collect NOs. Also, the industrial complex on Bulgaria was removed since the territory is only worth one. Just like Free France and Yuguslavia, Bulgaria may build units on its original territory without needing a factory.
Canada was given a bonus one IPC on hand at the start of the game (8/7) to allow a destroyer purchase.
I managed to get some more of your ideas implemented A&A1940:
Romania and Finland’s NO’s were reduced.
The factories on Hungary and Romania were demoted to minors to encourage bombing.
Canada no longer needs Gibraltar for its NOs.
Here is a FAQ about strange French scenarios that aren’t uncommon in this house rule setup:
Q. What happens if Germany takes Southern France (Vichy) turn one?
A. Vichy will continue to collect from its territories, but it will never get the chance to build. Since all that stored up cash will eventually reach Free French hands, this is a bad move on Germany’s part.
Q. What happens if Free French troops in Normandy take Southern France (Vichy) turn one?
A. This is interesting. Basically a civil war has broken out. It will be opn to the Axis to “liberate” Southern France from the FFF so Vichy can have a factory to spend its IPCs on. The “liberating” Axis forces will be obliged to remove themselves on the following turn.
Q. Is Southern France a capital for Vichy?
A. No. In all cases where Southern France is seized by the Allies, Vichy will retain its money. Only when one of the three requirements (stated in the ruleset) for making Vichy join the Free French is met at the end of Free France’s turn, then will Vichy’s IPCs be sacked (by Free France).
A comment on my last post:
Actually four German submarines can reach Sea Zone 106 to fight the Canadian destroyer and scrambling t bomber and Dutch cruiser. Althought the Germans could send all these submarines to ensure Canada is useless for the first two turns, this diversion will have serious effects elsewhere (very likely saving some British ships).
Getting back to the Eastern Front, I consulted with others about your worries of a Russian disadvantage, but the only change I was able to implement was the removal of the tank in Finland. At least the Finns won’t be blitzing Karelia and Vyborg anymore.
@aequitas:
I am going to watch Solo tonight, don’t what is going to happen.
I was reading this thinking to myself, “What’s Solo?”
I probably would not even know what Star Wars is had it not infiltrated other markets. My juvenile brain always summed it up as a cheesy yet brutal free-for-all in space about aliens, supernatural power, and technology.
:|
I think I would like to keep my interpretation that way.
Still hunting me, uh?
Are you sure your name is Schutzstaffel and not Gestapostaffel?
The lovable David Niven, AKA “Crisp”
Some Movie Recommendations:
The First of the Few
The Guns of Navarone
The Best of Enemies
The Way Ahead
Dawn Patrol
If you like him, there are plenty more films to watch.
No matter how poorly the plot is written, this actor always managed to make me smile with his gentlemenly charm. It is peculiar how he managed to keep his unique character intact, whether he was a burglar, suave lover, disciplined British officer, or a somewhat eccentric old man. He was in nearly every sort of movie genre and actually fought in the Second World War personally.
Great actor. Love the mustache.
:x
…all right you bloomin’ Scotts, “moustache.”
There happy?
Right Simon, or before we know it, the word “Iraq” is going to become censored in the A&A community because of modern politics.
I remember last year when I was playing Battlefield 1942, a player got kicked for having the word “Syria” in his name. Sheesh. :-( :-o And to think politics used to be a topic friends enjoyed arguing about in years past.
