Posts made by critmonster

@axis_roll:

I think our discussions are going back and forth, and the bottom line is:
1).  Playing style (some people like to run allied SBR campaigns, some like the Russia rush with Germany, etc)
2).  the game situation dictates if an IC is a good move for Germany:

• Can they take Karelia/Caucasus?

• Is USA triple teaming Europe?

• Will Germany have a 35+ income for several rounds?

3).  Thus far, there is no one prescribed ‘best’ move for either the Axis nor the Allies.  Therefor, there can be no absolutes about specific moves.

excellent points! everything is fluid and the meta game becomes critical for seizing the initiative on your opponent.

@Cmdr:

Cost: 20 IPC

a single AA Gun hit turns your bomber back, a second hit shoots down your bomber. (Justifies the increased cost of the bomber, and the increased cost should limit the amount of bombers put on the board.)

That is a very interesting idea with the AA gun, and could really push for radar research

I don’t like the idea of increasing prices for earning a tech. Rolling two (or even three) and then picking the best sigle result pretty much guarantees the same results as your original idea without the “auto hit” statement that can appear somewhat cheesy to your opponent (not nearly as cheesy as the way it is now or especially in classic though).
That being saind, I think HB is in there to be the playable equivalent of nukes and a way to move the game to conclusion quicker.

@Gargantua:

Even if they didnt, I would smash that pathetic defense, and add that free factory to my empire in about 3 seconds.

1 dst 2 inf and a fgt are going to resonate about as much as a fart in the winds of the pacific ocean, against the Japanese J1 fleet.

Combine that with a Manchurian Factory build and you are Majorly set for J2

How about we play a League Game?  :)

Nothing builds good will on the boards like sarcastically slamming the guy does it?

@Gargantua:

The joint strike rule, was the WORST optional Axis and Allies rule of all time.

Don’t beat around the bush, tell us how you really feel!  :wink:

who is doing what with Japan and Germany?

I don’t like $10 NO’s, too all or nothing
Russia should have 3 NO’s, each wirth $5
first as normal (red territorries is interesting)
2nd for allies controlling nor/fin
third for euro territorries

USA should have another $5 NO in pacific

sorry I am short on details, perhaps I will post my ideas better when I don’t have house guests  :-P

I like the thread Jen, +1 karma!

I also like the carriers and fighters approach if I am landing in heavily contested areas that require more than one round to clear since the air remains round to round. I prefer bombards if I am strafing (no risk to planes) or if I expect to clear the TT in one round of combat

@bugoo:

Sure taking one shot at a 3 for a boat that defends worse than the same priced bomber attacks while the enemy is making more money than you is awesome, so is my fig that attacks all combat at a 3 =).

ships have always been more expensive than air for comparable firepower, just as air (fig attack @3. $10) is more expensive by comparison than ground (tank @3, $5) air has unprecedented mobility to offset that and navy is the only way to get units into the action for some nations so I don’t think that is a good comparison.

comparing the relative value of the different ships (like your earlier post) is however an excellent topic for discussion. does this mean you invest in carriers and fighters to support you landings and find that a more effecient approach than building capitol ships and bombarding?

Personally, I am looking forward to NOT buyng it, especially after this latest slap in the game community’s face

the cruisers offshore ability makes it far from “craptastic” and at $12 it is easily affordable. (I still love the BB though, something about turning her on her side :wink:)

@Subotai:

…you better prove it, or stop lying.

Please learn the difference between fact and opinion, and also drop the hostility it accomplishes nothing

I generally send it to the pacific to mess with japan as soon as the atlanticnavies are secure and no longer need it

I agree that the sub rules are much improved.
The difference makes them more useful when operating independently, which makes them more historical in their in-game usage.

I also agree that A&A uses a degree of abstraction during battle that lends itself favorably to playability and have no desire to complicate it.
Other games allow targeted casualties and they are fun, but A&A should remain, well, A&A!
I tend to avoid house rules with my group, the only one I have put forward is starting the game with China and ending the round with USA, we are going to try this next game.

romulus, while i agree completely with your line of reasoning, as a game mechanic why cant planes target tanks over infantry unless an AA is present wouldnt they do this in real life? and doesnt this fit with your logical sequence?

by the way, loved the anecdotal information

exactly tim, and that is my biggest gripe. if i want to let my subs stay on the surface to engage the enemy and get sunk by planes i should be allowed to. i look at it as the first strike/submerge ability. planes can’t hit subs because they submerge in first strike (opening fire) phase, not because they have a magical antiairforcefield. conversely, if i don’t submerge then they are vulnerable to air (soak hits for my capitol ships)

@Corbeau:

Nice move but even if Triple A allows to do it, I am not sure if you really can send your fighters so far out without the carriers being in range to recover.

The thing is that in theory, carriers can’t recover your fighters unless you pass trough the BB.

It works out since you can recover in non-combat but I am not sure if its legal since at fighter launch, you can’t recover them due to ennemy ships in the way.

Either it is legal, or it’s a triple A error to allow the move.

If you have even a remote possibility of success it is allowed.

you could figure LL by unit type (all fighters together so 2=1 hit 3=1hit + 1@3, then all tanks together, etc)

Don’t know if I like this, because unless there are multiple units, there really is no LL coming into play. This might be more feasible if it were done by attack/defense rating so that say attacking fighters and tanks were lumped together as LL. Or you lump together all naval forces, then air force, then ground forces. But i think that this is too much thinking.

Actually, if all units types are the same it would be completely LL, but if you have a mixed force like 4 inf, 2 art 3 armor and two fig you would have (ADS) 2@1, 4@2, 5@3. with the above method you would have 1@2 (inf) 1@2 and one auto hit (inf+art) 1@3 and one auto (armor) and another auto hit for the figs so you would have 3 hits + 2@2 and 1@3

you could figure LL by unit type (all fighters together so 2=1 hit 3=1hit + 1@3, then all tanks together, etc) that way you get pretty standard payout odds wise but have more total dice thrown per combat round to add a bit more randomness. I also have a friend that complains famously about the dice and I might suggest this. another option is allowing each side to determine the type of rolls they want so the planner can go all low luck and the randomizer can go all dice. this could make for some interesting results but might keep each rolling style satisfied. I think I am going to introduce these ideas next game.

I would also recommend D-Day as an introductory A&A experience