Posts made by daggaz

I bumped across this one while reading the official errata here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

“Must I offload all the units from a transport?
No. Units may stay on board when other units offload. For example, one unit may offload during an amphibious assault, while another may offload into the same territory during the noncombat move.” -emphasis mine.

Now I know that a transport doesnt have to offload all its cargo at once (tho its turn will end and it will have to wait the next turn to offload the rest, so might as well dump it for safety and more freedom of choice next turn…), but this quote seems to be in direct contradiction to what I assumed was a main rule.

That being, that units cannot be moved during the noncombat move phase into a territory which was just captured during combat.  Its perhaps a moot point, as you really ought to send them all in during the attack if you want them there in the first place, but it does come into play in the cases where a player has made a grave human error (which they should be punished for, naturally) or where they are just trying out some wierd tactic or cannot make up their mind.

Do I have it all wrong?

Lame.  Does anybody feel like posting these articles on a site where you DONT have to sign up for a new email account?  That is pretty stupid, I really cant be bothered since I will just forget the damn username/password within a week, and just so I can go to a webpage?  Bleh.

SBRs are a great strategy.  It is true that the evaluations done are too narrow and miss the overall effect on the game. You cant just look at the cost/benefit for the individual bomber.  You MUST look at the big picture.  Especially when the cost is affordable to the attacker, and not to the defender.  On top of that, you have the secondary and more powerful effect -this is why you do this attack, of reducing enemy troop numbers in the future.  Less defense means less of your valuable troops at risk.  And your troops are the ones that usually have to be shuttled half way across the board before they die, so this is REALLY valuable for you (usually US or Japan).

As Allies, I go full out with the UK to bomb the crap out of Germany.  And no, I do not wait until the end game either, this starts from turn one.  If playing with tech, I will take the risks to get rockets, UK can afford it.  Usually two or three dice a turn till I get them.  Then you get a free attack.  Build an extra AA and dump it into Norway soon as you can, and now you have two free attacks. This is generally better than going for heavy bombers unless you are really going to go overboard with the number of planes.  Otherwise I build my bombers up to two or three and nail Germany each and every round.  For the rest of UKs money, I build up a fleet of three or four trannies depending on economics and start shuttling men into Norway.

I have found this to be a very effective use of the UKs funds, and it is now up to the US to mass troop pressure on W.Eur and keep Africa clean.  But with all the thumping (you can easily reduce Germany to around 20 bucks a turn by R3) from UK as well as Russia hammering their front, the US can usually crack into those sweet 6 ipc territories fairly early.  Germany is simply forced to turtle, which is the absolute must have point in any KGF strategy.  The US can send a bomber or two as well and really add to the pain, provided they arent using them elsewhere and are buying the necessary land troops first.

For Axis playing, I will slowly build up a bomber force with Japan and begin bleeding Russia dry as soon as those bombers arent needed elsewhere…usually by J3.  Russia really, really cannot afford this and it counters the UK bombing as now UK will need to insure enough troops to defend Moscow.  I dont go for tech here, the axis simply cannot afford the cash unless the allies play really poorly, in which case Rockets are sweet for the germans, but lets face it, most games you just cant waste those precious ICs like that.

At any rate, we played both classic and now revised for years in my gaming circle, and for years nobody really focused on bombing too much.  It just felt too painful to lose that bomber…  But now I have seen the light and I must say, an effective bombing campaign is absolutely game changing.  The effect is just so profound after a few turns.  The key point tho, to any SBR campaign, is to do it overwhelmingly.  You cannot halfass here, you MUST bomb the living bejeezus out of the other country, or the risk is simply not worth it.

I dont know… I’d be sorely tempted as Japan to go for an Indian IC ASAP, regardless of initial costs.  Too much trouble if you let it stand for more than three rounds, and if you can bag it on J2, well, Russia just got into a whole lot of trouble…

Sink the UK boats, position whatever trannies you have left in the islands, so they are picking up troops for the next round… yeah…

I can do a pearl super light (destroyer, bomber, sub if it survived which is likely if you only sent the one english sub after it, and maybe a fighter) and just hope for some decent hits, tho really its not all that important…

Send one BB to my inner seazone, if necessary, to protect my next round trannies.  If not, it goes to pearl.

I hit china with five men and two figs, or just one if you actually nailed mine in the first round attack, not too likely tho, and 5 inf 1 fig is usually enough to hit china anyhow.

The southern BB heads off to nail your destroyer/AC, along with 2fig and the AC from the inner islands.  One tranny goes to philipines and gets 2 inf. If i survived FIC, then can drop off there, tho its safer to just park the tranny within range of India next to the BB in the kwangtang killzone. The southern AC heads to indian waters with a plane to block passage of your australian tranny, and hopefully kill the indian tranny if you used it to ferry an extra guy in from persia (yay for germany!).  If not, its one less inf we have to worry about. Or if the indian tranny is ineffective as far as new troops, i just hunt down your loaded aussy tranny… if its headed to india that is…

Now we are ready to rock… with any luck, we sank a boat or two out in pearl and our bomber at least survived and is either in Japan (FIC survived) or Okinawa… We have 3 to 4 figs in range of India. We have a BB in range of India as well as a tranny with two inf.  We also have the possibility of surviving units in FIC, which wont be sent to China.  And best of all, you had to buy that IC before you know the result…

On J2, I can go all in after India… sure you have an AA, but truth is, most of the time you wont hit a plane… maybe one if you are lucky.  You might have been funneling troops down from russia, but if Germany sees this going on, you can bet they are going full force against their eastern front.  On J2 I should be able to at least do some good damage to your inf if I dont take it outright.  (I will lose fighters if odds are good for taking and holding.)  If not, on J3 I have three transports within range with full troop loads for a second assault, and this time I will be bringing my second battleship as well.

Now,… thats in response to an American IC on US1… if they dont build it, I can take an extra round to funnel in the troops and take with far less risk on J3. Thanks for the IC.

Yeah, I definitely can see the use of the transports now… just played thru a few games by myself and those things can be a real pain for both USA and England.  I’m thinking, if I see that move on G1 by any other player, Im going to go out of my way to sack their fleet ASAP, regardless of the costs.  Long term delays due to being overly worried are just way too costly.  Which is still a good thing for Germany… spend 16 IPC, maneuver your fleet properly, and you buy a round or two AND you force USA to sack their first fleet/airforce against it.  Fine by me…

Same thing with having a few transports floating around west USA as Japan…  Keeps USA on their toes, and with any luck they will react and you can just pull back to safety and once again, the allies have burned cash and time responding to a threat rather than a real force on the frontlines.  Or if you are really lucky, the other guy will be overly focused on the fronts and totally forget that Alaska can be sacked that turn and that he wont be able to defend LA cuz all of his troops were placed in Eastern Canada… Not likely against my group, but still, one can hope…

But I’m just talking about one or two transports here, nothing like the gambits describe with dumping a whole turn into boatbuilding… that is just instant death at my table.

Still, we keep running into the problem that we all understand force projection, kill zones, and logistics all too well.  It just keeps up ending as a war of attrition…  And in this case, as long as the allies dont get bad luck (or the guy gets too tired), they generally win.  I will say tho, having tried a few times now with a tank and an inf in libya, it does go somewhat better for Germany as far as flexibility. Way too many units were tied down in Egypt and surrounding sea zones otherwise…  I think Ill just recommend to my group that germany always gets those pieces, and we can continue just flipping for who gets to play Axis.  (japan is too much fun, everybody wants to be them, heh).

I was just saying that in my group, the gambits are a waste from the get-go, because none of the guys I am playing with are dumb enough to miss the obvious possibilities.  Trannies + troops + clear shipping lanes = possible invasion.  It doesnt matter to these guys if the attack isn’t “ordinary,” they’ll still see it.  I only got off the sealion because everybody (including me until half way thru buying more troops for germany) forgot about tech, and how it goes into play immediately.  And like I said, we fixed that rule immediately, without ever hearing about LTHR yet…

As to the general German strategy of trading with russia, hoping for a weakness, and eventually turtling up and waiting for Japan… its the same thing as last version, with just a couple different twists.  I would really like to see a game where there are more than two major strategies in round1, where pretty much anything could happen…  (and as it is, 90%+ still do KGF, with only 10% doing KJF, according to most polls, so we can almost narrow it down to one major strategy.)

That’s why we are thinking of coming up with our own map, with maybe four nations in each corner and nobody fighting on more fronts than anybody else.  Perhaps some juicy incentive in a continent in the center for people to fight over.   And enough space and complexity in the map, that barring 100% identical moves and purchases, the game will evolve differently each time. Hell, íf the map is good enough, just the statistical differences in luck will be enough to evolve the game chaoticly in just a few moves.

Well, I was hoping Germany would have a better time at things in revised, but it seems to me they are even worse off. Sure, the extra sea zones were definitely needed, but all they buy the Fatherland is an extra round.  Africa is worse off than ever before, because it takes more investment to successfully attack it first round, and even if you are successful, it takes germany way too much time to get troops in due to the sahara, while england and america will be landing folks in from all over the world in the next round or two.  And to top it all off, the Russians, if they play aggressively, are better off than ever before! They start the game by castrating the German front (I go for belurus and Wrus, you miss out on a plane and a tank, but you split german forces better, are less exposed to counterattacks, and ukraine is now a serious dead zone.)

Course, this is playing with out of the box rules, tho we quickly changed the tech rule after I successfully sea-lioned my buddy on G2.  I suppose a bid in Lybia would help… but I cant see it helping much…

I joined the caspian sub group, but I gotta say, Im not thoroughly impressed with all the advanced german tactics posted there. They are all self-described gambits.  Now, buying two trans G1 does to me seem like a good tactic, what with the risk factor imposed on both London and allied shipping, but actually pulling off a SeaLion/Canadian Shield/Landbridge?  Any opponent with half sense will see it coming a mile away and respond appropriately, and now Germany has sunk even MORE money into boats, which are not forces opposing the Russian advance. Just sounds stupid to me, and every way I play it out, Germany dies horribly.

I should say, I do pretty well with Japan, but I just figured out how to cut them up a bit better with England, so I have to reevaluate my strategies there… but suffice to say, they are usually getting the spread on by J3.  Of course, My Russia at this point has a fat stack in Novo, and is busy maiming the Germans on the western front, who are suddenly panicking because there are major attacking forces in both Africa and London which could land at any moment right on their doorstep.

Phew… Im a bit tired of this scenario.  We are seriously thinking of drawing up a more random map, where the players are on equal footing in regards to position and pieces.  Anybody else feel that way?

PS. Is it just me, or do the posting forums on caspian seem totally Fubar??!  Why aren’t the responses nested under the OP like on any sane board?  Really botheres me so much that I cant be bothered to go and read thru what are probably some really good discussions about my problems…

Hmm interesting stuff.

I always went against Wrus + Belorus on R1, mostly because I was guaranteed to win with minimal casualties, and the german counterattack is pretty naked.  Belorus I take with 2 fig and minimal inf, Wrus I pound into oblivion.  A counterattack on Wrus then is very unlikely, as there aren’t many inf to support the heavy gear for germany.  I went this was because im an oldschool player, where russia always had to play with maximized defense or die.

Im intrigued and happy with the new options tho for russia going offensive, and I think I will try out the Ukraine approach, tho to be honest, losing a fighter wont make a terribly huge difference for me as germany in G1, tho it will be an annoying sting.  Probably I would just drop a fighter from one of the sea battles… the one north of Egypt is probably best chances with reduced force, tho it would suck so hard if you failed and couldn’t get the tranny to land. Hmm…

As to the eastern units, yeah, get them moving and into a point of strategic importance. I prefer Shing as the southern route is usually more valuable for the both the axis and the allies, and the northern route is easily blocked with inf from Moscow if need be.  Another cool idea I never really thought about was moving a tank or two down there. Gonna have to check that out as well.

Robbery chess? Never heard of it.  Honestly.  If it’s your strategy to take pieces with total abandon towards things like value, position, and momentum, go right on ahead. I will play you any day of the week. You are going to lose.  It is a losing strategy.

It is also a losing strategy in A&A, so go on ahead… And although the physical idea is somewhat similiar, your analogy is misleading, as you are talking about an end-game scenario in A&A, not the overall strategy over the course of an entire game. You said it yourself, people shouldn’t deserve to ‘win’ that way…

Or should they?  A much better analogy is the no-move stalemate in chess.  Sure, you might have overwhelming pieces, position, and strategy, but if you are dumb enough to push the king into a corner which denies your opponent any moves, you force a draw.  You don’t lose, but you don’t win, either.  Any player worth his salt is careful not to do this, and an experienced player will even use this strategy to escape defeat in the face of a more skilled opponent.  At least, he can try…

The strategy just adds a whole new level to the endgame approach… It is something you have to keep an eye out for, and I wouldn’t want to get rid of the possibility.  It adds challenge, it adds fun.  Don’t want to fall victim to this? Then why are you using such a poor strategy that your enemy can blitz thru your lines in one round in the first place? My advice to you is, you had better keep a closer eye on both the points and your frontlines, dear.

Never mind, I figured it out. Suffice it to say, my game interface looks NOTHING like that shown in the readme files or on the sourceforge website.  If you are having a similiar problem, you have to click on load new game on the left hand side of the screen, and pick your game version from the various xml files there.

I downloaded it off the net today, version 0_9_0_2, the latest stable version from the sourceforge webpage.  I installed it.  I ran it.  I dont get the screen where it shows the main user interface, as shown in the readme file included with the package, where you can change between which version of A&A you want to play.

Starting the .bat or .exe file simply loads the game into classic mode.

Help please. =(

Just to be clear, I do have the proper map files etc for the other game versions… but running the game loads me into the page where I get to choose options as set up for classic. There is no screen where I have the option of changing game version… I want to play revised =(

Heh… I did this on my very first revised game on G2.  I spent more like 30 bucks for research tho, still, it was worth it. I was able to hold off any naval assault on germany, england lost two rounds of cash, and in the mean time japan just took over.

No, you are wrong guys.  They would not splash.  All units (land sea or air) can always retreat one square, even if they are out of moves.  It is the bases for the leap-frog maneuver, where you can legally move a tank for example three times in one round.

We play Russia Restricted, and just instituted bidding, not that it makes a whole lot of difference to Russia’s strategy for the most part.

Buy infantry, stack everything in Karelia that can reach it, leave 3 to 4 men in Caucuses.  Stack in Yakut, leave one man in SovFE, he will die eventually, but it forces the japs to spread their attacks on round one, and with luck you might even survive with him.

Russia 2 (and for the rest of the game until the allies are seriously taking over) you buy infantry. Take Norway, with men and some tanks, you will need this money for the rest of the game. 
Usually, Germany pulls back from Ukraine some, to protect E.Eur and oppose your oppresive Kar stack. Play cat and mouse with Ukraine, taking it with bare minimum of infantry and airsupport.  Keep karelia stacked and reinforce with allied fighters.Â

If Germany is foolish and spreads troops (especially if they try for Cau, now you know why to leave extra men there) then strife the weakest country (Eeur is money), and annhilate any troops who come too far east.Â

The yakut stack, on the other hand, should retreat to Novo on this turn if Jap plays correctly and stacks in Man.  If Jap is played poorly, leave a man to guard, otherwise if its an obvious kill zone, just pull back with russia (russia is the only country I will do a full retreat with, you NEED those men later), the only exception to this is if there are tanks which can blitz, then you MUST sacrifice a man to stop the blitz.  DO NOT WASTE THE EASTERN FRONT ON FOOLISH ASSAULTS.  If you can be counterattacked with any decent strength, you dont want to take that action.

Rus3: Pull all men out of Nor, its russian territory now, the germans will never reclaim it.  Keep playing the cat and mouse game, always buying infantry, but placing two or three in russia and sending them east, provided the allies are helping defend karelia.  Keep retreating from Jap, but be always ready for them to overextend themselves, and when they do, annhilate their army. Otherwise, fall back, build a stack, and strife the invading army.  Be careful with Caucauses btw, keep men there, it is nasty blitz route for both jap and german forces from africa, right into your heart.

Finally, dont lose tanks, dont lose fighters. They are your only teeth for later in the game, strifing will be your best friend, so NO risky maneuvers with them.  And get help from the allies.  Even played perfectly, with good luck as well, the russians can only hold out max 7 rounds or so without allied support. Eventually, japan will take them otherwise.  If you play this way described, you should actually be able to keep russias income level or even one or two IC’s higher than normal, for the entirety of the beginning game. THats a fair amount of extra men, it will show in your moscow stack when the japanese finally make their crushing assault inwards.

thanks for the quick answers darth.  The trn in the first question enters the combat empty, so altho it is at risk of being sunk, there is no cargo to lose. It bridges AFTER the sea battle.  (except in our games, cuz we went with the idea that 1) being in a sea battle stops movement (ie actions) of all naval movements except 2) trannies can unload if an amphibious assault is declared.

Basically, we visualize that the tranny is basically run onto the beach during the assault.  It seems unrealistic (and stretching the rules) for it to enter a battle, go to one end of the sea of japan, pick up guys, and then cross the sea to unload them. Of course, you could leave the tranny out of the combat entirely and bridge during noncombat operations afterwards.  But the situation did come up once, a friend was trying to have the tranny with him just in case the attack went badly, and then to use it as a bridge when it survived.Â

Oh… having read your answer the second time… I can see you perhaps mean the tranny (and fleet) enter the contested sz, the tranny picks up the cargo, the battle ensues (and now it hurts to lose that tranny), and if trn survives, it can unload? Hmm I like that too, that seems fair as well.

is this version 2 or 3?

if version 2, my group would own you hard for that kinda strategy.  the only thing that keeps germany from moving their EEur stack into Karelia (or even just strafing them to a bare minimum) is the constant and barely superior purchase of rus inf to defend Kar.  Even if you put some planes into the zone from UK, we would welcome the lack of 4-8-12 whatever infantry.  It would be just enough to justify a full attack.

Oh, and we play no bid with R.R.  Just imagine it with bids.

Ok, can you move a trn two spaces, engage in an naval battle (you have other ships there, the trn stays out of the sea battle) and then bridge units across that sea zone?  For instance, JP has a fleet in burma sz, moves up to JP sz, destroys an american sub there, and then the trn in that fleet (which was declared part of the amphibious assault on russian invaded manchuria), bridges two inf from JP to Man.

We houseruled it to be NO, but the official rules completely lack this scenario (I have a masters in nanotech, and he is working on his masters in game theory, so you would think between the two of us, if there were a logical solution given, we would find it.)

Another question: do you give defending subs the sneak attack capabilty? We read it cold and hard, and the answer was no.  But knowing how M&B suck for this game so hard, thought I would ask the int. community.

Last question, and the one guaranteed to generate the most answers:  What is the best way to handle bidding to balance this game (version 2), when you include Russia Restricted as part of standard game play.  Be VERY explicit in your description of how bidding works, as we have never used this method before.  (I finally taught my friends enough that whoever plays allies, wins. unless they are really drunk or really hung over.)

EXTRA BONUS PS:  We have an interesting houserule about the capture of an enemy capital.  The IPC’s from that capital are like a stash of gold.  They are heavy, and immobile (man, digital transfer of funds thru international banking cartels just DIDNT happen back then).  That said, if you take a capital, the IPC’s of that capital are in your hands, but they are stuck in the capital of origin.  You CANNOT spend them, until a turn where the capital is in your possession on the beginning of that turn, at which point those IPC’s are transferred to your general fund, to be spent anywhere. (It takes a full round to liberate enemy gold).  Even then, the captured capital only has limited production capabilities (ie, Moscow produces only 10 units) according to the normal rules.  If you take a capital, and the enemy retakes that capital on their next turn, the enemy also retakes their gold.  Note those IPC’s can only be spent on their next turn, provided they still own the capital.

oh bummer. Cuz for the most part, all I found were topics with things that were definitely 3rd and not 2nd (there is a HUGE difference).  It makes it hard to differentiate between the whole lot.  Why not just make two forums?  I mean, its not like virtual space is that hard to assign.

Anyhow, that is my only advice for improving this forum. Actually differentiate between different versions, cuz there’s a difference and it would be OH so easy to do.

Why is there no forum for this version?  It is heavily played here in Denmark (nobody owns classic, ive never seen revised, lots of people tho are buying the newer europe and pacific versions…)

It would be nice if there was a forum for this immensely popular version as well.  Its a pain when reading through strategies to have to take into account the many rules changes between classic and revised.Â

Also, does anybody have a link to Don Rae’s advanced tactics for the axis essay?  I have his website, but the third part for axis tactics (where he outlines his use of the so-called ‘hardcore’ axis purchase, is NOT in there. It should be the third part of the third essay, but there are only two parts posted there.  I dont think he is the god of A&A or anything, but he has some good fundamental ideas and I was curious where he was going with his so called hardcore build.