Posts made by Danger Mouse

@Imperious:

Well if you G1 Egypt what you bring, and how do you now allocate the attacks on the uk navy?

I guess off the bat the UK BB and Transport are to be ignored, or is their a way to still kill them plus the UK CA/DD?

you got 4 fighters and 2 subs

Ok here is what germany has to live with as far as taking out the UK fleet on G1:
1 sub, sea zone 5 to sea zone 6
1 ftr , Poland to sea zone 6 - land in Norway

2 subs, sea zone 7 to sea zone 9

1 ftr, Norway to sea zone 12 - land in Algeria
1 ftr, Germany to sea zone 12 - land in Algeria
1 ftr, Northwestern Europe to sea zone 12 - land in Algeria

I’m afraid the battleship and transport in sea zone 2 have to be left out for G1 attacks.  The simple fact that no G1 attack on Egypt means no real Italian expansion in the game is too great a cost for 27 IPC’s of equipment.  England loses 24 IPCs worth of men and equipment in Egypt alone which then leaves the door open to Italian expansion in Africa and possibly the mid-east.

On G2 the remaining fighters from the sea zone 12 attack can now either return to Europe from Algeria or continue to attack targets in the atlantic in coordination with whatever subs you have left.  Also, use that German transport to then take Gibraltar to deny Allied planes from landing their and you have secured the Med for Italy in 2 turns, and forced the Allies to either take notice of Italy or let them eat the British empire territory by territory.

I’m afraid Germany must commit to Egypt on G1 and bring the bomber along becuase if he does not then the UK with little effort can deny Italy any chance in Africa and becuase of that any income in the game.  Look at it this way, lets say Germany ignores Egypt on G1, Britain then moves its 2 inf from Trans-jordan to Egypt and takes their two fighters in England to Africa where they can arrive on egypt by UK2.  Also, if Japan does not take out the India transport the UK can move an extra inf to Egypt of UK1.  Either way you deny any hope of Italy taking out Egypt, and honestly what resources can Germany actually use on G2 to take out Egypt with those forces in place.  By UK 3 Italy is out of Africa unless they spend every IPC to put a stack of inf on Libya.

Just to make it even worse America and take its West coast bomber to Australia on US1 and threaten any Japanese tranports who sail alone, and then on US 2 land in Egypt to threaten Italy with SBR raids further knocking them out of the war.

Or, you could just take Egypt on G1 and remove this entire threat for several turns and allow Italy to expand and threaten South Africa and India.

I’m not a big fan of just paying 30 IPC’s and getting what tech you want instantly.  What I’m trying to go for is a system that requires an effort on a players part over a certain period of time.  Also, I think the true value of the tech should be represented by a longer period of research, this forces a player to budget in the cost of research each turn rather than just blowing all your money to get what you want now.  The player has to decide each turn if they have enough to advance their research or are they forced to buy an extra tank to take Moscow.  Why should you get Heavy Bombers at the same expense as mechanized infantry or the awesome tech of improved shipyards.

I just think this would add a bit of strategy to technology rather than luck or the ability to blow a wad of IPC’s you got when you took a capital.  America did not get the Atom bomb in 1942 becuase they had a bunch of resources and germany did not have rockets becuase they just wanted them on a whim, they researched them over time and spent allot of resources to get them.  Also, none of the tech’s available are mythical magical wonder weapons that did not exist they all existed and they all effected the outcome of the war.  Yet, we are forced to go without them becuase you cannot roll a six.  I just think its silly and believe they would actually add something to the game if luck was not part of it.

Oh well, it was just a thought  :-)

Thanks for the heads up on the ARRE tech rule Cmdr Jennifer, but I think its just too simple a rule considering the effects of some techs on the balance of the game over others.  Who is going to pay for combined bombardment when they can have Heavy bombers or jet fighters at the same cost and in the same amount of time.

Ok, this is the first topic I’ve started so spare me if I mess it up, otherwise you can laugh at my idea all you want.

I’ve noticed that everyone complains about how the random luck aspect of rolling for techs unbalances the game and makes many want to exclude them whenever possible.  I personally do not mind them and think they add a bit of surprise to a game that eventually becomes almost scripted even though I rarely see them achieved or gone after.  Anyway I’ve had this idea floating in my head for a long time now so I figured I’d throw it under the bus and see what comes out the other side.

What if tech’s were not achieved randomly but were the product of a longterm investment that would achieve a reliable result.  To accomplish this you would invest in the research of a disired tech for a predetermined amount of time and then get it.  Lets say for example it takes 4 turns to get mechanized infantry, you would invest 5 IPC’s per turn for 4 turns to discover this tech.  A nation may invest in no more than 2 techs per turn and may only advance their research one turn at a time, so no one can invest 20 IPC’s and expect to get that tech faster.  Other tech’s would take longer, like Heavy bombers might take 6 turns, or improved shipyards would take 7.  You could also expand or reduce the required time to achieve these techs depended on the start date of you game so it would take longer if you had a 39 set up rather than a 42.

To add a level of historical accuracy you could start certain nations with some initial research investment.  Perhaps Germany could have a jump on Mechanized infantry so they would discover it sooner, or the UK would have some investment toward Radar or pParatroopers.  The possibilites are endless and they no longer require the random luck of a some wild dice, but rather the determination of a player to achieve them.

Perhaps this has already been thought up by someone else since I have only played the mainstream versions of A&A and The World at War versions, but this is something I’ve never seen on any board.

Also, I’ve played around with fighters and bombers being forced to split their movement between combat and non-combat movement.  So, a fighter may only move 2 during the combat movement phase and then 2 again during the non-combat phase and likewise for bombers 3/3.  This makes achieving the long range aircraft tech allot more important which with the tech system stated above is always possible it just takes a little investment.

Thanks for taking a look, now hit me with your best shot.

It’s a fairly classic Turn 1 purchase and move for the Allies, except that instead of two transports just build 1 and two infantry for the invasion of algeria on turn 2.  Assuming of course your concentrating on the germans, for the first couple turns with America build land forces to go with each transport you purchase so they have something to do after they are deployed.  After two or three turns you’ll have a sufficient transport force to create a constant convoy of men to Africa or Britain protected by your carriers. Then it’s all bombers and land forces to take Western Europe.

Good luck

Another way to go is to invade Norway with everything you’ve got its an easy win, then on non-com move 2inf to Karelia and dump your fighters in moscow.  Place 3inf and 3arm in moscow as your purchases and wait for germany to invade Karelia which he will if he wants to win.  R2 counter attack with everything you’ve got, its risky but if done well and with UK’s support with reinforcements for defense Germany will be on the run from that moment on.  Why waste days building stacks of infantry and hope for “two’s” to win the day when the idea should be to attack, attack, attack.  If anything your constant attacks will force Germany to focus more on you and less on UK, which then leaves the UK to invade WE or EU if things go as planned.

Think of it this way, do you want to react to Germany’s moves or do you want him to react to your’s!  What is the worst that can happen…you lose  :-D

My first game was 23 years ago when I was just 7 and was used to my family punishing me at risk.  Then one night my older brother (15 at the time) and his friends come home with this new game called Axis and Allies and they needed a 5th player so I was conscripted into the red army and thrown to the German tigers in what was to become Russia’s most pathetic moment.  I’m sure Stalin would have had me shot after the first turn, but he was not around so it was left to the Germans to get rid of me which they did in three short and painfull turns.  I was then cast from the room with much laughter from the Axis and grumbles from the Allies.

I did not play another game of A&A with my brother for 6 years during which time I played with my friends as often as possible awaiting my chance for revenge.  Then one day I challenged him and he actually accepted, 24 hours of playing time over three days later I was victorious.  Since then our games together have always been highly competetive and even ugly, its all worth it though when I beat him even now.

Classic A&A is without a doubt the most fun game I grew up with as a kid, I would not trade a single game of A&A that iv’e played for anything.  Truly the memories of gathering around the table with my friends and playing for hours are worth more than any mountain of gold.  How any game Avalon has released since can hope to compare I have no idea.  Don’t get me wrong I enjoy the new games very much, but they just don’t have the same magic as the original A&A does.

My original copy is still intact and holds a proud place in my collection.

When my friends and I first started playing A&A we always went for tech, it was a race for who could get heavy bombers and win the game.  Of course we also built huge silly stacks of infantry in Moscow and Western Europe and used America as nothing but a fighter/bomber factory for UK.  Later on we never went for techs, they were not removed from the game, but there was no time to waste the IPC’s on a “maybe” since every single IPC was needed.  For Germany that was one less tank to throw at Russia, or one less transport for the UK.  Whatever the reason it was just not a good investment.

What’s really funny is we got a new player for our group last week and he was tech crazy, it was like a fever that quickly spread and soon I was rolling for it every turn like a little kid.  I ended up with jet fighters and rockets with Germany for the first time in years and I felt like a kid at christmas!

Anyway, techs are cute and can change the game, but really if it comes down to it they are a luxury for those who have IPC’s to spare, and if your enemy has IPC’s to spare then your not doing your job buddy.

Russia - Personally there is nothing better in my opinion than turning back the Huns and holding the Japanese at bay long enough to march through eastern europe and into Berlin! Russia is at constant war usually on both fronts to some extent during the entire game. There is no time to prepare for the big attack, there is only the need for the next battle to be victorious and the hope that every unit that dies will cost the enemy greatly.

Good point, if the US is commited to a KGF strategy why not send a CV and some fighters to the med to help Italy out. If anything you would have two fighters that could land in Europe in case of emergencies.

Perhaps a simple way to simulate an effective naval blockade against the UK would be for the Axis to block all direct sea routes to the UK with any naval units.  That way there is no one space that becomes all important but instead forcing the Axis to actually blockade the UK from the rest of the world.  So, if the UK can trace a sea lane from the US or its holdings in Asia or the Pacific then the Axis has failed to blockade the UK. Now as to the effect of such a blockade that is up to some speculation since who is to say what percentage of their IPC’s can be “blocked” in this fashion or are they just lost.

Perhaps you force them to seperate their income like in A&A Pacific.  In that case you could say these “blocked” IPC’s be spent only on colonial builds by IC’s built hopefully in India, Australia, South Africa, or Canada.  This could just complicate the whole thing which many ruin the fun and easy pace at which the game progresses though.

As to the original question I think that it is silly to have a nations Naval builds blocked by some naval units floating nearby.

I was used as a place holder at the ripe old age of 7  in 1985 by my brother and his friends who needed someone to be russia, they had no idea how important russia really is when they started playing.  I have been playing as often as possible ever since and have loved every game no matter how great the win or how terrible the loss.  I look forward to many years of A&A.

I think that an IC in Australia with an American player who is taking an active role in the Pacific would give Japan more to think about than blind expansion into Asia.  A combined fleet between the two means that both the UK an the US can threaten Japan without expending all of their IPC’s on a KJF strategy.  If time is truly the Allies friend then slowing down Japans expansion in anyway is a good thing.

How about a little extra income for the USA to get them into the pacific!

1. Every turn the USA has at least 1 more AC in the Pacific than Japan they gain 8 IPC’s.
2. Each time the USA destroys a Japanese capitol ship (BB,AC) they get 5 IPC’s.
3. Every turn the USA starts with 5 or more transports in the Pacific they gain 5 IPC’s.
4. The USA gets a 1 time 10 IPC bonus for the Industrial bombing of Toyko.

Just a few quick thoughts on how to get the USA into the Pacific.