Posts made by dondoolee

@U-505:

I think Japan needs to jump out of the gate for the Axis to have the best chance to win. Choosing to deny themselves 7 IPC’s by not taking Phil and the NO while at the same time letting the US collect 7 IPC’s they normally wouldn’t seems like a bad way to start the game.

While the NO on T1 may be tempting, I tend to favour getting as many troops/ securing the mainland as much as possible. especially when the Phil can easily be taken T2.  I consider killing India or the troops on it/Jordan (19 IPC’s worthf units 25 w/ AA) much more valuable.  The last thing I need as a Jap player is an India alive for more than 2 turns.  I think a T1 delay is worth it.  It seems a more aggressive move anyway.

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Perhaps there needs to be new strategies developed for an Italian fleet.  Anyone consider invading Brazil?

There is a small (very small) chance you could pincer America into a 2 way sucker punch.  Don’t move navy T1, buy tranny.  Move tranny to edge of Med, set up the Jap navy to attack Alaska on T2.  Or some refined version of that.  Not recomended for serious play, but a funny and fun way to try a strat once or twice in your life.  I haven’t had the balls to try it yet though, as I still feel I am excited about still learning the mechanics of the game (it has not gotten close to stale yet for me).  The reality is though, if the Allies want them dead they are dead.

@ogrebait:

@dondoolee:

I don’t know if there is a way to cut and paste this conversation, if you know how please feel free to do so.

Well, on my computer, hold down the left mouse button, highlight the text of interest, “click” the right mouse button, select “copy” from the drop-down menu, open new topic window, “right click” in the text box, select “paste” from the drop-down menu.

Add your comments and post.

Wow, talk about the ultimate brain fart.  I guess I wasn’t clever enough to think of something I knew how to do when I was 10 yrs old.  Anyway, it’s copied under the thread “longer games”

@dondoolee:

@ogrebait:

@dondoolee:

While time being on the Allies side I agree is debatable, how many times have you played an 8+ turn game while the Allies lost (other than some MAJOR flukey dice, or a MAJOR oversite)?

I can’t say that I have a great deal of experience here, but the Axis have won every game that I have played that went past 8 rounds. I have another one going that is in it’s 9th round, and it is still a toss up.

Now, I’ve also had some games that went less than 8 rounds in which the Axis lost (or more correctly, conceded), but that was generally due to a careless error or horrible dice in the early rounds.

The key factor in each of the Axis victories was Japan. It seems to take 7-8 rounds until Japan can build up its forces and get them to the doorstep of an Allied capital. If Germany and Italy can hold out that long, then Japan becomes very difficult to stop.

That being said, individual mileage may vary.

Interesting, I wonder how common that is.  This is a bit off topic, so I think I will create a new thread.

On normal long games who usually ends up winning the game: the axis or the allies?  By long I’m going to say 8 turns+, if you wish to debate the turn number I set please feel free to do so.  And by normal, I mean a game in which there has not been EXTRAORDINARY game breaking luck, or an EXTRAORDINARY oversight by a side.

Examples of each: Germany attacks Moscow with 30 Tanks, Moscow has 20 INF for defense and Moscow wins the battle leaving Germany crippled.  Or the US or Japan don’t notice a lone transport that hits their capital, things of that nature.

If you happen to notice why you think a longer game tends to favour 1 side over the other feel free to state why.

This post assumes no one is playing stubborn as well.  For example: if moscow falls, and the Axis are all alive, kicking, and doing fine I would consider that a game over.

@ogrebait:

@dondoolee:

While time being on the Allies side I agree is debatable, how many times have you played an 8+ turn game while the Allies lost (other than some MAJOR flukey dice, or a MAJOR oversite)?

I can’t say that I have a great deal of experience here, but the Axis have won every game that I have played that went past 8 rounds. I have another one going that is in it’s 9th round, and it is still a toss up.

Now, I’ve also had some games that went less than 8 rounds in which the Axis lost (or more correctly, conceded), but that was generally due to a careless error or horrible dice in the early rounds.

The key factor in each of the Axis victories was Japan. It seems to take 7-8 rounds until Japan can build up its forces and get them to the doorstep of an Allied capital. If Germany and Italy can hold out that long, then Japan becomes very difficult to stop.

That being said, individual mileage may vary.

Interesting, I wonder how common that is.  This is a bit off topic, so I think I will create a new thread.  I don’t know if there is a way to cut and paste this conversation, if you know how please feel free to do so.

So far (as no expert on Japan), it seems taking the Phil on T1 just kills the momentum of Japan on the mainland, and it can be easily taken trn 2 while Japan consolodates it’s navy.  I still kill the destroyer T1 however.  I think it is worth forgoing the NO for 1 turn to really buffer up the mainland assult/ really threaten south Asia/Africa.  I usually go heavist down there.

@Pan:

I have followed these boards for a little while but never posted.  However, I thought I’d just throw in my two bits here…

I’ve never really liked naval builds for Germany in previous versions of A&A and still not a fan of heavy German naval builds in AA50 but I do usually add one sub to the Baltic each turn.  It costs me one extra tank or two Inf but I think it pays for itself over time.

In AA50 I am loving subs for Germany, US (in the Pacific) and Japan (again in the Pacific).  I don’t usually bother building them with any other power.  The reason I love subs is very little can touch them if they don’t want to be touched, if you position them well.  The main reason I don’t like most German naval builds is that UK often has enough air units to take out or severely reduce the fleet you just spent 2 rounds worth of IPCs on.  However, the RAF is no good against subs as long as you keep their DDs out of the water.  It turns into a game of cat-and-mouse with the subs…moving them through the North Atlantic, Baltic, and North Sea regions but if you can stay a step ahead then UK will never get to use any naval unit they put into the water.  All for the cost of 6 IPCs per turn (and the rest goes against Russia, of course).

This has been my experience at least.  And I play US in the Pacific in a similar way.  For Japan I don’t usually have to resort to subs due to the extreme number of capital ships they start the game with.  No need for subtlety there!

I think that is a pretty fair, very general look at subs (a very complex gimmicky unit).  I have no idea why the UK would build subs for a general strat, for example.  I do think however there should be some type of harsh prison sentence on you for such a god awful pun.

@Funcioneta:

@dondoolee:

Time is not on the Axis’ side

I disagree. Time is not on the allied side, because (with NO’s) axis will reach economic advantage round 3 or 4 as much. It can be easily a 10 IPCs advantage, but I guess when axis strats improve, it will be even better. If allies suicide and try KGF, the advantage will be [k]even[/k] greater (lose of Hawaii, aus, nzel and USA’s Pacific NO, probably added by Alaska). Allies need a way of defending all their territories they can and recover economic parity as soon they can or game will be over

Of course, first priority for UK is killing italian navy or at least forcing her to escape to Indian Ocean. But this is a must, yet not enough, to win

While time being on the Allies side I agree is debatable, how many times have you played an 8+ turn game while the Allies lost (other than some MAJOR flukey dice, or a MAJOR oversite)?

Can some one explain the advantages of a T1 invasion of the Philipines to me (other than you gat an NO that turn)?  I really fail to see the advantage of it.

@Woodstock:

Obviously, fair enough.

That makes me realise two things.

1. I either had sucky Allied opponents

or

2. I managed to weaken my Eastern front just enough to hold the Russians back, but still provide a decent threat to any navy reaching the European shores.

I know I have been and will still be on occasion, that sucky Allied opponent who gets his ships blown up due to bad planning.  I think most of us have.  Let’s say building a navy does provide a decent threat to stall the west enough for Russia to fall to the Japs, is it still the most cost effective and effecient way to do it?  With Germanys ltd production and massive amounts of money, it will be building some “big money units” it almost has to, turtuling is kind of hard in this game.  But on the 1st turn, she doesn’t have that big money so that makes T1 look like a bad turn to build a navy to me

the Bomber: this guy has insane range, if you put him on france the US has to make sure it’s trannys are protected on the East coast.  He has a attack of 4, he can back up troops trading spaces on the Eastern front, pressure the Allied fleet, and in his spare time do an SBR to either England or Russia.  This seems more diverse, aggresive, and in it’s own right more defensive and a better buy than a german navy.

The fighter:  With germanys ltd production capacity you may as well be building these anyway to maximise on defense.  On top of that they threaten the allied fleet for very cheap (attack at 3 for only 10 IPCs) and with better range than any boat.  Plus they directly defend your land at a 4.  They can also back up German ground units on the Eastern front.

The Submarine:  I am still a little iffy on these but i still say this is the best naval unit Germany can buy (though I still think it is optional).  The submarine has free movement (he can’t be blocked so easily) to get where you want him to go.  This guy can make America think twice about putting up a transport if he is moved into postion at an oportune time.  He can also re enforce the Italian Navy as a cheap piece of fodder.  On top of which for a price of 6 IPC’s his attack is better/just as good as a cruisers and he can tear through ships (to get to transports) fater and “cheapen” the value of carriers. And if you get to make an attack on the Allied fleet you now have fodder.  I think if you build anything more than 3 subs you are probably building too much, these builds are kind of “luxury builds”.

All of these units are aggresive (good stuff for the axis) while defending at the same time, and I think more cost effective than capital ships.  They are more flexible, and if the Allied player does screw up you can make him pay.  Unlike a carrier which has no attack value, or a cruiser which is 2 IPC’s more than a fighter with less rang, probably stuck to 1 or 2 seazones and serving a ltd role (just protection) and certainly for the purpose of the Axis inferior to 2 subs.

@Woodstock:

Maybe forgetting Africa all together and just gunning straight for Germany which now has less ground units and an inferior fleet (unless the allies screwed up).  The German fleet doesn’t have to be sunk, I can still land in France or funnel through Norway.

…

…with on both options placing your fleet in range of mine, thus making it a juicy target. Even if Ger loses it’s entire fleet then, it will set back the Allies back to square one.
Except, in this square one, they have less money, whereas Germany has more then the original first square.

If my fleet got hurt that bad I would consider that “the allies screwing up”.  It means I moved them and put of place to soon/miscalculated/had awful awful luck.  It should be assumed the allies are not putting their fleet in harms way unless it is strong enough to be in harms way and there isn’t much the Axis can do about it, either that or they are desperate in which case you are winning anyway.  If the allies are strong in the Atlantic that is their job and #1 function, to have an unconquerable fleet that knows the strength and position of everything the Axis can throw at it .  You just have to count on that as an Axis player. And the greater you strengthen your fleet the more you weaken your Eastern front.

@Woodstock:

@dondoolee:

I have a hard time understanding how the Axis could survive with people advocate building expensive fleets for both Germany AND Italy.

I have a bunch of old TripleA games on my hard drive that could make you help understand? ;-)

It seems some people are just obsessed with building fleets.  An airplane is more verstile and cost effective.  Not to mention buying fleets= money not beeing sent to kill Russia= literally, buying the Allies time.

I am not obsessed with buying fleets, I just really…really hate an empty Baltic sea. This gives the UK a whole lot of territories to land on.
And as I said before: Russia is for Japan. My goal with Germany is to survive untill Japan reaches Moscow. A lot more secure then the Race to Moscow with Germany vs Race to Berlin with Allies - kind of games.

1. Wouldn’t fighters/bombers/a couple of well placed subs be more useful/versitile/cost effective?

2. If the allies see you buying fleets with Germany, doesn’t that send off a couple of triggers for them?  For example, they can afford to be less aggresive on Germany and priority #1 is to tie up Japan (which can be done) while Russia gets breathing room because you built fleets with the Western Axis?  Buying an IC in SAF and sitting on the rest of the money for T2 for example on the UK’s first move.  Or maybe they can even be hyper aggressive in the west now that Russia has more breathing room.  Maybe forgetting Africa all together and just gunning straight for Germany which now has less ground units and an inferior fleet (unless the allies screwed up).  The German fleet doesn’t have to be sunk, I can still land in France or funnel through Norway.

Even if I am wrong, as a German player I would feel like I was “showing my hand” if I built fleet with them.  In AAR Germany could (and I always did) build 2 Trannies in the baltic, which bolsterd defense and gave great flexibilty (You could bring the navy to the edge of the med and really force the UK to build ground troops; funny stuff), In AA50 I just do not see much use for capital ships and Germany, I see an inflexible strat and a gigantic signal that the Allies will figure out and exploit eventually.

I have a hard time understanding how the Axis could survive with people advocate building expensive fleets for both Germany AND Italy.  It seems some people are just obsessed with building fleets.  An airplane is more verstile and cost effective.  Not to mention buying fleets= money not beeing sent to kill Russia= literally, buying the Allies time.

The Allies HAVE to have an unskinable fleet, you can not count on a strategy to sink it. If you sink it it means the Allies have: already either dealt their death blow, made a mistake in calculation, or you experienced incredible luck.  In other words if the fleet goes down it is due to an Allied error not a superior German strat.  The Allies can only blame themselves (or god awful luck) if their fleet gets sunk.  This is just the way the game is designed.  You are better off directing the West to waste their transport drops, screwing around with them a little in Africa for example, you should relish moments when large Allied forces are in Africa with little Axis forces in Africa (Remember the Japs can have a little fun here too).  I would even say, if it sets them back for 2 turns and higher materiel costs, entice them into trading W Europe.  Depend more on the allies making these mistakes than a mistake with them getting their fleet sunk, as the Axis are going to still be building much more valuable ground or air units.

Kill Russia, worry about sending just enough to the West or Africa to keep you alive, those are your secondary theaters.  Every other piece of land you take, kill you make, or defensive bolstering you do should be seen as a “neccesary evil” for killing Russia.  If need be, you should even sacrifice Italy or maybe even W Europe (And if Japan has turned into a monster and is going to deliver the killing blow, even Germany itslef) if it means you can Kill Russia.  Because of this, I don’t see navy building as an optimal strat for the Western Axis (Japan works a bit different).

@Subotai:

What I learned so far in AA50 is that if Russia falls to either Germany or Japan, its not enough for allies to keep Italy.
Allies must then take most of Europe and I can’t see that happening unless Germany is in deep trouble.

Every capital in AA50 is mostly as important as in AAR, except Rome. If you can take and keep a capital, and not lose any own capitals, then you win the game.

I agree that holding Rome is definatly less in value than holding moscow.  One of the Axis’ greatest strengths is having a power they can sacrifice if need be.  I have allowed the Allies to take Italy before, so I could get one more turn at putting more pressure on Russia, it is just that much more valuable.

And the more I think about it, the more I think a Neuter Japan First strategy is probably the way to go if you want to think along a more “pacific centric” strat, I don’t think you have enough time to do a KJF strat in most games to win them.

@Emperor:

My problem with subs is they defend at 1 and are useless as fodder against air attacks.  They don’t seem to be very useful in the Atlantic, i have had some success with them in the Pacific.

I see little or no use to them for the allies, or Italy.  Japan and the US may have a need for them in the pacific.  Germany I find kind of unique.  If you get them in the Med, hell at least you have fodder to get better use of the Italian fleet (barring a massive air raid). On Germany’s T1 turn you can do an aggresive Tank build and have 6 left over, I think the 6 for the sub is a legit build in that situation, and after that start building planes when Germany is taking in more money.  But the subs defense isn’t so much it defends at 1 as much as it is hard to hit (destroyers needed) and if you are doing an Attack on the Allied navy with Air and subs you have good fodder with the added bonus of the nasty attack they carry.

I am not saying it is the best build, but it has some allure to me (maybe because I haven’t tried it yet).  The fact that they are 4 cheaper than planes, can tear through ships faster, pressure the Allied navy, and “cheapen” carriers, act as Air Raid Fodder,  act as Italian navy fodder, and are hard to hit so have realitvly free movement, really makes a sporadic sub appealing to me.  However going hog wild on subs (I see no way someone could build more than 3 in a normal game and justify it) is a sure fire way to lose for Germany

@bongaroo:

@dondoolee:

How many games of yours have a German sub in the Med, let alone multiples?  I’ve never seen any reason for the Germans to purchase any boats nor had an IC that was capable of building them into the MED.

How does this happen in your games?

1-2 can get put in there, and if you really wanted, Germany may be able to build a sub on T1.  Even so the subs are just a chery on top deal.  The Italian navy is dead as soon as the Allies want it gone.  The fact is the navy can be gone by t2 if the allies really thought it was that important, (especially if you sit a turn and wait to buy a carrier) The defense comes from German airplanes being a threat to the allied fleet.  There lies Italy’s best bet for defense (and still the Jap carrier if you really insist on defense).

I am of the opinion, the faster Italy can get ground troops out, and open up a point of a legit threat to Russia (Think about a 1-2 punch w/ Italy-Germany or maybe even Italy-Japan) the better shape the Axis are in.  This can be accomplished T3 or 4, and if the allies start comming in, use the Italians as a way to stall before the Germans have to deal with them.  Italy is in a prime position to get the Ukraine and Cauc don’t waste it.  I think the biggest easy mistake for either the Axis or the Allies is to over commit to Africa.  Usually when one does that the other side wins.

@DarthMaximus:

Also if Ita buy a second trn before adding other ships, it probably won’t do them much good since it adds no defense to the fleet.  The US will attack 2 CAs, 1 bb, X trns with as little as 2 ftrs, 2 boms.

I agree pretty much with your analysis for Italy.  And while I don’t really see building a tranny as the strongest option for a T1 or T2 build, I think it is more usefull than any other naval build.  And if you assume it is going to be backed by a jap carrier and german subs, you can probably get some good use out of it.  It would really help with the CAU and stalling the Allies a little more in Africa maybe, plus you could be buying less tanks as you could move more cheaper units just as fast to a needed front.

And maybe even as a joke move you could kind of pincer America with the Japs on one side and the Italians on the other.

I think the million dollar question is how long do you need Russia to survive.  It would be valuable information to figure out how long Russia can hold out on a 3 V 1 type game.  Just have Russia (and maybe China) set up and go against all 3 Axis, just to see how long you can hold out, to at least get an idea as to what you are looking at.

Another thing to, should you actually KJF, or just neutralize it?  The actual taking the Japanese capital could turn into a nightmare.

Still though, I think the key is to figure out a UK balancing act, America could still probably afford to send over the occasional transport over to the West as well

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a couple subs if the opportunity presents itself.  You still threaten the allied fleet, they cost 4 less than a fighter, and they provide cheap fodder, plus they could back up the Italian navy if need be.  They’ll probably be hanging out in the Med sea just to be safe anyway.  On top of that they “cheapen” the value of defending carriers and there is a chance they can hit transports before your airplanes can.  I don’t know how many opportunities in a game Germany could build subs, but the concept is nice