What happens to the planes if there is a naval battle between an aircraft carrier with planes on it and submarines. Submarines doing the attacking. And there is no adjacent territory for the planes to land on.
You just did a move that everyone DREAMS of doing at least once in thier life. If you can KAF as well, you can then retire from AA as there is no point on playing anymore as you are entering AA heaven.
I think the real question is how negligible is the difference both with and w/o NO’s
I think the problem with a 1939 varient is it would have to many special rules and seem almost too automatic for the 1st few turns to be any fun (for me at least).
That being said if you wanted to do it and avoid as many special rules as possible:
1)maybe have a 4th ally listed as “other allies”: It could represent France, Poland, Greece, The Dutch, Belgium, and Norway. They would probably only get 1 IC in france and you would expect them to fall fairly quick. If you wanted, you could probably just merge it all with the UK and still only have 1 IC on London.
2)Also, maybe other than a small force in the Phil and maybe a token pacific fleet, have the US wiped clean of any forceson the board
3) Make sure Germany and Russia cant reasonably attack eachother anywhere for 1 or 2 turns (except maybe fin/kar).
4) Make sure the Japanese have enough attacks to be obvious and attack to where they would roughly be by 41 (hong kong, dutch forces, chinese forces for example)
Off the top of my head that is the best I can think of without it becoming a “rules game” like the US can only attack odd number of territories if the Japanese player says “I’m a little teapot” 5 times fast and for three turns the US can lend X amount of dollars to nation X. All this and Germany gets to attack in a special (but loveable) way for 2 turns.
Factory in Australia
China got a capital and more units
USA got more ships in Pacific, and they are set up in central Pacific so its not easy to move them to Europe
I am in agreement, but I think it may be neccessary to have Japan be able to, at least in theory, be able to capture the Western US quickly if the US does nothing. The WUS should have the potential to fall quicker than Russia, if played carelessly.
I haven’t usually been building a German IC in my games, except occasionally in Egypt
(which I’m still not sure if it’s good or not), but what would you do on G2 if is is obvious that the Allies are going KJF? - i.e. Russia stacking Buryatia, moving inf to Chinghai and inf and arm to Persia, UK IC in India, all US air units which can reach to Australia, and US spending all IPCs in a Pacific navy.In this case, it seems that a German turn 2 IC would almost be a must, but where would the best location be? It seems that France would be best.
If it was obvious there was a KJF going on I don’t know if I would consider France as my first choice. I would think Poland, off the top of my head, because I can 1) still consider buying a navy in a KJF strat 2) most importantly it is closer to Russia, which I am guessing I want dead as quickly as possible. If you think you can kill Russia quicker via a french IC then I would do it. If Germany happened to own Egypt that would be something to consider as well, it can help w/ Italy, Japan, and pressure the Caucaus.
Never lose focus on killing Russia. At first at least. Don’t worry about losing your first few games, just see how much you can throw at Russia and get away with it. Then expand to other theatres you deem neccesary to achieve that goal. For example, it may be neccesary to allocate X amount of resources to Africa or France in order to keep your hopes alive for burying Russia. Also keep it in the back of your head that you now have the potential to double hit Russia with Italy/ Germany. Don’t try anything to “cute” or “novel” at first. The tricky stuff can come in later games.
This isn’t really a strat as much as it is a philosophy, but I hope that helps.
Perhaps a starting factory in India/ Aus, China as it’s own (minor) power, a decent amount of material for the US already positioned in the pacific. Add that to maybe Japan could pose a legit threat to WUSA by T2 or 3 if the US ignored it. I think that may add a more full pacific experience.
I’m trying to think of the appropriate ironic punishment your going to receive in hell for this.
I can see no way to add France, neutrals, and minor allies especially in a pre Soviet pre US set up with the game design and philosophy of AA. It would really be a boggled down game. Not only that you would have to set up Germany and Japan with either such an amazing head start in terms of equip, and somehow make the Allies strong enough to take it and then have the game even out at some point. Too difficult to do.
Also the game would be set up where France would HAVE TO fall, and probably some really boring other automatic moves for maybe even more than 2 turns. On top of that it could turn to a “special rules” type of game, that is something I would not be a fan of (at least not for AA). That’s my 2 cents
Wow this looks amazing, but it seems more like a set up for '39 or '40 right? It looks like the dutch/france are their own power along with Poland and china. I am still a little disapointed there is no Italy but it still looks like it could be a really fantastic game.
Oh what the hell, I have “praying hands” that when it is releasd it will be “the day my baby gave me a suprise”. Ok now I’m done, promise.
Look what the sub is. It has a giher attack and lower cost than a destroyer, Carrier, and a cruiser. Airplanes and subs not being able to hit each other can be a good thing (especially for Germany). A few subs for Germany can be an amazing thing as they are cheap (you can buy a sub once in awhile instead of a plane to save a few bucks) and hard to target, giving them free movement. They can get to transports quicker because they target ships only, and they can “cheapen” the value of a carrier dramaticaly. They act as a cheap piece of fodder and in the pacific especially are a great way to establish a zone of control. Subs are a very specialized unit that, if purchased correctly, are a good buy.
I don’t think there is enough to do for an Italian player. Truly they are at the mercy of the Germans in all aspects.
Russia is designed to operate on their own (and needs help from the allies but can operate without it) and even benefits from the lack of Allies on its native soil (national objective #1).
The Italians provide the benefit of being able to move after the British, however anyone would say (at least I think) the Italians would be far more effective if they could merge with the German forces and act as one nation (combats, purchases, shared IC’s etc). The separate power of Italy adds an interesting dynamic but overall I think weakens the German position as compared to Revised.
Some might argue that a beginning player should play Italy but I think you are doing them a diservice but not allowing them to deal with a full budget, or have their moves create meaningful situations.
warning: possible political incorrectness ahead!
As for a Chinese player, I would only have a stripper play China so after spending 2 minutes doing moves(maybe another 60 seconds explaining the rules and 60 seconds to actually do moves), she can get back to entertaining. Conversely, if the stripper is not appropriate maybe when the pizza guy delivers a pizza, you can have him do the moves. After turn 2, China is kind of silly (the nation in Axis and Allies, not the real world China or people of Chinese decent).
Personally I like the dynamic of Italy in the game (china too, for that matter). That being said I do think those that think Italy should be played with becoming a major force in mind are kidding themselves. I used to agree with you though that If Germany could just be united with Italy it would be a net gain for the axis. The only reason why I think that just is not the case anymore is the 1-2 punch and pressure on Russia. Russia can no longer leave a 1 inf guard to create a deadzone if Italy can even put up marginal pressure. I have found that with moderat pressure on Russia, the USSR can only defend 2 out of the 3 territories by t3 Cauc, Kar, Mos. One will have to fold. That alone makes me think the axis gain an advantage with Italy in the picture
@Imperious:
We are not men. We are Devo! …D-E-V-O
I guess you could say I just have a “Gut Feeling” about the game. OK I’m done with the DEVO references now, sorry to all the non Devo fans who had to deal with the god awful pun.
Think about it like this…
Every game Russia defends against Germany. It will counterattack here and there but the main emphasis is usually to stockpile infantry on the front lines and defend. Germany, in turn, endlessly sends units to attack and the result is usually a drawn out conflict until an ally helps.
Instead, Germany should play it as such…
Take the territories that will give it the national objective bonus (the eastern front territories) and then just stockpile infantry to defend them. Play against Russia the same way they typically play against Germany. Play defensively on this front. This may hold off any Russian attack since you’ll have a few extra IPCs to spare. Now focus all your might on UK. Sure, you may not be able to take the capital, but it diverts resources from the UK. These are vital resources that they need to build IC in India and Africa if they want a good chance to hold the territories. The UK will have to make a choice. Either defend the capital or defend Africa/India. The India/Africa region is more difficult for UK to defend than it is for Germany/Japan to attack. Several more senior posters have mentioned the ease at which Egypt can be taken by second turn (at worst) and India (second turn probable). If Germany is focusing 80% of its resources at UK, I don’t think UK can afford to split resources between capital, India, and Africa.
Even if you don’t or can’t take the capital, this is the opening that the Axis may need to wipe out Asia and Africa. Once you have control of both of those, it’s practically a lock for the Axis based on massive economic might.
The reason why Russia is being defensive is because a superior power is diverting a superior number of resources to her borders. If you don’t do this as Germany watch how offensive Russia will get.
Ask yourself this. Who would you rather have be more offensive to you, someone who has to spend massive amounts of their income just to land in your areas and is otherwise stuck and isolated, or someone who is on land right next door to you?
That being said, if you insist on a kill the UK first type of strategy, I would seriously start thinking about Italy actually being the major player in it. The navy is easier to protect, and you can work on building them up to a 20plus power. Just have German planes defend France/ pose a threa to the Royal fleet/ SBR London while you slowly build up Italy, and make sure Japan is keeping the US occupied while taking as many UK lands when it has the chance.
This may be one of the few times you would consider buying a German carrier, or maybe even a sub fleet, or something like that to really distract the UK fleet on T1 and T2 to keep them from thinking about Africa. And any move Japan makes it’s first 2 Turns, America would have to know it has to build in the Pacific or else Japan will attack Western US.
Has anyone tried to invade the UK first when playing as Germany? Most of the strategy (probably all) for Germany is to take Russia. More often than not, a Russian player eventually goes all defense and the game stalls until Japan, US, or UK makes a significant move. For this reason I was wondering if anyone has tried to take UK as soon as possible.
Here’s something to think about:
On G1, buy at least 2 transport along with artillery/infantry with remainder. Wipe out the UK water fleet around UK and place transports in sea zone north of Germany. The UK player has to make a decision now…
1. Build more naval and land units in UK to defend the invasion
2. Build IC in India to defend those territoriesIf UK opts to defend the mainland, Japan should be able to easily take India. No IC in India means an easy target for Japan and other posters have shown how India is tough to hold if Japan goes all out at taking it. In this case, the German purchase isn’t entirely lost. The infantry and artillery will still be useful against Russia. At worst, two transports worth of money was lost.
Thoughts?
This wont work, either in 41 or 42.
In both, UK has 2 fighters and 1 Bomber (10). Germany in 41 has a cruiser and sub (3) and cruiser, DD and sub (5) in 42. Since the sub is useless, the air power kills the cruiser and/or DD, then wipes the three transports. You just wasted 14 IPC.
This was a viable tactic in Revised (where the transports shot back and the subs were useful as fodder). That no longer applies.
In revised you could afford to get a little cute with Germany for a Kill UK 1st policy. Hell all you had to do was buy 1 or 2 transports (w/ no CV even) T1 and the UK was already in a tight spot. But transports having no combat value or even fodder value, mixed with no way to produce navy in the MED, has put a severe limit on German naval options in the beggining of the game. Bottom line, if it is the UK you fear cripple it to the point of irrelevance. Leave the taking of a capital to fall on the USSR, or if you want to try something different the USA. England is just not practicle and darn near impossable for a beggining game type strat at least.
I think the better, easier option would be to make the UK irrelevant by taking away most of her IPC’s and maybe bombing it if you want. Taking London is no easy feat. I think Killing the US first would probably be easier than Britain in this version.
Ok what are things you can do in a seven player game if you get shafted being China? So far the best thing I can think of is everythime someone makes a mistake with one of the other nations say “that’s not what I would have done”. Or turn it into a drinking game, everytime China loses a territory take a shot.
Is it a 1 vs 1 game? Or are all nations played by individuals, without discussion about strategies?
Our group usually consists of 5 players (German player gets Italy), and we usually agree on no discussion amongst eachother about strategies. So sometimes stuff like you just described happens spontanously, and then it’s awesome indeed.
Sadly, more often it results in name swearing amongst eachother :P
Assuming no one gets in a fist fight (and probably usually teamate against teamate) that would be fun as hell. But doesn’t that REALLY favour the axis, componded even more that Germany controls Italy? Either way it would be fun to sit back and watch chaos ensue.
Not for AA50, but I think a 2nd IC for the UK may help somewhat, along with a weak but fully independant China for the next version (whenever that may be). I think the set up would have to work something like, that maybe if one theater collapses (other than maybe Africa) a victory is almost inevitable. So if Japan busts out of Asia there would be little prospect for an allied victory.
@Imperious:
I just have a feeling it is going to feel like devolution.
Well Devo was not that bad after all. :-D
Devo are my dudes, hey maybe this won’t be such a bad version after all since you put it that way