Posts made by drummerinheat

Thanks Nippon.  Does this seem to help Italy much?  I feel like this move really gives the UK a headache.  Taking out that cruiser robs a fighter from Taranto in order to hit the Italian Destroyer (it also removes a blocker in that SZ so Italy could potentially hit Egypt) and the fighter in Tobruk makes the UK attack on Tobruk very sub par unless they bring in air support.

It’s not the two units that India would be missing.  It’s the 4 ipcs not received from Java because you no longer have a transport.  I understand both arguments, though.  UK’s options in the Indian Ocean are interesting.

I’ve been working on a new German Opener and I wanted the community’s feed back on it.

My standard opener is very similar to YG’s Sealion feint.  Buy Carrier and 2trans, attacking overwhelmingly in 110, 111, and taking my 50/50 shot in 106.  Hit Normandy with 2inf 2art, every other land unit that can reach Paris, and a Yugo strafe.  I really want Yugo in the hands of the Italians because it’s very standard for UK opponent to Taranto and attack Tobruk.  That is so disappointing for me because i find the Med to be super fun!

My new strategy is as follows.  Purchase 5 Subs. 
Atlantic: 2 subs to 106, 2 subs to 91, 1 Sub/1 Bomber/2 Fighters/2 Tacs Sz109, Battleship/1 Bomb/2 Fighters/1 Tac Sz111 (retreat after round 1 if i did not get it all).
Europe: 2inf/1Art/German Tac Normandy, all available land units Paris, 6inf/2art (GSG)/1 inf (Romania)/3 Tanks Yugo Strafe.

Non Com move unused Tac to Rome and unused Fighter to Tobruk.

I feel that if i remove all British destroyer threats in the Atlantic round 1, the subs and Fighters are safe to mop up the rest of the Atlantic and convoy England.  Removing that Cruiser in 91 and re-enforcing Tobruk/Rome with air will give the Italians a fighting chance, or at least make the English player very torn in its decision making in the Med.  Ideally i would like to just strafe Sz111.  Get just 3 hits and retreat to 112.  Combine with the cruiser and transport plus all 5 subs and a scramble.  This leaves all 3 German options open and viable (Sealion, Barbarossa, Sonnenblume).

Just looking for a fresh perspective to see If I’ve got delusions of grandeur on this strategy.

I believe i read the poll question correctly YG  :wink:  The additional 4 unit bonus from liberating Paris is the only extra French units i’ve used in the OOB set up.  Oztea’s 1941 asks for a bit more, which is fun, but obviously for a mod.  Your purchases will be more than adequate IMO.  The real question I want to know is…what’s this new UK Pacific Nation you speak of??  Excited to hear about that!

In the few competitive games I’ve played I bought the standard Carrier & 2 Transports.  The mistake I made is not keeping my German fleet together to complete one task.  I took Gib with part of it and tried to attack Leningrad with the rest.  Silly mistakes.  It needs to stay together and either complete a SeaLion, take Gib/help in Med, or attack Leningrad.

Now if only I could figure out a way to get the Axis in to the Mid east.

I have built an airbase on Malta in the past.  That way, if spending in the pacific is needed more for the late game, you can fly 2 or fighters over from US/UK in 3 turns (Factory to Gib, to Malta, to Stalnigrad).  I used it once to secure Stalingrad.  Don’t know if it can be used all the time though.

A&A board members, new and veteran alike,

Im sure by now a few of you feel like this thread is kicking a dead horse.  Coming from someone who is relatively new to the game and the boards (just about a year), some of these thread ideas are new to me.  I appreciate all of them.  I know that the veterans feel that the game is slanted towards the Axis.  Me personally, in my relatively small sample size, I have never won or seen the axis win.  That doesn’t mean I’m right or wrong, all it means is that’s my perspective.  I love to hear everyone’s perspective.

This board and it’s members have been SOOO helpful to me!  It’s a great community.  When I see the arguments, it bums me out a bit.  We can be better.  I know it.

@teslas:

I can’t espouse the virtues of 1 Russian fighter per turn after R4 (literally), but the idea that Russia should make sure Germany is only making one territory per turn’s worth of progress is the entire idea of the eastern front for the allies. If you can cause Germany to not advance at all for a turn, that’s fantastic. Trying to keep them from that pivotal point of Rostov/Bryansk as long as you practically and safely can is the game.

The statement that seven rounds for 18 Russians = free hold of Moscow, however, is not correct. Germany can still take Moscow after the 18 dudes show up, though it usually slows them down by at least a couple of rounds (while they make any available grabs at the caucasus etc). With a good Italian can-opener, those 20 dudes (including AA) may only be one round of extra time for Moscow.

That being said I nearly always take those 18 ruskies back home.

Thanks for the reply, Teslas.  You are correct about the axis taking Moscow.  I just meant that if played well, by the 8th or 9th turn (hypothetically when Moscow will fall against max pressure) the allies are in place to take back Paris, Cairo, or Leningrad/Stalingrad.

The allies are not the lost cause some make them out to be.  They are the more difficult of the 2 powers because they take time, planning, and cooperation.  That can be very difficult or a headache for the player that isn’t familiar with the map or game mechanics.  The USA must plan ahead 3 turns in both the Atlantic and the Pacific when it comes to Navy.  That’s really tough to plan ahead if one doesn’t grasp how the Axis win.

It’s a way of thinking in the Pacific that makes things difficult. As players of the game, we think in terms of conquering territory.  IMO the key to winning in the Pacific is to stop the final victory city from falling (usually Hawaii/Sydney).  It’s all chess.  The allies don’t have to take anything. The Japanese need to.  The allies just have to work together to pester Japan.  Take an island, kill stray blockers and unprotected/under protected transports.  Just like the USA can NOT take on both the Atlantic and Pacific evenly, Japan can NOT take on China, USA, UK, and ANZAC evenly.

As for the Atlantic side, Russia needs to keep Germany to taking just 1 territory at a time.  Counter attack under defended territories.  Buy 1 fighter per round after round 4 to help counter attack.  Stop the blitz into Russia.  Delay 7 rounds and you get 18 free infantry from the East.  If they make it back, it’s almost impossible for the Germans to take Moscow.  While Russia delays, open up a 2nd front with UK and USA.  Germany and Italy can NOT fight a 2 front war.

These ideas are basic, but take long term planning.  IMO that’s what makes the Allies harder to play.

IMO there is no specific territory to focus on.  The USA (and it’s minor allies) need to stop Japan from taking the final victory city in the Pacific (if you play for VC’s).  That includes snatching islands, taking out unprotected or under protected transports, blocking, destroyer/sub trading.  It’s a game of patience and chess in the Pacific.

How many people are in your play group?

Having Germany and Japan go at the same time helps speed things up unless Russia wants to harass Japan or vice versa.  If you have enough players to split UK, you can give the UK EUROPE player control of the Atlantic American buy.  Let them decide how much to spend and the you can do the 4 allies all at the same time.  I also recommend splitting the Allied players into playing 1 side of the map.  Easier to keep track of if u have enough players.

It runs smooth like this - Germany (Russia far east) Japan. After Germany finishes, Russia goes.

Usa/China
UK
Italy/ANZAC (Germany and Japan start purchases)
France/start the next turn

Young grasshopper has a house rule victory objective rather than capital capture.  The link is here https://youtu.be/Nwre-atUsK4

Iwo, if u can take it, is inconvenient for Japan to take back.  Hard to nab and keep mainland territories.  I would be more focused on the Japanese fleet than SBRs on Tokyo, but if the opportunity presents itself, doesn’t hurt to try.

@Young:

@taamvan:

I have people in my life telling me regularly that my entire gaming hobby is a waste of time… what do you suggest I tell them?

I used to get defensive or vague about my love for A&A.  I just drove 20 hours (round trip) to Tennessee to play and it was amazing.  Now that im back, when people ask why, I smile and say “I love it.”  YG, all of your contributions have been nothing but helpful to me.  I started playing global by myself in February and came home with a trophy this past Monday.  Don’t let anyone ruin your happiness.

Does the blue color for the oceans match?  My Pacific side is a liter or more faded blue than the Europe side.  Even the replacement was off colored.

@innocentbystander:

In the two Allied victories, The Italians sent EVERYTHING they had at the malta fleet of UK Carrier, 2 fighters, 2 cruisers 1 dd, and 1 transport.

First game, they retreated after one round losing ONLY 2 empty Italian transports and the sub, but destroyed the UK transport, dd, and carrier (planes landed safely in malta.)  Built transport.  France moved their two ships to 92.  UK-2, finished Italians in Libya (had total control of Africa), UK moved their two cruisers to 92, flew bother fighters and tac bomber in Malta to Gibraltar, build airbase in Gibraltar and just “sat there” for the next 2 turns.  Italy never tried to attack it (never enough ships and planes.)  Germany was never in position with the Luftwaffe to attack it until Ger-4, and by then, the US was getting ready to move to the Med.  Italy never got any objective bonuses, Egypt never fell (always had far too many pieces), and the Middle East was never threatened.  Italy finished the game with an intact BB in defeat.

Transports cannot be taken as battle casualties before other units, filled or empty.  They are the last casualty selection of battle.  It seems, based on your sample size, that defend is a workable strategy.  The only difference is the Taranto raid sort of forces Germany to send air turn 2.  All of this helps side track Germany a bit which is a good thing for the allies.

By ipc tokens do you mean territory control markers? I picked up extra ANZAC & Italian tokens in case I wanted to play with some dif house rules.  I also prefer the chips for 1942 2nd ed.  I use the starting chips from that game and 2 supplemental packages from hbg.  I also use an American fighter from 1941 for the Flying tiger piece in china.  But honestly, the initial pieces they give you from both 1940 Euro/Pac is enough.  Maybe some more dice.  That’s about all IMO

Yeah, Dan Carlin spoiled it all by being an excellent story teller.  If you get a chance, Ghosts of the Ostfront is worth every penny!

Any recommendations for WW2 books on tape?  I have long hours of mowing grass where podcasts have been great.  Really enjoyed Dan Carlin’s “Blueprint for Armageddon” (World War 1), “Wrath of the Khan’s” (History of the Khan Dynasty), and “Ghosts of the Ostfront” (WW2 Eastern Front).  I started listening to a guy named Ray Harris Jr. who does his own WW2 podcast, but it’s pretty dry.

I was hoping for an excellent WW2 book that goes a bit beyond the basics.  Thanks everyone!

@CWO:

@drummerinheat:

Since cruisers were technically the fastest of ships

Not really.  Speaking in very general terms (because there was a lot of variation from nany to navy), destroyers tended to be faster than cruisers.  Fleet carriers were usually quite fast too, since their high speed (combined with the technique of steering into the wind) facilitated plane launches.  And America’s 33-knot Iowa-class battleships were exceptionally fast (and agile) by battleship standards.  Cruisers (the main types being 8-inch gun heavy, 6-inch gun light and 5-inch gun anti-aircraft cruisers) we basically intended to be good all-around combat ships: they had a long-range cruising radius (like battleships and carriers; destroyers were notorious fuel hogs when operating at high speed, and their small size meant that they had relatively small fuel tanks); they had decent armour protection (less than battleships, but better than carriers (which had little) and destroyers (which had none)); and they had good firepower (especially the 8-inch ones, though of course this was much less than 14-, 15-, 16- and 18-inch battleships).  They were also considerably cheaper than battleships (especially the 6-inch and 5-inch ones), both in terms of construction costs and operating costs (due to the smaller crew size), though of course much more expensive than destroyers (which in any case served a very different role, primarily as escort vessels, anti-submarine platforms and as oversized torpedo boats).

My mistake.  I had been watching WW2 docs and it had mentioned that Cruisers were generally the fastest ships.  Should have done more research.

Maybe a combo idea could work.  Like with land units (Art/Inf, Arm/Mech, Arm/Tac etc).  CWO Mark, what ships would/could cruisers combo with historically speaking?  Maybe it gets AA shot/or hits at a 4 if combined with carrier or battleship?

It seems to be agreed on the forums that cruisers aren’t worth purchasing.  Since cruisers were technically the fastest of ships, what if they had movement of 3 from any space regardless of naval base?  Would that change your mind on purchasing? I think it would for me.