Posts made by eddiem4145

The ultimate point in comparing the amount of resources needed to build a navy versus land units, is that it takes so many resources to build a navy, that the amount of material that can be purchased in ground units for the same amount can achieve so much more, especially for Japan.

Of course the US has to build a Navy for the ATlantic, but trying to build a Navy for both the Pacific and Atlantic is inefficient.

The optimal strategy for both the US and Japan is to play defensive in the Pacific in large part because Navy’s are so expensive compared to land units.

OK everyone, I am primarily talking about Pacific Action.

I thought it went without saying the US absolutely must spend a Navy to protect thier transports.

Yes Japan of course needs more transports and it has to take the DEI. I thought I made that clear.

The point is that for Japan to invest heavily in a Navy beyond what it has already in any response to a US naval campaign would be inefficient. It is stragtegically efficient to play purely defensive at this point, forcing the US to spend much greater resources in mounting a naval offensive. The optimal stategy at this point would be to focus on what brings the greatest reward for what you spend, the conquering of land units and land territory not requiring Naval units. 
      -So if Japan can launch a major offensive against Anzac without having to spend major resources on Naval units, that might be an efficient option. But if the US spends huge resources to try and stop it, it would then be more efficient for Japan to focus elsewhere, only buying what is necessary to defend the DEI and its homeland. Mininmal Naval purchases.

If you are the US, mounting any kind of major Naval campaign in the Pacific where the rewards are either very slim or very far away takes away from the Atlantic where the rewards are higher.

So the efficient option becomes scarce Pacific action.

Solution=  Transports $4 (after all they are defenseless)
              Subs        $6
              Destroyers $8 (should only be bought for defense against subs)
              Cruisers    $10 (this should be the work horse of the sea)
              Battleships $16

Carriers      $13
              Fighters    $8 (this also makes them better use as defense against the new better bombers)

In addition= The technology of Improved Shipyards should lower it even more
              Transports $3 (after all they are defenseless)
              Subs        $5
              Destroyers $7 (should only be bought for defense against subs)
              Cruisers    $8 (this should be the work horse of the sea)
              Battleships $13
              Carriers    $10

This would encourage more realistic naval operations that are done out of strategic efficiency versus purely entertaining play. It would be great to combine the two.

Is there any support out there for this idea. Maybe this could be part of a version 3.

All major Pacific naval engagements are inefficient and are done for the sake of the experience and not for the sake of efficient stragety.

I am not talking about using your current navy’s, but wasting resources to buy new navy’s at the cost of land units to support other ground theatre of operations.

Japan-has a great enough navy to do what it needs. If it is forced invest heavily in a navy to engage in a take over of Anzac or challenge the US, there best bet is to play purely defensive, minimal buys as absolutely necessary to fend off invasions of the DEI and focus all they can on land troops that have more immediate payoffs.

US-Any major offensives in the Pacific come at a massive cost to what could be achieve against Germany. There is not enough satisfactory targets in the Pacific worth taking. The targets that are worth taking are so far off, that the investment required to match Japans build, is so large, what you have to sacrifice in possible gains in Europe is not worth it. Again, the naval builds worth buying are those absolutely necessary.

The Problem- 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Planes, 1 Destroyer= 8 infantry and 8 destroyers.

1.) Japan attacks UK and ANZAC. Does that bring US into war. Please show where in the rule book it states this.
2.) Strategic Bombing. Do strategic bombers and tactical bombers get a shot during air to air combat.

Official Answers Please.

Eddie Moreno

American Neutrality and Japan

If Japan attacks the UK (pacific), ANZAC, or French Indo China, does that bring the US into the war

If Japan attacks the Britain, Anzac, French Indo China while France is still with its capital, does that affect USA nuetrality

Lastly,

The game was not designed to be played exactly how the real war went. Read the introductions to every game version and you will see that. But it was designed to represent a specific period in time, but now you are in charge. There was a point in History, sometime between 1939 and 1940 where the Axis had a decent chance of winning. If the fix makes it more complicated or twists history in a ridiculous way, it ruins the experience.

Axis and allies is about enjoying History and reliving it, otherwise it is not Axis and Allies.

And Japan marching on Moscow was always utterly ridiculous.

These changes “Jennifer” would obviously have to be offset by, In the Pacific Game, give the US much less IPC’s. Dare I say and equivalent amount of what they really spent against the Japanese. Until Germany fell, only 10% of the US resources went against the Japanese. But they had to devote some resources. They had to defend Australia. That what the battle of Guadalcanal was all about.

In the “Global Game”, give the Germans what they deserve. A chance to have a somewhat successful battle of the Atlantic. Either start the US with less troops so it takes them longer to build up, make German subs cheaper than other nations subs, or give the US its extra war time IPC’s over several turns instead of all at once. That would be more realistic.

I have not followed this discussion for a while but I read some. I would like a few of you to comment on this point.

Withou first fixing the historical accuracy, then making a level playing field, you are ruining a game that is rich in history, almost 30 years worth. How many of you out there don’t care if this game has anything to do with WW2. Because another easy fix would be to give the Italians a massive navy parked right off the coast of the USA forcing them fend off a pending invasion of Washington.

The objective of any great game is to keep it as exciting as possible while keeping it simple. The changes I have read about, the Alpha 2 changes are the opposite of keeping it simple.

For balance, simplicity, and accuracy, the Chinese should be much stronger, the Japanese much weaker, but enough of a navy to take Australia, DEI, and even Hawaii if the USA ignores it, with Australia and Hawaii being much bigger prizes that would then make Japan a power house. SIMPLE NO’s like an IPC penaly for losing Hawaii, representing a huge morale loss among the American people, and New Zeland just being a much bigger prize.

But underlying all of this is the biggest problem of every AA game that has ever been produced, wich is, Navy’s take way to much of your production to make any naval actions worth taking unless you absolutely have too. Way too much. You sacrifice much better opportunityelswhere

I have yet to play global, put played pacific extensively, and have been playing europe a lot. Does the Global game change it that much to the point it has nothing to do with WW2. Because if America goes all out Pacific, then there must be some serious changes to Germany wich makes them so weak, it would be more like Germany in WW1 fighting Russia and the UK in WW2. If the European theatre is remotes simialar, there is no way Germany would not knock out the Russians without some serious help from America

Without being sarcastic, I think they should make Germany weaker because if the US ignores them and goes all out against Japan, by the time they took it Germany would be too strong.

Clearly we can see that makes no sense. Your logic is right from the perspective, lets make the game more balanced. From that point of view we could just give Germany a bigger army and start them out with Eqypt with a complex. For those who think the Allies are to strong that would certainly make it more balanced. But then it wouldn’t be World War 2 in 1940. It would be something else.

My point is the fact that AA was meant to be a game of what could have been, but to start it at a point of historical accuracy and make the possibilities, like techs, within the realm of plausible during that time era with what was going on during that time.

The problem of balance should be solved with in a starting point of historical accuracy. Japan rolling over China is crazy. Hitler indeed almost took Moscow and could have had he not made some blunders. Had he not impeded some of his wonder weapon research  toward the middle part of the war due to his arrogance of “providence” he could have developed jets sooner. The battle of the atlantic could have given him victory if the US entry into the war was delayed. These are real possibilities. Had he prepared for the winter, and the US delayed its entry, his Spring  1942 could  have been much more successful. Germany not wasting so  much of his resources on Sea Lion could have been sent to N. AFrica. Sea Lion had a 40% chance of suceeding.

The answer of balance should be kept within the historical accuracy of the time.

Just a clarification. I don’t think Japan is so strong as they roll over China way to easy.

And instead of coming up with so many NO’s that you have to keep track of, just fix the problem. Ships way too expensive, China way to weak, and if that makes Germany to weak, more techs for Germany. The idea of makeing Japan stronger and keeping China weak for balance is makin the game not a WW2 game that starts in 1940 but a WW2 like game on earth from a different dimension.

I have waited decades (20) years for AA to fix these problems. Since the very first edition. They improve them so little but they don’t fix the problem.

I haven’t played the global yet Jennifer, but AAP40, many times. I think it has been well established that AAP is way out of wack because the Japs are way to strong. In other words, they attack turn 1, and soon China is gone and they out IPC the US. This is well established.

The simple point is this. The biggest problems of the game still have not been fixed. I have been playing axis for over 20 years and it kills me the problems are still not fixed. Slightly improved but not fixed.

The same complaint of every axis games has always been the unrealistic nature of how the war is conducted. I understand the idea of axis being a “what if” game. But it has to start form a point of historical accuracy.

Jennifer: Your point about going after China and US getting to strong does not matter. They should just pile on Germany and Japan should just go after Russia. The NO change that but why create NO’s that make the game more complicated than just fixing the problem.

China is to weak and ships cost way to much money. That has always been the ever eternal problem. The lack of action in the pacific is just that.

The axis should be disadvantaged but not to much. Bidding is a tool to make it even, not change the game and a choice among expert players who don’t make mistakes to see who is better. Otherwise the main state of play should be, "If I was hitler and didn’t make his mistakes, could I do it. There are enough variables, territories, luck of the die, to keep the global game from becoming a cookie cutter formula like the other AA games have been. It plays more like chess now then checkers. Many of the beggining moves are standard, but the middle game and end game are all up to individual strategy.

The US spent near 90% of its resources killing Germany because Japan got bogged down in China so forcing them to split thier income is not realistic or historical. UK could not instantly ship thier Pacific resources to Europe like the US could from the pacific to the atlantic. Japan’s alternative, hold of on attacking the US. That should be the option.  Japan should not be such a major threat but a distraction to the US to take pressure off of Germany. Australia should be a much much bigger prize if captured. If Wester US is taken even for 1 turn, it should be a massive penalty for US.

Technology should be improved and should be the key to German success.

Just fix the problem. Make ships much cheaper, make China stronger, create more techs for Germans. Problem solved. Done

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Are you kidding me. Nothing has been done to fix the biggest problem that every version of AA has had. China is way to weak. Just way to weak. I have played AAP and the China thing is absolutely ridiculous.

The attempt to fix the 2nd biggest problem (no action in the pacific) is to come up with all these crazy NO’s, which I don’t necessarily disagree with, to force action in the pacific.

Why not just fix the root of the problem. China can only purchase men, maybe artillery, make them cost only $2, start them off with more infantry and bring down the cost of navy ships so they do not eat up such a huge part of you money. Lets see. Purchase 4 tanks to invade Russia or one battleship that wil see no action if the US retreats. If aircraft are $10, Subs should only be $5, $4 for the Germans, transports $4 especially since they can’t defend, destroyers $7-it should not be a ship of choice, but an expensive forced buy to counter submarines, cruisers $9-less than a plane not more, why would you make them more expensive yet much weaker, yet confined to only sea battles, battleships $16 but allow them to transport men and material that can offload to transports, or unloand only on friendly territories. Maybe someone will buy them. They did have some use you know, may not ship of choice, Aircraft carrier $10. That makes 2 planes and one carrier a weaker attack value than 1 battleship and 1 cruiser for what you spend but a better defense value.

The main point is that when buying fleets eats up too much of your income when you can use that income to a greater effort for a greater return, you don’t buy fleets.

More technology would also be great like radar and counter radar for subs. Make destroyers find subs when by themsleves.

I have checked the axisandallies.com website. I did not see anything new about a new edition for global. Is this a house rule thing created by members or something official. where are the new rules and where can I get the new rules.

I want information. Information as to why or where the rule came from and information I do not already know as to what would make it impossible, unlikely, or overly dangerous to fly over the sahara. If there is no info to give, then oh well. My supposedly frustration, (remember, its written, you can’t see my emotions or facial expressions) is from people giving house rules as suppose to the info i was requesting, that is all

I think the point of this post, my post, is to establish why there should be any restrictions whatsoever. I started the post. There should be none. The other point is to learn something I did not already now. The greatest points to somewhat counter my arguement that would make some sense, came from ME.

IL’s points are basically, “Thats how Larry wanted it”. Perhaps he is completely right but please everyone, stop suggesting house rules for something that doesn’t make sense. Either you can fly over a wasteland of sand, or you can’t. Either the Sahara has massive sand storms that reach 20,000 feet into the sky, or they don’t. Even if they did, there are lighting storms over every part of the earth that take down planes yet we don’t roll to see if a storm takes down you plane.

Also, the bermuda triangle is so small relative to where you want to travel, it would not effect your time travel in AA. Pointless rule.