Posts made by eddiem4145

About the impassible part as far as ground units go, I imagine the historical pass did not cross the Sahara due to its terrain being to hard to fight in.

With my experience in Iraq, I can say that vehicle maintenance and weapon maintenance was horrific. As long as we cleaned out air filters and cleaned our weapons daily it did not hamper the mission. Of course if we ever had to do battle just after a sand storm, who knows. I was part of the second wave and spoke to soldiers who indeed had to fight in sand storms. It was difficult.

I can only imagine the Sahara being much worse and vehicles being more prone to breaking down in those days, so I imagine both sides just decided not to fight in the Sahara or try to out flank each other by traveling through it.

In my current game

German subs just west of Denmark, UK sends destroyer into territory. Does not attack. Only intends to keep them from moving through, the idea, subs must attack UK destroyer keeping them in the sea zone/

So on Germany’s turn, they start their turn with their subs sharing a sea zone with destroyer. According to the rules, referencing capital ships, they can move out of the territory without combat on thier combat move and attack something else. Can the subs do this???

I am assuming IL is injecting some sort of humor.

I have seen and been in the midst of sand storms in Iraq. They look menacing from afar and can engulf you much like what appears in the 911 videos after the collapse. But I have never seen on go so high that planes cannot fly over them. Again I have no idea how high these planes of the day actually flew except through my perception of videos I have seen, but my sense is that they could easliy fly over them.

In terms of nowhere to land south of that, well in the rules of the game, planes can do percisely just that, is land just south of the Sahara???. I can see no being able to land in the Sahara, but we are talking about flying over it.

Again, I am not an expert on aircraft capability. I only know of various aircrafts and some of there fights and actual flights. Stuff from the Histroy channel and stuff. Also some videos on specific aircrafts.

1.) HEAT The Sahara is not any hotter than many other regions that run along the tropic of cancer which is the hottest region in general across the globe due to the angle in which the sun rays hits it during the Northern Hemispheres summer, or the tropic of capicorn during the Southern Hemispheres summer. As a vetern of Iraq, I will tell you that I was in a maximum of 140 degree heat with kevalar, body armor thicker and heavier than anything in world war 2 and sat in an all metal humvee. I am sure the aircraft of the day had air conditioning due to the fragile instruments. If it didn’t, there are many other regions just as hot that does not have unpassable regions.

2.) I have a lot of experience having to due a lot of maintanence of equipement due to sand. But sandstorms on the the ground. They cover some sky, but common, “have I heard”, how about you obviously have not heard. Sand storms are not as bad 20,000 feet or so in the air. Again, I have no idea at this point how high the normal fighters of the day flew but the premise of my discussion was to find out something new from someone I may be overlooking, not something off the top of your head that seems to make some sense.

1 more thing. Just from reading past posts on triple A and looking it up online, it seemed the graphics really stunk and I read complaints about bugs. Those options you mentioned seemed interesting. I play by email on GTO. What is the difference.

Well I must say, there have been some great points.

1.) AA42 on line-never really realized axisandallies.com took me to the gametableonline website. I activated AARevised. I don’t remember paying $15. When AA42 came out, started right away with only 3 coins per game. No extra money. Maybe I got lucky.

2.) On victory cities, if the last post of cities is correct, not like the other one which I think included Moscow, as long as holding Rome, (which would seem really hard to me), the I guess the Pacific strategy might work, but don’t you then have to set the victory city setting to enable that strategy to work or is AA42 automatically set at a specific number. I get confused on which rule applies to which game.

The sub and bomber stragety, (spending some money on a offense against Japan) sounds feasable. Would like to have it used against me. So I won’t pooh pooh it.

3.) I just may forgoe the idea of an IC on South Africa, but then again, in AA42 have not been able to use it. Haven’t had too. But it Germany ever makes good headway on Eqypt and keeps it, may try just retaking it from Morocco. Though my first thought is, that lets Germany run rampant for a while giving it extra IPC’s, I can see how the extra Navy, now that it is cheaper, can result in greater damage on Germany in Europe. Will have to see in AA42 but will try it.

Still think an all out offensive on Japan is to risky, but if your good, I denifitely see it as a much more unique more interesting game. May try it for fun sometime.

First the website.

1.) It actually axisandallies.com. On the main page they offer, “play axis and allies”. Takes you to a Wizards of the Coast thing. You pay coins to activate the game and play. 3 coins per game. Graphics are exactly like the real thing. They just added AA42. I am playing 5 different games by email at once. My first 5. Playing joint games.

2.) IC in S. Africa. In revised a must when Germany had 9 bid and put it all on Africa. That was it’s only purpose. Not saying there is another way to retake Africa. In AA42 still figuring it out.

3.) The post about victory cities was really strange. The victory city strategy doesn’t exist for the Alllies. You have to utterly destroy both enemies to get that advantage. The game is over way before that condition would ever be met. Unless you are playing someone who like to play to the death.

Sorry, 1 more thing,

I play on Axis.com. It is exactly, exactly like the board game. Graphics everything. They just added AA42 which is what I just switched to.

I have not heard many good things about triple A, graphics and such. You do have to buy some coins though, very cheap. Again, exactly like the board game. Quick, no bugs, timer options, ect… All pacific strategy guys, send me a challenge.

Eddie

I can see how AA42 makes this stragety a little harder with transport being defensless, but not enough to make this stragety still not the best to execute. But I do leave plenty of room to acknowledge it may not be the near gauranteed win it was before.

But it still sounds crazy to me to do a US all out navy assault, unless again, the axis first moves allows it. Then you just have to remember never to make those opening moves.

Agreed on the Nauseam part. In the end I just started playing AA1942 from AA Revised. But straight out, in the 20 years of playin axis and the 100 some odd games via board game and the last year on the AA.com website, without a German bid, it is extremely easy for the US and UK to knock out Germany.

Strtegy.

UK takes troops from UK and retakes Eqypt. Builds IC in Africa just in case (many times not necessary but a chance). UK and US land on N. Africa first turn. After that, all US builds transports move to N. Canada. All US land buys go to N. Canada. Every turn US has choice, land on Norway, build IC, land on Western US. At that point every turn US can land troops by US3, just has to place transports right. Depending on Germany’s actions with fighters, US and UK navy’s are safe in sea zone next to Morocco and sea zone north of Norway. If Germany does the exact right thing, they can force US and UK to put navy’s together and operate in unicent. That of course is the difficult part, to time it all just right. But when you are playing the allies yourself, it is not hard to do it just right. Of course there are always room for mistakes, but without them, it is a gauranteed KGF winner. Whatever the Germans do to mess this up, the US and UK can easily counter allowing them to be delayed, However

Whatever the Germans do to delay the UK US, gives the Russians breathing room that result in only holding off the inevitable.

Again, there is room for mistakes where the Germans pull something that is hard to see then surprise, but that is what it takes.

One more thing I will agree with. Since these stargeties have not been successful in all experience AA games for the last 20 years, hence never or hardly used, with the new AA1942, I can see how Japan would respond in a tragic way. Like building subs to counter when they now only defend on a 1, or buildling all bombers to sink the navy thinking they will then fly to russia,(which may still work because if all you do is stalemate the US, Japan instantly can deploy those forces to where they need them, which could be over a hundred dollars of air power if the stalemate went long enough while the US is stuck with a naval fleet). The point is I can see how not knowing how to react could make the difference. But in the end the ability to spend $1 to defend verus the $1.7 to attack ratio gives way to much room and time for the Germans. The game is still unfortuneately unbalances towards the European theatre.

It like chess for those who play it and know it well. The move where you take out your bishop quickly and end the game in a few moves. Once the opposing player recognizes that move and sees it coming, it is too easy to stop it, then you find yourself with a disadvantage because you have given up a more superior setup to get that bishop out.

Anyone willing to challenge me with this strategy, I would love to see. Even if you got me the first, maybe the second, after that it would be useless.

This all sounds so crazy to me and seem so given.

First, What does imho mean

Second, the retort against my “it takes a poorly played japan to work” with “Actually, it takes a poorly played US for it not to work”, sounds to me like “I know what you are but what am I”. (I say that with humor).

Third, I suppose that with some of the points made regarding the subtle changes of AARevised and AA1942, it makes it easier for the US to do some real damage, I am sorry but if there is not an all out offensive against Germany, and they seem stronger now, your best chance at this strategy is a stalemate.

Fourth, the idea that it might work depending on what Japan does on the first turn is valid, but if a Japanese player knows the consequences of letting an IC in China, there first move should always be to prevent it. Take Sinkiang always. If not, then what you have is a poorly played Japan.

Fifth, I will ammend my arguement that it doesn’t just take a poorly played Japan. It would take at least a poorly played Japan or Germany who would not exploit the fact the US is in the Pacific. The recommended buys for the US I have red to me are crazy. Spending in the range of 2 full turns of Navy. Germany would go wild on Russia or Africa or both. Especially if Germany has a bid.

Just sounds all so crazy to me. I would love to play with someone who would try that stragety on me. Even more so giving  Germany a decent 4 IPC bid.

I must admit, I have only recently started AA1942. I have bee playing the Revised. I am in the 5 or 6th game. I have only had 1 game where anyone has tried anything along the lines of a naval attack by the US. I let them come to me, ignored any expansions into Australia, then wiped them out.

Any strategy regarding the US mounting anything on Japan with ships is an automatic loser. Even if I didn’t wipe them out and just held them off with planes, even losing an island or two, for every $1 spent, they would have to spend $2. In the end, I can shift my fighters to the front lines quickly. The US can’t, and they are likely to be left with very expensive ships that can do nothing for them. You really have to have a poorly played Japan for this to work. The US navy has to be used against German operations.

As far as an IC in Sinkiang, if you could hold it, but you can’t. Not unless the Russians give up the high IPC territiories even faster to the Germans. I suppose if Japan made some early mistakes, (hence a poorly played Japan) or got really unlucky with their roles.

But believe me, twenty years of AA and the basics have not changed. Though I have only played 6 games or 1942, the changes in the game are very minor. Maybe in the Historical edition or the Global game such a strategy would work.

When the French have fallen but their troops are still running around.

1.) When they take over Italian territiories, can the UK then take it for themselves if French move out.

2.) When US lands in Morrocco, can they take the French territiory if it was not first taken by Italy.

Nuts!!!

Anykind of resources spent on Japan, other then keeping them from running AMOK in Alaska or Western US is pointless. KGF has to, and has always been the only stragety. True in the older versions and AA1942. Although more attention on Japan with 42’ is necessary, only the bare minimum, unless you have a Germany who does not know how to exploit such a move.

Bidding Japan 10 may make things different and make a better game. That would make it interesting. I played a game like that using my normal strategy of KGF. Moscow has fallen and Germany, very weak, but still lives.

But my counter to the next time is not going to be in inefficient use of my resources by going naval on them. It will be a more careful coordinated attempt to take out Germany. KGF in all AA except AA Global (and I am not even quite sure of that yet) is the only way, unless you are playing with inexperienced players or house rules that change the structure of the game.

AA games have always been broken and unrealistic in the Pacific. China is way to weak and Japan is way too strong. It is just broken that way. AAanniversary attempted to fix that I hear. AAPacific did a very poor job of fixing it but went in the right direction. It still requires a house rule of China going first and its infantry only costing 2IPC’s.

Perfect example. Bad examples are ones where you can point to an example that supports your thesis where the conditions are either unknown or the conditions and variables are just right.

Amelia Earharts sucesses and ultimate failure show what aircrafts were capable and not capable of. For example, her first hop across the atlantic, making her the first female or “The Female Charles Lindberg” was at first seen as luck and, “the conditions were just right”. The idea of course that the only a man could operate under harsh conditions ect… But her following frequest flights were designed to test the abilities of her aircraft as well as her ability to fly it as a female. She flew across good weather and unexpected bad weather and showed that if a female could do it, it was safe for everyone. Which is why the airlines loved her, supported her, and paid her lots of money to be in the public. She herself could not afford her own planes or the repairs. Her final failure gives a realism of what she did, that it was real, and not faked.

Considering in the real war, there were no battles south of the Sahara there would have never been a reason for a fighter to launch an attack across the Sahara from North Africa. So based on any historical fact of a fighter never crossing it during the war as reason to denounce the idea of it being reasonable that it could in fact cross in to me unreasonable.

Also, considering the advances fighters made in WW2, the fact that it had never been done is a kin to rationalzing that 1.) Japan ships cannot cross into the Mediterranean to help Germany, and 2.) A bomber once it gets longe range aircraft, cannot use that extra space because it has never been able to do it in the past.

I am not an expert in the technical abilities of the aircraft at the time. I do understand however that German troops could not pass through the Sahara without probabbly dying and vehicles would likely breakdown if they tried.
But whether or not a fighter had the ability to fly over it safely, considering how high above they ground they are, is a perfectly rational question. With the basic understanding, (not and expert one) of the development of aircraft, from the first “Lindy Hop” across the atlantic in the 20’s, to the solo flights of Amelia Earhart, to the advances of longrange aircraft by the end of the war, it is not clear to me at all why fighters could not “obviously” fly over the Sahara.

It would seem to me that Russia could not use a british transport in Europe. Though it is as war with Japan it still cannot violate any nuetrality rules with Germany. Putting an infantry unit on a UK transport to defend it against a German attack most certainly violates nuetrality. Although not an explicit rule in the Global due to it not being that specifically covered, it most certainly is an implicit rule.

Otherwise the Russian troop would have to be willing to die without forcing Germany to declare war. Germany is attacking the transport not the Russian troop.

I know in the AA42 and Revised you can’t. If you can’t, why not. seems reasonable to allow.

I think it is clear, that a nuetral nation cannot bolster the defense of another nation. So Russia cannot land a plane on London.

If Russia is at war with Japan, but not Germany, than Russia can help Britain with Japan only. Not Germany. This would be the only rational choice in keeping with the spirit of the game in the absence of a clarification for the Global game, where Russia can be at war and also nuetral.

Eddie