Posts made by eddiem4145

I know house rules may not be the answer, but I have one that might. I follows the World At War game rule. The later versions where Russian is not considered a “friend or foe”. That rule does not allow any ally troops into Russian territories as was the case in the real war.

In fact Russia would not even allow fly overs or allow bombers to land in thier territories so the allies could conduct bombing runs deep into their territiores.

And for those who think they are history buffs who may contrdict me with some obscure example, let me give you one I already now. I don’t remember the exact places or years, but thier was one instance where they did let bombers land in Russian territory. The Russians kept them for safe keeping then gave them back stripped. They were looking for technology they could use.

It gives some realism. They also don’t liberate anything. If the Russians take it from the axis, they keep it. This should help in terms of not allowing the Russians to be reinforced. It also would make it much less advanages to buidling an IC.

The only difference in AA revised IN THE PACIFIC and classic AA IN THE PACIFIC is an extra space between Western and Eastern US and the Sea Zone in Japan. Any other minor subtle difference the way the sea zones are draw don’t affect the strategy one way or the other.

My defect is not in the fact that I am used to playing classic AA. I started playing AA from the very 1st edition in the 80’s. I have played Revised intermittently with World at War. My defect is in the fact I NOW only play AArevised online where players all over the world meet where you can see there wins and losses and now who is a novice and who is a pro. I am used to playing on a big open board and not on a computer where you have to scroll across the screen to check everything.

I would imagine your KJF post is to the extreme on pointless in a straight battle with no bids, that not many people even bother to argue against it. This is a very well known point, accepted and often brought up as a failure of AA to make the game historically accurate. It has been and is still now the classic NOOB stragety, or novice stragety, outside of what I explained and agreed with on my previous post, of course.

One of the great things about AA 1942, AA50, AA1940P, and AA1940G supposedly is that it fixes the pointless attempt for the Japanese and US to engage in any naval battles. I have played AA1940P which speaks for itself, but with from all the posts I read, AA1942, AA50, which makes China more of a challenge and has been specifically designed to encourage navall battles, still does not go far enough to make it a smart stragety. There are some who disagree but they are from the perspective of hating the Jap rolling into Moscow IDEA, and not from a sound stragety perspective.

Any ways if you are interested n playing someone who has a lot of experience but is not yet used to the online game, send me a challenge of AAonline. They cost 3 coins. I think I purchased 50 coins for like $5.

Boring I would agree, but that is the only realistic chance. As far as the bidding idea goes. That is a total different point. A bid of only 3 would still allow the UK in my book to keep Africa, especially with the US coming from the other side. An Axis bid of 12 would make the Japan sending forces to Africa pointless. Soooo, not sure what the point was. Bidding in the computer game on axisandallies.com only exists for the axis. Obviously it is to even out the game. Otherwise, anything but perfect moves, no mistakes, timed retreates, times attacks, and a full maximizing of your resources are what is necessary for the axis to have a chance with both sides fielded by experienced players.

Where I would totally agree with you is the fact that I have played very experienced players who wanted to try out Japan harrassing the US. If you get a good bid for the axis so it is even and you want to enjoy the challenge of pestering the US, then that would make for a much more interesting game. I would probbably even try that.

Right now I am trying to get used to the AARevised and now I see that the AA.com has AA1942. I have been playing standard AA for 20 years then moved exclusively to World at War, then AARevised on the computer. It seems i make more silly mistakes on that than on the other AA games. I am not sure if it is the computer format that keeps me from noticing things until after I click “end Phase”. So that Japan trick might very well work on me on the computer game.

My email is elvism4145@yahooo.com if you ever want to send me a challege. Up to now I have only sent out open challenges and someone accepts. I have never sent a specific challenge to a specific person and played. As of know for some reason the computer has randomly, (i think) made me the allies the last 5 games in a row. I am not sure how the sides are picked so I am a prime target for your stragety.

Eddie

Eddie

It is designed only to annoy, not to counter. That I would agree with. The resources Japan has to spend to conduct such a campaing, and the minimal resources the US needs to counter it results in badly needed forces and money spent in an area that can only annoy, resulting in forces and resources not being spent where the real damage can be done.

Now someone did do this to me sucessfully once, but I assure you, it was the result of a simply miscalculation and me being used to the old AA where the US was only 2 territories, western and eastern. It was a something I completely overlook and miscalculated. And all it did was give germany some major breathing room. The same thing could have been acomplished sending those forces against russia or africa.

So bottom line, from someone who has defended against such attacks many times by novices, or pro’s just wanting to try something new, best case scenario, achieve what could otherwise be achieved elsewhere if your apponent miscalculates. Worst case scenario, it costs you the game.

Someone please tell me what CA is?

The answer in balance and realism is in solving the AAP40 problem. China needs to be stronger in Asia, and Japan needs to be able to take more of an advantage in the Pacific forcing the US not to ignore them. This is the fix.

Let China go before Japan. Give China one extra infantry per territory it held at the beginning of the turn. In exchange, give Japan a double impusle attack on its first turn at war with the US and force the US to keep its pacific navy in Hawaii except for its aircraft carrier.

This creates the realism of pearl harbor and the surprise advantage Japan had where it quickly sank the UK navy near the dutch east indies and took over those islands quickly. It decimates the pacific navy and leave Australia for the taking UNLESS the US spends money right away to stop it. They have the money to do it but gives Germany a few more turns.

If the US does not do it, the power the Japs have in the pacific force it to use it. And once Australia is taken, then it is to easy for Japan to harrass the US with economic raids, taking Hawaii, even invading South America. The point is, they have a naval force with no opposition, so use it. With a captured factory off of Australia, they can ferry men to South America, or central america, ect…. At this point, the US ignores Japan at its peril. Japan can reach over 90 IPC’s by turn 3 or 4 if done right unless the US acts.

Eddie

Hey guys,

I am not trying to be arrogant so excuse me if I sound so.

I won’t list the years I played AA and the forms but I assure you, such a stragety when the allies a conducting a KGF is a gift to the Allies. Of all the stategies you can do, that one fits perfectly for the KGF. You really have to be playing ally novices for that to work.

I can’t express how perfectly that fits with the KGF strategy. Anyways, hope I didn’t come off to badly. Just been playing for too many years, too many times. If interested on how realistic such a move is, play AA1942 on line at axisandallies.com. You can play live with experience players free or by email taking turns for like 1 dollar a game. The turns are fast and you can really try different things out. All players are rated so you can see you is good and who is novice.

Eddie

What is CA. carrier aircraft or cruiser. I see different abbreviations

In the global game, a major IC captured gets downgraded. So if germany builds a major, or even a minor, it prevents the US from have a major. Since it cannnot destroy the complex and you can only have 1 per territory, doesn’t that keep the US from developing a major complex.

I also agree with the house rule that the US cannot move its ship off the coast until at war.

I thought in the global rules you could only build minor complexes in foriegn land. Or was this a rule from some other AA game. I get them all mixed up. Can someone elaborate. This would also seem to be a good fix.

Building factories in foreign land would never be as productive as in your own land with your own people.

Eddie

I hear you loud and clear Sgt Blitz,

1 thing though. As much attention as a weak Italy has garnered, It amazes me that there hasn’t been 10 times more attention put on the fact that China is so weak. The fact is that Japan was incapable of beating China outside the coast lines without the resources of the East Indies and the surrounding islands. Then they had a chance. The US only put 10% of its resources to fighting Japan and they never got close to conquering China. Though with another tactic like playing more defensively in the pacific once the DEI and islands north of Australia were taken, could have perhaps brought victory in China then perhaps a chance to invade Russia, the fact is China being so weak is utterly ridiculous, much more than Italy being ridiculous.

To fix it, I have played around 10 games with China going first and getting to place 1 extra infantry per territory, and forcing the US navy except for its Aircraft carrier to base and stay in Hawaii until at war and Japan gets 1 double impusle attack that can only be used on the islands to simulate their suprise attacks. This really balanced everything, made it more realistic and put the whole pearl harbor thing into play.

Chompers,

I agree with your statement. Japan taking all of Asia then Moscow is much more ridiculous. So we agree, both are ridiculous, just one more than the other.

In the end, I am not arguing that Italy being regulated to such a minor status right off the bat is correct, only that if each game turn is suppose to be 3 0r 4 months, it can still play with a great deal of historical accuracy if Germany was able to get in there and help without losing its advantage in Western and Eastern Europe.

And unless there are players out there without a job who live in there parents basement and have a bunch of friends who are of the same status, no one could have played more than 1 or 2 games, so I just think the whole idea of the game being broken right now is just, silly.

The logic behind Italy losing before it takes a turn resides on how long 1 game turn is suppose to be. Though I agree attempting to put a time scale on each game turn doesn’t make to much sense, (for a whole host of reasons I won’t go into) the fact remains that I have read in many posts, references, and charts of expansions to the AA game that 1 game turn is suppose to be around 3 months. Wether Italy becomes irrelevant to N. Africa in turn 1, 2, or 3, I think can be argued, but making Italy to weak to be victorious in N. Africa by itself makes perfect sense.

Can Italy hold out in N. Africa and get some help from Germany. I don’t know. That is not how my game is turning out, but there are so many options Germany can take it is impossible for me to “logically” argue at this point, they cannot. If all Germany can do is help Italy keep hold of N. Africa with a few of its resources until it pushes deep into Russia, guess what: Eqypt becomes a closer target and one that becomes a viable option for Germany. The front is so long now that a dedicated push against Russia, MIGHT not be the best stragety. There are some great advantages to playing defense half way between Germany and Moscow, waiting for Japan to attack if they are successful in thier front, while making a push against Eqypt whom Italy has kept busy with some German help.

In my second game I will greatly study what Germany can do to assist Italy in a minor way without giving up needed victories eslewhere.

The purpose of AA is not to force the game to take a historical route, but to start the game with an accurate historical representation of what was at that time. Then change history from that point. Italy taking over Africa is ridiculous. You are not playing Italy then, but some other power in it’s place with the same name.

Italy to me serves as a tool to not allow Germany to be so consolidated unlike the traditional game. Again, it is about getting Germany there to help.

I am in my first game. By the 10th game or so, I will probbably have more to say on this subject and hopefully a KISS suggestion on how to balance the game if it indeed ends up being broken.

Or they are a speed bump like they were in the real war until Germany got there. Italy utterly failed in Africa. That is just how it happened. Not by chance. Not by some unlucky battle or bad manuever that if they could redo would change things. No, they just really really stunk. Look up there battle against Ethiopia and other battles in the balkans. They really stunk. Now if 1 game turn is suppose to be 3 months, as I have read it is suppose to be,(which by the way I have a problem with) it makes perfect sense.

The real question is, is there a way for Germany to get in there and help. That is the question.

Not sure what happened to my post but here goes again. This is going to be less informative and more to the point as I don’t have time and I spent some time on the post that seemed to disappear.

AA not meant to go the way it historically did

It is meant to accurately reflect the situation at the time.

Italy made a miniscule contribution. Performed so horribly, in Africa and balkans Germany had to do what they couldn’t. Italy being so weak is accurate. Depending on how you see the turns in terms of time length, you can argue if they should be irrelevant on turn 1, 2, or 3.

As long as Germany can do its part and have a reasonable chance of taking North Africa, game is not broken.

It is way to soon to determine that.

Italy should be played by the German player in a multi player game.

You mean make a suckable, WW2 1940 suckie power not suck. Italy was meant to suck, just like France. This whole Italy sucking making the game broken is ridiculous. The real question would be what ability does Germany have to get in there and help. Or should they at all. Those questions can only be answered with years of play. Declaring the game to being broken this soon is beyond foolish, it’s laughable.

With that said, I have been a player since the 1980’s and understand how broken each new version was and how hard it seemed to be for them to fix it. No Pacific naval battles, China being to weak, (still is) ect…

The best we can hope for is to only have to slightly tweak the game for realism and fair play. For instance, letting China go first and perhaps a J1 attack being a mistake, now that Germany will feel the consequences in the Global game.

I completely agree that the game is broken. After all, not making the game so Italy can have a 50/50 chance of taking all of africa and making it very likely the Germans have to do it and regulating Italy to a subserviant role is completely broken. What were they thinking. It is like they were making a WW2 scenario in 1940 or something.

Oh and add the game being broken because of France too. I mean, really. France has no chance against Germany. Who would want to play France.

Please, someone tell me, what is a BB, DD, SS. If battleship, destroyer, submarine, where is the extra letter coming from

I completely agree that the game is broken. After all, not making the game so Italy can have a 50/50 chance of taking all of africa and making it very likely the Germans have to do it and regulating Italy to a subserviant role is completely broken. What were they thinking. It is like they were making a WW2 scenario in 1940 or something.

Oh and add the game being broken because of France too. I mean, really. France has no chance against Germany. Who would want to play France.

Ok, here it is. In AAREVISED. When they introduced artillery, Germany had a good reason to buy a good mixture of men, artillery, and tanks. If not, if they bought all tanks, unless they were playing against a Russian player who was worse than me, they lost. And planes were never purchsed unless in some extreme circumstance or again, playing off of other players lack of stragety. Tanks buy all others (except Japan) were rare and bad purchases. The odds largely favored men and artillery.

The points I have read about regarding Japan and tanks in the Revised version and before was not a problems of Tanks being to cheap, but by a horrific China and East Russia map that was obviously horrific. Unbelievable it took this long to correct.

I have played AAP40 a lot and see planes as a lot more usable the way they should be. To win a war you have to have great air power. If you are not buying as many tanks as planes. Something is wrong. I may be exaggerating a bit, but not  by  much.