Posts made by eumaies

Japan has 4 bombers.  The strat outlined specifically called for building a bomber on japan turn 2 in addition to the 2 built on turn 1.  It’s in response to that heavy push for SBR that the russian expenditure of $10 was valid on Russia turn 3.  Japan also cannot predict this and take hawaii on turn 2 (unless you plan to do that normally, which is not a good move, especially given the lack of transports).

I’ve already addressed most of your comments.  The additional jibes don’t refer to anything I’ve actually written or suggested.  But enjoy your perspective.

i’ve already explained that us does not have to invest in greater ship defense because the germans first have to attack and take losses on the current fleet.  you don’t “pre-defend” against 2 bombers. you make the germans sacrifice their planes and it’s a fair trade-off.

Hawaii still makes no sense.  Remember, at the time on turn 3 when russia builds 2 aa guns, japan has already built 3 bombers (that’s a cost of 45!), and has not taken hawaii.  You don’t just turn the ships around, take hawaii, land there on turn 4, and bomb the us on turn 5.  And even if you could, it’s a terrible, terrible idea.

and then you make up these random counter strategies i would never do, like buying more than two aa’s.  save it for the game, jen :)

I’ve never used bidding in AAR, since it’s much more balanced than the original A&A, but I do see some potential bias in favor of the allies and I can see the value in a bidding system.

From what I’ve heard though, the bidding approaches that seem most popular don’t strike me as very well balanced.  If I’m wrong about how people are bidding please let me know.

My current sense is that it’s usually some $ amount of troops placed by the axis at their discretion for either power at the start of the game, in locations already occupied by axis troops.

Two issues come to mind with this:

1. This leaves the axis the option to place units strategically in a way that changes the game dynamic greatly (e.g. japan with a 3rd transport that reach africa & india on turn 1).  This type of flexibility shifts the entire strategic outlook for certain powers, and I don’t think the basic game setup is designed to absorb the shock.  Certain bid placements completely change the game with widely varying results and effectiveness.

2. This leaves the axis player the option of setting up the game so that it’s pushed heavily towards german or japanese disproportionate strength.  For instance, if I gave Japan $8 more to start the game, a KGF strategy would immediatly be recommended because I’ve made the axis stronger overall, but in an unbalanced way.

Instead, I think a more balanced bid system would make sense.

Have the axis get whatever bid seems needed, then take that $ amount, divide it by two and give half the money to each axis player to use on their turn 1 production (remainder goes to germany which has the bigger economy).

You could still bid as much as you like to make this an effective balancing for your game, but it would prevent either axis from gaining too disproportionately, or from changing the whole game setup initially.  The same would be true if ever bidding help to the allies.  Rather than that all going to russia and changing the strategic design of the game, a balanced distribution simply gives the allies a boost but still requires them to play the game with the same core challenges.

Is this ever used?

while i think a better case could be made for your argument, that math is arbitrary and makes no sense.

1. you choose not to count the cost of the german bomber…. then proceed to count the benefits as if it could BOTH bomb germany and attack us shipping without ever dying.

2. you count 10ipc’s damage to us from western europe which as i’ve said is not even a feasible bombing target in the game due to distance.  (it’s also a terrible waste of bombers – i get it, you can use them for combat.  it’s just sub-optimal for japan).

3. as us, i wouldn’t buy 2 destroyers initially.  i’d use one (of my initial 2) per two transports in eastern canadian sea zone, which should be a deterant to all but a 3-bomber attack.  germany is the net loser if it risks 1-2 bombers against 2 transports and a destroyer.  after an attack, the us can rebuild, but this goes back to point number 1 about counting the german cost…

ummmm…. where to start.

i do agree that one extra german bomber can be very powerful.  certainly has its merits.

two japanese bombers, on the other hand, is sub-optimal except for the bombing strategy outlined.  sure they’re useful, but the delay in large asian land forces is very costly for japan.  so you are handicapping your ability to quickly pressure russia by other means.

bombing the us is completely illogical.  wasting precious japanese resources on the one allied power that has a hard time getting it’s cash to market doesn’t make sense, nor do you have a reasonable base of bombing operations if you wanted to.

Bombing england with germany is also relatively weak.  might as well have england bomb germany.  strategically it’s a net loss for the cash-strapped axis.

the overblown statements about $10 costing russia the game don’t make sense in light of japan and germany’s strategically and monetarily expensive builds.  I would never build more than 2 aa’s as russia, and as i’ve explained in the other posts, i get all of the value without any more.  it’s a one time cost, and aa’s held back in western asia are neither a waste against a souped up japanese air force, nor particularly vulnerable for the first several turns of the game.   Keep in mind too that if japan builds bombers again on turn 2 (while landing turn 1 bombers in china) russia will get to see that as well and factor it into the decision on whether to buy the two aa’s.

I do think $10 is significant, and the SBR strategy at least forces that, so good for the strategy.  but the builds are similarly inneficient given japan’s opportunity cost.

that makes absolutely no sense.

the original posted strategy suggested 1 bomber build for germany and 2 bombers built for japan on game round 1.

that immediately, clearly, speaks to an SBR strategy.  It’s simply sub-optimal to think those bombers won’t be bombing russia.

so after you see that you spend $10 on round 2 as russia.  And you can totally afford to because germany just spent $15….

(addendum – I meant round 3 as russia.  you have that much time)

nah.

japan doesn’t have unlimited options, certainly not early.  and russia’s initial 2-aa gun build and move of it’s starting two aa-guns to create the necessary buffer can be completely reactionary to japan’s build and placement.

japan’s not going to securely take both buryatia and china in time to land it’s first 2 bombers.  instead, it might first take and secure china, and land it’s first two bombers there.  then when russia responds by spending $10 and setting up the aa’s, japan gets an extremely risky bombing option on japan’s turn 3.  so next turn they might expand a little, secure either india or buryatia (again, has to be reliably hold-able), and try to position to bomb from multiple directions at once.  sitting back further with bombers (manchuria, kwangtung) telegraphs a landing in europe, which is problematic in other ways because the allies can see it coming and make that dangerous.

so by japan turn 4 50% of the bombers purchased can make a reasonable bombing run against moscow facing just typical AA-gun resistance, while the other half face 2 AA’s (again, assuming it’s not worth $5 of russia’s money to prevent, which it probably isn’t at that point).

delaying and minimizing the damage of a bombing strategy in this way should be sufficient to allow the rest of the allies time to punish the axis for the expenditure.   A KGF will have more time to work as japan’s initial conquests were delayed, or a CJF will do a better than average job of containing japanese expansion and limiting their bombing routes for an even longer period.

and as axisofevil pointed out, his argument (and mine) is that bombing caucusus is an inferior option for the allies and shouldn’t be considered in aa gun defense options.

yes, and as you point out you don’t even need anywhere near 7 guns.  this isn’t picking and choosing routes for the japanese – they’ve landed their bombers on a given turn, then russia needs only to move 2 aa guns to block the available eastern route.  and as previous poster pointed out, caucusus bombing is far inferior.

Really though, I would just buy 2 aa guns as russia and be done with it.  cover the eastern route, then if japan moves its bombers to europe, consider covering the western route instead.  stalling even half of such a bombing strategy is sufficient.

yeah i was misunderstanding your initial commentary on sinkiang.  Sure, with just china needed to be in range that’s easier to secure. so by japan turn 3 you can start hitting russia’s economy with that initial build.

always take out the transport in sz 59, of course.  it’s still perfectly feasible to secure india on turn 1 while doing that.

yeah, bombers are certainly flexible units.  i’m a big fan.  and i was going to suggest german territory as the most secure landing zone as well :)

I still think, however the details play out, that putting pressure on japan is the right general response when they spend their first $30 on air power rather than transports or IC’s that will bring consistent amounts of troops to bear for the rest of the game.  but there’s also another potential option, which is that if the axis invest money in bombers, russia could feasibly afford to build 2 aa guns on round 2 (and/or UK move the indian aa gun back).  Then move them dynamically to try to make bombing russia by at least 1 axis power require 2 anti-aa rolls per run.  Particularly if japan’s chosen landing options are limited this could be a nasty countermove at a relatively low cost.

Yeah i would like to play with you guys but i just find gametableonline to be so much easier than posting and updating the map myself.  Is TripleA the same as battlemap and do both require manual map updates and emailing?  I get confused as to the various options.  If anyone ever plays on gametable my username is bmaster.

anyway,

so with a typical opening where players don’t do an IC in india and don’t push too hard in asia but instead focus on germany, i think the approach makes alot of sense.

With regards to counters, the sinkiang re-take is not something russia can gurantee but something japan has to invest all possible troops to avoid.  I would say the following counters would give japan headaches:

1. us (and russian) sinkiang infantry should retreat from sinkiang in the face of ~4-6 japanese infantry in china.  They are more useful on a counter attack with air support then defending against combined arms from japan.

2. India IC build on turn 1, take indo-china on turn 2, land fighters in manchuria on turn 2 to support russians. (in general, for anti-asia strategies, the 2 fighters and bomber from britain should not be used against german ships but instead fight safer battles and then move to asia ready to participate offensively or defensively on turn 2.  The bomber is critical to threatening french indo)

3. buryatia 6 infantry on turn 1 (and 2 more following) and move into manchuria on turn 2 if open (else mass 8 and the fighters).  US 2 fighters landed in buryatia on us turn 1, and a bomber there or in the area ready for action on US turn 2.

4. Russian builds should include 3+ tanks for flexibility, and 2 russian infantry should be adjacent to sinkiang on russia turn 2.  Unless japan moves in full force, ground forces + planes can re-take sinkiang.

Japan can take action against much of that, particularly with the extra transport you’re stipulating (which I agree is very important).

But buryatia, french indo (either taken or with 7-8 british ground units next door), and manchuria are all important considerations then, along with your need to take sinkiang with enough force to hold it against US and then USSR counter-attack.  In such a situation, sticking to your sinkiang plan and putting all your infantry there would probably be a mistake.  Instead, japan has to siphon off troops to deal with the russian/british pressure.

The reasons this is not a bridge too far for the allies are the following:
a) those 6 russians in buryatia need to be used, even if their job is to draw fire and die after taking manchuria (with fighter support).  better to slow japan with them than to walk them home and use them after japan has taken over all of asia.  So it’s not a waste to use them aggressively.
b) India IC + UK earning +$3 from indo china for as long as they can maintain a back and forth is not a bad situation.  Japan can change plans and try to just take india with force, but it’s probably still enough of a slow-down given germany and japan’s bomber builds.

I don’t know, in the end asian fights always come down to alot of details and it’s hard to scope out every contingency on a message board.  Also, bidding for the axis and giving japan an extra transport is a major game-changer that makes it hard for the allies.

While I agree that axis are a bit weaker than allies in AAR I personally think a bid of 8 may be too generous.  That extra transport with access to africa and india on turn 1 is a massive boost to the axis and would probably complement non-bomber strats quite well, too :)

kudos on the thorough strategy, makes sense.

weak points would seem to be the reliance on successfully holding sinkiang (which russia may find it worth contesting if it keeps 3 jap bombers off their backs, and second a weakness in general against my preferred approach in the game of hitting japan quite hard with combined arms in asia, which again makes it hard to focus relevant #'s on sinkiang or any other square 2 away from russia.

but given the leeway many players give japan, i can see how it would often work.

… and that’s where you’re totally wrong, IMO.  VC’s are an alternate victory condition for those who like the complexity of playing to more than one potential game-winning objective.  They serve that purpose by potentially being different from a typical winning objective of destroying your opponent.

The argument about dice calculators makes no sense, as the same is true when judging how carefully to defend your capital in the face of an unlikely attack.  Odds judgements and walking a fine line are just a central part of this game whatever the victory conditions.  Some of us like to have more things to consider rather than fewer.

The 10, 11, and 12 VC victory conditions are all sufficient alternatives if one wants to be sure of being completely ahead in the game before winning.

… and don’t get me started on building destroyers in AAR, but feel free to try it against me should we ever play a game :)

are we talking about the same game?  AAR = axis and allies revised, i believe.  if so, the presence of such a volume of ships would represent strategic investment in and control of access to a region like western europe.

but anyway, the point of VC’s, placed however they are placed, is exactly that.  you have to do “dumb” stuff to defend them because they matter politically.  Maybe the liberation of paris would do nothing to the real german war effort but the propoganda benefit is represented in game terms by the over-emphasis germany has to put into defending it.

they would have to be placed pretty badly for me to agree with your point.  only leningrad, of all the vc cities, is truly indefensible outside the bounds of luck.  and in any 9 VC game, enough are always going to be outside of the bounds of luck that there’s no lack of strategy – only careful defense and focused offense, over multipe turns of planning.

no, because that’s not the point of using VC conditions, particularly the 8 or 9 point ones.

VC’s are meant to represent political considerations beyond military or economic factors as modeled in the game.  if you play to 10 VC’s or more, you can pretty much just see them as a way to end the game in a reasonable amount of time against someone who’s losing but won’t quit.  but at 8 or 9 the whole point is to have an element other than “who’s clearly winning and could no longer lose this game”

Typical german opening moves involve buying ground troops in various mixes, and occasionally additional air power.  But in spite of the expense, there’s some limited ship builds that can also be worthwhile if played right.  Since most stategies either use no naval purchases or way too much, I thought it would make sense to flesh out a few of the more viable options for Germany.

First, a couple of big picture considerations that encourage spending on boats:

1. you already have a baltic fleet of 4 ships which is potentially valuable for guarding the atlantic, but unable to defend well against air attack
2. investments in the mediterranean can strengthen control of africa, attacks on russia, and even india, while helping to guard southern europe.

Second, a variety of separate approaches I’ve seen, some that I like more than others:

1. $12 destroyer build in the baltic while the fleet stays there and several planes land in W. Europe or similar.

This is enough of a build to deter or punish a UK air attack on round 1 (which can be good or bad since you won’t get to shoot at them).  For a modest cost, you’ve preserved the ability to support your luftwaffe against nearby UK ships, and made any attack on your initial 4 ships significantly more costly for the allies.  The subs might still be fodder, but now you can hit airplanes reliably for several rounds, so the investment might cost the allies more than it costs you.  You also get to transport infantry directly to karelia for any additional rounds that you choose to keep the fleet in the baltic.

2. $16 carrier in the baltic, with fighters landed and in w. europe.

For slightly more money, you get the same defensive bonus as well as the huge ability to move fighters far across the atlantic with the expectation of landing on the carrier later.  The baltic fleet is extremely tough to take out for a long time with 2 fighters on the carrier.

Personally, this is not my favorite build, as $16 starts to be a pretty significant amount to not be putting against russia.  More importantly, fighters diverted to landing at sea are not available to land in w.europe or other potentially vulnerable points.  The offensive power can be devestating, but the diversion of fighters that aren’t helping to defend german territories can be a drain.

3. $8 transport build in the mediterranean, while battleship and transport remain in place outside southern europe and simply ferry two troops to africa on turn 1 (in order to protect the new transport from UK/russian air attack).

A goofy strategy, but has its good points.  The down side of course is that the UK retains egypt, its destroyer, its fighter, and the ability to send the india fleet into the mediterranean on turn 1 if it wants to.  Pretty nasty.

The upsides are interesting, though.  If you UK moves into the med, you can still drop off another 4 troops to africa (or russia) the following turn before they put you down.  You could also be purposefully trying to entice them to give japan’s war effort a boost.  If UK doesn’t, you can help ferry 4 troops a turn from southern europe to africa/caucusus for much of the rest of the game.  That’s a big boost to mobility, and includes a firm take-over of egypt and trans jordan on turn 2, setting up a very strong attack on india on turn 3, which can both help japan and provide $ for germany.

3. My personal favorite:  $20 destoyer & transport build in the baltic on turn 1, while baltic stays put, and all other ships support planes in taking out UK battleship at gibralter and taking gibralter.  All planes land in W. Europe.

This is very expensive and sacrifices killing egypt for one round.  That said, it allows the baltic fleet to survive and gives the UK air nothing useful to do on turn 1.  It also poses a credible sealion threat to London for turn 2 which requires the allies to block you or defend london, neither of which they would normally want to do.  It also helps the spare atlantic sub surive the attack in gibralter, saving you an $8 ship for later use.  Ultimately, the two fleets can stay separate as you return focus to egypt and ferrying troops to karelia, or they can merge in the mid-atlantic to form a deadly superfleet to effecitvely waste the allies’ time and money and free up more ground troops to send against russia rather than defend the coasts.

4. $8 sub purchase in the baltic.

I’ve never done it and it probably wouldn’t work, but I could imagine the value in a very submersable fleet (3 subs) that tries to play the odds and survive long enough to clog up UK and US combat moves and support luftwaffe air attacks.

5. $8 transport purchase in the baltic.

While the UK can still take out that fleet, this can cost them additional air losses for their effort.  More importantly, if they don’t take out the baltic fleet, the ability to transport 4 ground units per turn plus the increased potential threat to london can be pretty annoying for the allies.

… and I’m sure there are more permuations worth considering.  Personally, after turn 1 I’m not a fan of any German fleet builds, as the return on your money is less since they’ll survive for less time, and the goal isn’t to win an extended arms race against the allies in the atlantic.  But I think some of these are realistic options for making the most of what you start with.  And since KGF strategies can be quite effective or require lots of german ground defense, it’s worth considering how ships builds might be cost effective.

In terms of the odds, it’s essential to take out one german fighter, so i go with that rather than risk killing 0.

a consideration for me is winning with disproportionately low losses on my turn, and along with that i enjoy the upside of potential overwhelming wins.  If i throw my units into multiple risky & costly battles on my turn and then allow germany to pick his fights where he causes reliably disproportionate losses, than I haven’t used my turn as well as he has.

if russia does not cause enough damage and emerge with enough spare forces to stomp on germany effectively on turn 2, then germany is freed up.  They can split their forces, or consolidate everything and prevent the battle from being fought over ukraine or archangel in each turn.  if russia is instead fighting to contest caucus back and forth (if it’s even in realistic danger of attack) than russia has become a handicapped power that can’t take part in more aggressive moves elsewhere on the map.

I play to make the fighting ground one step beyond caucausus, and i build enough tanks as russia so that i can always throw maximum numbers of troops into the fray (in spite of having to build any units beyond 4 way back in moscow).  Making caucus the battle ground is a significant concession, IMO, for which you better have done something significant (like rescue india).

In contrast, german massed troops that you don’t have the forces to take out and that eventually are allowed to land fighters due to no back and forth means germany makes more money the entire game.

Yeah I’ve never used Low Luck rolling, so for all I know I might agree with your approach if I did.  Without it, strategies are necessarily more conservative as you have to really mitigate against the worst case scenarios that might occur in any close battle.  Given uncertainty, I prefer a rock-solid attack on Ukraine and as cost effective and reliable an attack on w. russia as possible.  All things being equal, i find the allied setup following those moves to be perfectly tenable.

yeah, killing a 2nd german fighter is huge when it works.  i don’t begrudge the approach.  My personal philosophy to opening moves (particularlly russian) is that they should accomplish their main objectives (killing both german fighters without loss of russian fighters or uncompensated loss of the archangel tank) most of the time.  I only do anything close to a high stakes gamble when I’m behind.

late round IC’s in asia can have their value.  but in defense of the round 1 build and russian offensive placement, keep in mind the key gain is that american air power can continue to fly directly into asia via buryatia.  This is usually a better use of american air than to assault a smartly placed carrier-2fighter-battleship-or-more japanese fleet in hawai.  Once the fighters/bomber are in asia, they also represent the power to make india worth fighting a defensive fight over if it comes to that, in addition to threatening japanese shipping and supporting surviving US infantry attacks in asia.

yeah, i don’t play with bids.  i do sometimes feel it may be too easy for the allies without them :)

jen, good mitigating points on the control you have over retreats, though I still don’t like the approach myself.  anything that has the potential of leaving caucausus vulnerable and germany with 6 fighters is a bigger swing than I can countenance on turn one.

Functionetta, a couple points on the India IC issue:

1. you don’t need profound amounts of support to keep it alive in round 3 even with japan’s focus on it to the exclusion of all else.  11 UK ground forces (mostly cheap inf) are a given, as is the one fighter.  throw in the 2 initial US fighters that landed in buryatia and you can cause serious damage to japanese attackers.  (there’s also real possibility of 2 cautiously played reinforcements from australia).

2. Japan’s maximum counter is 4 units + ~3 infantry moved back from china (leaving sinkiang untaken), 3 tanks built in kwangtung and 4 additional infantry from phillipines and east asia = 14 guys + fighter support, but only if you leave the russians completely alone to take manchuria, and then re-take china, while the US can build it’s IC in sinkiang on turn 2 after you abandon sinkiang to mass all troops in indo china.

so yeah, russia may have to divert some troops (e.g. land fighters there for a turn) either on turn 3 to fortify or move tanks on turn 4 to take it back, but at least this way all the allied asian units are being used.  Those 8 infantry on the east side of russia don’t accomplish much by themselves, but as part of multi-pronged pressure they can actually have an appreciable impact (and earn russia $3 for a few turns).  And russia’s got a much longer survival horizon if japan is basically having to rebuild it’s troops again starting on turn 4.  I’m not a big fan of spending money to contest the massive japanese navy, but they can definitely be slowed down on land to allow the slow accumulation of us  atlantic power time to squeeze germany.