Posts made by Gallo Rojo

@Cow:

This isn’t a KGF game. It can be a KIF. Hell I did a KJF but we were playing without the national objectives.

KGF or KIF is almost the same: you’re going to the European Theater. I guess that what we (or at least I) mean by KGF is that the Allies (mainly the US) forgets about the Pacific (except for units already in the map) and focus almost solely on beating the European side of the Axis.

@Cow:

Hell I did a KJF but we were playing without the national objectives.

and how you did it? did Moscow fell to the Germans? British IC on India? on Australia?

Cow, I would really love to think that you’re right and that the game is balanced… which is the first things every AA player wanted to see for AA50

but there’s something that bothers me about your strategy
If I may bring up something you wrote in another thread (China Wall):

@Cow:

Although I got to be honest. I sacrifice moscow to japan so I can take berlin . I always go all out.  I know in end game uk / usa > Japan.

All of this is very nice if you’re playing 1 vs 1… what happens if you’re on a multi-player game and you happen to be the Russian player?
your game can be summarized to “let’s see how much can I hold Moscow until they take me out of the game… or the Americans come to rescue me… if they get to late doesn’t matters because, hey! I’m here to be sacrificed anyway! Moscow may fall but the Allied will prevail! Hurray!”  :roll:

The entire Allies strategy for a ‘balanced game’ seems to be KGF (again) with a few variations…

and since a more versatile game, where KGF were not the only-game-in-town was the second request most AA players have, well, if we’re not getting it, with all due respect for Avalon Hill, screw that.

@Cow:

I know people complain about KJF not being a totally kickass strategy.  Whatever.

The idea is you shutdown italy and japan and fight germany. I mean you probably won’t take Italy ever with just UK. usa probably won’t take over japan but you should be able to take the islands but taking japan over is kind of harder then taking his money.

I don’t mind that I don’t take Tokio, or that KJF is not a kickass strategy… what I do mind is that KGF seems to be still the only strategy.

what about having to fight both Berlin-Rome and Tokio at the same time for a change?

I don’t know… I only played two games, one with the allies and one with the axis… in one of them by turn3 Japan had become Gotzilla on esteroids and there was no point for the USA to even try on fighting them… on the other one Japan become just Gotzilla, but again, the USA couldn’t go after Japan or the South Pacific, even though in both games USA had been spending most if not every penny on the Pacific

I still have to try that strategy suggested by a forum member about getting a big fleet of subs for the US in the Pacific.

but so far, AA50 1941 scenario seems to be un-balanced for the Axis, or yet another KGF game with Russia playing as the poor-lady-lady-in-distress and Italy and China to spice up the game.

@creeping-deth87:

I was thinking the other day about building an IC in the 41 scenario in Norway. Being able to place 3 units there gives it some strategic value with an IC there, as you can use it to hold Scandinavia from the British (and thereby delay any invasions into France) or if the Brits give up on it you can use it to funnel units into a Northern front against Russia. Thoughts?

If I were the British player I would make your Norwegian IC my top priority… and since it’s not your (German) top priority (which is taken Moscow), I’ll eventually take it and use it to funnel units into Leningrad to support Russia myself.

@Cmdr:

I actually view Italy and China as cons.  Italy makes life difficult for Germany by stealing valuable real-estate.

but in real life Italy did make life difficult for Germany during WW2  :wink:
WW2 German joke:
“what are German soldiers three wishes? a Russian coat, American food, and an enemy like the Italians”

for game purposes, Italy, on the other hand, breaks the double allied turn (USA-USSR).
and yes, it’s less money for Germany, but Italy and Germany together still have a lot of money.

Cow: did your Grand Strategy actually worked? (aka: did you win a game using it?), or is it just theory?

Funcioneta:
Excuse my ignorance:

@Funcioneta:

And IL says soviets have few chances of surviving Barbarossa (having zero starting figs as soviets sure don’t aid)

who’s IL?

@Funcioneta:

(having zero starting figs as soviets sure don’t aid)

and still having a sub on the artic sure don’t aid anything either – unless that sub is for Stalin run away to Cuba when Moscow falls down … oh! wait! it’s WW2! Batista is in Cuba! … the sub is useless

@Funcioneta:

Play 1942 or mod 1941

what’s mod 1941?

Cow:
it seems like a very nice strategy overall… only that it’s just KGF again

and I’m just tired, annoyed, pissed, and bored of playing KGF over and over again since classic
If this is the best strategy, I want my $100 back

@Emperor_Taiki:

T28 because it’s big and American

size doesn’t matter  :wink:

@Imperious:

No other spots on the map are more fertile than in China. 2 territories get you 1 infantry. The Soviet player can effectively wall out the Japanese player, by seeding China with 2 infantry a turn to support the growth of Chinese infantry. They should send the eastern Infantry in a steady stream to western China.  Now Japan must go the long way ( by eastern Russia)

and what would prevent Japan for doing so?  :?

@Black_Elk:

Am I the only one pissed that this has turned into a KGF?

Trust me, you’re definitely not the only one irritated by this.

I’ll be so freaking pissed if the dominant strategy for AA50 ends up being  KGF all again…  :x

Comparing a Heavy Tank with a Medium Tank is like comparing the Yamato with a Brooklyn Class light cruiser and wondering which one is best. If you want to make soundable comparison, you have to make it among different Battleships class.
Same with tanks.  :-)

now, if you ask any person who knows just a little bit about tanks, which was the best tank of WW2 he or she will tell you that the T-34 was the best all-around tank of the war

… but… even so the answer is not that easy

Which was the best tank… in what year?

on 1940, T-34m40 was probably the best designed tank in the world, but it had too many mechanical problems (so you probably would like to drive a Pz-IIIf instead)

on 1941, T-34m41 were the best medium tanks in the world. No discussion about it – except that you want to include the KV-1 and KV-2 heavy tanks in the picture.

but on 1942, upgraded models of German  Pz-IV and even Pz-III (upper-armored and upper-gunned with the 50mm 60L high velocity gun) were better than the T-34m42 (except maybe for some upper-armored versions)

on 1943, Tigers and Panthers were better… only that Panthers being a new weapons-system, had so many engine and technical problems that were the best only when they were not suffering breakdowns.

(given the amount of Panthers breakdowns during Kursk Campaign, German generals estimated that if they had had Panthers instead of Pz-I and Pz-II during the blitz on France, they couldn’t had sustained the speed needed on the race to the Channel due to frequent mechanical breakdowns… Panthers would probably had lost the Battle of France)

on 1944 and 1945 Panthers were the best all-around tank probably… closely followed by T-34/85 and Sherman ‘Firefly’… but Panthers where expensive and out-numbered… you you probably wanted them for wining a one-on-one duel against a T-34/85, but the next two or three T-34 were going to fry you. So Panther was a great tank for winning duels but loosing battles.  :roll:

Sherman also known as Firefly (Great Britian Medium tank)

“Sherman” and “Firefly” were not the same tank
M4 Sherman (come in many variants) was an American medium tank
Firefly (come in many variants too) was a British upgrade of the Sherman (basically a Sherman mounting a 17pnd gun).

but I guess you knew that already  :-)

Js-3 (Russian Tank destroyer)

JS-III wasn’t a tank destroyer, it was a heavy tank.

SU-57, SU-85m, SU-100, those were Soviet tank-destroyers  :-)

Type 95 (Japanese heavy tank)

Type 95 Ha-Go was not a heavy tank, it was light tank (about 8 tons), 37mm gun

Chi-Ha was a ‘medium tank’ for Japanese standards, but it was only 16 tons (compared with about 29 tons of T-34m41 and almost 45 tons of Panther)

@Lynxes:

This is a bit embarassing, but I actually didn’t think of the DD block in North Sea counter…  :| Perhaps the idea of subs actually being a worthwhile buy for the first time in Axis & Allies history got me carried away and stopped my brain from working correctly!

you can sink the British DD in front or the English Channel during your combat move and then send the U-Boats to the North Atlantic on your non-combat move, can’t you?

(your Cruiser and Transport will be gone unless you buy an AC)

@Greand:

UK might want subs to kill the Italian fleet.

I would use fighters and bombers instead (once you sink the fleet you can still use them on land battles too)

@Greand:

Italy might ofcourse need a few subs.

yes, they are stylish :)

@Greand:

So subs will definitivly be usefull in AA50, sadly not so usefull for Germany I guess.

which is a shame since subs were more useful for Germany than for any other country in the war

@Greand:

But one question about subs: What happens if 3 subs attack 2 carriers with 4 planes?
: can the planes defend? (no Destroyers in the defending fleet)
: can planes be takes as cassulty?

If the answere is no to both these question, the fact that Japan starts with very few destroyers will be a very very big limitation for them. US can build a few very deadly submarines which can litteraly destroy the Japan fleet

yeah! http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12924.0 :-D

I’m on the opinion that an UK IC in India is nothing but a nice present for Hirohito… but if you want to walk that walk…

a) Since Japan moves first then UK (in 1941), watch out what Japan does on its first turn… they may not commit everything against India on their first move.

If an Indian factory seems soundable…

you should have moved two USSR infantry to Persia on Turn1
then send as many UK fighters to India via London-Moscow (turn1), Moscow-India (turn2)

Be aggressive against Japan everywhere else…

one big step-back about the India IC is that it requires a big commitment from the UK… trying on holding India you may lost Africa to the Italians and you may not be able to mount a soundable attack against Germany (specially if Germany obliterates the Royal Navy during its first turn)

@Krieghund:

@Gallo:

2.a) they shoot before the attacker, and if roll at 1, if they score attacking unit sinks before having the chance of attacking – if attacking unit is a BB she can take the torpedo hit and attack anyway, but if it’s a Cruiser she goes to the bottom right there without dropping a single deep charge.

This is true if there’s no attacking desrtoyer.  If there is an attacking destroyer, the sub fires at the same time as the attacker(s) and the results are simultaneous.

yes, as I’ve stated, I was assuming no enemy destroyer attacking.
buy what does it means that “the sub fires at the same time”?
1.Attacker rolls
2.Defender select casualties
3.Defender moves casualties to casualty zone
4.Defender (subs) rolls
5.Attacker selects casualties
6.Everybody removes casualties.

that’s how it is, right?

@Krieghund:

@Gallo:

2.b) can submerge after attacker roll

If there’s no enemy destroyer, subs may submerge instead of rolling.  This can be done in any combat round, including the first, so a sub can submerge instead of firing before the attacker fires if desired.

yes, I’m always assuming no enemy destroyer attacking at this point…
but again, just to clarify:

If an attacking fleet with no destroyer moves into a sz defended by a submarine… the submarine can just choose to submerge without fighting? I mean: nobody fires? not even a first round?
Example: four British Battleships moves into a sz where there is just one single German submarine to attack it (I know that British can ignore it, but say that they want to sink that annoying U-Boat)… and the German sub can chose to submerge avoiding even the first attack?

@Krieghund:

@Gallo:

If there’s a destroyer present, subs can’t do their sneak-attack (2.a doesn’t work), and they can’t submerge

True.  They then fire at the same time as everything else.

again, by firing at the same time you mean the 6 steps mentioned above, right?

If all the above is right, then the ‘spreading subs’ may be a really good tactic! I can’t wait to try it!  :-D

Cheers!
first, let know if I got it right:

rules for submarines when defending:

1. Subs can not be attacked by air units unless a destroyer is present

2. Subs can be attacked by naval units even if there is no destroyer but

2.a) they shoot before the attacker, and if roll at 1, if they score attacking unit sinks before having the chance of attacking – if attacking unit is a BB she can take the torpedo hit and attack anyway, but if it’s a Cruiser she goes to the bottom right there without dropping a single deep charge.
2.b) can submerge after attacker roll

If there’s a destroyer present, subs can’t do their sneak-attack (2.a doesn’t work), and they can’t submerge

Am I right? I guess I am

If the above is true, question about tactics…
A forum member suggested on another topic (something about US strategy in the Pacific) that you can do the following:

• buy a lot of subs
• you spread them around various sea-zones: since a single destroyer can prevent the subs to submerge, they are very vulnerable to be taken by the air of by a big fleet … but if they’re spread around the enemy can’t focus all his navy power on a single subs-stack (I’m assuming that you have more subs than the enemy has destroyers, so the enemy can’t just spread his own fleet to chase every sub). Subs that are chased by destroyers may be sunk, but the ones that are chased just by regular navy units can submerge and escape…
• if the enemy spreads his fleet to hunt your subs… his fleet gets vulnerable to either attacks by your own concentrated fleet… or by your own subs which can re-join to attack a single sea-zone during your turn

does anyone tried this strategy? did it work?

@Cmdr:

2d6+1 IPC to repair, or you could let it remain unimpaired was our house rule.

(Means it could cost between 3 and 13 IPC to fix it.  Boy did you hope you rolled ones then!)

did you modified BBs cost as well (made them cheaper to buy) or you leave it as it was?
thanks

I want Japan and Italy have only ‘light armor’
I’ve been scratching my head thinking on how that could work

Say that Light-Armor attacks on a 3 but defends on a 2 (like it was on Classic). How much should it cost?
Say they attack and defend on a 2. How much should they cost again?

I would give them a 4 IPC cost… the problem is that Arty cost that already and attack-defends on a 2 but they move just one. Besides its infantry support capacity, if Arty and Light-Armor cost the same, who would buy arty at all?  :?

Is it there any house-rule for surrounded armies? for example: surrounded armies should lost part of their combat capacity (for example, they shouldn’t be able to attack until they link with their supply lines)?
thanks

I always found BB capacity of fixing herself after each combat while still on the sea very un-realistic.
Is it there a house rule for say BB having to return to a friendly sea-port for reparations?
if yes, BB should be cheaper, how much cheaper?
thanks!

I’ve read a lot about how annoying is that just one destroyer can cancel the special capacities of any giving number of subs.
I don’t find that very problematic myself
but some players suggest that you should match one destroyer with one sub for canceling subs capacities.

but what about this: one destroyers cancels the capacities of a wolf-pack of three subs… the fourth sub (and the next ones) still have their special abilities.

I have an impossible wish-list
It’s impossible because they are things that are either very difficult to implement (for a board game) or because they would change the game so dramatically that it couldn’t be called AA anymore

but here it goes:

1. There should be FOG (Fog Of War: you can’t see all the enemy units, just what is on the territories on your borders)

2. The Game turns should be WE-GO instead of I-GO-U-GO