Posts made by Gallo Rojo

Title:  First Time AA50 Disappointment (1941)
Date:  Dec. 1 to Dec 5
Special Rules:  NO, Tech
Victor:  Draw agreed by both players due to boredom and disappointment 
Game Length:  5th Rounds, we’ve been playing one round per day every evening.
Bias:  1 vs 1. Allied played a little bit more experienced.
Description: 
Both players tried to play historically.
Allied decided that USA should stand up against Japan instead of pushing for a KGF or KIF. UK was left alone to push against Germany and Italy. USSR usual role: survive.
Axis: Japan focused on the Pacific. Germany made a couple of early mistakes like didn’t sink most of the British fleet.
Britain bought a Factory in India, which was a bad idea because Japan captured it on a very tied battle – I knew it was a bad idea, but I wanted to try.
Russia rolled for tech and got Increased Industrial Capacity. Japan got super-subs and Improved Navy Yards later on.
Japan become a giant monster by turn 3.
USA had to abandon the Pacific.
By end of round 5 Germans had taken Karelia. Western Allies had taken France (firmly), and were threatening Italy. Japan was controlling all Asia, and starting moving against USSR and Africa.
Then we call it a draw.
Observations/Recommendations: 
National Objectives didn’t lead to a more historical game (which is supposed to be their goal). Instead of that, and after trying a couple of turns, Allies moved to KGF, and Japan turned against Moscow. Only they did was causing inflation and mass production for Japan. They’ve been a great disappointment.
Japan gets too strong too fast. 
USSR is too weak. It needs at least a fighter. Maybe the ability of moving its factories.
USA can’t fight two fronts at the same time – actually, it can’t even fight the Pacific alone.

Thanks  :-)
now I realize that I didn’t know the term but I did know the tactic

TG Moses VI:
my analysis of this is much simpler than yours:
taking aside any strategic considerations, I do the following cost-benefit analysis:

The Net Benefit of SRB is: Expected Gain (IPCs taken from the enemy) - Expected Cost (cost of loosing the BB)

Expected Gain (EG) = Average Damage Yield by SBR * Probability of BB surviving the AA
In numbers: EG = (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 x 5/6 = 2.92

Expected Cost (EC) = BB Cost * Probability of Being Shoot Down by AA
In numbers: EC = 12 * 1/6 = 2

So, in AA50: SRB Next Benefit is: 2.92 - 2 = 0.92

If you’re risk neutral, you should bomb

In Revised, the numbers for EC were: 15 * 1/6 = 2.5
Hence EG - EC = 2.92 - 2.5 = 0.42

So it was still a ‘rational’ choice, only that you’re expected gain was smaller

comments? thoughts? Am I missing something?

@LT04:

I forgot who on this site said it but it was brought up that most A&A games start out in favor of the Axis until a Allied revolutionary event takes place (like the shuck-shuck in classic).  Then the Allies have the upper hand and that’s when the bidding starts.

I know I’ll sound stupid, but: what’s shuck-shuck in classic?

@Krieghund:

@Gallo:

@Romulus:

I would say use the LHTR rules for Heavy Bomber…  :-D

which are?

Whether attacking or defending, roll two dice for each bomber and pick the best result.  In an SBR, add one to the resulting number.

thanks  :-)

@Romulus:

I would say use the LHTR rules for Heavy Bomber…  :-D

which are?

I don’t know if this has been discussed before, or if there is an specific forum for discussing house-rules, so forgive me if I’m repeating or duplicating a previous or current discussion

I guess that we all agree about that Heavy Bombers are still too strong (even if they roll two dices instead of three as it was in classic).
Basically, if you can afford bombers, that’s the technology advance everybody would like to have (i.e.: for everybody except Italy and USSR, Hvy BB are ‘war winning weapons’).

So, House Rule suggestions for making them less lethal:

when attacking a territory, Hvy BB kills on a 5 (but they still roll only one dice)

when performing strategic bombing, I’m not sure:
option 1: they still roll two dices
option 2: they roll two dices but only the higher dice scores (example: you roll a 2 and a 5: you choose the 5)

opinions? thoughts? other house rules around?

@AxisOfEvil:

@Romulus:

Krieghund already explained that it is a problem of wording, the word selected “attack” should have been “surprise strike” or “surprise firing”, if I am not making a mistake.

I am not english born but I am considering that “surprise attack” has been not used to indicate the “attack” but the roll of the dice trying to hit the enemy. I do not see the need for a specification for the sub being in defense being able to perform a surprise strike. It is a sub ability to stay hidden and strike by surprise. It do not depend by the role in the battle, the sub is  aiming to hit the enemy in both case, attack and defense, acting in the same way: lurking below the surface, hidden and dangerous.

given this logic, which I am not disputing, why then do subs defend at 1 and attack at 2?  :)

same reason why fighters attack at 3 and defend at 4  :wink:

We all know the rule about attacking subs having the sneak ability, so they shoot first and units that they hit are lost without being able of shooting their ‘casualty shoot’ (if no DD present)

but something it’s not clear for me is what happens with defending subs. They should roll their dices first (like attacking ones)… but what happens with their hits? does attacking ships torpedoed by defending units sunk without even attacking?

example:
Attacker has three Cruisers
Defender has four subs and one cruiser

battle: defender rolls his subs and got 3-2-5-1! ok! one hit…

what happens next? are one attacking cruiser already lost and the attacker rolls just 2 dices during his attacking phase?

@TG:

The safe bet is destroyers.  You can never go wrong buying them.  They’re like the infantry of the waters.

I like thinking what I get for the same price to make my comparisons

So I was thinking… for 20 IPC you can have:
1 Battleship
or
2 Subs + 1 Destroyer

latter option is clearly better:
It gives you much more offensive fire-power: 3 dice rolling at 2 = 6, against one dice rolling at 4
For defensive fire power the odds are similar: 2 dice rolling at 1 + 1 dice rolling at 2 = 4; but you have the chance of getting more than one hit (the limit for the Battleship)
Now, the Battleship has a can take two hits… but 2 subs and 1 destroyer can take three hits

the only advantage the battleship has over the 2 subs + 1 destroyer pack is it’s capacity to naval bombardment… which doesn’t count in a navy battle

two votes per poster: one for what to buy and one for what not to buy

I guess we all agree that the best fleet is one that combines different units
but, in Revised, Battleships were too expensive for what they delivered
subs, on the other hand, were very cheap and many players liked to build massive sub-fleets (or that’s what I’ve been seeing playing TripleA)
Carriers with fighters are the best defensive units, but they where expensive

in AA50, naval units are cheaper.
Battleships, especially, are even cheaper in relative terms
Subs are even cheaper than before, some of their abilities are increased, but their defensive capability is reduced

so the question is:
is there a ‘triumph’ naval unit?
does buy Battleships makes any sense?

My own taken is that Cruisers are worthless: I would buy 3 Destroyers instead of 2 Cruisers (roll thee dices at 2, instead of 2 at 3… they add the same but can kill more and sustain more damage… plus their anti-sub capacity).
I think that Battleships may worth buying now that they’re cheaper… but subs are probably still the best choice

Comassion: sounds good
just two questions:

one

@Comassion:

One bonus here is that people won’t see it coming the first time you do it.  Who the heck splits up their naval forces?  But with the sub rules meaning that only a destroyer-equipped fleet can attack a sub, I think it will actually work.

it is my understanding that any ship can attack submarines (be it a destroyer, a cruiser, battleship, carrier, or another sub).
but subs have their first sneaky attack and can submerge if there are not destroyers present with the enemy fleet.

the units that can not attack subs without a destroyer present are aircraft.

Am I right?

two: how many subs do you need to make that strategy workable? what about combining subs with other ships?

@FieldMarshalGames:

The one NO that really bothers me is the one for holding the US territories.  USA gains 5 IPC for holding E USA/ C USA / W USA…  what about Alaska?

First off, USA will ALWAYS get this (99% of the time, Axis invasion unlikely) and is Alaska not part of the USA? So it is way too easy and an unfair advantage to the USA which is always an IPC powerhouse anyway.

If you add Alaska to this NO than it adds two things:

a) More Historical - May direct Japan to attacking Alaska RE Aleutian Islands Campaign. And it IS a US home territory.
b) Gives the Axis a chance to rob USA of this NO just as EVERY other nation is in risk of loosing their NOs.

In my house, on my game table with my game…  this will now be the HOME rule.

BRAVO!
I totally agree

@TG:

I’m fro :mrgreen: Argentina, so you couldn’t buy the game when it first come out (I’m talking about AA Classic).
So here is what a group of friends and I did:
we built our own really huge map
we buy a bunch of small scale models, we built and paint them…

Pictures or it didn’t happen.

That was about ten years ago (boy, I’m getting older…)
And I’m not living in Argentina anymore.
Maybe some of my friends still have the game

uhm… I’m just curious:

what naval, air, and land units does AA Pacific, Europe, Guadalcanal, D-Day, and Battle of the Bugle represent? Is there much change?

I know that US fighters for AA Pacific are Hellcats (or maybe Wildcats?). They seem to be the same than AA50
Does the ships’ class change or are they the same?

@TG:

b)  Buy copies of A&A:Europe or A&A:Pacific and simply exchange those pieces (which are of higher quality) with the ones in Axis and Allies:50?  (Purchasing both copies will easily cost upwards of $50, though many of you already own copies – in which case, problem solved).

that’s the best ‘solution’ … but you still have a problem: how do you replace the Italian Chips? Which, additionally, happen to be the worst, since her air and navy are simply German chips with other colors.

@TG:

d)  Other???

If you want to go for the very expensive and time consuming (but far best solution), here it goes:

I’m fro Argentina, so you couldn’t buy the game when it first come out (I’m talking about AA Classic).
So here is what a group of friends and I did:
we built our own really huge map
we buy a bunch of small scale models, we built and paint them…

yes, it was crazy, but was very beautiful

@Black_Elk:

A heftier American Nation Objective in the Pacific would have been nice. They should really be collecting closer to 50 ipcs a round if you want players to seriously fight in two directions at once. Otherwise you’re always going to get people going after the magnified “All Europe” or “All Pacific” gameplan.

TOTALLY!

USA Pacific strategy?

move the fleet to the Atlantic!  :lol:

well… ok… problem is that I’m a sucker for historical gaming, so I just can’t stand the idea of leaving the Pacific just like this (plus, there is a lot of pressure in my war cabinet, especially from the Navy, to stand and fight the evil Japanese Empire).

so, I think I’ll follow your advice and start building some Gato Class subs  :-D

@TG:

But if Japan manages to deliver a knockout blow to the US (which they are well capable of doing), does that singular event win the Axis the game?

As I said: it was just one idea

But on the other hand: if Germany manages to deliver a knockout blow to Moscow… that singular even usually wins the Axis the game!

Why shouldn’t be that the case if Japan defeats the US too?

Let me put in another way: if in the real war, Japan would had won the battle of Midway, taken Hawaii later on, and threatened with an invasion to the US West Coast (not a real one, just the threat), that would had forced the USA to capitulate in the Pacific.

In the real world, we don’t know what would had happened later on
Probably the US would had sent everything against Germany and finished the war en Europe faster (but that post-WW2 world would have seen Japan as a mayor power anyway)

Or the Japanese may have forced the US to quit their war effort all together and retreat from Europe

my point is: how can that be modeled into the game?

In Classic, the Axis could win the game not just by conquering the Victory Cities but by an Economic Win (achieving certain amount of Production).
Why not inventing some modified NOs on a similar way?

My problem with the game as it is now is the following: aside that it’s un-historical, if it’s still true that the dominant strategy for Axis is going always after Moscow, and the dominant strategy for the Allies is playing a KGF (with the USA forgetting about the Pacific altogether)… well, we end up with a very predictable game.

and after have payed $100 for the game, I would like to see some variety! (otherwise this is just Revised plus Italy!)

Not to mention that I would love seen a good series of navy battles in the Central and South Pacific that actually means something! But so far it seems that the only crucial battle is the Battle for Moscow… fought by two historical enemies such as the Soviets and the Japanese  :roll:

TG:
what I’m looking for regarding NOs is that they deliver what they are supposed to deliver: a more historical game

for what I’ve been reading here (and for my very limited gaming experience with AA50), that’s not the case

if they’re doing what they’re suppose to do, then they’re just a bunch rules to memorize. They can be ‘fun’, but their intended goal is lost.

My guess is that the ‘economic incentive’ is not working
It’s still better the Axis to focus all three against Moscow, and for the Allies on a KGF (with USA forgetting about the Pacific)

Hence, my suggestion was to make NOs mandatory – not simply an economic incentive.

The “US loosing the game if abandon the Pacific” was simply an example about how those ‘mandatory’ NOs could be.