Posts made by gamerman01

@maverick_76:

I actually quit because they were only willing to give me 4 bananas a day, I wanted 6; dammit I got kids to feed!

:-D  Gotta feed the chimps, or they mutiny

Carrier is my choice.  1 carrier effectively adds a lot of option for up to 4 fighters and tacs.  You don’t have to take over land or an island if you have the floating island……  And now with 2 hits to sink  :-D

Also, the fastest and most cost effective way to build fleet defense if you already have the fighters.  You can build a lot more fleet defense without committing as many IPC’s for when you need to abandon a navy (Germany/Italy).

They look really cool and are the only unit that can hold other units.  It didn’t take long to discover that they were the REAL kings of the sea…

San Chillos, is it possible G40 has a different setup?  Unlikely, but possible?  Eh - you’re probably right……  J just has a ridiculous number of aircraft, and Larry claims he scaled it way down.  Well, at least J won’t be able to get aircraft to Europe easily…  :-P

I’m quite surprised all the techs are the same, except mech infantry surely won’t be as great of an improvement as it was in AA50, since you can buy mech for 4.  I suppose it lets you drag along regular infantry or artillery or something.  You guys think rockets will still have a range of only 3?

I suppose LRA is still the overpowered +2  :|

@maverick_76:

Great to know, I have friends that take their planes as cannon fodder so their bombers make it through my AA. Not anymore suckers!

:-) That is not possible when correctly following any of the rulesets.  With or without escorts/interceptors, with AA50 FAQ or P40 rules, bombers always endure their own AA fire.

Did you catch the little rule change of AA50 that AA fires separately at fighters and at bombers in every battle, SBR or otherwise?  :-)

I agree - bid is the way to give each side an equal chance to win without playing a different game than everyone else.

If you play with an immediate 40, then your bid should be less than 40, because those units will be placed at startup and will be in the action a turn faster.

@kaufschtick:

But we’d like to be playing the game the same way everyone else is playing, you know?

Yes, I know.  I have made several adjustments to AA50 that I prefer, but then it just becomes a disadvantage when you play anyone else, because you’re not used to their way and the strategies are slightly different.

Would be best if they’d make official adjustments that everyone would follow.  But as you said, we pretty much have to wait for Europe, and just play the global.  I don’t think I’ll miss being able to play P40.  I’ll be playing global 40 and AA50 exclusively, I’m sure.

@kaufschtick:

I’m starting to form the strong opinion that this game was very poorly playtested.

I remember having thoughts of this when I first analyzed the setup for the first time.

I don’t think AAP is going to see any more gametime after the European side comes out. That’s a shame too, it would’ve been nice to have had the option to game just the Pacific if the mood struck.

Well, you guys have logged an awful lot of hours on it already, so I wouldn’t call that a failure.  Just make a tweak to the setup and it’s a balanced game.

This makes me wonder whether the Europe stand alone version is going to have the same game balance and set up issues. I’m starting to have flash backs to the original Pacific & Europe versions… :|

Depends on what triggers the USA war economy.  E40 might be fine by itself.  I really wanted to believe them when they said P40 could stand on its own as a good game, but come on.  When the UK can’t sail west of East India, and the Russians suddenly don’t exist, and Japan has little good reason not to attack everybody in 1940 instead of December 7, 1941, and the Chinese can’t leave China under any circumstances (that’s for you, Func), and the USA can’t transfer anything from their Atlantic fleet, come on.  I mean, come on.  The global game will not have any of these issues, except for the curious China deal.

@calvinhobbesliker:

How to players make mistakes on Z2 OOL?

By taking a hit to the battleship in round 1 instead of to the Russian sub.

The Allies should take off the Russian sub as soon as possible even though it may result in losing a “1” roll on defense, because the German fighter and bomber hits cannot be assigned to the Russian sub.

For example, Germany scores a hit with a sub in the first round and everything else misses.  Allied player takes a hit to battleship.  Then in the second round, the Germans get no sub hits (they may already be sunk anyway) and get a hit with the fighter and bomber.  Problem.  Allies lose transport, destroyer, and battleship, and battle is over.  Had the Allies taken a hit to the sub in the first round when they had a chance, the Battleship would still be alive!

Whoa, bugoo.  I just have a question about a couple of your facts.  Wouldn’t the US get 24, not 22?  Phi is worth 7 to the US.

How can you say the Phi stuff doesn’t get to go anywhere safe?  The bomber can definitely fly away to safety, and couldn’t the fighter get to Australia or something?

I’m not disputing your ideas, just seems you might have a few facts wrong…

@bugoo:

and all of UK’s big money goes strait to japan on turn 3 anyway.

OK, now there’s a good reason for not attacking on J1.

If on UK1, player takes 2 money islands, UK has an extra 8 IPC’s to spend on UK2.  But the money collected on UK2 would only serve to be collected for Japan if J can take Ind on J3.  That does sound nasty.

So then, although you’re letting the 2 transports live on J1, if the UK player takes islands on UK1 you will just be sinking them on J2 instead.  However, refraining from a J1 attack does give the UK options, and they do not have to take islands and lose transports, and they can combine the warships….  And the US, while not getting +40, does get +7 for the Phillipines, and also salvages the fighter and bomber on the Phillipines, and the transport at Hawaii, and can they also save their destroyer and transport at the Phillipines?  Plus Japan’s not getting IPC’s for Hong Kong, Phillipines, etc.  If J doesn’t take Hong Kong on J1, that’s an extra 8 for the UK, plus J can’t build any facilities at Hong Kong on J2.  Boy, I don’t know.  J1 attack still seems awfully good…

But at least we’re hearing about benefits and angles for forgoing a J1 attack.  Thanks, guys.

Lema, I got to the point where I just played my AA50 games with the P40 escort rules - that they weren’t subject to AA fire.  I did this not for historical reasons so much, as game play reasons.  If there were defending fighters and an AA gun (let alone radar or increased production) it was almost never worth it to SBR.  Kinda sucks if the rules are effectively negating one of the strategies of the game (SBR’s).  The rules of the 1940 games are much better in this regard.

You asked if the 1940 rules will replace the AA50 FAQ, or in other words, will the AA50 FAQ be revised again to change this.  Maybe Krieg can answer that question, I don’t know, but I will say that based on my experience the AA50 FAQ SHOULD be revised so that escorts are not subject to AA fire - for playability and fun.  Or, alternatively, it doesn’t even need to be an optional rule - it could be incorporated into the rules (errata).  Although, with the radar and increased production techs, interceptor/escort rules just make SBR’s even more rare.  If the 1940 game has techs that also dampen the effects of SBR’s, I don’t think we’ll see much SBR in the 1940 game, especially because all targets ALWAYS have AA (not the case in AA50).

I’m with you, bugoo.  Many of those placements annoy me too.  Some day I will have to force myself to forgo the J1 attack just to see how it goes, but paralyzing the Allies by sinking every ship not stationed at California or India is too much to pass up.

I did look up naval positionings and strengths before seeing your post here, to see if the navy at Singapore is realistic.  Bottom line - it was hard to tell, because transports or transporting capacity was not listed since they are not warships.  Singapore did have a fair amount of various ships (cruisers, destroyers, and various small gunships), but the famous Prince of Wales battleship that the Japs sunk around Singapore was not even sent there until the fall of 1941, so I don’t know why there’s a battleship at Singapore in a 1940 setup.  Kinda makes me wonder about setup, like you.

Well, the rulebook says scrambling occurs at the beginning of the conduct combat phase.  Then SBR’s occur.  So your scrambled aircraft left the undamaged airbase to arrive at the sea zone, and then the airbase got bombed.  So it appears to me that the fighters are indeed scrambled, and the bombing of the airbase doesn’t prevent that, as it occurred at a later time.

@cminke:

ok heres the senario…. USA  has 2fightrs, 2bb,and 2 dds  japan has a fightr and 3 subs. can usa choose to use 1 fighter to tie up 1 jap figher in a 1v1 combat both hitting on 1? this is how i under stand it. (pardon my spelzing)

Nope.  Not in this game.  The only dogfights occur during strategic bomb raids.

@Zhukov44:

I’m pretty sure this has been answered, but I’d like to ask again just to be sure….

If a power buys an AC, is it possible to make an attack where this AC serves as the designated landing zone for those figs?

Example would be if there are Jap naval units in SZ53 (and Japs control Haw) and American fighters on Aussie.  USA buys an AC for 56, and 2 American figs attack 53, meaning to land on the newly built AC.

Is this maneuver legal in the new rule-set?

Yes!  And if the fighters are destroyed, then you are free to place the CV at any IC your power has!

(This rule is an added reason for purchasing IC’s, like Germany, for France (creates possibility to fly fighters 3 spaces to invade London)

@Yoshi:

I believe Kreig has already answered a similar question in this thread, but I will admit I’m too lazy to find it ;)

I’m not too lazy to find it  :-)

See replies #681, 682, and 683.

Just substitute your sub for my transport.

@Yoshi:

Yes this is a valid move, since you may ignore a sub or a tranny when making your moves.

I believe Kreig has already answered a similar question in this thread, but I will admit I’m too lazy to find it ;)

That’s the 3rd affirmative reply you’ve received, Bardoly.  If you aren’t satisfied until Krieg answers your question, than just say so.  We understood your question.  The answer is yes, it’s legal.

Attacking the sub doesn’t make the zone a “combat zone” that your transport can then not load units and pass through.  Krieg already explained that combat doesn’t happen until the combat phase.  This is the combat movement phase.  Z49 is friendly and your transport can pick up units, and your destroyer can make a combat move on the sub at the same time.  So game on, already!  :-)

@Bardoly:

Can a transport starting in another sea zone pick up troops in a sea zone which contains an enemy sub and then proceed to another seazone and attack with said troops while at the same time, naval ships (including a destroyer from an entirely different sea zone enter the sea zone containing the enemy sub to attack the enemy sub?  This is all happening during the combat move phase.

Yes.

@kungfujew:

Personally I don’t like the J1 attack as it is the least flexible of all the Japanese possible openers (ie. J2 or J3 or J4), and while I 100% agree that the UK transports, or at least one of them, should have started next to India, I don’t think the playtesters “missed” the J1 attack.  If you have a different Allied style of play then that’s cool, but if you’re finding that you can’t hardly ever stop Japan then you should probably try making a few drastic changes to your moves and do some serious experimenting.  You never know what you’ll learn from yourself. 8-)

Thanks, kungfu, I was waiting for someone to respond like this - that a J1 attack is not necessarily the best decision to make.  I’m not saying I agree with you, but I’m glad someone finally posted some ideas and made a case for delaying from a J1 attack.  I’ll have to try J2, J3, etc sometime…

@Cmdr:

However, I, personally, am using classic to teach my children how to play before getting them into more advanced games.

Now that’s a cool mom.  Not too many moms playing A&A with their kids  :-D