Posts made by gamerman01

I agree with Funcioneta here.  +1

I agree with the big Dog.  Big Dog, I can finally give karma now that I’m playing a game by forum, so here you go.

I’m a little slow, I guess, but I finally figured out how these people have thousands of posts.  Obviously, they rack them up by playing A&A by forum!  :oops:
So to get my 100 posts so I can give out karma, I need to play a game by forum I guess!  Was wanting to try it anyway.  Let’s see if I can figure it out….  :?

Well, if you have some artillery on the board you’re in a good position if you pick up the advance artillery tech.
It’s great that your friends are making fun  :lol:  That gives you license to make fun of them for something they do.  The best way to make them shut up is to roll over them with Russia.  Until then, be prepared for more laughing.  But don’t let their laughing discourage you from playing your game!

88’s could shoot tanks, right?  88’s were dominant.

Nick,

I’ll weigh in first.

Kudos for thinking out of the box.

Your American plan depends greatly on what Japan does first.  You will need a plan B and C.
You’re dreaming if you think there is any way you will be assaulting Japan on round 2 with America.  However, I like the fact that you are thinking all out attack on Japan immediately with USA in 1942 scenario.  Japan is vulnerable.  There is a lot of money in the Pacific.  I usually prefer to take a Southerly route through the Pacific.  NW Canada is an excellent place for land units, fighters and bombers.  The infantry can get to Eastern Canada in one move for potential transporting to Europe/Africa, and all units are adjacent to the same sea zone as California so can be transported and bombers pose heavy threat to all Japanese boats.

Germany strat I like better.  UK is vulnerable early on.  Russia can be hard to take down.  Again, I would wait and see what Russia does round 1 before buying 3 transports.  I always buy a carrier round one with Germany and load it with fighters.  UK would be crazy to attack you with two fighters and a bomber against a loaded carrier, destroyer and cruiser, so you don’t have to worry about that.  That said, you are correct that 4 inf, 4 tanks, 5 fighters a bomber and possibly a cruiser bombardment would be tough to defend.  If your opponent is not wise and builds a carrier and flies his planes onto it, you will probably take over the UK round 2.  But only rookies would do that.  Also, it is a risky move if you fail.

If I was Allies and you made that German move, I would have a destroyer on the East Coast of UK to stop bombardment (you could attack it with Italian fighter, however).  I would buy several land units, including some tanks (probably 6-8 altogether), to answer your threat and also because I will be needing them anyway for future amphibious assaults.  I would leave the 2 UK fighters there.  I might land the USA fighter there, too, depending on how much UK actually bought.  I would probably even land 4 USA land units there as well with the starter transports.  I would probably land 1-2 more US bombers there too.  At this point, you would need jet fighters tech to even think about assaulting UK.  And keep in mind, I’m lucky at rolling AA fire ;)

In conclusion, I think it’s a good plan to quickly topple an opponent that doesn’t have too much A&A under their belt.  But for any seasoned player, I’m afraid it is a somewhat weak opening move.

Welcome to the forums, and I hope you post more!

Actually, they neutered Strat bombing in this game.  You’re a veteran of earlier A&A games, so you should know this.  The max damage to Germany is 20.  There are two techs to protect you from Strat bombing.  Industrial production on chart one halves the cost of repair, so Strat bombing wouldn’t be worth it.  Also, radar on chart 2 gives you a 1/3 chance of shooting down all planes, much better than the 20% you were using.

As P@nther pointed out, there is an opportunity cost with SBR.  He’s not using his bombers for conventional attacks.  So each bomber that doesn’t get shot down is doing an average of 3 1/2 damage to you.  Many times bombers can have more effect by attacking units.  In some battles they get to kill more than one unit (if there’s more than one round to the battle).

I rarely see Strat bombing in this game.  Again, it’s weaker than ever before.  It doesn’t even directly bomb your money anymore!  You don’t have to fix all the damage.  Shoot, you don’t have to fix ANY damage.  If I was taking 20 damage a turn early in the game with Germany like you are, I’d probably be spending a lot on tech.  Also, if I had 20 damage on my Berlin factory, I’d probably build a new one in France for 15.  You have so many more options with SBR in AA50 than AAR or classic.

To be honest, it sounds to me like your friend is a better player than you.  I say this partly because you think the Allies have the advantage in 1941, which they definitely do not.  Why don’t you take the Allies in 1941 and play your friend.  Then see how dominant the 1941 Allies are.  My guess is you’d be complaining about Japan having 9 fighters and 5 transports at game start, and that the Axis automatically get almost all NO’s.

Just my opinions.

I’ve lived in Iowa my whole life and am a University of Iowa alum and love my Hawks.  Of course I’d like to see the Big 10 be a respected conference again, but what does it matter, really.

That said, let me provide some context to the Iowa vs. South Carolina game.  Iowa knocked off #3 Penn State late in the season, solving the #1 #2 debate for last year.  Iowa tends to play their best ball in October/November and for some unknown reason seems to improve faster than most teams.  What I mean is, they lose games in September that are surprising, but if they were to play the same team again in November, Iowa would often win.  If you were to look at Iowa’s record over the last 10 years in October and November only, you would be surprised.

Since getting embarassed by USC in the Orange bowl several years ago, Iowa has clamped down on bowl games, losing very few since then.  Iowa has beaten Florida (and lost to Florida once) and LSU in January 1 bowl games in the recent past.  The victory over SC is just the latest Iowa conquest of an SEC team on January 1.

So I guess, if you took Iowa out of the Big Ten and then looked at Big Ten bowl records in the past 5-7 years, the Big Ten would suck even worse.  The fact that Iowa had the only Big 10 Bowl win last year is telling.

Then there’s the fact that SC had lost several games at the end of their season.  The two teams were going in opposite directions.  So looking at this game as a “middle of the Big 10” vs “middle of the SEC” is extremely misleading.  I guess I’m making a case that the SEC is better than the Big 10.  But they should be.  They have much better weather to practice in throughout the year and can get better recruits.  It’s amazing that teams here in the Midwest can compete as well as they do.

@WOPR:

@a44bigdog:

I think the India IC is beyond dead. In my opinion this is a holdover from Classic. In Revised with the production caps the Indian IC was a real pain to pull off. Now with an even stronger Japan it is impossible. If Japan WANTS India it will take it, and there is no way for the Allies to shove enough units there to stop this from happening.

You’re right about that. If Japan really WANTS India, they’ll get it… Eventually. However, if the Allies play it right they can make them pay dearly for it. Both in terms of troops and more importantly, time. A stalled Axis is a weakened Axis.

Same goes for the Eastern Russia thing.  Japan can take it, but at what cost?

I have a question about retreating loaded transports.  If the naval battle goes sour before the landing of troops, the attacking fleet must retreat.  Sometimes this means loaded transports with little or no protection left.  The beaten attacker has no other choice but to retreat one space from whence he came, right?  And then the 3 or 4 transports (hypothetical) loaded with 3-4 tanks and 3-4 men all get killed by one submarine or fighter plane during the next round?  Am I interpreting the rules correctly?  Just the risk you take when attacking boats and landing all in one move?

@Cmdr:

yea, that is a mistake one not soon forgets!

Not sure how effectively you can SBR Japan from Stanovoj.  Not saying it is effective or ineffective, saying I’m not sure how effective it is! (some people like axis_roll will assume because I said “not sure how effective…” I mean completely ineffective and go off the deep end trying to prove me wrong, hence the clarification!)

I’d say it is a pretty heavy investment from what you are describing.

21-24 IPC in Russian Infantry

• 20 IPC in British Fighters
• 20 IPC in American Fighters
• 24 IPC in American Bombers
• 12 IPC in British Bombers (?)

That’s 88 IPC (if you dont bring the British Bomber) of units tied up to do 3.5 IPC damage per bomber on average. (10-11 Dmg a round expected.)

Just to put some perspective on it.  Again, I am NOT saying this is a GOOD or a BAD idea, I am only attempting to investigate further.

Most of the units are starting units, so do not need to be purchased.  Sounds intriguing, falconrider.  Jen, I don’t think it’s about just bombing the factory.  With all those planes right there, it will be trickier for Japan to build fleet, or the fleet might have to stay home.  Also, as he pointed out, if Japan tries to take out that nice little stack it would be costly.  The topic is stalling Japanese expansion, and this idea appears to have some merit.

@Danger:

My first game was 23 years ago when I was just 7 and was used to my family punishing me at risk.  Then one night my older brother (15 at the time) and his friends come home with this new game called Axis and Allies and they needed a 5th player so I was conscripted into the red army and thrown to the German tigers in what was to become Russia’s most pathetic moment.  I’m sure Stalin would have had me shot after the first turn, but he was not around so it was left to the Germans to get rid of me which they did in three short and painfull turns.  I was then cast from the room with much laughter from the Axis and grumbles from the Allies.

I did not play another game of A&A with my brother for 6 years during which time I played with my friends as often as possible awaiting my chance for revenge.  Then one day I challenged him and he actually accepted, 24 hours of playing time over three days later I was victorious.  Since then our games together have always been highly competetive and even ugly, its all worth it though when I beat him even now.

That is AWESOME!  :-D

@Panzer:

I actually found that the Axis have the advantage in 41 and they can win 75% of the time if they do the right things. The Allies win if they prolong the war so as to slowly eat away at the Axis advance and take back abit at a time. The Axis need only capture the victory cities needed and they have it. It is harder for the Allies as they lose to much right off the start and their money drops rapidly. The Axis should be making all their NO’s by turn 3 and raking in the bucks. Also they can eliminate most of the Allies NO’s in short order.
The 42 set-up is the exact opposite, the Allies win 75% of the time and they have an easier time capturing the victory cities. The Axis have to make serious strides right away or they are on the slow path to ruin. 8-)

I pretty much agree with your conclusions.  That’s why I am starting to prefer the 1942 scenario (I like Allied wins).

My last game I tried implementing the Larry Harris suggestion of no new complexes on islands smaller than Australia.  That alone made a huge difference in stunting Japan (although I was playing '42).  Should make a difference in '41 as well.  I mean, it’s a no brainer to put an IC on East Indies, and it’s also ridiculous that 4 units a turn could be produced there (hence the rule).  The IPC value is to reflect the rich natural resources in Borneo and East Indies, not production capacity.  I mean, double Karelia’s capacity?

@Gargantua:

Ya pulling 15 and then 9+ ipcs away a turn from UK, and russian units off the eastern front to India to be exposed to the entirity of the Japanese Juggernaut is a BAD plan of action.

that Sz35 fleet should NEVER survive, barring extreme luck, beating 2 fgt’s.  and YUN should also NEVER survive any good J1 strategy.  Other locations on J1 are negotiable to the success of those battles, barring the bat in Sz 53 that must also be destroyed.

The only time and India complex is viable is if, J1 is Horribly botched, or you are playing against a Japanese opponenf, who is VERY new, or VERY inept.

I pretty much agree with you, man.  In this game I think UK needs to be concentrating on Germany.  Any complex within 6 spaces of Japan in the first few rounds is going to get captured.  And I can’t imagine a scenario where that is good for the allies.

@oztea:

No AA guns on boats, it doesnt solve anything. It just makes the UK fleet stronger if germany can only attack it by air late game.
As for Egypt, thats how the cookie crumbles. It was a tough battle, it could have gone either way, what needs to be represented better is the surrounding territories. More goofballs running around africa, another south african, always a guy in perisa, another in transjordan, it wasnt all or nothing cram everyone in egypt, the UK had there what it could fit there logisticly, and it had reserves.
Island Factories……I despise them, 100% Ahistorical. …but im a fan of victory cities priducing 1 infantry a turn if you pay.
Cruisers are fine, a 3/3 for 10 is a fighter. A 3/3 for 5 Is a tank A 3/3 for 12 is a Cruiser.
Small discrepency, but its all realitive. In the water a 3/3 for 12 is fine, considering the 2/2 is 8 (66% of cost) and the 2/2 on land is 80% of the cost of its 3/3 counterpart. Boats cost alot of money folks, remember if you drop it low enough Russia might buy one and thats pretty ahistorical. 12 makes it an investment, not a bargain.

Agree no AA on boats.  Agree no change needed to Egypt.  Something posters have been conveniently omitting - you have to destroy the UK DD with 1 fighter first.  This is not a gimme.  Also, the German bomber is not doing something else very important - such as killing a UK battleship.  The dude that wrote to Larry about a 100 IPC swing was stretching it.  There’s an opportunity cost to using the bomber in Egypt round one - plus it’s stuck down south somewhere afterwards.  I completely disagree that buffing Egypt is in the top 10 things to write to Larry about. 
The island factories thing is huge.  I’m playing my first game now without them.  It totally neuters Japan.  I also added one infantry to the flying tigers.  Japan didn’t even attack them (for the first time ever).  Japan is struggling (in round 5) to keep 2 NO’s.  Personally, I like this because I like it when the Allies eventually win (like in the good 'ol days when I played Classic).  Italian units taking over Eastern US - talk about ahistorical (happened in one of my games - just making the point I don’t like Axis victories).
Also, agree there’s no problem with pricing for cruisers.

@Telamon:

You’re spot on Holkann - hit taking ability is as important as hit giving ability.  That’s why 5 cruisers (attack points 15, cost 60) will consistently lose to 3 battleships (attack points 12, cost 60).  Extra hits.  It’s what makes destroyers the best value for buffing a fleet.  I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships.  At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships.  I don’t mind where they are placed 10-11, but at 12 IPC they are pricing themselves out of the market.  Bombarding doesn’t make up for a weak, expensive unit.

I disagree about the cruisers being overpriced.  5 cruisers bombard more effectively than 3 battleships.  5 cruisers can be in 5 places at once, whereas 3 battleships…  A cruiser (or better yet, a destroyer) can block a huge enemy fleet by itself cheaper than a battleship or aircraft carrier (sometimes an important tactical move).  If cruisers only cost 10, they would be too good.  Last but not least, there’s the confusion/unpredictability factor.  5 cruisers takes up more space so may look more menacing.  Again, the split up ability of cheaper units is an advantage over more expensive ones.  I’d rather have 5 cruisers in some situations than 3 battleships (not always, but sometimes).

Go Hawks!

(Mt. Pleasant, IA native and Iowa alum)

My biggest problem is the leap of faith it takes to believe that humans can breathe normally on all planets.  Speaking of planets, how could they fight on Mustafar without getting, er, a little singed?
Second place would be the lack of language barriers.  I guess English is the language of the entire Universe.

Hah - I think my journey would end right here with her!