Posts made by gamerman01

@Cmdr:

Let me clarify, what I am saying is it might be beneficial to game play to prevent BOMBERS from attacking naval assets at sea.  Fighters would still be available both on offense and defense.

The only reason I am suggesting that bombers be limited to land only combat is because the bomber unit is significantly cheaper than it used to be after getting a 20% off discount.  Coupled with its range, range of uses and damage potential it almost seems unfair to have them in the same battle with other units.

Instead of raising the price up to 14 IPC (a much more reasonable price in my opinion) or even back to 15 IPC each, or trying to reduce the costs of naval units to ridiculously low levels to compensate, we could simply write a tournament rule that bombers cannot engage in naval combat.

This might even make submarines more valuable as assets to attack unprotected shipping in the back shipping lanes, now that bombers wouldn’t be allowed to exploit their long range and attack those assets, while submarines can ignore most surface vessels and slip through to attack anyway.

Yes, this is the same conclusion I have come to.  Don’t forget, THREE techs that all apply to bombers, and cumulatively.

@Cmdr:

Also, the American’s in World War II invented a technique called “Skip Bombing” where the bomber would basically throw the bomb out of it’s cargo bay, let it skip like a stone across the waves and impact an enemy ship.

I don’t know if it can account for any significant damage to the enemy or even if it was employed on a large scale at all.  I just remember from AFROTC that it was invented by an American Air Corps pilot in the early 1940s or maybe late 1930s.

Also, America at least, employed bombers in significant numbers in the Atlantic to locate and destroy German U-Boats.  The bombers would use sonar buoys to find them, and then drop depth charges from their bays.  It was significantly faster and cheaper then sending out thousands of destroyers to cover the same area.

However, this is a game, not a recreation of history.  If this was a recreation of history, then the axis would start in 1942 and never rise to power beyond their initial territories.  We don’t want to recreate history too well, but rather make the game more enjoyable.  Given that, I think it might be best suited to just exclude bombers from naval combat.  Not only do you negate the cost benefit of a bomber vs a pair of destroyers or a cruiser, but you also negate the effect of heavy bombers on fleets as well.

Ah, this is what I was looking for.

I thought super subs only increased the attack power.
The tank armor is waaaaaay overpowered.  So if you had 10 tanks, it would take 11 hits to kill 1?  That’s crazy, man, you need to modify that.
Battleships (sounds like you’re talking AAR) cost 24.  Tanks cost 5.
That one’s a bigger game-breaker than 3 dice heavy bombers!

@gamerman01:

Help me out with my history, here, but did bombers really attack fleets as effectively as they could bomb industrial targets or ground forces?  Long range and/or heavy bombers can pretty much annihilate all enemy fleets, and especially, keep the enemy from ever starting one.  Is this unrealistic?

How about this scenario -
5 heavy bombers and 1 destroyer attacking 7 submarines
The attacker has 63.51% chance of annihilating all 7 subs in one round, and an 83% chance of destroying 6 of them in 1 round.

Someone please tell me if this is complete fantasy, or a real possibility in WW2, that bombers could pound subs.  If not, should bomber attack values be lower against fleet, or not even allowed against subs, or against fleet?
I’ve never seen video footage or read accounts of bombers attacking boats.  It’s always torpedo dive-bombers (fighter planes) or fighter planes.  Someone enlighten me, please.

Thanks, dudes!

Hey guys -
I wanted to start a discussion about bombers and related tech in AA50.

I’ve played maybe 40 games of AA50 (both scenarios) now, usually with tech and NO’s.

Everyone who played Classic A&A by OOB rules remembers that HB were usually a game-ender, because they were 3 dice apiece, and there was no cap on SBR damage.  If the other side didn’t get HB themselves, in a hurry, it was usually game over no matter who was ahead at that point (unless it was very lopsided).

However, I think we may have a similar issue in AA50.
Now there are 6 nations, and each normally has significantly more income than in previous games, with the NO’s.  Also, the price of bombers has dropped to 12 from 15 (I realize this is in large part because fleet is cheaper) and there are 3 techs (previously 2) that significantly improve bomber performance.  Just getting any 2 of them is devastating, especially because the bombers still only cost 12.  These techs are so effective, that it is often a good strategy to buy bombers before you even have the techs.  Even Italy or Russia, sometimes.

So what I’d like to discuss is these issues.  I’m thinking about a house rule that bombers cost 15 again.  I mean, they can attack everything at 4, have the longest range, and with more territories, there are more places to land them (thus splitting them up sometimes).
Or, that LRA adds 1 MP to fighters and bombers, not 2.  Maybe this whole thing should be in the house rule thread.

Do you think bombers are overpowered or underpriced?

Help me out with my history, here, but did bombers really attack fleets as effectively as they could bomb industrial targets or ground forces?  Long range and/or heavy bombers can pretty much annihilate all enemy fleets, and especially, keep the enemy from ever starting one.  Is this unrealistic?

I have another game going where my opponent acquired LRA in US1 for 10, and has bought almost nothing but air the entire game.  I can’t start a fleet anywhere in the world and keep it alive fore more than a turn.  I have a Japanese fleet with about 7-8 destroyers, 2 loaded carriers, etc. and they all have to huddle together to keep from being destroyed (because there is no reflection of the loss of economies of scale/marginal returns (or whatever) in these games - that is , 10 infantry have 10X the efficiency of 1 infantry)

Sorry, I’m just thinking out loud here, from my A&A experiences.  What do you think?

It was obvious just from looking at the box that this was one cool game.
However, after that I never saw it for years.  Then my nephews (who aren’t much younger than me) got it.  They had played it a couple times, and I played the younger one (he was probably 12-14 at the time).  I had the Axis, because his brother always took the Axis and so he had only played the Allies.
What’s funny, is I remember his strategy with the UK.  He spent all of his money on fighters every turn, for defense.  I remember he had about 8-10 fighters on the island, and he was probably flying some to Russia.  Apparently his brother had taken him over on the UK, and he bought fighters because they had the highest defense value.
I’m embarassed to say I don’t know how many games it took us to realize that infantry was the best defense.
And this makes me laugh to this day - His aggressive older brother would always take the Axis, buy all tanks with Germany, attack Karelia with everything in round 1, and try to steam-roll Russia.  This always worked against his young brother, but when he came to my place to play (I think I had bought my own by this time), I bought 8 infantry in R1 and then the going wasn’t so easy.

Since we’re talking about our first exposure to A&A, I’ll share my fond memory.

I recall being with my Dad on a trip to the Quad Cities (we live in rural Iowa) when I was about 12-14?  So 1987-1989? 
They didn’t even sell Axis and Allies in many towns in our area.
I believe it was in a toy/game/hobby shop in Davenport, Iowa where I saw this war game behind the window.  I remember looking at the back of the box and seeing the cool looking ships, planes, men and tanks on the board.  I distinctly remember the units on and around India on the map.  Boy, did I want that game.  I’m trying to remember the pricetag.  I think it was $25-$30, which is like probably about $50 in today’s dollars.

I knew it was too much for my Dad to buy it - I’m not even sure it was Christmas time.  But his objection wasn’t so much the money.  My Dad absolutely shuns some kinds of games.  Any farming game where it’s easy to get rich (he’s a farmer who’s had his rich days and poor days), any war game, and most games where you accumulate a lot of wealth easily.  So he gave me an absolute “no”, along with some scary story about how horrible WWII was.  <will continue=“” post=“”>  Glitchy scroll bar thing…</will>

@ABWorsham:

It’s good to see that there are a lot of players over the age of thirty. I’m about to leave my twenties behind.

Hahaha - no need to feel embarassed or ashamed!
Yes, I’m in my mid :-o 30’s, and I will be playing all kinds of games to my dying day.

Jedi business.
He took his job seriously.
And his need for adventure was always greater than his need for women, although his need for women (his mom, and Amidala) was also very great.

Unfortunately for Anakin, he thought the two could mix - that was his whole problem.
He bought the lie from Palpatine that being an ultra-powerful Sith would save his smoking hot wife.

So the rest of his life, he got his #1 love, which was power, ability, and adventure, at the expense of his #2 priority, women, and #3 priority, being a “good guy”.

@Funcioneta:

But still I agree submarine strat can work also. It would need a France IC I think …

France IC gives tons of options to the Germans, especially naval.  Easy to contain German boats in SZ5 usually, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

I’ve launched German boats in SZ4, 5, 7 and 13 all in the same turn.

I pretty much agree with Func here.
Last time I disagreed with Func, it led to several A&A games!  :lol:

@a44bigdog:

I think part of the problem is many people want so bad for subs to be better than they are. Don’t get me wrong I occasionally buy and use subs, I just have seen so many post over the years trying to recreate the “Battle of the Atlantic” that I do not think is really possible in Axis and Allies so far.

You didn’t look at my game, linked below, did you?  :-)
It’s a lot like the “Battle of the Atlantic”, as close as A&A could probably simulate it.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15892.0

Lynxes - The above link is to an on-going game where a serious German sub strategy is being used.
The keys for me - France IC
Either or both - Improved shipyards, super subs

I don’t know about building subs in G1 like you described, but in certain situations they are brilliant.

In this game, America has been buying almost exclusively air power, since getting LRA in US1 for 10 IPC’s, and jet fighters after that.

To keep the invaders out of Europe, I am employing a sub strategy, and with 5 IPC supers, that is quite effective.

If you observe this game, you will notice I started buying subs when I had Karelia, Germany, and France IC’s.  There are 4 different seazones to launch them from.  If UK only has 0, 1 or 2 destroyers, they can’t kill 'em all!  And occasionally, those nasty buggers roll a 1 on defense.  Trading 5 IPC subs for 8 IPC destroyers works out pretty well.

It’s good that each year is a bit different.

We had the UGA butt-whooping of Hawaii.  (It was difficult for voters to get an accurate vote on Hawaii because they played nobody all year)
That was a highly entertaining game, though.  Especially, looking at the Hawaii fans, band, players, etc.  And also, seeing their “awesome” football team exposed, playing a solid one.  I don’t watch many games not involving my team, but that was one I did not want to miss.

Some years the best team from a “minor” conference gets paired with a “big boy”.  This year, they get paired against each other.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15944.0
It’s reply #72  :cry:
You can enjoy my reaction, too.

I’m afraid I have a new one.

J2, attack on India.

I tried a new strat of ignoring China (at least for first turn or two) and trying to go through Russia and UK territories.  After all, you’re taking money away from other powers that way…

So I just got LRA for 10 bucks (yeeha) and then attacked India with 3 infantry, 4 fighters, and 1 bomber.  It’s a good thing I didn’t send in more (I had more air than that).
India defended by 4 infantry, 1 fighter, and the all-important AA.

Yep - I killed one UK infantry unit. 
AA killed 3 out of 4 fighters, AND the bomber.
I lost 2 infantry, 3 fighters, 1 bomber to 1 infantry (48 to 3)
Fortunately I decided against an IC in neighboring Burma, because the UK could easily take it over.
My only consolation - I still have LRA, 5 fighters and a bomber.
I think the RNG on this site is very random and reliable (I mean, it simulates dice well).  I have never seen a roll like this until now, on this site (4 out of 5 ones).

48 to 3!  My battle calculator had me at 85% of victory, and that includes taking over the territory (worth 8!).
That’s probably the worst luck I’ve had in trying to take a territory.

Ah, yes.  SZ2 is way out there and is 5 moves.  Gonna need LRA first, pal!

Zhukov, that’s a relic from the past, from Revised!

Taking you a bit to get used to the new and improved, isn’t it? ;)

You CAN place existing fighters on a new carrier.

You don’t fly it to Great Britain, and then out to sea (5 moves).

Like ksmckay said, you fly it to a sea zone in NCM where you build the carrier.

So yes, you can attack SZ5, build a carrier, and land on it on the way back all in one move.  AA50 and Spring '42.

Ah, yes, then tech would be the answer (to avoid repairing the complex for the invaders)

Speaking of which, anybody heard when we’ll have it on ABattlemap?

I could buy it, but it wouldn’t do much good, since I have no one to play it with anyway.
I use my AA50 game for one of my PBF’s…  (no F2F)

Yep, I was playing Yoshi.

I know the trifecta is fairly common in AA50, but you didn’t read what round it was, Bardoly.  Not that common after only 7 rounds.

Yoshi, the point isn’t how much tech you got.  I wasn’t calling you lucky.  I was merely explaining my evacuation from Russia.  My heavy bombers were irrelevant.  :lol:

And my carrier buy was much better than wasting it on 3 tokens, IMO.  It probably would have proved useful in future rounds, if J didn’t get the game ending LRA.