Is there a second edition coming out anytime soon. Larry mentioned a second edition with possibly some slight changes (move a couple naval bases) and I was wondering if anyone knew anything about it.
Well, a “second edition” would certainly be nice! Like one where a J2 or J3 or J4 attack actually makes sense! They don’t need to reprint the game, just alter the rules/setup a bit.
@WILD:
It will also be a lot more involved and probably a much longer game as well. I think AA50 will still have an audience.
Exactly. AA50 will definitely still be very popular. The sheer number of possibilities and calculations of the 1940 global game will be much greater and I know I for one will be playing both.
I certainly don’t see 1940 as a replacement for AA50 in the way the AA50 effectively replaced everything before it (and Spring 1942 after it). For another thing, they start at two very different times, separated by 2 years.
Efficiency, and Shucking Efficiency To be great, you have to be very efficient with your units. A great player will have just enough to get the job done in the most important areas of the struggle. Just enough to make the opponent’s attack risky, or just enough to keep the opponent from wanting to attack at all, for example. It’s a waste to have more than you need, and waste leads to losing! :-)
Shucking efficiency - Having just enough to deter opponent’s attack on transports, or just enough that it would be too risky for your opponent to attack your fleet. Besides this, building just the right number of transports and ground units at just the right times to maximize transporting efficiency, enabling the maximum number of ground units to enter the battle at the most critical times.
Restraint Just because you can make an attack, and just because you will probably lose less than your opponent, doesn’t mean you should do it. Often it’s better to be patient and build up more forces, and attack at a more opportune time in the future. Most novices attack whenever and whatever they can, especially when a high IPC income is under the territory. Just because you can take an empty France with an infantry in round 1 doesn’t mean you should. If you’re sacrificing a transport, that’s 2 less ground units you can threaten with next turn. Just because 6 + 5 IPC’s for France are yours, you gave up 7 + 3 IPC’s to do it (-1 for 1/3 chance at destroying 3 IPC’s on counter-attack) and those 11 IPC’s won’t be available until turn 2, and the units it buys won’t be available for attacking until turn 3. Which is related to…
Understanding “positional value” and “relative value” Positional value - German infantry out on the Eastern front is worth more than 3 IPC’s each. 3 IPC’s allows you to buy an infantry next turn, which will be placed in Germany. As Zhukov said, players get hung up on replacement value. Well the value of a unit that is out in a good position is much higher than it’s original cost. (So you shouldn’t necessarily sacrifice an infantry to take a 2 IPC territory that the opponent will immediately take back in force, unless of course it is to deny the capability to land planes next turn)
Relative value - If your side’s forces are greater than your opponent and/or you are able to outproduce your opponent, than your infantry is not as valuable as his. Many times it’s a good strategy to trade units at a less than 1:1 ratio with your enemy - when you will outnumber or outproduce him over time. (and there are other cases as well) Oh - yes - like when the positional value of his units is high. For example - it can be a good move for Russia to trade 3 Russian infantry for 2 German infantry in Ukraine, because of the high positional value of the Germans and low positional value of the Russians. (Or, that can be a bad move - all depending on the overall position and incomes and material of both sides, of course)
Well, don’t want to share ALL my techniques…… :-)
Looking forward to seeing more qualities of a great A&A player from you all.
Hmmmmm…… That was a great start, Axis_roll…
You already listed one of the qualities of a great A&A player I think a lot of players miss - the ability to not get hung up on the replacement cost of units.
Tactical/Strategic expertise - As in chess, “material” is not always everything. Many players get hung up on who has a higher IPC value of units on the board, and who has a higher income. I’ve won a lot of A&A games where I had an inferior income and/or inferior total units. I’ve won a lot of chess games where I had less material than my adversary, because position is more important than pieces, in many cases.
Ability to keep emotions in check The dice don’t know that you just got hammered, or that you just got really lucky. Good luck leads to overconfidence and bad luck leads to too much pessimism in a player who can’t keep emotions in check
Awareness of pyschological warfare It can help to make your position look more menacing or less menacing than it actually is. You want less menacing when it’s a trap. More menacing when you don’t want your opponent to attack. Strategic use or non-use of chips, etc. is key.
Also, the talk. You can psyche out your opponent, or make him overconfident, etc. by what you say.
Ability to plan I know this has been touched on, but it’s different than just being able to see 2-3 turns ahead. It’s the ability to devise plans 2-3 turns (or more) ahead that will actually be effective and contribute to a W.
(I’ve played a lot of Classic, Revised, and about 50 games of AA50 - mostly 1942 scenario)
Yeah, because the Italians are usually flush with cash. :-P :lol:
Unless you are already expecting to trade france for a turn, that would be a very expensive way just to transfer ownership of AA guns. Even if you go with the assumption that ONLY italian troops are in france, and you can move out everything but the AA’s, you still give the us 6ipc for the territory + 5 for the NO, plus you force germany to take and hold France (if they continue to trade, they won’t be able to use the guns as rockets)without the ability to land air for defense.
I think I might have once allowed a british AA to be captured so the russians could take it back, but that is really only worth it if you’ve already given up the 5 ipc Russian NO
I’m well aware of all this. Let’s not get off topic - this is a Rules errata thread. But to respond quickly to your response, early in the game as Germany sometimes I concede France because it will often cost the Allies a transport and a man and opportunity cost to take it. If Germany gets radar or rockets in the first round, it would definitely not be a bad move to move an Italian AA to an empty France to convert to a German unit. And it was just an example. calvinhobbesliker gave a couple other good examples.
@Dylan:
Whoever voted the last one is on crack!
I thought it might be interesting if I made that a poll choice, and sure enough, someone picked it :-)
Kauf,
I’m pleased you debunked the Korea IC strat. It’s a great objective, but I was always puzzled how the US was supposed to hold it. Like you say, the US can’t get units there until turn C, giving the Japanese ample opportunity to regather its Transports and counterattack.
Yeah, I think it’s one of those A&A strats that works maybe one time against a player who hasn’t seen it before and wasn’t expecting it. I had a Korean IC built on me by my crafty adversary in my latest P40 game (I’ve only played about 5-6 times). He had a big enough fleet that he even got to the point where he built 10 units once or twice. But I was sending tanks and mech from Hong Kong as soon as he took it over, knowing he wanted to build an IC, and combined with dropping a few (I had more but didn’t want to sacrifice more than necessary) loaded transports on Manchuria, I mowed down not only Korea but the entire fleet in Z6 the next turn, since he couldn’t use the naval base that he also bought in Korea, to escape :evil:. It also gave me the opportunity to Strat bomb him hard for a couple of turns - naval base and major IC (he couldn’t afford fighters to defend against SBR).
So yes, I’ve seen the Korean IC strategy once, and it was the biggest help the Allies gave Japan the entire game… And I’ll be that much more ready for it the next time.
@Cmdr:
I understand that, I’m just thinking that’s a cheap way to give someone free AA Guns…great if your ally has rockets but is strapped for cash!
Or radar. Or rockets AND radar :-D
Easy way to convert Italian AA’s to German - put it in France (for example)
That is exactly what I meant, and it is especially true in Naval attacks since there may not be anything available for “fodder”.
4 of the 2 dice Heavy bombers can yield 8 hits, but they better get the job done quick, 2 hits and that 8 hits becomes 4, with 3 it is down to just 2 for follow on rounds. So while yes they can deal some initial heavy damage to a fleet, they have no staying power for sustained combat and some proper fodder will see them disposed of.
Great point, and thanks for confirming. I didn’t want to speak for you, but was pretty sure that’s what you meant, and I can’t resist answering a question if I think I know the answer. :-P
If you have 4 planes (plus boat(s)) engaged against subs and transports, the 4 planes sink 4 transports per round.
No, they don’t, at least not automatically. Hits are rolled and assigned normally, with attacking air hits assigned to defending transports, as they have no other targets. Only after all of the attacking ships (leaving only attacking air units) or all of the defending subs (leaving only defending transports) are sunk are any transports destroyed automatically.
Oops! Right! Glad you caught that right away, thanks. I’ll edit my post.
You must be pretty desperate if you have to sacrifice 10 carriers to kill 5 transports
Right. I think he said it was hypothetical, though.
To my mind, at the point where the defender has only subs and trannies, and that you do not have any destroyer, then, the trannies are automatically dead if you stay one more round. That would mean that you have to fight the subs only one more round to finish the trannies.
So on your example, you could avoid round 4.
But this is only my understanding.
No, Yoshi, that’s not how it works. Like Krieghund said, trannies are only automatically dead when they’re the only thing left, to save you from rolling.
That is a no go Bardoly. I would like to see Kreighund spell out the exact “official” Air unit retreat rules as they are a little less clear than in previous versions.
I PM’d Bardoly before, and I know Krieg will straighten all this out, but basically -
All units have to retreat together except
1) When subs have already submerged in a previous round of combat (you can’t submerge and retreat at the same time)
2) Retreating air, and possibly air + overland ground units separately from amphibious assault units.
So if you’re in the middle of this sea battle, and you have no destroyers, and he just has subs and transports, the transports are the only eligible casualties for your aircraft attack, and then they’re only sunk if your aircraft rolls a 3 or 4 or less, as applicable. It is not in any way in accordance with the rules to pull back boats while having your aircraft sink transports. Everything must retreat together after a full round of combat.
I was finally able to download, and opened it up in my IDE (netbeans) but it looks like I won’t be able to see the code. We’ll have to ask the developer to give away his code if we want someone else to improve it, but looking at it I’m pretty sure the vast majority of the stuff I won’t understand (I’ve never done any GUI stuff before, and I’m not a programmer), but maybe i could edit some really simple things if i could get the source code, but then again, I honestly probably don’t even have time to try to find the stuff. Sorry to disappoint, but in my spare time (which I haven’t found yet :roll:) I am working on some ABattlemap module stuff for G40/E40.
I understand. I appreciate the thought/intention. Hopefully he will check back here some day.
So how do you like the calc? Have you programmed your own yet??? Without GUI?
I really prefer the 2 hit HBs. Sure they can do some damage but they have no staying power in combat. Myself I was never worried about them if my opponent got them.
What’s staying power :?
They still go down with 1 hit. So if you attack like 4 infantry with 2 heavies and 1 infantry, you are quite likely to lose a heavy or two.
Also, when you get 2 hit heavies, the tendency is to use them for more things - strat bomb more often, raid fleets and stray tanks, infantry, fighters, bombers, whatever, more often - results in losing them quicker.
If this is not what you meant, bigdog, please let us know because I’d be curious to know what you meant, if not this.
Unfortunately, the person who can change this calculator hasn’t checked in here for awhile…… :-(
I’ve never used anyone else’s .jar. I’m assuming I can open up the code if I have a Java development kit, right?
Hey, Stoney, that would be awesome. I would rather e-mail you the file than try to upload it on mediafire.
Just PM me your e-mail address, or e-mail me your e-mail address. My e-mail address should be in my profile if you click my username. I’d be happy to e-mail the file to you.
We need a fix for the clarified FAQ heavy bombers. That’s probably my #1 biggest issue. Also, would be great if you could choose casualty OOL 1 by 1 instead of by group, but that’s probably not such an easy fix.
Also, would be wonderful to incorporate tac bombers and 2 hit carriers for 1940 game.
This calculator is terrific, and worth the effort to improve.
I really prefer the 2 hit HBs. Sure they can do some damage but they have no staying power in combat. Myself I was never worried about them if my opponent got them.
They are real hard on fleets, though. Especially the long range variety.
Darth Maul is my choice. Extremely powerful with the lightsaber. Focused and dedicated. Fearless. Also, he doesn’t talk smack to Jedi. Just manhandles 2 of them at a time…. :evil: The other Sith (the ones I’m actually familiar with) like to hear themselves talk…
Nothing wrong with his death, in my mind. Overconfidence leads to carelessness, let your guard down, you can get slaughtered in an instant. Happens in A&A (and chess) too…
Speaking of Maul’s demise, seems to me to be one of a myriad examples of “why in the world didn’t he/they…”
Why didn’t Maul use force push to make it harder on Kenobi, instead of just waiting there with lightsaber retracted? He also could have taken Jinn’s saber, or thrown it away like he did Kenobi’s. But that’s part of the over-confidence and carelessness, I suppose.
@Cmdr:
I have a new KJF '42 that will hopefully turn Japan into a mosh pit. I’m going to try it out next week.
A note on balanced 1942: Giving China 2 more infantry to protect the Flying Tiger (a Larry Harris House Rule) allows China to actually last past turn 2.
Dont need to give them more inf, just NCM two of them to Yunnan or redeploy the fighter to the rear.
I agree, although 2 more inf is OK if it’s considered a bid of 6….
I don’t even attack Yunnan on J1 anyway. I only do it occasionally. I’m not convinced it’s really Japan’s best move, like I thought in my first 10-15 games. I’ve had it backfire before, too. It’s not a sure thing that 3 infantry and 2 fighters can take it. I think it’s a better idea to take 3-4 fighters at Z35 (I’ve had disastrous results even with 3 fighters, carrier and BB, so usually take in 4 fighters). Bry is also a very key target not only to reduce Russian units and income, but to force Russia to take it back if the USA is going to have a landing place 1 space from Z62. Obviously it’s nice to take out the irreplaceable fighter that is the only offense that doesn’t roll on a 1 for China. But it can’t leave China. It is more important in my opinion to focus on the other 3 Allies, who can re-deploy their units on their first turn. It is also important to keep from losing more than 1-2 non-infantry, non-sub units.
Oh, another huge reason to not attack Yunnan. You can take India J2 with near 100% success only if you don’t attack Yunnan. In fact, you’ll walk into India, because the UK player is not going to want you to have 90% or higher odds on his 4 infantry, AA gun, and 2 fighters.
Those flying tigers sitting there with 2 infantry in Yunnan on J1 are awfully tempting. But I’m pretty sure now it’s a good idea to leave them alone.