Posts made by gamerman01

@a44bigdog:

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:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

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.

@mcshoo:

1. When defender has an AA gun, negative results seem to be showing up.  I get a row with -6IPCs, -3IPCs.

That’s not really a bug, but I wish there was an option to deselect the IPC value of the AA unit.

6 IPC’s for the AA is deducted from the total IPC’s lost.  So if you had no losses, your losses would be -6.  If you lose one infantry, -3.  2 infantry, 0.

I wish you could keep the calculator from factoring the 6 IPC’s in, so it is an idea for an improvement, but not really a bug because the maker of the calculator intended it that way.

Another improvement would be for the calc to automatically uncheck or ignore the must take territory when the naval battle is selected, or, even better, if there are no ground units.

Unfortunately, the person who can change this calculator hasn’t checked in here for awhile……  :-(

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Turn 1 buy for Germany: 1 carrier, 1 transport, 2 tanks, and 2 infantry.  Gives Germany a mobile amphibious attack force that dominates the Baltic.

I agree - that is a good buy.  I usually play with tech, so buy at least 1 less tank than that - a first round tech can be devastating!

@Lema099:

Interesting ideas - so many choices!  :-o

Hehe - we could add more.  How about 1@4 and 1@2?

At least 1 hit = 77.8%
2 hits = 22.2%

Compare this to 2@3.  Slightly better chance of getting a hit, but slightly less chance of 2 hits.

Also, I remember seeing on this site that some folks play 1@6

So, at least 1 hit = 100%
2 hits = never

Again, a little better than best of 2 dice @ 4, but no chance of double hit.

@Lema099:

Interesting ideas - so many choices!  :-o

:-) Yeah, it’s almost a relief sometimes to play in the league where you don’t have any choices.

When not in league, I’m now going to decide between 2@3 and 1@3, 1@4.

I played 2@4 (2 hits possible) for quite awhile, and it’s a bit too strong especially for killing fleets.

Best of 2 dice (current FAQ) and max 6 damage on SBR is too weak, I think.

Well, I don’t know if it’s the same language in the P40 rulebook, but the AA50 rulebook on page 14 says “If you want to make any amphibious assaults during the Conduct Combat phase, you announce your intent to do so during this phase.  An amphibious assault takes place when you attack a coastal territory from a non-hostile sea zone by offloading land units from transports into that target territory….  …  During the Conduct Combat phase, you can only launch amphibious assaults that you announced during this phase.”

I don’t know of any time in any A&A game where you can decide exactly what you are going to attack after dice are rolled.  I know the rules quoted above leave a bit of wiggle room, but in A&A all combat moves must be exactly and specifically spelled out before the conduct combat phase.  There is no such thing as rolling any dice, and then being able to decide which land territory you’re going to attack.  All assignments of ground forces have to be specifically made before rolling any dice, and nothing can be changed once you start rolling any dice whatsoever, if you strictly follow the rules.

No I don’t have a direct quote or something that says “you cannot decide how you will allocate your ground units after the combat movement phase is complete” or some such thing, but I am 99.9% Krieghund will confirm that yes, the USA must announce which territory they intend to assault, and not only that, but with exactly which ground units are going to which territories.  Make that 100% sure.

25% would be 2 hits with 2@3

So 2@3 would be
At least 1 hit = 75% of the time
2 hits = 25% of the time

1@4
1 hit = 66.7%
2 hits = never

2@4
At least 1 hit = 88.9%
2 hits = 44.4%

Best of 2 dice @ 4 (current FAQ)
1 hit = 88.9%
2 hits = never

1@3, 1@4
At least 1 hit = 83.3%
2 hits = 33.3%

And now I have run the math.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@gamerman01:

@Fleetwood:

I can’t take credit for the idea but forgot who said it. Anyhow, one compromise I read for conventional attacks is making Heavy Bombers roll 2 dice at 3. The strength in HB’s was always rolling multiple dice for the potential of multiple hits for a single unit. If it’s too strong at 4, knock it down to 3. Has anyone tried this before?

I very nearly suggested this in the post I just made.  I haven’t run the math, but I’m thinking it’s too weak, and that’s why I didn’t suggest it.  It almost needs to be 1 at 3 and 1 at 4, I think.

Regular bombers hit 66% of the time. Rolling 2 at 4 will get 1 hit 50% of the time and 2 hits 25% of the time. 75% of the time, you’ll get at least 1 hit

I thought they got 2 hits 2/3 * 2/3 of the time = 4/9, not 25%.

@Stoney229:

Confirmation?  From page 9: “Although China’s purchases are made in the same way as the other powers, it does not have industrial complexes, or air or naval bases.”

Doesn’t that just mean China can’t buy air or naval bases?  That’s entirely different from owning/using them.

Another question.
pg 12 states “If you want to make any amphibious assaults, announce your intent to do so during the Combat Move phase.”
Say US makes an amphibious combat move into sea zone 6.  Must the US player announce which territory (s)he intends to amphibiously assault?

Yes.  The land units should be designated to territories being assaulted before any dice are rolled.

@Fleetwood:

I can’t take credit for the idea but forgot who said it. Anyhow, one compromise I read for conventional attacks is making Heavy Bombers roll 2 dice at 3. The strength in HB’s was always rolling multiple dice for the potential of multiple hits for a single unit. If it’s too strong at 4, knock it down to 3. Has anyone tried this before?

I very nearly suggested this in the post I just made.  I haven’t run the math, but I’m thinking it’s too weak, and that’s why I didn’t suggest it.  It almost needs to be 1 at 3 and 1 at 4, I think.

@Bardoly:

The new neutered “Medium Bombers” as I call them are now MUCH less useful, and in several games where I and/or my opponent has rolled them in the game, we have not even built one!  In one game, I rolled Medium Bombers for Japan in Round 1, and I still haven’t built one yet!  This weakening of this tech has now caused a restructuring of the most desirable Chart 2 techs, which overall in my opinion are as follws:

1)  Long Range Aircraft - For all nations, this is pretty much the best Chart 2 tech now.

I agree.  Medium (neutered heavies) bombers suck.  Even before they were officially neutered (rulebook left them ambiguous - just said roll 2 dice for each bomber) LRA was the best tech in most cases.

When not in league play, I usually play +1 range for LRA instead of +2.  I like it much, much better as do those I play with.  +1 still adds PLENTY of options, and still presents a pretty good threat/surprise factor.  +2 is over the top and can “ruin” a game sometimes.

I just finished up a game where I had 3 American bombers that would be joining a large naval showdown in Z62 against the Jap fleet.  I rolled heavy bombers right before the attack, and figured my odds would be much higher.  Well, 2 bombers hit twice, and one bomber missed twice.  Result - 2 hits.  Result without “heavy bombers” - 2 hits.

Increased production, radar, and improved shipyards all help to negate opponents’ heavy bombers.

As you can see on Lema’s graphs, the 2010 FAQ knocked SBR damage down to an average of 4.5 and a maximum of 6.  “Neutered” might actually be putting it mildly.  If the opponent has radar or increased production, you’re only doing as much damage as you risk suffering on average, when you have heavy freaking bombers.  As Lema said - underpowered.

However, I think 2 hit heavies are a bit overpowered.  I like 1d6 + 2 for SBR - not sure about conventional attacks….  Still leaning toward 2 hit heavies hitting on a “4”.  Will have to try some variations for non-league play to see what I like.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Somebody said simulators were for whimps.  A curious statement.  I use them.

He didn’t know what he was talking about.  And in AA50 you need them that much more, because a lot of battles have more units than in Spring 42 because of the NO’s.

Spring 42 is fun, but I’ve only played it a couple of times out of curiosity.  Why not play AA50?  You won’t have to wait a week or more for your challenge to be accepted.

@Wilson2:

Actually you are wrong. The official FAQ/errata says nothing about heavy bombers. That is just the Larry Harris Bandaid fix.

Do you have the 2010 FAQ?  It has been updated.  So actually, YOU are wrong.  :-)

Here’s a new example of where a cruiser is ideal.

You want to take a territory that is 2 spaces from your current fleet.  The enemy has a strong counterattack force that will annihilate any boats you send.  You can’t get any of your air to the territory and to a safe landing place.  To land on a carrier would mean certain death of the fighter and carrier in the sea zone.  You need more attacking power than your ground units can provide, to up your chances from about 40-50% to 80%.  The cruiser is the only unit for this task.  Nothing else even comes close.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion, because it’s made me think about the utilities of cruisers.  As BadSpeller said, there are quite a few - more than you would see at first glance.

No one is saying that anyone should purchase cruisers on a regular basis.

Everyone knows that destroyers/subs/fighters/carriers are almost always a better buy.

I’ve only been pointing out that cruisers are a unique unit - no other unit like it - and have their place.  I probably buy one about 1 out of 40 turns.

Consider this - maybe you have a complex on a 1 IPC territory.  Need something to protect a transport you’re going to build next turn.  Don’t want to spend 20, need a bit more protection than a destroyer offers, and need bombardment.  Cruiser.

I don’t understand your point about center of gravity and slowing down buildup of ground units. Malachi.  And to be honest, your run-on sentences make your posts hard to read.  Can’t you build MORE ground units in the UK if you’re building cruisers instead of destroyers or fighters and carriers?

And I attacked Germany with 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 cruiser, and 1 BATTLESHIP.  I wasn’t intending to imply that a 1-time example was average odds.  However, since you have gone there - My forces had 11 punch, so doing it twice was 22 punch, so 4 hits was actually average.  4 hits is more likely than 3 hits.  There is no other way to reduce Germany 1 for 1 (nearly) in the situation I was in.  I couldn’t land enough in NWE or France to avoid complete obliteration, so fighters were useless in this situation.  My cruisers (which I didn’t buy) were perfect for the task.  One of them even hit!  :roll:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Why does the screen always jump around when your post gets to a certain length?

Sucks, doesn’t it?  At least we don’t get 50x or 404 errors all the time.  That was worse.

@Zhukov44:

Corbeau Blanc has it right.  8 pages in and we have no good reason to buy a cruiser.

Read into it what you want, but I saw several reasons to buy throughout this thread.  Just a difference in perspective, I guess.

Everyone knows carriers and fighters are awesome.  Especially now that carriers only cost 14 (or 11) and fighters only 10, compared to 16 and 12 in the original.  (Anyone else feel like fighters are a bit too cheap?)  But a carrier and fighters would not allow me to kill 4 German infantry in Berlin with a guarantee of not losing more than 2 infantry and 2 artillery.  (Not to mention, a potential of slaughtering 8! Germans)

As bigdog has already said very well, bombardment is the only way to take out units from a huge stack with limited loss/risk.  Cruisers are the most cost-effective bombardment unit.  It is impossible to lose anything to AA fire with a cruiser strike.  They continue to be useful after the enemy’s fleet is destroyed, whereas destroyers are not as useful (both still defend your transports)

I can see dissing a unit that costs more and does absolutely nothing that other units don’t do.  But destroyers can’t bombard.  Fighters get shot down by AA fire and are completely helpless to attacking a stack much larger than yours.  And fighters don’t defend in the water without carriers.  And fighters can’t hit subs without a destroyer.  So there you have several reasons and I forgot some, to having a cruiser, and once in a while, even buying  :-o one.

Also, cruisers are useful for showing your opponent how confident you are that you can whip him.  Just buy 1 on R1 and drop it in the Black Sea (especially with Dard closed) and he’ll get the message.

@Corbeau:

And if it really comes to it, I have yet to see Europe covered with AAs

I’ve had Europe nearly covered with radar, when Italy got it once.

We’re not trying to talk you into buying a cruiser.  If you’re a fighter lover, then buy them.

I rarely buy cruisers, but they are a unique unit and are better per IPC at bombarding than anything else, so there will be times when they are desirable.

Also, I don’t think this has been covered - cruisers can always hit subs (thinking of defense, not attack), but fighters can’t always.  Sometimes that is significant.  Could save you all your transports.