Posts made by gamerman01

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!

You’re right - it’s far from worthless for USA.

Only problem is, if my radar deters my opponent from SBR, it just makes it more likely he’ll bomb my units and I won’t even get the AA at “1” chance!!

Lol very well said Scamp.  No one plays A&A for long without feeling the need to vent!!!  We all get hammered by dice much more often than we’d like!

I read about the new A&A that will be marketed to the masses this fall.  It has no tech!  LOL!  A&A without tech is not A&A, IMHO.

It seems like in about 50% of my games USA ends up with all 6 on chart 2.

And if Germany gets mech. infantry at a key time (round 3 or 4) it’s pretty much game over. 
Like he said - helps make every game different.

@Veqryn:

I agree that when playing with NOs, you should:
1 more infantry at Egypt
1-2 more infantry in Yunnan (1941) and 0-1 more inf in yunnan (1942)

However, I disagree with reducing the price of Cruisers without reducing the price of Carriers.  If cruisers go to 11, then carriers should go to 13.  And I would never accept cruisers going to 10, ever.

I like the idea of Battleships having to return to their port to repair.  I have always argued with my friends that battleships should not repair at the end of combat, they should repair at the beginning of their owner’s turn (this would allow a BB damaged by the UK to be sunk by Russia/USA, etc, instead of just repairing so quickly).

I would also argue that China should be able to get the benefits of attacking during their turn, OR they place units equal to half their territories rounded UP (instead of down).

To me, a factory in the East Indies is rather dumb when compared with a factory in India and Burma, which are much closer to the action and do not need transports to function.

Agree with you except about an East Indies complex being dumb.  First round East Indies complex seems to be a no-brainer for the Japs.  It’s safe from conquest, being on the island.  Japan can’t build IC on India turn 1, of course.  And Burma is usually vacated to kill the flying tigers, so not wise to buy an IC there.  Also, it’s better to be able to build 4 units than 2 or 3.  Yes you’re buying transports - transports that lead to taking over Africa, Australia, whatever your heart desires.
I’m definitely playing that IC’s can’t be built on islands except Australia from now on.  I play both sides, solo, frequently and the East Indies IC at the outset is a powerful move that doesn’t make sense.  The 4 IPC’s is due to natural resources in the islands, not industrial capacity.

Hehe, hey Scamp!  In my current game we both have heavies with Germany and US and both countries are strong.  I don’t think the game will end any time soon (in round 10, have about 12 hours in already!!) because we can now annihilate each other’s fleets.
One of the best defenses against heavy bombers is to get them yourself.  At least they’re “only” 2 dice now instead of 3 like in the good 'ol days! 
Russia should have defense - it’s called “rolling a 1”.  Another thing, heavies aren’t as devastating as they used to be because the max damage a TT can take is double the IPC value.
Could be worse - Moscow could have been hit for 12!!
You know, your opponent did have to take the chance of paying for tech - he just got rewarded for taking the risk.
Always tough to be on the receiving end.  Some day you will be the one with the heavies (unless you never roll for tech!!).  You’d better hope he doesn’t get Long range!
Right now my opponent has heavies for Germany.  But my America has Improved shipyards, super submarines, long range aircraft, radar, jet fighters, and heavy bombers.  Now if I can just get paratroopers.  Then I would have Long Range Heavy Bombers that can carry infantry.  Holy cow.

Thx, guys.

Yep, we are in round 10, and I have 6 techs with USA.  I never rolled more than 2 a turn (except 3 in last turn to get heavies I guess), and I think none in the first round.  I was incurring heavy pyschological damage on my opponent by rolling 2 a turn and usually getting a 6!  Lucky for him Heavy Bombers were the last one I acquired.

If we continue our game, I will definitely have to move the radar to the UK.  Hopefully I have a transport off the Eastern US right now.  Thanks guys for backing up my interpretation of the rules.  I won’t feel cheesy for doing it now.

I played a new opponent F2F last weekend.  I had all 6 chart 2 techs for USA and then he got heavy bombers for Germany.  Then I realized that since I had radar for the US, I could export an American AA to the UK to double their protection against Strat bombing.  My opponent protested loudly (and I haven’t even done it yet).  He didn’t think the teched up AA gun could shoot at his bomber.  I said I thought the best AA gun in the territory could fire.  I haven’t double checked, but I believe the rules are not crystal clear on the matter.  I asked him “what if I transport the British AA away from the UK and the USA AA is the only one there?”  He didn’t like that either.  I suppose he just wanted to bomb the daylights out of me with minimal consequences.  What say you?

@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 also agree Holkann had a great point - pretty much the same thing I was thinking when I read Larry’s reply.  Hit taking ability is a major factor.
It is difficult to really compare the ships because every one has different abilities.  You compare 5 cruisers to 3 battleships because they have the same cost, but it’s hard to compare because of the auto-repair ability.  Put it this way, if I had 5 cruisers I wouldn’t want to attack 3 battleships with them, and if I had 3 battleships I would want to attack 5 cruisers because I have the option to retreat after taking 3 free hits.

Also, if you “buff your fleet” with a bunch of destroyers, you’re right that they’re more efficient than cruisers - against other fleets only.  But my land and air units on land are not afraid of your destroyers coming closer, but your cruisers are menacing.  Also, Larry had a great point about the cost.  Battleships “only” cost 1.67 times more than a cruiser, but many times I do not want to commit 20 IPC’s to one unit.  Or what if I have 12 IPC’s I want to spend on my fleet?  Which is better, a destroyer or a cruiser?  I can’t buy 2 destroyers with 12 IPC’s.
I don’t think 12 IPC cruisers should be in the top 20 of our suggestions for improvements to AA50.  We’ve come a long way from 24 IPC one-hit battleships and 18 IPC carriers, though, haven’t we?
I’m “writing this one down” - no new complexes on islands - brilliant.

With increased factory production, the errata state that the increased production of 2 extra units only applies to territories with IPC value of at least 3.  So Russia with IFP can produce 6 at Caucasus and 8 at Russia but still only 2 at Karelia.

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).  I have a house rule that 1’s and 2’s can build 1 extra unit (not 2 as OOB says and not 0 add’l as errata says).  What do you think about my house rule?  (Bombed out 1 could build 0 and bombed out 2 could build -1)

@Subotai:

For me it’s like a complex chess game, 1vs1, who can move the pieces/units better than the opponent. But it is also a WW2 theme, and it is better with a little more realism, both for warfare matters and specific WW2 factors. We got improvements from the Revised version, but not enough, imo.

Maybe having Japan attacking Russia is a lesser evil, for the real WW2, what the hell was the Japanese thinking before they attacked the US in 1941   :roll:  :-)

One “slight” difference between A&A and chess.  When I attack your queen with my pawn in chess, the queen is dead.  The A&A version of chess would have you roll dice first.  If I roll a one, i get a hit, if your queen rolls a 5 or less than you get a hit.  :lol:

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor pre-emptively to prevent the entire US fleet from eventually coming after them and crushing them.  They attacked Pearl Harbor to get an easy kill of a bunch of battleships, so in their mind they would have some kind of chance of surviving their own imperialism.  The American carriers, however, which turned out to be the real “kings of the sea”, were all mysteriously absent from Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.  This is one of the main reasons some believe the higher ups in the USA (like the President) knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and allowed it to stir up the public support for the war which simply was not there with no attack on the US.  I think the Japanese naval codes had already been cracked at this point too, so some conspiracy theorists believe US command knew the attack was coming.

But anyway, I agree with you that it was not a good move for Japan to sucker punch the most powerful industrial nation (and most innovative) in the world which was trying hard to stay out of the war altogether.  Admiral Yamamoto recognized this immediately (he was probably against the attack in the first place) when he famously said that “I fear all we have accomplished is to awaken a sleeping giant”.