Posts made by Gargantua

But you did say so yourself… :P

Forget Karelia G1, focus just on the 3 eastern front territories for bonus.

EGY is critical as is Sz12, you must attack these, atleast kill 1 unit in Sz12, or the fgt in EGY, preferrably do both.

seperate your crz from your trn in sz5, your trn is a free kill anyways, atleast force him to send only 2 planes against crz, this gives it a significant fighting chance, causes alot of UK headaches.

keep most of your armor in east poland if possible. it threatens CAU, RUS, KAR at the same time.  Get italian armor + maybe fgt, to the eastern front. and build an armor a turn or so to do the same.

by just Sitting in EPL, ITA-GER armor combo, forces russia to defend all factories, and over extend in central russia.  This because ITA armor can punch holes for the german armor to make blitz attacks.

ITA is in a much better pos if EGY falls G1 Which is y i reccomend it.

use sz 5 trn to but units or aagun in fin nwy, DO NOT give these territories away without some kind of fight, unless you stack 6 inf in FIN G1 And wait for oppurtunity to invade KAR.

spreading units out to make many small battles in afr is a superior defense against allied counter attacks, because it slows the allies down…

think that should hellp your GER game.

build a mix bag of units, possibly a bmb a turn, or 2+ tanks a turn to support EPL, lots of inf, myb factory in POL early, especially if your enemy builds bmbs to sbr you.

all typed on my cell phone so, i’m sorry if its ugly.

and if playing tech, keep 2 dice goin, esp G1 lng rng fgts or hv bmb, even ss, are a big advantage for opening attacks.

I believe a mixed bag of units either on the ground, in the air, or at sea, its always the best.

There is much more to A&A then just straight number crunching.  Its better to keep your own units in positions and compositions where they have the most options, and can support each other the best.  This forces your opponent to play more cautiously, and honestly, to protect themselves from attacks where they will lose significant IPC’S in unit value.

Think of it like chess, where controlling the centre of the board provides significant advantages because of unit mobility, and how controlling the check and pressure  gives you the initiative.  you almost force your opponent into moves they dont like, as oppossed to giving them free range.

anything you can do to make more oppurtunites, will make more headaches for your opponent.  This alone provides them more oppurtunities to make mistakes you can capitalize on.

Artillery are part of a mixed unit game, because they provide oppurtunites to attack where you otherwise wouldn’t have any ( just consider china without thier fgt, and how useful art would be) the trick is to make sure you use your artillery as much as possible on the attack.  because there is absolutely no point in having them as part of a defensive position.

That is of course, if the defending sub even remains on the surface. 90% of the time, if its sub on sub, the defender is just going to submerge before any dice are rolled.

I have 3 copies available, $225 each, if anyone wants one.  I live in vancover canada so shipping may be a vice for some ppl.

if you know anyone who wants one, PM me.  If axis and allies Iron Blitz ( seen it sold for $500+ on ebay) is any indication of value ppl put on legit A&A product, its a good investment to get a copy at decent value whilst you can.

Same as jen for me, you need to start building punch, but its no good without fodder.

Keep in mind however, subs alone always reserve the right to submerge before even the Attacker rolls his dice. so essentially, without a destroyer, you can NEVER attack subs unless your opponent allows you.

The only “solution” I’ve seen with any success, aside from tech solutions is to build factories in POL and possible CZE, or atleast control KAR or CAU…

Factories with a lower output value, are much more economic against HB

For example, if I hit a factory in POL with 10 heavy bombers, and max out the 6 IPC damage ratio, it costs you 7 IPC’s for your first infantry and 4 ipc’s for the next two.

However, if I hit a factory in GER with 10 heavy bombers and max out the 20 IPC damage, it costs you 14 for your first infantry, and 4 ipc’s for the rest of the infantry after that.

and of course, in smaller zones, this is more effective.

If you see the HB coming, and are in a decent position (probably 60/40 for you)  Consider European Axis Factory Builds, or an Egypt build.

You are going to spend the 15 IPC’s in SBR Repairs anyways.

I recommend then of course, upping your tech game, and building AA guns :P

41

Or…

You could be a real fan, and have multiple copies of Axis and Allies, all the way back to the 80’s.

I think I have something like 18 boxes?  Nothing is better then those RED japanese pieces, from the early releases of Pacific.
And nothing more horrible, then the HALF size panther tanks that came with Dday and early revised :S

I think it’s safe to say bombers are a broken unit.  They should have stayed at 15 IPC’s.  I have some observations I’d like people to consider before they choose to agree with me or not.

People wonder if the game is balanced or unbalanced.  Of course this is a strategy dependant question.  But if someone is to pervert the use of bombers, especially in a no tech game, this gives a major advantage to the allies.

If you don’t believe me, try building 1 bomber a turn with Britian and America.  Possibly 2 pr turn with America, and consider a heavy SBR game.  Not to mention all the other uses you will find for them.  There’s almost no point in building fighters, unless you’re trying to defend a fleet, or stack in russia in a bad rolls game.

6 bombers flying at GER for SBR,  3.5 average damage = 21 IPC’s damage.  1/6 chance of losing 1 at 12 ipc’s…  Not to mention what I like to called the planning factor, where you have to consider the range, and what all those bombers “could do” instead of just SBR. (IE attack fleets, ground units, etc)  You make money everytime on the dice against SBR against Germany,  even considering the new “choice” rules, about repairs.  The math is working for you.

If you play with tech, Paratroopers and Heavy Bombers compound this issue in allied favour, as europe is more open to access then asia.  Only Japan I believe benefits more from Long Range upgrades.  Why even build a 7 dollar transport, when for EXACTLY the same price as 1 trn 1 inf 1 arm, you can build 1 bmb 1 inf, and have a superior attack.

SBR is particular devestating to the axis, as in Europe they have single german and italian complex, which have higher damage thresholds, as opposed to russia, who has mutliple low cost complexes.  1 inf in German, at max damage costs 14 IPC’s 1 inf in Rus at max costs 10 7 or 5.  It is more economic for the germans to build an undefened complex in Poland, then to build it in Germany, when considering they are facing 3 bmbs or more of SBR each round (That’s just starting bombers).

The italian Navy has enough problems of it’s own, without mentioning that if EGY does not fall on round 1, as long as britian can hold TRJ, there is nothing Italy can do but roll it’s way out of an all bomber build by britian, which will destroy it’s navy.

Once the bomber buildup starts to occur (5 + bmbs uk) unless Germany and japan are committed to equal SBR campaigns, which are less cost effective and logisitically more difficult, there’s little in the way of defense one can do.

I like AA50, I emplore you to use this strategy and prove me wrong, but I see an axis bid coming, because of this distortion.

put an IC in France with NO aa.

That’ll make the game more interesting.

NVM

“Page 19, Defenseless Transports sidebar: “This also occurs if the defender has only transports and submerged submarines remaining, and the attacker has only air units remaining.” The word “submerged” should be removed from this sentence, as air units cannot hit subs without a friendly destroyer in the battle, even if they are not submerged.”

Answered my own question.

So as the defender I cannot CHOOSE to take my subs as casualties against only aircraft?

For Example, 2 fgts 1 bmb from UK attack GER Baltic fleet.  No matter what happens the subs cannot be sunk?  Even if I am prepared to take them as hits, to prolong the life of my Cruiser?

Please say no…

Building into your fleet is a must if allies put navy in the atlantic.  Even if it’s just a sub for fodder, or dst to defend against sneak attack.  It forces the allies to stay Honest in their ship builds.

I believe building German Air (1 fgt a turn) is a must for the axis aswell in the first few turns,  These fighters should be used in conjunction with an italian carrier, and Euro defense (like holding france while threaten Sz12) This makes the navy a powerful obstacle to deal with.

The Russian sub is an effective insurance policy.  It’s there to provide balance and interest.

It’s because if you play your cards right on GER 1 you can destroy on average all but 1 UK destroyer.  Depending on your results, germany can often end up with 2 or 3 subs spread out in the atlantic.  Only one of which your DST can attack with fighter support.  The Russian sub is a tool to keep the balance in the atlantic in favour of the allies, It’s there to insure that even if the allies roll 0 hits on their defense, you can still attack, or use it to soak hits if you build a brit navy.  However, if GER 1 does poorly against UK navy, or avoids it, the Russian sub is of more or less NO detrement to the germans.

So it’s a “Just in case” insurance policy.

So far out of the twenty or so games I have played, all with TECH, I’ve found that the tech is what makes or breaks the difference.

I always play for the money, as the axis, I find that a strict assault on UK territories across the board, brings the game quickly into balance. If builds are reasonably conservative in Europe, against a KGF (IE lots of inf, a fgt or a few tanks a turn), I find that the axis can hold out for a VERY long time.  Anything can happen, especially once the economics become paralleled.  That being said, so far, even when one side or the other has had an advantage, Techs have rapidly upset the balance of the game, and turned the losing side into the winning side, more then I’d like to mention.

I’m looking forward to Tournament with no TECHS, I believe it will be an accurate test of the games balance.  As everyone will be using the best, result driven strategies, they have.

Anyone Seen Rising Dragon?

GL to ALL

Lets dance.

1.  Mr Morden 
2.  Jennifer
3.  Uberlager
4.  flesh_pile
5.  Danger Mouse
6.  Lynxes
7.  Questioneer
8.  a44bigdog
9.  eudemonist
10. MatildaMike
11. Perry
12. Funcioneta
13. anchovy
14. BigRedOne
15. Bardoly
16. Ogrebait
17. tcnance
18. Botider
19. atarihuana
20. P@nther
21. DY
22. Dutchmand
23. d142
24. DM
25. Zygmund
26. Bigbadgoo
27. Gargantua
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

When I play as  Japan, I entirely ignore China.

Aside from taking an empty territory here or there. The only target worth shaking a stick at in China, is destroying the “flying tiger” fighter on Round 1.

Manchuria and kiangsu can hurt if chinese forces take them from you (allowing UK bonus) but without the fighter China has a difficult time taking anything. and even if chinese forces made it to the coast, it’s very easy to obliterate them.

Remember that taking 1 chinese territory only gives you a +1, vs, if you took russian or african territory, you get +1 and the allies get -1.  So it’s twice the money to go anywhere else.

China could have 1000 chinese units on it. But it wouldn’t matter, because they can never attack outside china.  It’s best to focus your efforts elsewhere.

IF however, you are dead set on taking out china,  the only effective campaigns I’ve seen usually can involve a complex in Manchuria, or 4-6 tanks combined with fighters and the odd inf, in a quick blitz around turns 3-4.  The general rule is either entirely commit, or don’t at all.

I’ve played about 20 face to face games.

The majority of them being 41 with Tech and NO’s

Anyone can win, It’s tight the whole way through and alot of fun.  I find that new rules, pricing, and NO’s make the game open right up to so many different strategies and possibilities, that anything goes.  FAR improved from AAR, which I believe if the allies play their cards strictly (assuming Axis bid 13 or lower) can win 90% of the time.

The biggest question I’ve faced is the TECH,  Ive seen several games where the balance is compeltely swayed by a tech breakthrough.  There can be too big a reward waivering on the roll of a dice.  It’s worked for me and against me, even in games where you can have an economic lead of 20-30+ IPC’s  you can still lose if you don’t play very conservatively, defending against the “what if” on your opponents tech roles.

However, that being said, TECH prevents the mathematical conclusion of “I make more then you so 30 turns from now you’ll lose”.  It provides that last bit of hope for a losing player, to give them an edge, and put them on top;  I’ve seen it be the make or break difference.