Posts made by Greand Stone

I dont actually think that its the tech system and randomness is the major problem. The major problem I guess is that some of the techs are a bit to strong. If you get a tech is supposed to be a small minor benefit. As for example long-range aircraft, mech infanteri and heavy artelleri. Then the randomness would not matter that much cuz they are not gamebreaking if you get them early. However rockets, heavy bombers and paratroopers are in my view not ok, cuz they are to strong to be gained randomly.

Besides, HB should roll x2 dices versus SRB only. Why should heavy bombers roll 2 dices versus LAND, SEA and Industrial bombing???

Actually, mech inf and heavy artellery works GREAT together.

What useually happens is that you start of with a few artellery and many infanteri.
As time goes by, you sacrifice your infanteri, and at the front you get less and less infanteri and more and more artellery. With heavy artellery you should be able to bring fresh troops to the front faster, thus easer using the heavy artellery benefit.

When that is said, mech inf or heavy artellery are far from gamebreaking.

Do anybody think that heavy-armor (tank gets +1 defence) be overpowered?

Another question, does improved production have a second hidden benefit? Obviusly the +2 units helps a lot if placed in a 3-income or 2 income province, but is it also a good benefit to be able to build 12 instead of 10 units for germany?

Strategy:
–-
As germany, you build 1 BOMBER every turn, try not to loose any!
After you have gained a handfull of bombers, hope to get paratroopers.

If lucky, take UK! With 4 bombers and 4 infanteri and an Uk taken off guard,
its not that unthinkable.

Game finished!

Heavy Bombers:
What makes heavy bombers so powerfull is the x2 dices versus ships!
Should be repalced by either: x2 dice in all LAND combats or x2 dice when doing industrial bombardment.

Improved production is nice, and yes building an extra IC become a very popular choice then. But I think its not
broken compared to heavy bombers and paratroopers.

Heavy artellery:

I havent played the game but feel like this is a weak thing.
1 artelleri and 3 infanteri, would function the same way as 2 artelleri and 2 infanteri.
You save 1IPC for every 10 IPC spend this way. Nah. Would be much better to simply add +1 to the attacking strength of the artellery.

Heavy armor?
Why is this not a tech? +1 attack or +1 in defence would by no way make the tank overpowered so I realy dont see why they did not include this technology.

I havent bought the game my self jet, but if this rule is unclear it is extremly stupid.

Lets say Japan has 2 carriers with 4 fighters on board and US attacks that fleet with 3 submarines!

1. Neither of the 4 fighters onboard the carriers can strike the submarines since there is no destroyers presents, only the 2 carriers may defend them selfs. And only the carriers may be taken as cassulties. The subs get opening fire.

2. The fighters cannot ATTACK, but they can defend???

3. The submarines can submerge before the battle begins, and nothing happens.

4. Fighters submerge after their first opening shots…

I think its number 1 which definitivly is most fun. It makes having a destroyer deadly important
when it comes to defending a fleet.

If you are playing UK and suddenly out of the blue german gets partroopers by a lucky dice and then german manage to capture LONDON, THAT is NOT fun at all.

Forget about the problem with heavy bombers. I say partroopers are potentialy more gamebreaking, and is
my number one concern regarding the technologies.

Germany might take London with it. If you go for a strat using bombers and hope for
paratroopers, its not that unlikely to take London as if you get paratroopers at a lukcy point London might be very poorly defended.

But just think about what USA/UK/JAPAN might do with it:
They may take the majority of the pacific islands without building a single transport.

And I’m sure its 1000 creative ways of using the paratrooper in totaly stupid ways.
Take Brazil, then from there threaten USA?

Long-range aircraft+paratroopers: Invasion of Japan by placing troops in alaska?

Sure paratroopers had a role in the war, but not as implemented in Axis and allies

I’m feeling a shift in my opinions about subs.  Maybe they will be useful - for the loss i defense, the fact that they can’t be hit by planes without a destroyer is actually pretty big.

Great :) Cuz subs are far better this time around than any other verson of A&A.
The navy part of A&A is not perfect, but atleast the new submarine are more interesting than they used to be.  In my view the biggest problem is that BIGGER navies will autokill SMALLER navies.

To keep a fleet alive nobody is buying subs anymore 4 ones is nothing to 3 TWOS.

This is simply incorrect!
I did not do the math to prove it (I dont bother), but I did a small dice test.
attacker: 3 destroyers:
Defender: 4 submarines
–-
The subs won 7 out of 10 times!

This does not prove this statement

This is actually not true. For 24 IPCs you could get 4 Subs or 3 Destroyers. The 4 subs would actually beat the 3 destroyers both on offense and defense given average rolls. However, since subs cannot be hit by planes they are still a pretty mediocre fodder unit.

but it atleast proves that saying that 4 ones is NO match for 3 twos is completly incorrect.

All I have to say is that the new sub IS extremly much better than it used to be.

-No auto-death due to a single fighter/bomber  -> A LOT safer subs

-They cost 6 IPC. (25% reduction in price)

-Without destroiers, fleets may be extremly wounderable. Examples of battles:
2 subs versus 2 Carriers 4 fighters. Fighters cannot defend and the subs fights only the 2 carriers which fights with 2 twos.->
The subs got opening fire-> sub advantage. And they can destroy the entire fleet with 2 simple subs.

-Another issue would be ‘kill submarines’ or protect your ‘transports’. Can you do both? Not neccesarily, as
3 transports protected by 1 destroyer would be a tasty meal for fighters/bombers

-One sub versus 1 destroyer and 1 transport. 50/50 fight. However:
if you loose, you lost 1 sub. If you win you kill a destroyer AND a transport!
Conclusions: Subs can strike down BOTH unprotected transports AND poorly defended transport!

Another senario
-3 subs at defence versus 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and 1 carrieer.
Autowin for the attacker? Not neccessarily.
Lets say that the subs kill 1 unit and the ofensive player kills 2 subs. The attacker won the battle?
Not so fast? What do you do? Take out the destoryer and leave 1 carrieer to fight versus 1 sub? Not a god option is it.
Do you kill your carrieer and keep on fighting with 2 fighters and 1 destroyer? This attack is in no way a risk free auto win battle. You risk loosing everything with only moderate unluck. In this senario it is somewhat under 50% to loose your carrieer,
and the fleet remain is one single destroyer, which is a poor defence for your transports.

–-
Ok, Uk will probably seldom buy subs, but:

As Italy i would love to buy a sub now and then. Whenever a british or US navy comes close, I can strike first!
Often as italy you know that your subs cannot be striken down in defence there. And ofensivly subs is the best buy. You can kill whatever tries to come close.

If japan dont build destroyers, US should build a few subs just to potentialy wreck havoc.

Germany might build a few subs in the beginning cuz I doubt UK will be able to strike down their navy in the first round.

In revised the only two technologies worth getting was rockets and heavy bombers.  All other was not worth the cost.

I’ve played with a house rule in revised: roll 2 dices. If they are alike you get that technology. Ie 1/6 probability each turn to get a random technology. And from my experience this rule (which is very similar to the AA50 ones) adds a lot of fun and the probability for it having an devestating effect is actually very very small.

The reason is, yes germany can get rockets for a cheap price, but

1. they are in no way garanteed to get rockets
2. it will probably take some time to get it.
3. Technology is equaly good for all nations.
4. Rockets is a vell tested technology and HB is concidered more gamebreaking.

I’m actually more conserned about ‘paratroopers’. It may prove very fun, but in some spesific situations it might be realy harsh. (like being able to take large portion of the pacific without a single transporter or escort for that transporter).
Germany in a lucky turn gets paratroopers & UK have placed very few land units in UK cuz Germany has no transporter. Woops walla, UK falls.

Tide of iron and A&A minies share the same basic rules and game mechanism.
The basic for both games are the same and the basic is good.

A&A has tons of different units.

Tide of iron has few units, but they are all balanced! (A&A atleased used to have highly unbalanced units)

In tide of iron the german tanks are actually better than the sherman.
In A&A the sherman is one of the best tanks, due to its improved anti-infanteri fire and fearly low price.

In A&A movement is very important. Tide of iron often gets stationary

Tide of iron is bloodier. Units actually DIE!

Tide of iron is senario-based, and sadly many of the senarios are unbalanced.

Tide of iron is an attacker versus defender game. The defender has bunkers, minefields, razor wire, tank traps etc.
The battles seems way more relistics in Tide of iron.

Marchine-gun of tide of iron is amasing! By putting it on OP-fire mode it can fire at anything that moves, any time it wants!
Which means a marchine gun is an unit you realy want to take care of before advancing further.

The mortars of tide of iron is also in my view far supperior to the A&A mortars. You dont need a stupid ‘spotter’ to use an indirect fire.

The boards of tide of iron is far supperior to the tin paper-boards of Axis and allies minies. And tanks to overlaying hex, tide of iron has a lot more flexibility in map design.

Tide of iron can be bought in one game. It irritates me a lot that in X amount of boxes, I have never ever gotten a decent German Tanks.

So to sum up,
Advantages A&A minies
-In A&A minies is that speed and movement is important, while tide of iron often gets stationary.
-A&A minies not dependent on unbalanced senarios.

Advantages Tide of iron
-By far better map!
-More realistic feeling.
-no unbalanced units.
-The Marchinegun
–---------

If you realy enjoy A&A minies, you should be Tide of Iron simply because of the far better map which you can use with A&A minis.

Is it worth putting an IC in India for UK?

Points to consider:
-IC cost 15 points
-forces Uk to put land units in India every turn.
-helps japan a lot if it is taken.

+help keep china free (which would become a real pain for japan)
+stops japan from being able to take as much as possible.

However is worth it? The alternative is to put every penny against Germany/Italy?
Italy is very dependent on her fleet. Without it Italy is nothing. You could build a navy to simply kill it.

You could build one cruiser every turn untill you are satisfied. With 4 units and 4 shore bombardment, invading normandy would become easy.

Some time ago we played a friendly game of A&A revised.

I told them Japan allways becomes large. Since I (the most experienced) player played japan, UK and USA decided to put all preasure on japan. One thing I can say from that experience is that the game IS a lot more fun for all parties if the game is played as it should, UK and USA fighting both in europe and the pacific.  I hope the new version forces you to fight that way, but I fear you can still ignore Japan.

For those who have played both games, whats your favorite?

And on thing more.

About super carriers: I would say giving them  fighter capacity of 3 is good enough.
The problem of giving them two hits is that it realy takes too much glory away from the battleships. Cuz in reality its the two-hits which makes the battleship extremly powerfull. Not its fighting capasity.

Well as its written its saying now it will take double the damage to damage it the way it was before, which is significant. I will look into the IC repair however.

It is significant, but only if the enemy has bombers and is bomging you.

Now I doubt that US, Japan, Italy, UK and Russia ever will be bombed in the first place.
Ok, there is a small probability that UK and Russa will get bombed, but the probability is small I would say.

I recommend to keep the +2 production limits as this will make the tech generaly usefull for every nation.

Mech. Inf. With a move at 2, and 2/2 they become very good units and dominate to much. They are fast cheap fooder with a punch per cost only slightly below the armor.

I’ll just comment on your techs.

Land Tech.

IC repair and underground factories are way to limited as written, cuz for most contries these two has NO effect.
Might be nice for germany, but probably useless for Japan, US, Italy, UK and russia (probable unless Germeny gets rockets)

Super Armor, or heavy tanks or whatever.
This is the missing tech in AA50, however your versus is very little usefull.
For 14points you get 2 Super Armor, which gives 4x2=8 in punch!
For 15points, you get 3 ARMOR which gives 3x3=9 in punch, but you also get one extra cassulty.
I would take 3 normal armor any time.

The only slightly nice thing about super armor is that you can build heavyer land units in a smal factory,
and that you can instantly upgrade your armor at the front. Since a unit requiering a technology to build should be BETTER, I thinkt super armor should cost 6points. Maybe you could still keep the rule about upgrading tanks for 2points.

Why take out heavy artellery? Its a wonderfull technology. What it does is that you need less artellery to do the same job.
2 artellery + 2 infanteri=1 heavy artellery +3infanteri.
A balanced great technology which should be kept.

Sea tech:
I enjoy many of these.

AA cruisers. Lovely :)

heavy carriers: Just a bit unclear what you mean by following turn. Is it suppose to take two-hits but only once?
+3 fighter capacity is nice however.

Dont enjoy the anti sub tech, as generally I admit I have a fetish for these subs :)
Realy, I think subs are better in AA50, but at a defence of 1 I still think they will still be easy to destroy.

Air:
I realy enjoy the addition to the radar. Makes sence.

Atomic bomb: this IS a game breaker, but I guess you know this.

Limiting HB to only SBR helps in the way that bombers now dont get become the supperior with regard to navy fights.

Then Germany do want some protection for their transport first round. Taking out the UK fighter in Egypt is then a big advantage.

If you place all tanks in eastern poland, and keeping both transport till turn 2, Germany is treatening both factories. I dont think it would be wise for russia to attack much turn one, so but they are froced to defend both factories, and placing almost no units in moscow. Which means that russia have a lot harder time striking back. If russia ignores one factory, germany can probably take it quit eaily.

If you can take and hold for 1 turn either of the russian factories, the need for a Romanian Factory decreases.

If you senter ALL your tanks in easter poland in turn one,  take ukarine and balkan with air/artellery and infanteri. Then you will have 6 tanks which can strike both north and south forcing Russia to protect both factories, and probable placing max # units on both. This leave very little IC left to place in moscow. So question, is it possible to take one of the russians factories turn 2, AND hold on to it?

Paratroopers???!!

Give me a break. Terrible.

I’ll just think of a Heavy Tank teck and wipe Paratroopers from my board.

I’ll second that.

I love the new tech system but I hate paratroopers allready before I know how they work.

Lets get a brain stroming to replace it with the lost tech ‘heavy tanks’! 
I suggest simply Heavy tanks: tanks attack at 4! or defend at 4 or both.