Posts made by Hobbes

@Sean.C:

I just don’t see how KJF is even possible with the new sub rules.� 6IPC for a 2 attack sub with first strike capability and only hits naval units seems really overpowered to me.

Yes, but… subs only defend at 1, and if the attacker doesn’t bring a destroyer you can’t assign them as casualties for attacking planes.

Which means that if J invests on subs on J2, then the US switches to carriers and fighters and the subs become  completely useless against Allied airpower unless the attacker decides to bring a destroyer to combat, and the defending surface ships become outnumbered and outgunned against the planes.

Rock, paper, scissor logic. You need balanced fleets if you want both to deny control of SZs to contest and to protect/use SZs for amphibious landings, otherwise you’ll be only able to achieve one objective.

@Sean.C:

Sure japan doesn’t go far on the mainland, but who cares?  UK can’t do anything in the atlantic without the US, and the US can’t fund a balanced pacific and Atlantic fleet.  Japan will get India, and a handful of other 1 IPC spots in asia with just their starting units and end up with around 40 IPC which will be enough to counter any US pacific fleet purchases with subs.

Without the mainland Japan is outproduced by the US and the Indian UK. Increasing Japanese income is hard: you need India to reach and hold a 40 IPC income or take most of the Russian territories. And to get India most likely you’ll need to ignore the US fleet and focus everything you got on it. If you’re buying 5 subs a round you’re spending all Japan’s money on subs and your starting forces are not enough to take China and India.

Leave the Subs in SZ 60 and wait.  It takes 2 turns to get to anything important in the pacific.  If the US attacks Borneo, or Philippines, you counter and wipe it out with your subs and your starting fleet likely parked outside India.

Every turn US spends trying to counter the subs in the Pacific is 1 step closer to Germany taking Moscow and the game is over.  Maybe KJF will work if they don’t use this tactic, but i have a feeling once people realize it it will be the defacto counter to any KJF strategy.

The US fleet just keeps distance from the subs and sends an occasional transport to land on Borneo/Philippines, forcing Japan to react and retake it. Then Japan either loses a transport or the whole fleet is forced to move away from India.

@Sean.C:

EI is 2 SZ’s from Solomons, but 3 from Japan.

East Indies is 3 SZs from Solomon, not 2. That protects the IC from any immediate landings but to me the problem isn’t losing the IC to the US but that it can become a white elephant on the presence of an US fleet. And if Japan has to defend it with 4 or 6 inf that’s 30+ IPC of hardware that is doing nothing other than denying it to the US, who can also build another on Borneo.

Here’s a crazy (and untested) idea:

1. Fly the Soviet fighters to both Egypt and to the UK carrier. Buy 1 carrier, 1 fighter and 1 submarine with the UK (30 IPC). Place it all on the UK fleet on SZ35. You’ll have 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CA, 2 ACs and 4 FTRs.

Japan can attack with 1 BB, 1 AC, 1 DD, 6 FTRs and 1 BMR, 86% odds but that means spending most of its airforce and losing a carrier.

@Mallery29:

I’m pretty sure in total victory, Japan would probably just ignore Hawaii since they aren’t going for cities, so the US could put some units out there, but how effective could you be in the Pacific?  Even with the EI fleet dead, the US has to push somewhere to take the heat off Russia/India.  I’d like to see it work, I just have my doubts.

Yeah, on total victory the Axis target is Russia until it falls and with both Axis players still on the game. Just having the Pacific limits the options for Japan if you also have a big UK airforce on India because then Japan starts having real problems to defend more than 2 SZs with its starting fleet (even with no EI attack).

@UrJohn:

@Hobbes:

And you can create a house rule quite easily to add Italy: switch all German units on Libya, Italy and Southern Europe by Italian ones. German/Italy’s turn is now combined (they receive and purchase separately but the combat moves and combat are made together).

I put some thought into this idea a few days ago. But one thing I didn’t think about was the fact that it would work as a balancing factor, making Germany’s production less efficient. Also, I think you would switch the BB and AP to Italian.

And you may want to switch the fighter on Bulgaria to Italian as well, although I wouldn’t move it to Italy because then it can hit Egypt on G1/I1.
I’ve made a 7 Powers scenario for 1st Edition that I’m thinking of adapting… if you want a look: Spring 1942 Scenarios

@UrJohn:

@Mallery29:

A balanced game is even harder to pull off (global I guess would be different story)…I can try to keep one at bay, but one of the axis is going to become a monster because if you go that route, I would make Japan bloom and Germany would just go all defensive and control the Atlantic…that’s why a balanced game can’t be pulled off.  US can’t half a$s the Japanese, and you certainly will never get into Europe if you half-a$s the atlantic… Trust me, I would love to do that with the US (I guess a way to do that is make the US like UK/India in Global. Give the EUS like 33 spend and WUS 21…just random numbers, don’t anyone strike it down in fury).  You get money to spend for both sides, and you limit the effect of a KJF/KGF strat (granted, you could still go through the canal and beef up the other side, so I don’t have a great answer for it).

Interesting idea. I think you  could get away with giving US just a moderate bump, maybe 5 extra IPCs total, and requiring that they spend no more than half +1/2 IPC  on either side. Tho if they lose WUS, they’d have to be allowed to spend all on EUS.

The more I play AA42.2 the more I’m becoming convinced that the Allies need to go for the balanced strategy (unlike its predecessors) and that it was designed that way, but for it to work you can’t split the US income.
It may also depend on what type of Victory you’re playing, specially the VC victory because that’s the quickest and most competitive play and that’s the one I’ve been playing so far.
On Revised/AA42.1 there were basically three Allied strats that I used: KGF, Fortress Russia and KJF (VCs were irrelevant since Axis always needed Moscow to win). KJF was usually not worth it unless the dice were hard for Japan and on a KGF the US would withdrawal its presence from the Pacific. Fortress Russia is a counter to the Axis rush to Moscow and can be played with a KGF, were you land with the UK/US on Archangel/Karelia, use those units to stop the Axis advance on Russia and then decide which way to push, either against the Japanese on India or the Germans on Karelia/Ukraine.
On AA42.2 the Indian/Pacific is changed: there’s a vulnerable VC on Honolulu but now the US Pacific fleet has a chance of surviving and contest the Pacific and the UK can drop units on India. Which means that the US may be able to be always switching production between the Atlantic (at least to liberate Africa) and the Pacific.
Even if the US focus on the Atlantic it should leave the Pacific fleet to threaten Japanese transports and prevent a capture of Honolulu. If Japan chooses to take Hawaii it will need 2 rounds to reach it from SZ60, so the US has 1 1 round of additional naval builds to prevent Japan from doing so.

Something just popped to my mind about G1.

On 1st Edition the standard G1 attacks (UK fleet, Egypt, etc) usually consist of:

• Retaking Ukraine (+90%) and Karelia
• UK DD on Egypt SZ (+90%)
• UK Cruiser on Med (+90%)
• Egypt (+90%)
• UK Atlantic fleet (+90%)

Which, when you combined odds of all winning all attacks gives you overall odds for G1 of close to 66% (or at least 2/3 that G1 will go as planned).

But on 2nd Edition there’s a substantial difference on the combined odds if you add the G1 Egypt attack:

• Retaking Soviet territories (+90%)
• UK DD on Egypt SZ (+90%)
• UK Cruiser on Med (+90%)
• UK Atlantic fleet (+90%)
• US Atlantic fleet (+90%)
• Egypt (+75%)

Or: (100/90)(100/90)(100/90)(100/90)(100/90)*(100/75) = +/-44%

So, if the Allies let Germany attack Egypt and if Germany chooses to do so, then German odds for winning all attacks as expected on G1 drop to less than half. And that most likely opens opportunities for the UK to exploit from failed attacks.

Something for the Soviet/Allied player to consider before sending that fighter to Egypt…

@Mallery29:

Have seen the EUS DD survive both German subs, and now have seen the Med DD hold off the BB 4 times….frak ya Med DD!

The more you play, the more the results will tend to follow the theoretical odds. The unlucky (and very frustrating for some) part is when the failed attacks always happen to you when you playing the Axis, but that’s how dice work.
It’s also a matter of player perception - you are always more prone to remember a failed attack (because of its rarity) or a series of failed attacks than to remember ALL of the successful ones. So if you want to count the failures you should also count the victories as well, otherwise the series of failed attacks will just keep nagging on your head everytime you play and affect your strategy.

@Cromwell_Dude:

Do Answer:

I’ve seen quite a few posts on here about the German fleet attacking both the British fleet by the British Isles and the American fleet off the East Coast at the same time. I’m curious how that has all played out. Statistically, how often have you been able to destroy both fleets? And, what was left of your ships after a counter-offensive, assuming you move your entire German Baltic fleet to reinforce what’s left after your attack on the British fleet? And, if you don’t move your entire Baltic fleet on G1, what were the responses by the Allies and their effects?

Haven’t seen neither attack fail so far. On SZ11 (EUS) the odds are 88% for a German win (transports sunk), so you’ll see that attack missing once in a while but about the same occurance as the German Battleship losing against the UK destroyer on SZ17.
On SZ7 (UK) the Germans have either build a carrier or the cruiser was moved to attacked SZ7, leaving the transport defenseless. The Germans can bring so many stuff to SZ7 that unless the player makes a serious blunder or the dice go crazy (>1% odds or something), so usually there shouldn’t be any surprises there. And if the Germans bring 2 subs, 1 cruiser and 2 fighters, then the Allies can submerge the Russian sub right away and prevent losing that unit.
The Allied response is go either hit any remaining subs on SZ7/11 using the UK destroyer on SZ10 - then it really depends on KJF or not.

I own Classic, Revised, Anniversary, Spring 1942 1st Ed. and I’m waiting for my 2nd Ed. copy to arrive but I’ve already played 10 games online of 2nd Ed.

I like Anniversary but I’ve prefered Spring 1942 1st Edition as a better experience: it’s leaner to play (no NOs, no tech, 5 powers) and the 1st Edition is the most balanced of the ‘big’ A&A games (I never used a bid and they are low when used for the Allies).

And I’d recommend for you to get Spring 1942, 2nd Ed. - the map has been redesigned to include both elements of AA50 and Global and to me it’s superior than the AA50 map. It will be probably cheaper to get the pieces that way than to order them individually.
And you can create a house rule quite easily to add Italy: switch all German units on Libya, Italy and Southern Europe by Italian ones. German/Italy’s turn is now combined (they receive and purchase separately but the combat moves and combat are made together).

@Mallery29:

The key here is the same I believe as it was in 42.1…it’s all about the EUS fleet.  This fleet is the pivotal fleet to turn the tide.  If Germany half a$s the attack or fails with both subs, the DD/2Trans swing to the Pac and now the US doesn’t have to spend 22 on three ships that are absolutely vital to springboarding for KJF.  So German players, if you want to frak up majorly, leave the EUS fleet alone.

If you keep loading UK FTRs every turn, you can continue to buy time for Russia/India.  Every 2 FTRs UK adds is possibly another turn Germany is going to have to load that front line.

I usually never sent the EUS transport to the Pacific but used them to land on Algeria on US1 (and the Germans sink them on US2). That either delays the Germans on Africa or those forces can actually be used to liberate Africa rather than the UK.
I like the UK’s Royal Air Force Strategy (I just made the name up), also seems to work well, buy planes at the UK and ground units at India but at one point you need boots on the ground in Europe.

Sack of Rome by the Visigoths, 410 a.D. - the first time the city fell in 800 years and the end of the Western Roman Empire.

Just imagine fighting for the capital of the world and watch it fall to the hands of barbarians…

I’m INFP… I guess that makes me the chaplain around here :P

@frimmel:

Another reason is no one ‘gets it’ right away from a strategy point of view (I’m rather shocked that so far in this thread there hasn’t been a “How do you win with the Allies” question.)

Btw, how DO you win with the Allies (I never did so far)? ;)

@frimmel:

No, there are many good things in the game besides trucks. It is a very interesting system. It just isn’t a traditional A&A system. The game is a lot of fun but it is a radical departure from other A&A games. It is a much more traditional or hex and chit style wargame making much more of an effort to put you in the seat of the battle’s actual commanders. The map could be prettier but it serves. Whether or not you will like the departures is something you’ll have to decide for yourself.

I completely agree with frimmel regarding the combat system: it is very interesting and challenging. I’d buy another A&A game based on it (to me Market Garden would be fun since it involves airborne troops, or September 1941 drive to Moscow, or May 1942 drive to the Caucasus), since it could replicate those operational-level scenarios quite well, specially the logistics involved.

I never tried Guadalcanal though.

@Mallery29:

If you can hold Russia for 5-6 turns and you go KJF, no bid is required.  If you can’t contain Japan in 5-6 turns, then you are making poor Allied choices (10-12IPC for Japan a turn).  Russia will fall, but the Japan threat is neutralized.  Germany can’t hold on to 2-3 continents.

This basically was the logic behind my KJF strat for 1st Edition: Russia holds Germany on Europe with UK help, UK eliminates Germany from Africa and helps keeping in check Japan’s advance on Asia (but no Indian IC, since it’s usually too vulnerable at the beginning of the game). Meanwhile the US goes 100% to Pacific Fleet and tries to grab East Indies/Borneo and build 2 ICs there.
If Japan is kicked out of Asia, UK has Africa secured and the US is dropping ground units on Asia, then it shouldn’t matter if Russia falls, since the Allies should still be ahead on the income count and Germany has to face 2 Allies playing together.
This is the same logic that keeps the game going if Moscow and Berlin fell on the same turn to the Allies and Japan - it becomes impossible for Japan to liberate Berlin and eventually the Allies will overcome the Japanese and liberate Russia.
The problem (like on 2nd Ed) is Germany grabbing Moscow quicker than expected.

@Gargantua:

Wasn’t this an episode of Sliders?

From my perspective I feel more like Brad Pitt’s character on ‘12 Monkeys’ but with interdimensional shifts you never know…

@Mallery29:

I think if you going to go for a KGF strat, you may want to hit the SZ61 (CV and FTR, land FTR in Schezwan add Russian inf as well),Borneo(CA,2inf/trans), and Solomons(SS/CA/2inf/Trans) to buy India time.  But I haven’t really put much effort in putting forth a KGF strat.  So I’m probably just spewing poo.

Borneo is a good option, another may be to drop more units in Africa to make sure the Germans don’t get Egypt (or retake it on UK1, if you haven’t moved the Soviet fighter there).
The German player then either sends more units from Europe to Africa (usually a waste) or the Med Fleet is rendered almost useless and ready to be sunk next turn.

@UrJohn:

I think to make a WWII game that is realistic, balanced, and fun to play and has a historical starting point you need to give it an earlier start and more vibrant political rules and victory conditions. You could start the game something like 1938 and have a buildup & influence period of a couple of rounds. Each major power should have its own victory conditions. For example, if USSR wound up conquering all of mainland Europe, that would be a total victory for the Soviet player, a total defeat for Germany and France, and a defeat for UK and USA.

It’s all about dimension, complexity and time. Global might be a better game to add all these house rules, or even have just a ‘pre-war’ phase where both Axis/Allies play diplomatic/economic to get their countries ready for war.
This maybe interesting actually to implement because it could be really short (2-3 turns) and instead of trying to reproduce everything from pre-war up to 1942 you just play a phase that affects your starting territories and units.

@oztea:

And also in that game the clock was ticking, and the allies won if it ran out for Japan.

I’d actually prefer if all A&A games worked like it did. The allies have 10 turns or so to contain the axis to a manageable size, or the axis wins.

So far that how it has been my experience on Spring 42, 2nd Ed., although here the turns are less and there’s no Victory Points awarded… you either contain the Axis or they’ll overcome you.