Topics created by Hobbes

Seems to me like the introduction of China/ANZAC in 1942 would just give Japan free money once they take Australia, since they can’t buy an IC until turn 3 (making 7 IPC per turn) and with no other way to spend money, would just end up with 21 IPC in bank as a gift to Japan for taking Australia.

@Bunnies:

Blow by blow recap of bunnies vs hobbes:

R1 buy 5 inf 1 art 1 tank.  Combat was WR/UKR attack with 2 tanks 1 fighter to Ukraine, 2 tanks 1 fighter to WR (purpose was destruction of German units at Ukraine, not necessarily capture, and more strength at WR to preserve Russian infantry)  Combat results left 7 infantry plus asst. at WR, 1 inf plus asst. at Ukraine. Rather a blowout in dice.  Noncombat, moved units west, left 3 infantry at Yakut, 1 at Buryatia to pressure Japs.

G2 captured Anglo-Egypt with 1 tank remaining.  Other than that, lost fighter in sub/fighter/bomber attack vs UK battleship.  Lost another fighter vs cruiser at W Europe.  Destroyer moved northwest of Norway to stop UK landing, subs split between north and northwest of Western Europe.  Ended with 1 inf at Karelia, 1 inf at Belorussia, 3 tanks at Ukraine.  Slightly bad dice with fighter losses, and with 1 unit left at Anglo-Egypt.

UK1 killed German Baltic transport with bomber, destroyer with fighters.  Send infantry/fighter to Anglo-Egypt, and cruiser, transport, and infantry to Borneo.  AC used vs Kwangtung transport. Used Australia transport against New Guinea.    Failed at New Guinea.  No losses in other places.  Note:  I forgot to unload my Borneo transport, but Hobbes (polite opponent that he is) allowed the turns to cycle and IPCs to be adjusted so we could play as if I had not committed that serious blunder.  Turned out I captured Borneo with both UK infantry surviving.  Landed bomber in Asia, fighters at Moscow; India fighter landed at Persia with consolidated 2 infantry and AA gun, UK sub ended at Solomons.  (This threatens 1 sub 2 fighters 1 bomber 1 AC 1 cruiser to sea zone east of Japan on UK2.  Japan can dodge a lot of this by moving fleet west of Japan, but that slows Japan’s development)

J1 bought 3 transports 1 destroyer, did Pearl Light (sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber), with Jap BB vs UK AC, Jap BB+AC vs UK cruiser, and inf/tank/2 fighter vs 2 infantry at Borneo.  5 inf + 2 fighter vs China.  Japan retook Borneo at the cost of 1 inf 2 fighters.  (kept tank, as tank is 5 IPC unit, Borneo 4 IPC territory, plus logistic advantage of nearby transport).  Lost fighter and cruiser at Pearl.  Destroyed US forces at China, but lost 5 infantry, and did not capture territory.  Sea zone east of Japan had 1 destroyer, 1 AC, and 2 fighters.

US1 bought AC, DD, transport, 2 tanks, 1 infantry.  Attacked Japan fleet with sub/fighter.  Got 1 destroyer 1 fighter out of the deal.  Purpose of this attack to weaken the fleet for the UK followup.  Flew US bomber to Archangel, US fighters to UK carrier northwest of London.

R2 sent 2 inf 1 fighter vs 1 German inf at Karelia, inf/artillery vs 1 German inf at Belorussia, 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 German tanks at Ukraine, 1 inf vs 1 Jap infantry at Manchuria.  Failed at Manchuria.  Took Karelia with 1 inf, Belorussia with 1 artillery, and Ukraine with no casualties.

G2 performed various territory trades and capture of Anglo-Egypt with inf/tank.

UK2 attacked Trans-Jordan with 2 infantry 3 fighter to give US fighters a place to land after anticipated US2 attack (2 fighter 1 bomber) on German Med fleet.  Before trying that attack, though, I attacked sea zone east of Japan with sub and bomber.  Killed carrier, lost UK bomber.  Japanese fighter couldn’t hit UK sub, so Jap fleet lost.

Game called.

Hobbes got diced, no doubt, but it was really a piece of brilliant play by Bunny, it has to be noted. I cannot think of anything I would do differently as Axis but mabye playing more cautious with japan and either buying an extra dd (2dd, 2trn) R1, or setting up the fleet west of japan.

And on a top of that, Hobbes still could play on at the stage when he surrendered I think with a hope that the merciless god of dice would bring some justice at some point soon – like killing all the three US planes at the attack on the Gereman med fleet etc.

But once again, a brilliant piece of play by Bunny.

This sounds like it might be worth a try. I posted an after action report on the forum about AA42 NOs. I really like what you have done to make AA42 an even better game. Thanks Hobbes.

Thank you for the quick answer. :)

You might want to consider adding this issue to the Revised FAQ/Errata (just using the wording on the AA50 manual would do it). This issue turns up every once in a while on forums.

If I remember right, the “Can Opener” was mentioned in the Caspian Sub Yahoo group’s paper regarding the Japanese invasion of Western Canada.  Something about how German units blast Eastern Canada to open a route for Japanese tanks from Western Canada to hit Eastern U.S.

That might not bear out.

Re:  “defense being more efficient than offense”

Subs being the bally exception, wot?

@MarkVIIIMarc:

Interesting about the American landings.  Do you think the Italy first strategy would have gotten better results?

That would have worked better than the landings on France. Italy was earning some 30 IPCs and was preparing to defend S. Italy from the US (it was sending a DD to block the US fleet from moving into the Med) but the US could have gained access easy. Another thing that he should have done would be to force passage through the Danish Straits by taking Denmark with the UK then sending an US fleet through it. Then Norway would be impossible to take back (bye bye Sweden NO).

I have been wanting to play that game with america. If japan goes all out after India it falls into the strategy even better.

I THINK the US could pump troops from alaska into siberia threatening all kinds of stuff if that japanese navy wanders too far south.

If the imperial navy stays near japan sending only a minor amount of troops to the DEI India’s air force and modest navy become more relevant. The round 4 clash between the imperial navy and the american fleet should be pretty even and america wins an even trade.

In the atlantic would you send a bomber to england and offer a supporting destroyer and transport a turn? The British navy better have their stuff together or else germany……

@Hobbes:

Based on AA50’s 1941 scenario.

I apologize, I just realized this must be on the Revised map.
I saw AA50 1941 and just assumed it was on that board.

the turn order grabbed my attention because I think that the AA50 turn order where UK always follows Japan makes a Pacfic campaign very difficult to achieve for the allies.

I ran across this on BGG on the AA50 page. http://files.boardgamegeek.com/file/download/3knjbg6od1/Axis__Allies_National_Objectives.pdf? Can someone that has the know how make something like this for Hobbes’ AA42 NOs? I do not have the equipment or the skills needed to make something like this. Thanks.

Re: Spring 1942 - Fortress Europe Axis StrategyI remember one game I played as axis I built nothing but submarines with Germany and japan and it helped to secure the coastal territories from attack I also used the German subs had like 7 of them at one and 3 bombers and targeted the British fleet and in the pacific with japan I built up to 9 subs and had a huge air force with them and scared the Americans out of the pacific and my armies were victorious in Russia about to collapse even protected my transports really good

Here are a couple of TripleA saved games:

First one is unfinished and was the most competitive. It’s the end turn 9 and the US just defeated a Japanese force in Persia but the Germans seem about to take the Caucasus.

On the 2nd one the game is finished, victory for the Axis. The UK built an IC on South Africa on UK1, while the US decided to switch to a Pacific strat on US3.

NPNGMeAxis.tsvg
FortressEurope.tsvg

i like to listen to Gunkan March when i play as the japanese. this is their naval march. easily found on youtube

@oztea:

Moving through a seazone doesnt entail moving anywhere near said islands.
Combat in a sea zone is ‘assumed’ to take place at least near the islands involved because the defending fleet is likeley within a few miles of land.

A neat idea, but perhaps too powerful to assume that planes on midway are scouring the entire seazone (100s of sq. miles) in force, just waiting for Jap ships.

Scrambleing is just that……the unit gets news the enemy is in the area, and takes off to assist friendly forces.

It is an expansion of this idea. Airbase receives intel that an enemy task force is moving through the area, either by patrol planes, code-breaking or coastal watchers.

@marechallannes:

…for a strategy you never tried? :?

Maybe you take Sydney, but without a factory in Japanese/Chinese-terretories you will loose the war.

Till turn 4 the UK-Player kills too much Jap ground forces and masses of Chinese infantry secures the terretories.

Your next target after sydney should be Hawaii and you need to reienforce Honkong.

Point taken regarding the never tried strategy.  :mrgreen:

The next target should be to secure the New Guinea/Solomon/Britain NO and the DEI, while holding on to Carolines. You really don’t need Hawaii since you’re already getting the NO from Sidney.

EDIT: Just remembered that J needs 6 cities to win the game. It that case, yes, reinforce Hong Kong and take Hawaii. The last one might be difficult though…

Hmm, the comments on Malaya are interesting because I had the opposite experience last night playing as J.

I attacked on J2. I built 1 IC on Kiangsu on J2, and built 1 IC on Malaya on J4, upgrading it to a major IC on J5. On J6 i built enough inf, art and trn there to conquer india on J7.

I had to divide my builds between ground and naval units because the US destroyed a big Jap fleet on US2 off Queensland, although they took big losses as well. Since I didn’t had enough inf to finish the Chinese or deal with the UK, I concentrated in starving the UK down to 4 IPCs and taking out India instead of losing too much time dealing with the Chinese.

It really felt that I didn’t had any better option: I had to send (and lose) 2 transports with INF to fortify the Carolines and take Guam (to prevent US bombers from striking out at transports on the Asian coastline). Overall I was a little short on infantry but the moment I built the IC the UK was as good as dead.

No, it’s less complex than you think.
All you have to do is to move the cargo on the convoy route and protect it if there’s a sub near by. The rules of transport and cargo are almost the same.

In most AA game, UK and Japan are too stronger.
During WWII, Germany tried to cut the UK supply.
US make the same thing at the beginning of 1943 against Japan.
If UK or Japan player build a thousand of tank,plane and other materiels each turn even if they lost their fleet and the control of the ocean. That doesn’t make any sense!

For the warship cost.
Each country has their own cost.
ex: Uboat = 5, USA,UK sub = 8, Italy 9 etc…

@WILD:

When Hitler awakes from his coma his generals most likely declare him incompetent and have him put in some institution, allowing Germany to win the war.
Either that or he has them all shot for not following his agenda and once again the axis lose.

I can hear him allready yellin’!!!

Oh those do no goods shoot em ,imediatly shoot em…
I should have taking care of em like Stalin did w. his Generals…  lol…ha ha ha
Bohemian private!!!-Boehmischer Gefreiter…lach

@manincellv:

It is not worth getting without Italy.  Italy has set the standard now.  Its not a real A&A game without it.

Yes. Italy is awesome.

It depends on whether or not the defending subs get a Surprise Strike.  If the do, they will still fire if they’re hit by the attacker’s Surprise Strike.  If they don’t, they’ll be removed before they can fire.

This is a change from Revised.  In Revised, subs always fired at the same point in the combat sequence.  The difference the presence of enemy destroyers made was when the casualties were removed.  In Anniversary, subs actually fire at different points in the combat sequence depending on whether or not there are enemy destroyers.

Just had an 8 hour game with the 1941 setup. We played with NOs and techs enabled and I was Allies.
G starts by buying 7 inf and 2 researchers. It then attacks the CA and DD, the single DD and the 3 russian territories. G attacks Egypt with the BMR but it fails.
Russia counterattacks and retakes Baltic and Ukr. It moves 4 inf into China and masses all the inf on Bur.
J attacks EE, Borneo, Philippines, US BB and DD/TRN plus 3 chinese territories. It leaves the DD/TRN off India alone.
UK buys 1 IC for India and builds a carrier. The BB land units on Algeria.
Italy buys 1 DD and counterattacks on Algeria.
US starts building a fleet on the Pacific and gets 2 researchers.

From that moment on, the game went like this:

G and R were trading territories. G managed to conquer Karelia once but couldn’t keep it. Besides fighting G, R managed to sent some 9 tanks to help in China. J tried to attack India on J3 but failed due to the AA shooting 3 planes out of 5. Meanwhile it built some ships to counter the US buildup and had to deal with the Chinese and the Russians on China. After defending China, the UK moved to Burma and kept attack FIC. This, and conquering both Norway and Finland, securing Africa and liberating EE and Borneo (the Indian TRN went back to Australia and a US TRN moved from the Solomon) gave the UK a massive income (+50). Italy tried to attack the UK fleet off Algeria and lost big time. The US fleet eventually grew to 3 ACs, 1 CA, 2 DDs, 4 SUB. When we decided to end the game it had attacked and sunk the J fleet off Japan with the help of 8 jet fighters and 1 BMR (against 2 AC, 1 BB, 2 DD, 2 SUB and 4 FTR).

The game wasn’t really decided at the end, we stopped because of getting really tired but it was really interesting, although the Axis made some bad mistakes.