And I believe this has been the rule ever since AAE, when building ships into enemy-controlled sea zones was first allowed.
It does seem a bit odd, but it’s not like the rule is going to be abused: A sub has to somehow not get killed by air, find some transports that aren’t defended by anything and are shucking into friendly territory, and then not get killed by the transports.
I remember when AAR first came out and Don Rae said the US should send tanks tanks tanks through Africa to reinforce Russian positions. I’ve tried that, and I think I’ve also tried inf/arm, and I’ve never seen much success.
Someone doing an UnBaltic (or similar) opening will delay an Algeria landing until at least US2. It’s just not worth losing 1des 2trn to land 2inf 1art 1arm. US1 Alg units could optimally reach Per on their own by US5. With UnBaltic that’s probably arm in Per by US6 (because the 2inf 1art will be killed trying to retake Africa from G). So whoop-dee-doo. Japan will be in Per or seriously pressuring it with battleships, infantry, armor, and 6ftr 1bmb, and a stack of US arm just won’t cut it. It wouldn’t matter so much that Germany will be much stronger without serious US threat of landing in WEu/SEu, except that the US probably won’t be able to make it to Cau/Rus to turn the tables. Per could certainly be sandwiched between TJ and Cau–and get slammed, but it’s unlikely. At that point Russia can’t afford to trade its stack for G’s or J’s because then the other will take Rus. The Allies need to be taking ground around either Rus or Ber, and Operation Torch doesn’t seem to do either.
If you can pull off a US Med fleet, then Torch gets a serious leg up, and I think would likely work. But after looking at the pros and cons of that strategy, I really don’t see a way around a G ftr buildup.
You’ve been loaded up with rules answers, but I do want to chime in about other versions of A&A. None of the standard ones are an expansion of any others. Axis and Allies: Europe and :Pacific are standalone games that have separate maps and somewhat separate rules. I thoroughly enjoyed AAE back when I played it, but it’s pretty broken and kinda stale. To even the game out you have to get rid of the each-side-gets-12-ipcs-to-spend-anywhere rule and just give the Allies a bid of like 20+ I think. Still maybe worth checking out though.
I’ve only played AAP a few times, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s a much more naval game. All that island-hopping you get the urge to do in A&A and AAR but can rarely pull off well–you get to do that like crazy in AAP.
I haven’t played the other ones like Battle of the Bulge or Guadalcanal. BoB seemed too much like Breakout: Normandy, and I don’t even know about Guadalcanal.
I think AAR is such an improvement over original A&A and easily the best one Avalon Hill has put out, but AAE and AAP are also fun, probably even more so than A&A.
If you’re looking for variants that mess with maps, territories, and rules, check out AAR Enhanced, AAR Historical, and Pact of Steel (which is AAR with some tweaks–and Italy!). And that’s just three variants–there are many more out there. I’ve heard Enhanced is very cool but haven’t gotten the chance to try it out yet.
Naw, once you start trying to push Allies into the Med, you have to deal with nasty logistic problems. Takes two transports per transport load to get to Western Europe or Southern Europe, and there’s the whole German infantry counter thing, and the German air/naval attack on Allied navy thing, and the ew and the ah, and the I’m going to run away before those guys steal my boots.
Wups, gotta go. Work work.
I dunno. I’ve never been able to pull it off, oddly, but I’ve always wanted to get a US fleet into the Med. And it’s not some whacked-out idea. US units take four turns to march from Lib > AE > TJ > Per (if they can even get through) > Cau. A US fleet can pick up units from Lib and drop them in Cau, which is huge.
The problem is pulling it off, but if you can, the German player should pretty much be crying. Seriously, like tears and stuff. It takes some nifty Allied transport fleet movement, but that’s half of what good US/UK play is all about anyway, right?
A US Med fleet hinges on two things: holding or trading WEu and Kar. The UK can be very very safe in sz3 if WEu and Kar are clear of G ftrs, and sz12 is only susceptible to G bmbs once WEu is ftr-free. Luckily, those two territories fall pretty quickly. Germany might might might be throwing its weight around in Kar for a few turns, but Russia can make this very temporary (or non-existent). And once Kar is taken even once, ftrs won’t be landing there–the UK fleet would be safe to keep landing in Nor and any US des or other cover can go to sz12. Once Germany starts shifting east to march on Russia, the UK will be able to start trading WEu, which is around UK4-5–sometimes later, sometimes even earlier.
Right then the US should have its 1bb 2des 1ac 2ftr 4-5 trn fleet lurch into the Med. Heck, that might even be the landing that takes SEu for good or sets it up to be taken a few turns later.
Not only is the Med fleet powerful because it can drop troops right into Cau, but also because it threatens SEu/WEu/Bal/Ukr constantly without mucking up the US’s supply line. With a little preparation and an ac, the US can put ridiculous amounts of pressure on German territory while still having the option of quickly reinforcing Russia.
Frankly, marching the US through Africa just doesn’t cut it. Unless you can pull off some funky combination of Nor/Ukr ICs with a 2x2 or 3x3 fleet chain (and/or get lucky and secure WEu/SEu early on), you’re gonna have to have like 8-10 transports. So why not invest in one ac and instead of landing in WEu, take your pick of WEu/SEu/Bal/Ukr/Cau/TJ.
If Germany’s airforce is depleted, for instance from a G2 UnBaltic attack that destroys the UK fleet but leaves Germany with something like 3ftr 2bmb, the US can move into the Med with just 1bb 2des as cover. You just gotta sink the G Med fleet first, and then you rule the seas.
All that being said, I see three problems–each involving my beloved, but in this case just plain annoying, Axis air: two German bombers, Germany building more ftrs, and Japan’s airforce.
2bmb vs 4trn in sz12 means G can gamble its bmbs against those trns, with each side having a 50/50 chance of being wiped out. But if the Russian sub is still alive or the Aus trn, a US trn, or any other naval piece can sit in sz12, that fleet becomes much more secure. Sink 12ipcs into a US des and you’re golden.
If Germany keeps building ftrs, both US and UK fleets have to respond. It’s the classic fork, like WRu threatening Cau and Rus or Sol threatening both Bor and EInd. And I don’t really have an answer for it :x.
The problem with Japan’s airforce is that Germany could throw its air at the US Med fleet, probably wiping out transport cover, and then Japan could follow up and wipe out the capitals. Japan would have to have its air in place, but that wouldn’t take much effort. The Allied upside is that this would leave either G’s or J’s airforce almost assuredly dead and the other one darn close to it. And really it would just stop the US for one turn. You just do nothing, builds 4-5 trns, and next turn it’s back to business as usual, except you land in WEu/Nor. Meanwhile Axis air is virtually gone.
I dunno, I forgot about the Germany ftr build strategy until like the end of this post. I think that might be the one out of the three that could really deter a US Med fleet. Anyone have success with separate US and UK fleets against a cuh-razy Luftwaffe?
I don’t recall what classifications the rulebook gives for units, but I’m gonna go with sea, air, and land.
Land attack land and air units.
Sea units attack sea and air units (exceptions being: battleships or destroyers can bombard land units, and subs can’t hit air units).
Air units attack land, sea, and air units.
So units just participate in an attack like it says in the rules. Attacker fires and hits, defender fires and hits, casualties are removed. There are special circumstances like subs using sneak attack, battleships bombarding, etc, but otherwise it’s those three steps.
I mean, sea units can’t go onto the land, and land units can’t go onto the sea–though they are cargo on transports or destroyers–so the only time you have any ‘crossover’ is with air units. And they can hit anything.
With subs, once again I may not be 100% correct, but I believe they can only submerge, yeah, during the retreat phase. At that point they are officially ‘tipped’ to indicate that they’re submerged. They can’t move for the rest of the turn, and I think they can’t impede non-combat movement either–but don’t quote me on that. At the end of the turn or during some end-of-turn phase, like placement maybe, any tipped subs become untipped, and are no longer submerged. In AAE (and maybe AAP?) subs couldn’t be hit with enemy air unless an enemy destroyer was also in the attack. AAR reverted to the A&A rule where air can hit subs. At least subs can submerge now.
@Cmdr:
But, if Germany got stomped in Egypt and Japan screwed up Pearl, BAD, so that America can kill off a Japanese carrier and a battleship along with another fighter. Then KJF is the only INTELLIGENT thing to do!
By stomped, do you mean didn’t take AE on G1, took it weakly, or was wiped out UK1?
To answer General_D.Fox’s original questions: One of the first times I’d ever sent the Med fleet west on G1, I forgot to unload the inf into Gib. That fleet went down in a hurry, and the US proceeded to suicide itself into SEu while the UK did the same into WEu. I’m usually pretty good about defending (or at least being able to retake) WEu/SEu in the early and middle game, but that time they were under immense pressure from very early on. So if you get kicked out of Africa that early, yes, I think it can mean curtains. Don’t get me wrong, I took AE on G1 like a good little Germany, but the loss of the Med fleet was just too much for my African campaign.
I really don’t have enough games under my belt to give a good answer on how long Germany should look to be in Africa. It used to be the UK and then US would land in Alg round 1, and then the US would send troops through Africa for maybe a few more rounds. In that case I’d say Germany just wants to shuttle troops over there until AE falls, and then they turn around and defend the heart of Africa until they’re dead or victorious. Free run of the place for 2-4 rounds and then you’re on defense.
But now, especially with the UnBaltic policy paper, everybody and their grandmother knows the benefits of bringing out the Baltic fleet. This means no UK1/US1 landings in Alg. In fact, it might mean the UK never lands. The US will be likely be landing on US2-5. I guess the same principle applies, though: Gain as much ground as you can and then defend it. If the US is really late getting to Africa, then at some point it might not be worth sending more troops over. Africa is only cool because tanks can get down there and go “wheeee!” as they blitz through unoccupied territory. If you have most/all of Africa and the US is marching over in force, fighting them ain’t gonna help. Usually the US is gonna be pretty efficient about getting over there, though, and you’re gonna want every Med fleet landing you can get. If you have 2trns in the Med, then you’ll probably only want to land in Africa 2-3 times (4-6 units) and then look at other targets.
My favorite Africa-defense tactic is to bring over the G or J airforces. The US slogs through Alg and Lib and is just ready to smack AE when all of the sudden 5 or more German ftrs land there. Nuts, says America. This is even funnier when the US forces must then retreat from Lib for fear of being demolished by 5ftr plus whatever was already mustered in AE. This can wreak havoc on Germany’s ability to trade territory for that turn, but places like Ukr will still be in reach. And if it means turning a US move of Lib > AE into Lib > Alg, I mean, come on, how can you pass that up!
This works in a similar way if the J airforce is just passing through on its way to reinforce the G stack and doesn’t want to get hit by AA fire (why does TripleA default to always-on AA anyway?). It might not send the Allies fleeing to Alg, but J ftrs might be able to hang around for a bit longer, too.
Also, the Axis are blessed with three battleships. If they happen to be around Africa (and they all tend to make their way there at some point), put them to good use.
This isn’t in the traditional vein of policy papers, but it’s definitely making my head hurt, so regardless, it’s pretty important.@Mazer:
The vast majority of conversations on dice have missed the central fact that when “luck” occurs, it is more likely to be bad than good.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I mean, wouldn’t you have to look at the odds for every battle for many, many games before you could say that?
I slapped 2inf 1ftr vs 1inf into frood (all rounds, 5k, LL) and the “most likely outcome” was like 65%. Sure, in that example, bad dice were more likely than good dice, although the chance of bad dice was still outnumbered by the most likely outcome. I upped it to 4inf 1ftr vs 3inf and the “most likely outcome” was 50%. A better outcome had 40% and the two worse outcomes were at 20%. So, for that battle, bad dice were less likely than good dice.
4inf 1ftr vs 3inf ain’t gonna happen that much, but who’s to say that common battles (maybe territory-trading battles can be ruled out because of the 2inf 1ftr vs inf example?) aren’t similar–in that good dice is more likely than bad dice? I’d want to see hard numbers. Maybe by listing the odds for different variants of round 1 battles we could get an idea whether bad dice or good dice really are more likely in a typical AAR game.
Well, no one seems to be replying…I only play TripleA, but if that’s fine with you, then I’m game.
3. Though its cool to discuss, does anyone actually fear a German invasion? Come on, even with India IC ( say 3 men build) that gives 6-7 men, plus 2 fighters, fleet to block, US reinforcements, and at least 10 units from starting and t1 builds. If Ger wants to try, good luck
Er, wat? German invasion of what? Hell, I’ll just ram Germany down Africa’s throat, run German infantry in towards Moscow, then switch to German Mediterranean infantry drops into Caucasus backed up by G3-4+ built tanks.
I think mattpun was referring to my assertion that the UK would need to keep quite a few units on London. I guess I was thinking of a multi-IC UK that was more focused on dropping units in SAf/Ind/Aus than landing in Nor/Kar/Arc. If the UK is landing 2-3 transports in Europe, then that alone should secure London pretty well.
If the Allies truly can spare any more than some infantry, some air cover, and the occasional tank or artillery unit, I’d imagine the best power to be supplying those troops would be Russia. So, I don’t really see the need for the US/UK to be fighting in mainland Asia, unless they happen to funnel troops that far east. It’s all about convenience.
And I don’t see what’s so urgent. In the first few rounds, Japan is busy setting up its own shuck-shuck and establishing dominance. Immediately dropping two units in Sin and three in Ind each turn is going to prevent what exactly? By the time the Japanese do finally arrive, they will vastly outnumber any five-turn buildup. The western Allies will either gift their ICs to Japan or have them ripped from their cold, dead fingers.
Sin/Ind ICs would mainly protect US/UK money – not so much Russia’s – and wouldn’t deny Japan much at all. Sure, Japan would be down 5 IPCs a round. But multiply that by six rounds (about the time it would take to conquer Ind and Sin) and you get, wow, 30 IPCs – exactly how much Japan wouldn’t have to spend on Ind/Sin ICs because hey, it’s getting them for free this time.
I’m also not crazy about the FIC attack. Maybe it’s a good idea when Africa is beyond lost, but if you can rid Anglo-Egypt of German tanks on UK1, that can be a huge money saver.
I too would thoroughly enjoy such a game–pretty much just KJF, right?–but it’s not gonna be me who initiates it.
I’ve heard KJF can be useful because it catches people offguard. I suppose that can be true, but anyone who has played A&A for a long time (or AAP at all) will probably have a good idea of how to react with Japan.
And I still think KJF is majorly sub-par:
The Western allies spend a lot of money building those SAf/Ind/Sin/Aus ICs, and really any supply of Japanese troops whatsoever will be able to hold orange territory and take at least one or two ICs back.
Germany will effectively have carte blanche in Europe and Africa. Sending a few US troops to Africa or a few UK troops to Europe (even each turn) is awfully similar to sending none. Not just that it’s not more than 0 troops, but also that Germany will just blast the US/UK troops away with it’s airforce, battleship, and massive numbers of inf/art/arm.
The US/UK will still have to provide cover for their Atlantic transports if they want to keep them very long.
Even with a counter-Pearl Japan will end US1 with 2bb 1-2ac 4-6ftr and home-team advantage (its naval builds reach the front faster than US/UK’s). Good luck.
UK will have to leave troops on its mainland doing lots of nothing to prevent Germany from just building 5-6 transports and taking London. Add up that (at least like 8inf) and 2 ICs and you have two rounds of UK spending and no troops in Asia to show for it.
I love the idea of KJF, but unfortunately :cry: it’s only any good in AAP or if you just wanna have fun. I’ve never played out an AAR KJF game, so I could be dead wrong, but those are some pretty strong arguments.
@Cmdr:
Can’t even begin to guess the number of 2nd ed games I lost because I was afraid to attack because if the battle went bad I’d lose my fighters and bombers too.
I can’t say it lost me games, but I recall how annoying it was and remember first reading the rule adjustment in AAE (or was it AAR?) and going “sweet.”
And who knows, since aircraft have gained a retreat option over the years, maybe they’ll eventually give non-amphibous units the same option.
You listen, and it sounds right, and you keep listening. Suddenly he whips off his hobo suit, and it’s Tom Cruise, and you’re a Scientologist.
lawlz
Something close to the UnBaltic has been used on me twice, actually in my past two games I think, and I’ve been itching to try it out. I really like the addition of the bmb. It’s like a ftr purchase in that you threaten UK/US with it while using it on land–but it’s a bomber! That range of 6 means it can probably be used in any attack you want, turn after turn after turn.
So I’m just waiting for the TripleA server to stop acting up so I can play Axis and try this out. Two thumbs up, CSub.
I haven’t played A&A/AAE/AAP in years–though I play AAR often–but: Wasn’t that always the rule, even in out-of-the-box rulebooks?
I’ve been all over the place with R1 builds. I used to swear by (inf/art/arm) 3/1/2, but I’ve also done 2/2/2, 5/1/1, and even something involving an R1 ftr. Now I almost always go with 3/0/3. Having a large tank force is generally the best stack to be running around with, and really the best R can hope for in round 1 is to make Germany think twice about going into Kar. 3/0/3 gets some more infantry into the field, but can potentially deadzone Kar–and easily deadzone Belo and Ukr.
With combats, nothing beats Ukr+WRus. I play LL, so I like to go with all available into Ukr (minus one arm) and then all available into WRus (perhaps leaving an inf in Kar). This way, in Ukr, I have a good chance of burning off 5 units and then pulling my tanks back to Cau. If there was a G0 bid in Ukr, then I bring in that extra arm.
I guess I’ve never tried any of the snazzier openings that bring in Nor and/or Belo attacks, but that’s because I don’t think they’re very appealing. I can’t think of any situation besides just plain messing around where the WRus or Ukr attacks could be ignored, and since Kar is pretty much all that can be used against Nor or Belo, you’ve gotta pick one. But what’s the benefit of one of those attacks? WRus will have say 2-4 fewer inf on it by G1, and that’s really where you want to be strongest. I haven’t done any major number-crunching, but it seems like adding a Nor or Belo attack will just make you lose about 4-6 inf more (from both the extra attack and increased WRus casualties) while only costing Germany slightly more inf and maybe that Nor ftr.
Who cares if Germany is down one less ftr? It’s not that big a deal. And it could put Germany in a position to temporarily lurch east (or set up a faster permanent eastward march). Just one 3-ipc territory is one more inf for Germany, one less for Russia. Who cares about one ftr.
I think I read in a different thread about how a riskier R1 opening is fine because in the face of uncooperative dice, Russia can simply retreat, but I can’t think of an R1 retreat (aside from a good strafe of Ukr) that isn’t a huge blow to Russia–though I can think of bad ones.
Norway or Belo retreats back to Kar: Germany strafes Kar–or smashes it b/c Russia had too many R1 casualties and just can’t deadzone Kar at this point.
WRus retreats to Russia: Russia will take longer to start trading Kar/Belo/Ukr (if it ever does) and will have a smaller income while Germany has a larger one.
Ukr retreats to Cau: If Belo and Ukr have enough units, WRus could be in serious trouble. This could in turn lead to the result from 2–Russia swapping Arc/WRus/Ukr when it should be further west–or even more catastrophic things such as Russia being really short on units or losing Cau early.
So because retreats aren’t looking too good it’s pretty much all or nothing with the extra attack. And even if Russia successfully takes Nor or Belo, Germany could strafe away those Russian units. That’s even more lost units who would otherwise be safe and sound in Cau. If Germany never retakes Nor, UK would be down that income, but it probably doesn’t hurt for Russia to be up 3 at the expense of the UK.
I’ve seen (and possibly had) this idea before, but here’s a problem that just occurred to me: Can’t the Allies just sidestep? If the US is in the western Mediterranean, can’t it just go one west to sz12, and then return to land in WEu? A sub in both sea zones would do the trick, but not just one.
And the same would go for the UK, if it even lands in WEu–I like to keep the UK fleet up north and out of range of some Luftwaffe, especially while it is just building up. The UK fleet could just go to the other UK sz, pick up troops, come back, kill the sub, and land.
A WEu IC would also mean you couldn’t just picket WEu. You’d have to leave a serious amount of troops there. Generally this is a good idea, but an IC would commit you to holding it.
I haven’t even considered a SAF IC since my days of FTF A&A. Long time ago…
I only ever do KGF, but I agree that SAFIC has a place there, too. Counterattacking on UK1 with 3inf 1bmb doesn’t really maximize those inf and likely leads to a dead bmb on G2. But if you rally the inf and get the Aus inf there, too, SAF can pump out straight tanks that will destroy any German forces. Surviving inf/arm can then go to Persia or beyond.
But I think where this strat really shines (in addition to giving the Allies a way to defend against Japan in the late game) is: The UK doesn’t have to land in Alg on UK1 to quickly control Africa. The UK2-4 counters will take care of that.
Instead, the UK can make a very important landing in Nor and/or gear up for a UK2 Arc (or maybe Kar) landing. I find that if the UK isn’t establishing a beachhead early on, Germany can just work the northern corridor (Nor/Kar/Arc) and eat up 4trns of UK troops without losing many troops in return.
It looks like SAFIC gives the Allies some quick but long-term strength where they are probably the weakest, and allows the UK to focus on Europe from UK1.
It’s wonderful to once again have a potentially viable (no, India doesn’t count) IC option.
Regarding R1, throwing everything at Ukr does not hurt the WRus much at all.
All-out into Ukr leaves WRus with a 60% chance to take it with 4-6inf 1art 1arm. Adding one armor ups the odds to about 65% for the same survivors.
In Ukr, all-out has a 96% chance of winning, and 60% of taking it with 2arm 2ftsr > 3arm 1art 2ftrs. If you divert one arm to WRus, Ukr now has 86% chance of winning, and only 54% chance of taking with 1arm 2ftsr > 2arm 1art 2ftrs.
WRus will be taken no matter what and with basically the same casualties. Whichever territory that arm goes to is going to get a +5% towards the three most likely results, and if the arm goes to Ukr, the attack gets +13% chance to win.
The arm is probably best spent in Ukr because it guarantees at least a good strafe, thereby preventing a G2 counter into WRus. If you really want to take Ukr, then throw all 3arm. But if you’re playing low luck (or at just feeling really lucky) and just want to strafe Ukr down to the ftr, I’d send 2. Much better chance of not taking or under-strafing.
There’s many more factors at play in the ukraine battle OTHER than strictly economic measures.
I don’t think this information is meaningless, but I think far too many players worry too much about the dollar cost trading that is happening in a battle. The economics are not the end-all in A&A.
I agree wholeheartedly. I see people talking about TUV and whatnot, but I really don’t see what the point is in looking at units in terms of IPC value instead of logistics.
I tend to say that any battle (in the early or middle game) where Russia can do at least a 1:1 inf trade with Germany is a good idea. This is done to prevent Germany from being able to leverage her non-inf attack power. In TUV-speak you’d say that’s an even trade of IPCs. But looking at it in terms of 1:1 inf already covers that and also gives a tactical reason (anti-Infantry Push). A tactical perspective has very similar standards (because units worth more IPC are generally more important) but gives you a better idea of what to do.
And while tactical analysis will give you ideas of ratios, I don’t really see how one can come up with TUV guide. How much TUV advantage should Russia stand to gain before it enters a battle with Germany? Japan? There’s just so much to factor in. It’s gonna depend on the situation. Gee, sounds like tactical analysis to me.
Back in the day at AAMC and FoE I remember FIDA bids (so free placement but only 1/2 on units) were 6 or so–essentially enough to get an inf or art into Lib and throw some IPCs to both powers. And as far as I can tell, I think that’s a pretty good place for the Axis to be. Maybe even something smaller like 3-4 IPCs to be spent anywhere.
I agree that giving the Axis 8+ IPCs that could potentially be spend on an Atl sub or a Med trn is just too potent. And look at AAR in general. It has more strategical and tactical options than A&A, but I think the Axis definitely have more powerful strategies–namely Germany’s.
Perhaps this could change with some better Allied strats, especially in the area of UK1 options (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10443.0)
but for now it looks like the Axis just need an inf/art or two, not an extra naval unit.
