Posts made by I like Ike

Also my Caucasus example was completely wrong……  I flip-flopped the IFP and IR rules. And I was making the Caucasus territory worth 6 not 4 for some idiotic reason!

@Krieghund:

The reason that escort fighters’ attack value is increased by Jet Power is that Jet Power directly affects fighters’ attack value.  That increase applies in both normal combat and SBRs.  In contrast, Increased Factory Production increases an IC’s ability to mobilize units, not the IPC value of its territory.  Since bombing damage is limited by the IPC value of the territory, it is unaffected by IFP.

The mobilization capacity and the damage cap being based on two different numbers creates a little shift in the balance between how many points of damage are directly applied to production and how many are applied to “infrastructure”, as the numbers are no longer 50/50.  However, the total damage exposure is unchanged.  This is attributed to the increase in efficiency of the factories.

Basically, the designers felt that giving an increase in the number of damage points that can be applied would in effect be penalizing the player for getting the tech.  However, part of the reason that IFP’s effects are now limited to ICs in territories worth three IPCs or more is so that situations like the one you’re talking about, where ICs can’t be shut down by SBRs, don’t occur.

WOW!!!  Now THAT was a detailed, informative answer!

Thanks Krieg, you are truly the MAN!!!

@captainjack:

I don’t think this game is meant to re-place AA50 - this game replaces Revised, and AA50 was just a (for now at least) one-run special edition game.  Be happy that you have your copy!

I’m happy I have a copy of AA50,  I’m just not thrilled that 4 months later after I spent 100 bucks that there’s another copy of AA coming out with new units, better sculpts, newer rules and probably a better starting set up.  Four of the biggest complaints of AA50 (just going by what I read on the forums) for 1/3 the price.

Wait, so there’s now a “new” A&A 42 version coming out that costs 35 bucks?

Ummmm  for the people that paid 100 or more dollars for the “end all be all, sub-par ANNIVERSARY edition”  shouldn’t this game be complementary or at least majorly discounted for those people?  :x

Just my bitter .02

Got a Tech question for Krieg (or anyone).   :-)

I just checked out the updated FAQ.  I saw that Jet  Fighter Tech changes the attack value of the fighter escorts from 1 to 2.

With that in mind, if the tech changes the rules for fighter escorts, wouldn’t it be logical to change the rules for Industrial Raids of a power that has Increased Factory Production?

I understand the point that IFP is an increase in the efficiency of the IC not their size. But wouldn’t you think a Raid on a IC directly affects that IC’s efficiency to produce units?

For example, Caucasus.  If Russia has Increased Factory Production that IC can now produce 8 units.  Even if the IC is completely bombed out, that IC can still produce 2 units. 
Which is still half the value of what that territory could originally produce.

It just seems a little unfair to me that a territory can be completely bombed out and said territory can still produce half of it’s original production capacity.

Thoughts?  Thanks

Edit:  Oops never mind, i just realized my example is wrong because the Caucasus IC would only produce 6 units not 8.

But still, forget my bad example and just think about my original question.  :-D

SW Pennsylvania  :-D

@Imperious:

Yea i saw that and decided to let you think you were on to something.

LMAO  :-D

First he had to move my topic to this section because, being newer I didn’t realize this forum existed… sorry IL

Secondly, I had to laugh at my “original” Super Carrier idea!  I was thinking “man I can’t believe the Super Carrier idea hasn’t been brought up” only to be slapped in the face by reading IL’s impressive House Rule thread!!!

So sorry to everyone that had to read my “ingenious idea”  that has probably been talked about for the past 20 years.

I’m sitting here watching Battle 360 about the USS Enterprise and it got me thinking.

In '43 the Enterprise was refitted making her one bad mother!!

Has anyone toyed around with the idea of replacing one of the techs with Super Carriers?  My idea would be that each Carrier can now carry 3 fighters.

Thoughts?

@Cmdr:

The bringing of the Allied fleets together in Solomon Islands.  I guess going all the way down to New Zealand might protect them for a round, but it’s an unsustainable position that early in the game.   By the time you can move them out to do something, the entire Japanese fleet should be right on top of you because Japan needs it’s fleet down there in the first two rounds of the game, just to get their NOs.

Taking out the 7 inf stack in Bury would leave the Japanese fleet out of position to strike the Allied fleet in the Solomon’s.  So because of that would you leave the infantry in Buryatia alone?

@Cmdr:

Japan should have 6 or 7 Fighters, a Battleship and a Cruiser in range of New Zealand at the end of Japan 1 to stop this maneuver.

Which maneuver are you referring to Jen?

@Rammstein:

If anyone has a strong anti-japan strategy for the USA I would be very interested to hear it.

Develop the A-Bomb.  :evil:  Just playin, sorry I couldn’t resist.  :mrgreen:

@axis_roll:

@I:

I think stacking 7 infantry in Buryatia is a mistake.  If I’m playing Japan and the Russian player does that……I’m taking that stack out!  That’s 21 IPC worth of infantry gone and all of Siberia is left defenseless.

what other attacks is Japan still doing if taking out 7 inf in buryatia?

Can you give details of your J1 when you go after the Russians J1?

Ok.  We have already established that there are 7 Infantry in Buryatia.  Based on the 7 infantry stack in Bury strategy, I’m going to assume that the Russian player will make these moves as well.  4 infantry moved in Chinghai  and 1 moved into Yukut.  Yukut now has 2 infantry (gonna need some kind of paper machete defense for Siberia after this).

1. On J1 I would bring 3 inf and 1 fighter from Manchuria.  1 inf, 1 armor and 1 fighter from Japan. And 2 fighters from SZ 61.  (Total: 4 inf, 1 armor, 4 fighters vs 7 inf)  96% Japan victory.

2. 3 inf from Kiangsu to Fukien.  88% Japan victory.

3. 3 inf from FIC and the fighter from Formosa to Yunnan.  83% Japan victory.

4. 3 inf from the Carolines and the Crusier to Kwang. 95% Japan victory.

5. 2 fighter form SZ 61 to take out the tranny and destroyer in SZ 35.

6. Battleship from SZ 61 to take out the destryoer and tranny in SZ 50

7. 2 fighters from SZ 57 and tranny from SZ 51 to (fingers crossed) take out the BB in SZ 53.

Depending on how the battles go use the 3 inf and 1 art in SZ to 61 to reinforce either Kiangsu or FIC (probably French Indo-China).  Buy a IC and place in Manchuria.

The way I’m looking at it, Siberia is now an open door to Moscow.  Russia IMO is now forced to send units out of Moscow (which are much needed for the Germans)  to defend its rear.  Hopefully the UK player sees this as an opportunity to reinforce Burma since it was not taken on J1.  But it can be taken on J2 with the reinforcement of FIC the 2 fighters in SZ 37 and the pot shots from the BB and the crusier.  Didn’t like leaving the US transport and destroyer alone.  But I’ll deal with the US later.

I think stacking 7 infantry in Buryatia is a mistake.  If I’m playing Japan and the Russian player does that……I’m taking that stack out!  That’s 21 IPC worth of infantry gone and all of Siberia is left defenseless.

@axis_roll:

Assuming you are playing with NOs.

If you want to skip the phillipines for the first round (you’ll get it round 2)

this option is not on your list.
Then I have seen:
1 to EI
1 to Bor
1 to Kwa
2 to Burma

This is my standard opening move for Japan.

@dondoolee:

(to be fair though, Japan really had awful luck, plus it pulled all of its troops out of Mancheria and let the Russians just walk in there).

I don’t think luck had anything to do with it……

I understand why, but I think it’s interesting that Hitler has not appeared on any of the A&A boxes.  I think he should be there.  I don’t feel that it would immortalize or sensationalize him.  I think it would be an more accurate (unfortunate, but accurate) depiction of a time in history.

hakan is 100% correct.

@falconrider:

My friends arguement is that the fighters from the carrier will suffer losses and the fighters from Japan’s mainland can therefore use that carrier as a landing zone.  In theory this is correct but in practice you are supposed to have a valid landing zone for each fighter before it’s launched.

Actually your friends theory is not correct.  There is no guarantee that the fighters will suffer losses during the battle. Likely (depending on what units are being attacked), but not for certain.

So just to echo hakan words again, the rules are crystal clear that this type of move is illegal.

@Pvt.Patterson:

Just Zulu! its a 1960’s movie. Everyone Needs to Watch it!

I know that’s why I put the little devil smile at the end of my post.

@Pvt.Patterson:

Zulu!!!

SHAKA???  :evil: