Posts made by ItIsILeClerc

Some people feel like an adjacent NB should be required to build ships at an IC.
I like that idea as well but I wouldn’t go as far as making NBs a (naval) production facility by itself, for all the same reasons Variance and knp have posted.

I’d try to divide experience and strategic strength as evenly as possible between the 2 sides.
Who plays what largely depends on the level of fun you want to give to a certain player and how ‘serious’ your game is going to be  :lol:.

I’d say playing France means the least fun, followed by China (if Japan is played by a strong/experienced player). Most fun/action for the smaller countries comes from ANZAC, India (if you want to split it off) and Italy.

Good luck deciding and have fun playing!

Yeah, I was thinking roughly the same.
Except for the port taking damage but that is just another way to install repaircost ;-).

Only +1 move when moving strategically from a port (no combat during movement), not necessarily to another port, sounds interesting!

And yes guys, destroyers can cause damage to Battleships if operating together with heavier class ships. I still feel it’s more of an exception (and a rather heroic one) than common engagement as DDs without heavier support usually flee to a safe distance if they spot an enemy BB, or sacrifice themselves to protect a bigger prize, for example a crippled and fleeing friendly Battleship.
For the record: I was not talking about CAs or even BCs, however dreadful they might be. Not to mention the exemplary heroics of a DD crew engaging such heavy ships!

Haha!

In general, desroyers killing Battleships IS a flaw in the system of course.

If destroyers ever manage to come close enough to a Battleship to start firing at it, they’ll realize their guns are too small for the superior Battleship armor.

I don’t think there should be a repair limit.

I do think it would be more ‘realistic’ when repairing ships does have a cost and a naval base should be required in an area to be able to build ships in adjacent SZs. So Wittmann  it is not just you ;-).

Most likely this will require the NB cost less to build but I am not sure of that.

I just realized I was stuck in my G1 artillery building a bit: Germany can build all fast units G1 in Berlin. Those can also enter Russia G2 changing the whole picture…

I guess this will mean no strafe/attack RU2. Maybe RU3 or RU4 or  the worst case scenario for Russia: not at all  :cry: (just the same as with a G3 DOW). It might just mean that everything in Russia happens 1 turn earlier.

My remarks for German spearheads getting destroyed remain the same even in this scenario. For both Russia and Germany this looks like good and bad news: Germany wins 1 turn tempo here, but looses this in the west (Luftwaffe must operate in Russia to pose a serious threat towards Moscow, and thus the allies can D-Day 1 turn earlier).

Also, the German offensive is weaker -as is the Russian defence, in an equal measure-, so I think with an all fast G1 build and no sea lion feign a subsequent G2 DOW on Russia is no less or more dangerous to the allied cause than a G3 DOW.

Oki doki, lets see what I can do  :-).

Germany can bring a maximum of 46 units into Eastern Poland if it does NOT attack France with any tanks/mech (using aircraft to kill it), does NOT take Yugoslavia and does NOT take Bulgaria.

Apart from Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, I have to assume Germany is NOT doing this. Germany has to kill all of the RN around Britain and also must kill France or else the whole advantage of DOWing Russia G2 is lost (D-Day UK3 or even UK2). This means Germany needs 6 tanks and 4mech in France in order to send all its luftwaffe to kill the RN.
So Germany can march into Eastern Poland with 36 Units (incl. 3 tanks and 3 AAA), or, as you stated, 28 units into Baltic States. This means not attacking Yugoslavia and not aligning Bulgaria.

Russia on the other hand already has 33 units on the front. Assuming Russia is a bit alarmed by Germany massing at its borders with Russia G1 already, it can build 6 fast units in Leningrad/Ukraine to further this to 39 units.

Depending on positioning and on whether Germany did attack Yugoslavia/align Bulgaria, Russia should be able to press the attack into Eastern Poland and win, or strafe it, retreating into either Belarus or Western Ukraine (German reinforcements will only be able to attack into Eastern Poland so after your strafe you can only be attacked by German survivors + its Luftwaffe).
If Germany has moved into the Baltic States you can ignore him for now if you cannot field enough troops for the counter attack. The point is, if Germany does not want to loose a one turn tempo towards Moscow, it must move into Belarus G3 from there and your Russians can prepare an even better counterattack/strafe opportunity into that area.

The point is always, but even more so once Germany has lost a lot of infantry, its expensive tanks and mech can spearhead deep into Russia but this is disadvantageous for Germany if its tanks + mech end their movement next to big Russian inf stacks (Russia will just kill the spearhead in a -for Germany- very detrimental loss-rate). Russia should of course place its defending infantry and aircraft so, that the only option for Germany to blitz is non-existant or game-loosing at best. Let Germany blitz into the North if you must allow it a blitz-path, protecting Caucasus and Stalingrad which Germany needs badly for a chance to win. If Germany does not want to give up the chance to take Caucasus/Stalingrad, it has to come towards you 1 territory (in depth) at a time or face the methodical destruction of its mechanized forces.

Russia can afford quite a lot if it knows London will send a lot of aircraft into Russia UK4 or 5.

If your UK ‘friend’ is not so keen on aiding you… it is a different story entirely and you should start sweating  :lol:.

Well, that’s it, Shaniana. My own Russian experiences from the eastern front (ofc with my very co-operative UK-buddy, who once had 16 (!) UK FTR operating from Moscow), mixed with a little bit of predictive thinking (or some might call it wishful thinking hehheh) since I have not yet seen Germany DOW Russia G2 whilst skipping/strafing Yugoslavia and Bulgaria ;-).

Thanks Imperious.

I ll wait a bit till I know more of the problem myself. Right now I seem to be able to log in if I click the ‘Login’ button instead of hitting [Enter].

I am able to log in after some 3 to 4 attempts anyway when/if this problem occurs.

@Shaniana:

@Uncrustable:

And you really need an aircraft carrier. Just think for 16 IPC you can get 3 units (2 fighters) into the water with a total defensive value of 10!

But aren’t these 10 defensive point and the 16 PC just idling, doing nothing but fishing, if he DOW Russia? When the US or UK fleet comes at last, it will be too big for that one carrier anyway…

One of the main reasons why I personally don’t like a feign Sea-Lion. Buying ships and then go Barbarossa just makes the Russians smile, knowing they will survive. This downside is not outweighed by the 1 turn ‘panic reaction’ from the UK imho. A dedicated Barbarossa is far stronger.
Personally, I even prefer a ‘surprise’ Sea Lion to a feign!

Regarding A G2 DOW on Russia:
I strongly believe it is inferior to a G3 DOW, because the Russians can optimally strafe the invading German units, making it impossible for Germany to attack deeper into Russia G3. This effectively turns the G2 into a G3 with a worse unit composition and balance for Germany.

Or well, that is my Russian experience with a G2 DOW. I felt safer than with the G3 variant. Admitted, there was no German strafe in Yugoslavia (he just took it) but I doubt those 6/7 extra land units would have made a big difference. The Russians can still push the attack instead of strafing, making the east front a skirmish for its western border areas. This is ofc sub optimal for the Russians but still better than a straight G3!

It can be dangerous in combination with an invasion in northern Russia with the ‘feighning’ Kriegsmarine, but I have yet to see it working, since Russia can hold the Germans off with just conservative play, knowing Germany bought a lot of ships and is thus less dangerous on land. Not to mention that the German invaders are also at risk of becoming POW if they are too aggressive. Another big chunk out of the once mighty Wehrmacht!

My 2 cents of experience with being G2 DOWed  :-).

I agree with Pancake and kcdzim about (not) attacking with the siberians.

I think it is better to wait attacking Manchuria/Korea untill Japan is comitted in SE Asia. (and cannot counterattack your siberians in 1 turn) OR have Japan leave a large defensive garrison which also hurt its offensive in China/SE Asia. Create headaches for Japan for as many turn as you can, not sacrifice everything in 1 turn.

On the other hand the Siberians can arrive in time to defend Moscow, especially if the UK has FTR to help defend Moscow. Furthermore, the Siberians add tremendously to the Russian ability to counterattack Bryansk RU7-RU8. They force Germany to focus on nothing but Moscow, leaving western parts of ‘the reich’ more vulnerable.
Sending them all away will result in lost Russian production, but 18 to 21 units (incl. Mongolians) will arrive in Moscow, for a neutral net result until RU10. Keeping them all to oppose Japan results in more production but still less units for Moscow. The increased production cannot replace the loss of 18 to 21 units for Moscow, at least untill RU10.

So I think a RU1DOW is a good thing but what you do with the Siberians is a different thing entirely. and greatly depends on your German opponent and the pressure you will expect on Moscow…

Hehheh, Mooooh! ;-)

Hello folks,

I notice quite often that I cannot access the forum because the site returns to me a 'password incorrect blabla ’ message.

The first few times this happened, I thought I was mistyping my password but now I think it is a problem on the website. I don’t mistype, don’t accidentally have caps lock on, etc. etc. Of course this happens sometimes but not 10 times in a row.

It’s ofc also possible that my keyboard malfunctions every once in a while but I have no clue for that. The A&A forum is the only place where this problem happens to me…

What can it be??? A clue any1??? Should this be reported and if yes, where???

Below a quote from the rulebook, so decide for yourself:

"THE POLITICAL SITUATION
(…)

The United Kingdom and ANZAC
(…)
These two powers also have an arrangement with the Dutch government in exile (Holland having been captured by Germany) and have taken guardianship of the Dutch territories in the Pacific. As a result, they are free to move units into these territories as a noncombat movement at any time, as long as they have not yet been captured by Japan."

The above rules are pretty clear about it, not? Units can move in it during the ncm and may be aircraft or land units, the rules state no distinction.
The act of taking control of the territory is explained later in that paragraph which only happens when a land unit moved into such a territory during its ncm, but I can’t see how this prevents aircraft to land there as well.

“They may actually take control of them (gaining their IPC income) by moving land units into them.” (…)

I Look at it as a territory that is controlled by the allied side from the start of the turn. What changes when a UK/ANZAC land unit moves into it, is who gets the IPCs (the Dutch government in exile or the UK/ANZAC) and control switches from the Dutch to UK/ANZAC.

A legal landing spot for aircraft is NOT an area that you controlled from the start of turn, but an area that was friendly (but not friendly neutral) from the start of the turn. The DEI are not neutral!

TLDR (sorry if it is ;-)):
If you cannot decide if it is legal or not, you can also move land units of the UK into Java first, and then fly the ANZAC FTR as a leapfrog action. AZAC then can take Celebes/DNG instead…

Heh,

Nerfing USA could be done, if its wartime production is also increased so that it makes up for the loss of income in the early gameturns.

But remember A&A is a game with very a-historical options/possibilities. Having the US produce way less early on may very well see an unstoppable invasion of San Fransisco by the Japanese, even possibly combined with a successful co-operated Italian/German attack on Washington.

So all in all I think it is simply impossible to let the USA have much less income early on while at the same time preventing the above situation. If the axis can destroy the USA early on I cannot see how the allies can recover from that. Game over, DOA, broken beyond belief ;-).

@SS:

IL, what was your values for a cruiser?  I can’t seem to find what you suggested.

Hi S,

I am fine with the cost of all units as they are now. Tho, if costs of naval Units would have to change I think those of cmdr. Jennifer make the most sense to me (except the lower cost for TRS).

I also like the idea of adding an ability to the cruiser, like for example an AAA or a combined arms one.
Or… maybe CA can grant DD the ability to hit a BB on a 1-on-1 basis. Things like that.

Tbh I have only played G40 so far (and, once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, I played MB’s A&A 1942)…

But regarding Global, yes, Carriers are very effective for Naval Powers, especially the ones with lots of aircraft anyway.

Still I find the Carrier has not enough superiority but I can live with that since we 're playing a fun game. I do think however that Carriers should not be forced into even lesser superiority than already is the case by just lowering the cost of BBs and CA and leave the CV where it is…

To me, the proposal of Commander Jennifer seems to be the best I have seen so far. Except for the cheaper TRS, which makes me even more fearful of Sea Lion strategies and Japanese conquest of Sydney and the rest of the Pacific  :wink:.

@Meta:

@Cow:

The Europe half sucks for me, the skirmishes only occur between Italy and UK, the rest is a big stack moving toward Russia, maybe a few infantry blockers here n there to fight, but it is a one way movement for the most part which is stupid.

Nobody ever came with a stacking rule and/or some kind of enlistment track limiting infantry and tanks that can be built (taking into account relative labor force of each country)? Those two simple house rules could improve the strategic feeling and flow of the game.

Interesting thought!
Recruitment and stacking limits. I have tried to invent some as a houserule once myself but got stuck into balance-issues and decided it wasnt worth my time ;-).

But I guess it is doable for a smart person with time to do it (especially if getting paid for it >.<).

I have read it somewhere before and I think I also have argued for it myself,

BBs should never be a better buy than a CV. I know this is a game, no simulation, but by all means, leave the carrier in its rightful (very superior) position to the BB.

So whatever the relative costs are I like to emphasis again: buying CV+2aircraft should always trump BB-only buys.

It is even possible that BBs are already too cheap, because for 36 IPCs I can buy (theorethically) 1 BB + 2DD, getting even with a 1CV+2FTR buy of my enemy on the other side of the ocean… If my objective is just to stop him/her.

Early in the game,

even one +1 movement for aircraft makes a world of difference.
For example, Japanese aircraft being able to reach Calcutta, or NOT being able to do so.

You might argue that 1 turn later you’d be able to do so anyway, but that is a turn later so you will have lost 1 ‘tempo’ as I’d like to call it.

Later in the game, longer aircraft ranges are particularly strong for the allies when they are conducting their destructive SBR’s over any and all German + Italian ICs, ABs and/or NBs while at the same time being able to land almost anywhere they please…
Usually this can be done without the long range technology (Paris is an extremely strong allied airbase, followed by Norway, Normandy and/or Southern France -no need to build an AB in any of those places, but you can if you like), but imagine Germany can prevent the allies from liberating France/Norway…

TBH I consider all tech too weak for the cost (not just long range aircraft) to even consider rolling for it…
If whatever Major Power rolls tech dice (with average luck) it spends 30 bucks for 1 success (and you cannot even tell if this breakthrough is going to be useful for it) and its direct enemies just spend 30 bucks on buying units, those units are always a better buy than any 1 tech…

@Shaniana:

@Cow:

1. take sumatra with uk and java with anzac, during non combat fly 3 fighters into java with anzac.

Is this a legal move? Can I land fighters in a territory I just “captured”? Or are there special rules for Dutch countries that I am just missing?

For boh UK and ANZAC the rules state that their units can freely move into DEI territories in their ncm. DEI is already ‘aligned’ with them and is not at all treated as a ‘neutral territory’. UK/ANZAC may even take control of such a territory (gaining their IPC income), but that requires a land unit to move into it.

The way I interpret it: you don’t even need to control a DEI territory (by moving a land unit in it first) in order to land aircraft in it. Except of course if Japan first conquered it ;-).

Even though I think there is little room for interpretation, I’d be happy to hear if I’m wrong about this.