@88:
Anyhow, we feel that the game is nearly balanced, but we use several house rules to try to give the Axis a nudge.
Yeah, house rules are another way to balance the sides w/o a bid.
@88:
Anyhow, we feel that the game is nearly balanced, but we use several house rules to try to give the Axis a nudge.
Yeah, house rules are another way to balance the sides w/o a bid.
@88:
We also don’t play with bids
Are you playing with 4-5 players at a time, so that there are at least two Allied players? If playing with 3 or less, which leads to one player playing all three Allies, the Axis is at a slight disadvantage w/o a bid. With 4-5 players, the Allies usually don’t coordinate as well so the Axis is back to even footing even w/o a bid.
@88:
My secret (don’t tell anyone) UK first turn move is 2 Transports/ 3 Infantry/ 1 Armor. It provides the UK the opportunity to deliver 8 land units on UK2, which is pretty devastating that early in the game.
.
.
Take all Allied navy to Algeria on turn 1, build two Transports out of range of German aircraft.
.
.
go wherever you desire on turn 2 and then build a Carrier, after your infrastructure is in place.
All the above is my basic early UK strategy as well. But one thing I’ve found that can mess it up a bit: if Germany bought an AC on G1, they can move it out of the Baltic on G2 to SZ7. This will block the Allied fleet off of Algeria from landing in Europe on turn 2 (unless they move into the Med and out of supply). And each of the two allied fleets lack the punch separately to take on that German navy. So I may buy one less TRN and one less INF on UK1 in order to purchase a 3rd Fighter, if faced with a G1 AC. Then if Germany does move out on G2, UK can attack with 1 BB, 3 TRN, 3 FIG, 1 BMR (oP=17, cnt=9) vs 1 AC, 2 FIG, 1 DD, 2 SS, 1 TRN (dP=19, cnt=7). Not a great battle for the UK, but they can retreat once the TRN fodder is gone and leave the remnants of the German fleet for the US to finish off.
Darth and 88,
That is a good point, using extra TRNs to quickly move units previously placed in Norway/Kar to assault EE, WE, or Berlin along with the 8 units built in the UK. Â It’s still not exactly something I’d probably do myself. Â I like to buy 4 Inf and 4 Arm with the UK to load 4 TRNs, and that costs 32 IPC which is sometimes more than the UK makes depending on what’s going in Africa, India and the Pacific. Â So I rarely have the expendable $$ to buy an extra TRN, and if I do I’ll probably use it to buy a fighter every couple of turns or place an IC in Norway.
And I’m also a believer of not having more TRNs than ground units to transport them with. Â With DM’s proposed UK1 buy of 3 TRNs for a total of 5, you don’t have enough money left over to buy enough ground units to fill those 5 TRNs. Â You can buy 2 Inf, plus 2 starting units from Canada plus 4 starting units from the UK. Â That’s 8 units for 5 TRNs. Â Not something I would do, but I guess it’s not terrible.
In summary, while I now see the greater flexibility for massed attacks to the flanks that extra TRNs provide, along with the extra fodder it provides I already recognized, it is still is not something I see myself doing. Â I just think there are better uses for UK $$. Â But I reserve my right to change my mind in the future. Â :-)
@ncscswitch:
If you have the income as UK, and if Germany has forces that create a threat, it IS cost effective.
I guess if the UK is making enough money to be able to fill four TRNs and still has enough cash left over to buy a 5th TRN, the Allies are doing well enough that the UK can afford to make an inefficient buy. As the Allies, I’d rather Germany lose his airforce sinking TRNs than buy TRNs I can’t effectively use so that Germany does not attack and keeps those fighters alive for defense of Berlin.
And no, I don’t consider the “slow shuck” you describe ‘effective’ use, more like ‘well I got nothing better to do with them’ use.
You should have 4-6 trns for the UK and then the US trns, it will make it very costly for the Germans to attack and would actually be to your benefit provided you set it up right.
Why would you ever have more than 4 UK TRNs? UK can only produce 8 units, so it can only fill 4 TRNs. Unless you are buying extra just in case Germany attacks to lose as casualties w/o interupting the troop shuck to Europe. Not sure that is efficient use of IPCs……
I might just move everything to the bottom of the board (can’t remember the number) and then japans navy won’t be in range to hit them unless they want to sacrifice planes.Â
If the India Fleet moves striaght down and the Australia fleet moves due west, they converge in SZ30. That SZ can be hit by more than just planes, the BB and AC in the East Indies can also get there. If that UK fleet contains a loaded TRN, it may be worth it for Japan to strafe for a round or two to kill it. But you are right, they will probably lose a fighter or two. But if that little fleet includes everything, it means Eygypt was not retaken and the Kwangtung TRN was not sunk. The Axis is in pretty good shape then and can probably afford to let that fleet go in order to concentrate on more important targets like China, Pearl, maybe Bury, and/or gearing up for a J2 assualt on India.
You might want to try this. When doing a KGF, don’t just build Inf in Eastern US and move them up to Eastern Canada for the shuck to UK or Africa. Instead, build some in Western US, move them to Western Canada, and then to Eastern Canada (tanks can do this in one turn, Inf in two). Yeah its a little slower to set up than builds from Eastern US, but once in place it keeps two stacks on the west coast to deter Japanese adventurism. If you build just in the east, the mere threat of a Japanese invasion can cause a one turn disruption in the US shuck to Europe at a crucial time.
Don’t forget you can do Pearl Harbor “light”, with just a DD, a Sub and a bunch of air. This leaves very little if anything for the US to counterattack in SZ52 on US1. And if the US DOES move the BB to counterattack, that BB is a sitting duck for a Japan counter on j2.
There are a couple of drawbacks to this of course. It ties up a lot of air power that you otherwise might have wanted to commit to China or killing UK boats. And with no “free hit” BB commited to the battle, you are more likely to lose the DD and/or a fighter.
I concur that among beginners the axis has a slight edge even with no bid for exactly the reason you state, the allies need a LOT more coordination to be successful. For this same reason, the axis may have an edge in a 5 player game as opposed to a 1-on-1 game. Since the odds are at least one of the three allied players may stray from optimum strategy and throw the coordination out of whack.
There was another thread where it was discussed whether attacking subs could retreat, or only submerge. Just wanted to make it clear they can retreat with the other attacking units. No harm meant……
@Sankt:
Or put another way; submerge = retreat. And sub retreat = submerge.
It’s the same thing. Not 2 different choices.
That is only true when a sub is attacked. If the sub is the attacker, they can submerge OR retreat. But if they retreat, they need to do so along with any other attacking units, per the normal rules for retreat. And subs can submerge even if there are other units on their side that intend to continue fighting.
Revised is sometimes also called 4th Edition.
Here is my post where I use the TripleA War Club stats to show that the Axis needs a bid of 8 or 9 to make the game balanced:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6699.msg103174#msg103174
While not absolute proof, it’s hard to argue those stats.
Axel Allie,
I took the poll to mean which side does the out of the box game favor, in terms of having a better chance to win. To that I say Allies. But if the question is which side is more fun to play, for me I’d say Axis.
Most veteran players agree the axis needs a bid to have a 50-50 shot at beating the allies.
I’m not going to offer an opinion on realism, since I find that a pretty pointless argument. But from the standpoint of game balance, allowing the DD a shore bombardment value of 2 as a basic ability is a good idea, as long as it’s paired with the suggested rule that each sea unit participating in shore bombardment must be accompanied by one amphibious land unit. This restriction should be extended to BBs as well.
Adding the capability to DDs will give a little omph to an overpriced and rarely purchased unit.
The one-for-one restriction on bombardments will stop the silly tactic of sending one Inf in an amphibious assault with 5 BB bombards.
While we are on the topic on shore bombards, I also think there should be a rule (discussed on another thread) that allows the attacker to choose which BBs (and DDs if they can bombard) will engage in sea combat and which will engage in shore bombardment, instead of the current rules which say they all need to engage in sea combat in there are enemy sea units to engage. This will stop the silly tactic of one sub stopping 5 BBs from bombarding.
Caspian Sub ( http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/ ) policy paper 7 discusses this in detail and reaches the same conclusion: the 1 IC , 2 TRN J1 purchase is the best one, if you can get one IPC from a bid.
Of course, my Russia 1 move last night in a Warclub Ladder game makes curse real dice! I did my usual West Russia/Ukraine attack. My opponent had no extra units in Europe from the bid, so I liked my chances. And though I did win both, when all was said and done I had lost 8 of my 9 Inf in WR. OUCH!!! The dice simulator said the chances of that (or worse) are less than 3%.
Boy, do I have a huge hole to dig myself out of.
Despite the fact that Low/No Luck would have worked out much better for me on R1 this game, I still go with the real dice. But after that battle I did reconsider the choice for awhile….
To me a bid is an insult, since what you are saying is that I am not good enough to win without being given an advantage that is not included in the OM. I also tend to be a stickler for the rules that come with any game. I HATE house rules in Monopoly, for instance.
Do you consider it an insult to play with a bid in Classic A&A? Because I think everyone can agree that Classic is pretty unwinnable by the Axis wthout a bid and/or other house rules like Russia Restricted. Once players know what they are doing that is.
Now Revised is nowhere near as bad, and is certainly quite playable without a bid. Among beginning players the Axis may have an edge even w/o a bid since the Allies need a lot more coordination to be successful. For the same reason a bid isn’t needed nearly as much, if at all, in a five person game. Unless the three allied players are in complete agreement on strategy.
I think alot of our difference of opinion on this stems from your stance on house rules in general. I have no issue with house rules that improve gameplay or game balance. Change just for the sake of change I don’t like. Which is why I hate the changes LHTR made to the way planes are placed on new ACs. Though I like the LHTR otherwise.