Posts made by JeroldTheGreat

What I feel is the real problem here is the problem with bases. Bases are for one, too expensive, and two, if the Allies can liberate each-others territories, whats restricting them from building bases on them? America should be able to build bases all over French territory, and even be able to Build on UK as well, on the historical basis that the US kept the UK war effort running with endless military supplies.

I’m all for a Sierra Leon change, but what all of us really want is more flexibility of bases.

@Arthur:

@JeroldTheGreat:

Id like to challenge YGs solid defensive line and propose a new idea of Defend the North, Attack the South. The focus of this strategy is to overwhelm the axis with too many fronts, forcing Germany to distract too many of its forces away from Leningrad. By focusing power into Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and even Greece, many of Germany’s early game infantry and artillery will be wasted or extended too far south in an attempt to regain valuable Russian NOs. This strategy needs an unpopular UK Greece landing to help with pincer attacks and a lot of offensive buys but could prove to be a valuable fresh blood strategy if done right.

Germany has the advantage of massive mobility and ability to add extra firepower with the air force.  I the UK goes to Greece on turn 1, I don’t think that it would be that much of a headache.  They already have 5 troops stationed in Bulgaria.  A couple of planes added to the fight will make it easy to destroy the UK guys in Greece.  It seems a big waste of 13ish IPCs that need to be used in to initially smack Italy in Africa.

I also don’t see how a Russian army could get into Romania, Bulgaria, or Albania against a competent German player.  Anything standing next to Germany can be obliterated when Germany finally starts an attack into Russia.  It isn’t until R4 or R5 that Russia can even contemplate a significant counter attack.

You must be playing against German opponents who have a balanced play with half the money spent on fleet.  I spend 90% of the money against Russia, leaving only a bit left over to purchase a few infantry to counter early land invasions.  I can always get to Moscow around G6, but often decide to divert around it for an economic victory.

More like I can barely find an opponent to play…
Well, sounds like a bust so ill just disappear awkwardly back into the shadows for a while…

One thing that I’ve wanted to see is the incorporation of Pro-axis neutrals in South America. I first thought that it really might not be very historically accurate and that it would tip the balance in favor of allies too much, but seeing as the allies are under powered in this game it may help a little.

After reading Black Elks post about Sierra Leon, it made me think about the board in general and open a thread specifically to discuss Sea Zones. Do Sea Zones represent any actual naval ranges? Any sea zones that make no sense?
Hawaii to Japan, US to Spain and not UK?

The calculator is just a tool, and pretty limited one at that. I think it’s overrated and gets over-relied upon.

Anyways, this thread is getting WAY off topic.

I couldn’t agree more

And could you guys pound my alternate strategy some more?

Id like to challenge YGs solid defensive line and propose a new idea of Defend the North, Attack the South. The focus of this strategy is to overwhelm the axis with too many fronts, forcing Germany to distract too many of its forces away from Leningrad. By focusing power into Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and even Greece, many of Germany’s early game infantry and artillery will be wasted or extended too far south in an attempt to regain valuable Russian NOs. This strategy needs an unpopular UK Greece landing to help with pincer attacks and a lot of offensive buys but could prove to be a valuable fresh blood strategy if done right.

What you can also reckon too is the possibility of sneaking tanks and mechs away to the far east, where even though all Russian territories are worth one, the sheer number of them are a huge income.

I just wanted to discuss the tricky play of feinting SeaLion to actually land full force in Archangel. I’ve never really seen the downside to this play other than it is extremely predictable and dangerous as you leave all of your transports wide open/trapped up north. As seeing that Germany’s main goal is to conquer Moscow asap, landing a Certain-Death invasion force two spaces away from the capital seems like a much better option than letting Russia “RedTurtle” while you slowly march through the winter. Have any of you actually attempted this? I think the term Operation “Angels Landing” would be hilariously fitting.

Alternatives:
Operation “Up and Over”
Operation “Artic Storm”
Operation “Red Wedding”
Operation “Kremlin’s Back Door”

(Sorry if this tactic has already been termed or if it has already been played to death)

@Kreuzfeld:

Actually, going back to the old Transports costing 8 would probably favour the allies massivly.

The old transports had a 1 in combat and was a hitpoint to take as casuality.

Lets take US as an example. If they where to make a fleet with 8 transports to threathen to land in europe. With transports costing 7, they have to use about 56 IPC for the transports. They will probably need about 4 other transports as well, so in total, they pay about 82 IPC for the pleasure. If transports cost 8, they pay 96 IPC. So where is the gain? Well, the gain is that they can now reduce the number of DDs needed to stand against luftwaffe. If we assume that 8 TTs is with the main fleet, then they would need about 5-6 fewer DDs in the main fleet. If we say they need 4 DDs less (then, they have the same number of combat dice in the main fleet, but with 4 extra HP), then they save 32 IPC in DDs. So buying TTs at 8 with 1 hp and 1 Combatdie will make the us invastionfleet at least 16 IPCs cheaper, probably more in the range of 24 to 30 IPCs cheaper.

The point to making transport cheaper would also be to help out Germany with Sea Lion, as it nearly always proves to be too costly of an operation.

So have any of you found it more or less beneficial to have France producing troops and being even of a small effort? I’m really interested in whether France as a nation is actually an important factor in this game. I’d always just assume that making France was more of an interesting idea and was never actually a nation that was meant to be played, even during late stages of the game.

I know that this question depends heavily on the current state of Russia and how well Japan is doing in the Pacific but I’d just like to hear from some more experienced players and learn about some unique situations.

I’ve recently read many threads about unit balance, arguing that one or another unit is too weak, strong, expensive or cheap and none of the arguments seem to go anywhere. Either the unit is too closely tied to popular strategies or it balances out another unit, resulting in a domino effect of other balancing issues. The only unit that may be exempt from this, I have found, is the transport. The transport is one of the games staple units due to its niche land unit carrying ability. Practically all nations* (Russia) need them to progress in the game. The main problem with the transport though, is that they are too expensive and hinder the power of amphibious assaults or eat up too much of a Nations income. The 7 IPC price tag ultimately hinders both the axis and the Allies strategies:

Sea lion is too expensive for Germany,

The US can never seem to land a force large enough in Europe,

Italy never seems to hit hard in Africa after Taranto raid,

Pacific island hopping is very dull because Japan rarely takes US airbase/outer perimeter islands

(I only made this thread to discuss whether this is a fair argument and I don’t want to see this moved to the house rules forum)

I’m planning a new video for my YouTube channel in the new year and could use some help. It will be a top 10 list series and the title of the first episode is…

“Top 10 A&A G40 rules new players get wrong”

I would consider making this into an informative video series, with one video dedicated to a single rule issue. It would be good to have an online source to resolve in-game confusions or even just freshen up on the more complex rules. Also, clearly label each video something like “A&A Confusing Rules: Submarines”

1. SUBMARINES!

2. Mongolia Rule.

3. Kamikaze attacks.

4. AAA guns taken as casualties.

5. Defender determines casualties before Attacker.

6. Transports collecting from adjacent territories but distributing to only one territory.

7. Blitzing restrictions, especially friendly territories and factories.

8 ) Canals and Air movement through them.

9. Declaration of War restrictions and terms of engagement (moving fleet into sea zone but not attacking).

10. Clarify Order of play, especially N.O.s and U.S. 3rd turn war engagement.

Keep up the good work YG! :lol:

@ShadowHAwk:

kamikazes are basicaly useless in the game, unless there is a huge naval battle

.

Could someone please clarify the kamikaze rules? I thought that you could kamikaze any enemy surface warships in the marked zones during combat movement but I guess I’ve been completely wrong this whole time.

Personally, I think that mechs ruin the slow marches through the winter to Moscow that the addition of the extra Russian front territories were meant to create.

Going back to the allies weak landings, I think that the inclusion of the marines infantry units would make a good historical and strategy effect on the game. By giving marines the ability to attack @ 2 during amphibious assaults and either letting them take the infantry spot on transports or boosting the attack of inf to 2, both the US and Japan won’t have to carry around illogical artillery and could give the US better opportunity in Europe.

We could also change the Frech liberation to coastal territories as well, maybe some bonus infantry upon landing or capturing.

Sorry if I got too off topic but I like talking about allied improvements that don’t deal with bids

Thanks! Sorry I didn’t do more searching before I created my thread!  :roll: I just really like the cruiser sculpts and want to actually use them in game. I really like the capitol ship idea but I wanted to check the historical accuracy and balancing issues first

What’s the argument to cruisers having 2 hits like battleships?

After playing the game at least once and and examining different strategies, I’ve discovered that Cruisers are rarely or often never purchased because they are too expensive and are out-preformed by Destroyers. I feel that Destroyers are being plainly overused and create inaccurate and disproportionate navies from those that truly existed in WWII. I want to hear your opinions on whether or not Cruisers deserve a little more use in our games by being either cheaper or more powerful. Feel free to mention any other changes that could be made to Cruisers or any other pieces.

cant you choose either to launch your planes in a defense or not? I feel like it would be a more logical rule for this very situation. In real life the planes wouldn’t even have a chance to take off if the submarine made a surprise strike.