Posts made by Keredrex

@crimsynseraph:

And I would hold that attacking with less but stronger units is just bad strategy, you don’t have anything to protect your stronger units when the many weaker ones start throwing out unreasonable amounts of ones.

Im thinking of those battles around the map where you got 5 inf.  but i can roll in with 3 tanks,  1 bomber … thats 10 vs 13… its less units but if the strategy makes the position valuable then Id do it even if sacrificing a bomber.  the odds are in my favor slightly.

more importantly… your taking out the wonderful possibility of rolling 5 1’s on defense and killing tanks and a bomber. 
when we play we keep a log of the game, especially when we have Miraculous rolls… like destroying a fleet cause all the subs hit with 1’s and your enemy had bad roll’s.

to each his own

this would also take away the possibility of attacking with less (but stronger) units, and winning the territory.

why would you try to attack Western USA with Germany from Australia…. instead of just using Japan to do that earlier and germany to go after Eastern USA?    it just seems like a very Long time consuming mission for germany.    it also doesn’t seem possible to make All of those moves in the same game… I can’t imagine the allies allowing all of that to go down, unless they gave up.

@crusaderiv:

P51 was introduced in 1943. 88 canon appears early in the war.
I prefer accuracy before balanced game.
Anyway, in all A&A game, the advantage in on the Allies side.

true it was introduced later… that being the case the japanese should have Zero’s, and the british should have spitfires.  there are many examples of how some units are better across all nations
If you prefer accuracy over balanced game play then you prefer the allies winning over the axis.  yet you want to improve the axis and not the allies.  though i see the merit in “Accuracy”…this game represents a specific point in the war “Spring 1942” and basically the games purpose is to simulate the war after that point.  not to necessarily keep accuracy throughout the game. 
I tend to think that this map is very balanced, of course it depends on the strategy utilized on both sides

on the scale this game is played, the artillery differences between each nation are small as compared to the units you have to choose from.  If you give germany a slightly different unit for there artillery then what about the US p51 mustangs, which were better aircraft than the Zero, or the superfortresses….why should germany only get a special unit? you can make the argument that every nation had varying differences in comparable units.  If you start incorporating those unit differences then the game becomes immensely more complex for a 6 sided di game.
dont get me wrong… i think adding slightly different unit could be cool, but balance should be maintained. 
as it is now the spring 1942 version is very balanced, If you tip the scale in favor of germany then your just giving them a better chance of winning.

@crusaderiv:

2 or les is OK but some artillery like Long tom and 88mm canon must have specefic capabilities.

Long tom = Attacker first shot attack. In the first round of combat, on a roll of 2 or less, enemy lost 1 infantry without reply.
88 canon = German player can roll 1 die for each tank. On a roll of 1, enemy lost 1 tank.

it may add confusion to the game, maybe if they were development tech options that improve artillery.

I actually wrote up stats for an 8 sided di option and a 10 sided.

10 sided di work the best….  it allows for greater range of att and defense strength and options like advantages and weapon tech.

for example…
Battleship  Att = 8, broadside att = (2di) 6, if damaged att = 6 (no broadside fire till repaired) — Def = 8, if damaged = 6
Carrier Att = 2, if damaged Att = 0 — def = 3, if damaged = 1
Cruiser Att = 6 — Def = 6
Destroyer att  = 4 — def = 4
transport att = 0 — def = 0
Subs att = 3 — def = 1
(this is just an example i dont have my actual rules now wil post them soon)

10 sided di allow for upgrades… like super subs can be a 4, yet still seem weaker than larger boats.  with current rules set… supersubs becomes a 3, so they are as strong as a cruiser… doesn’t make much sense.
it also allows for damaged boats to be weaker in combat as they should be.  you could have regular infantry and amp assault att values,  it allows for fighters to be better than tanks, Bombers could have bombing attack values, dog fight values for plane combat…etc. etc.

tanks are also more mobile, probably hold more ammo, and better armored.  this factors in to the numerical value of their attack and defense

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I agree with Calvin.  You are dividing your attention and resources into 3 camps none of which has enough power to dictate terms on the ground near them.  At best you would spend your time running around putting out fires trying to protect the ICs rather than making the other guy defend his ICs.

Sometimes as the allies all you need do is make the game last longer than 6 rounds.  usually the allies have a better chance of winning in longer games

@Zhukov44:

Well, the India IIC is doable if supported by the Russians.  Just make sure the Russians can retake India anytime India is vulnerable to being taken by the Japanese.  In conjunction with a full-fledged USA Pacific offensive, Japan can’t afford to put everything into India.

Hmm, the SAF IC is probably a bad idea.  But not as bad as it was in Revised, since UK needs units in Africa and it’s difficult to get units there without sacrificing navy/transports.

Russia doesnt need to defend india for this to work… but it is a bit riskier than other strategies… it all depends on the prior moves, wether or not germany takes Egypt (if they dont you possibly got another fighter)
also Uk could possible buy the India IC in the 2nd round again depending on the moves

with cost of buying a complex in alaska you could just buy the units of of california in the 1st round and keep the flow going… it works the same (actually its faster, cause more units are in play on the board) and your not worried about giving japan a possible complex in alaska (even if they dont hold it, it will interrupt the build process)…

KJF works well… as long as the allies can contain germany.  Ive played a few games that the Russia and USA made enough money from hammering Japan ( Manchuria, Kwangtung, French indo) And UK Holding most of Africa and making up for it by holding borneo.  Germany couldnt get farther than Ukraine and Belo Russia.  It depends on a few things of course… but its very possible especially in the 1942 board

Assuming you mean original air units are the planes you start with… after purchasing and landing aircraft on carriers how will you tell them apart?  I think this may be too confusing.

not to sure about picking the hit unit, I think it may be better if “any” units when rolling a “1” hit the exact same unit.
example… if a fighter rolls a 1 then a fighter is shot down. If a tank rolls a 1 then a Tank is taken out.  Etc.

Personally i think the US needs to buy a complex on sinkiang if they are trying to build a fleet against Japan… they have the money to produce some units out of that complex and build a fleet to make japan divide its forces… with russia and UK backing up the US complex to make it a threat to Japan

the tech from the Anniversary edition is a better list and works with the new rules like transports, cruisers and the overall monetary value of the game

@Game:

The Ultimate Breakthrough Chart

1. Super Submarines
Your submarines are now super submarines. They attack and defend on a 3 and may not be attacked by enemy aircraft when alone or in company with other submarines, unless an enemy destroyer is present.

Subs by default can not be hit by planes unless the planes attack with a destroyer.  so the only change is there attack and defense value.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I have yet to see a successful northern german fleet strategy pulled off.  Controlling Africa and say trans-jordan and madagascar represents a shift in 13 IPC, much more than norway and karellia.

you dont have those IPC’s till later rounds… and the allies can fight for egypt to slow germany’s expansion into africa.
while holding karelia and norway is 5 they dont usually have if choosing to fight africa

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I am not sure how 1 transport threatens Britain.  Britain build 8 INF, now what?  Now you get to choose to spend more money on the northern fleet that becomes a boatanchor around your neck just to protect the initial investment.  Moreover, anything that navy can do your navy in norway or karellia you can do with land forces alone.

I said buy a transport… there is already 1 there so thats 2… and for this to work you need to sink the british battleship and transport in SZ 2. with sub, bomber, and fighter.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

There is NO way that BB comes through the english channel and lives.  You move it to SZ 12 on G1 and the brits or the americans sink it with either 2 ftr+bomber as the brits or cc+bomber as the americans.

the battleship would only move to gibraltar. when germany moves the northern fleet then you move the battleship 2 to park below britain with everything.  If britain tries to sink the bb… it can only send 2 fighters and a bomber but the fighters land in gibraltar and are not defending britain.  the allies can Block the battleship… with a US cruiser… but that means germany attacks it instead.

all this depends on other factors of course… but its possible Ive played a game with that strategy and it worked well.  Russia was trying to hold off Germany and japan… Germany was hammmering Russia by land and UK was always under threat ( a few naval battles to keep the threat alive) Britain was stuck defending the homeland… never had a chance to put a complex anywhere else… Japan was running rampant in the  pacific, taking territs in africa and asia. Because the US was forced to assist britain and russia and try to build to defend its pacific territs and turn back on japan.

that is true … however in the game, a naval battle its not always just about the Attack factor… its also about the defense factor, and the representation of hits. 
You could say that when building a navy the PT boats are implied and represented by the DD on the board.  cause PT boats needed supplies and reinforcement.  A Destroyer can be a representation of a group consisting of A Destroyer and its PT Boats.
the only problem i see in adding this unit, what would stop someone from purchasing 10  PT boats. A single PT boat should not equal a sub when considering hits taken.

with russia spending on subs… germany can simply ignore africa entirely and go heavy with land and build the Northern fleet to threaten UK early … they could buy a carrier, transport, Sub and start moving there bb and transport to UK to unite the fleet.  
controlling karelia and defending Norway makes up for the income you gain in africa, and you force the UK to spend on units instead of a complex.

@spartan:

The stats I think they should have are:
attack 2  (I think the PT boats should be able to bombard small islands, islands contained within one SZ, hitting on a 1)
defense 0 (all though to account for speed after enemy rolls if they hit the PT boat my roll, if they hit on a 1 then they can avoid the attack, also I think on the first round of fire each PT boat may fire one anti-aircraft volley)
move 2
cost 3

They should not be as powerful in there attack as a Sub.  Unless its an attack of 2 in the 1st cycle only.  Bombardment from such a cheap unit is too much i think.  you could spend 20 and get 2 PT boats, A Transport, 1 Inf., 1 Art. and make an amp assault getting 2 bombardments.  AA would also be Too much… you could potentially have cheap AA guns in a bunch of SZ’s. 
You can’t always represent Actual combat abilities for every unit on the game board, because the game generalizes the various units.  for example 1 inf. probably represents a Squad or company of troops, but a fighter unit may represent 3 fighters. etc.