Posts made by Lucifer

@Bean:

Bit of a tangent here, but I recall Larry Harris (the game designer) indicating that if he were to make the next version of A&A that he only wanted capitals to be able to build things; he didn’t like the idea of being able to freely move IPCs around the world to make 3 bombers in India for instance. I think the idea is that complexes increase the value of the territory instead of being able to produce there, which is interesting. But remember this is all speculation from a couple years old post.

That would be interesting….planning strats to attack the enemy supply lines, if u only could place units in
capitals, the supply lines will be both long, thin and vulnerable :)

Australia and other TT’s in pac r not good implemented to real WW2, but then it would be a completely different game.
Imo is just wasting time to try to change TT’s value or some other details.

Discussions might be interesting, both game and real WW2, but what u r asking for is not A&A revised….!
The most important issue here is that Jap tried to go west against Russia, but were badly beaten, and they also
got stuck in China. And it is not uncommon to see Afr in yellow, Japanese colors in games that axis is leading, from
rnd 10 and further…  :lol:

@Gamer:

One interesting concept would be a bidding system where, instead of bidding additional IPCs in hand to spend, you bid for additional IPC value on Axis territories.  So, for example, a bid of 4 would allow the Axis to add a total of 4 IPCs of value to one or more of their territories.  Now THAT would impact game play, don’t you think?  And in unpredictable ways too.

That’s an interesting idea! I haven’t heard about this one before.
I would like to try it though. Would be exciting to see what level the axis bid would be with equal players.
Usual bids are 6-9 with 1 or 2 units pr. TT’s.
With a TT production bid I would guess it would be lower than 8-9…

Jennifer, have u tried POS?

Imo, if A&A should be changed to become more historically correct, it would probably become a game which is not fun to play.
A variant which could work, either as a computer game or boardgame, is if u can build armies from 1933 to 1939 etc…
Germany was better prepared than any other European country, but US had big industrial production which
was swiftly changed to producing war materials.
Maybe if Germans could build more subs, instead of BB’s, more ftrs, then later on the great US ipc advantage would come into
play, but this could theoretically be too late. Germany could never challenge the US, but Germany could possibly
win the war against UK and Russia. And Jap could also possibly contain US out of pac for several more years than what
actually happened. If someone makes an A&A variant of this, or a new game, then it’s possible to have more
historical value than the current version.
Then some countries will have turns (buying units) while other countries can’t buy anything, just wait for the war to begin :P

@Sir:

The main point of my change is to get the Japanese player to at least think about moving south. Currently the Japanese player spends most resources trying to take all of China, and push to Moscow neither of which were ever attempted.

There is a custom scenario map, called POS, pact of steel, which is close to revised, but TT’s in pac are worth more,
and KJF might work somehow, because of initial setup units + modified TT values makes for a slightly more historically
correct gameplay.
POS have Italy as the sixth power, but the PAC part of the map is more different from revised than other continents.
POS is one of the best done custom maps in triplea imo, and works great for multiplayer.

Pos isn’t available as boardgame though, u have use triplea to play POS :)

@Sir:

No one agrees, ah well. That’s what house rules are for, my house, my rules!

Yeah, and I’m happy that Norway was more important than China and most other nations/TT’s which have less ipc value.
“My” country had more production than several hundred million citizens  :-D

If u use triplea, u can just change the ipc value in the .xml files, then your local playgroup can use other values, if this
makes the game more funny, I don’t see any wrong in doing it.

And US should have 80-90 ipc production…? Thats according to history. I hear axis bid for 30-35, any higher???

:lol:

Only the first round.

@newpaintbrush:

Look, you can’t just always buy ONE thing and have it ALWAYS be a good investment.  That just isn’t the way things work, in real life, or in a balanced board game.  Otherwise, the game becomes a total no-brainer.

Also - bombers are NOT bad investments.  There are times and places for bomber buys.  You shouldn’t just stock up blindly on bombers, but you can’t ignore their power either.

Well, if navies are “no good”, then why are you now saying you need to buy navy?  Why don’t you just stock up on ground units if they’re so good?  I mean, I don’t agree with that line of play, but maybe 13 infantry on US1 is a good idea.

Well, Larry Harris wasn’t the ONLY person that helped make Axis and Allies.  There were others that contributed.  And obviously, SOMEBODY thought tech was a good idea, because it’s in both Classic AND Revised.

As far as having something always be a good investment - see what I wrote above.

2 hit AC is nuts at 16 IPC.

I said that u have to move units to mainland, if u can read…
Generally the best units compared with cost/ability are tanks, art, inf.
All u have to do is to get these units to the mainland of afr, europe etc.
Tactics is another issue.

3 powers must buy IC or trannies to ship units.
Apart from that naval units are not useful.
But, if the opponent kills your fleet then u can’t move units to mainland…
If the opponent does not attack your lone trans, or 4-5 trans together, it would be stupid to buy protection.
I don’t regard trannies as naval units. Trans are a necessity to bring units from point a to point b.
For discussions I guess it’s most convenient also to regard trannies as naval units, but I see trannies the same way
as I see IC’s. And IC’s are not the same as tanks and infantry…? U can’t kill enemy forces or occupy land TT’s with IC’s.

Ofc= of course…?

English is not may native language, as u probably have known by now :-)

Well bmr are being bought sometimes, but bmrs are also bad investments. Not as bad as DD or BB but…
Subs are being bought, but only when an opponent have a huge navy and u want to kill it.
When I claim that this and that unit are not being bought, that’s from my own experience against better players,
and by watching good players in many games.
Ofc, sometimes u can also buy an unit which is a bad investment (and win games), but I’m speaking generally here.
All naval units are generally bad investments, beacause u don’t get income from sz’s.
Now, 3 powers are islands, so at least US, Jap and UK needs some trans to bring stuff to Eurasia and Afr.
And sometimes trans need protection, but apart from that, navy is no good compared to ground units.
I’m talking generally what is good and bad investments.
Those units that are good investments are: tanks, inf, art, ftrs.
All other units give u much less defense and attack points pr. unit.
BB could be 18, not more than 20 ipc.
DD could cost 10, or with naval bombardment 12, not more than 14 ipc.
Bmr should cost 12 or 14 at most.
I would like to see a change which is related to the change from original classic game first or second ed. rules to 4th. ed.
Maybe bring one new unit, but at least change some units costs and even perhaps ability, like bmr cost 14 ipc
but can move 8…
I got a reply from Mr. Harris himself on his own forum, he said that he would probably/possibly change some units prices.
Bmrs are too expensive, BB are too expensive, a possibility for 2 hits AC.
He also said he hates tech!  :mrgreen:
So I hope tech will be removed, and with cheaper bmrs there will still be a lot of luck involved because of sbr.

I think u have (generally) good ideas, Imperious L., but a naval unit which moves 3 spaces…. :roll:
I hope that’s not gonna happen.
AA gun on cruiser or DD, that might be interesting, but I can’t say for sure if it’s a good idea.
What are indisputable facts is that the current DD+bmr+BB have no purpose  in the game, apart from
those units that u start with, and ofc we wan’t to keep our BB’s  :-)
In future revisions or variants, we might see more starting units which are really obsolete, but the game
might not suffer from this. All players want to keep expensive units, and it’s not for sure that even if some
units are bad investments, we can have fun with starting units, and this also depicts the historical issues.

What abilities do the current cruiser have? I haven’t played other (official) variants than classic and revised.
The units in custom scenarios in triplea is not the same as the official ones I guess…?

I’m not sure about AA on cruisers, but DD at def/att. 2-2, 8 ipc, is better than now, and ppl might buy DD for “cheap” protection
together with AC+ftrs. DD fires at all units, subs only fires at naval units, so for protection and to negate the sub special
ability I think a 2-2-8 DD will be a “fair” unit. The current DD could be removed from the game, it is generally unwise to buy
DD’s, the only exception would be a strange case where u want fleet protection, the enemy has 5-6 subs or more, u have no
DD’s, then it might be a good move to buy one single DD. Other than in such rare situations, to buy DD will hurt more than it
helps….

And I think Larry Harris have said that he didn’t want any new naval units, the DD fits between BB and subs, imo the
game will not be any better with more naval units than now,
so I hope for a 3-3 12 ipc DD with naval bombardment for 5th.ed.  8-)

@Cmdr:

To be honest, I’d split the DD into two units.

A Destroyer: Attack-2, Defend-2, Negates Sneak Attacks if Present, Cost 8

and

A Cruiser: Attack-3, Defend-3, Bombards Shore like a Battleship, Costs 10

With those prices it would be stupid to buy DD’s.
U don’t need subs or DD’s if u have a (3-3) cruiser with naval b. which costs 10 ipc!
Cruiser have to cost at least 12 ipc, maybe 14 with naval b.
With BB at 20 ipc, 2 hits, cruiser can replace the current DD, then cruiser should cost 10.
But with naval b., cruisers should be priced around 12, maybe 14.
If cruiser cost 10 with naval b., BB is obsolete, even at 20 ipc with 2 hits, 4-4, + naval b.  :wink:

Maybe DD’s should be named cruisers, and maybe DD’s should be able to conduct naval bombarment without any tech
research. Then DD could be priced as is, or maybe 14. And this, a naval unit which att.def. 3-3 + naval
bombardment IS a cruiser :-)
But the suggestion that DD’s cost 8 and is just the opposite of subs would be ok.
DD’s would not be obsolete, although that defending units cannot return fire against sub hits would make
subs slightly better as naval attack units. But u would at least buy one DD if the enemy has 3-4 subs or more.

My first idea of a rule change with trans was not very well considered…  :|

What about: u cannot choose trans as casualities in attack, only in defense, that could work?
This would also bring more realism into the naval warfare mechanics of the game.

Imperious Leader:

Well then… check out Nuno’s posts and a familiar pattern will develop and a smile will be produced> smiley

Battleships should be 20 IPC , Carriers should be 15 IPC Both should take 2 hits, but carriers should go to defense of 2
Destroyers should attack and defend at 2 and cost 10
Bombers cost too much and should be 12 IPC
Transports should be 10 IPC so that people don’t take them as combat loses as much.
–--------------------------

I don’t really see the neccessity for closing the entire thread, because I think it’s an interesting discussion.
About nuno, we’re here to dscuss A&A so nuno should go some other place and discuss politics. And if nuno
will not leave volunteraly, then he should be banned!

If BB’s cost 20 then ppl might start bying them :)
I agree on the above suggestions, except DD’s.
U might as well remove DD’s from the game, with 2-2-10 they’re obsolete.
I’m happy that trans cost 8, but fodder issue can be solved by a rule change, it should not be allowed
to bring trans in a hostile naval zone.

@Cmdr:

For all of you who think you can stop a KJF easily I make this challenge:
Note:  Definition of KJF is the reduction of Japan to the Japan Territory ONLY or the conquering of the Japan territory.  Either effectively ends Japan as a treat for the duration of the game, in most circumstances.

If this is your only goal then it’s “easy”.
If u use enough ipc’s against Jap, Jap will be reduced, eod.

But do u really believe that u can win more games with this strat than KGF?
Why isn’t KJF more common than KGF, is it because ppl lack creativity?

Jen should use LL, but not tech.
So the initial suggestion is all fine.

But if u would use triplea Jen, I’m sure it would be easier to put your KJF theory to test.

It’s not impossible that she is right, but I don’t believe it until i see the prove.
She might have discovered a KJF strat that is slightly better than the ones who have been tried before and have
failed against decent players.
This is ofc fully possible even if I don’t believe it for a second :-)

One single game will not prove that KJF is better, but it will be an indication, presumed that Jennifer plays against a player who is equally skilled at A&A revised.
What I do believe may work good or decent, is that allies use little or a great amount of ipc to contain Jap, or slow Jap down.
I don’t believe that a 50/50 production split of US units used both in pac and in Europe will be any better than a straight KJF,
but if u help Russia enough against G, afr is safe ipc’s for UK, then the rest may go against Jap, and this might be smarter
than pouring everything against G. But then again, Jap will not be reduced below 30, it will be held at +/- 40 ipc…:)
I keep repeating myself, but to reduce Jap to 20 or below, and win games with this strat, no way.
Not if this means G have over 50 ipc, and closing on 60…  :roll:
If allies used this strat during the historical WW2 then none of us would ever heard about holocaust…
It would simply never happen  :evil:

What I’m trying to say is that, I have had some interesting inputs from this board,
and that there’s a difference from LL to reg dice if someone asks: what to do if….UK puts a ftr in…?
If it’s a specific battle one might do different if it’s LL, the top players here use reg dice. But overall strats are the same, regardless
of LL or reg dice.
Allies securing afr is crucial regardless of anything but bad luck.
I have beeen playing revised for many months, but not many years, as some of u have, and thus u also have more experience.
But I’m learning…
Now it seems I’m getting more confused by involving my self in this, and the KJF seems like a virus in my mind…
It is as simple as if u play in the lobby with no tech u will get PWNED if u try to do a KJF against the best players.
It will not help if it’s reg dice game. Dice might help u, but the KJF strat will let u down.
Pure and simple…

I knew that most players who post in this forum uses reg dice, and than some ppl also uses na’s and tech.
But it’s new to me if most players also play with na’s and tech.
Then it’s another game.
I’m always going back to the ukr R1 attack.
If I use this in reg dice, I would use 3 tanks instead of 2, I think…?
Or maybe don’t do it at all, or just strafing.
An experienced reg dice player know what’s best. With LL the 2 tanks seems the most obvious option, and in a game there will be
lot’s of similiar battles, in which the thinking/judging during the decision making process probably is quite different from
what it is with pure LL players.
In the lobby there are hardly anyone who plays with tech.
Although most players in the triplea warclub ladder, and also regular lobby players use LL, it’s not uncommon to use reg dice.
But tech…! Thats a different story…and a different game in a different world imo…