No one build destroyers? Why? It prevents subs first strike, protects transports from lone fighters and only cost 12 IPCs … My most used UK1 is IC, destroyer and 1 inf. Can anyone explain me why no one build destroyers?
It doesnt pay off to buy DD’s, thats why hardly no one buys them…. :mrgreen:
I’v been thinking same thoughts, Frood.
The current prices are better than the old ones, from 1th., 2nd. or 3rd. ed. rules.
But still it does not pay off to buy bombers, as well as several other units.
And I would very much like to see SBR removed entirely from the game.
Then bombers should cost about 12 ipc.
DD should cost 10.
BB 18, maybe even 16.
Subs 6.
Carriers should have 2 hits, same as BB.
Carriers should take 4 fighters.
Another opition is to change the abillities of some units that no one buys.
If bmbrs attacked at 6 then maybe ppl would buy them, and the bmbr attack value (4) is not related to
ipc loss in SBR.
Think of it, even heavy bmbrs are not cost-effective.
Cost 7,5 ipc, attack at 4…
15 ipc u get 8 attack points with HB, 9 with tanks, and tanks defend well :-)
Only reason why bombers have some sort of meaning is the SBR option for bmbrs only.
Jen, I have a hard time believing that KJF can be done if u lose Russia while weakening Japan…
It would be a very long game indeed :-)
While it may be fully possible to make Japan lose production, problem is that Germany would be gaining too much.
And it’s shorter from Berlin to Moscow than from Tokyo to Moscow.
If Russia has to dig in, then G will have caucus and threaten india as well.
I guess some of u have actually done this, but I think this strat is much more difficult than heading straight for
Europe with both UK and US.
And do all of u play with 4th ed. revised, TTL, no tech?
Reg dice or low luck isn’t as important as skills though.
Strange that I’ve hardly seen any true KJF game in the lobby, like US or UK take islands from Japan.
And if u claim that KJF works better than KGF, as u win more often with KJF than KGF then I must watch some of
the games u play if u ever play in the triplea lobby!!
Losing africa is a recipe for axis victory.
G will be too strong, even with UK and Russia together
If u can hold africa and still find a way to weaken jap, then maybe.
But there’s a reason why almost all players go KGF.
To me it seems like UK+Russia is not enough to conquer Germany on their own.
And US alone takes much to long to slow Japan down.
I’ve never seen US take Jap islands. Japan only has to buy one more AC and the pacific is closed 8-)
I’ve seen US landing in SFE, even done it myself, but it didn’t have any impact :-(
But there are lots of different tactics to use even within a strict KGF strat.
Some says the game always turns out the same, but I don’t agree.
Most players who are somewhat experienced will gain with Jap anyway, there seems to be nothing to stop
Japan from reaching 42-45 ipc, rnd 4-5.
Most games is the same type of race, who comes first, Japan to Moscow, or allies to Berlin?
But there are lots of different ways to victory, and I’ve been thinking some new tactics lately :roll:
I started playing A&A 4th ed. revised in the triplea lobby couple of months ago.
Had a steep learning curve :-D
I never seen a “true” KJF. And by that I mean “cripple japan first”, or “contain japan first”.
To kill Tokyo before Berlin is not possible if both players are on the same level.
I never seen a game Japan didn’t take India, and so a UK IC in India is certain to make allies lose.
I’m not sure if all players here play by the same rules…?
In the lobby it’s usually bid down for axis, or 8-9 bids for axis. TTL, no tech. Dice or low luck depends.
I play both reg dice and LL, but I prefer LL.
There are a few strats that works, and a few more that don’t.
KJF is one that doesn’t work against decent players.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it seems like KJF will lose 9 out of 10 times.
I didn’t see any good plans for KJF to win the game for allies in this forum…
Probably because no one has ever succeded in making gameplan for KJF strat that actually WORKS :-)
I would definately go for cacus.
No reasons, just instinct :evil:
I am using the game to teach history, and as I have indicated before, I could not care less about game balance, or appeasing the gods of game balance. You want game balance, go play chess or checkers. Second, I suspect most of this discussion of game balance is based on two player games online between expert players, where even a small advantage can be decisive. I am running 5 player team games around an actual board, with kids who are not expert gamers, and for some, this is the first board wargame that they have ever played. Under this situation, any kind of a good Axis player is probably going to defeat the Allies in very short order. We have been using 2nd Edition, and I will likely be using 2nd Edition when I work with my son’s high school class. Either that or a combined Europe-Pacific game, if I can figure out how to merge the IPC values of the two games. I have been tweaking the rules now over a 4 year period, to insure that the Allies can stay in the game under the circumstances under which we play. National Louis University, where the classes operate from, is in the middle of a heavily Jewish area. Any game which gives the Germans a very high chance of winning is not going to fly.
Have the kids enjoyed the games? Yes, enormously, as the class has grown from 15 to 46 in four years, and we still had a waiting list. Another telling point is the number of games sold on the open house night at the end of the class session, when we have been selling 4 to 6 copies of the game for the past two years. We have also been selling the kids on Mayfair’s railroad games, and the various Eagle games still available. They have also been learning an enormous amount of history in the process of playing the games.
US production superiority was a FACT in World War 2. Lend-Lease was a FACT in World War 2. The kids see very quickly that if the US had not gotten into the war, that the world would now be a very different place. Without Lend-Lease, US production ability would have taken longer to have an effect, with the Germans being far harder to defeat. Some of the posts have mentioned IPC values for the US assuming the US full production was in the game. Calculating what the full US production value would be is actually quite simple. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Division, calculated that at its peak, Japanese production was one-tenth of the United States production. Take your value for Japanese production and multiply by 10. You then have the US production. Germany and the UK/Commonwealth were about equal, Russia a little behind Germany.
Give the Japanese 25, the US then gets 250 by the end of the game, the Germans get 80, the Commonwealth gets 80, and the Russians get 65. Part of the Commonwealth production was in Canada, so that is not immediately in the game. Same for Australian production. Give the Germans 80 to start with, give the Japanese 25, add the captured territories as they occur, start the UK at 60 and the Russians at 45. To get the additional production, the UK needs a industrial center in Canada, and one in either India or Australian, or both. The Russians need to build IC in order to get their increase in production. The US simply goes up 10 IPC per turn until 250 is reached. The Axis player either wins early, or get crushed. Game balanced.
You completely misunderstood what A&A is all about. And revised is quite pro allies, for all decent players.
In the triplea lobby many players won’t take axis for a bid less than 8.
There are also custom maps in the triplea version that is more historically accurate than the revised version.
If A&A was historically correct, then it would be utterly impossible to win as axis, unless allies delibaretely let the axis player win….!
Fun for the kids that they enjoy the game, but for history lessons u should stick to books and movies ;-)