Posts made by LuckyDay

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

@LuckyDay
I think he means how a sliver of the Hudson Bay (Sea Zone 1) touches the left edge of the board. He’s interpreting this to mean that there is a boundary (the wrap-around edge) between Western Canada (right side of the board) and Sea Zone 1. My feelings are that this is folly.

Sorry,
    the re-iteration about the left/right and right/left thing kinda set me off.

I think that IF the Hudson was seen on the on the right side of the board where the W Canada territory is located, then it could be a valid move but I think Krieghund is right, just an oversight for that part of the map.  Since the rules state about 2 seazones touching the edges, and this would be a seazone touching a land territory, it would be very big thing to have not notated for the rules, but could deserve a spot on the errata.

@wodan46:

@LuckyDay:

@wodan46:

@a44bigdog:

wodan46 you do good as far as thinking outside of the box. That can be a good thing. However without testing one can never know the value of ones ideas. And then when active players point out obvious flaws in your strategies you rarely adapt to them just offer up more unrealistic situations.

I analyzed the situation and see the nature of the attack.  Still think it involves good prediction of the actions of the Allies and involves sacrificing East Asia, if only temporarily.

run the numbers, you aren’t predicting well.  You even contradict yourself–above you are sacrificing E Asia, but below you apparently are advancing.

@wodan46:

True.  However, if Japan does that on J2, they WILL be losing Manchuria and Burma, whereupon they will rapidly lose their factories on the mainland.

There is no contradiction.  Japan is the one sacrificing, the Allies are the ones advancing.

Remember, you were the one taking the Allied position of what to do, so sacrifice would be on their side, because your goal is to win as the Allies, not Japan.  So when you said that the Japanese would loose Burma and Manchuria on turn 3 it was quite the opposite of when you said that the Allies would have to sacrifice East Asia.  To avoid more unnecessary typing, I’ll leave at that.

None the less, your Indian fleet, as well as India & Australia and the southern islands mentioned will fall LONG before a US fleet would arrive, if ever.
Indian Fleet falls to fighters, India falls to ground forces, planes and naval actions after taking Australia.  Islands fall to transports on J1.  US begins building fleet, but by the time your bombers come in to play on A3 Japan is already out of their range and they cannot land in the Pacific unless the fleet first takes staging grounds, which Japan can repel because you haven’t build anything to make them change their plans in the first 3 rounds.

@wodan46:

@a44bigdog:

wodan46 you do good as far as thinking outside of the box. That can be a good thing. However without testing one can never know the value of ones ideas. And then when active players point out obvious flaws in your strategies you rarely adapt to them just offer up more unrealistic situations.

I analyzed the situation and see the nature of the attack.  Still think it involves good prediction of the actions of the Allies and involves sacrificing East Asia, if only temporarily.

run the numbers, you aren’t predicting well.  You even contradict yourself–above you are sacrificing E Asia, but below you apparently are advancing.

@wodan46:

True.  However, if Japan does that on J2, they WILL be losing Manchuria and Burma, whereupon they will rapidly lose their factories on the mainland.

@wodan46:

@a44bigdog:

Australia is best grabbed by Japan when they are out and about in the Pacific. It is hard for the Allies to liberate as well. An India IC is no REAL threat to Japan. Japan can produce 8 units, Manchuria 3, Kiangsu or FIC 2,  all that compared to India’s 3?

True.  However, if Japan does that on J2, they WILL be losing Manchuria and Burma, whereupon they will rapidly lose their factories on the mainland.  Things won’t go too well for them then, even if Manchuria is useless to the allies.

Japan doesn’t even start with Burma, so if they don’t take it, but take Yunnan J1, how can UK or even China take it back?  And since you are spending all your UK money on the IC UK1 and boats UK2, you don’t have any extra UK forces there (or Russian) to help take Burma or FIC

As for Manchuria, moving troops towards Australia doesn’t mean you can’t move stuff to Manchuria, or heck one could even build an IC there and build.

You grossly overestimate the Allies power early on in Asia.  Russia is defensive, China is infantry and you aren’t building any ground units for UK.

@wodan46:

I told you that I am unwilling to play on the forums, it would require excessive typing.  I have had a strained arm limiting my ability to do things for about a month now, and am not willing to strain it even worse when I should be resting it.

@atarihuana:

yes and because of exessive typing u write long posts justifying yourself :D

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wodan,
you’ve only been posting on the forum since Feb. 4, 2009 and you have 170+ posts and you are worried about excessive typing?

@wodan46:

@LuckyDay:

Is this because 2 FIG from SZ 61 sunk the DD/TRN on J1 (99% win), as well as Borneo and E Indies falling.

That is a given.  I assume that the Axis sinks as much fleet as possible, which means that Egypt and Karelia can’t be taken first turn.

who cares about Egypt and Karelia 1st turn in terms of how does this affect Japan/Pacific actions…  First off, how do 4 Jap fighters affect Karelia?  I’ll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you meant some other territory.  Secondly, take Egypt turn 2. 
my point is that there is no Allied ships off India to help protect your turn 2 UK builds there.

@LuckyDay:

Then on J2, Australia was lost as well as the 4 FIG in FIC sinking the CV/BB/TRN off India while not building any ground troops to protect the IC?

4 Fighters vs. CV/BB will end with all 4 Fighters dead, and the CV/BB still alive.  You have a spare Fighter in India anyways most likely.

4 FIG vs CV/BB is 28% chance 3 fighters left, 68% 2 fighters left.  ran it 10,000 times. 
If you moved a fighter to India it didn’t land on the Carrier, but in India, that won’t affect the sea battle.  Not that it matters, since you were so concerned about not taking Egypt, that fighter you would have most likely left there to defend.

@supermestizo:

First set should include: Each Nation,
25 Infantry, 15 Artillery, 15 Tanks, 15 Fighter, 10 Bomber, 5 Battleship, 5 Aircraft Carrier, 10 Cruiser, 10 Destroyer, 15 Submarine and 10 Transport. China 20 Infantry. With this number of pieces it should be enough for each nation.

yeah, probably have enough to go around, sounds like a decent starting point for discussion… this tacks on a couple from what comes standard for the highest counts of each piece.

as for buying 2, of course.

niice IL,

It’s not about beating the system, it’s about breaking it.

on a side not, Field Marshal Games is looking into replacement pieces, but you won’t be getting them tomorrow.  If all goes well, they’ll be good though.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12929.255

@locke411:

I meant how the ocean in SZ1 actually wraps to the edge of the board.

you mean how SZ 1 does not wrap to the side of the board, it stops at that white stuff at the top of Canada and top of the board…, being the ice cap.  your nuclear subs can go under it, but unless you have that tech advancement, no, it doesn’t connect to W Canada. No surface or subs can go from SZ 1 to 65 or 64 or vice versa. (for clarification, there are no nuc subs in the game)

As for the top and bottom of the board, see next quote, about how the top and bottom of the board does not wrap.

apparently I should have posted the rulebook excerpt.  Thanks to TexCapPrezJimmy for it.
@TexCapPrezJimmy:

"Units can move between adjacent spaces (those that share a common border). The game board wraps around horizontally. Territories and sea zones on the right edge of the board are adjacent to territories and sea zones on the left edge. (Note that sea zone 20 connects to sea zone 55; sea zone 21 connects to sea zone 44; and sea zone 25 connects to sea zone 43.) The top and bottom edges of the board do not wrap around.

No changes in the rules errata to apply to SZ1, or any of the other SZ on the edges, so this list is exhaustive which totals 3 SZ on the right edge and 3 SZ on the left edge.  Additionally, if you look at the line about territories and sea zones on the right edge connecting to the adjacent ones on the left edge, SZ 1 DOES NOT TOUCH EITHER THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT edge of the board, hence, again, not adjacent.

@Heavy:

Everything in Canada on the left side of the board is Eastern Canada, that touches SZ 1.  Everything in Canada on the right side of the board is Western Canada

you must be looking at this upside down  :wink:

are you serious?  put the boards together, (ya know it comes with 2, or if you printed it out, you have one all taped together) and look at it with north, ie Canada at the top (farthest) away from you.  E Canada is in the upper LEFT corner of the board and W Canada is in the upper RIGHT corner of the board. 
(in Classic, Revised & AA50, E Canada has always been in the same spot.  And yes, so has W Canada)

I’ll take one of those newcastles, man, I thought this was a pretty straight forward concept to grasp.

Where’s Krieghund when I need him?

@wodan46:

Builds
B3: ???

Is this because 2 FIG from SZ 61 sunk the DD/TRN on J1 (99% win), as well as Borneo and E Indies falling.  Then on J2, Australia was lost as well as the 4 FIG in FIC sinking the CV/BB/TRN off India while not building any ground troops to protect the IC?  Sets up a J3 landing in India.  Dang it’d be nice to have some bombers…

good try.  try again.

I’m gonna cite the board as a source.  Everything in Canada on the left side of the board is Eastern Canada, that touches SZ 1.  Everything in Canada on the right side of the board is Western Canada, that touches SZ 56 & 65.

If you are concerned about the fact that the line that separates SZ 1 & 2 shows water on both sides of it as it touches the top of the board, between E Canada & Greenland as possibly going north enough to be W Canada, don’t, that’s ice cap and the north pole, and for the game impassible.

But if you look on page 7 of the rule book it lists sea-zones that connect from the edges, and those aren’t one of them either

aahhh… that makes sense and clears it up.  thanks IL!

IL, how big is the map?

hey, cool timeline aldertag.

we try and recreate the war in some fashion about how we’d do it better and so on in AA, but i’ve seen the movies, dirty dozen and such, they were always generals in bunkers with those little sticks pushing little miniatures around on maps of europe.  if we can’t recreate the war, then we can recreate them recreating it.  -ow, my head from the thinking.

Mr. Morden, excellent photo and title.  I’d give you +1 just for that, so here’s a pre-emptive +1.

I am guessing it involves Japan not taking out any of the Allied ships on J1-3 so that they only have to build 100 IPCs of Ships and fighters and 120 IPCs of bombers and get them over there by T3 to do it.  Throw in a UK IC somewhere and crank out the troops and Japan is down 16-25 for income.  sounds pretty automatic to me…I’m sold.  oh yeah…

i hope it’s just that closeup, but it makes it look like the tank is only 1/4 of the size of the infantry, and the fighter and the artillery both look much bigger compared to the tank.

CaptRick–I read somewhere someone said the board was like 19’ by 30 or 36… Can you clarify as to the actual specifications?

yeah, there’s a reason the allies went after control of the Med and into Italy before DDay.

As germany, I try to do whatever I can to secure those Italian ships, if I can’t take Egypt G1 along the way, ok, that can wait, but the UK ships gotta go.  I’ll get Egypt G2.

bringing USSR troops down out of the Eastern Front is usually a queasy move, but the chance to sink the Italian Fleet and really cripple their chances in Africa and then turn on Japan is nice.
3 BOM maybe a bit more costly than IC and troops over course of the game but could get you into action more quickly.

i am liking how some of the strategies coming out of AA50 are more reminiscent of history than AAR.  i know there are some complaints about that-too limited, too scripted- but much of the strategies at least for the Allies were not done just out of necessity, but thinking they were good ideas.  Airpower-bomber/fighters really crippled the Italian fleet and more or less took them out of the war.  …and now back to the original topic…

yeah, i think it helps to balance the Allies ability to build a bunch of cheap TRN’s to protect their capital ships with the Axis’ ability to do some true damage to their shipping.  Far too easy in previous incarnations for Allies to quickly build naval force with TRN fodder and force Axis to switch to land based war and out of naval war.  Cheaper ships helps too.

I’d recommend trying the new way some more before scrapping it.  it’s easy to play things the old way and not give the new the chance, but I think it helps the larger scope of the new version.  Easy to play Like in AAG, you could play the naval battles like AAR, but the differences bring fun new variations that go along with a new game.

still, the beauty of a house rule on it is that things can be changed when the group is together…

cool, good to know.