Posts made by Lynxes

Just a tip of a tactic that was used in one of mine and Perry’s test games of AA50:

*Italy attacks a defending Soviet force with some land units and aircraft, say in Belorussia, East Ukraine or Ukraine, winning narrowly.

*Germany then moves tanks and aircraft through this hole in the front and attacks say Moscow or Caucasus.

I was blown away by this move in the game, stupidly. Even if you’re aware about it, I think it will be difficult to defend against since the well-known Russian tactic of trading space for time is compromised. You will basically be forced to have reserves in your vital areas behind the front, limiting your offensive options.

Do you have any thoughts what this will mean for the game? Will it make it worthwhile for the Allies to move against Italy early so as to tie down their forces in the Mediterranean theater of operations and deny their NOs?

Perry, I think we should try to be reasonable when it comes to Germany here. The German troops have been slow in the coming to the Eastern front and those IPCs of Germany has to be matched vs. higher Russian and UK production. We haven’t played long enough to assess the dangers of SBR just yet.

All in all, building a stronger navy might be a viable strat for Germany now that there are 3 areas from Berlin to Leningrad and not 2, a quicker way to get troops east. A strat for the next game maybe?

Just a quick comment: we are now playing our second ABattlemap AA50 game with the supposed -41 setup from GENCON. We will be posting a complete report later on. We noticed this, correct me if I’m wrong Perry;

1. China falls, but slowly. In both games Japan made an Indian push and the China ftr survived turn 1, only to be killed later on.
2. There is no quick push by Japan vs. Russia through China or Siberia. IPC-wise a bad move, you need that third bonus so Australia or India is more important. Also due to the fact that Japan doesn’t have that many land units and it takes quite some time to get them in combat as you first want to grab those juicy islands. And if your units are already on transports, going at India is much quicker than landing them and marching them in-land.
3. India can be defended but only by a heavy Russian deployment. This is not as bad as you think because Russia is quite strong ín the early game.
4. UK is strong, it can build an IC and quickly get a strong invasion navy in Europe. This is due to the high IPC-value at-start and the slow way in which Japan eliminates UK areas.
5. Russia looks weak but can quickly rebuild a sizable army. The danger is turn 2 when Caucasus is vulnerable but this can be protected by setting up a counter-attack force in Moscow. Karelia on the other hand needs UK help, and in this case losing the Arkhangelsk bonus due to the presence of UK units on Russian soil is probably much better than Germany getting an extra bonus and to build in Leningrad.
6. In the Pacific, Australia is the easiest pick, being out of reach from the US navy at the West coast. Wake, Midway and Solomons are more dangerous since US may attack with navy and air force and it’s hard to defend several of these islands as Japan, so USA can get its island bonus a lot of the time. In both games we have ended up with a naval arms race b/w Japan and USA both with around 50 IPCs / turn. Hard to say how the balance works out, to be continued! At least USA can quickly get a sizable fleet by building a CV and a BB for example, much better than the AAR inept US naval position!
7. Germany is in a precarious position in that infantry is very slow to the front with the extra Eastern Europe areas. Tanks and aircraft are more effective weapons but not against a retreating Russian foe. SBR, as predicted, is dangerous. Kriegsmarine is wiped out quickly, but we have yet to try a CV build on turn 1. That said, Germany can build quite a lot of tanks that really tests Russian defences- the Russian player will depend on good US and UK play to later in the game be given the chance to go to the strategic offensive. The first turns protecting and retaking KAR+CAU is what you will be doing as the Russian player.
8. Italy is slow to build-up but can be dangerous in a few turns. Either an extra attack force in the Black Sea or to disrupt the UK and US naval build-up. We have yet to see an anti-Italian strategy however, it feels a bit like Italy can be hit easily and quickly be relegated to a second-class power once the navy and NOs are lost.
   8 ) Africa is a back-water. Once you get Egypt and Transjordan, the question is if it’s worth it. In the second game, a South African IC was built, but it is very slow to get into action, let’s see how it works out in the long run.

Overall, lots of fun, slightly stronger play for the Axis than AAR and definitely not a broken game!!

The setup is there. They played the game at GENCON, didn’t they? There’s a thread over at BGG where they discuss China and then Krieghund admits that the Chinese fighter is vulnerable and instead says that Japan has a reason not to go all-out vs. China (India, Russia, presumably). This is the thread:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/342710

On the other hand, we might have an explanation for the delay of the game in that they decided to change the set-up a bit, presumably to boost China and maybe India? I realize that I never heard of how sweeping the sub-rule changes were until a few weeks ago, when Krieghund dropped the bomb that subs can now submerge BEFORE combat if no destroyers are present! So it might be WOTC and Larry and his playtesters are actually listening to our talk here and making some changes. So much for the “game is locked and ready, no changes will be made”. Or am I only the victim of delusions of forum-grandeur…  :wink:

/Perry

After this game, I challenge you to a game where I play the Allies…  :wink:

/Funcioneta

If you want an impression of how China holds up vs. a Japanese attack given this set-up, please look at this thread (maps use Abattlemap);

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12531.0

We played an AA50 game almost correctly, we missed sub rules a bit and made some mistakes in Russia with the Allies but as for the Pacific it is an OK game I think for both sides (it’s still ongoing, but we will probably be re-playing soon because of the mistake losing Caucasus early on which looks like it lost Allies the game. This can be prevented by the Soviet player). Notice that China is retreating in an orderly fashion and that a break-through on the land front is most likely to come in India. Next game we will try to protect India from the Japs, but we have no idea of how so far!

Probably you have reason, Craig, with people thinking subs were not enough good, but I think forcing aircraft have a dd to attack them and the reduced cost was enough. The thing most annoys me is a lone trannie ignoring a sub and sending people to other place, but I guess, as you say, opinions will vary with the time

I love these sub changes, and can’t wait to play it out! I think the tracking of enemy destroyers and moving of subs into striking position can be a new and exciting part of the game. Let’s see if this change will make Convoy interdiction house rules disappear, time will tell…

Again, on the set-up issue, take a look at this thread on BGG:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/342710

You see that Krieghund is admitting that the Chinese fighter is placed in a vulnerable position, and then the discussion goes on to what the draw-backs would for Japan to go all-in vs. China on turn 1 (UK being able to build an India IC and starting production, etc). I have no idea how the game plays in the long-run, in that you’re right Funcioneta, we have to wait for playing the game. My ideas on the Japanese / US balance is from the set-up and possible effects of NOs. But we do have the '41 scenario set-up.

Many thanks, Krieghund! Now we have the most important change in the game on black and white, can’t wait till my game drops in in the mail!  :-D

Do you really think they would let someone making a photo of the real setup if they want nobody know it until we have the game?

Well, after all they did play a game of AA50 at GENCON, and why would that game be played under other than the actual set-ups and rules? The only change was they didn’t play with NOs at GENCON.

I think Krieghund is alluding to something else in the game that doesn’t support your conclusions, Funcioneta. Take a look at the US NOs. Turn 1 they will probably have 10 IPCs of bonuses. They also will survive with 1 CV+ 1 DD in the Pacific. On turn 2 they could start with a fleet of for example 2 CV, 4 ftr, 2 CA, 1 DD on the West Coast. The Japanese, meanwhile, have just 1 BB, 3 CV, 6 ftr, 1 CA, 1 DD, not counting losses on turn 1. They will probably build transports for their 17 IPCs on turn 1 and their fleet is spread out over the Pacific. The US also has 2 bombers and Japan none. Turn 2 production balance would be something like 42 IPCs for Japan and 48 IPCs for USA, including NOs, and US needn’t supply a land front. (If we take the example of US going for an anti-Japanese strategy and UK focusing on Europe & Africa.)

So, even on turn 2 the US will be almost even in the naval balance if they put their production on the West coast, and in time they will get stronger than Japan. USA is much stronger in AA50 than in AAR, where the Japanese naval advantage seemed forbidding in many games. I suspect the initial advances vs. China and India will be checked once Japan will be forced to put production into naval and air units to not be smashed by the US.

If you trade some nice TT’s, then you get 5 ipc extra income    huh

Yes, in theory this is possible. But this game is not a win-win-situation. If your opponent wins IPCs, you lose by it. Take France in AA50 for example. Yes, Germany can allow for invasions and retake the area. But now instead of UK winning 6 IPCs by this move, UK wins 11 IPCs and US 5 IPCs. Hardly a funny situation for the Axis…  :wink:

This TTT discussion is interesting, but shouldn’t you throw in National objectives as well, the big change in AA50? You now have a reason to hold on to specific territories that weren’t worth much in AAR such as Gibraltar, Midway Island, Karelia and Algeria. Maybe that will go some way to lessen the dreaded TTT?

One question regarding China and builds: do you determine the number of infantry in the “Purchase Units Phase” or in the “Place Built Units Phase”? The latter would be slightly better for the Chinese, but then again they will probably play very defensively so maybe the difference is slight?

But that deploy cannot be the true deploy

Functioneta, you keep saying this but I’m pretty sure Krieghund or Squirecam or someone else who knows the set-up would correct you if the BGG pics are wrong. So we have some options:

1. An all-out attack on China isn’t a good strategy for Japan, Burma must be taken and India threatened quickly unless a UK IC building 3 tanks/turn would make things difficult for Japan.
2. Even though China will be beaten back on turn 1, they will revive due to Japan’s other targets needing units sent to it, islands to be invaded, fighters for carriers, etc. National objectives of USA might for example dictate Japanese play on the first turns, in that they must be hindered to stop a monstrous American production.
3. China falling doesn’t have that much effect on the game. India and Hawaii are the essential areas in the Pacific. While this is historically skewed, maybe it could make sense in the game.

This is something that came up in the Rockets thread but really is about SBR in AA50 in general. Thanks to Rakeman for raising the problem.

Italy will very vulnerable to SBR and can be hit easily from UK (even more so now that AA-guns don’t even hit bombers flying over). There is never anything Italy can do against this strategy (no interceptions, cannot afford tech, etc). UK and US just need 3 or 4 bombers and Italy will be producing NADA. In fact, they have 3 bombers at-start and can decide on an anti-Italian strategy and start bombing on turn 2.

At best, with Egypt and Transjordan in Italian hands, Italy would be reduced from 23 IPCs (10 at-start, + double 5 IPC bonuses, plus 2+1 for EGY and TRJ) to 11 IPCs/turn. Not very inspiring income after achieving your conquests.  :?

Any counter-arguments? I don’t like raising this issue since I really want to play a well-balanced game but I can’t get this problem off my mind.

/Rakeman

You really raised a thorny issue here with Italy being hit by SBR. I hadn’t even thought about it. As you say, Italy can be reduced to almost no production with just 3 bombers or so attacking per turn.

This means a lot for game-balance, since Italy will very vulnerable and can be hit easily from UK (even more so now that AA-guns don’t even hit bombers flying over). There is never anything Italy can do against this strategy (no interceptions, cannot afford tech, etc). At best, with Egypt and Transjordan in Italian hands, Italy would be reduced from 23 IPCs (10 at-start, + double 5 IPC bonuses, plus 2+1 for EGY and TRJ) to 11 IPCs/turn. Not very inspiring income after achieving your conquests.  :-(

I fear the cries for a reduction of the SBR limit will be coming fairly quickly and as far as I can see I wouldn’t mind it being limited to just the IPC value of the area!  :?

/IL

Move of 4 inf:

Caucasus can be defended by 10 Inf on turn 2 (2 of those present, 1 from East Ukraine, 3 from Russia and 4 built).

India defended by: 7 inf, 1 art, 1 AA= 16

India attacked by: 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 5 ftr (one assumed lost to AA), BB+CA shbr= 21+ 7 shbr first round.

Probable result: taken by 1 inf, 1 art, 1 tank.

Move of 6 inf:

Caucasus can be defended by 8 inf on turn 2 (1 from East Ukraine, 3 from Russia and 4 built).

India defended by: 9 inf, 1 art, 1 AA= 20

India attacked by: 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 5 ftr (one assumed lost to AA), BB+CA shbr= 21+ 7 shbr first round.

Probable result: Not taken.

What do we say about these options? Obviously, you wouldn’t be able to defend Karelia SSR but I think this is hard anyways. If you move the maximum amount of infantry (6), you would be able to hold India and get it to start building tanks but you would probably demand quite strong attacks by UK vs. Germany very quickly as the Soviet player. 8 inf in Caucasus isn’t very comforting though considering combined German/Italian attacks, maybe 10 inf is a minimum? On the other hand, IL, your strategy is even more anti-Indian than my suggestion on my thread, since for example you can’t take Phillippines with the BB and CA and invade India on turn 2, so I doubt if many Japanese players will focus so totally on India. Interesting to see this played out!

/Cousin Joe

Just go through the fact thread. We basically have all the rules, except for 2 national objectives. We don’t have the '42 setup yet, but the '41 setup is confirmed. The only questions I think you can’t find on this forum are the two map questions.

So there’s plenty of room for discussion on different threads on what the new game will mean, welcome!

/IL

This is the sequence I think will happen in many games:

R1: Soviet move of 4? inf into Persia.
J1: takes Burma, sinks India fleet and sets up for seaborne invasion of India.
UK1: builds IC in India.
R2: Soviet move those 4? inf to India.
J2: Japan attacks?
UK2: if still controlled, UK build in India IC.

So you see that calculating how many Russian inf will be needed is crucial for Allied success. Given that all Russian offensive units will probably be needed vs. the Germans, I don’t think retaking India after it being lost is a great idea. Just stop it from being lost in the first place, otherwise, don’t build an IC (or build it in South Africa…).

Well, we’re getting close now. Just three objectives that are not known. Maybe we should start to discuss the change the NOs will mean for the game. Apart from the general changes I listed above on the thread I think we should see changes to campaign theaters such as:

Russia: Karelia is again an important space since it’s worth 5 IPCs and also building capacity. It’s also the gate to Archangelsk. All this probably means that the Soviet player must be more offensive, even more so than in AAR. I think the Russian campaign will be more volatile and unpredictable. I will also expect a lot of involvement from other powers, such as Italian invasions of Caucasus and UK invasions of Scandinavia. Maybe a UK wearing down of Karelia in a first attack without gaining control to prepare for a decisive Soviet attack will be a common move.

Africa: Gibraltar and Egypt are worth a lot of IPCs for Italy and UK. Great that Gibraltar now can be reached directly from the Atlantic, we will see a lot of combat taking place there. Also valuable as an air base vs. the Italians. Just landing forces in Marocco or French West Africa might be inadequate now, so a South African IC will be common, especially if UK finds it too dangerous to build an IC in India. Retaking Egypt will take a two-pronged assault from west and south. And of course getting naval forces into the Med. will be a major first step for the UK and US players to coordinate, so much more naval builds in the Atlantic will be needed, inevitably postponing D-day and giving the Germans more time.

Pacific: Midway, Wake and Solomons are now valuable and the US must very quickly get a presence in the Pacific. Perhaps two whole turns of production on the West coast to get a sizable fleet? Australia will be a US responsibility to divert Japanese attention from or to retake if lost, demanding even more forces. UK efforts will be tied up in Africa and India, and probably keeping India needs Russian help. Perhaps UK attacks in Scandinavia and Karelia will be a trade-off for Russian help in India? Needless to say, keeping Hawaii is a MUST for the US player, and actually takes precedence to all other war aims. This is as it should be and makes perfect historical sense.