Posts made by Lynxes

Imperious leader, I’ll try to revive this strategy discussion. Your tactics for '41 J1 are good, except that there’s no need to protect TRS at Borneo since the Australian navy only reaches New Guinea sea zone. Your CA is probably useful vs. Phillippines.

I think that your all-out offensive vs. the Chinese makes sense, but could there be some kind of catch? We should expect a UK build of an IC in India on turn 1, so could it be that taking Burma actually is necessary to put some pressure on India quickly? A turn 2 attack could be launched with the following: 3 inf from NEI and Borneo, 2-3 inf from Burma, 5 ftr, totalling 17-18 in attack (assuming one ftr lost to AA) vs. that start force in India of just 8 in defence. But if you leave Burma alone on turn 1 you only have those 3 inf invading by sea which isn’t very promising. Your Phillippines fleet doesn’t reach India before turn 3 and then UK will be getting a build in that IC!

Maybe the balance is to choose if to have a China popping up 3 inf/turn or India popping out 3 inf or 3 tanks? And if the Americans have an offensive Pacific strategy, the Japanese could be stopped from capturing both China and India (?).

Squirecam’s comments means there will be real balance change in the game. An Indian IC with 10 IPCs build/turn by UK and US builds in the Pacific of 20 IPCs /turn will be a MINIMUM to contain Japan. Maybe this is the explanation for the cheaper bomber cost and higher damage limit for SBR compared to LHTR: UK and US can never just focus all their builds vs. Germany & Italy, so if SBR should be a part of the game it had to be boosted. That US starts now with 2 bombers seems to reinforce this picture, as well as the return of heavy, heavy bombers (two dice attack+SBR). Building ships for invading is now a bit more difficult since more escort ships are necessary when transports are sitting ducks, this also counts against the Allies.

Well, I continue using parenthesis-values for speculation and without parenthesis for confirmed ones. I was pretty sure for the third Japanese bonus since I thought I could read it from a BGG pic, but I’m now more cautious.

I tweaked my speculations in your direction, squirecam, with a number to take. I assume the post-war political goals of UK and Soviet Union will be included in some way, would make sense since Churchill was more concerned with European politics than the Americans who just wanted to win the war ASAP and were ignorant if remote nations became communist-dominated…

By the way, Squirecam has given away parts of some objectives, and those parts are now edited in. All fully confirmed techs are by Krieghund.

/Krieghund

Thanks for the Paratroopers update! I thought it would include some boost for the attacking infantry, and this is quite a powerful tech now. The restriction of not flying over an enemy territory and attacking behind the line is reasonable and prevents some strange strategies, this is still a powerful tech which especially Germany and UK will be really glad to get hold of.

/Ometiklan

No, attack is correct. I think they wanted to boost Jet fighters compared to other techs, and this is a good change since you normally use fighters offensively until a “last-ditch” defence when you don’t mind losing your fighters. Maybe it also has something to do with avoiding naval stalemates, as Jet fighters on carriers defending on a ‘5’ would be almost impregnable. Transport defending at ‘0’, subs at ‘1’ and carriers at ‘2’ all goes towards a more balanced naval battlefield, very well thought by Larry et al.

/squirecam

Ok, updated. You seem to have quiet good notes from GENCON, care to elaborate?

/Krieghund

I think I have confirmation on the first three US objectives, I’m not sure if you made these confirmations but maybe some were from Squirecam or Herr Arnulfe.

Also, Imperious Leader has added on the Fact thread a soviet objective that is similar to the german, i.e.;

Controlling at least 3 of the following territories: Baltic States, East Poland, Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine and/or Belorussia= 5 IPC.

Is this correct and my suggestion wrong?

Well, I don’t now how you should defend vs. SBR in this game, and “The Urals of Germany” refers to the fact that an IC in Czech area would get 3 AA strikes at any bomber attacking and those bombers would have to come from Norway which is not the best place to base bombers. I also assume you would try to go for the “Improved Production” tech and then it would be more productive.

All this of course depends upon game-play. I’m assuming the Russians are quite resilient and that you wouldn’t make real progress until you get that inf you build on turn 1 over to the front line (meaning 4-5 turns into the game). By then the Allies might be bombing Germany hard and little you can do to reduce that SBR damage. Techs or a new IC, that’s about it. I’ve played AAR quite a few times when you shout “yeah” when you invade Caucasus as Germany just to realize that an invasion in France is too strong to fight back. If you can’t keep your production going, what’s the use of getting Russian territories? Unless you could punch at Moscow before the Allies will be strong enough to bomb and invade, but if that’s the case the game balance has been shifted a lot from AAR! Balance changes:

1. Soviets get 5 IPC bonus for Archangelsk.
2. Germany starts the game now with 36 instead of 40. There’s also an extra area for the inf to get to the front and Germany only has 4 fighters at start.
3. Japan will not put pressure on Russia from the East in most games.
4. UK and esp. US will have to put some of their prod in Pacific.
5. Italy will put some extra pressure vs. UK.
6. Bombers are less expensive and SBR will be more deadly.

Hard to say here but I would be surprised if there’s a huge shift in Axis favour!

Poland is 3. But Romania is only 2.

Purchasing an IC for Romania is really not worth it.

Yeah, that settles it! So Poland and Czech/Hungary are both 3;

Poland: gets a step closer to the Russian front. No SBR protection.

Czech/Hungary: one step closer to the southern part of Russian front. Double AA possible vs. SBR.

I think the second alternative is a better one! Another IC bordering the Baltic Sea is a bit fragile when you lose your navy. You’ll basically be forced to counter-attack every invasion to stop the Allies from producing next to Germany, and if you build tanks you’ll have to have infantry stationed to protect it. That Czech area is like the Urals of Germany.  :wink:

/IL

Karelia…. actually archangel right?

No, look at the BGG pics, you see clearly that the IC is in Karelia. I doubt if you could buy a second TRS since your CA+TRS will be bombed to dust on UK1. Only way to have a surface naval presence in the Baltic is to buy a CV, and the question is if you can afford that.

We don’t have the exact IPC values of Poland, Czechoslovakia/Hungary and Romania/Bulgaria, but they are 8 in total and two of them are probably of ‘3’ value. So an IC in Romania/Bulgaria could be a good idea, especially if you would get “Improved production” tech. Then you would get a capacity of 5 units/turn and an IC that is harder to SBR than Germany. But I’d rather have inf, art and tanks to that Russian front than expensive ships! Why buy a TRS when a tank in Romania reaches Caucasus in one turn?

Well, at last we’re almost there!  :-) Just need specifics corrected on what I put in parenthesis.

History-wise, making Rockets a part of the Land chart makes sense since Germany would be more likely to get it. However, it could be argued that it is quite close to Jet technology. Why I put Radar in land techs from the start was because I thought that they needed two techs on the same chart to counter HBMBs. On the other hand, now Improved Production is a strong technology to get and could go a long way against a SBR offensive. And Germany could opt for Air/Naval techs and still be able to get Radar and protect vs. SBR, although some of the other ones on that list aren’t really of that much use for the Jerries (Shipyards, Super Subs).

Thank you Herr Arnulfe, that’s the missing link! Imperious leader wrote on the “Fact sheet” thread that Improved production and IC repair are actually one tech. and now we get that sixth tech. It’s now edited in! If only we could get confirmation on what chart Rockets and Radar belong?

As far as I know my two charts are correct when it comes the techs. The only uncertainties are the actual details of some of the techs, that I have put into parenthesis. That said, I wasn’t at GENCON and don’t have access to the rules so Krieghund, Squirecam or others have been correcting some of the details. But not the points you mention.

As for British amphibious assaults in the Baltic, Churchill in his series on WW2 discusses the problem of the shallow straits between Denmark and Sweden making it difficult to get large ships into the Baltic.  Probably those should not be allowed on the basis that they would be impossible to execute.

The problem wasn’t the depth of the sea at Öresund, Stora & Lilla Bält, it was the short distance to the shore (Öresund has 10meters depth, but Stora Bält is at 60meters, with a width of 4km at Öresund and 12km at Stora Bält). It was easy to put artillery and mines at to hinder any access by major surface ships. I actually think that it should be impassible if you don’t control Denmark (Northwest Europe), along with Gibraltar Straits for that matter.

The dardanelles is something else in the game, since making them impassable would include some kind of attacking-neutrals rule that Larry probably was firmly against so as not to complicate the game. I wouldn’t be against total impassability since there weren’t any major naval actions in the Black Sea in the war, but that would be a bit unfair to the Russians with none of their naval units never being able to get to the beautiful Mediterranean Sea…

Finally, UK’s objectives are not all confirmed yet. Dont you think UK might just have a bonus for holding some med territories??

Squirecam has a point here that we need more info on the UK objectives. While I got some good info on the other objectives from GENCON players on the web, the UK wasn’t something people remembered that well. Is there some kind of Atlantic national objective for UK, for example? This would also influence discussions if Germany should go for a naval strategy or not, so would be nice to know.

Ps. Edited original post. Ds.

Or even simplier than above, use current system but make it that infantry building is not affected by IC damage.

But infantry needs food, trucks or horses, rifles, ammunition, right? And if they’re killed in their home town while on leave, they can’t go back to fight, can they?

I think we should discuss counters vs. SBR, given the system as it is in AA50. For this game, they opted to exclude interceptor rules and instead add new land techs to counter vs. SBR. Will they be worth the cost to get? Should Germany go for them from the start or just if the Allies get Heavy Bombers?

/IL

All this is still hypothetical. As I have admitted, a sub strategy for Germany is yet to be found. If UK’s DD block is shot down, US will just put a new one in the North Sea.

Unfortunately, we might still be in the AAR scenario that Germany needs to build a full fleet with one, possibly two, CVs, and hold its own vs. the Royal Navy. And I don’t see how they can afford that considering the amount of inf & tanks you need to get East to make any headway vs. the Soviets!

I think most of the games that extra IC will be Karelia. It should be taken on turn 2 and be held a large part of the game. If you get “Improved production”, Karelia could be a tough one to crack!

The game will probably be decided over the Caucasus territory. Now that Russia only can produce 6 units / turn in Moscow, once Caucasus falls you will probably be dead meat.

/squirecam

Edit, again! This UK objective is quite interesting, but will probably only be applicable in the late game. But of course it again reinforces that Japan must keep their starting areas, improving the historical slant of the game.

Well, it’s guesswork, but I edited now according to your clues…  :-)

/03321

Not sure about your analysis of UK. They have 43 IPCs at start in '41 scenario, so even with 2 ICs they have 13 left to buy a DD or CA. Even later they will be at around 30 IPCs/turn, and 5 inf for South Africa and India leaves 15 IPCs for Europe. They will be flexible if they have those two ICs and build where they need to.

However: a German offensive naval strategy, such as the one discussed on my (somewhat failed) thread “GUARD”, would be able to put UK on the defensive though, and this might be a good counter if UK builds two ICs.

Edited with a new US Nat obj leaked by Squirecam on another thread!