Posts made by Lynxes

I think DM is on the right track here, you need to have a core of your fleet in place early and then add DDs as fodder during the game. Getting caught having to buy expensive ships in mid-game when you should be pumping out land units that land in Europe is a bad idea. Also, you need a mix of high and low strength units. 1 CV+2 fig, 2 CA, 2-3 DDs is a nice fleet to have as UK and not too hard to reach. A CV is, as many have said, mandatory, having your fighters parked in UK is useless. And if you send fighters to Karelia, you should STILL buy a CV and put US or UK fighters on it.

OK, my five cents on how to expose weaknesses:

Germany: weak in number of troops, this should be countered by killing infantry ASAP and to outbuild the Jerries with USSR and UK especially. Counterattacks by the Russians is the way to go, especially the first three turns. Landings by UK at the Baltic coastline is a nice way to disrupt the infantry chain as well. Needless to say, threatening France and splitting reinforcements between both fronts is a game-winning strategy in mid- to late-game.

Russia: weak in IPCs and vulnerable ICs, hinder any expansion and try to take territories. This means Karelia especially where you can hinder Soviet control of Scandinavia and threaten the Archangelsk bonus. An early build of a chain of infantry towards Karelia is dangerous. Later you can take Caucasus which will cripple Russian economics, even a trade of that area can make it difficult for the Russians since they might get short on IC placement sites.

Japan: doesn’t have many weaknesses, basically logistically in the deployment of units on the mainland is the only thing. So if you can do some timely counterattacks versus Siberian, Chinese territories and India that can earn you valuable time. Retreating India’s troops to Persia and then attack back is nice, also Russian counterattacks with air support is good and one or two fighters really come in handy.

UK: navy and IPCs are both very vulnerable. We all know about knocking out the UK navy from A&A editions past and it still applies. Even more important though is to negate the Egyptian NO and grab Africa ASAP. If you take Southeast Asia and most of Africa UK will be down to 20 or so IPCs and that’s really crippling!  :-P

Italy: navy is what keeps the Italians dangerous, so hitting it early is the way to go. If you can get at it before they build a CV that’s perfect, so even a suicidal attack by US or UK can be worth it if that means your ally can finish the fleet off. This means turn 2 or 3, not later! After the fleet is destroyed then Africa lies ripe for the taking, Italy’s economy is miniscule and UKs economy secure, a key to winning the game.

USA: long supply lines and a split-up front. If you can make a heavy attack at mainland USA it can easily disrupt the build-up vs. Europe and that should be a goal of Japan. Polar express not as a game-winning strategy but as a tactical move. Also when you take Midway or Hawaii they can serve as landing bases for bombers that are built in Japan and that strike at the West Coast. If you’d rather send the bombers towards Russia, you might still have made USA spent valuable IPCs on its Pacific fleet, the last laugh on you!  :evil:

It seems realistic. Non combat ships have a difficult time in trying to stop a squadron of warships. Subs usually stay below the water looking for targets and so they do not even try to stop enemy movements. They lurk in the shadow, silently waiting their chance (i.e. their turn) to hit.

Not really, only if transport and merchant ships were escorted could they escape subs with any sort of odds. Transports alone shouldn’t be able to ignore subs, the only way I can explain this is that they thought it’s a rare occurence and they didn’t want to complicate the game. I’ve seen it happen in games and it’s a frustrating sight!

Nice map-work! But I do think the final AA42 map will be much closer to the AA50 map and the AA50-42 set-up. NWE, CZE might be removed and NWY/FIN and BLK/BUL merged as well as China reduced to 4 or 5 territories, but otherwise I can’t see why all other things can’t be in AA42. The larger Pacific and Siberian areas especially should be what Larry wants the game to be like. Maybe it’s because almost no-one’s playing the AA50-42 scenario that we’re seeing this game…  :wink:  (Of course less complexity as well, with China, Italy and NOs being cut off.)

I agree with your statement. But in AA50, we can’t even get group concensus that the game is imbalanced, and if it is, by how much.

Well, I think a consensus is growing that if you have a standard Axis opening, attacking EGY and YUN, Axis will win 55-65% of games with NOs on the '41 scenario. Look at Darth Maximus count of 100 games over on the League forum and it’s there if you ignore games with atypical openings.

I’m more into the forced bid idea myself, the idea of forced bid to China or anti-Japanese bids. But maybe a bid factor could work:

1. Europe or Africa X1
2. Middle East or Pacific X2
3. American mainland (land/air) X3

Although agreeing on this could be troublesome, I agree with axis_roll on that one!  :wink:

An extra DD at WUSA will deter nothing. I would still throw 2 fighters at it and a DD and 2 fighters at Pearl Harbor. The outcome is the same.

I think for history sake the PH attack must happen. The Japanese did not attack any US warships just off the western coast. That is why I would be for a DD at PH and a Cruiser at WUSA. A DD at PH changes nothing except it makes the Japanese attack it with more than 2 fighters and a DD. This eliminates the WUSA attack. I am for historical accuracy in the 1st round after that though it’s anyones game and anyones stategy.

Yes, flying tiger, you’re right that a DD at PH works better than a DD at WCO. Do you want to try a game with a 20 IPC bid for Allies, bound to the Pacific theater? You would put 12 IPC on a cruiser, and I would put on 4 inf in YUN, and we would both put a DD in PH. We could play two parallell games, with both sides!

But, surely, Subotai, you don’t expect people to bid for units in the Pacific theater if they are allowed to place units in Europe which are much more cost-effective IPC per IPC?  :?

OK, great!  :-D Let’s pray for the optional rules to be in the rulebook and some quick fix to the China problem. Hopefully something not too complex so that it’s easy to use for us who already have the game. For example, same setup in '41 as in '42, no ‘max three unit’ limit and determine number of infantry built just before they are placed in the Place Built Units Phase so that China, as every other power in the game, can get an advantage by capturing territories.

/Veqryn

So you’re more into the idea of bids being forced in TTs or sz:s next to Japanese at-start forces? And in this way naval bids like what you propose would be chosen. The crucial question is if bids should be guided or not since unlimited bids will go to EGY or KAR, of course.

Back to the topic!! I think the NOs do something to encourage a Pacific conflict, what’s wrong is the set-up which is skewed towards the Japanese. They just have so many units compared to the Allies that it’s often not worth to try and fight them. AA50 did strengthen the US fleet somewhat, but they gave the Japanese 9 fighters and 5 transports which is too much.

So, back to the idea of bids being placed in China or on TTs or sz:s bordering Japanese at-start units. Would a bid of say 4 inf in Yunnan and 1 Destroyer at the West coast make the game more like it was meant to be from the start?

Hi,

I’m interested in trying a AA50-41, NO, No tech game with China inf bids (4). I’ll play either side!

/Lynxes

I don’t know if the playtesters missed Japan attacking Russia, that’s obvious as you say, I think they missed the German “turtle”-strategy involving IC built in France or Poland. That’s a new strategy that’s made possible by the high German income with NOs and low number of units being able to built in Germany proper. Maybe the play-testers just built in Germany and then KGF probably can succeed before Japan enters Moscow. Krieghund, Craig Yope, or any other play-tester, care to fill in here?

Well, over on the other bid thread I threw out the idea that instead of unlimited bids you could have a forced bid so that bid units must be placed in territories or sea zones bordering Japanese at-start units. A-JAP bids.  :wink:

I think this or China inf bids are better than unlimited bids since that will just push the game back into an AAR-mode dominated by KGF/JTDTM-strategies. If we go for A-JAP bids we will see where bids will best be placed, I would think infantry in Yunnan but also a DD or CA on the West coast is nice to have. Infantry on Phillippines could be a dark horse, forcing the Japanese to use three transports to take it, but then you might have setting up for a turn 2 grab instead. It would, in any case, open up for a different game without changing the base rules of the game which I think is to early just yet.

/Imperious leader

Why not just bid for China inf?  :?

Hey, guys, no need for house rules… Just play with both optional rules and then bid for Chinese inf, that takes care of most game problems. If I would do any one house rule other than that, it would be heavy bombers attack on a ‘5’ instead of two dice. With interceptors the two dice SBR damage is more manageable, but two dice in attack is just weird. But still, you don’t get heavy bombers often so it’s not a major fault in the game. I agree very much with Funcioneta about China and I sure hope we will get support for the bids in China inf idea!

Historically, of course, the UK and US navies should be much stronger, but I don’t mind the game situation since it gives more of a balanced game and that’s much more fun than the Axis navies just being sitting ducks as in the actual war where they never had a chance. Germany could’ve won a victory in Russia if Stalin would’ve conceded a separate peace, and that’s what the game simulates, no matter the historical skewedness.

My German strategy doesn’t depend on air force buys, they are not cost-effective. I try to conserve the at-start air force as long as possible but rarely buy air units unless I have such a clear advantage I can afford it. You have to kill off the UK battleship on turn 1 and take Egypt, but after that focus on massive infantry and armor buys, including an IC in France built on turn 2. With 16 units/round, if you can trade Karelia to get the third NO, you can be very resilient. Buy something like 10-12 inf, 3-4 arm per round, send 4-6 inf and the armor east and the rest stack-up France. Italy should also be buying mostly land units although some navy buys can be nice as well to keep your fleet alive a bit longer. If the Allies don’t go into the Mediterranean at all and only go for France, Italy should be able to move heavy land forces as well into France.

Well, it seems the play-testers were not totally united in what their conclusions were. That’s where the optional rules come in, the Dardanelles rule tilt the balance a bit in Allied favour and the interceptor rule makes bombers a little more balanced as a unit (you could argue that the escort rule favour Axis, but in this game Russia gets SBR:ed a lot!).

With NOs and no optionals, it seems the balance is 60/40 or something like that for the Axis if they play a normal opening, meaning attacking Egypt and Yunnan turn 1. We should play games with the optional rules before we say the game is unbalanced, they are, after all, LARRY HARRIS’ idea of the best rules, not Wizards of the coast who might have overruled them on the basis of not adding complexity. IF, and only IF, the game is unbalanced under those conditions, we can talk about bids, and here I am one of those who have argued for bids for Allies being made in China infantry, placed before the game starts.

PS. You might want to study Allied strategies, which are getting better and better, Get Battlemap and read on the “play by forum” games. But don’t read my semi-final game, where my Allied strategy has been a big failure so far!!  :-(  DS.

My friend Perry’s internet’s down, I’ll signup for him and he’ll confirm later.

I’m in!

1.  DarthMaximus
2.  DutchmanD
3.  DY
4.  DesertJournalist
5.  Zygmund
6.  Telamon
7.  Bigbadgoo
8.  SgtBlitz
9.  Pin
10. Questioneer
11. TimTheEnchanter
12. Omega
13. Bardoly
14. Gargantua
15. Lynxes
16. Perry

I’m in!

1.  DarthMaximus
2.  DutchmanD
3.  DY
4.  DesertJournalist
5.  Zygmund
6.  Telamon
7.  Bigbadgoo
8.  SgtBlitz
9.  Pin
10. Questioneer
11. TimTheEnchanter
12. Omega
13. Bardoly
14. Gargantua
15. Lynxes
16.

I love the new sub rules for AA50, but I have two reservations. First, subs should be able to move through destroyers. This is the only way Germany could have a chance of getting subs out of the Baltic Sea in any dependable way. Two, subs should be able to block the movement of transports without accompanying warships. It just doesn’t make sense for invasions etc being made without protection from subs by lone transports. Submarines are finally coming to their own in Axis & Allies after so many headaches, and now we just want the finishing touch!  :-D