Posts made by Lynxes

/kevlar56

Of the strategic principles you wrote about the classical one has some real advantages for A&A, due to the element of chance. If you play a conservative strategy you will be able to outweigh the element of chance more and you will be less surprised by bad rolls. Some examples:

1. Always build a few more low-cost units for losses than you might need for an optimum attack (land: infantry+artillery, naval: destroyers+subs). Then you can afford a bad roll here and there, and not be forced to sacrifice expensive units.
2. If you’re not sure about your opponent strategies, play in order to implement a strategy that will hurt your opponent no matter what he will do. As the axis, a steady, heavy advance towards Moscow, as the allies, a twopronged invasion shuck at France by UK from Britain and by US from East Canada. Just like in chess, if you control the center of the board (in AA50 France or Caucasus) you will control the events of the board.
3. Try to defend in a way that you’re not forced into a purely defensive stance, so that if your enemy changes his attack you will be able to counter-attack. For example, if you defend the West coast as US, if you only do it with land units you won’t be near as flexible as if you had a naval force for defence. As Russia, those few art’s and arm’s mixed in with your inf will be really good to have in order to make a counterattack here and there and deny your opponent the chance to do a simple calculation of when to make the decisive attack.

Well, the “in a few short hours” looks like a signal for a simpler game than AA50. So I don’t expect China, Italy, optional rules, NOs or a 12 tech tree, rather an upgraded Revised with the much-improved rules of AA50, cruisers, a balanced set-up and a 6-tech tree, maybe even without “researchers”. So they think of AA50 as the serious wargame and AA42 as “gamers light”, that explains the release. I do hope they will be rereleasing AA50 later though!

Interesting discussion!  :-)  I think you shouldn’t go either/or as the US west OR east, axis_roll. If you buy 2 trs, 1 DD, 1 CV on the first round you can set-up that East Canada-France shuck AND get a nice 2 DD+2 loaded CVs fleet off the West coast. Japan’s fleet is spread out at-start, and with a fleet you can protect your Pacific bonus and ward off any early Alaskan adventures, and probably keep at least 4 ftrs and CA+BB on guard against you in the Pacific rather than wreaking havoc in the Indian ocean.

As for IC placement, DarthMaximus, I agree you had a great opportunity for an Indian IC in your tourney game, and you also make all the relevant points as for why it didn’t work out. In most games Japan will shoot off the DD+trs off India and take Burma, and that Indian IC isn’t really viable under those conditions.

However, I think you can make a case for mid-game Egyptian IC. Buy a SAF IC UK1 and start landing in ALG and prepare to shoot off the Italian fleet. In 3-5 turns EGY will be yours again, and at that stage another IC can really be nice to have in order to stop the Japs cold around PER. Yes, you can do the same by dropping a steady stream of units into ALG, but shouldn’t the drops be made into FRA instead? Nothing beats a combined US+UK shuck into FRA with 8 units each for wearing down Germany!  :evil:  If you have Scandinavia and Africa and one NO, your income should be around 40 IPCs as UK, enough to buy say 10 inf and 2 arm for your 3 ICs. And when you start trading FRA, you’ll also have money to buy more expensive units to fill those ICs.

This is really a surprise, the only thing I can think why this is done is either bad sales which seems unlikely since AA50 sold out or that the game is considered to be flawed. Maybe they thought this '41 scenario that everyone is playing is unsuited for balanced play and includes too many uncertainties?

As for money, maybe they will have gone all the way and just changed the phasing order so that you buy with the IPC income you have on the board at the start of your turn. That would eliminate territory trading, not too bad!  :wink: This would also go quite well with NOs since you wouldn’t have the inflation in income that we’ve gotten used to now in AA50. On the other hand, if they opt for a simpler game, maybe NOs will be tossed out of the window, which I think would be too bad since it encourages better game strategies. My 2 cents for upgraded NOs;

1. Change the first Jap NO to: 5 IPCs if control of at-start territories AND no Jap units in Soviet territories. (Favours pacific strats)
2. Change the German third NO to: control of BOTH KAR and CAU. (Almost necessary since KAR will be a cakewalk in most -42 setups)
3. Change the US homeland NO to include Alaska. (Favours pacific strats)

As many have said China can be fixed with a better setup and Japan’s power is easy to adjust with giving them 2 or 3 transports rather than the extreme 5 or the other extreme 1 as we now have it! I like a separate Italy but I haven’t yet heard of anyone having a separate player for it so in that sense it isn’t a success story. Germany controlling Italy and getting one of their NOs should be OK and also gets rid of the Italy+Germany flip-flop on the Eastern front which I hope no-one will be unhappy to get rid of.

With NOs: 50-75 % spent on Europe, depending on how aggressive Japan is moving navy against the West Coast. I try to keep a West Coast fleet afloat, and also as a threat to move towards the Phillippines and East Indies if the Japanese fleet sails west. The point is to keep Japan tied up in the Pacific in order to be able to keep Africa from being lost to invasions and all fighters sent vs. the Russians, rather than an all-out offensive vs. the Japs.

The question is, is Russia and UK enough to contain Germany and Italy. If the answer is yes, then US should attack Japan in the pacific. If UK + Russia is not enough against Germany and Italy, then the most effective allied approach is a US Euro-strat instead of a US pac-strat. Africa is also important in AA50 as it was in revised.

I honestly can’t see how UK+Russia can match Germany+Italy if you play with NOs. You desperately need BOTH an invasion force in the Scandinavia/Karelia region AND in the Africa region. And UK doesn’t have enough IPCs to do both=> US help needed. But that doesn’t mean zero IPCs off the West coast. I actually believe the game has been carefully designed so as to FORCE US BUYS IN BOTH THEATERS OF WAR. And that is a good thing!  :wink:

What must be taken into account when it comes to the balance in the game is that USA, UK and Russia can get IPCs to bear against Germany and Italy MUCH quicker than Japan can put IPCs into action against Russia or even USA. The geographic change to the map is the most important one, as well as the inclusion of a weak Axis power, which invites destruction.

Turns 3-5 is the time when the Allies have the advantage and should be able to gain an advantage against the European Axis. After that, Russia gets pressured from behind and you’ll be forced to divert a lot of Allied troops to defend Russia, airplanes to Moscow or land units towards Caucasus from Africa, usually both. If you eliminate Italy and/or hold France and build an IC there before the Japanese become too big, you can win the game.

Probably pressuring the Japs somewhat from the West Coast as the USA is a must in order to hinder the deployment of all Jap navy and air force to support their land offensive, but USA must put between 50-75% of their production vs. European Axis! One thing’s for sure, playing the Allies has become much more difficult and I like that about this game!  :wink:

I have the feeling that a 33/67 split between West and East coast is somewhat right. In that way you’ll be able to get an advantage against the weakest power in the Axis side, Italy, and also threaten Germany enough that they’re unable to finish off Russia. The goal is to ASAP push Italy to 10 IPC income and Germany down to around 40 IPCs, at which time you’ll be at an advantage for some turns since all those Jap IPCs are still marching over the Asian steppes, whereas your IPCs are right in the thick of it.

In the long run, a chain of tanks and infantry pouring from Algeria and maybe South Africa will also be able to be used against the Japs around Persia. The trick with this type of play is to always be able to keep a fleet afloat off the West coast, either in a defensive stance or, if the Japs sail a lot of ships west, offensively. Obviously you then might have to spend 100% of your income on the West coast on certain turns if the Japs are very aggressive, but in the long run your spending should be more close to the 33/67 split. All of this assuming that the Japanese spend the majority of their IPCs on ICs, transports, land units and bombers to throw at China and India to break through vs. Moscow, which seems to be the typical Jap strat.

So, we have 3 options for G1, and I don’t count not attacking EGY at all which I wouldn’t recommend! In order of risk to the Axis:

1. 2 sub, 1 ftr vs. sz2; 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm, 1 bom vs. Egypt. This saves the Italian fleet in around 80% of cases, since you’ll be destroying that fighter. It is risky though since you’ll be in dire straits if you don’t!
2. 2 sub, 1 ftr vs. sz12; 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm, 1 bom vs. Egypt. Attacking sz12 at the same time as Egypt will lessen the risk to the Italian navy in case of a failed Egypt attack. But UK gets to keep its battleship, a stronger backbone for the Royal navy.
3. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom vs. sz2; 1 sub, 2 ftr vs. sz12; 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm vs. Egypt. The likely result here is that you simply reduce the UK forces in Egypt to 1 ftr or 1 arm+1 ftr, but the good thing is you will probably wipe out all heavy naval units. On ITA1, 3 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr + shore bombardment will be able to deal with any UK defence of Egypt if the Japs have done their job and sunk the Indian fleet. The main drawback here is that UK gets one extra turn of NO bonus and Italy will have to wait a turn for getting both NOs.

(Bardoly, thanks for the correction!  :wink: )

As I said UK will gladly spend 8 IPCs to block several subs from being used against the invading fleet. If you only build one sub, then maybe UK will stack up its main fleet with that DD instead. No way the Allies are going to move a major fleet into North Sea if you have several subs in the Baltic Sea! They don’t need to, no land territory borders the North Sea that can’t be invaded from other sea zones. And if they want to get into the Baltic, they just put up a DD as a block in the North Sea the first turn and then move in their fleet from English channel or Norwegian Sea.

The only way to use subs is, as I detailed some time ago in posts on the strategy boards, is to use ITALIAN air to attack the DD block. And that will only work until US sends in a DD. In the '42 scenario, JAPANESE air can be used to attack the US DD block. All this is too gamey tactics and hardly something you can base a sound strategy on.  :|  Subs were not intended to be built by Germany for this game, and that fact will remain until subs are boosted in some way.

How about listing possible advantages for optional rules and you then bid “one advantage for the Allies”, and so forth, with a die roll determining ties. You could also pick one advantage each on a one-to-one basis if you would both agree.

What do we have?

Allied advantages:

1. Dardanelles closed
2. Use '42 China setup in '41 scenario
3. Move Yunnan fighter to any China territory

Axis advantages:

1. SBR interceptors
2. DDs do not block sub movement (this is all on my part!  :wink: The idea is to boost a German sub war)
3. Heavy bombers reduced to LHTR (if using tech)

Of course you should use your at-start subs aggressively like you describe. The problem is any sub you build will either be blocked in North Sea (sz6) or if you get it out to English Channel or Norwegian Sea (sz7 or sz3) it’s very easy for the UK player to send either one DD forward or move his entire fleet forward and destroy your sub while defending with their measly ‘1’ in defence. If you have enough air power you might force the UK player to send in only their DD with the RAF so as to not expose their fleet, but if I was UK I’ll trade one DD for one sub anyday since it comes out of Germany’s hard-pressed IPC pocket!

The only way for BUILT subs to be effective for Germany is to get them to attack the main UK/US fleet in sz3 or sz7 in conjunction with air units and the mistaken DD block rule negates that possibility.

I hope I’m the one who’s wrong, but looking at the situation as a realist, the Axis earn too much money with NOs that starting rounds 3-4, they’re already outpacing what the Allies are making.  This completely throws off the balance of the game.

Yes, the IPC situation is tough for the Allies in the beginning, but once they strike at Italy it will change quickly. An Italy with both NOs is around 20-22 IPCs, and once that is erased the Axis is in a tough spot. In earlier editions, the weakest power was always the Soviet Union but that unenviable position has now been taken by Italy, and since eliminating a capital is so powerful I think Italy’s weakness outweighs the NO boost that the Axis gets in the early stages of the game.

But the purpose of this thread was to see if people are lacking a German naval option or not. I think AA50 is a great game and certainly will be playing it no matter what, I’m just annoyed that the sub war wasn’t portrayed better, especially when they put so much thought into redesigning the sub unit.

Though if we’re talking about 1941 with NOs, the Axis seem at such an advantage anyways that whether or not Germany buys subs may not have that great of an effect on the game.  The net result is still be the same, i.e. a Axis victory.

I don’t agree and I think it will show in the tournament. People are starting to learn how to play the Allies and in the end I think the balance will be close to 50/50.

But I do agree what you’re saying about fighters being better than subs, for 4 extra IPCs you get the ability to be used on land and to defend vs. invasions. A naval strat for Germany with today’s rules would have to involve buildning one-two CVs and probably some DDs so you can challenge the Allies directly and I’m unsure if that’s worth it IPC-wise.

Subs in the Baltic won’t get out and will be blocked for 8 IPCs cost for UK, who can just put a DD in the North Sea. And if the Italians get a larger air force to attack that DD, USA can do the same and you’re blocked anyways.

Until these ideas are implemented we will NEVER see a A&A game that features a German naval presence.

Well, my idea is that you could see a naval presence in the form of a reserve of 1-4 subs being kept in the Baltic Sea to strike at an invading fleet in the English channel or the Norwegian Sea in conjunction with air, IF you change the DD block move rule. Not a true battle of the Atlantic you might argue, but I’m after a simple rule change that doesn’t open the whole convoy zone debate again. Maybe even one that can make the next FAQ update?

On another thread people are busy discussing a German Naval Strat., if its viable or not. Since air units are now so cheap it seems there’s no incentive to build naval units as Germany since they’ll be blown out of the water, or if you build enough of them, you’ll be spending so much it hurts your overall war effort.

This is of course historically correct when it comes to surface naval ships which WERE crippled early in the war by the RAF. However, sub warfare was at its height in 41 and 42 and not till middle of 43 was the war against the subs won. So, do people think that the sub option should be boosted in some way for Germany?

My proposition is to remove the DD ability to block sub movement, but keep all other sub rules. In this way Germany might build some subs and attack approaching fleets in conjunction with the Luftwaffe without being blocked by that one DD in the North Sea. As it is now, I just don’t see the incentive to buy subs rather than fighters or bombers!

How did you reach that conclusion Lynxes?

I’m still not completely happy about the sub rules and still think they are a bit too hampered in their use. I think subs should be able to ignore even DDs when moving. In that way, it won’t be able to block German subs based in the Baltic Sea from attacking an invading fleet in the English channel just by placing one DD in the North Sea. As it is now you have to use Italian air to attack the DD block, and if USA sends in a blocking DD you’re screwed, unless you play the '42 scenario and use Japanese air!

But letting aircraft hit subs without destroyers will make subs utterly useless. At least now your subs can avoid combat in some instances and you can also use subs to make the opponent make choices of losses to take, i.e. if I take my last DD as a hit I will be facing surprise strikes. Your idea of using subs as fodder is misguided since that’s the role that destroyers are there for in this game, now that their cost is reduced!

Good change to the Improved Factory production tech. Certainly isn’t an Allied-biased change, Japan is the one power who could really abuse the tech as it was before with popping ICs all over the mainland of Asia!

Heavy Bombers are less powerful if you play with interceptor rules, but it doesn’t affect the super-boost in normal combat. I think making Heavy bombers attack on a ‘5’ and still having two dice in SBR would be a good fix to the H BMB tech, in combination with the interceptor rule.

I like the optional rules since they can be added to affect the balance of the game without bids which are too random for my taste (yes, I’m a bit obsessive-compulsive…).

The Dardenelles rule of course really helps the Allies, and could go some way to counteract the economic advantages of the easy-to-get Axis NOs. It’s also in line with Larry Harris ambition to lessen the attractiveness of JTDTM strats, since Caucasus will be easier to defend for the Russkies.

The interceptor rule helps the Axis, since Germany and Italy are the worst hit by SBR usually. Especially Italy needs SBR defence, they are really sitting ducks to SBR now. So, if we get the Allied strats right we might arrive at the fact that the interceptor rule is needed together with the Dardanelles rule.

Since I also like historicality, I love both rules and will be arguing for both to be included I think! Thanks Krieghund!  :-)

/Imperious leader

What has to be factored in though is the versatility of carriers with fighters, they can attack and defend on both sea and land whereas other ships will be sitting watching your land battles. Even shore bombard is only one round, fighter are all there to the end.

/Mezza

Now I’m angry!  :x  When they actually FIX subs you propose to turn things back to where it was, just incomprehensible.