Posts made by Lynxes

I think the Allies can throw everything they have at Afr and the Italian fleet early with the intiention to kill the fleet and cripple Italy by rd 4.  After this the US has the freedom to confront Japan in the Pac if it wishes or just continue and try to actually take Rome or Berlin.

One caveat though: if Japan deploys its fleet aggressively vs. the West Coast, you really can’t wait since once your Pacific fleet is sunk it’s almost impossible to rebuild. You’ll be forced to build at least enough to defend yourself vs. a Jap carrier strike, but that doesn’t mean the basic strategy changes. You need a carrier and some auxiliary ships afloat off the West coast as a kernel of your Pacific fleet to have any chance of challenging Japan. (All this assuming abandoning the Pacific ocean is not your strategy.)

/bugoo

In the '41 scenario, UK helps against Japan by sending troops over the Middle East to protect Caucasus, by landings in Algeria, builds in South Africa IC, or both. This is later in the game of course, so yes USA is the one bearing the brunt of fighting vs. the Japs for most of the game.

In the '42 scenario, you also can build an IC in India for a more direct strategy. Haven’t really started playing '42 yet but it looks like a possible strat.

What really should be taken into account when discussing the AA50 game is Italy, which I think changes the game in a major way. Axis & Allies is always going to be about capturing capitals, given the massive effects that has. In all earlier editions of the game, ganging up on Russia was the default strategy because Russia was the weakest power, leading to the JTDTM strategy which made AAR a broken game.

Now, in this game all strategies I think should include eliminating Italy if you play the Allies. It is connected to Africa as well, which must be kept for the UK to be a valid power in the game IPC-wise. Italy is very simple to SBR, its fleet is vulnerable, it has little defensive power in comparison to Germany.

So, the two major strats for the Allies I think will be:
KIF= all of US resources and most of UK goes vs. Africa and Italy, and UK devotes enough to ward off the fall of Karelia. UK builds Saf IC.
Balanced KIF= US resources are divided between the above objective and building up a fleet in the Pacific that offensively distracts Japan and buys the Allies time to more effectively put the KIF strategy into place. UK as above.

The most interesting thing to see is how the Axis will adapt to this new environment. I suspect the game has been designed in the direction that it’s worthwhile for Japan to attack east with at least a part of its resources to hinder the US deployment vs. Italy -> so that a balanced KIF will be forced on the Allied powers! Maybe a balanced KRF will be the preferred Axis strategy, a Moscow advance balanced with attacks against Africa and North America.

I don’t like the idea of doing a G1 attack on Karelia, the odds are not good enough and you stand to lose aircraft you can ill afford to replace, both to AA fire and if you’re unlucky with your dice. I prefer to use aircraft on G1 to kill off UK naval units and do that vital attack on Egypt with bomber support.

However, sending something like 4 armor and a lot of infantry into Baltic States for a G2 attack on Karelia is a must (a strong enough force to deter any Russian counterattack). If you destroy the BB+trs off Scapa flow with 2 subs+1 ftr UK has no way to put land troops into Russia on UK1. They can put 2 ftrs in Karelia, but you should have enough to take it anyway. Russia can retake Karelia if they build armor enough but if you plan your builds well enough you should be able to hold Karelia at some point. And once you get the Karelia NO and also build in that IC you will be in a very strong position. I advocate a mix of infantry and armor builds throughout the whole game (of course with the odd fighter or bomber mixed in), in that way you will never be without either casualties or attack power and you will need a lot of both to wear down the Russians!

/a44bigdog

You’re right on that, but every turn your fleet is in the East Med. you effectively can’t build naval units since they will be bombed in the Central Med. (except subs, of marginal use anyway). You can get one transport or destroyer in on turn 1 and protect it with your battleship but after that less than the whole Italian fleet would be wiped out. (Turn 1, only 1 UK bmb is in reach, turn 2 and on, both UK+US air).

The normal Allied response to an Italian fleet hiding in the East Med. would be to land in Algeria with enough forces and then base aircraft there. Your fleet and land units also threaten Italy and force the Axis to try to defend vs. the invasion by withdrawing their fleet to the Central med. Basically, the only valid defence versus this KIF strategy is to have enough German air ready to strike the Allied fleet in combination with counterattacks by the Italians. If the Allies do a good KIF, the clock is ticking for the Axis and they must finish off Russia or at least be very close to doing so before Italy falls.

Axis simply needs to capture the landing spots for British aircraft to foil the plan.

Bombers from UK can always land in Caucasus. Even if you can’t use your fighter as UK, you can easily use the two US bombers to finish off a lone surviving battleship.

This strategy is however a bit risky since you won’t have a strong fleet as UK which is a handicap and slows you down invading. I prefer using American aircraft to kill off the Italian fleet and the British to invade Scandinavia, Karelia and France! Typically I build a CV on the East coast, so you can have 2 ftrs+2bmbs on turn 3 targetting the Italian fleet, to which you can add a DD and/or an extra bomber built if needed.

Maybe in Anniversary an Italian AC could be useful?

Keeping the Italian navy is vital to mount a threat and keep those bonuses floating. Buying a CV is the way to get defensive points to match the UK/US attacks. I bought a CV on turn 2 in a game and landed first the Italian fighter and then one German fighter on it, that really slowed down the Allies. You can then add DDs to get extra hit points.

Of course, almost always Italy will be the first Axis power to go and it will signal the defeat of the Axis in most games. Which means playing Italy well is a crucial thing!

When it comes to optional rules I think they should go together. If Italy is hindered by the rule that the Black Sea is blocked, they really need interceptors since their economy is so vulnerable to SBR.

But how beat the axis economic advantage?

To further argue DMs case here, I’m guessing that you have to keep those German and Italian NOs down, once you hinder Karelia being taken and then both Italian NOs the economics are not too bad, something like:

Germany ~40 (two NOs)
Russia ~27 (excl. eastern Russia after EVE)
Japan ~58 (incl. India, China)
UK ~35 (incl. Scandinavia, Africa)
Italy ~9
USA ~45

Axis & Allies IPCs are at break-even here. If you reach this stage you will be able to focus enough Allied IPCs on Europe to get an advantage. You can then have forces enough to hinder Japan, through Africa/Middle East and/or a Pacific offensive, while at the same time closing in around Germany. Especially if Italy is knocked out of the war, an immediate IPC boost. For AA50 to be a global game with an active Pacific theatre, stopping the European and African advance of the Axis is an absolute must.

I vote for 13 VCs. If you get 13 you’re winning anyway, so it’s just a way of shortening the game, and the tournament.

Your conclusions are correct. NOs were probably skewed in Axis favour in order to avoid bidding, which as you know was standard in AAR. So the big question is if the game is balanced with NOs or not. If Axis is too strong, instead of bidding I would personally argue to think of:

1. Use the optional rule that the Black Sea is closed to naval units (see Larry Harris FAQ on his site).

2. Think about boosting China, there’s a thread on that on this site.

3. would mean Italy couldn’t invade Russia directly and would have to march over the Ukraine and Persia to get to Caucasus, both a historical scenario and a good thing for Russia’s chances of defending itself. 2) would mean that Japan would need to commit more troops and fighters to China, weakening its India attacks and giving the UK and US more of a chance to contain Japan. The jury is still out, however, as to if these measures are needed!

No, I mean that whenever Britain builds a fleet, the Subs immediately attack it.  This means that in addition to having the best HP per IPC ratio, they will also have the best Attack per IPC ratio, and possibly get first strike as well.  Germany’s Bomber and Fighters will support as well, making it even more of an overkill.

I think Germany can buy subs and use them to good effect in conjunction with the Luftwaffe, but my impression is that it can only be done effectively by attacking an invasion fleet after the invasion (off the coast) by subs stationed in the Baltic Sea. You will be able to keep your subs in the Baltic safe if you keep killing off approaching DDs before they reach the Baltic. I can’t see how sending out subs from the Baltic is doable to hunt the Royal Navy in home waters, as Cmdr Jennifer writes you will be sunk pretty quickly.

When it comes the DD block problem, it can be solved by Italian and/or Japanese air. However, in the '41 scenario, the US may block your subs with no countermeasure due to the turn order, so German subs are viable in the '42 scenario or in '41 if USA builds only in the Pacific (although a few DDs are probably always affordable for the US to send vs. Germany if your opponents spots a sub strategy).

Overall strategy determines if you can AFFORD to buy some subs as Germany. Will you have time to finish off Russia anyway? Will Italy help you out on the Eastern front? Or if you play “conservative”, defensive Germany, you will wait out Japan to take out the Soviets and then stalling invasions can be a big deal. Probably you spend as much or more on air units as on subs, using the subs as extra attack power of course but most of all to avoid taking your precious air units as casualties. Destroying an invasion fleet is really a big thing, it can turn a game around and subs can help you do that as Germany.

/axis_roll

You’re assuming a KGF strategy by the Allies. Yet a lot of the players are now saying that’s too much of a gamble and advocating a balanced strategy where UK and US put some forces out to contain Japan. Then you will probably be buying tanks with Germany in order to take Caucasus and gain a foothold to threaten Moscow on your own / with Italy, and then most certainly you will need every aircraft that can fly on the Eastern front!

My point is that all this is too early to tell what it leads to. I just think that the interceptor rule is such a major improvement to the logic and structure of the game that it really should be welcomed. If we end up thinking SBR becomes way too weak, we will hear voices saying that fighter interceptors should be defending on a ‘1’, for example, but we haven’t got the games played to prove that conclusion.

These are not really out of range of anything.

Fighters in Germany are out of reach of such unimportant areas as Russia and Caucasus…  :-o

/axis_roll

It’s only one round after all, and we should factor in two things:

1. The defender has to keep fighters in the home IC. Certainly a factor for UK and Germany, who would rather have fighters on a carrier/in Russia or at the front, respectively.
2. The defender will be losing a fighter here and there if the attacker has interceptors, actually a way of whittling down defences, which should be a problem for Germany and Russia especially.

It’s too early to say what the balance effects will be with this rule!

Here’s the FAQ by Larry Harris & Krieghund:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/Anniversary_FAQ.pdf

The rule is just as in AAE. Maybe World at war was first to have it, but interceptors are a part of almost every strategic World War II game and I think it’s natural to include it.

Krieghund was asked somewhere about if it isn’t too strong for the defender, but answered that keeping fighters in your home IC is a hassle since you want them at the front. What the rule would do though is to make fighter bases for SBR escort really important. I.e., Norway or a carrier in North Sea is necessary to do SBR on Germany with reasonable odds if the German player keeps fighters at home (or, of course, Long-range aircraft!).

/JWW

Exactly, So what should we do? I’ve thought about a bid but it doesn’t seem like a basic bid would be enough. Where would you put a bid that would be enough to balance this out? I’m thinking maybe we need to add units before the game even starts.

Hey, have you thought about the optional rule interceptors put out by Larry Harris and Krieghund? It should be pro-Axis since Germany is usually the one hit hardest by SBR. Or do your strategies as the Allies not include SBR? Maybe the interceptor rule will make the '41+NOs scenario more balanced and we can get by without bids which I think are a bit random.

China able of move out of China is the very first change must be done, even before the fighter. It’s a rule without no reason for history (chinese forces attacked Burma Road area  tongue, and why should not be able of attack FIC?)  and no reason for balance (China is enough weak even without this needless rule)

Well, I guess the idea here is that chinese forces wouldn’t be able to retake India or launch other major operations outside of China. I think this is quite historically correct. The Burma Road wouldn’t exist if the Japanese conquered India etc and I doubt the Chinese would’ve spent forces on major operations outside of their home country.

I think the production-boost would be enough. That is, if extensive play shows an Axis advantage with NOs. Then a stronger China would divert more Japanese resources and rebalance the game. But we’re not there yet, let’s give some time to finding the best Allied strats!

Of all the China fixes the easiest one hasn’t been discussed yet. What about China getting one infantry for each territory controlled? No set-up or fighter rule change and it would really change the dynamic around China, even if China would be eliminated UK and Russia would really have an incentive to liberate Chinese territories to unlock that infantry production!

I’m with Perry on the Heavy Bombers problem. It’s just too strong to have 2 dice. I think, I’m not alone on this I know, that this will mean techs will be less used which is a shame now that we finally have a really good tech system.

My fix for H BMBs: if you play with optional rule interceptors: attack on ‘5’, 2d6 SBR damage. If you don’t: attack on ‘5’, 1d6+2 SBR damage.

I’m fine with techs being unequal, I just don’t think one tech should be triple the value of other techs as it is now (Jet fighters: 33% increase attack value, H BMBs OOB: 100% increase attack value, PLUS SBR boost).

1.  DM
2.  Jennifer
3.
4.
5. Danger Mouse
6. Lynxes
7. Questioneer
8. HolKann
9.
10. MatildaMike

I’m in!