Posts made by Lynxes

Hey, Rockets doesn’t seem stronger than Heavy bombers in my opinion. At least the Allies can take out the areas that those AAs are positioned in whereas Germany will just have to watch their ICs being vaporized and the only hope is the faint one of getting Improved production or Radar. Fair is fair, Germany should be able to get Rockets if Heavy bombers are what they are…  :x

this makes no sense to me, as both sides have equal chance to acquire all techs

It’s a well known fact that USA is the country that most can afford tech, since it doesn’t have a land front that must be supplied with troops. Also, USA can use almost any tech except maybe Radar and Mechanized infantry, whereas Japan and Germany will in most games find a majority of techs to be of marginal use.

One thing that hasn’t been discussed so far is that techs might be a strategic option. Yes, they are random but they produce similar effects. If you pick chart 2 (Air/naval), super subs and shipyards will really boost your naval strat and if you get H bmb or jets your air attacks vs. both land and sea targets will be boosted. So if USA chooses from that chart they have a 4/6 chance of getting an advantage vs. Japan. I think that NOs and tech go together, since NOs seem to balance towards the Axis and then you need techs which are Allied-biased.

What about having a 12 VC victory condition for the Axis? I don’t think Japan could be ignored then, and the Japs themselves needn’t go JTDTM when victory is closer by. To boost the Allies you could tweak the NOs in the Allied favour or giving the Chinese the '42 setup in '41 or both.

/rakeman

I agree with what you say, just don’t agree with what you say about the Alaskan push. The Alaskan push should be put into effect as quickly as possible in order for it have full effect. It must draw forces from turn 2 from USA and then Italy will be able to survive and then Germany and Italy may finish off Russia together. I’m not sure if it’s doable but I think it might be. Buy 2 trs on turn 1 as Japan and then attack Alaska with as much as you can, protected by 2 loaded carriers. Then up the stakes and keep pushing forces in there, forcing USA to pay attention to you!

Another idea would be to work out a 12 VC victory condition for the Axis, along with a change of NOs to counterbalance the game. In this case, ignoring Japan would be fatal since just Karelia would do if Japan got all their VCs in the Pacific. NO-changes for this possible variant, “Axis tactical victory”, could be:

*Remove German starting terr. bonus
*Remove Japanese starting terr. bonus
*Boost Soviet Arkhangelsk bonus to 10 IPCs
*Boost US homeland bonus to 10 IPCs

I agree it would be nice not to have to go KGF. Maybe that’s possible in the '42 scenario, where that India IC is a go since Japan has only one transport to start with.

Another idea I’ve been thinking about is to play for 12 VCs for the Axis. We would then have to reduce Axis IPCs, such as removing one each of the NOs from Japan and Germany and also adding 5 IPC to say one each of the US and Soviet NOs. Then you would have a shorter more intense game and also you would be very daring to avoid Japan since just Karelia will do if Japan takes India, Hawaii and Australia. This could be a variant of the game, “Axis tactical victory”.

We’ve all seen how powerful the Axis gets when they get their NO bonuses in the '41 scenario. After five tough games against Perry, when Axis won four games out of five, I’ve arrived at the following tips for the Allies:

1. USA needn’t focus on Japan for the sake of doing so. If Japan is very aggressive and building up to invade Alaska or Western US, you will be forced to build up your defenses, but losing Hawaii, Australia and India isn’t fatal if you can deploy your forces elsewhere to good effect. Only once you really get threatened you need to step up and spend big on the Pacific front. Try to keep a West Coast fleet afloat, that means you at least stop the Japs from sending all their aircraft at the russians, but moving it forward is very risky at best. If the Japanese go all-out on naval production, you should ask yourself if matching it is wise since your IPCs are more valuable in Europe than trying to stop a Japanese juggernaut. Then just build a land shield in West US and watch the Japs weep for not being able to use their mighty navy…  :evil:
2. Italy is the first way to go, since it has very nice effects if they can be destroyed. You get Africa protected and you also help the Soviets a lot since Caucasus is shielded from amph invasions and also those nasty double attacks that can tear holes in the East front and leave it open for German tanks to storm forward to Moscow. Build heavy on transports and invasion troops and move them with enough protection in the form of carriers and cruisers to Algeria and into the Med. Don’t forget the followup, 2-4 transports should leave the East Coast loaded each turn.
3. A south African IC is nice for UK since then you can keep your IPC from dropping too low. An Indian or Australian IC shouldn’t be possible given adequate Japanese play, don’t even try it!
4. The scandinavia/ karelia invasion route is crucial in the beginning to stop Germany from keeping and building in that IC. In all the games that Germany could build in that IC, they totally dominated the Russians. Be ready to sacrifice ground troops as UK! Also as UK you need Norway and Finland to keep up your IPCs.
5. SBR isn’t optional, it’s required!! Germany can’t be allowed to build for 55 IPCs/turn since they will then have an air force of 4-5 bombers in no time and then Russia won’t have a production capability and you will also be very vulnerable to air attacks against your navy. USA should build 1-2 bomber/turn and also go for tech since chances of getting Heavy bombers are actually quite good. SBR production must of course be balanced by invasion forces and defenses vs. Japan. But bombers are also good to turn against the enemy, remember a bomber can just as well kill off Japanese tanks in West Canada or carriers at Hawaii or German Infantry in France or Italian ships in the med… You get the picture, buy bombers, its an order!  :-D
6. Get an IC on the continent such as Italy or build one in France. That is THE way to counter the Axis advantage of having a rampant Japan rolling forward. Once you get builds in that captured IC, you will very soon be winning the game!
7. Soviet play is hard and you need to not overcommit yourself. Destroy German infantry as much as possible and try to build up a tank force in reserve. Be ready to admit you can’t protect your ICs at all times but you really need to retake them ASAP. Karelia you need to have UK help probably. Losing Karelia is bad, but losing Caucasus is FATAL, just don’t do it if you can’t retake it immediately. As for the Japs, don’t worry, retreat your forces, if they get to Moscow your Allied so-called friends should be in Berlin already…

KIF (Kill Italy First)?

I think what we are seeing being played is KIGF, that is, kill Italy first and then Kill Germany First. Once you get rid of the italian navy, Africa is secure and you also threaten the Balkans as well as France. Using US troops to invade the Med, Italy AND France, was used by Perry to great effect against me in a recent game (see IL’s "My review thread) !! Italy is much harder to retake now that it doesn’t border Germany so you can’t throw Inf and Art down there, another smart redesign of the game.

/Funcioneta

The key for Allied success seems to be to deploy Allied IPCs against Italy and Germany before those Japanese IPCs can be deployed vs. the Allies. It may be that you’re right about that Alaskan thing though, we’ve seen that happen in a few games and maybe that’s a more promising strategy for an expanding Japan than to go for that old JTDTM strat. Attacking over Alaska may be a quicker way to disrupt Allied strategy than to attack over the steppes and forest of Asia!

Interestingly, both these strat’s are historical in a sense. The western Allies DID kill Italy first and Japan DID try for a push over the northern Pacific vs. Alaska (Midway/aleutian op). A clue that the game is well designed, perhaps?  :wink:

2. Tweaking NO’s
   Some thoughts :

• Japan looses 1-3 NO’s before gameplay.
• Italy does not get any NO’s (it feels as they are a tad bit too strong in the OOB setup)

Hey, Perry, isn’t the biggest problem Germany’s NOs? They easily reach 55 IPCs when they get Karelia and that’s way more than those 45 IPCs you were getting in AAR and they you didn’t have Italy to shore up the Med front as you can do now.

I favour playing without NOs altogether if you want to balance the game in the allied favour. I still think the extra VCs will make the game into a more historical game than AAR, so even though some of the effects of NOs such as pushing Japan and Italy south will be lost the overall balance change would be nice and also very much in the KISS mode since you won’t have to change anything at all, just not use an optional rule!

I really don’t agree in this talk that Russia is so weak in this game, they have more IPCs than ever before. The problem is that Germany gets so strong IPC-wise. Either you counter this with a very aggressive KGF strategy (see my post above for an example), or you try playing without national objectives. Typically Germany gets 15 IPCs and Italy 10 IPCs from NOs and Soviet union only gets 5, whereas UK gets zip -> so playing without NOs would really help balance the game up towards the Allied side. I would like to see a game played without NOs for the '41 scenario, I will post a game report when I’ve tried it myself!

Last night we just finished a monster AA50 '41 NOs and tech game ending with a very narrow Allied victory. Here’s some points from the game:

The Allies went all-out KGF. UK shucked units into Karelia for the first three turns, after which Germany succeeded in bombing their navy to pieces, but then US took over the amphibious invading and UK focused on SBR. UK built a South African IC that helped to keep Africa. US invasions of Algeria, France and then Italy made things difficult for the European Axis. USA built cruisers, transports, land units and bombers after a first turn buy of a  carrier on the East coast. Japan mopped up everything and ended up grabbing Moscow AND Western US in the same turn (the second conquest was due to a mistake in builds due to fatigue on the US player part but didn’t really change the game). But by then Italy had already fallen and Germany fell to a US tank and bomber attack. Germany did dominate the Russians for most of the game, but was very hampered by a Heavy bomber SBR campaign and due to limited production narrowly failed to take back France which in hindsight was a gamebreaker since USA could then build an IC there. Techs was rampant: UK got Heavy Bombers on turn 1, US on turn 4 or 5 (as well as Super subs and Improved shipyards), Germany got Paras and Japan Jets and Long-range air. We concluded that the game was very difficult for the Allies and without Heavy Bombers it would have been hard to conquer Germany. But techs are now so easy to get that is actually not that random but rather a part of strategy. We can’t see right now how anything else than KGF is the way to go in the '41 scenario, but we might be wrong (?).

So, IL, yes Germany buys hordes of tanks and uses the air force against Russia, but UK should invade on the East front and USA be very aggressive with amph invasions, and SBR also helps to even out things. Italy is not that dangerous since once their navy is destroyed they are sitting ducks. In our game, the Axis had 12 VCs at one point and would have a won a VC victory if they hadn’t just lost France. We think a KGF is the best way to stop a 13 VC victory since stopping Japan in the Pacific just seems too expensive!

(We still haven’t tried the '42 scenario which looks very different. We hope it allows for more varied strategies for the Allies. Another possibility would be to play the '41 scenario without NOs and techs, not sure the balance consequences of that but probably overall in Allied favour since NOs are a major part of Axis dominance in the beginning.)

Great to get quick answers Krieghund!

Another one: apparently there are no Chinese control markers in the game (I haven’t got mine yet, just looked at the pics), but I guess this is since they can only enter Manchuria, Kiangsu and Kwangtung? I.e., a Chinese attack on Manchuria means that Manchuria is Chinese controlled and if there’s an IC there it will then not be able to produce since China has no IPCs? And this is the same if for example Soviet Union attacks Manchuria since it is then liberated to revert to Chinese control?

Will not be very common in games of course, but good to get clarification.

Well, now we have both setups and would be nice to start some discussion on how we think of the strategy for the '42 setup. My only impression of the game in practice is three test games with the '41 scenario, so all this is speculative and I will only get my hands on the game next week.

1. An India IC seems quite defendable now that Japan only has 1 TRS in Sea of Japan. A turn 2 attack only musters 4 inf and 1 tank at the maximum and that should be able to be covered. You can defend India with 4 infantry and 2 fighters (from Egypt & Australia), and maybe some supportive Russians infs. But of course Japan can amass a very large air support so it’s not a sure thing.

2. Overall balance of spending between theaters. I will guess that both UK and US could spend 2/3 of money on Europe/Africa and really put pressure on Germany and Italy quickly. They have 4 TRS and 4 BMB already at start and a combined SBR and Amphibious strategy would be quick to put into action. There should be one naval stack around Baltic Sea and one around West Med so that the Scandinavia/Karelia front is threatened as well as Algeria and the Italian National objectives.

3. My guess is that India and Hawaii can be defended by 15-20 IPCs / turn each by UK and USA. I suppose that Russia and China both keep up a land pressure on Japan, and given their meagre land forces at-start Japan should be quite tied down until India starts to produce.

4. Japan should be able to grab Australia and maybe that’s the easiest way for the Japs to up their IPCs and start to challenge the Allies. Japan’s task in the '42 scenario is more to disrupt Allied strategy and distract from Europe than to go for Moscow as we’re used to seeing. The goal would be to allow for Germany and Italy to finish off Russia on their own. Clearly a more difficult strategy than in AAR or the '41 scenario and the Japanese might be forced to make some quite risky attacks to put the Allies off balance.

What do you think?  :-)

In Revised, USA could attack in Pacific, and it was a pretty good strat, even if few used. Japan was not a supersaiyajin as in 1941 setup, Japan it was strong, but not too much nor too few. Balanced. No more in 1941. I’ll stick to 1942 scenario.

I’m a bit worried about the '41 setup as well, but you must factor in VCs as well. If the '41 scenario is balanced, it would mean Germany and Italy would be able to hold onto Paris and Rome and at the same time take Leningrad and Stalingrad at the same time as Japan takes Calcutta, Sydney and Honolulu. The standard strategy to start with is KGF, but if it turns out to be too slow to take and hold a VC then we will be back to try a balanced strategy such as USA building enough to keep Hawaii off Japanese hands. This focus on the Pacific VCs is an improvement from AAR since I doubt if ever the Japanese land offensive would reach Moscow before the combined Allied offensive has put down the European Axis!

I predict we will see 50-100% deployment of US IPCs off the east coast, since the Germans and Italians are much stronger now IPC-wise.

I found something interesting with the Japanese '42 setup: they only have two carriers whereas in the '41 setup they have three. This would mean that the game starts in june '42 and that the Battle of the Coral Sea has already happened, where Japan lost one small carrier and had two large carriers put out of operation. I also like that its not 100% feasible to launch a strike against Hawaii since the Japs have just 1 CA, 1 DD and 1 sub in range and the fighters and the bomber that could be sent there would be vulnerable from a US counterattack either against a CV next to the Hawaii sea zone or an island. The Japs might want to sacrifice aircraft just to get 1 surface ship to survive so as to block a counter-attack, and the attack is much more risky than in AAR. They also have just 1 TRS whereas in the '41 setup they have 5 TRS!

I really like the '42 setup in the Pacific, its so much more balanced, whereas the '41 setup is a question mark for me and it remains to be seen what it leads to. If a KGF strategy in the '41 scenario will enable the Allies to get ashore and stay ashore in France or Italy before Germany seizes Karelia AND Caucasus, USA will not have to bother about Japan since reaching 13 VCs for the Axis won’t be possible! On the other hand, Germany and Italy combined might be able to hold off even a determined KGF strategy until Japan makes its 3 VC conquests. Time will tell!

The '42 order of play is:

1. Japan
2. Soviet union
3. Germany
4. UK
5. Italy
6. USA / China

The -42 setup so far attached. Given that the Russians move before the Germans and now have the Arkhangelsk bonuus they look very strong in this setup!

AA50-42_US_RUS.AAM

The 1941 set-up favors the AXIS and gives the Allies a challenge, the 1942 set-up favors the ALLIES and gives the AXIS a challenge?

This is intriguing and it could actually make sense as well. Between the two scenarios there were some strategic mistakes on the part of the Axis such as too weak reinforcements for Rommel, overextension on the Russian front in front of Moscow and of course a lack of Japanese focus after the first victories in the winter of '41. The most probable chance to win the war would be to rectify these mistakes, and then this thing would be historically accurate as well!  :wink:

So Italy really wasn’t a large factor? Did they conquer all of Africa? What were their builds?

Italy built 1 trs and 1 CV and then mostly land units, adding 1 DD later on. Africa wasn’t important, Germany sent a tank down there which manoeuvred to avoid 2 UK infs (landings in West Africa were not done but probably would have been a good idea). Italy was a factor in that it distracted from attacking the Germans and I think a balanced approach by the US and the UK is probably more effective, i.e. landing in both Norway and Algeria, having fleets both in North/baltic sea and West Med, SBR against both Germany and Italy, and this necessitates a lot of US involvement.

For such things as India IC, this is a detail which o/c we just have to try and fail to see if it can be held, more than 4-5 rnds?

In this game there was no India IC, India survived because Japan focused on China and Australia. In an other game an IC was built and defended with the help of some Russian troops but the jury is out on if this really is viable if the Japs really go all-out vs. India. I hope there’s more UK ships to start with since that would make defending a built IC so much easier! We’ll see very shortly when we get the UK set-up.