"German advantage giving art a defense of 3 is powerful indeed. Gives you a boost of 1/3 to your defense. Think german art boosted as an inf with 3 in defense, 2 in attack and a bonus to a buddy inf. Only at 4 IPC’s. This is very good and makes the german art better than tanks!.
I stand corrected. Thanks, funcioneta.
I want to make this post prior to getting too deeply invloved in my first game, b/c there are some observations/thoughts I’d like to make and then see if they hold true.
#1 - Despite the new units/values and territories the game will still play very close to 2nd or 3rd Ed.
Incorrect. There is now a safe spot northwest of UK where a fleet can be built out of range of German fighters. There are a ton of other cute map tricks. Germany can no longer storm Africa first turn. Etc. etc. etc. Add them all up, and it plays rather differently.
#1A - The game still revolves around Germany and Russia
Yes. But Japan is far more powerful this time around; it expands like mad.
#2 - Navies are still largely irrelevant. (direct correllation to #1A)
Incorrect. Now, the UK should concentrate on building a transport fleet to move infantry into Europe. The Allies must have a strong navy to protect those transports. Germany requires a small suicide navy and air to kill the Allied transports for two crucial turns. Etc. etc.
#3 - India is also largely irrelevant.
While it is nice to have as the UK, any significant attempt to hold is a waste. What is more important is to put those units to a better use, whether that is going to Afr, fortifying in Per, or retreating so you can counter a weak move by the Japanese into Ind. As the Allies the more time you get Japan fiddling around in SE Asia the better. And as Japan, take it if it is given, but your most important goal should be to get to Mos.
Actually, I thought India was important in Classical. But in Revised, I think trying to hold India with Allies is a waste.
You will change your style of play, or get hammered against good players.
Larry Harris Tournament rules limit the total IPC lost per turn to X IPCs per industrial complex, where X is the value of the territory the complex is on.
But the regular boxed rules and errata do not impose such a limit. The limit is per industrial complex, per territory value, per BOMBER. But not per turn. So EACH heavy bomber can inflict up to 10 IPC of damage.
Your buddy is running Radar and Colonial Garrison? That makes India very tough to crack.
Oh well, I know NAs are fun. But just remember they’re unbalanced in favor of the Allies. Heavily unbalanced.
You should use a bidding system on each game to determine who plays what side.
There are two very important factors I didn’t mention.
1. If the UK reinforces India, it will very likely lose Africa. It is impossible for both Africa and India to be defended early in the game unless Russia is sacrificed. UK’s Africa holdings are worth 9. India is only worth 3. In most games, I will deliberately leave India open on the very first turn in exchange for retaking Anglo-Egypt Sudan with infantry and fighter. I think it’s worth it.
2. Transports from Japan can get reinforcements to French Indochina every other turn. That’s four infantry and four tanks. Japan’s invasion of eastern USSR isn’t even slowed; on the turns the transports move away from French Indochina, they move infantry and tanks into Buryalia.
–
I believe that even trying to defend India is a bad idea. A beefed up China combined with beefed up Buryalia and beefed up UK Indian navy sounds good. But really, it doesn’t work. The sub, destroyer, carrier, battleship, and two or three fighters hit the UK fleet, five infantry and fighter/bomber hit China, three infantry, tank, and two fighters hit Buryalia with battleship support shot. Japan crushes the UK fleet, will very likely gain China, and will probably get Buryalia too. In noncom, Jap carrier joins the battleship and transport in the waters east of Japan, puts fighters on, and Japan places its bid of three transports and a tank.
Tradeoffs - sometimes the China or Buryalia attack will fail, and the US Pac fleet is strong. Japan’s holding in China is weakened. French Indochina is lost for a turn. In exchange, though, the Axis can rip through Africa unopposed for a while (German tanks in Anglo-Egypt and Japanese transports take it all very fast), India falls anyways, the Soviet east is wide open, and USSR lost six infantry.
I totally missed the fact that you mentioned you played with NAs when posted the first couple of times. But it’s REALLY important. My bad.
If you are playing with national advantages, you are gonna get majorly hammered. Do you know how ridiculous those NAs are? And you are using MULTIPLE NAs?! I sure hope the Allies are limited to one random NA each. But even if they are -
Superfortresses: Game-breaking insane. America buys nothing but bombers and strat bombs Germany. Shuts Germany down completely, very quickly. After US builds five bombers (for a total of six bombers), it goes for tech dice Heavy Bombers for added impetus. Losing 12d6 (Average 42) IPCs per turn with Germany is a REAL PAIN IN THE ASS, and Germany can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop it. And it happens by the fourth turn (first turn US builds two bombers and flies one to UK, second turn US builds three bombers and flies the first two to UK, third turn, US flies three bombers to UK and rolls all tech dice, fourth turn, Germany is totally shut down. Oh yeah, and the US bombers also go around and pulverize the Japanese navy. 15 IPC for two fours? Man.
Lend-Lease: Also game-breaking insane, you get ridiculous fighters from UK, and carry out insanely powerful hit and run attacks on BOTH Japanese and German fronts. Even if the Allies don’t have superfortresses, all the Allies have to do is a typical KGF. You have infantry and tanks coming in from UK by the fourth turn, and Russia’s IPC production easily jumps to 45+. I mean, how ridiculous can you get?
UK gets Joint Strike, Colonial Garrison, and Radar - all very nice.
In general, it’s hard for the Allies to get a sucky NA. Salvage isn’t all that hot. Mideast Oil isn’t all that useful in most games. But all the rest of the Allied advantages will give you something nice.
Some Axis NAs are nice. Panzerblitz lets you hit and run against USSR, so you can commit your fighters to Western Europe. Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers isn’t great, you generally don’t want to risk your fighters for half-assed bombing runs (the NA CAN be used, but it is risky as h***). Rest TOTALLY suck, you are not going to build lots of artillery, and subs are useless against the major problem of having to take Russia down. But it’s not like Germany has an insanely game-breaking NA like Lend-Lease or Superfortresses. If the Allies get EITHER one of those, they should kick the c*** out of the Axis.
Japan - you don’t want to build new destroyers because they’re simply inefficient, and the one you start with will probably die by the end of round one. Kamikaze and Kaiten are super expensive to use. Dug-in-defenders is useless, if your infantry is defending on islands (i.e. US overpowered the Jap fleet in the Pacific), you’re dead anyways, and dug-in-defenders just slows the US kick in the face a little. Lightning Assaults and Banzai are the only useful Jap NAs; you use lightning assault against the top two USSR territories and against multiple territories in Africa. Banzai lets you build mass infantry and transports in Japan, switch to second IC quickly.
IMHO India IC only good vs n00bs.
1. UK has less IPCs to build transports and units to ferry into Europe. So UK comes into Europe slower. So Germany has more time to attack Russia. Bad.
2. UK has less IPCs period. Industrial Complexes cost a good amount.
3. Japan captures IC, and look, you just gave Japan a nice little present that cost YOU IPCs. Saved Japan player IPCs too.
The last, you think, can be countered with Russian reinforcements? No way.
A). If you fly fighters to UK, those fighters cannot be used in hit and run attacks. (Let’s say Germany holds Karelia with one infantry; you sent two West Russian infantry and a fighter to attack the territory. You kill a German infantry, you gain 2 IPCs from the territory, and Germany has to retake the B)country. But say you just attack with two infantry, your odds aren’t as good. If you attack with two infantry and an artillery or a tank, even, then you’re commiting 10 IPCs to gain 5 IPCs, you can’t do that for long even given the fact that the trade gives you a small positional advantage. My belief is that Russian fighters are properly placed in Moscow, where they can attack east or west.
B) If you send land units to India, it takes three turns to get there from Russia, two turns from Caucasus. Either way, you are pulling infantry from the German front, which means Germany takes USSR countries, so USSR makes less money. If UK loses a few IPCs a turn, it’s no big deal; UK IPCs are relatively inefficient (for cost-effective ground troops, you must first build transports, then you have to make sure the transports are protected, all that takes valuable time). USSR on the other hand, you pop out an infantry, and that infantry is ready to go; it just has to march to the front.
C) Even with Russian reinforcement, Japan can pull infantry off the islands, and run tanks in from transports from Japan. Combine that with - what - six fighters and a bomber? Things get very nasty very quickly. You can’t defend EVERYTHING.
D) Out of the box rules, you risk turn 1 Germany goes for long range aircraft and takes UK. Risky, but doable. A couple of Russian fighters in London helps a lot.
ARM = tanks. Tanks used to be called “armor” in Axis and Allies classic; the term stuck.
For placing fighters on carriers, the official errata, “http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised” allows you to put fighters on carriers if you have a fighter in the same land territory containing the industrial complex that the carrier was built on. You can also build a fighter on a carrier if you bought that fighter and the carrier at the same time.
Larry Harris Tournament Rules have slightly different rules, but even there, you can put fighters on new-built carriers. The mechanic there is different; there, you just leave the fighters in the sea zone where the carrier will be built. (You leave them there in the noncombat phase, but they don’t crash)
1. Ah.
2. Sure you can make it, on a Revised board. Picture the board. Sea zone northeast of UK that borders Norway. Second sea zone to the east of that sea zone that borders Karelia and Archangel. Third move is into Archangel. And fourth is into Russia. (That’s the route I take for UK fighter reinforcement into Russia.) Of course, you can fly the other way . . .
3. UK should have no problem against a NORMAL attack. Problem is, your house rule allowing kamikaze attacks is JUST like giving Germany Long Range Aircraft for FREE.
Normally, German Sea Lion air attack round one variation is chancy because you have to sink a lot of IPCs into tech dice, if you succeed, the attack is still chancy (first you have to get the tech roll, then you have to win the battle, then you will likely lose most of your air force, you only get 38 IPCs from Great Britain to rebuild your air force against future Allied transport attacks, Russia attacks with impunity because you have almost no units placed on that first turn.)
The ultimate killer is the fact that you sunk IPCs into tech, so Russia has less to worry about. That’s what makes it so chancy.
But if you can kamikaze, you just don’t need tech dice. So if you succeed in the attack, Germany wins easily - it has to rebuild its air force, but Russia can’t really attack as well because of all the German units Germany builds first turn.
In particular, under normal circumstances, Germany can afford ONE transport and use the rest for tech dice in an all or nothing attack. But if you kamikaze, you don’t need tech dice, so you can build two or even three transports and get a death lock on the UK. So the Germans should push on to victory.
–
Basically, I think giving fighters kamikaze attacks is a very unbalancing idea. OH well, heh heh. Not my playing group.
–
Figure the defense out for yourself.
USSR can send two fighters in, and take out one German fighter. If it takes out the German fighter, it must leave tanks in the Ukraine, which means those USSR tanks are dead with the German counterattack next turn.
What’s the German attack? Off the top of my head - one infantry, one tank, six fighters, and one bomber. Defense is one antiaircraft gun, one bomber, two infantry, one artillery, one tank, two fighters (potentially four). Assume the latter, say you fly fighters into UK.
13333 3334 vs AA shot / 12223 4444
That alone makes a German attack into the UK unlikely to succeed, even if you miss with all the AA shots. Once the first casualties are taken, Germany’s attack power gets cut down quickly, while UK’s defense power gets cut down only moderately. (Assume that you WILL take the bomber as a first casualty). Now factor in the AA shots, and you actually have a pretty good chance.
If Russia takes out the Ukraine fighter, it’s 13333 334 vs AA shot / 12223 4444; a clear win for the Allies. If you want extra insurance, that’s the way to go.
Key concepts - Baltic fleet and Mediterranean fleet.
–
The Baltic fleet is vulnerable to UK air on the first turn. That is why the carrier is built. You do NOT build two fighters as well; you use existing fighters. (You need to produce infantry on that FIRST turn, so the infantry can be sent towards Russia on the next turn. Delay is a major problem).
Later on, you use German air and the Baltic fleet in a suicide attack on the Allied Atlantic fleet. The German Baltic fleet you attack with take all the enemy hits, leaving your fighters safe. (You conserve your air power because you can use it to attack Allied fleets off your coast or to attack USSR territories).
The problem with this approach is that a carrier is great defense for the cost (since you already have fighters), but lousy as attack fodder (so expensive). More on this in a bit.
–
The Mediterranean fleet is initially used to help attack Anglo-Egypt Sudan. Anglo-Egypt Sudan is crucial because once Germany has that, it can attack the rest of Africa. Less IPCs for the Allies, more IPCs for the Axis. Usually, you need to keep the Mediterranean fleet in the Med because the UK can counterattack with fighter and three infantry second turn, likely retaking Anglo-Egypt. (This continues for a bit, sometimes with help from the UK Australian transport).
–
Remember what I said about the Baltic fleet? You have another option; building three transports. Now UK has to worry about invasion, and the Baltic fleet is protected (if hit, you can take hits on cheap subs and transports while your destroyer whittles away at the UK air). If you send the Med fleet west, you can unite the German fleet on the second turn. Problem is, your transports won’t do much in that sea zone off France, and you have to run away quickly before the Allied navy and air gang up on you. Also, if you go to the Med, the Allied fleet can reinforce Archangel, if you go to the Baltic, the Allied fleet can attack through the Mediterranean (although it takes a long time for the Allies to mount an effective attack there).
–
Other key territories:
Western Europe. Early on, you defend with a small number of infantry, tanks, and all your fighters. (You will feel that your fighters are wasted there because they’re not doing much, but really, you’re stopping the Allies from moving transports into fighter range). Later on, around turn three or four, you move all your tanks east, and move a few infantry in instead. Still later, you abandon Western Europe except a few infantry (you cannot hold Western Europe against a determined Allied attack). By that time, you should be kicking down Russia’s door. What this means, of course, is that you should produce lots of infantry and artillery first and second turn; after that, you should build mostly tanks. The infantry and artillery from the first couple of turns and the tanks will hit the Russian front about the same time.
Caucasus. Once you take this territory with a medium-sized force, Japan should reinforce with most of its fighters. That makes it very hard for Russia to counterattack. Caucasus is great because you can put four infantry on Russia’s doorstep every turn.
–
You have to work together with Japan. The fighters into the Caucasus is one major move. Another place Japan may help Germany is against Africa around round two to four. Of course, Japan should also press into Asia, so Russia is attacked on both sides.
1. You cannot ‘kamikaze’ from Southern Europe. It is not allowed to have a fighter take off unless that fighter can also land that turn.
2. You can fly two fighters in from USSR.
3. Germany going after UK usually takes one of three forms; five transports in Baltic on first turn for invasion second turn, or rolling for long range fighters with Germany first turn, or building two or three transports first turn followed by a five transport build. You just beef up London is all. Pretty simple.
Responses to other posters’ posts -
Octopus, it’s in my siggy. Ha. :-D
Ezto, all the best players from flames-of-europe can play low luck. When they’re ready to play with the big kids, they can come on down and play a REAL man. Woman. Small fuzzy creature from Alpha Centauri. :-P. I can understand the appeal of lowering the luck factor, but to me, luck is a vital part of the game. You have to have, um, cojones, for lack of a better word. Even when the odds are in your favor, there’s always an element of risk.
Response to original post -
I prefer Revised to Classic, but I can see that classic has its points. First, old dogs don’t like change. Second, some people just prefer classic’s play style. (Three dice for heavy bombers, that was the stuff . . .)
Oh, right, 12 IPCs. Sorry, I was talking about the newer edition. You know, the one with all the optional rules in the rulebook, like “Russian Winter; you can make Russia’s infantry defend at three for one turn”.
Hm. Am I in the wrong board?
Following is for Revised Edition:
Personally, I never go for Pearl Harbor. Ever.
My philosophy goes something like this - US wants to build Pacific fleet? Go for it. My planes cost me 10 IPC and attack at 3. The best US can do to beef up Pacific fleet is build more aircraft carriers, right? (b/c they need to defend against Japanese fighters). But aircraft carriers are slow.
Let’s say first turn U.S. gets two aircraft carriers. Turn two, it has three aircraft carriers if you don’t do Pearl Harbor. It flies over a “buncha” planes. Presto, instant navy with six fighters. Now, what’s it gonna do with that? Attack your islands? Well, OK. But you have two battleships and two aircraft carriers, plus a lot of fighters yourself. If you chose to build three transports for Japan first turn (which I recommend, to help attack east Asia), your fleet is even bigger.
So yeah, eventually, U.S. will beat the stuffing out of the Jap fleet. But it’ll require considerable time and material, by which time you ought to have beat up East Asia considerably. If U.S. concentrated on building Pacific up, that means that there’s less pressure on Germany in the Atlantic.
So, I’d say - even if U.S. DOES build Pacific Fleet, it’s good for Japan to just ignore Pearl Harbor to concentrate on Asia.
If U.S. DOESN’T build Pacific Fleet, it’s imperative for Japan to hit east Asia anyways. U.S. is going to send stuff across the Atlantic to the sea zone west of Britain, threatening Norway and Western Europe. Which means that Germany has to send some forces to defend, which slows down the attack on Russia, which means that Japan has to pick up some of the slack.
But I will say that some people go for Pearl Harbor and make it work for 'em. Losing that aircraft carrier does slow the U.S. a teeny bit. Personally, though, I prefer to use battleships for support shots in amphibious landings . . .