Usually FIC & IND for sure, and then MAN and/or SUM depending on the game. Almost never KIA unless I’m delayed building MAN.
I also like SUM because of its capacity and location. It’s not the best for gnd units because of the need for transports, but it’s very useful for popping out aircraft and ships when you need them.
That worked great. I take it the last set of icons are for ftrs on CAP?
I’ve always raised an eyebrow to the mutual sneak attack. Is that like spy vs. spy from Mad magazine?
No, it just means in the absence of any DD’s on either side, subs shoot first and casualties are removed from the board before they can fire in general combat. The advantage still goes to the attacker since defending subs only hit on a “1”. If the only ships in the fight are subs, then it doesn’t really change anything.
I am reluctant to step into the middle of a family squabble, but I don’t think this thread is serving a useful purpose.
There seems to be a plethora of house rules and other modifications that players would like to experiment with. Personally, as long as everyone agrees, fine by me. Call them what you want, “Enhanced”, “Modified”, “Historical”, “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”, or “George” for all I care. If you don’t want to play with modified rules, then don’t.
Life is way too short to be picking fights in cyberspace over a game. A&A is a great game, but it is only a game. If you are not having fun, then something is seriously wrong.
My 2 cents.
I don’t know if this matters or not, but my browser will continue to show an icon (like the little hour glass used by Windows OS’s) that it is still trying to download a page even when the entire page appears to be loaded. This will go on until I click on the “stop” button on the browser menu bar.
@Trisdin:
So you are saying that Germany should send a small force to Africa to help Italy and in turn Italy should help Germany in Europe?
Italy generally needs Germany’s help in Africa early, and Germany needs Italy’s help in Europe later. It’s mainly a timing issue.
@DY:
It’s well known that bombers inflict on average 2.92 IPCs per raid while only costing the attacker 2 (it used to be 2.5 average cost)
The point is, economic power houses such as the Western Allies can happily afford to trade + 0.92 IPCs per SBR while Germany really cannot.
I think it is worthwhile to point out that if bombers are really that effective, then they are that effective for everyone. The Allies may start out with more bombers, but the Axis powers can quickly even the score if they want to. So in that respect, if the bomber advantage is available to everyone, then I think it keeps the game balanced. Different, but balanced.
Second, money plowed into bombers is not being put into other units, particularly ground units that can take territory and, in the case of certain countries, naval units to get your ground units to the fight. Thus, I feel there is a natural cap on the number of bombers that anyone should be buying.
Finally, in general I do not believe that SBR’s are the best use of one’s bombers. As already pointed out, the expected net IPC gain is only 1 IPC per bmbr per IC (and that doesn’t count the impact of the damage cap on ICs). In any other battle where a bmbr is augmenting an attack, and thus relatively free from loss, the expected net IPC damage is at least two (hit on inf), but can go much higher.
That being said, the average expected gain/loss often goes out the window when a key objective must be taken, or a well-timed SBR can support one’s overall strategy. However, buying lots of bombers and relying on SBRs to carry the day strikes me as a less than optimal strategy.
All this presumes a non-tech game. I think the OOB tech rules need some major re-work to keep the game balanced, and one of the big reasons is the huge impact of LRA, HBs, and paratroops - all of which greatly increase the utility of bombers.
@Trisdin:
I have a question about Italy…. I feel as though Italy has three options, supply and protect France, Attack Ukraine and Caucasus or invade Egypt and push into Africa. Is it possible for Italy to accomplish all 3 of these objectives and in what order of importance?
I don’t think Italy can do all three at once. Heck, sometimes doing one of them is a challenge.
The answer of which comes first depends a lot on what the Allies and Germany do. The first issue is whether the Italian Navy survived UK1. If they didn’t, you are pretty much stuck with reinforcing Europe until Germany and Japan can secure the Med.
If the Navy is alive, then Italy should almost always make an initial bid for Africa & TRJ to secure the Suez and gain an NO. What happens next depends on how strong the Allies press into Africa and how well the German assault on Russia is going. If the Russian front is going well for Germany, an Italian assault via the Black Sea can quicken the end. If the Allies are not putting up a big fight in Africa (which means they are probably pressing Germany and/or Japan), then feel free to pillage Africa for IPCs.
I beginning to think that Italy is one of the hardest countries to play well. It involves a little luck and a great deal of initial help from Germany and then Japan. The greatest challenge for the Italian player is to build a critical mass of units and IPCs so he/she can remain relevant for the rest of the game.
From the Allied perspective, I think pounding down Italy should be one of their primary objectives early in the game. If the Italian Navy is eliminated and Italy rolled back to 9 IPCs/turn, the battle for Europe can quickly turn against the Axis.
Interesting stats, but don’t think it weighs too heavily on what units one should purchase. Each piece has it’s particular pros and cons, and generally the higher cost (IPC to attack/defense strength) units have a special capability not available in a lower cost unit.
In a perfect world, I would like to go into a ground battle with a mix of inf, art, tanks, and air, because they each bring something special to the battle. Likewise, I think naval battles are best conducted with a mixed fleet. The reality, however, is that other considerations tend to skew the optimum attack or defense force. Many times, you simply have to fight with what you have on hand.
That being said, buying the cheapest unit that will do the job is not bad advice, but quite often the special capabilities of a unit matter as much, if not more, than the cost.
Rolls: 5@6; Total Hits: 55@6: (6, 6, 5, 2, 3)
Rolling 10d6:
(1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Even though it is historical, I don’t like closing off the Black Sea. Unless you make some corresponding change that helps the Axis, this rule is almost a complete give to the Allies by taking away one of the more relevant uses for the Italian Navy. Maybe a middle ground would be to apply a penalty to entering the strait (loss of IPCs, minefield that rolls on “1” like AA fire, etc) instead of closing it completely.
On the improved IC production, I think this is another change that hurts the Axis (particularly Japan) more than the Allies. Another option might be to limit, but not eliminate, the use of improved factories in low IPC territories. For example, allow factories in territories of 2 IPC value or less to increase production by one but don’t let them have the benefit of lower repair costs.
On a more general note, I think the whole tech structure needs to be re-worked. I like the concept of tech, but under the OOB rules, one lucky tech roll can effectively throw the game (i.e. Heavy Bomber to the U.S. on round 1). No tech should be that powerful. There are a number of different ways the tech rules could be modified, but I think it starts with an acknowledgment that the OOB rules don’t work very well if the object is to keep the game balanced and not dependent on a luck tech roll.
Tech: Heavy Bombers
Nation: Anyone
Use: Rule the world
I have found that it is fairly easy to get Japanese units to the Russian’s doorstep via Persia. What is more difficult to do is to get enough units there to be a real threat. Between attrition, taking territories to build income, and watching your back for the US, Japan can get spread real thin despite having perhaps the highest income of all the players.
Depending on how hard the UK fights, Japan can be in Persia on J2 if they want and have an Indian IC building tanks on J3. Unfortunately, Persia can quickly become a dead zone until Japan has enough force to hold it. And just because they can hold PER doesn’t mean they can take CAU right away. A lot depends on how effective Germany has been on their side of the front. Unless they are very lucky, I don’t think Japan can assemble a worthy attack force in PER until at least J7, and that is a long time in this game particularly if the US is making threatening moves on the Japanese territories in the Pacific.
Don’t get me wrong, I think BUR-IND-PER is a great way to go. But Russia needs to be pressured on multiple sides. Maybe some Japanese units coming through China (MAN or JAP IC builds), some coming from the south (IND, BUR, FIC, or SUM builds), plus some German pressure from the West. Otherwise, Russia can easily hold off any one of these fronts for quite a while.
So far, I am finding AA50 to be a very fluid game. What works in one match, may not work in another. A lot depends on the decisions made by your opponent, and how you respond to those countermoves.
There is a oft-repeated piece of military wisdom (variously ascribed to either Clausewitz or von Moltke) that goes, “No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.” Make all the plans you want, but be ready to throw the original plan away the moment it is no longer working for you.
I think there is another consideration regarding the optimum sub/destroyer ratio. Since transports can no longer be taken as hits to protect a fleet, I use DD’s not only for sub defense, but as fodder for battle.
It’s great to have a DD along with the rest of your fleet, but if a group of 2-3 enemy subs gets just one hit and you only have 1 DD and no BB along, then you have a difficult choice to make. If you lose the sub, you lose the protection against a surprise strike next combat round. If you don’t lose the DD, then you are giving up a more valuable ship. Of course, a sub could also be used for fodder, but for the extra 1 IPC, I’d rather have the DD. Also, DD’s can be fodder for aircraft attacks while subs can’t unless there is an enemy DD in the attack force.
So my general rule is that when I have a large fleet to protect with subs on the prowl, I always take at least two DD’s along, maybe more depending on the attack force I’m potentially facing.
I know this is a little off topic, but has someone created a “Big Pieces” bmp file that is compatible with Pacific? The one I use with AA50 scrambles the country designations on the AAP map.
Thanks in advance!
