Posts made by Panzer Leader

We have played full 6 player games with NOs, techs and VCs every game, both 41 and 42 set-ups and both sides have managed to win in 41 and 42, so it can be done. We have a group that is a little older, has been playing A&A since the early days and we like to think we are fairly experienced. we usaully play to 13 VC as this is a long enough game and usually takes 10 hours to play.

All of our games have been won with VC, and Capitals barely are ever taken, only if you play to 15 VC; at 13 the Allies do not need a Capital if they get all the rest, and even the Axis can do it without taking US or UK, but must take either Canada or Moscow. Usually the Axis win when Russia falls. Usually the Allies win when either Japan is reigned in and outta Asia, or when Germany and Italy are overwhelmed and reduced.

I actually really like the NOs, the VCs, and the Techs. The techs have not been a deciding factor in our games as it still comes down to the best strategies and of course the dice have to be kind. 8-)

@Adlertag:

@!ACHTUNG!:

Does anyone have any proven unorthodox strategies they want to share?

I have a russian strat I call the “Red Octobre” that I want to share. So basically when I play Russia I purchase 3 subs in Turn 1 and place them in the Black Sea, and after combat I land all my aircrafts in Caucasus too. So in Turn 2 I attack the Italian fleet with 3 subs and 2 planes. Usually this is enough to sink the Regia Marina, butt if the battleship survive, then some UK bombers will finish it off and land in Caucasus later.

The big point with this strat is to sink the Italian fleet as soon as possible, and the only way to do this is with russian subs. Now if you play a traditional Russia and buy infantry only, then Uk must buy a lot of bombers and try to sink the fleet themselves, butt that will not happen until turn 3 or 4, and then the UK bombers have no place to land since Caucasus will be occupied by Axis. So in you next tourney game just try this strat out, and I promise you victory.

Also wanted to mention that the subs in the Black Sea is a kick a** idea, because they are cheap, and the Italians have no destroyer, so they would have to purchase one on their first turn to counter, that is what I would do otherwise the subs get their sneak attacks.
Does this strat diminish the Russian front against the Germans? Where they able to take advantage?
I think I will try it to see, if nothing else the Axis player will be sweating and it may just screw them up with Italy. :lol:

@Adlertag:

Another unorthodox russian strategy that have served me well, is to purchase a carrier and place it in the Black Sea and land your two fighters on it. Now it is impossible for the Italian navy to successfully attack Caucasus in Turn 1.

Hi Aldertag, I am a little confused about this one as in 41 set-up Russia does not have any planes to start with I believe.  :?
42 I think has one, but cannot remember.  :?
Can you clarify?
The idea is intriging though.  :-D

From the games we’ve played it is apparent that the 41 set-up favors the Axis and unless the Allies player (s) are very good usually the Axis wins. I have found that each Ally has its own role to play to slow Japan while concentrating on Germany. I do not think you can kill Japan first as Germany would get too large if not kept in check.

UK should work on both Germany and Japan, and try to hold Africa, India and Austrilia for as long as they can.
US should concentrate on Japan for the first couple of rounds to get their Pacific fleet out there and challengingand make Japan thick twice of moving to far into russia, then switch to half Germany half Japan as needed.
Russia should get ground forces going buy lots of tanks and a couple of planes as you can to hold on and counter attack Germany to recapture your lost countries.
UK needs to come to Russia aid by T4 or sooner.

These strategies have worked for me in past games. :-)

So I would say no to KJF.

@Brain:

Countries should settle their differences over a game of Axis and Allies.

If only it could be that simple! Of course the looser would never comply in the real world.
But I like the suggestion Brain Damaged. :-D

@frimmel:

@Brain:

I agree with an eye for an eye.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

Of course, the man who turns the other cheek gets bruises on both sides of his face.

Of course I would select military and control targets if possible and not nuke innocent civilians. But there are always innocent casulties in any war.
Either that or I would send in elite forces to “cut off the head”, at the same time blanket bomb a path right throught the minefields and right into the Capital and then send in overwhelming troops to conquer once and for all and squash any chance of further transgressions.

I was watching TV at the time waiting to pick-up my wife at her work to go to our Lawyer’s appointment for singning the papers for our new home we just had purchased. I was thinking I was watching a movie or something until I actually realized that this was really happening, and then I thought it was just a plane accident, and then the guy comes on saying the second tower just got struck by another plane, then the Pentagon got hit, and I thought it was going to be WW3 starting and the world was going to hell in a handbasket, and here I am buying a brand new expensive house. I did not know what to think. :-P
On a side note has anybody else seen that American 20 dollar fold-up that shows the towers on fire, oshama, 911, the Pentagon on fire as well, etc. That is actually pretty creeping. :?

From my personal experience PC is more flexible and supports more games and programs. MAC is great for media programs and programs of that nature. For example we use PROTOOLS which is a music recording studio program and MAC rocks for that. PC studio programs like QBASE, etc, are not bad, but not as awesome as PROTOOLS.
PC also as mentioned already is upgradable, MAC is not.
My PC is already 6 years old but will still play any brand new game as I bought the top of line (at the time) Ahtlon 3.2 GHZ processor with 1 GB RAM and 256 MB 3D video card. If I was to upgrade the mother board, RAM, etc, it would be fairly reasonnable cost wise and then would have an up to date machine. So PC in a way is a better bang for the buck, but it does depend what you are doing with the computer. Games, e-mails, business and Internet, PC is the way to go. I have owned PC’s since they first came around and have only had a few virus issues, mostly with WIN 98 OS system. If you have a good anti-virus program you do not have issues. At my work we use Avast with XP OS and we have never been infected, so it actually works well. It can slow the PC down a little bit when first opening the Internet Explorer or Outlook program, but that is the only drawback. :-)

North Korea probably has only a few nukes (if that). They are still in their nuclear infancy. They do not have an Intercontinental Balistic Missile to deliver the nuke, so they are limited to Japan or South Korea as targets. Would you bomb your cousins right next door to you and radiate your own soil because they have a different political view? I do not think so. I know they despise Japan, but they would be no match against Japan and it’s allies. Therefore, if they decided in their grand wisdom to drop a nuke on anyone, they better do it as terrorist strike without taking responsibility, or they will be blasted back to the stone age by the rest of the world.
If I was in charge and that happened, I would not hesitate to retaliate, an eye for an eye. :x

Gibraltor should be taken but not on T1. You need your German transport and therefore should not sacrifice it. I load it on the non combat move and move it to Italy’s sea zone and drop them in Lybia. If UK leaves its plane on Egypt them you go all out Egypt with Italy. IF they move some of their forces including the plane then you go after both Jordan and Egypt leaving the German transport unprotected, as long as the plane cannot hit the transport. Only UK bomber can hit it and they have to land on Gilbraltor. If they do this then you take out the bomber next turn. Sacrificing the transport for a bomber is not a bad choice. Itlaly can then take Gilbraltor as it becomes available without chance of retalliation. Also, if you move a couple of German troops (tank and guy) over to Italy on T1, they can then load on the transport on turn two and go through the Suez and hit below Egypt combined with the tanks on Lybia blitzing and take out the remaining UK force, leaving two guys on South Africa. :-D

I like the idea of a Brazilian IC, but to me it takes away that needed money for the Pacific. I
n my opinion the US should buy a Pacific fleet on turn one. UKs T1 moves it fleet from Australia to the Solomon islands and then US moves its ships to Solomons as well. Turn two they move their new purchased fleet to join the Solomons or move the whole thing to Carolines if availble. This puts immediate pressure on the Japanese right on turn 2. This is more important then Africa which will take several turns for the Axis to capture all the territories if played correctly by UK. UK can even hold the southern Africa countries if played they move back from Egypt.

So I would say an IC in Brazil is not a necessary thing. I agree with Octopus that Eastern Canada is a better way to bring across troops to prepare for landing.

@bongaroo:

@Panzer:

In one game UK bought a IC on India and actually managed to contain Japan for at least 4 turns before it was getting tough. They then moved some of Egypt forces over to India to re-inforce. By that time USA had been buying Pacific fleet from the beginning and had moved its fleet out to challenge Japan, so Japan had to turn around to counter US. Japan did get huge but they took too long getting rid of China and were not able to secure India, so they were not able to concentrate on Russia and eventually the Allies gained the advantage.

That sounds like very weak or inexperienced play on the Japanese players part.  Japan should have no problem taking India in turn 2 or at worst 3, even with the UK building anything there.  Germany and Italy should be having a good old time if the UK is sinking money into India and not forcing Germany to protect against landings.

Actually we have very experienced players that have been playing A&A for a long time. We have almost all the different versions, AA50 being our favorite. UK brought over some of the Africa and Australian units for help to hold India. Japan goes first and they went after Philipinnes, Hong Kong, and China first, so on UK’s turn they figured they could hold it and brought a couple of planes over to help. US moved its fleet to the Caroline inlands by the end of turn two, so Japan was threaten already there as well. We always tend to go for the jugular when we play.

A matter of fact we just played another 41 game last weekend where I was the Axis, and I actually was not able to take India until turn 5, which ended up being the turn the Allies conceded. On turn 5 Germany managed to roll 17 tanks into Moscow and take it. A screwed Russia up by sacrificing all of Italy’s forces on turn four to take Byelorussia, so that at the beginning of turn 5, I could blitz my tanks through right into Moscow.
That actually was one of my best games as the Axis. It is actually hilarious because on Germany’s first turn I purchased an AC and a destroyer, one tank and one canon. Germany went all their forces against Baltic States and took out UK’s fleet around UK, and that was their turn. On Italy’s turn they purchased two tanks and took Ukraine, Jordan and Egypt. On Germany’s second turn they purchased another AC, a sub, two tanks, and one infantry, and hit Karelia with everything that could reach and captured it. Russia had brought everything they could into Karelia and bought two guys there also, but were not able to hold it. They did not have enough to take it back and Germany was able to hold on to it. Germany T3 they bought all tanks and moved those to Baltics on turn 4. Germany also bought two tanks on Karelia every turn after owning it. So by end of turn 4 there was 17 German tanks ready to “blitz” to Moscow throught Byelorussia from Baltic and Karelia. Also on turn 2 Italy bought all tanks, turn three they bought an AC and plane. On turn 2 UK came out and took Norway, they thought they had enough to defend against the German fleet, but I decided to attack all out against the UK’s fleet on turn 3 and managed to eliminate the fleet and Germany had two loaded ACs left only with a transport. On turn 4 Germany loaded that transport and moved down to Gibraltor and took that, then on Italy’s turn 4 I moved their fleet out to join the German fleet for a total of three ACs loaded, 1 battleship, and 2 cruisers, by this time the US had built an AC fleet at Washington and had three bombers and two planes. He decided to hit my combined fleet. He rolled badly and only hit twice on the first round, whereas Germany hit all his pieces on the first round and eliminated the US fleet and bombers as well, only losing a cruiser. Japan hit US fleet on turn 4 also and wiped out pacific fleet wiithout losing very much. So at the beginning of turn 5 Germany takes Moscow, Africa completely belonging to Germany, China done and India gone, and with my two massive fleets (Atlantic and Pacific) the Allies conceded.
It was a beautiful crushing. :-D
Japan can concentrate on India but must do so right from the beggining ignoring China somewhat, but every game turns out different because of counter moves. 8-)

@coachofmany:

They built the carrier “Graf Zepplin” 70% finished.
The Allies were watching but new that it would not complete and did not waste the resources on it to destroy it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

Thanks coachofmany, you learn something new every day. Seems like they could have finished it but never did. Might have made a difference if it had been ready when lauched.

Cheers. :-)

First off I like to say…SgtBlitz you crack me up, those are some hilarious statements, and I can agree with your frustrations. :-D

Emperor_Taiki makes a very good point. :-)

Omega and johnnymar also make very good points. :-)

I second that Amen to IL. 8-)

One of the new adders for the AA50 that I really like that did kinda address the “unrealisticness” of ther game compared to real history is the addition of the victory cities. With them you do not actually have to attack all out everywhere, you can selectively attack the victory cities and win that way. It also shortens the game because it does not go until one side is gone. We beat the Axis in 41 set-up as the Allies because Japan went too far into Russia and the US and UK came in from below and took the victory cities in Asia and won before Japan could counter in time. Japan was pissed because they actually had way more troops but overlooked their rear defenses, thinking they were safe. :lol:

So Japan can be vulnerable if they over extend themselves into Russia. It is up to the Allies to read the strategy and counter to smarten Japan up.

Just thought I add my bad luck story to this post to make you feel a little better Captain Crunch. I have a friend that is the luckiest mother****** you could ever play against.
I was playing the Allies in 41 set-up and he already had me in a bad position for the first 10 turns, I managed to hang on by a thread and eventually started to turn things around. I decided to attack France with UK for my D-Day invasion and came in with 15 infantry, 4 tanks (all I had at the time) and most of my planes (5) and bombers (2) , as he had a 10 infantry, 1 tank, 1 AC and 1 plane there defending. So he rolls for his AC gun and rolls five 1s out of a possible 7 planes and basically wipes out my airforce. Then I roll for my 15 infantry, my 4 tanks and my remaining two bombers, and I only manage to hit 5 times with all that, and my two battleship shore bombardments also both missed as well. Talk about bad rolling. Then he defends and hits 7 times out of 10 infantry, hits with his tank and his plane, leaving me with 6 infantry, 4 tanks and 2 bombers. After the battle was done I had 2 infantry, 4 tanks and 2 bombers left. On his next turn he wiped out the rest and takes back France. I felt like quiting right there, but managed to battle though and eventually he conceded when Germany was pushed to the brink by US taking out Italy and UK capturing Poland on the same turn.
So the moral of the story is hang in there and you never know what might hapen. :-D

@Gargantua:

Come across the Line to Canada, where we will show you how to play :p

This is an open invite to anyone who dares to Travel to the Vancouver area of BC.

Good to see a fellow Canadian on here.

If anybody is ever in Calgary, we’ll take you down town to China Town. :-D

We are A&A fanatics and don’t fall easy. 8-)

@Funcioneta:

@Panzer:

I did things a little differently: For starters I bought mostly all men and a few tanks, no planes or anything else until several turns latter

What are doing the japs against that strat? If they are wise, they can annoy USA’s rear by rogue landings at Alaska, a full Polar Express buildup or even a early surprise attack against WUSA with their 5 starting trannies and 6 starting planes. A tank rush in Asia is valid also, Japan is quicker than it seems and can reach Africa sooner than west Allies if ignored. Japan can buy bombers and SBR USSR and maybe even UK until stone age (in this game Japan is uber-rich for some strange reason and can afford that more than USA)

I think you are forced to buy surface ships as allies, even with a ignore Japan strat, so I guess you mean buy 1 round of defenders and trannies and later buy only land units for the suck

In one game UK bought a IC on India and actually managed to contain Japan for at least 4 turns before it was getting tough. They then moved some of Egypt forces over to India to re-inforce. By that time USA had been buying Pacific fleet from the beginning and had moved its fleet out to challenge Japan, so Japan had to turn around to counter US. Japan did get huge but they took too long getting rid of China and were not able to secure India, so they were not able to concentrate on Russia and eventually the Allies gained the advantage.

In another game UK bought an IC on South Africa and on India on turn one and bought all tanks on both for the first 6 turns. These were enough to hold Egypt and India. UK also flew a couple of his planes over to add to it. They were not able to concentrate on Germany as much but they eventually got to Europe in time before Germany could defeat Russia.

In yet another game UK tried just the South African IC and it worked also but India fell before US could get there. Russia was in trouble for a bit, but with luck managed to hold on as UK did take away Finland and kept hitting Karia and Balkans as Germany would take them. Russia managed to take back the countries right beside Moscow and after about 10 turns the Allies started to gain momentum. Most of Russia’s troops and tanks were kept in Caucausus. I never bothered fixing the Karelia IC when it was bombed, that way Germany has to fix if they capture.

In any case it is difficult and Russia is the key, because if they fall the Axis is on its way to victory.

I believe that USA has to buy fleet and deal with Japan and UK has to be the deciding factor in keeping Russia alive by stoping all three of the Axis countries advance as soon as possible and countering there moves. UK has to buy ships when they can depending upon what is left from T1.

If the Allies get a little luck on T1 they can make a good go of it. If they loose everything the Axis can hit on T1 they will loose if they cannot recover quickly.

@Brain:

Keep your stick on the ice

Are you a hockey player?

Yes, well I actually played hockey with a league for 7 years, but have not been playing much of late, getting a little older now. Its a well used Canadian saying. :-D

Germans still make the best tanks according to alot of experts.

That is one of the reasons the Canadian Forces purchased 100 new Leopard 2 MBT tanks in 2007, and 20 2A6M Leos also to add to their growing total. i like the 120mm gun now available on them.

Other countries that have purcahsed Leo 2s and have alot of them are: Greece, Spain, Turkey, Chile, Singapore, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Finland, and of course Germany.

So my choice would be the Leopard II. 8-)

Being a Canadian we always have an opinion on everything. :-D

In my opinion I believe North Korea is acting like a spoiled teenage child wanting attention.

Think about it. They have been isolated from the real world for half a century now and they want in on the world action but are not sure how to proceed to get the US to pay attention to them, so they threat nuclear to strike a cord and get noticed. The more US ignores them the worst it will get, but I do not believe they are going to be that stupid to actually start something they cannot win. The US will eventually come around to them and give them some the attention they want, and give their poor egos that little bit of a stroking they are longing for. The US is (right now) trying to smooth things a little (for Japan’s sake) but does not like being threatened, and I do not think they have much interest in NK either way.

I agree with frimmel that China needs the US too much and with a44bigdog on all three of his points as well. China has made too much headway in the last decade to destroy all they have accomplished over a north - south fued that is half a century old.

Once Kim dies and the north opens up slowly more and more to radio, tv and internet, its people will not want a war, but will want change towards more say and more freedoms and liberties, more like a Chinese democracy.

Thats my two cents worth. 8-)