Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. pokemaniac
    3. Posts
    P
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 4
    • Posts 23
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by pokemaniac

    • RE: Game 4 Finished Uploaded to You Tube

      @Oddbjoern:

      Attacking Spain is always suboptimal as it delays US for at least one round.

      With the US you can pretty much decide between a defensive or an aggressive approach. IN the defensive you go with 8 transports and in the aggressive you go with 7.
      US has 20 IPC and cant move for the first 4 rounds. This means you have 80 IPC worth of units that you need to plan for.
      Defensive:
      8 transports, 56 ICP + 8 inf, 24 IPC = 80 IPC (You start with 6 inf and 2 art) -> 8 transport with 14 inf and 2 art.

      Offensive
      7 transport,49 IPC + 1 inf, 3 IPC = 52 IPC -> You have 28 IPC to buy heavy hiters with (needs to fill 5 spots), perhaps, 1 art, 3 tanks and 1 plane. -> 7 transport with 7 inf, 3 art , 3 tanks and 1 plane.

      As most of your buys with the US are transport, you might as well buy those the first rounds so you can wait to decide if you wanna go offensive or defensive. In all my games so far US has been forced to go defensive in Italy.

      Your statement that attacking Spain always wastes a round isn’t necessarily true.

      Transports only cost 6 IPCs in this game meaning that you can buy 8 transports for 48 IPCs. That leaves 32 IPCs which if you want pure offense (optimal in most cases) can be 5 art 2 inf and a fighter for a grand total of 8 inf 7 art and a fighter. This force will have at least 51 pips (and a 50% chance of having 53 pips if the coastal shot misses), not to mention you should probably have the 66% chance of a bombard hit. It’s not a guarantee to be a one round battle by any means, but the most likely outcome is a one round battle.

      Assuming that the US doesn’t need to buy any warships to deal with purchased German navy (which shouldn’t happen in a normal game), I like to hit Spain as a base of operations and a great income boost. If you wipe it out in one turn, it should pay for your losses in 3-4 turns. That income is also crucial to upping the US shuck from 6 units a turn to 8 units a turn. I wouldn’t say that Spain is a requirement, but unless Rome or Paris is in grave danger (and neither should be on turn 4 in most games) it helps the US do significantly more damage in the long run.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: ANZACS in European theater

      The big issue is ANZAC effectively producing at Persia. In any game ANZAC is extremely vital in wearing down Japan. The US can can-open destroyers screens and allow ANZAC to get through to take islands or attack small Japanese navies, and ANZAC ships and air are also crucial to the defense of the US fleet. Even if the US goes 100% Pacific, if it gets virtually 0 support from ANZAC (which will be the case if ANZAC is building in Persia) it will be hard pressed to advance on Japan.

      Even ignoring the value of ANZAC’s units against Japan, the biggest problem is that ANZAC just can’t build well at Persia. If ANZAC is going for a Persia factory, they are going to be making 12 IPCs a turn after Japan declares war since they won’t be trading islands. That is 3 ANZAC mech in Persia. ANZAC units can only help to defend UK stacks, as opposed to UK units which can be used offensively as well. ANZAC also can’t afford to build 3 fighters in Persia ever, unlike the UK. Those fighter builds are often crucial to holding Moscow, while also giving the UK a lot of flexibility in the Mid East.

      The UK can just build a factory in Egypt, but planes there take 2 turns to get to Moscow which can really be a problem.

      In short I just don’t see any benefit in taking away a prime factory location from the UK and giving it to ANZAC who can barely make 3 cheap units a turn there. This also of course essentially removes ANZAC from the Pacific theatre, where it is sorely needed.

      Brazil is the same concept. ANZAC Brazilians can’t really be used offensively anywhere, unlike a US or UK controlled Brazil. Plus it is sending ANZAC transports a long way from the front that they are most effective on.

      ANZAC planes in Europe could be helpful, but by the time they could get to Europe it is unlikely that they’d have much to can-open and they would be spending a useless 3 turns or so in transit as opposed to 3 turns being used against Japan in some fashion.

      Nice ideas, but I find ANZAC to just be best used to pester Japan and defend Australia if needed.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Allied Strategy of Kill Turkey First

      Starlight Sniper, per the official errata for Axis and Allies 1914:

      “While it remains neutral, the United States is not considered to be either friend or enemy to any other power, and it may not move land or air units out of the United States of America (including onto transports) or attack Central Powers sea units.”

      Since it is very unwise for Germany to bring the US into the war early (unless you are playing with house ruled unrestricted submarine warfare rules), the US will not be in the war until its 4th turn. Per the quote above, the US cannot load transports until its 4th turn (or whenever it can declare war) so the US cannot reach Istanbul with loaded transports until US turn 6 in pretty much every game.

      On the bright side, the US is completely unnecessary in a KTF strategy. The British should just spend all of their income in India (except maybe a transport or 2 in the Atlantic). If they do this they will have the Ottomans turtled in Istanbul by turn 7 or so and can begin the assault sometime around turn 8-9. I doubt that the US troops could do very much to the Ottomans other than maybe force them back to Constantinople a turn earlier.

      ColonelKurtz: Using just the OOB rules and the official FAQ, my experience has been that a full KTF with Britain is the simplest path to a win for the Entente. It is my opinion that the simplest way to balance the game (without any really crazy rule changes) is to find a way of forcing the UK to spend in the Atlantic rather than 100% in India.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: How to do a G3 sealion with good chances of winning

      I’m not convinced that Sea Lion is impossible to pull off in global in the right circumstance, but your Sea Lion attempt is not going to go well.

      I am unsure if you are counting on losing virtually your entire air force in your turn one attacks, but if not, that is exactly what will happen. If I’m UK I am doing a max scramble into 110 without any doubt as well as scrambling the Scotland fighter into 111. In Low Luck, the UK will likely lose no planes if they max scramble (they might lose the Scotland fighter, but if they did the Battleship would definitely survive) while Germany will lose all planes that attack 110 and 111, leaving them with an air force of at most 4 planes (with a 1/3 chance of losing one in 109 and a 1/6 chance of losing one in Paris).

      The gist of my UK strategy would be 9 inf turn 2 in London. Do a Taranto sending only the bomber from london, while sending a destroyer and the gib fighter to kill 96. African and Indian forces do standard stuff. Stack all UK units from London except 1 AA in Scotland. This means that Germany will have a 0% chance of attacking either London or Scotland (and the UK won’t lose any planes if Scotland is attacked). Scotland can be attacked by 6 transported Germans plus only 3 planes (2 tac and a bomber, the only other surviving plane from turn one is in N. Italy and not in range) and a Cruiser+Battleship bombard, while it is defended by 12 UK units, thus the 0% chance. On UK 2 I’d probably build max infantry or maybe 8 inf and a fighter (unless I was bombed by the Bomber and took damage in which case I’d build as many inf as possible, which would probably be 9 inf). The UK will haveThis will give Germany a 0% chance in low luck and a very, very low chance in dice of taking London.

      If Germany retreated from the scrambled naval battles they might fare slightly better, but they will still take catastrophic plane losses, and retreating will allow both UK battleships to survive, meaning that Germany will have to fight through a solid sized UK navy in 110 if it wants to take London. They’d also run the risk of being attacked in 112 on UK2 (they couldn’t be in 113 because the UK could just block 112 and block the Germans from landing).

      My recommendation to this strategy would be to be more conservative with your air force and commit the German battleship to 110. Maybe that would make it more viable. As is, Germany can not afford to trade 5+ German planes for just UK ships on turn one in any game, especially not a in a Sea Lion game.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: New Strategy for Allied Win

      My initial thought, which hasn’t been addressed at all, is: how is the UK gonna protect London? In your strategy they are putting 19 IPCs minimum a turn into Egypt. What does that leave for London?

      On R1, Germany is gonna see a Russia that is going aggressive in the East, but maybe ignores it. After R2 it is very obvious to Germany that Russia is selling out Moscow to try and crush Japan. At this point (after a G2 build which was probably all German fast), Germany might need one more turns worth of fast units for Russia, but that’s it. Thus starting with the G4 purchase, German can be putting at least half of its income at London. With a strong Italy also pressuring Egypt, I just don’t see how London is holding both VCs.

      Even if Germany is still sending units east, they can use their air-force to max bomb the London factory while subs convoy. I don’t see how the UK can possibly hold out against this onslaught. I haven’t played it out, but I’m really having a hard time imagining the UK (which is making less than 30 because of convoys and losing its NO) being able to hold out against half of Germany (turn 5 income somewhere around 60, but that will jump to 90 very quickly once it takes Moscow and the wealthy Russian territories) and all of Italy (making at least 25 since there are no ships in the med and they should have Gibraltar). Egypt probably falls before any Russians even get there, or if it doesn’t then London will fall sometime around turn 7.

      Japan’s air-force and fleet aren’t something that is going to go down easily either.

      Fun gambit strategy that would possibly work against an axis player that always goes G4/J4 and won’t be able to adapt effectively, but against a good axis player who will recognize that Germany can throw a lot of its resources against the UK I just don’t see it ever working.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Playing VC Rules vs World Domination/Concession

      knp

      Is it really wise to aggressively attack the US against full US spending in the Pacific? You said that this caused the Japs to be 100% eliminated (only owning Japan and no fleet) by turn 7. A J1 Japan with a more conservative approach (avoiding a major confrontation with the US fleet if the US is going full Pac) and just slowly retreats under their air umbrella while taking India and all of China, Japan can survive against 100% US spending until turn 7 or 8 at least (from my experience anyways). At this point they aren’t down to just Japan, they should still own a lot of China and maybe some of Russia) with their fleet either surviving (pushed back to mainland factories or possibly Japan sz), or wrecking havoc in the middle east and Egypt.

      Imo, Japan should never, ever be attacking the US fleet at W. US (unless the US isn’t respecting Japan at all and has nothing in the Pac allowing the Japs to become an absolute monster), but it sounds like this wasn’t the case). This majorly stretches their supply lines, and gets them away from their air power (their biggest strength).

      Bottom line, the Japanese have to mess up badly to be down to only Japan with no fleet (and I’m assuming little to no air force) by turn 7 (if Germany killed Russia, then who the heck was liberating all of China? India should never be that strong that early in the game).

      If US goes 100% Pac or close to it, I have had success (and seen success in other games) when Japan is conservative, forcing the US to continue to spend very heavily against them until at least turn 7-8 (in a J1 that is. If the US spends 100% against the Japs and Japan does a J3 or J4, Japan isn’t gonna last as long as if they do a J1). If Japan can draw at least 80% of the US’s builds until at least turn 8 (which I have seen them do with good play), it’s probably game over for the Allies if Germany is doing it’s job (taking Moscow sometime between G6-G8).

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: FAQ Misprint? UK Can't scramble?

      There are situations where a scramble makes sense. Often I see a Germany that sends too little to 111 and the UK scrambles. My rule is that if my fighter is likely to take out 2 German units (either 2 planes or a plane and a battleship) if I scramble it, then it’s worth the scramble. This is especially true because Germany is often just trying to strafe 111 anyways, and in that case the fighter just gets you an extra 4 pips into the battle without endangering the fighter. Also, the threat of scramble is also what protects the destroyer/transport in 109.

      Scrambling in sea zone 110 on the other hand is pretty much always a bad idea (even trading 4 German planes for the 3 planes on the UK would be a bad trade for the UK).

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Problems I am having with going KJF

      Not to nitpick ItIsLeClerc, but the incomes that you used to support your J4 attack are a bit flawed.

      In a J4, UK would be stupid not to DOW on turn 3, so their last turn will be 29 income, not 24 (and ANZAC will get plus 10 NO from a DOW on turn 3, although they get that for a J1 automatically so that’s mostly moot). Also, J1 is being done very wrong if Borneo isn’t taken on J1, which means that India will be reduced to only 9 income collected on round one. India could hypothetically take Sumatra, but in my experience India won’t sacrifice the transport to take an island for 4 IPCs and will instead send it west to Persia or Ethiopia (this just makes more economical sense, since it allows the transport to survive).

      So with those adjustments, India is actually making an extra 9 more income on top of the 25 you mentioned. That makes the total 34 IPCs, which is 10INF+1ART. That’s very significant imo, especially since India is probably gonna make more on UK5 in the event of a J4 than it will on UK2 in the event of a J1. Yes India will still be neuter-able, but if Japan waits to J4 they are not ever taking India unless they sacrifice most of their air force, which spells doom for them anyways. A J1 should allow for a fairly easy India take (with only ~5 aircraft lost) sometime around J4-J7 if Japan choses to take it. Another big advantage of a J1 is the destruction of allied units, namely the US ones at the Philippines and the British Battleship at Malaya for very little comparative loss. Still while this makes the J1 look good, I agree that those units don’t matter that much against Japan come J4.

      Other than India becoming virtually unassailable, I 100% agree with you. ANZAC doesn’t really make anymore income and US makes significantly less in a J4 vs a J1. That plus Japan being able to develop a solid income base in China and Russia could actually make J4 a much more favorable strategy than most give it credit for (myself included).

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Problems I am having with going KJF

      I am not as experienced as many of the other members on here, but I thought I’d share my thoughts since they’re considerably different.

      In my games Japan almost always attacks J1 (and imo this is probably the best axis strategy). In response, the US spends 100% of it’s income and units against Japan until the threat is neutralized. I think that we can all agree that the only way to completely neutralize Japan (the same as it was in real life) is to eliminate it’s fleet. With no fleet Japan can’t retake it’s islands or protect itself from convoy raiding, so even if it still has ~20 IPCs from Russia and China, Anzac and India and can easily liberate China and thus end Japan.

      I think a problem that a lot of people are having is that they want to destroy the Japanese fleet at all costs, without accomplishing the real focus of a "K"JF (never actually killing Japan) which is removing Japanese income and giving it to the Pacific Allies. Once the Pacific Allies (China, India, ANZAC) can easily advance on Japan alone, it’s over for Japan.

      So what is the flaw that I’m seeing in people’s strategy against Japan? They aren’t being aggressive enough in their builds, especially with the US and ANZAC. The US (even with ANZAC building full defensive fleet to augment them) will never be able to match the combined strength the IJN and the Japanese air force in this game. Maybe by like US 9 or 10 if they’re going full KJF they could manage it, but by that point Germany has definitely taken Moscow and is probably only a turn or two away from taking Cairo (if it hasn’t fallen already) and the game is over in Europe before the US has even reached Gibraltar.

      This means that the goal of a smart allies player isn’t to survive a full-on assault by everything that Japan can throw at them (which we all know is A LOT), but to pick Japan’s money apart and force their fleet to retreat to the mainland (and hopefully eventually destroying the fleet). But how is this accomplished?

      First, I almost never take the Carolines, let alone stack there. Two big problems, and a small one, with the Carolines that eliminate the benefit of more options over Queensland:
      1. The Japanese can move all of their air to the Philippines and that air has 3 potential landing spots (Marianas, Paulau, and Marshall). This makes it really easy to force the US to retreat.
      2. ANZAC isn’t defended. This really limits what ANZAC can do since they can’t really put any units in Queensland and have to worry about a potential invasion. ANZAC is (imo) the most underrated power and crucial to the success of the US in the Pacific.
      Small problem: In my games the Caroline Japanese units are just stuck there doing nothing, while taking the Carolines will cost a US unit or 2 (depending on what is first sent there).

      We all know that Japan needs the money islands to compete with the allies income-wise, and that they tend to base their fleet at the Philippines. What my strategy tends to start with is building offensively as the US. You still need some defensive elements, which I use Carriers for since fighters are so useful (I tend to have 4 full US carriers at Queensland by US5 (in a J1), but it’s whatever you need for limited defense). I use destroyers almost exclusively for blocking when I need it since I want to be attacking the IJN, not vice versa. That’s where the subs come in. They are the most efficient offense, and also provide beneficial trades as you can force Japan to trade destroyers for US subs, which is a great trade for the US. The US’s goal should be to do whatever it can to force the Japs out of the Philippines. Once this is accomplished, the navy should move forward (blocking if necessary) and continue to try to destroy the Japanese navy. Eventually the Japanese will be trapped and the US will be able to destroy them (which they should do even if it means mutual annihilation).

      Now something that I’ve left out at this point is US transports, but there is a reason for that. Many of you say that the US fleet is useless without a huge compliment of transports (like 8?) accompanying it. I strongly disagree. Since the US fleet is so easily block-able by Japan from the DEIs, they often can’t take any islands on their turn. If they US can’t take islands than those transports are wasted. Maybe after the Japanese fleet is destroyed more transports can be made to accelerate the Allies advance on the mainland, but until that point I don’t believe in extensive transport spending. The US starts with 3 transports, I tend to buy 1 or maybe 2 more and that’s it. ANZAC should be doing most of the island taking while the US focuses on the primary goal, destroying the Japanese fleet.

      What should ANZAC be doing during this time? Harassing the Japanese as much as possible. They should be building only transports (and units for the transports) and subs. A typical ANZAC build is one art, one transport, one sub (only costs 17, and ANAC should be making 19 from 10+5 for the easy NO+ 4 for Java). They should either own Java or be trading it every single turn, and picking off a lot of Japanese transports (Japan does not want to be building transports if it’s in an arms race with the US). Eventually ANZAC will probably want to build a minor in Queensland in order to produce more units (i.e. once they are holding Java and trading other islands/Malaya). If ANZAC can use it’s income to destroy an equal or greater amount of Japanese income (which imo can only be accomplished if they are trading with Japan instead of being defensive), it’s doing an excellent job.

      If ANZAC (and China while it’s still alive) and India is surviving (which if the US is going 100% Pacific, India shouldn’t fall), the US should be strong enough to force the Japanese fleet to retreat, and eventually destroy it. Now I’m not sure how well this will work, but I’m just curious to get some opinions on what seems to be a different approach than what some other people are suggesting.

      I may have no idea what I’m talking about, so I’d love some opinions on my overall strategy. Thanks guys.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Japan takes Panama

      I’m still not seeing any benefit to this strategy.

      Even if it achieves it’s goal of completely taking the US out of the war (it won’t fall unless the US player has no idea what they’re doing, it isn’t worth the crushing blow that it will deal to Japan and Italy. The best case scenario is the Pacific Allies being stalemated by Japan for a few rounds while the UK and Russia take on Germany and a shadow of Italy (no fleet means no threat of achieving anything). After a few turns the US will have enough land units to be completely protected from Japan and it will move to crush the small Japanese beachheads. Japan will gain very little economically while sacrificing tons of IPCs in South Asia. Not to mention the fact that it would be super easy to block Italy from Panama (or the Americas in general) using the UK or US ships. If Italy gets blocked then Japan is just stuck at Alaska for another turn and the whole strategy is doomed to fail before it really even starts.

      Without it’s air force in China/India, they will lose the ground war very quickly. Italy sending whatever remains of it’s fleet to the Americas will doom it with very minimal UK investment. This leaves Japan struggling to make it to 40 IPCs (which will be matched by India+China+ANZAC. The US will be reduced to approximately 60, maybe even less, but I just don’t see any threat on the US. If you’re gonna try attacking the US at home, might as well go for the all out attack that has been suggested before (basically the same as this strategy except Japan attacks a turn later and that is combined with Germany faking Sea Lion and then moving to Gibraltar to attack the US).

      Sorry to be so negative, but I don’t see this working on anyone but a complete beginner (<5 games played) and even then it’d be a strategy that is only semi-effective one time.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Germany playbook: overall strategy guide

      International law

      I’m not as experienced as some other players on here, but at first glance you are toast. By my count, Russia collected 70+ IPCs last turn and you aren’t really in a position to push them back, especially with the US threat to your west. Meanwhile, Germany is collecting somewhere around 45 IPCs and Italy is somewhere between 10 and 15. Russia also seems to have a stronger force on the border. USA will liberate London in a few turns because you will have to spend almost everything to protect the homeland from an angry bear. Once the UK is operating, if Russia is still in German territories, the Axis have lost in Europe and the US can go full pacific.

      Basically, if Japan isn’t ready to get a VC win in the next few turns, just throw in the towel.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Balancing 1914

      I like a few of the ideas that have been presented so far.

      1. I like how WILD BILL organized his thoughts, so I will copy his method. (Imitation is the best form of flattery)

      2. First I’ll say that I have no experience playing any tournament rules, and I feel like 2 move units could seriously throw off game balance with too many other changes, but I’m open to 2 movement and the unit set up changes (although I really don’t like the African ones, really just removes almost all the action from that theatre and adds a lot of luck into it (i.e. the 50/50 possible battle in South Africa would have massive implications on IPC values depending on how it went) and it also removes a lot of possible early earnings for the Germans. I understand that the movement change necessitated removing all those troops though. I also don’t really like the addition of the brit cruiser into sz 9 because it basically means that the only safe German strategy in the Atlantic is to send everything possible to sz 9 on turn 1, and the results of that battle would majorly impact the game. While some kind of change was needed in the Atlantic to partially make up for the loss of the French Battleship, I like Colonel Carter’s setup change of adding a German sub to sz 3 and a brit cruiser to sz 8 instead of sz 9. This would give the Germans even more round 1 naval options, and also help preserve more subs to convoy in the future. In case Germany proves too strong in the Atlantic, I would add an American Cruiser too. This would go with the idea of Germany doing much better at sea until the Americans really got involved.  I do think that the extra movement from the tournament rules will help our goal of adding more strategies to this game, and the other setup changes (besides the naval one that I talked about above) are necessitated by the new movement. I would still say no to the naval base movement because this almost entirely favors the Allies (the US only needs 2 transport fleets to drop every turn into Picardy which is ridiculous, and it also does things like allowing the UK to get extra transports to India in 3 turns).

      2a) I really like the idea of expanding USW as WILD BILL describes it, so that it includes the Med (sz 16,17,19) and all sea zones bordering Canada and the UK. The total list of sea zones for convoying the UK: sz 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,16,17,19; and for convoying the US: 1,2,7,8.

      2b) I might have been a little ambitious with two phases of Submarine Warfare. Instead I agree with bolstering USW by making submerging subs more difficult to destroy as suggested by Colonel Carter and WB. I think that requiring a 1 would be too much, but requiring a 2 or less to hit would be pretty good. I would also add that subs shouldn’t be able to hit submerging subs because as is was mentioned subs were pretty much blind underwater, and undersea sub to sub combat would be pretty ridiculous. These changes would make Cruisers much more enticing for the Allies, because they would be the most cost effective way of destroying subs (which would also make historical sense, because I don’t think the dreadnoughts were going out on sub-hunting expeditions).

      2c) I would definitely favor doing 1 damage for a roll of 1-2 or 2 damage for a roll of 3-4 for every sub. The tournament rules way is just too weak to make a major impact.

      2d) I really like the idea of Germany being able to mobilize 1 sub per turn in the Adriatic. There is a historical basis for this and it would give the Germans more options with sub purchases.

      2e) I think plane scouting for submerging subs is also a good idea. Planes can use their normal movement to move into a sea zone, and use their scouting ability to allow naval vessels to hit submerging subs at their normal combat values (so Cruisers can fire at a 3 and Battleships at a 4, but subs still can’t hit enemy submerging subs). This could encourage the UK (or USA) to spend a little bit of money on planes to hit the subs more easily.

      2f) As far as early US entry due to USW, I like the 3 strike approach. Once 3 damage has been done to the US, it can declare war. The US can also declare war if 10 IPC damage has been done to the UK, which would reflect the unavoidable loss of US life or goods that would result from many UK ships being sunk.

      2g) WILD BILL I also like the idea of adding convoying to the victim’s (US or UK) purchase/repair phase. This would ensure that subs would get to do at least one round of convoying to the power before said power had a chance to destroy them. This would also open up more choices for the Allies because as you say France would have to think about clearing sea zones for the UK and UK/France for clearing for the US.

      3a) I find the idea of 1st round neutrality interesting, but I think it is just making the game a little too complicated and would necessitate more set-up changes (such as moving navies around in the Med) . 1st round Italian neutrality (until their turn) would really help Italy out, which might be necessary if 2 round movement causes the capture of Italy to happen too easily, but I think we should try playing a few games before making such a big balance change (because Italy would be able to get every single one of their troops on the Italian peninsula into Venice before it could be attacked). IMO 1st round neutrality for the Ottomans makes them a little too strong since the Trans-Jordan attack is pretty much a must for the UK round 1 to protect Egypt.

      3b) Adding minor powers is really unnecessary and makes little sense regarding the scale of the game. How would Bulgaria be worth the same as Ruhr? Italy feels minor enough and they start with 14 IPCs, let’s not make any powers weaker than that.

      1. Changes to the India rules are unlikely to be needed with the new USW rules that we have proposed in both this thread and the India one, but if we need them I like WB’s idea of limiting the number of units produced to the value of UK territory touching sz 29 with a minus 2 if the Suez is lost, but a minimum production limit of 4. With all the other balance changes I doubt it will be necessary to raise the cost of units in India, and as I said in the India thread, India had at least as much industrial capacity as the Ottomans and really more since the UK could ship in heavy equipment. If you want to remove India’s ability to build certain units, you’d really have to do the same to the Ottomans.

      2. If the CP are still too weak on the ground in Europe, then I would start by adding an inf+art to Hanover. If more is needed then add another combo to Berlin. I don’t think these extra units will be needed because of 2 movement, but if the CP need more units, these two territories are the best place to add them.

      Summation of my proposed changes from FAQ and OOB:
      1. Expansion of USW in the amount of damage it can do, the sea zones it can be conducted   in, and the time that it is conducted (during the purchase phase rather than the collect income phase).
      2. PTR 2 unit movement, as well as most of the setup changes stated except…
      3. Change the Atlantic by adding a German sub to sz 3 but a Brit Cruiser to sz 8 (instead of sz 9) and an American Cruiser in sz 1
      4. Allow the Germans to mobilize 1 sub per turn in sz 18 (off of Trieste)

      Possible other changes if needed:
      1. 1st round neutrality of some kind for Italy or the Ottomans (who must declare war on their respective turns in the first round)
      2. Limiting India’s production to the total value of UK territories touching sz 29 and the negative bonus for losing the suez.
      3. Adding inf+art combos to Hanover, Berlin, or both.

      Please feel free to comment on my ideas, I’m really trying to get a good balanced game for everyone to play without turning the game into something radically different.

      posted in House Rules
      P
      pokemaniac
    • Balancing 1914

      Alright guys, someone needs to take charge of the balancing effort of A&A 1914, so I guess I’ll try to step up.

      First a bit of a qualifier, I DO NOT WANT ANY RADICAL CHANGES! I am trying to make a balanced game using OOB rules and the FAQ only, so no PTR or map changes please. I really only want to add/subtract units or change rules that already exist (like USW).

      I understand that it was frustrating to go through the very long and tedious balancing that went into Alphas 1-3.9+ or something, but at least that long process gave us a fantastic game with tons of strategic options (which should be the number one goal of every A&A game). Even though the balance in Global isn’t perfect, the fact that a bid of 10 or less can balance a game with hundreds of units on the board is pretty incredible, plus I like the bid anyways because it can be used in different ways, which helps make every game different.

      There has been all kinds of talk lately (mostly by Flashman from what I’ve seen) about making massive changes to the fundamental rules of A&A, substantial changes to the map, new units, and more to balance this game, and while I appreciate the effort and the attempts at historical accuracy, I (and I assume many others are in this camp) just want a mostly balanced game that I can enjoy playing (and a lot of the posts about map changes and new units really belong in house rules, just sayin). Have we suddenly forgotten how we fixed other A&A games? We added or subtracted units and/or slightly changed some rules to fix the game. We never cared about the fact that it took an infantry like 4 years to get from Berlin to Moscow until this game came out, and we should continue not caring about this fact because limited movement is one of the central concepts of A&A, and the same goes for ship movement too.

      So, after a little bit of ranting, I’ll start by making a couple of suggestions that I think can be easily implemented but could seriously change the balance of the game.

      First, fixing Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. It currently is an absolute joke, but it was central to Germany’s strategy during the war and it is also an easy way to force the UK to spend at home rather than full builds in India. Making the warfare useable will require a slight naval rebalancing by giving Germany a couple more subs, and to make this change a little less impactful give the UK another Cruiser with either their home fleet or the Canada ships and maybe give the Americans another cruiser (which won’t be in combat for at least 3 rounds so it won’t have a large impact), but downgrade the French Battleship off Brest down to a Cruiser. After round one, Germany will look stronger in the Atlantic than normal, and most importantly it will have subs left, however Germany’s naval dominance would be unlikely to last once the US gets involved. It might also be a viable strategy for the UK (or even France?) to invest heavily in navy early in the game to prevent it from being convoyed, which of course would mean less for India.

      Submarine Warfare will now have two stages, restricted and unrestricted, with the idea being that Germany was still sinking British ships before they declared Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Regular warfare will always be in effect, but it will have less of an impact than unrestricted. Every sub in Sea Zones 2,7,8 (and maybe more sea zones) will roll for Submarine Warfare. During restricted warfare, subs will roll during UK’s collect income phase, and hit at a 2 or less. The amount of damage done will be subtracted from the UK’s income. For example if there are 4 subs spread throughout 2,7, and 8, then Germany will roll 4 dice. Let’s say they roll 2,1,3,5, then the UK would lose 3 income for that turn. This might not be a lot, but it is substantial and doesn’t risk US entry. Also the restricted portion implies that the subs will do less damage, since they would have to be careful not to damage American ships.

      Unrestricted Submarine Warfare will have a larger impact. Sz 1 will now be included with 2,7,8 as a sea zone that German subs can do damage from. German subs will now roll at a 3 or less and all hits will be deducted from the power that is collecting income (either the UK or US) during their collect income phase. The rule would work the same as before so the US would only be pulled into the conflict if it lost income to Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Clearly this warfare could greatly effect the UK’s or US’s income. If Germany invested in a few subs, coupled with the Austrians building a few ships, the allies naval dominance could seriously challenged without too much spending by the Central Powers, and the US would likely have to invest in multiple surface ships to retake control of the seas, meaning that their first landing force would be much less impactful.

      My other possible balancing idea is a lot less elaborate, but more in tradition with what has happened with other games. Basically I think that giving Germany a couple more units off the front line (ie another inf/art combo in Berlin or Hanover. Germany is likely the best Central Power to receive units because they are usually the ones that dictate an all out on Russia or an all out on France. Giving them even a couple more units could really alter their position for the better, but probably wouldn’t tip balance to far into the CP’s favor.

      That’s all I got. My favorite idea for game balance is my retooling of Submarine Warfare, because while I know historical experts will be angry about Germany potentially dominating in the Atlantic, I think that making the Atlantic a battleground is the easiest way to fix the game, because all US and UK reinforcements must come by sea. The reason most people feel the game is unbalanced is because the Allies have clear naval dominance and can easily build massive transport navies, and the mobility of these transports are what gives the Allies their large advantage in this game.

      I look forward to hearing from the community on this topic, and hopefully we can create some small changes to the game that make it much more balanced and enjoyable to play.

      posted in House Rules
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: India

      I love your idea WILD BILL, it is the best I have seen by far.

      The way I see it is that there are two possible solutions to the India problem, either make Germany slightly stronger in the west (slightly more naval, ground, or maybe some actually useable Submarine Warfare rules) therefore forcing the UK to spend money in the Atlantic because right now they really don’t have to since France can hold Paris even w/o support unless the Germans literally send everything they have to France (i.e. all of Hanover and Berlin go west) but this makes them just too weak vs Russia and I still am uncertain if they could take Paris. The other option is to limit India’s production in some way, and this is the option I will explore since it is easier to see the problems/benefits of various balancing ideas without play testing them.

      By playing out the game it is obvious that limiting India to 4 or less production for the entire game would make it way too easy for the Ottomans to take India, considering their income after taking some territory in the Balkans and the fact that they start with more units than the UK in the theater.

      However, something clearly needs to be done to limit the UK’s early spending in India, because otherwise any allied player with any sense will just buy 10 units a turn in India for a few rounds and completely overpower the Ottomans. I appreciate the attempts at historical accuracy like limiting/preventing the UK from building heavy units (art, figs, tanks) in India, but in reality India had about the same production capabilities as the Ottomans if not better considering that the UK could transport materials there from the homeland. I don’t want to alter the game board at all if at all possible, and overall I just want the changes to be as easy as possible (and maintaining traditional A&A mechanics, i.e. no infinite railroad, just balance the game with OOB, the FAQ, and a couple additional minor rules (like WILD BILL’s idea).

      WILD BILL’s idea would take some testing to see if the UK could still smash the Ottomans in the first 4 turns, but I doubt it since for at least the first few turns the Ottomans would have at least the same if not more production capability than India. This would also add some more strategic gameplay to the theater as both sides try to control the new production mechanic for India. Basically if the UK wants to cripple the Ottomans, it should take at least 5-6 turns of steady building before they can get the upper hand, and neglecting the Western Front for this long would have consequences, leaving the UK with tough decisions to make about their spending. It would be nice for the UK to have any decisions, because in my experience they should basically spend everything possible in India for 3-4 rounds until the Ottomans are backed up all the way to Constantinople, then either go for the kill on the Ottomans or start building a large landing force for France.

      The most important thing to remember here is that we are trying to add strategic options, rather than make the game even more strategically limited than it already is (this is what would happen if we completely limited India’s production to a small, unchangeable, number). IMO the best way to add options to the game is to make Germany a bit stronger somehow as I stated at the start, but I think that WILD BILL’s idea could certainly make the middle east a battlefield rather than a mass-grave of Ottomans.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Confused about UK split economy

      Hello Darkranger and welcome to A&A.com. I know I may not seem very qualified to be answering a question due to my post count, but I’ll give your question my best shot.

      The main reason for separating the UK into two economies is to prevent them from being too mobile of a power. With a Major factory in both London and India, The UK (And its starting income of 45 with potential to increase in Europe but lose in the Pacific) would just be too flexible.

      The UK basically has 3 territories that they really don’t want to lose, in order of importance: London, India, Egypt. If they UK is making more than 40 a round and can spend it anywhere, they can make a panic defense of London or India very easily (and Egypt but to a lesser extent due to the fact that it is lacking a major factory, and requires a minor one to be built). If the UK had the ability to spend both UK Europe and UK India’s money wherever in the empire they desired, they could play very flexibly, and this would be a serious disadvantage to the Axis.

      This combined income would end any chance of an invasion of London by Germany (Operation Sealion), which is a very real possibility in this version of axis and allies if the UK isn’t very careful. The extra few IPCs that the UK could spend in London instead of India would be able to stop this invasion, and if Germany spends all of its money for a round on transports for London but is unable to invade it, they have essentially wasted a lot of money that should be going to Russia. The threat of Operation Sealion is crucial to controlling UK Europe’s spending in the early game against Italy, and if the UK could just spend India’s IPC’s in London for a round, those extra 3 infantry or so would make Sealion next to impossible.

      The combined income would be especially apparent with India because it has a minor factory. In Axis and Allies Global 1940, India’s income will quickly be knocked down to 10 IPCs or less by Japan. However, if the UK was one economy, the UK player could continue building many units in India until it became impenetrable to Japan (which would probably only take 3 rounds of building 10 units a turn), and if Japan has no threat on India, it likely has no shot at doing anything in the Pacific. After this build up the UK would be free to use all of it’s income in Europe, or continue spending in India, depending on where it would be needed.

      The most likely UK strategy that would occur would be for the UK to spend all of its income in India early (except required land defenses for Egypt and London), which would completely stop Japan very early in the game if the US focused there as well, before transitioning its full force to Europe. The only way to prevent this strategy would be for Germany to threaten Sealion, which would of course easily be stopped because the UK would have too much money from the combined economy.

      The original reason for this split was because Global began as two different games as has been stated above so there had to be one UK Power for each game. The simplest way to combine the global game is to leave these two separate powers separate, but it is also probably the best for game balance and to give the game more of a “Global” feel rather than a Germany has to win really fast in Europe while UK and US smash Japan really fast and whoever accomplishes that first wins type of game, which nobody wants (because it really limits the amount of strategies that can be employed).

      I’m positive that my answer is way too long for this question :-P, but hopefully it is at least coherent enough to answer the question.

      Happy gaming :mrgreen:.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • Basic Allied Strategies

      So today will be my first game of Axis and Allies 1914, and I will be the allies. Only problem is that my friend has the board so it’s hard for me to study strategy before I get there, and I want to have at least a few strategic goals in mind when I first start. Got any tips for a first-timer (at 1914, im experienced with Revised and Global)? I know the new rules, just looking for strategy (ie what to focus on buying, where America and Britain should focus, etc.)

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Larry Harris: Strategic Movements Mechanic

      I read these forums almost weekly but almost never post unless I feel I have something important to say.

      This is straying from everything that Axis & Allies is.

      I understand the game is clearly broken and that a change like this seems like it’ll help the balance (though i doubt it’s enough), but at the cost of this games classic mechanics. Axis & Allies isn’t set to represent history other than most of the starting setup and the alliances. How many people did you see complaining that it took an infantry unit like 6 turns to walk from the Soviet Far East to Moscow in Global 1940? A turn in that game was 4ish months I believe. Sure in reality those troops made it back to Moscow in a matter of 2-3 months. That was a minimum of 6 spaces in the game, meaning that those infantry should really be allowed to move 12 spaces or so a turn and engage in combat. Clearly this is absurd as it is so different from the core rules that make up Axis and Allies, just like strategic movement.

      As a quick side note, I hope no one is considering the +5 naval movement, I don’t want US units being transported into Istanbul every other turn.

      I propose that we do what we’ve always done, fix a game that WofC didn’t bother to playtest. Everyone was complaining about Global when it came out, and while people are still bitter about the whole Alpha 1-3+ thing at least it made the game fun and enjoyable. I see this rule change as a cheap way for Larry to stop people from complaining for a little while.

      I’m open to change, but please try to use Axis and Allies mechanics, not Risk ones.

      posted in Axis & Allies 1914
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Need Ruling fast

      That’s not good :-o. I think i can still win though. I think that ruling doesn’t really make sense. A transport can’t amphib assualt without a surface ship to protect it. But a carrier has no offensive value so I didn’t consider it as an escort. We are playing total victory (no VCs) and Japan has killed the whole pacific except Anzac (i have Hawii and have destroyed the US navy). Germany is doing awful though. Anyways thanks for the fast ruling Garg.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • Need Ruling fast

      My friend and I are playing global and it’s pretty close. He wants to do an amphibious assualt on west germany with a transport and an aircraft carrier. I have a sub in the seazone he is landing from. Can he make the landing or does the sub just kill his units since they have no attack values.

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      P
      pokemaniac
    • RE: Battleship Bombardment

      Thanks for the responses. I found an axis and allies Europe 1940 that was a pretty decent price. In the future I’ll think about buying Pacific 1940 too although from what I’ve heard the global game takes way too long but I’ll try it. Thanks again for the help.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      P
      pokemaniac
    • 1
    • 2
    • 1 / 2