Posts made by purplebaron

@BasileII:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but USSR and Germany have around the same amount of IPCs every turn (depending of course on the NOs).
Germany: 30 at start+9 (at best) from France (6 of these at best on G1)+2 from Finland+2 from Yugoslavia (let’s say they take it). And a one time 17 IPCs bonus.

Over 3 turns, they have 30+40+17+43=130 IPCs

USSR: 39 IPCs every turn, which makes 117 IPCs

But every russian production is going to Berlin, which means, in my idea, that Germany is actually at an economic disadvantage against Russia. Plus, Germany is the attacking power, so the more it advances the easier for Russian drunk footmen to reach its armies.

Imagine if you build transports and CVs to attack UK. Maybe you could take it, but you will then look desperately at the russian juggernaught coming for your women.

You’re absolutely right.  Germany does have three advantages, though.  The first is that they have a more starting units (and especially more tanks, mech inf, and fighters).  Mech Inf and Tanks that attack France on G1 can make it back to support a G3 attack on Russia.  The second is that new production infantry from Moscow and Stalingrad won’t make it to the front line until R4, which means that for a G3 or G4 attack, you’re only dealing with on-board forces.  The third is the Pripet Marsh.  If you take East Poland on the first round of attack, you can then decide whether to go north or south for the second round of attack, based on which is less fortified, and there will be an extra speed bump in their shifting defenses to meet you.

I think there will be an interesting tension on the German-Russian front.  Because Russia’s income is so high in comparison with their starting forces (relative to earlier versions of A&A), there’s a real incentive to attack early (before G4) to catch them before they solidify their defenses, and to chew up some infantry before the stacks get tall.  Because of this, Russia may want to withdraw all but a token force from the front lines to preserve units, which will ironically give Germany the capability and incentive to attack even earlier.  If Russia pulls forces back on R1, I’m seriously considering a G2 attack.

@LHoffman:

Are you planning for the Allied player to be a moron?

That’s always worked out all right for me.  :-D

I’m pretty sure that you’re not allowed to enter even friendly neutrals.

If UK wants to buy naval units that are out of range of German fighters, their only non-Canadian option is SZ119 (which is still within bomber range of Norway and Normandy).  But, SZ119 borders Scotland (which is completely empty), not United Kingdom.  That means that if you don’t want to build up your navy on the other side of the Atlantic, you’re also going to have to drop another dozen IPCs on a Minor IC for Scotland.

Awesome.  Thank you.

I really like the “Strict Neutrals” rule.  Should make things quite interesting.

@LHoffman:

What does the US start with in Eastern US? If they have planes, they could fly them to Britain to reinforce it as well as they can… plus it would force Germany into attacking US units and thus bringing them into the war earlier… right?

Until the US is at war, it can’t move its units into even friendly territories, so US can’t help out.

@maverick_76:

I’m not sure what is up, but when I click on the photos to make them larger they stay the same resolution and size. Maybe it’s just me, I don’t know……

It’s not just you, it’s everybody BUT djensen.   :-D

@Imperious:

Sealion seems best attempted on G1, because you don’t know what UK will do if they are given another turn to survive. They may might buy all infantry to block.

I’m pretty sure G1 Sea Lion is impossible because there are naval units in SZs 110, 111, and 112, so there’s no way for the German transport to break through.

Sea Lion shenanigans aside, how does this sound for the first few turns.

1. After taking France and a few neutrals, Germany will be at an income of about 50 including National Objectives (say 30 starting, 7 for France, 5 for Sweden and Finland, 2 for one of those south-eastern European neutrals, one 5 IPC NO)

2. Starting turn 2, spend half of that (24 IPCs) each turn to buy two subs and a bomber at the Minor IC in Normandy/Bordeaux.

3. The subs and the bombers can threaten every SZ that UK can build into.  If you can clean out the UK navy in the first two turns, then you can start flooding subs into the open ocean, start attacking convoy zones, and force them to either build up a navy in Canada, or save for several turns to drop a supernavy all at once.

After studying the map and the initial setup, I think that although a G1 air raid on UK will be feasible, it will not be compatible with a G2 Sea Lion (and possibly a G3 Sea Lion as well, though that is harder to plot out).

Germany has 6 fighters/TACs and a bomber that can reach UK, and one fighter that can’t (Norway).  If you attack with 5 Fighters/TACs and a bomber, you expect 1 AA hit, and the battle will then be two threes and three fours against two twos and three fours.  Basically even, and expecting a mutual annihilation.  (Also, two of the attacking fours get degrated to threes when their matching fighter gets destroyed, so effectively they’re fours that have to get hit first), so that battle really is almost dead even.  Therefore, you’ll want to attack with all seven aircraft that can attack, getting reduced to 6 and winning while losing about 2/3s of your air force.  That leaves 5 subs, one fighter, and the Baltic Fleet to destroy as many UK ships as possible.  The Baltic fleet can destroy the Cruisers in SZ112, but may lose a cruiser to do so (~50%).  Two subs can destroy the destroyer and transport.  Three subs and a plane can destroy one battleship+escort, but the other Battleship and escort will survive.  They plus the carrier, TAC, and destroyer in Gibraltar can attack SZ112, which means that you can’t just load it up with transports, and if you build enough to defend that SZ (An aircraft carrier, landing two of your surviving planes is your best bet, which would let you buy two more transports), you probably don’t have enough transports to take UK on G2 if they build all infantry.

G3 might be doable, but the permutations get out of control.

I think, if you’re going to do Sea Lion, you’ll need to focus your air force on destroying UK’s navy, rather than strafing their air force.

I feel a little bit better now.

Political rules.  PLEASE!!!

The Sea Lion thing scares me.  I’m less worried about J1 attack because I think it will bring Russia into the war, which means that Russia will begin snapping up German territories in Eastern Europe before Germany can fortify them.  In that case, UK-Pacific will have at least one turn of boosted income from capturing some of the Dutch East Indies, which will give them enough to support Africa and still survive the Japanese attack.

Now I really want to find out about the political rules particularly in Global.  For instance, it would seem that Germany and Italy start the game at war with UK.  That matches history, and makes for a good start of UK fighting alone.  But it also means that the UK might be completely overwhelmed.  Elsewhere on these boards, we’ve seen compelling breakdowns of early attacks that have a pretty successful Sea Lion on G2 or G3 and the Italians capturing Egypt on I2.  Could the Axis potentially knock UK out of the war before US and USSR even really start the game?  Also, what about Japan?  If the Pacific political rules are carried over, does UK start the game at war with Germany/Italy but not Japan?  If Japan attacks the UK, does that mean Russia can attack Germany?  Is that the big disincentive for a J1 attack?  If UK can swing some of it’s Indian forces towards Africa for a turn or two while being safe from the Japanese, that could make things interesting in a whole different way.

On the other hand, what if Germany/Italy aren’t at ware with UK at the start (I know it’s a-historical), then attacking then on turn 1 would presumably bring US and USSR into the war, the biggest disincentive to that being that Russia could start gobbling up Eastern Europe before Germany is ready to defend them.  That’s the only thing I can think of that will keep what looks like a pretty powerful sea lion strategy from working or at least, make it not worthwhile.  On the other hand, if Germany can’t trim down UK’s fleet while it’s piecemeal on G1, then UK will start with a massive fleet.

As much as this game looks amazing, I’m starting to worry.  Sea Lion needs to be a valid strategy if UK isn’t careful, but it needs to be defeatable with a prepared UK player, otherwise we’re going to have a lot of games ending on turn 2.  Similarly, though to a lesser degree, the level of Italian forces arrayed to take Egypt on turn 2 don’t seem compatible with the “back and forth” that we’ve been promised in Africa.

I hope that this game is free of degenerate first turn strategies.

Please preview the political rules next.

The more I look at it, the more I think you’re right that Egypt will fall on I2, at least in Europe alone.  In global, I think the UK play will be (assuming no J1 attack, which seems to be the way of things):  UK1, use existing pacific transports to occupy DEI.  Build two new transports in India.  UK2, Transports in India bring 4 inf from West India plus maybe a plane or two to help shore up Egypt.  Without that, though, I don’t see how UK holds off the Italians.  Maybe the Gibraltar fleet has to nuke one of the two starting Italian fleets.

@LHoffman:

@purplebaron:

Further, the airbase is far superior to a carrier on defense because it acts as a force multiplyer (you have to be strong enough to simultaneously win the approach naval battle and the land battle).

Can you explain this statement a bit for me?

Sure.  Basically, in order for an attacker to amphibiously assault an island, they have to first win any battles in the sea zone, and then conduct their land battle.  Since moving into the sea zone is a combat move, the island airbase scramble rule gives the defender the option to scramble some or all of their fighters into battle in the sea zone.  The key is that the scrambling is optional, and that the attacker has to assign his units to the land or sea battle before the scrambling decision is made.  Here’s an example:

An Italian attack force of BB, CA, 2xtransport each with 1 INF and 1 ART attack Malta.  Additionally, the Italians have 2 fighters and a bomber to support.  Malta has 2 infantry and 4 fighters defending.  Without an airbase, this is an attack that should win with ease, but with an airbase, it becomes a chancy proposition.

Case 1: All of the aircraft are assigned to attack the island, then the defender scrambles all their aircraft to defend the sea zone, giving BB+CA vs 4Fighters.  That’s a losing battle, so the attacker retreats after the first round, probably having lost the CA and a hit on the BB, possibly losing the BB as well, transports are safe for the moment (unless UK gets really lucky with four hits).  The Italians most likely destroy one fighter.  Meanwhile, on the land, two fighters and a bomber attack two infantry.  They probably win in one at the cost of a figher.  On UKs turn, they counter attack the sea zone with three fighters against a damaged BB with two loaded transports that couldn’t unload (due to the aborted amphibious assault).  The UK fighters win, probably losing another fighter.  End result, Italy loses BB, CA, 2x transport, 2 INF, 2 ART, and a fighter.  UK loses 2 fighters and 2 infantry and holds the island for another turn.  IPC losses are 70 to 26.

Case 2: All aircraft are assigned to attack the sea zone.  UK chooses not to scramble, and defend the island.  Italy is attacking with 2 inf, 2 art, and two offshores vs 2 inf and 4 fighters.  One offshore hits and one inf or artillery hits (two if they’re lucky).  The defender gets three hits, leaving a single art for round 2.  Maybe it gets lucky and gets one more hit.  Most likely outcome is the attackers lose 2 inf and 2 art to destroy 2 inf and maybe a fighter.  That’s about even, but now there are three fighters that can attack your BB and CA and transports (and probably a bomber or two from UK), swinging the tide in UK’s favor.

Case 3: The aircraft get split:  This is where it gets tricky, and Italy can probably choose a split where it just barely wins whichever way the brits choose (I think 2 fighters in the sea zone and the bomber on the land is just about right).  Let’s try that.  If the fighters stay on the land, it’s the same as Case 2 above plus a bomber on the attack.  UK loses two more fighters in exchange for the bomber, still holding the island but taking about even losses.  If the fighters scramble, it’s BB, CA and two fighters (3 3s and a 4 plus a soak) against 4 fighters (4 4s).  Very close.  Round 1, Italy expects 2 hits, UK expects 2.66 hits.  If UK gets 3 hits, it’s a 3 and a 4 with no more soak against 2 4s, which is a slight advantage to the brits.  If they only get two hits in the first round, then the extra attacking unit means that the Italians probably win.  Assuming the Italians retreat if it goes badly in the first round, then the losses are CA+fighter or 2x fighter against 2xfighters, then they probably lose the Bomber in the first round in exchange for an infantry.  If the Italians win the naval battle, they probably lose two fighters and the cruiser for four fighters, then win the land battle handily.

There are a lot of choices there and opportunities for the dice to send things one way or another, so it’s hard to peg who has the advantage.  However, in the case of an attack, the Italians would have to choose Case 3, splitting their air force, giving the Brits (with an inferior force) the opportunity to choose between two different scenarios, each of which they expect to win while extracting roughly equal or slightly favorable unit value, and where even if they lose, they put up a good accounting for themselves.  Without the airbase, they expect to lose while taking most likely three land units and a fighter (possibly 2) for roughly 2 to 1 unit value loss ratio.

In summary, the airbase is a force multiplier because it forces the attacker to act as though the fighters are both on the land and defending the sea zone.

EDIT: Added Summary

Obviously, to each their own, but I personally can’t understand why anyone would be more interested in previews of unit sculpts than previews of rules or additional map detail.

Maybe it’s just me.

Here’s another interesting twist on the whole Med thing.  Italy can bring units to Libya every turn with a single fleet, but if Italy is trying to transport to Egypt or Alexandria, they need two fleets to deliver units every turn.  If Malta is fortified, Italy will have to invest a LOT of production to get two fleets that can survive the air strike.

@LHoffman:

While having an Airbase sure helps… it is not the same as haviing a carrier. Carriers give you far greater movement capability for your planes. Planes can be recovered anywhere as opposed to having to possibly return to the island. The planes also don’t have to waste 2 moves in taking off and landing on the island. While it would be better for Italy to buy a carrier or two… I can see where they may not need to… Depending on what range in needed. My point was simply that a carrier and an island w/Airbase are not equal.

In general, carriers have more mobility, but in the case of Malta, fighters can reach the entirety of the central and eastern Med.  They can reach the western Med too by landing on Gibraltar, and can assist UK land units in Africa by landing in Egypt.  Further, the airbase is far superior to a carrier on defense because it acts as a force multiplyer (you have to be strong enough to simultaneously win the approach naval battle and the land battle).

@miamibeach:

I think its a very strong possibility for Germany, and worth exploring.  It would however require a few things to happen:
1.  UK willing to send its RAF to other places such as Malta, Africa, or USSR.

I am very excited about the battle of the Atlantic, and do think it will be a viable strategy.  I don’t think that the RAF will be too relevant, because I expect the battle to be fought primarily with land based air and subs.  I expect the only German surface units will be the Baltic fleet, who threaten moving into the Atlantic more often than they actually do so.

It looks like there are several non-neutral territories that have zero IPC value.  I didn’t expect that.