Posts made by purplebaron

@Veqryn:

wait, so i can’t paratroop my guys to an EMPTY enemy territory and take it over, without also having normal guys attack it also?

Two reasons:

1. I’m sure that it would promote undesirable game play.  Just off of the top of my head (and without having seen the map), having an airbase in both England and Scotland would mean that without ever exposing a navy to attack you could threaten nearly every European coastal territory and many internal territories with a 4 (or 2) infantry + planes attack, every turn, forcing Germany to garrison every territory with a stack of infantry or risk empty territories being picked off right and left.

2. An infantry piece represents more than just the shooters, it is also the massive logistical tail involved in feeding and provisioning those at the front.  Paratroopers are more of a tactical than a strategic element.  They can be deployed behind enemy lines for only a matter of days or possibly weeks before they need to link up with ground troops and the supply chain.  The planes themselves are only dropping the “pointy end of the spear”, and aerial resupply is not a long term solution in the WWII era.  On the time scales of a single A&A turn, it would be impossible for airborne units alone to capture and hold even a completely unoccupied territory without ground or naval supply lines, which is what the requirement for a ground or amphibious attack represents).

@oztea:

The ol’ bait and switch.

Too bad infantry are twice as good on defense as they are on attack. Abandoning india would result in Japan just taking India, then use its massive airforce to suicide attack the West India territory, strictly to neuter the UK counter attack.

Holding India (-3 UK, +8 Japan) is so important that the sacrifice of the Japanese Airforce would be justified.

Ahhh, I had not considered that.  I think you’ll still be OK for one turn, as the first turn that they capture Burma, their planes will be out of position to capture West India.

So far, people elsewhere on the forums have identified several reasons while the India Crush will not be a valid strategy in Global (which is not to say that taking India won’t be an important goal, just that the headlong charge we’re seeing now won’t work as well).  Chief among those reasons are:

1. The UK will be able to support India with units from Africa/Middle East and production from the South Africa Complex.
2. The USSR can threaten northern Japanese territories (and also possibly shuttle some infantry directly down to India.

To these, let us add one more.

3. The India troops will have room to maneuver.  In AAP40, the UK troops have their backs to the wall (or the edge of the world, as it were).  In global, they’ll be able to step back to West India (not to be confused with the West Indies ;-) ).  The Japanese assault in the first few turns is a glass cannon–only a few land units with massive air power, lending them huge offensive capability, but little capacity to hold a territory.  By the time Japan is knocking on India’s doorstep, their income will be reduced to 4, so losing that income isn’t that big a deal.  If Japan goes full up India Crush in the first four turns, the UK can (even without extra units from Africa or support from the USSR) buy one or maybe two turns by retreating out of India and retaking it on their turn.  These extra few turns should make the difference in letting the Allied production catch up with them.

The poll didn’t have an option for “Me”  ;-)

@idk_iam_swiss:

Why is archangel important to the Russians?

Given that Germany has closed the Baltic to Allied shipping, and the Italian navy makes access to the Black sea treacherous at best, Archangel represents the best (only?) major port to receive Lend/Lease goods, while also being accessible to the USSR’s primary centers of industry and military concentration (e.g. shipping goods into Siberia doesn’t do anyone very much good).

@Frontovik:

why does defending fighter gets advantages? they already got their AA guns

Defending fighters get the advantage because attacking fighters get to concentrate on the target, while defending fighters have to spread out to cover every possible target.  If you both have 6 fighters, but the defender has to cover two ICs, the the best the defender can do is put three on each, which will match the 6 fighters that the attacker can bring to bear on either.

@Xayd74:

I also grab the phillipines and hawaii bombers and put them in australia (and put the WUS bomber in hawaii to later join them). I grab the phillipines fighter and place it in Malaya or Shan state. I also grab the two men on Hawaii and take them down to Queensland (and inf/tank on WUS and move them down to hawaii) to get the arms supply moving as fast as possible.

This is actually an illegal move.  According to the political rules, it is illegal for the US to put its units in a UK or ANZAC owned territory until the US is at war.

In every game I’ve played of every pacific or global A&A variant I own (which is all of them), I find that for both my opponents and myself, by the mid-game, all islands have been effectively gutted of troops.  Those land forces just seem to be too valuable elsewhere on the offense, capturing new territories and projecting power, to waste them on garrison duty.  My (and my opponents’) philosophy has been that if you can’t kill or drive off their navy, the massive firepower that those navies can bring to bear will make a mockery of all but the most prohibitively large island garrisons.

Nonetheless, as I was watching my opponent (for the Nth time) send unescorted transports ahead of the fleet to pick up some of the ‘freebies’ I had left around ungaurded, I began to wonder if building up to ~4 infantry on every economically or strategically important island would be worth the cost by forcing the US navy to similarly devote more money to land unit production.

If it works, it would be a nice change of pace from my typical strategies.  Plus it would be great aesthetically.  I’m not one of those (you know who you are) who insists that the game match historical patterns, but I appreciate the accuracy of the simulation when the game mechanics encourage historical behaviors (inherently, not by brute force).

Having finally gotten a few games on both sides under my belt, I was pondering some alternative strategies.  One thing I’ve found as Japan is that a large portion of my naval budget went to carriers, in order to leverage the massive number of planes you start the game with.  I was wondering.  Has anyone considered forgoing carrier purchases, using the ones you start the game with to grab territory then buying airbases for a few key islands and using those airbases as “fixed carriers”  Seems like it might free up a good chunk of change for destroyers and subs.

For those of you who want a swastika for the Germans, it will NEVER happen.

Two reasons:

1. In Germany, it is illegal for any company to print a swastika on any product or advertisement.  They’re very serious about suppressessing anything related to the Nazi party to keep history from repeating itself.  Therefore, WotC would have to publish two versions of the game in order to sell anything in Germany (possibly all of Europe with the EU adopting the laws of its member nations) which would not be economically viable.

2. It would be a PR disaster.  Some groups would protest and boycott the game, many more people would just be offended and not buy it.  Being a World War II game, the publisher is already skirting the line between historical accuracy and glorification of a war, a country, and its practices.  There is little value gained and much lost by blurring that line more than necessary.

Edit:  Completed truncation in item #1

@maverick_76:

How can China even have the money to buy artillery? Even if the road is opened, I only buy infantry because you are usually always on the defensive.

Defending as China is a losing game.  There is nowhere that you can make a stand and not be obliterated by Japanese air power.  Your best bet is to do your best to create dead zones and counter-attack the Japanese when they enter them, thereby avoiding their air advantage.  For these attacks, artillery are excellent.  I was using this to good effect against my opponent this weekend.  Eventually he just did an air-raid on my stack of 6-7 inf and fighter.  I rolled well and took out four or five planes, but it was still worth it for him.

@allboxcars:

OK so one of the primary things people want to see in AAE40 is more countries represented… usually their home country.

How about this for all AAE40 games sold outside of US, UK, the former USSR, Germany, China, Japan, Australia, Italy and France…

You also get a T-shirt.

“MY COUNTRY FOUGHT IN WW2
AND ALL I GOT IS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT”

Would that work for ya?  :-D

LMFAO

Well put.

@allboxcars:

Well I think there’s some gameplay value if boosting & re-defining Canada permits the fight to continue even if London falls.

A strong point.

If you were to have a separate Canada, I would implement it as separate units and economy, but moving on the same turn (as I suspect UK and ANZAC will be in the global game).  Still, that leaves some complications, such as which country captures a territory in a joint assault.

You do realize that by making Canada a separate power, you further divide UK’s strategic power (units can’t attack together) and economic power (forced non-coordination of builds), making for a weaker UK and Canada than they would be together.

There is a point (and I believe that this is it) where reality runs hard up against the limitations of simulation.

ANZAC is acceptible I believe because it’s on the other side of the world and being a separate power forces what was previously a monolithic UK to spend some of it’s income in the Pacific theater.  This organically pushes the game to more closely mirror history.  On the other hand, Canada will (pretty much) always be operating in the same theater as the UK, so making them a separate power just weakens both countries and adds clutter to an already complicated board.  Aside from national pride, I see no gameplay value to justify the added complexity.

The only thing more foolish than complaining about a game that hasn’t come out yet is putting in feature requests for a product that is already “in the can” as Larry has told us.

Nonetheless, here are my requests for AAE40:

1. Two baltic SZs (gives Germany a chance of keeping a navy around, without necessarily having to buy a T1 AC)
2. German-Russian Non-aggression pact like Japan-US, void on USSR turn 2 income phase
3. 4 SZs between US East coast and any UK-adjacent SZ (unlikely, but only way to have “Atlantic Gap” with ports)
4. 4 spaces of air travel from UK to Germany.  You need a staging point or LRA to strat bomb germany proper (still able to bomb secondary ICs, e.g. French)
5. At least 4 german subs at large in the Atlantic to start the game

I find myself unable to work and checking for leaks of the Europe map every half hour.  Larry, you’re going to have to give us a snippet, or you’re going to find yourself on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of myself and the countless others who have lost or will lose their jobs while frantically scouring forums for tidbits about the game.  ;-)

I never use them…

…because I’m never losin as Japan.  ;-)

No, seriously.  My general philosophy is to use them as soon as possible on targets of value, which is always a carrier, or sometimes another ship.  AAP40 is a game of balance.  If you’re close to even but starting to have the tide turn against you.  A few critical free hits may swing it back.  If you wait too long, the difference is not enough to swing an overwhelming wave.

Just thinking about the neutrality and war declaration rules and thought of something interesting.  If Japan is angling for a turn 3 attack, there is very little reason for the UK/ANZAC to not attack on turn 2.  Here’s my reasoning:

• Japan would be incredibly foolish to wait until turn 4 to attack (if they do, great).  Therefore, if they haven’t attacked on turn 2, you know it’s coming turn 3.

• If UK/ANZAC attacks on turn 2, then, what’s the worst that could happen?  Japan can attack you on their next turn (turn 3), without bring the US into the war.  But, they were going to attack on turn 3 anyway.  So, now we look at their attack.  Presumably, they’re going for maximum effectiveness in their attack, so you can expect them to hit UK/ANZAC, Dutch, and US territories.  If they do that, then the US still comes into the war, and you’ve lost nothing.  If they modify their attack, to not attack the Philippines, Hawaii, or any US naval units (and unclaimed Dutch territories? can’t remember) then the US won’t be able to make any attacks on US3, but will still get income and be at war thereafter.

-Best case:  you get attacks of opportunity on UK/ANZAC T2 at no cost
-Worst case: you get attacks of opportunity on UK/ANZAC T2, Japan modifies their plans to not attack any US (and Dutch?) territories or forces, and the US can’t attack on US3.

Obviously it will be situation dependent, but my guess is that 90% of the time or better, this will be the play of choice.

@RJL518:

Yes…u should go back to work…but here-here on your thoughts…there will always be negative people on these forums…but i applaud you sir on your thoughts…

As far as your questions go…i will let the KriegHund answer you when he gets to this post…

+5 Karma to you sir

Thanks

@Imperious:

The problem with this assessment is that the existence of a spell checker would fix such items. If they got chimps who can’t be bothered to install a simple checker for grammar and spelling… this is inexcusable. They even got typo’s on the box… come on. Anybody in the business of having a job called an editor must have such a program. I researched this Cal Moore guy and i find a pattern of this laziness in other things he has worked on.

On this, I have to agree with you.  Where automatic tools can be used, there really is no excuse.  The one exception is for ‘on the box’ typos, I believe that it is a sometimes common practice in graphic design to do text entirely graphically rather than as a text block.  In that case, your spellchecker cannot save you.