Posts made by spectre_04

Im going to try it again, with a factory, just not until I am at war this time.

The only real advantage in using Alaska would be to allow you to build a small factory there (which you cannot do in Hawaii).  you would then need a naval base there to reach Japan in one turn.  I did this as U.S. during the first few turns while JN was mopping up china.  My plan was to build 3 transports or destroyers a turn in Alaska (you get to pick from 2 different sea zones to deploy in, which is nice)  and shuttle mech infantry and tanks from Western USA to invade Japan with.  The strategy was sound, but as was mentioned early in this thread, its a dead giveaway and not a surprise to the Japanese player at all.  He can easily put pressure on the U.S. by having a large invading fleet near the home islands up north and you might end up loosing and having to reconquer the factory and port you spent so much money on.  I think that it would help to have an airfield on the Aleutians so you could lodge your fleet there for some Scramble defense help from airpower, but you can do the same thing in Hawaii.  It does require Japan to divert forces from the south (Sydney) and block another sea zone to keep the homeland for being invaded.  Next time I do this strategy I will want to wait until the U.S. has the wartime economy and can plop everything down at once without having to worry about only having enough fleet to cover Hawaii/Western US or Alaska but not both.

IMO, and it looks like the thread would support this, The allies victory is a difficult and LONG road.  IF the allies are going to win, it will certainly take a few turns whereas the Japanese can force their opponent to concede fairly soon, even by turn 6-7 if they are crafty and lucky.

Cruisers need some type of bonus when attacking SURFACE shipping, perhaps being able to pass through anything but other cruisers, reflecting their speed in that only another cruiser can catch them and not destroyers or BB which are slower.

Oh, well then I like the big one cause, … its big, and the shiny one because its shiny, its just my favorite.

@ Uncle_Joe

You sound like you like playing as the Allies (USA) the best, just like me!  I always volunteer to be the USA player in every case (even though I don’t mind playing the other powers).

Anyhow, I would agree that Japan has way more planes to convert to the navy than the US.  I do usually buy at least 2 carriers for US aircraft to land on (You have 2 Fighters and 2 Tac bombers to do this with), but not until I have the Wartime economy going.  Also, like stated before, the CV is better as a defender and the USA needs to be aggressive, meaning lots of subs, destroyers, and bombers.

Correction, I do buy them as USA in AA50 when (if) I get improved Shipyards Technology, when they are only $10, and I try to pair one to a transport for amphibious assaults in the Pacific and Atlantic.

I sometimes purchase the Cruiser in AA50 anniversary edition as either the British or US but not as Japan.  It appears that so far the king of AA PAC40 is the Destroyer, followed by the 2 hit carrier.  Although the Carrier lost it’s combat ability, it was low (1) and being able to take 2 hits far outweighs this.  The problem is that the carriers suffer so much when they are damages, their planes are useless!

I really like some of the Ideas on here about giving the cruisers a bonus.  I think that 3 moves might mess up some of the game mechanics because of the Naval base move bonus in this game.  Same with allowing transports a defense role.

I like the AA roll Idea for a cruiser, that was actually used by the US in the War with the radar equipped Atlanta class Anti Aircraft Cruiser (it is reflected also in Axis and Allies War at Sea and the unit gets a bonus against aircraft)

The real purpose of the cruiser was as a commerce raider, to prey on hapless transports and be able to deal with their lighter escorts like destroyers, frigates, and corvettes.  It was built to be fast enough to outrun the big guns of battleships and not meant for Man of War style slug outs.  They did have some impressive night engagements off of Savo Island (Iron bottom sound) in the Solomans and did plenty of commerce raiding (axis) and shore bombarding (allies) in the Atlantic.

What about making them a 4/2 unit that still costs 12IPC’s but takes only one hit.

very true, but towards the end Japan has to do some blocking to protect the DEI, Victory Cities, or the Japanese home Islands.

It is great that you can’t block the carrier’s planes, but with this many SZ blocking is more of an allied tactic than a Japan tactic.

Last game I tried running with China, just backing up and blocking and eventually stacked 16 plus the flying tiger somewhere up in the North.  It did distract a decent amount of Japanese ground units.

AA42 is for beginners,
AA50 for the intermediate and
AA40 games for the intermediate/advanced or deluxe gamers.

I agree! :-D

I am gonna try a J1 or J2 attack tonight and see what happens.

Sobotai, Vareel, thanks, I will post on there soon, please let me know if you hear of anybody with art/illustration needs.

Here is my post
http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki/Forum#nabble-f1671093

I couldn’t stress the importance of DD’s enough in this game.  I think that their blocking ability and cheapness make them just as powerfull defensively as a loaded carrier is.  You cannot waster carriers each turn to block the enemy without bankrupting yourself.

Japan had the best trained soldiers individually, but Germany had the most effective troopers as per military doctrine ( in battlefield conditions). So for results with given equipment which was usually meager,the Germans faired best.

AS far as having logistical support and many tools to fight, the American soldier had the best of everything and was the most effective with what he actually had, ( which was alot more than the German or Japanese).

Soviets were not great fighters, but had some great commanders.

I have to totally agree with IL here.
As far as Pilots, Japan, Germany, Britain,and even Russia had very good pilots.  I think that the United States made the most of their pilots, the Japanese, Russians, and Germans flew their pilots to death.  This is really stupid because (although the pilots hated it) they can be better used back off the line to train the next generation of pilots.  Even if you have a great pilot (Red Barron/Richthoven is a great example) his number could be up anytime, any day.  Its better to pull off great pilots and make them instructors before they get killed.  I believe the Brits and other Allied nations also adhered to this principle.

For Heavy bomber, I am going to have to side with the Avro Lancaster over the B-29.  Even though the B-29 was more advanced and could out preform the Lancaster, it was almost too advanced and suffered early on from many malfunctions, this counts against it.  It was also not nearly as versatile as the Lancaster which had many variants including para drop resupply, airborne assault, heavy bombing using the Tall Boy bomb, Dam busting, incendiary bombing of cities, ELINT, Electronic Warfare, and Radar equipped versions to lead and cover the strike group.
Both were modified and used in Korea (the Lancaster as the Avro Lincoln)

For a Ground Attack aircraft, no question, the IL-2 Sturmovik.

Stilwell is a good one, namely for his bravery and fearlessness of death and capture (by the Japanese!)
Kesselring was a great commander and strategist, but he was a war criminal and murderer, so he doesn’t count.

I would have to suggest George Kenney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kenney

Joseph Goebbels, maybe he’s not underrated, but imo, he was a genius, a very evil genius, but there was no one on the allied side who could compete with Goebbels in the game of propaganda.

I think Hollywood, Walt Disney, Doctor Seuss ect, although not one mind like Goebbels, gave him a run for his money.  We had grannies and little kids making bombs and planes right here in the USA.

@Butcher,
I am sure you are correct that most of the Allied casualties were due to friendly fire, or related to the elements such as frostbite, hyothermia, and exposure.  I do remember reading that the Japanese fought very poorly, mainly due to being stranded on the inhospitable islands for so long.  They weren’t properly resupplied and when they attempted ressuply we sunk most of their supplies.
Lots of guys on both sides did freeze to death.  I am not an expert on the theatre (and you cannot always beleive everything on wikipedia either) but I have heard many historians compare it with the North African Deserts and South Pacific Malaria ridden Islands as some of the worst fighting terrain of the war.

Not to Dispute anybody, but the wikipedia article reports the Casualties in the thousands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign

as soon as one of you finds a good Allied strategy, be sure to share dat!!