Posts made by SubmersedElk

I blame Canada.

I’m 100% certain that I’ve got the terms correct. I’ve played an uncountable number of games of A&A with hundreds of opponents in several different venues and your comments are the first that have used the word “strafe” to mean something other than what I’ve described. It’s never been ambiguous, even when using it to discuss strategy with people I’ve never interacted with before. I’d wager that not one person on this board has ever heard of the term being used differently.

@WILD:

Lets face it convoy zones around UK are limited and hard to hit because subs can’t survive long enough to do damage.  If you make it harder to hit subs then the cost should go up to 7 IPCs.

If subs got to defend at 2, a price of 10-12 IPCs would be more appropriate.DDs cost 8 and haven’t any of the special rule benefits that subs have.

People would still buy them at that price, although they’d be used a bit differently and more sparingly.

Subs defending at 2 would be godly under this ruleset. The defending-at-1 rule is necessary because of all the special rules that benefit subs. After all, they’re the only unit in the game that can submerge, that can’t be blocked without a specific type of enemy unit present (that isn’t worth purchasing at all except to combat subs), or that gets a chance to kill an enemy unit and prevent that unit from firing back - and to top all that off, they’re the cheapest ship you can buy.

The only reason the destroyer is even a unit in this game is that there had to be something to counter the incredible power given to subs. If subs had to fight under the same rules as every other unit does, nobody would ever buy a destroyer.

If there’s any naval unit in this game that needs a boost, it’s the cruiser. IPC for IPC subs are by far the most powerful naval units in the game, and it’s not even a close contest.

I think the term “strafe attack” is in the original rulebook. Been using that term as others here understand it for over 25 years. It’s never referred to anything else, to my knowledge, and is not specific to air-only attacks.

Never heard of a “bleed”.

“Can opener” never refers to a strafe attack. It refers to capturing a territory so that an ally’s fast units can then blitz through it to attack the next level.

I’m afraid you’ve been using the terms wrong all this time.

When I play the balanced mod I ignore Vichy France, as I am quite convinced that Axis can win easily without the crutch and otherwise see no advantage for attacking Normandy in G1.

Logical assumptions can be tricky things. Is it logical to assume that Russian NO income off Italian Somaliland is the intent of the game designer? Given how specific the rules are in other cases, the lack of an exception for this case makes it logical to assume it was intended, no matter how silly the idea of Russian control over that territory might be.

if you want to work the cheese with that Russian NO, get a couple of tanks into Africa and it can be a gold mine.

In the realm of “stupid G40 rulebook tricks”, Russians getting NO income off Italian Somaliland and Tobruk is totally legit.

The port in Mexico is very powerful in theory and not all that useful in practice. If the US is moving fleet between theaters then the war is already won or lost; it’s a three-turn affair to get a fleet from one theater into play in the other.

@Gamerman01:

Still a good idea to make sure your opponent knows about this possibility before you spring it on him.

Since the main benefit of that gambit is psychological, you may be best off letting it come as a surprise!

If you send all the US starting air to Hawaii and build 2 carriers off west US, the fighters from Hawaii can attack Japan SZ on US2 and land on the carriers, allowing an attack that evades any DD blocker. Great trick for putting the hurt on a Japan whose navy went too far from home too early, especially in a J1 scenario where Japan does not threaten a J2 attack on Hawaii.

Given the cost of that strategy to the UK, I would call it within the spirit of the game. It’s not like it’s a game breaking element - it’s part of Japan’s job to account for it if he’s not willing to take that risk. That kind of stunt would set the Allies back the lost ship, plus 2-3 turns of US war income and unrestricted movement - minus whatever it set Japan back, which would have to be something of great value indeed to be a worthwhile play.

If an opponent wants to make a mistake you should let him!

If US is spending full Pac then Germany should be running wild.

Most of the opening moves are based on the value proposition of them vs. alternatives.

For example, in G1, Germany pretty much has to use those subs to attack, as otherwise there are multiple UK DDs and air which can easily wipe them out, and there’s no good place for them to escape to because UK harbors allow the DDs to reach anyplace the subs could go. The attack on the UK navy is straightforward - let that navy consolidate and the UK can dominate the Atlantic immediately, kill it off and the UK can’t do it at all until the US steps in to help. What else could the German air force do in G1? Help in Yugoslavia or Paris, perhaps, but those fights are covered without it. In addition, the typical opening combats are good deals materially for Germany, if you had that setup on turn 10 you would consider them to be solid attacks, no difference on turn 1.

The UK often does the Taranto raid for a similar reason; leaving the BB and cruiser and transport allows Italy to dominate the Med early, while taking them out often leaves Italy without any naval game at all. While the immediate material trade is not as good for UK as the G1 moves are for Germany, it keeps Italy’s income low, and that prevents Italy from mounting any sort of naval threat throughout the game as well as making the later US approach all the easier to pull off.

Japan moves for the money islands for several reasons. Japan needs much more income in order to hold its own in the Pacific when the US comes into play, and those islands are 3 and 4 income each, which is a lot especially in comparison to the mostly 1s and occasional 2 in China and southeast Asia. Since Japan starts off with a dominant navy, capturing and holding islands is the easiest route. In addition, Japan gets a bonus for holding all four of those islands, making them extremely valuable. Taking the islands also sharply reduces UK-Pac income, making its land war in Asia easier. Finally, taking and holding the islands separates UK-Pac from ANZAC and makes it more difficult for the Allies to coordinate against them in that part of the map.

Many of these opening moves are designed into the game, others develop because they’ve proven superior to alternatives.

However, they are not gospel, and if you can come up with something that is reasonably effective that an opponent is less practiced in countering, you may find an advantage in doing something else. But objectively, the standard moves have developed because against strong opponents they are the strongest openings.

Sending the damaged BB to SZ109 to get some air cover is about the best that can be done, but it still can’t survive if Germany wants to kill it in G2.

BB in 111 doesn’t repair at the beginning of its turn - no harbor in Scotland.

@wilk7011:

Can someone further explain the strategy of retreating the BB back to SZ112 during your attack on SZ111 or SZ110? I do not fully understand how it works. Also are you only retreating the BB or everything? I don’t have my rules to reference, can you retreat individual units out or is it all or none? Thanks for the help and info.

Ideally, you leave the UK with a damaged BB that can’t be protected from a follow-up attack on G2, and your BB retreats to SZ112 where it covers the trans/cruiser and any ships bought in G1 (usually AC, often also a DD/sub). BB+AC+5 planes (3 from scramble) makes it a poor choice for the UK to try to attack, leaving you with a fleet that can be used in various ways, either protecting Germany, setting up for Sealion, moving down to the Med, or moving troops through the Baltic. Since Germany really doesn’t have the luxury of buying ships past G1 if it wants to be successful in the attack on Russia, the fleet becomes an irreplaceable strategic asset. If it survives into G6, it can then form the core of a larger fleet (supplement with additional AC/subs) to be used more offensively.

@MR Z - Combat move has worked that way since the very first edition of A&A.

Yes all combat moves must be done before resolving any combats. “Combat move” is a phase of a turn that precedes “combat”.

@wilk7011:

Does DOW on J1 or J2 effect neutrality between the Soviets and other Axis powers? If Soviets still have to remain neutral until RD4 do you wait to attack Russia with Germany?

It does not, but IMO it’s crazy to wait until G4 to attack, it lets the allies build up too much. Allies will typically have 50+ production advantage well through midgame even if they’re not played well. Why give them more time to leverage it? The only reason to wait is to maneuver forces for a more effective attack, and it doesn’t take more than 2 rounds to do any maneuvers you can possibly think of. If Germany doesn’t attack by G3, you have a very timid Axis player who will probably lose.

Russia has 37 income before Germany attacks, and defensive builds are more efficient than offensive builds. Axis need to be pushing over 50 income worth of units at Russia per turn or its conquest chances diminish, and that’s not even taking UK fighter support into account.