Posts made by TexCapPrezJimmy

@I:

Are subs now attacking at a 4 and I missed it?  Because when you say immediately sunk by Subs you are making an assumption that the Subs will score a hit first strike hit by rolling a 2.

They’re cheap so the idea is you’ll have a lot of subs. Four at two isn’t bad at all, especially when you can only hit ships (not planes). And oftentimes I’ll have numbers like nine at two (or nine at three with super subs :-o ) I’m interested in Germany buying subs, but I’m not sure that it can afford to invest in a navy. Each turn not spent sending tanks east is one more turn with USSR buying a stack of infantry. Plus, the UK can make things tough because it can drop destroyers in any adjacent seazone to the UK. This is quite different compared to Japan, which can only drop destroyers in a single sea zone. I have successfully pulled of a Pacific sub strategy against Japan a few times. However, it basically requires all of the USA’s attention.

@Cmdr:

If you had 100 AA Guns in 100 Territories all within 3 spaces of a different Industrial Complex, you could do 100 rockets worth of damage.

My understanding is that an IC can only be hit by one rocket per turn. I’ll go back and try to find it… Where’s Krieghund when you need him?

@Sime:

I recently upgraded to a bigger board, but before that I was thinking about using those thin business card sized fridge magnets (the kind that some businesses give away for free) to hold the board in place.  I was going to cut 6 of them in half and glue them to the back of the boards like in this diagram (the black rectangles are the magnet halves in case it wasn’t obvious).

I was then going to use 6 more (uncut) magnets as joiners, connecting the boards.

I think would help stop warping at the edges where the magnets are so you can easily slide navies or armies over those sections without having to pick up the navies/armies and place them on the other side of the edge.

Although I didn’t have a pretty picture, I had essentially the same idea.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12827.15

I’m not exactly sure how refrigerator magnets work, but in general when you break a magnet with a north and south pole into two pieces you get two new magnets (each with their own north and south pole). This is because there are no magnetic monopoles as a result of one of Maxwell’s equations $\nabla\cdot\vec{B}=0$. If refrigerator magnets work like this, then only half of each magnet that is cut in half will be attracted to the un-cut magnet holding the board together; the other half will repel. However, I don’t think this is how refrigerator magnets work. I think they’re made up of a bunch of little dipoles and your idea should work fine. However, might a rigid, thin strip of a ferromagnetic metal such as iron or steel serve as a better spine(s)?

@Cmdr:

How old is your operating system!  All new macs ship with Windows so they can definitely run Battlemap (or any DOS program out there.)

You could always run it in a shell as well if you have an antiquated Operating System like OS/Linux, etc.

Ok maybe I’m not SOL, but there’s no nice simple mac version I take it.

I have a macbook pro which has the intel chips. I’m pretty sure that all new macs ship with the ability to run windows, but they don’t ship with windows per se. I do know that some computer retailers sell macs with windows pre-installed.

I could partition my computer and install a windows OS (not free), but there are a number of reasons why I don’t want to do that. I could also run a virtual environment like Parallels (not free) but I don’t really want to do that either. There are also a few applications, like CrossOver, that allow macs to run some windows apps without partitioning, installing OSes, or running virtual environments. However these usually work only for a few applications (like Outlook) and I wouldn’t expect it would work for this.

Thanks for the response cmd jfr. I’m not exactly even sure what a shell is, I assume it’s a kind of separate environment. Just so you know, I’m not as technically literate as you, and diving into mac’s terminal usually results in me becoming frustrated.

I guess us mac people are SOL?

Buy all subs (6) and take Iwo Jima turn 1. Fly all planes to Hawaii. Swing at least one of those east coast trannies through the Panama…

Is there an After Action Bias? I mean, I would be more inclined to post on here after an inspired Allied victory then after a German tank onslaught. I’m not sure if there is any way to factor in that this is a self-selecting poll.

Title: Pacific Chess Match - 1941
Date: Evenings of 1/11/09 and 1/14/09 
Special Rules:  Technology - Yes / National Objectives - Yes
Victor: Allies- Player Concession (Japan contained, Moscow strong, Italy neutralized, significant allied IPC advantage) Does anyone actually play Victory Cities? We usually just go until it is clear one side will win.
Game Length:  6 Rounds
Bias: Scale-  Novice / Beginner / Skilled / Expert. I was the allies (skilled) and played against German/Italy (expert) and Japan (beginner). Honestly though the expert helped the beginner out heavily.
Description: The Allies successfully pulled off the bend but don’t break strategy. The USSR held Moscow from Germany in part because Germany bought too much infantry and artillery in the first few rounds. USSR built almost all infantry except for an occasional tank or artillery. The UK built all bombers R1 and took out the Italian fleet R2 thanks to an American bomber sacrificing itself in Gibralter to distract Germany from taking the last remaining UK landing space (Trans-Jordan). The UK then began Normandy invasions. USA spent almost all its IPC’s in the Pacific theater: R1- Consolidated fleet and built aircraft carrier/transport/destroyer/subs, R2- Take Iwo Jima and build all subs (for counterattack), R3- Take Philippines, build all subs and move fleet to Carolina Islands (between Japan’s two fleets but with destroyer blocker from main fleet), R4- spread stack of subs around Japan’s main fleet, R5- destroy main Japanese fleet (Japan terrible rolling). Game Over.

Technologies- The UK and USA invested 5 per turn the first two turns and that’s it. UK got Improved Shipyards R4 and USA got Long-range Aircraft R5. They didn’t factor in too much; the Allies would have won without the technologies.

Observations/Recommendations: I think that UK factories in India and S. Africa R1 may have been good for Revised but it is not good for AA50. If the UK invests in all bombers R1, it is imperative for the Axis to hold both Egypt and Trans-Jordan R2 so the Bombers don’t have a place to land. Japan looked good at first, but pressed into India and Asia too quickly and got caught with their pants down. Everyone seems down on subs, but I think they are cheap and sneaky; a solid USA pacific strategy can be built around subs.

@Stoney229:

But subs can make a non combat move into (but not through) a SZ containing an enemy destroyer?

Krieg, you say yes? This is contrary to my understanding. My understanding is that destroyers negate the special abilities of subs (first strike and submerging capabilities). If this is true then you are ostensibly moving into a hostile territory and not initiating combat. Is this an exception to a general AA rule? If it is an exception, where is it in rulebook or FAQ? (so I can point at it to my friends when I mess them up with a stack of subs)

Thanks for you help.

1. Is the “limit of 3 chinese unit rule” consider a) when determining how many units are created (purchased) b) after combat phase or c) after non-combat phase? (I think not answered, but I may be mistaken.)

2. In the 1942 setup, are the initial control markers permanent or is the original controller considered the paint on the board? (already answered, but answer was contrary to what I read in the rulebook.)

3. If you liberate a territory of an ally, whose capital is captured, you gain those points and can build in any factories that are in that territory, up until the ally capital is liberated, in which case the ally regains control. But what about just moving into a territory of an ally, whose capital is captured, where that territory has never been captured by an enemy. In other words, in order to gain IPC and be able to build in an ally territory, do you need to re-capture it or can you just move into it?

More questions:

1. Do non-IPC-valued territories (like Iwo Jima) count toward the UK National Objective if captured by an Ally?

2. 1 Sub vs. 1 Sub: How the heck does this work.

3. Wait, you cannot place a newly purchased plane onto an adjacent allied carrier? (Covered before, just double checking)

4. Wait, China can place units in newly captured territory? That’s crap. That goes against my natural A&A intuition.

5. I guess I just don’t understand the sub surprise attack EVERY round of combat. We’ve always played just the first round, and then it becomes like any other ship. I mean, after the first round, it’s no longer a surprise! Come on, that battleship is like, “You JUST shot a torpedo at me and missed, I know exactly where you are, you ain’t foolin’ nobody.”

Similar question, I think it was covered before but not exactly to my satisfaction. Can paratroopers retreat with other land units, assuming there were attacking land units from an adjacent territory? Or is it similar to amphibious assaults, where if you come by ship, you cannot retreat.

If it is the latter, I have a similar question to the above, since the units CAN’T retreat, are they FORCED to keep fighting? I mean, if I’m trying to “soften up” a territory, can I just have the poor guys kill themselves after a certain while, since I don’t want them to ACTUALLY capture the territory.

Sorry for the morbid post.

During an amphibious assault, can land units retreat to certain death? I know that they cannot retreat back to the transport or to an adjacent territory from which other land units attacked, but a) must they fight on or b) can they retreat to certain death. This came up a lot in revised when I was playing allies and I wanted the UK to “soften up” Sweden/Norway for the Americans. The reason being I wanted the USA to take it so they can build a factory, since they had the production capacity. I did NOT want the UK to take the territory, so I would attack, and then once I’d knocked out some german units (but not all), I could retreat the land units to certain watery death. Was this correct? Or are they forced to keep fighting, with the possibility of (accidentally) capturing the territory?

@J2004823:

Remember the flowchart I did before?

Maybe also add “attacker retreat” as a full box, with explanation of what is permitted and what is not permitted? Unless this is more detail then you intended with the flow chart.

TG Moses,

I like it. I will test sub-based strategies and come back to report.

@Perry:

The problem with subs , imho, is that they defend on a measly ‘1’.
That means that as soon as subs move into striking range of an enemy fleet, they will be crushed…

I think the idea is more of a defense, or deterrent. The subs would never be moved within range of a substantive attack (a dramatic limitation I know), but by placing a big stack (say just of a coast or over near Australia) then an enemy fleet would be deterred from moving within a radius of two of that stack of subs.

Now that I think about it, there’s an obvious way the sub stack can be neutralized. An attacking fleet would need only to send “leader” destroyers in front of their main fleet (one space between sub stack and main fleet) to prevent a sub attack on the main fleet. The subs would have to retreat because they don’t defend at all.

Well, it was good while it lasted.

@Woodstock:

Is that better then “it didn’t work”?
Pleas elaborate on what went wrong.

Personally, I can see where you are aiming at, but just subs are easy to ignore for Japan IMO. Just make sure you have 1 or 2 Destroyers in your Japanese fleet, and the subs become pretty much worthless, whilst Japan is island hopping or heading for Africa.

Well I only partially committed to it. I spent resources on other (more expensive) things in the Pacific and then couldn’t get my act together in Europe. When I play again I am going to see the effect of a full commitment to sub-deterrent strategy.

I see your destroyer point, but I guess my point is a big stack (think of 12 total after a few turns) would have such cannon fodder that most destroyers would be hit first round or so unless a) they bring a ton of destroyers (great, not spending money on mainland) b) they take hits on ships other than destroyers (fine by me).

Anyways, it was just a thought.

In another thread someone mentions buying lots of subs on the West coast and spreading them all out around the pacific, forcing Japan to buy lots of destroyers and really wrecking havoc. (see link from Admiral T above)

@Admiral:

I bought primarily fighters and submarines. I sent the submarines every which way, while my surface fleet (supported by lots of fighters) slowly but surely made its way to the islands. The Japanese were severely overwhelmed with submarines threatening both their main fleet and their transports from all parts of the ocean. They had to purchase lots of destroyers and disperse them throughout the Pacific to counter this submarine threat, which if left unchecked, would have spelt doom for the primary Japanese fleet in a combined American submarine/surface fleet/ air attack.

I like this way of thinking. People have been down on the subs, but I think they are key to any successful Allied strategy. I like the disruption that a bunch of Pacific subs would cause. In another thread I posted how a stack of subs on the coast would actually serve as a good defense. The idea being, any ship wanting to attack a coastline (thinking pacific theatre here) would need to move within two spaces of the coast the move before. But if there’s a stack of subs on that coast, WHAM, subs attack before the fleet can amphibious assault. They only hit ships, and after the destroyers have been hit, planes can’t hit back. I guess it’s not so much a defense as a deterrent. But, compared to aircraft carriers and fighters, a relatively inexpensive deterrent.

SUBS!

They are cheap (6 IPC’s) and they attack at two. Forget the first strike special ability, the key is they can cheaply deliver a big punch to ONLY the boats in a fleet! Each turn buy 2 or three on the west coast, and spend the rest on the Europe campaign. You can even mess with Japan’s head by moving the sub fleet up to Alaska. Sure, Japan is going to dominate and get their production but it won’t be able to bring any pressure to the USA or Alaska because if it brings its fleet within range of striking the coast, it would then be in range a mess of subs. Wham! All of those pretty little aircraft carriers with two planes are toast (plane don’t hit subs). Hit the aircraft carriers (defend at 2) and the planes fall in the sea (assuming no Japanese territory within 1 space, of course).

Now I know what you’re thinking, Japan just brings along a destroyer and the planes defend too. Yes this is true, but if all of the destroyers are hit the first round, then all future rounds the planes can’t hit (I believe). That sounds like a battle where you would want it to go for multiple rounds. Hmm, what do you do to extend a battle for multiple rounds? Cannon fodder! So just make sure you have a lot of subs (cannon fodder), heck they’re cheap.

Then once something productive is up and running in Europe (axis fleets neutralized and shuttle running like a well oiled machine) then you just add a few ships and bombers to the Pacific fleet and send them out on a disruption mission in the Pacific (never moving within two of major forces, otherwise they defend like crap).

The motivation for this idea is that splitting the USA’s IPC’s evenly leads to an axis victory and devoting all of USA’s IPC’s to one cause leads to axis victory. So, here is a way to spend the majority of the USA IPC’s on Europe (helping the UK keep Africa, distract Germany from USSR, limit Itay’s IPC’s by messing with the Mediterranean) while essentially stalling in the pacific. Then, when you’re done, you have the starting of an excellent attacking fleet (no expensive aircraft carriers and whatnot).

What do you think? I partially did this strategy yesterday and it almost worked.  :wink: If this has already been covered I apologize, I’m new to the board.

Am I correct in saying that Chinese units can only be placed in territories that were under Chinese control at the beginning of China’s turn? That is to say, they cannot capture a territory during the combat phase and then immediately place a unit in the newly captured territory.

Also, can China build in a China-controlled Japanese territory?

Do China-controlled Japanese territories each count as “1 territory” in determining the number of units to be placed? That is to say Japanese territory IPC’s don’t matter to China.

Determination of how many units is before combat phase, correct? Any territories acquired during the combat phase don’t count toward determining the number of inf. built that turn.

Finally, I’ve read something before in this thread but I just want to make sure. if I have two Chinese inf. in a Chinese territory. And I have 6 territories at the beginning of China’s turn (3 inf. to build), then I will be able to place all three inf. in the territory that already has two, making a total of five? Is there no limit to the number of units that can be placed in a territory? This is contrary to how I have been playing, and I just want to make sure.

I apologize if any of these are redundant; I just got on the forum and haven’t read everything, yet.