Posts made by theROCmonster

@simon33:

This strengthens the Allies far too much.

You might be right, but as it stands right now this board is a complete joke IMO. I only play LL games, as I hate making a good move and getting screwed by dice, and in LL the axis are just ridiculous. The European side of the board is just too easily defensible for Germany and Italy.

Try going all land purchases for Germany 2-6 and then land in Ukraine/Leningrad and bombers at home. Italy builds 2 mechs first turn and then builds all land. This way Germany doesn’t have to use much to defend the homeland other than planes. Italy is the defense and Germany is the offence. Japan after turn 1 just builds 80% fleet/air and 20% land. Stall US for as long as possible, and in LL it takes 7 rounds of full buys in the pacific for US to be able to really do anything vs a competent Japan. It’s too strong and I don’t think the normal bid system really works because the allies make relatively too little compared to the axis. That is because the axis don’t need to protect massive amounts of transports and have great strategic positions, like German planes in West Germany, and Japans fleet off Philippines. Germany can just slow roll Russia and make the Moscow attack an absolute blowout around turn 9 having 30-60 ground left. All these ground, plus 9 units built a turn in Russia, then pour south to take Egypt. The allies strategic position is too difficult to for them to mount a good second front early enough to stop this play. Remember that around turn 9 Italy will have over 40 land units in Europe defending Southern Italy and Western Germany.

I propose giving a giving each Allied player, except China and France, a technology to start the game, and then tech would be closed for the rest of the game. Each countries technology would be:

Russia: Advanced Artillery (Artillery can support 2 infantry units)

United States: Improved Shipyards (Cost of transports, destroyers, and subs reduced by 1, and the cost of battleships, cruisers, and carriers are reduced by 3)

United Kingdom: Radar (All Anti-Aircraft fire is increased to 2, up from 1)

UK Pacific: War Bonds (Roll a die at the end of your turn and collect the amount rolled)

Anzac: Increased factory production (Minor Industrial complexes can now produce 4 and Major Industrial complexes can now produce 12)

The average “guaranteed value” this bid gives is +14 IPC’s every turn. US will save anywhere from 8-12 a turn with Shipyards and UK pacific will get an average of 3.5 more IPC’s than normal because of War Bonds. The Russian tech is a decent buff. I still don’t see how Russia can ever counter attack a German force though. The UK Radar bid will make it easier to defend against a possible sea lion, and makes defending Egypt and India more feasible. I don’t see the Anzac tech doing much, but I do recall games where I wish I could build 4 units.

The reason the only landing spot that works is Spain is because Germany’s threat projection from his 12+ planes makes having to protect two sea zones from possible attack hopeless. Also US needs to be sending 18 ground over a turn. That is 18 transports needed for the shuck from East US to Spain, 9 off Spain and 9 off East coast. To land anywhere else throws off your shuck really bad, and there aren’t any other good “staging” areas on the map. Say you want to take Norway and hold it. You would have to have at least 10 ground troops. That is 5 transports that you’d have to defend, and then you’d have to defend it with your entire fleet, making the defense of your other transport fleet really difficult. Not only that but Norway is a million miles away from the US and you have to defend two sea zones to make that shuck work.

After Germany takes Moscow, around turn 8 or so, he can easily build 20 ground units a turn in West Germany/Germany to defend. If you haven’t been stacking Europe with guys already you have no hope of overcoming Germany’s defenses.

This is why Global is so broken. US can’t really do much In Europe other than land in Spain and shuck back and forth. You can’t do this shuck in global because Japan will surely win in the Pacific.

Add a new transport unit.

Large transport:

Cost: 10 IPC’s
Stats: 0/1/2
Special ability: can transport 3 infantry or 1 infantry and 1 other land unit

No one starts off with one. This would help the allies out a lot more than the axis, but won’t be broken like an 8 IPC transport would be.

Also can we somehow change the bomber attack to 2 instead of 4? Would be a lot more realistic, and would change the amount of support ships needed to defend the transports, such as the sea zone outside Gibraltar. Also Germany’s attack on Russia would be slightly weaker.

That’s understandable. If they changed bombers to 2 attack than the way defense rules work on Strategic bombing runs would be fine. Have Strategic bombers be used for bombing more than threat projection. They still can have threat projection because of their range, but they wouldn’t be the god unit they are now.

I’d recommend 2 transports 2 destroyers. The destroyers will help you keep the allied subs at bay, and later on can help you have two seperate fleets against UK’s airforce that will be in India. Two transports are the perfect amount to pick up the remaining units that will be in Japan after turn 1.

You could also buy 3 transports and a destroyer. This depends on your opening move and your later transport movements. If you intend to move your starting transport in 60 down to 36 the first turn and then want to take India the next turn you will need 3 transports to maximize your moves.

If your opponent bid a sub for UK and destroyed your carrier, battleship, and two planes you should always build 2 transport 2 destroyers. If he killed your transport destroyer than you can do either build, but you should never build a factory turn 1. This is just too risky and transports can do the same job better in the early game.

Honestly I think it would help a lot with game balance if Strategic bombers attack was reduced to 2. That would alleviate a lot of the stress the allies have in the Atlantic, as well as helping Russia when defending Moscow, and also it would help UK in the Med. The Strategic bomber was never built to attack navies or Army groups. The reason it was made was to attack Infrastructure and Cities. I am fine with the bombers get +2 on their roll in bombing missions, but maybe defending fighters should roll at 2 instead of 1 since they are in their home territory. Has anyone heard of home court advantage? Also the fighters defending would have much more fuel than the attacking fighters would, so they could maneuver more freely, and stay in the fight longer.

Why West Germany is connected to Northern Italy I will never know. That is the biggest problem with this map. Germany planes should not be able to go from Western Germany to Egypt in 1 turn, and it is way to easy for Germany and Italy to defend their homeland with Western Germany and Southern Italy being on two spaces apart.

I’ve never actually won as the allies when playing against myself. Granted I was only playing with a 13, but the games weren’t even close. The real problem is what to do about Europe? US can’t invest in the Atlantic at all until Japan is handled, but the problem is that Japan makes as much as US around turn 4. Japan can just stall forever and let Germany clean up in the Atlantic. If US splits his money in both theaters he A. won’t do much on the Atlantic side against a Germany with half a brain on how to position his planes, and B. might make it impossible for the allies to come back in the pacific.

This game is rough, and I feel the biggest problem with it is how easily defensible Germany’s homeland is. I’ve played a lot of the Europe stand alone and that one feels pretty close to balanced with a slight favor to the allies if they go for Spain, but this is with US spending all her money against Germany… Honestly I haven’t played this version in over a year because I just got fed up with how good German bombers are. They can reach EVERYWHERE!!!

US should build only bombers first couple turns to maintain 7 bombers for the remainder of the game. After turn 2 you will only need to buy 1 bomber a turn to replenish the losses from AA fire. Germany will have to repair the damaged factories every turn from turn 4 on. This is the fastest the US can do anything meaningful.

The Allies def need a bid in this version.

Good ideas. Sounds like this makes for a more enjoyable experience vs the AI. I don’t think the AI plays Germany horribly, but wow does he play Japan bad. I won’t even comment on how he plays the allies, because it is a joke. lol

Most games that are played perfectly will see round 20 in Low Luck. That is just the name of the game. Like Marine said, most experts don’t have large battles ever unless they are necessary.

@Gargantua:

Take berlin by not taking Berlin.

Focus on economic Strangle, whilst keeping some 1-2 Us/Uk threat alive.  Eventually you will get Berlin, but there’s no forcing it!

I see what you are saying, but how is US putting that much money in Europe without screwing himself over vs Japan?

@MarineIguana:

Well written article. It seems that you have a solid grasp of the A&A mechanics. Below are some of my thoughts as an experienced player (800+ games of revised, probably one of the top 10 players on revised, winner of 2014 Kublacon 1942 2nd edition tournament). I’m not saying this out of arrogance, but just to indicate that I’ve thought through this map pretty thoroughly.

Random thoughts:

• The territory structure of India & southeast asia makes it very unrewarding for Allies to push beyond India. Japan can very easily deadzone any stack attempting to move beyond India.
• for similar reasons, Japan can project so much influence on all coastal territories with navy and air that they are essentially japan’s.
• Keeping India is very rewarding for Allies.
• A move that most A&A players aren’t aware of it attacking pearl with 1 sub, 1 cruiser, 2 fig, and 1 bomber. Japan can guaranteed sink pearl profitably in Low Luck settings. With dice, it’s a 14.92 expected value battle. Take the fighter as a loss, so that Japan doesn’t need to move a carrier to sz53. This sets US behind on any all-in attempt to pressure japan through naval.

If i were to pressure Japan:

• Russia places every land unit in reach in Wrus. Seek to deadzone germany off karelia as long as possible.
• either bid 1 inf to egypt or place 1 rus fighter there.
• UK takes out japan dest/trans with cruiser/fig.
• build 3 land in india, 2 fighters in uk. fly uk fighters UK->Wrus-> india. This stack of fighters can become quite scary, accumulating to 20+ by round 10. Fighters achieve the same goal of egypt IC of defending India, but have additional flexibility to deadzone japan navy and landing on US carriers. Egypt IC allows more land units, but this aspect is largely wasted based on the territory structure of india/SE Asia.
• US builds carriers/subs/fig. Goal is to build a navy stack with UK fighters that can overcome Japan’s naval deadzone and take FIC/Borneo. US splitting bombers and navy is a mistake. Navy accumulation is an all or nothing proposition because Japan’s navy can indefinitely deadzone a US navy with only partial investment.
• More generally, I feel that US bombers directed towards japan is suboptimal. It’s more difficult to land bombers in safe places that can consistently hit Japan every turn. There’s a very real risk that Japan with land units pushes allies out of all safe bomber landing locations. In comparison, US bomber towards germany can hit germany production centers safely. Bombers have a 3.5 * 5/6 - 12 * 1/6 = 0.92 expected value gain per bomb run. It’s a high volatility, low profit choice even with complete safety of the bomber landing spot. I’m not saying bombers are terrible, but that a mix of subs/carriers is probably a better choice against solid axis play.

–----
Note, I’m writing this with an advanced A&A player in mind who is also familiar with the 1942 2nd edition map. I’m using a fair amount of jargon. If you have any questions, feel free to reply for clarification or PM me : )

This! Well said on every point.

Dark skies in the Europe only board is a recipe for disaster. You need to buy only ground troops for the first 5-7 turns. This depends on what turn you want to take Moscow. You only build the bombers when your land units can’t reach the battle for Moscow. You should still build up a good force of bombers, but they aren’t nearly as potent as they are in global. The reason for this is that US is spending 100% of her income against you and she can easily defend the places that she wants to.

One thing I haven’t seen is that it isn’t always the best course of action to defend Moscow. If you can retreat and not die with your force it might better to do that. Send your massive stack south to merge with the UK force there. This creates a big headache for Germany.

Also a question. How are you guys taking Berlin as the allies. Against myself I haven’t even come close to taking Berlin. Even in a game I played with no VC victory condition and went 100% Europe with America I couldn’t take Berlin till at least turn 20.

The problem with building a factory in Egypt is that UK really needs to build fighters to defend West Russia and India. In a KJF strat UK should build only fighters for UK and infantry/arty/ and maybe 1-2 tanks in India. The real key with a KJF is that UK needs to see how many turns Germany is away from taking Moscow and pull the troops out of India in time to defend Moscow. By that time US should be in a dominant position in the pacific.

The only way I think a KAF can work is if you get a 9 bid. Infantry for Egypt, and a sub off India. This makes the battle against Japans fleet off Indonesia an almost lock. Even then it is still tough, and the game will drag out a bit. The hard part is that Japan can stall for a long time, and Germany will be a bloody monster.

Not sure how that works Narvik. All Germany would have to do then is take Moscow and push south for Cairo. Build up defenses at home and then go and take back Lenningrad with ease. Game over.

Honestly this move was more along the lines of a full global game with no VC’s. I don’t think it is very viable in a VC game.

I think you are underestimating the resources that Germany will have after taking Russia out. Not only the resources, but the position that he will be in. With Italy defending his back door, Germany can go almost 100% against UK in Egypt. You don’t need a fleet for this. Just walk your troops down through the middle east and into Cairo.