Posts made by Tralis

The United States’ neutrality can be affected by an attack on the UK or ANZAC by Japan. However, that’s not the case with an attack on the Soviet Union.

@djensen:

Yes, eventually. I’m going to post about the Global rules first. I’m not going to have time to type out all of the NOs for Global so there will have to be a separate preview about the NOs.

@Tralis:

Very awesome. Can we have NOs for Europe and NOs for Global?

You’re awesome. Give yourself a pat on the back for being so awesome.

Nah, not advocating boycott. What’s inside’s more important than what’s outside. Just kinda funny though.

Very awesome. Can we have NOs for Europe and NOs for Global?

I really love Axis and Allies in general, but I really love Pacific 1940 in specific. I played a game of Anniversary Monday night, and while the European theater seemed fine, I couldn’t help but pine for the Pacific theater of AAP40. The Pacific in Classic, Revised, Anniversary, and Spring 1942 seems so flat. On the allied side it all falls on the United States, usually. Sure, the British often get a factory on India, but even then, Australia is still lifeless. The Pacific of AAP40 is alive, dynamic. Islands like the Carolines are vital, even without giving any IPCs. AA50-41’s Pacific just feels like Japan takes over everything, then hopes the US doesn’t care enough to build up and destroy their navy. AAP40 is the exact opposite of that, its a tense struggle to the end. I think AAG40 will only make it more interesting with the Soviets as a factor. I think the US won’t have the luxury of ignoring Japan, I can see already that if they dump that 80+ IPCs all to the east that Japan will grow to be an unstoppable monster.

Even compared with classic AAP I think AAP40 shines. Sure, the VP mechanical was cool and makes AAP a worthy game to play since it does have a very different feel and objective than other AA games. I like AAP a lot, and I think treating the British as split income rather than having ANZAC as a separate power made and makes a lot of sense. It was a more historically minded game in some ways too; Japan’s economy could never hope to compete with the US’s 75. Still, AAP40 feels a lot more epic to me. Japan and the US are locked in an epic struggle, rather than Japan being locked into the role of having to loose as slowly as possible to win.

Sure, the production problems were annoying, but we got our Tac Bombers in the end, and its easy enough to make minor adjustments to the setup to make J1 less overwhelming. I think the good of AAP40 greatly outshines the bad. Still, I do think WOTC are chimps.

So, who here agrees with me that AAP40 is their favorite AA, at least until AAE40 comes out?

With the higher resolution images of the box out now, we can clearly see the German flag. What about the UK, though? I don’t see any UK flag on the box.

National Objectives. Both Europe and Global. Higher-res pictures of the map. Rules about declaration of war and such.

@UN:

@anderb:

whats the point in telling all us that i got the game, but i dont have a camera. doesnt this guy atleast own a camera-telephone.  dammit. really sinister of him. if he sends the game to me, i can make loads of pics

You know guys, he doesn’t have to post any pictures at all if we’re gonna be calling the Site Admin “cruel” and “sinister”…

We are exaggerating for humerous effect.

So cruel. You tease us and then don’t deliver. Tsk-tsk.

How often are articles updated onto the website?

I haven’t enjoyed the battle-specific games as much as the theater-level and global-level games. I think it would be cool to take A&A into a different time period. A&A:WWI, A&A: Seven Years War, or A&A:Napoleon?

If you superstack with Japan then you’ll never be able to take enough territory to take over all of the Indies before being outproduced anyway. You’d have to take one island at a time.

I think the W. US is always worth 10. In game mechanics the US just has a national objective worth 40 if they are at war.

@Make_It_Round:

Your article made a couple of interesting points. I agree that the main game will be Europe, although I’m almost glad that Pacific was released first if it means that they got the bugs out of the system in time for the real centerpiece. Also, there are actually fewer rules issues in Pacific–no straits, canals, or pro-allegience neutrals–so in terms of complexity Pacific is a better jumping-off point.

I do think, however, that by limiting your article’s scope to games of Pacific that employ an obscure house rule (No J1 attack… what? Who plays that??) makes the work much less relevant that it could have been.

Alternately, I also take issue with the main points of the strategy that you seem to advocate:

1. “…put all 5 [UK] planes on Malaysia…”

This is suicidal. Your fighters are both your best defensive units and the only units you start the game with that threaten flexible counterattacks. Putting them in easy reach of the Japan player is like putting your nose directly in the mousetrap. You need to drop these in the deep infantry stacks that you push forward from India, with AA gun cover (see #2).

2. “…as India you will want to focus on holding the Indies as long as possible, and that means a focus on naval power rather than land power…”

Also suicidal. As India you will want to focus on holding India as long as possible, which means all infantry / artillery builds from UK1, until the US eventually comes to save the day. To do otherwise is to squander resources that are needed for causing the maximum number of Japanese casualties, while keeping China in the game, and thus staving off a push to Calcutta for as long as possible. Let ANZAC do those dick moves like landing fighters in the East Indies and producing naval units… they’ve got nothing better to do, and can actually recover from losses more safely than the UK, due to their remote location at the bottom of the board (see #3) and their relative proximity to Big Daddy USA’s protective base in Hawaii.

3. “A minor complex on Queensland would be great…”

Yeah, great… Great for the Japan player to take. Queensland is exposed to attack from the Phillipines and the Carolines, and ANZAC doesn’t have the on-board units to defend a new IC build. Say what you like about the inconvenience of New South Wales: at least it’s sheltered! And even if ANZAC did have the money to spare open up a new factory (it seriously doesn’t), it should spend it on high-quality units instead of infrastructure. As Japan, I like to build an IC in Queensland if it’s not possible to take Sydney directly, because Japan can afford 3 tanks a turn while ANZAC can only afford 3 infantry a turn… it’s not long before they’re overrun by my more powerful units. You’d really make me smile as the Axis player if you went through the trouble to set up my supply line for me.

In conclusion, for the reasons given above I disagree strongly with literally every strategic tip you’ve offered the UK/ANZAC player, which makes me question (i) how many games you’ve played, (ii) the calibre of your opponants, and (iii) why I should read the rest of your upcoming ‘strategy’ articles. No offense, but so far I’m unimpressed, and left with the impression that not enough (of the right kind of) field testing has gone into the construction of your article.

I take a bit of offense to your tone. I specifically wrote this article for non-J1, and if you don’t like that, don’t use them. Many users have complained how broken J1 is, and this is the source of the house rule. However, I do believe my article gives valid suggestions for the game, and I have played the game around 30 times. I don’t pretend what I wrote is infallible or perfect, but I do think it has more merit than you credit it.

Number 1 is the strongest of the three points you’ve selected. It works only if the Japanese spreads itself somewhat thin, and it can really backfire if the Japanese really dedicate themselves to stopping it. Its a risky move that only works under certain conditions. I’ll conceed you its far from perfect. My real intent there, though is that keeping planes in attack range of the Japanese fleet forces them to defend their transports much more than if the air power wasn’t there. IE, you get a big benefit from being able to attack even if you choose not too.

Number 2 is the weakest, in my opinion. I’ve played an all-land India and an all-naval India, and compared them. Now, granted, by late game India is forced to turtle and focus on land. No argument here. But focusing on land-only for the first few turns as India is actually pretty suicidal. It allows Japan to conquer the Indies too easily, which means India gets cash-starved very, very quickly and looses on land anyway. Delaying Japan in the Indies is actually vital to India. Trust me. I’ve played plenty of games both ways, and the extra cash India is able to get is a godsend. It really does pay off. Letting ANZAC do this work is all well in good late game, but early on, ANZAC just can’t get there is time and India needs to move quickly.

Number 3 is somewhere is the middle. I don’t think you quite understand how powerful the minor IC on Queensland can be. This strategy doesn’t work if Japan makes a push for Australia, and this is mentioned in the article. However, Japan usually doesn’t. The New Guinea/Solomons objective is usually a much lower priority to Japan than the Indies objective. The Indies objective has four spaces worth a sum of 15 + 5 for the objective for a total of 20 IPCs, or 5 per space. The New Guinea objective has four spaces worth a sum of 0 IPCs + 5 for the objective for a total of 5 IPCs, or 1.25 per space. This means its in Japan’s interest to conserve its resources by denying ANZAC the objective, taking one of the spaces, but dedicating enough force to take all four is rarely worth it. Attacking continental Australia can work out pretty well for Japan, but this needs to be a dedicate push, and this will be telegraphed the ANZAC. Like I said, more than one transport on the Carolines means that building the IC on Queensland is a bad idea. However, its worth it if Japan does not make a heavy push for Australia.
The IC itself is worth the cost, for sure. In Revised or Anniversary, Germany really wants to either capture a Russian IC or build one in the east. Why? One could argue that it doesn’t really make Germany stronger, since the tanks from Germany will arrive there in one turn anyway. But this isn’t how things really work. In actuality, reducing the travel time for newly built units is immensely powerful. It means that the IPCs Germany spends will pay off much more quickly. This is the same for ANZAC. Newly-built ships pay off in half the time. Also, you move from Queensland to a juicy target in the Indies in one turn. This means Japan has a harder time striking back before the fleet can move to the Indies. Japan either has to put planes close to Australia or have a fleet within Australia’s air power range, both pretty dangerous and vulnerable to American intervention. Plus, it means your builds are one turn more current. Perhaps the Japanese are running out of destroyers? You can build subs and have them in a position to cause damage in half the time it would take without an IC on Queensland. Also, you can shift your positioning much more quickly. Perhaps you need to move your fleet north or east rather than west, you can do that much faster if you have the IC. Your builds are more up-to-date, more flexible, and more protected. All together a good deal. If you guys want, I’ll post some graphics illustrating this to make the concept more clear.

True. I’m putting my focus away from J1, though, because I think its going to transfer through less, and I think J1 is kind of an unsporting move.

US/China is next. Have been real busy moving in to my new apartment, but I think within a week I should have it written.
Japan will come soon after.

If these articles were to be posted on the website itself, it would be very encouraging to me to write more.

By that logic America doesn’t have any trouble getting to Indies, but that’s not how it works in practice. If nothing else, realize that now that your builds get there in half the time, your reinforcements are built closer to the present, and thus with more information. The stuff you move to the target this turn was built with the information you had last turn, not the information you had two turns ago.

Also, the newly built units are near Australia, far from the Japanese. Without an IC on Queensland, you have the awkward in-between turn where they aren’t at the target yet, but also aren’t on Australia. With the IC, its bam, straight from Australia to the target.

Also, as said before, it allows you to be a lot more flexible by making the decision of where to send the fleet later on.

Finally, it allows you to build a fleet for multiple turns if need be, and then send the combined stack out in one push. You’d lose more time doing this without the Queensland IC.

1: If the Japanese do this, it will take a lot of force and will cost them dearly. Its certainly possible, but it will take quite a lot for them to succeed, which are resources that aren’t going elsewhere. This will generally weaken their ability to stand against the US or capture the Indies. They can only do so much, and you can make it such that attacking Malaya will take a disproportionate amount of their resources to accomplish. If they really send in the Strat Bombers, that means those strat bombers aren’t bombing India.

2: You loose one turn, true. But you gain one turn several times over. You aren’t just using that factory once, you are using it for the rest of the game. This adds up - your forces get their quicker, and your builds are more responsive. You can get what you need quicker, for the rest of the game. Plus, the naval base means your radius of operations is much larger. If the Japanese take Hawaii, your builds from last turn are able to get their immediately. If you had to sail from New South Wales, you would not have that luxury.

In conclusion, your point #1 is valid although it must be take in context of limited Japanese resources. Point #2 I’ll stick to staunchly, it makes ANZAC loads more flexible and swifter.

Honestly, I need to research that one a bit more. I have some ideas for how to fight back, but I need to actually use them to see how they work out.

Canada is simplified, sure, but that’s still way more provinces than ever before.