Bean… stay in school as long as you can.
The real world is MUCH worse than the life of a student.
That’s the effing problem I think. I don’t want to stay in school, but I’m absolutely certain it won’t be any better once I graduate.
I think I really now appreciate Rudolfo Anaya’s saying: life sucks, and then you die. :roll:
I wish I could play A&A all day instead of paying attention to real life. :mrgreen: Sorry guys for afk’ness, no idea when it will end.
I agree that tech is the way to go in AARE for the Allies. If anything, Germany is even easier than ever to contain. I think that AARE actually hasn’t balanced the KGF/KJF strategies; what it has done is changed the face of the game by making it more economic oriented and less dominated by heavy land war. I agree AARE has walked slightly in the direction of a more balanced game in the sense that the Axis can more feasibly shut down the game due to victory cities, but otherwise Germany still looks to be the logical target.
My personal twist on KGF is mass destroyers with the US. I use Russian Rail to maintain Karelia, and use the UK to maintain Africa and deal with a light-moderate German fleet, while the US builds up to 10 or so destroyers in the first two turns, building 1-2 thereafter while defending against Japan by building land units, and bombards the snot out of the Germans. I see destroyers as the unlimited economic attack.
Eventually Germany can no longer do anything except sit there wait to die, while Japan is slowly trying to make its own economic attacks and push Russia with banzais.
Rockets can be countered with Jet Fighters. Not well, mind you, but it can. I think in this case, it would have been wise for Japan to fire off fighters with Jet abilities to Europe ASAP with Germany protecting her fighter stash and getting Jet Fighters (Shared tech) as well.
This would shield some, or all, of the allied rocket attacks.
I agree with this counter. If I suspect a massive coordination of Allied SBRs/rockets due to their round 1, I would take tech advantage as Japan’s 2nd NA (Banzai always first, no deviation in any case) for Jet Fighters, and make an attempt to help the Germans stave it off. While Jet Fighters is not a perfect counter, it is much better than doing nothing.
What would you propose we do about our state of slavery then?
Might be today or Friday, I commented in our thread my current game situation.
One way to minimize this is to give up western and just take it back every turn with an inf or two. Germany still gets the money.
But Germany gives up a VC. No longer is taking either Caucasus/Karelia good enough any more.
While I don’t necessarily believe that mass destroyers is always the best idea, I at least think it should be a major tech, because what it is essentially is buying you is unlimited economic damage potential. This is in huge contrast to convoy raiding/SBR which are capped at their territory value, but it’s more than possible for a large stack of dds to do well over the territory’s cap. I understand that dds cost more, but you are paying for the potential for unlimited economic damage, and that means a lot.
I do agree with Axis_Roll that massing dds with UK isn’t the best idea due to German sub blocking, but for the US it’s probably a much better idea than straight shucking to Europe. Shucking to Europe can easily be cut down to a bunch of wimpy inf if Japan convoy raids W. US, but if you have a pile of dds before Japan can get the US down they can continually deal a lot of damage. And you can slowly ramp up the damage with 1-2 dds every turn, using the rest for defensive land purchase.
And now I know what to look for and will see it coming and will react accordingly early on to make a large difference.
Could you give us the general gist of what you would do without giving away all your secrets? :lol:
So US could assist in the battle of the atlantic while building enough fleet to hold the IJN at bay, and then return their main focus on the Pacific once UK has built enough navy to control the atlantic.
Curiously, that doesn’t seem a whole lot different than the way some players to it in AAR. For instance, Darth Maximus is a fan of first using the US to control the Atlantic/Atlantic, then switching to a massive Pacific Navy in AAR. I agree it can be more rewarding in AARE due to the victory cities the Allies can reclaim in the Pacific as well as convoy raiding Japan, but I think AARE is still very AAR in the core sense that you do have to focus on winning one theater before moving on to the next, it’s not global in the sense that you can split your efforts down the middle and expect to win.
And with the comment on subs being good sub killers, I agree that they are, but that I have to echo Jen’s comment that what are you going to use all those subs for after you’re done killing Germany’s subs? They’re a very long way from Japan, and they won’t do a thing to Germany. I think some combination of destroyers/fighters is best to wipe out Germany’s navy because they do have some fairly immediate use after done with the navy, they are “dual use” units. Subs are somewhat dual use in the sense that they can convoy raid, but talking about Allied subs in the Atlantic and they’re not so dual use.
You can also try naval link strategies and forget about Africa. There are very few players who know what they’re doing vs a naval link, and even if they do know about it, Africa will be pretty empty of any troops since both Germany and the Allies aren’t doing much in there, leaving it open for Japan a few turns later.
If you’re serious about Africa, the only way you can make it difficult for the Allies is to land there hard on G1. If you don’t land hard enough, it’s counterattacked and they follow you on turn 2, and you’re just not getting much out of it.
I’m going to give a half-serious response : up the bid. If you can’t manage to survive as Germany, you just need to keep upping the bid so that
A more serious response is that you can’t expect to hold Africa with Germany if the Allies do not wish it.
Yea I love wolfpacks. Makes a HUMONGOUS difference from AAR subs - cost $7, basically attack on 3, can’t be hit alone by air, muwahahahaha. :-P
Also just curious Axis Roll, what do you think is the best method of dealing with a lot of German subs in the waters? Obviously the UK alone will take too long to deal with it, which just about forces the US to put some heavy investment into the Atlantic early on.
And also, how does one fight effectively on two fronts? I’ve read a lot of things about how AARE is global, but it seems to me that splitting actions as the Allies is just as bad as in AAR, because each Axis power appears to be more able than ever to deal with a half-ass effort. Also I read something about naval action in every AARE game in the Pacific, but it seems detrimental to the US to put anything there unless it plans on winning.
I’m hoping I face someone who tries that some day, all I’ve got is theories to counter it without experience. Would you care to try it against me Mattpun in a test game? I don’t take Axis at less than 9 IPCs.
I trust you will find a way. After all, you’re still riding on some hot round 1 dice, which could easily make up for the surprise factor.
If England’s making a stretch and does both battles, they can win them both. Dunno if they can survive it financially, but they can. 2 Transports, Battleship, 2 Fighters to SZ 7, Bomber Destroyer to SZ 13.
Yes, but that’s what the paper wants England to do - to stretch itself thin and give itself the possibility of bad dice happening to them.
1 bom 1 dest vs 1 btl 1 tp
According to frood, attacker survives 23% of the time. Hmm….defender survives with 1 unit or more 59% of the time. Is that a great battle?
2 fig 2 tp 1 btl vs 3 sub 1 tp 1 dest
Attacker survives 75% of the time, with the most common result being both tps and 1 fig lost.
So the average dice shows that the UK isn’t going to do well. Usually what will happen is the med tp is killed, but the bb survives and both dest/bom are dead. And what usually happens in SZ7 is both tps and 1 fig are killed.
IMO, that is amazing for zero naval IPCs spent. You cashed in 2 tps 1 fig 1 bom of useful equipment (well and 1 dest, but I don’t count that since it’s not something UK really misses) for a navy you didn’t even care about or spend a dime into. You didn’t even use or risk a fig. UK has to rebuild its entire transport chain and has a measly fig for an airforce. Is that a recommended battle? You say Uk can win, which is true, but that’s pretty much a useless statement. It would be like saying well, I could send 4 inf 1 arm on R1 to W. Russia, and it could win.
Not to mention, UK is absolutely forced to buy a carrier on UK1 and probably…another fig to replace the one it expects to lose! We’re not talking about insignificant changes to the UK plan.
Better to prove that it is a recommended route to go.
For someone who would prefer to avoid attacking the Baltic fleet, you seem strangely anxious to take 2 battles which have lower odds and wind up with you losing more.
I don’t think it’s unstoppable either. I just raise the bid to counter it :mrgreen:
I like the paper.
The weird thing is for the first time ever Csub has released something that wasn’t completely news to me! Either I’m getting better, or Csub is getting….BETTERER.
If they attack your bb/tran with dest/bom, that means the bom isn’t available to attach the fleet in SZ7. That’s a huge detriment, means it will slip away and the Germans get their transport back. Even if you don’t like leaving the tran/bb undefended, realize the UK bomber like the paper says has other things to do like attacking the SZ7 first of all and second clearing Egypt more efficiently.
I’ll comment right now only on this one as you are a bit off base. Russian winter and the turn (or two) that it buys you is HUGE. Remember most Enhanced games are over by rounds 10-12. One round delay means 8-10% of the game you can stretch your self a little thin and still be covered.
I’ve also used this very early in the game (After breaking the treaty) against Japan to hold my allied advances so it’s not always a later round NA.
Allowing it to be declared on Russia beginning of the turn to utilize the offensive capabilty is too strong. It IS a defensive NA, and giving offensive power the next round also defends those territories next turn or those units that move up could be destroyed.
Thanks for your comment. I do think I am probably underestimating R. Winter. I think you can get it to give you +2 turns if you do it right, because let’s say if one force is ready to conk you right next to Moscow, you declare it, then instead of them attacking and taking Moscow, they are instead running back a square so as not to get hammered by mighty infantry at 2. +2 turns helps a lot. Or you could like you said declare it to hold a very important offensive zone for the critical turn it needs to stabilize.
What I don’t like though is that it doesn’t generally dictate the pace of the game. The Axis is keenly aware of where it can be used. You are waiting for a mighty force to accumulate at Moscow’s doorstep, and it seems to me at my nooby state of experience that the game is determined long before a massive force arrives at Moscow’s doorstep. And like I’ve read, AARE is less about massive clashes of inf/land forces. R. Winter seems to play to the old style of thought, waiting for a big land clash.
I think at least it is more of a second NA choice than a first one. Russian Rail is so good it’s not even funny, and in case you’re not going KGF, then you should probably pick conscripts first to wall up E. Asia.
I’m glad you guys like the destroyer strategy. It’s the first thing that popped in my head looking at AARE. It just seemed to me the old style of shuck shuck to Europe is far too difficult, and I don’t like splitting forces between the 2 Axis nations, and KJF also seems too difficult as well, so I like to “abuse” the infinite economic attack potential of combined arms.
And you thought I was chatty Mazer? o_O