Posts made by trihero

I’m not sure I understand your strategy. Why wouldn’t the US simply take the canal back? How then could you sail through it?

You can’t. The only way a fighter can participate in a naval battle on defense is if it’s on a carrier. There is no coastal defense ability for fighters.

I was sure that the first fire step gets canceled if there is a destroyer present… i could be wrong

You are wrong. It is not cancelled, it is just that casualties inflicted by subs in the opening fire get to attack back when there’s a destroyer present. It’s a small technicality, but it helps to remind you that all the sub hits go onto sea units; if they were simply moved back to the normal firing step then there could be some confusion as to when to allocate sub hits vs normal hits which could lead air units surviving when they shouldn’t be.

I believe it’s mathematically certain in the old version that the Allies would win doing a shuck-shuck and flattening Germany. It’s pretty much been hashed down by many many experienced players that nothing short of luck or stupid moves on the allies part will save the Axis from doom. I read some of your alternate moves and they’re interesting but I think the way that the old version stands still is in favor of the allies a majority of the time. I don’t want to argue this though because I never played the old version myself; I’ve just read a lot of stuff about it and everything really does point to a win for the allies in a no-bid situation.

I think the jury’s out on the revised version. Although a number of players (especially the old school ones) still maintain that the Axis is still slightly in disfavor, I have yet to see this for myself. The Axis is pretty beefy and fun to play =)

I’d be happy to discuss any strategies you come up with. I’ve done a lot of thinking and strategizing myself : p Interesting I tend to do a lot of strategizing on the board because it’s easier to see the big map and it doesn’t hurt your eyes…

Here’s a couple of helpful links:

http://dicey.net/revised/index.php?sid=6958f87ef38160f8b2a8d574ce308701

This contains the most recent official rules revisions to A&A revised. Some of the wording in the box rules allows for ridiculous strategies that make the game lame to play.

http://www.morrisongames.com/

This guy wrote a bunch of articles talking about what has changed in the revised version and such; it even has videos of him lecturing on it o_O  I would completely disregard his writings/talk on heavy bombers since the rules revisions has diminished their abusiveness, but everything else he talks about is extremely solid.

Just my own few quick opinions:

Many old strategies need to be tweaked to work now. For instance, Karelia no longer contains a complex and the whole german/russian front is cut up a lot more. Also, you can no longer dump troops into western europe in one turn from the US because of the sea zone changes. Also, Germany is in a strong position to contest Africa if he does so quickly. But still the basics of the game remain basically the same: infantry are the foundation of land battles, techs generally aren’t worth the risk, Russia is playing defense, etc. The addition of artillery and upgrade of tanks gives you some leeway to purchase offensive units whereas before it was always infantry and nothing else.

Probably the toughest thing to get used to in revised is that the Axis has a higher chance to win now when they play smartly and aggressively. It is harder to defend Africa from Germany and it is harder for the US to get into action, and both Axis powers have increased IPC count. Battleships have also become a force to be reckoned with as they can take 2 hits before going down and repair themselves if not destroyed in battle.

I hope you have a lot of fun exploring the strategies that are open now; there is a lot going on now that has changed from the days of the doomed Axis and pure infantry builds. If you have any other questions let us know!

Also, assume my 3 subs attack 1 destroyer + 1 battleship. The way I understood it, the destroyer affects the subs by not canceling the sneak attack, but being able to still fire back if it dies (and the <damaged>battleship too since its by the destroyer?).
-Assume my subs roll
-That counts as a sneak attack
-Then I fire my regular attack… correct?
-Ships fire back, … cycle restarts

OR

-Subs roll
-Counts as sneak attack
-Because of destroyers, defender fires back immediately vs sneak attack
-Submarine does regular attack
-Defender does its attack</damaged>

Both of your guesses are wrong. Submarines only fire once during a combat cycle, in the opening fire step. If there is an enemy destroyer present at the beginning of combat, then any casualties dealt by submarines get to fire back instead of being immediatley sunk. They fire back in their regular step. If there is no destroyer present at the beginning, then the casualties inflicted by the sneak attack are sunk before they can fire.

Um according to a dice simulator it’s 54% for the attacking infantry to win, 7% to tie, and about 39% for the defending tank to win.

If you’re really feeling snazzy, bring the UK bomber to Sinkiang on turn 1. Now the Japanese can’t simply build 3 transports, because they will be in danger no matter where they are deployed. If you sunk the japanese sub and landed the indian fighter on the hawaiin carrier, this really causes havoc because the Japanese hardly have ships to spare back in sz59/60 for defense.

Yes, the infantry you get is absolutely free and has nothing to do with setting one you bought or an existing one there. The wording is very stupid.

Before you get all excited about the Allies’ advantages, check out this

http://dicey.net/revised/index.php?sid=6958f87ef38160f8b2a8d574ce308701

In the forums there is what’s called LHTR (larry harris tournament rules) in a pdf format. Larry is the guy who designed axis and allies; he and a team released official rule changes to correct and rebalance the rules out of the box. Many of the changes have to do with national advantages so check those out, some of the advantages will not be so amazing and some will be more amazing.

Hi Chaps

Here is a Quick little move for the British that helps you keep India and drive th Japs out of French Indo china.

Use the fighter on the British Aircraftcarrier to destroy the Lone Japanese transport.
It stops the Japs from Reinforcing the Mainland in the first turn then move the Sub and Transport up from Australia in Striking distance.
Also then Building a Ind Complex in India making sure the US player builds on as-well.
This then gives the Japs too many targets to choose from and only 1 transport in the first turn and also makes the Japs either choose the US Fleet or the UK Fleet to Destroy.

Cheers
Rob

This is an incomplete suggestion. You also must reinforce Sinkiang/India with troops from Russia, or you will lose both complexes quickly. I’ve seen too many attempts like this fail because they do not understand that an aggressive Japan can easily take down both of them without Russian intervention. The sinkiang complex can fall on turn 2; as Japan I always fully assault China with all infantry and 2 planes; this leaves about 5 infantry on the doorstep of Sinkiang ready to tear it down; that is why you need some russian infantry to help. The India complex will fall on turn 3; turn 1 Japan builds 3 transports 1 tank, turn 2 lands 3 inf + 2 tank + 1 art in french indochina, turn 3 attacks India with 5 infantry (2 more came from east indies), 2 tank, 1 art, and 6 fighter/1 bomber and perhaps shore bombardments as well.

I also don’t see how this causes the Japanese to choose between the UK/US fleet. The East Indies fleet should be enough to bring the UK fleet down crashing; the UK fleet has no way of completely uniting and have the fighter as well. The rest of the navy can bring down Pearl Harbor.

Just at the end of the US turn he puts 1 brand new infantry in one of those territories (he chooses which territory receives the free infantry). You don’t move an infantry from somewhere else; you simply get a free infantry there. The wording is very poor when it says “one of your infantry for free”; don’t take this to mean a teleport, just treat it as creating a new infantry there. It doesn’t interfere with mobilization limits, so if you had a factory in sinkiang you could deploy 2 men you bought this turn there, as well as choose to get the free infantry from this NA there as well.

I like it =) However even with the Russian fighter, a German force of 2 inf + 2 tank + 1 fighter + 1 bomber will take Anglo-Egypt on average. It can tip the luck in your favor sometimes but on average it still isn’t enough.

If I’m feeling really aggressive against Germany I will instead attack Norway, Ukraine, and West Russia. The success rate isn’t high but it’s above 50% and it gets rid of 2 German fighters, making it really hard for him to get rid of the med fleet and invade anglo.

Your buy sounds ok. It’s not bad to purchase 1 fighter for Russia to help do those little border skirmishes but yeah mostly infantry and a tank here and there is best.

Your friend is dead-on right. It takes a movement point to “take off” the island you start on, as well as a movement point to attack an the land portion of a seazone. It seems weird the first time you look at this rule, but that is the way it is. The US bomber can barely reach Japan, attack it, and go back, but the fighter cannot because it only has 4 movement points.

It really pissed me off one game when Russia attacked both Norway and Ukraine (skipped West Russia because he knew he was already spreading thin). I lost both fighters……it’s really hard to destroy the battleship and invade Anglo-Egypt when you’re down 2 fighters : (

If the US just stands there of course the UK will lose a lot of ground……

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=322&start=0

There you go :D

There’s 3 forums on that site with advanced A&A possibilities that Larry is putting in the game.

Some other very interesting stuff is a change to 10-sided dice, as well as “aiming” you choose the casualty if you roll a 1 instead of the enemy, and combined arms; for every set of 1 inf 1 arm 1 art you roll an additional bonus 2, and you can use a fighter instead of one of those requirements in a set.

Oh sorry I didn’t see that it only applies to US/UK/Japan. I thought Germany’s IPCs could be sunk that way hahaha that would suck.

I like your suggestion overall; isn’t it going to come up in Advanced A&A in a different form? To be honest I’m never going to use optional rules that’s not “official” unless my friends want to. I use u-boat interdiction NA as Germany when I wanna sink IPCs : )

It does very much matter that they still fire in the opening fire step. It just hit me very recently why it makes a difference; consider the following situation:

3 subs + 1 destroyer defending vs 1 dest + 1 fighter.

Let’s say the 1 of the defending subs hit and the defending destroyer also hits. Now is why the technicality becomes very important: since subs can only hit naval units, the attacker will be forced to take the sub hit on the destroyer in the opening fire step, and although that destroyer can still fire back because of its own properties, the fighter now is forced to take the defending destroyer’s hit.

If the subs firing were simply moved to the same timing as the rest of normal combat, then the attacker could theoretically choose to take the destroyer hit on his own destroyer, and thus avoid losing his fighter since the sub hit cannot be allocated to an air unit. With the technicality he has to lose both units. Simply put, you have to allocate all sub casualties first, then you are allowed to choose what takes the other hits.

If you want to give the Axis a chance at building a navy, then you’d have to give them a cheaper navy to buy because the $ aren’t there in their budget to overcome the 26 IPC difference at the beginning.

By these to new rules it will be more important to take control of the sea, or one will get bombarded and ruined and cannot do much about it! Japan and Germany seems to be the loosers one might think,

No, they are unconditionally the losers in this situation. Germany can never keep his navy alive unless he wants Russia crashing him on like R4 or something, and the US can outspend Japan for a few turns……

I think the Axis needs to be given a chance to create a strong navy, but they really don’t have the cash to do so. You can increase the incentive to maintain a navy but if you don’t give the Axis a way to actually do this while maintaining their land territories then…

IMO: You are right about once you get enough of them, but ones you do you most likely lost a lot of land territories, due to the fact that a any BB will be bought to the cost of lost land troops. And as you said (see comment from you below) land is cheaper to buy relative navy.

Maybe I should be clear. The only nation who is really thinking of big navies is the US, and he can afford to mess around with battleships if he thinks his allies can hold out. He hardly has territories to lose, and Japan is hardly in a position to fortify 3 islands with land troops especially considering they have no complexes and it takes a few turns or many transports to get infantry to the farthest one (east indies).