Posts made by Uncle_Joe

Japan needs to take out US NO money in the islands, Brit money in the Far East, and then turn attention to USSR. This is true regardless of what the US does IMO, but its FAR easier if the US ignores the Pacific and goes with KGF or KIF (in which case Japan should add nuisance raids against Alaska and the West Coast to her list of tasks). As soon as the Japanese player suspects the US is not playing in the Pacific (generally by J2, but a good US player can disguise it for maybe one more turn) they should drop an IC in Asia (more when you have India) and commence building Tanks there and Bombers in Japan. Japanese Bombers can get into action against the USSR pretty quickly and then the Tanks follow up.

Also its important for Germany and Italy to understand what is happening. If the Allies are going with KGF (a bad idea IMO), the goal is simply to survive. They need to pressure Russia and try and retain NOs, but there is no need to push on heavily towards Moscow. Japan will be there soon enough and if the Japanese player is any good at all, the econ will be favoring the Axis, not the Allies. Time will be on your side.

Finally, the Axis need to coordinate their efforts and timing. If Russia is the target, then Germany needs to be hitting in the North while Japan bombs and moves in the from the East while Italy threatens the South. If you let Russia respond to each in turn, its far easier than when all 3 are happening simultaneously! Ditto for fighting England. The quickest way for England to go down the tubes is for Japan to be taking the Far East (and/or Mid East and eastern parts of Africa), Italy to be fighting for North Africa, and Germany to be attriting Brit boats with air attacks. Brit money will drop fast and her ability to replace losses will go downhill fast.

We’ve seen about 50/50 Allied/Axis wins. Usually its simply stronger play (or occasionally better luck) that determines the winner. I have yet to see anything definative that would make me think that one side has an advantage yet.

If the US ignores Japan, I think Japan can make a mess out of Russia faster than the US can make a mess out of Germany. With no US Pacific threat, the Japanese can quickly reduce Brit money to minimal. She can also take away all but 1 of the US NOs, leaving the US making ~43 IPCs a turn while Japan is heading up to 60+. With that kind of disparity, Japan can make nuisance attacks on the US West Coast to pin forces and cause the US to waste on defense while at the same time, sending tanks and bombers to wreck Russia.

Economically, the US ignoring the Pacific usually results in about:
US: ~43 IPCs/turn
UK: ~22-26 IPCs/turn
USSR: ~25 IPCs/turn

90-95/turn

Japan: ~60+ IPCs/turn
Germany: ~32-38 IPCs/turn
Italy: ~10-15 IPcs/turn

102-113/turn

On top of that, both the US and UK pretty much have to ship everything they want to send meaning an overhead of TRs and fleets to protect them. Japan shares some of that, but Germany and Italy do not, meaning every IPC they spend will be either airpower (forcing larger naval defense) or boots on the ground for defense or for trading with Russia.

Obviously this requires an experienced Japanese player to recognize the situation and quickly build to simultaneously expel Britain from the area, take the US NOs away, and smash Russia into paste. But left completely alone by the US, it really isnt that hard to do all of those things AND threat the US West Coast/Alaska with nuisance raids.

I dont believe Egypt and the BB in Sz2 are mutually exclusive. You can still get odds on both targets. It does prevent you from taking Karelia and it does make you have to more of a risky shot at the 2 Brits off of Gibraltar, but I think that is more than acceptable considering the payoff potential.

As for leaving the British Battleship there on turn one, why not? I mean, the U.K. is not in any real position to do anything with it on turn one, since they have few transports and troops.

Its not even really what it can do on turn 1 that concerns me. But its a chance to kill 27 IPCs while risking mostly just the subs which are likely going to die anyways since Britain and the US have DDs and aircraft in range almost anywhere in the Atlantic. Unless the Brit player is nearly brain-dead you will never get a good opportunity to kill that thing again and it will be a thorn in your side the rest of the game. Once Britain’s money starts downhill they can likely not afford to replace that BB again. But if they already HAVE it, it will make every attack you make with aircraft more expensive.

And as stated above, Britain can simply drop a CV on UK1 and they have 2 Fighters to put on it. Add another DD or two and for 22-30 IPCs they are more less immune to German airpower for a while (assuming Germany doesnt go all out on planes, which would result in a serious shortage of troops for the Russian front). My experience has been that unless that BB dies on G1, Germany is going to be looking at having to defend France (and Northern, to a lesser extend) EVERY turn and with increasing numbers of troops. Killing that BB means that Britain cant really afford to threaten an invasion for the first few turns without risking her fleet.

7 Cruisers and a Battleship?! Again, I guess we are just playing COMPLETELY different scales of games. Our games NEVER last long enough for England to build that up (unless they are being stupid and building nothing else, anyways). Brit fleets in our games are usually a CV, maybe a BB, and a few CAs/DDs depending on whether Germany is building planes en masse or not.

I would be REALLY curious to see some AARs for any online games played. I know everyone ends up falling into some form of ‘group think’ but I can only conclude that our games look nothing like some of the games I see folks posting various builds for.

FWIW, we dont play out to the bitter end of game. So if the Axis are defeated, we dont drag it out and wait for the huge fleets. I guess to put it simply, while the game is still competitive, we never see fleets the size of those I’ve seen posted here. Our games are usually very fast moving and no one really has time or resources to sit back and pile on the ships.

Those first turn battles are so crucial and I think the luck factor is magnified on that turn. Sending a Sub, 1 plane, 1 bomber to Sz2 and losing puts you at a severe disadvantage. Ditto for the attack on Brits fleet off Gibraltar.

That first German turn really sets the tone for the game IMO. If Germany wins those battles without getting zapped, she is usually in good shape for the entire early game. If she loses any of those battles via bad dice, things can go down hill very quickly in my experience.

If you are willing to accept a lower odds attack, you can still shoot for both. Assuming saving the Italian fleet is a primary goal, even if a few battles go against you, you should still do enough damage to prevent their destruction.

Send 2 subs + plane from Norway to Sz2 to kill the BB/TR. Thats 2 First Strike 2’s and a 3. That should be enough to get the job done, although it does occasionally cost you the plane as well.

Send 1 plane and the sub from Baltic to kill the DD east of England.

Send 2 planes (France and Germany) to hit the DD/CA off Gibraltar. This is the risky one. A trade is acceptable since it saves the Italians. But even if you roll poorly, you should at least sink the DD which should be enough to save the Italians.

Send bomber and the ‘usual suspects’ to hit Egypt. This is also an opportunity to save the Italians by killing the plane. This battle often results in all English forces destroyed and the German bomber landing in Libya (which is quite acceptable - Italy gets Egypt and saves her fleet).

Obviously if you get zapped by the dice you are going to be in some hurt, but IMO the payoff of killing the BB and still hitting Egypt is worth the risk to the 2 fighters off Gibraltar. And honestly in a competitive game, there are going to be plenty of battles where you have to rely on making the odds and not getting zapped.

So MHO is that (in most cases) a inf/tank is better than a inf/art.

As it should be, since the former costs 1 IPC more. Now that the transport cost is the same for an Arty and a Tank, I cant think of a place off hand where the Inf/Arty would be better than Inf/Arm. Is there one?

I’m not really sure its ever a good idea to let the Brit BB live on turn 1. It probably the only time you’ll be able to catch it alone. Killing the TR with it is just icing on the cake. It will require at least one of your planes however (and the 2 subs). But I’d rather leave the DD/TR alone than the BB/TR. 27 IPCs is too tasty to leave floating around. :)

Its a shame a good discussion of Japanese strategies got derailed by an argument about subs. Let me see if I can’t throw out a few things to get us back on track.

Not really, because subs can or cannot make a big difference in Pacific (and thus Japanese strategy).

Where should Japan position the sea zone 57 carriers and why?

Depends on my build and whether I lost any Fighters, but usually 1 goes to Japan and 1 to Okinawa. That leaves them close for mutual support but gives them both a slightly different range of operation on J2.

When do you build an IC, where do you put and why then and there?

That completely depends on the Allied response. If they go KGF or even dont make 100% commitment to the Pacific, IC goes in Manchuria on J2 to crush the Chinese and any remaining Russians. A second IC will likely come down in India or Burma depending on the situation.

What are your responses to US naval builds and why?

More or less depends on what the US does build in SanFran, but usually I’ll go with CVs and Fighters (and some throwaway DDs). They give the greatest range of operation and they can combine up the most firepower in an area efficiently. Add some Fighters to island bases if the US is serious about fighting in the Pacific. Usually Bombers are a pretty safe bet because if you win the sea, they can quickly shift to wrecking Russia’s factories.

In general, I’ve found Okinawa to be a key point for Japan to station a few ships. It allows you to block off the SoPac from the US if need be by dropping a ship at Pearl. This can often buy you a turn to get moving from Japan.

I’ve found that so far, the US pretty much has the initiative in the Pacific. Japan has to split her time and attention for the first few turns giving the US some time to start mucking around. That draws Japanese resources away from the continent and buys Russia and maybe the Brits some time. Japan cant ignore a US presence or she will quickly start losing large chunks of income. This means that the battles should not stagnate between experienced players. Our first few games has the big standoffs and arms races but since then its been all fluid battles where smaller fleets are sparring rather than massive fleets going for win or lose battles.

Doesn’t mean I’d go out and buy 8 submarines a round for 10 rounds though.

But it does mean that they arent useless, which was your earlier position that drew the response. I believe it was something along the lines of ‘use them for toothpicks’ or ‘build anything but’ or ‘they are completely laughable’.

If you are having to build the early DDs and worrying about getting the DDs to your fleets then they are provoking a response. And they can continue to do that all game depending on circumstances. Yes, if someone drops 5 DDs on turn 2 or 3, its prolly time to stop making them.

There is a world of difference between ‘useless, never build more than one or two’ and ‘build 8 a round for 10 rounds’. Somewhere in that difference is their true utility and it will vary from game to game. They are more situational units than some, but that doesnt mean that they cant be extremely useful in the right game conditions. I’d say I build 1 or 2 many games (just to force the DDs), but I rarely build a pile. In the right situation, they can be game-breakers or at the very least, keep your opponent off balance for a round or two. In the wrong situation, continuing to build them can be folly.

Yep, agreed that techs definately stir the pot. Its very difficult indeed to know that ‘I always build ‘x’ in ‘y’ situation’ when techs are in play. For long term play, I agree that their use prevents the game from getting stale. The trade off is that indeed, you are adding another random factor to an already pretty random game.

While I dont really have anything against techs per se, you have to admit that they DO add ANOTHER layer of randomization to the game- and one that has widely varying results. For combats, you can easily see the benefit of adding ‘x’ or ‘y’ more of ‘z’ unit to the battle. Sure it might not always work out the way its ‘supposed’ to, but it is far more measurable than techs (precisely BECAUSE its a random roll to get a random tech that you may or may not be in position to take advantage of).

But to say that it isnt adding more luck to the game because the game is already dice based is incorrect. Suppose we added in a rule where every time a unit wants to move you roll a die and if you roll a 1, you cant move it. All that is doing is adding another roll to a game based on rolls anyways, right? But I think most people would agree that it DOES make the game more ‘luck dependent’. Same thing for tech - more dice dependent (important!) events you add, the more ‘luck based’ the game is going to become (for better or worse).

Out of curiosity, how long do your games tend to run (in turns)?

It sounds like you are used to more of a ‘build up’ and ‘stand off’ than I’ve seen in my games (so far at least). If you have the resources and time to pile that much stuff into a fleet to protect a few TRs then we are playing in completely different realms. ;)

No, they arent main battle units. Nor should they be. That was completely silly in the older editions.

BUT they are far from useless. At the very least they provoke a response. And in actual fleet attacks, they are every bit as good or better as DDs.

If everything else is equal, of course a fleet without subs isnt going to let itself be attacked by one with. But everything else is NOT equal. If someone moves their fleet to a spot where you MUST contest, then they can attack you. The AA50 map is FILLED with situations like that. It appears to have been specifically designed to FORCE those types of decisions.

I dont think anyone is advocating trying to use subs as THE main naval unit. But they make wonderful ADDITIONS given the geography of the new map. The Pacific campaign has a lot of aspects of a game of chicken. Subs can help break up that standoff or else put you in decent position to win if your opponent pulls the trigger first.

I used 10,000 submarines and 1 destroyer with 4,999 bombers (equivalent cost) for a reason.  It demonstrates just how bad the submarine is.  It’s akin to running a simulator over 10,000 identical battles to see if this one battle should go your way or not (like when you use Frood to find out the probably results.)

And its still an inane argument and very much like the AA gun vs Tanks. If you insist on using something incorrectly, expect to get poor results. I bet you could send 5000 TRs against 1 sub and I bet you are gonna lose. Does that mean TRs are useless? Ditto for CVs…Buy all CVs and aircraft and I’ll put them against equal IPC of subs…hell, you can even attack and I’ll defend with ‘worthless subs’ and still win…CVs and planes are useless? Come on…

If you have valid analysis I’d love to hear it, but making ridiculous comparisons and examples does exactly zero to promote a case.

Again, you are totally missing the point, but thats OK.

I believe you are suffering from a serious case of ‘group think’. I suppose we all do on certain things.

Some of yall want submarines to be a great unit so bad it is not funny. They have  a very limited use in AA50. Yes they were very effective in the real war but A&A games have very little to do with the real war.

For the record, I dont want them to be a great unit, they are a great unit. ;) When I first played AA50 I was planning on not bothering with them but game experience taught me how valuable they could be. And a few games later I had refined my usage to the point where I (and my opponents!) considered them to be a very serious threat.

Their cost to benefit ratio is extremely favorable if used properly. Are they a wonder weapon to win every game? Of course not. But they are an effectivenaval unit to use for control of the sea. If you HAVE control of the sea (like England in the Atlantic) then yes, they are useless. But in the Pacific (and particularly for the US) they are far more valuable.

That said, I would not like to roll Super Submarines as I dont believe that it is necessary at all. I’d much rather have a capability I did not previously have (Long Ranged Aircraft, Paratroops etc) or a significant upgrade in a power on a main unit (Heavy Bombers, Jet Fighter) than an upgrade on a more nitch unit. Winning the seas is important, but honestly subs are cheap enough that ‘wasting’ a tech on them is not necessary.

Ok, lets try a different tack. You tout the 1 DD and 500 Bombers or whatever vs 1000 Subs. Obviously thats completely silly. But at the very least if a plane is attacking a sub (AND you’ve commited a DD), then thats one more place where that plane is NOT. And in many cases that is a completely fine investment of IPCs as America. If I can keep Japanese planes and CVs floating around the Pacific on ASW, then they arent bothering the Russians or the Chinese or the Brits. You are tieing up a DD and prolly 2 Fighters and likely the CV to base them on to kill a sub that is cheap and easily replaced. If you want to commit bombers, even better. Time can be as big of a resource in A&A than IPCs are IMO.

In any case, until you’ve seen subs well handled, I guess you’ll continue to dismiss them as useless. Thats fine, but I believe you are selling yourself really short on the Pacific tactics.

I’ll point out:

10,000 Submarines vs 1 Destroyer and 4,999 Bombers (almost same cost) should result with:

3,333 hits from the attacker
1 hit from the defender

Cost to the attacker: 8 IPC
Cost to the defender: 19,998 IPC

Honestly that argument holds no water. Thats like saying AA guns are useless because if your opponent brings only tanks and infantry they cant do anything (and the AA guns are CAPTURED unlike the sub).

Subs create opportunities that DDs cannot. Its that simple. They dont replace DDs, they fulfill a different (and still highly useful) purpose. IMO, CVs and BBs are far better combatants than DDs. Given my druthers, I’d build mostly BBs and CVs with DDs only for screening. But the presence of subs forces DD builds…and they are cheaper. If Player A has a few CVs/BBs and DDs and player B attacks with equal value of CVs/BBs and Subs, player B should have a pretty significant advantage in the combat.

In the end, I guess time will tell if subs end up in the scrapyard, but at this point I’m seeing entirely too much success with them to dismiss them out of hand.