Posts made by Uncle_Joe

Interesting.

Unless I’m missing it, that frood.com doenst have a combat calculator for A&A50 yet, right? I’d be REALLY interested to see the way subs stack up in combat in those sims.

Apart from that, I can only look at it from a quick analytical point of view. And to me, it appears that subs can be terrifying if used properly. The lack of ability to hit planes is not necessarily a disadvantage IMO. It means that once the DDs are gone, the next thing on the list has a minimum IPC cost of 12 and it goes up from there.

Subs simply threaten surface fleets. And that makes them potent IMO. Just avoid DDs within 2 spaces and you can go wherever you want. Stray DDs are easily brought down by BBs or airpower. I just really think that ability to avoid airpower (both attacking and being attacked) cannot be overstated. But I guess YMMV :)

They cannot hit battleships and carriers since you can elect not to receive submarine hits on those units

I’m 99% sure this is incorrect. I cant see anything the rules that even remotely implies this. If that were to be the case, then yes, subs woulld be quite useless. But I seriously doubt that is correct and that means that subs are quite effective. :)

The ruling, last I heard, was that to get the National Objective the allies had to control any orange territory.

That would limit you to:

Carolines
Formosa
French Indo-China
Iwo Jima
Okinawa
Japan

Territories that start as conquered territories do not count since you are not taking a Japanese territory, you are liberating someone’s territory. would indeed be pretty useless.

Interesting. Again, I cant see why this would be case. The NO doesnt require taking Japanese territory, but simply occupying territory Japan originally controlled. And by the definition of ‘control’, they certainly ‘control’ Manchuria at the start of the game. Do you know where that ruling is from?

@Cmdr:

frood.net is where I get most of my stats from.

Thanks! I’ll check it out

If Russia liberates Manchuria it is NOT a National Objective for England.  You have to take an orange territory for England to get that National Objective.

I dont see why. Is that in the FAQ or some obscure ruling? The Brit NO simply says 'Gain 5 IPCs if Allied powers control any territory originally under Japan’s control. Manchuria starts under Japan’s control so why would it not count for the Brit NO?

Finally, don’t forget that Submarines are almost completely worthless in Anniversary.  They cannot stop ships from moving through sea zones.  They cannot defend for squat and they subtract IPC you could be spending on real naval units.  The only thing submarines are good for is slipping through enemy lines to hit transports if the enemy doesn’t put a destroyer in the way.  I wouldn’t worry about getting “trapped” down in Australia.  You can just drive right on past those submarines, no questions asked! (BTW, they don’t stop transport from loading or unloading, they don’t stop ships from bombarding.  In other words, they may as well not even exist as far as the game is concerned.)

See above post on Subs. :) I find that they are hardly worthless in AA50 and in fact, they are quite powerful if used correctly. You cant really ‘drive right on past them’ if that leaves them in attack position and you have no DDs. Pound for pound, they will tend to shred most other naval mixes.

Wow, submarines can be FAR FAR more effective in the Pacific than DDs for the simple facts that planes cannot hit them (without a DD present) and more importantly, that sub hits cannot be applied to planes at all (regardless of DD presence). This makes them CV killer in the extreme. If you havent witnessed that, its no surprise you dont advocate a J1 DD build. :)

Also, DDs are vulnerable to enemy CVs which are 3 spaces away. Subs are immune to anything that doesnt have a DD within 2 spaces. This gives them greater freedom to operate.

Keep in the mind the combat sequence. The Defender has to select casualties before rolling their defense. This means that if you have subs present, he might take a higher value casualty to keep a DD alive to prevent first strikes in a following round (or to allow aircraft to hit in later rounds). For example if you have a BB, CA and DD (and a few TRs present) and a bomber and 3 subs attack. If the attacker hits twice, what do you pick? Obviously the BB soaks up 1, but then what? If you pick the DD, then on round 2, any sub hits are going kill without allowing a strike back (meaning potential loss of all the TRs). Rather than risk that, you might lose the CA instead of the DD. As another example, take a CV w/ 2 Fighters, a CA, and a DD. If the enemy attacks with 3-4 subs on round 1 and hits only once, what do you take? Its got to be the CA. What if he hits twice? Again, the CA and the DD, but if you fail to wipe him out with return fire, you are left with a single 2 to defend against a 2 that first strikes. Not a pretty sight for a TF that costs 54 vs one that costs 18 to 24…

Finally, SSs are cheaper hits in naval combat and they attack just as well as DDs (better if there is no DD present because First Strike can be extremely powerful). Subs are EXTREMELY effective combatants if used correctly. And if you dont have proper DDs for support you could lose a LOT of money in CVs/Fighters from lowly 6 ipc units… Either that, or you have to spend a lot of time running and that is a waste of time that is often critical.

Dont get me wrong, DDs are great units too. But they are certainly not ‘better’ than subs in any way, shape, or form in the Pacific. They are different and both have important roles to play.

Interesting stats page. Where is that from, if you dont mind? That looks to be pretty handy. :)

As for Manchuria, If they put 3-4 Inf in there, you have to take it back. Its not only a loss of your NO, but its an NO for the Brits. I suppose if you are building your TR and Inf on J1, its not as big of a problem because then you have a little more ground firepower available to take it out. But again, that means no DD and that means a passive game in the Pacific for the first few rounds.

I’ll have to experiment a bit with pounding Russia and the coastline first rather than trying to remove the US NOs and/or taking Australia/India/Hawaii for the 3rd Japanese NO. Without the DD, I’d be really careful sending stuff to Australia as it can become trapped (or else has to flee very far out of position).

My default Japanese strat has been to plan on taking Australia and/or India on J2. If the US goes with a semi-weak naval build, I can take Hawaii or 2 of the 4 islands needed to remove their NO. If the US makes a major commitment, I match it and continue to pound the Brit holding and push into China until the US comes out to play. Okinawa becomes a pivotal place to have a few light elements in that case so I tend to have more DDs and SS’s on tap in that position. After that it really comes down to how the US has built and if we’ve fought any skirmishes to that point. Since I build a DD on J1, I can freely have my CVs in the Mid or South Pacific without too much worry. Without the DD, I’d have to change up and play a bit more passively.

Well at the very least I think we’ve proven that there is at least SOME potential for variety in J1. ;)

Thanks for detailing the force allocation.

3 Inf vs 1 Defending Inf is a 90% battle? That doesnt sound right IMO but my statistics could be a little off. :)

If that is truly correct, then that doesnt sound too bad. Not sure I like 3 Inf from Manchuria though, particularly if Russia has stacked up just north of you. You have to leave at least 1 behind then or else they take Manchuria for free and you MUST take it back, which is turning troops and resources the wrong way IMO.

Beyond that it all looks pretty much what I do. The only real difference is that I only allocate 1 Fighter to San Fran and I send 3 to Pearl. Your worst odds attack is against a high priority target (granted just barely worse, but a 4 defense with 2 hits has the most pontential for luck screw IMO).

I guess until you see the US mess with Japan with subs you dont understand the threat. :) If you build a DD on J2, then it cant move till J3. By that time the subs can be almost anywhere they need to be. And that really limits the mobility of your CVs since the thing you do NOT want is to see a Sub vs CV/Fighters being a battle in the Sub’s favor! That is just too ugly to contemplate IMO and it means your CVs are stuck at home(ish) on J2. Also building it J2 means you have to leave at least a CV home to guard it on J2 anyways. You cant even realistically threaten the US fleet at San Fran or any of their islands (for their NO) until you have the DD present with the CVs. That gives the US way too much breathing room IMO since he KNOWS you cant commit (without suicide, I guess). What it comes down to is since Japan moves before the US, failing to build the DD on J1 means you are ceding the initiative back to the US.

The Pacific is REALLY well done in this edition. There are a lot of nuances that it took a few games for our group to catch. But now that we have, its an ugly, ugly (but fun!) fight all across the Pacific.

Yeah, Formosa was the one I couldnt remember if it could reach or not off the top of my head. But as I said, I still dont believe its the best play because it means you can really only launch one other effective attack in China (the one where the remaining plane goes). That doesnt leave much for Kwangtung (pretty much a ‘must take’ on J1 IMO).

Dont get me wrong. I would LOVE to kill the P40 on J1, but I think the price to pay in opportunity attacks is actually higher.

If you are committing 2 planes to kill the Flying Tiger, you are going to be making low odds attack somewhere else (or else not destroying the Brit DD/TR combo off India which I think should be required). You have 9 planes to start. Four are going to Pearl and San Fran. Two are going to sea off India. One is in Japan and cant make it. One is in Formosa and I dont believe it can make it. So, unless you pull one off of the Brits, I dont see where the 2nd comes from. Even assuming one can make it from elsewhere, that means little or no decent odds attacks against China elsewhere (since all you have are Inf). Also, 3 Inf means emptying Indo-china, meaning the Brits can walk in and collect their money (unless you land planes there alone and risk their loss to a low odds attack, I suppose).

As far builds, I believe you must build a DD on J1. If you do not, then your sole starting DD cannot commit to Pearl (meaning more chance of loss of a Fighter). If you dont preserve that DD or build one, then you risk the US building 4-6 Subs on US1 and practically guaranteeing you cant do anything at sea until J3 (J4 in the SoPac without risk).

While its true that the UK can send over planes, IMO the main impetus to buy planes as Russia is to attack, not defend. When you are doing the back and forth trade battles with Germany it’s far better to be able to use a plane and 2 Inf than a Tank and 2 Inf because the plane does not have to land there and be subjected to the inevitable counterattack. After a few turns, a plane will pay for itself compared to a tank. The question is whether you HAVE a few turns to realize that payoff or do you need the extra bodies on the ground to survive with instead.

Yep, thats almost word for word what I do with Japan. About the only difference is that I usually dont kill the Flying Tiger on J1. If you kill off enough of the infantry, its not really much of a threat anyways and I feel like I’m spread thin enough on the ground initially that I dont want to go with a lesser odds attack (2 inf and a plane, maybe 3 inf and a plane if you stretch vs 1 inf and a plane).

As far as a first turn build, I’ve started going with a DD and a TR. That way I pre-empt any US attempt to interfere with me with subs and I also maintain my TR capacity for shuttling troops to Asia, taking islands gain/deny bonuses, and/or threatening to invade Alaska if the US withdraws from the Pacific.

Its actually somewhat worrisome that there seems to be such an ‘ideal’ first turn for Japan. For Germany I can think of a handful of variations to try in opening moves, but this seems to be about the ‘best’ Japanese plan I can see at this point. Some of it will depends on US and UK response (and sort of on Russian), but I dont see a way to ‘start’ better.

Oh I definately agree that taking those 3 territories is key for G1. But in general, the benefit of killing ‘x’ or ‘y’ unit isnt just the IPC value IMO. I’ll happily lose 7 IPCs of a TR (and 3-6 IPCs of troops) to take one of the Japanese islands to force them to take it back. It provokes a response. So even though I ‘lose’ money, I can gain it back if they respond and I can engage on favorable terms.

Other examples would be when one nations money is ‘worth’ more than another’s. And IMO Japanese or US money is worth less than say, Russian or German money. So I’m willing to throw away a few more units of either of the former if it costs the latter more. The US and Japan tend to have an ‘overhead’ cost of delivering money to the right places to make a difference which makes their money more ‘expendable’.

Nice guide.

I’ll prolly have some input on Japan as that is the nation I’ve played the most. :)

As far as IPC cost analysis, that only goes so far. Opportunity can count for a LOT.

For example, I feel that on G1, Germany is better off sinking the BB and TR off of the UK NW coast. 2 Subs + Fighter and/or bomber usually does the trick. And that is likely the only opportunity you’ll get to kill a BB alone. The TR is just added payoff. That makes it a priority target IMO.

Another ‘opportunity’ would be if you can kill a unit in an area that cant be replaced. For example, killing UK units in Asia/Africa is FAR more painful to them than killing the same units in France or Norway.

Looking forward to the Japanese guide.

A Brit IC in South Africa coupled with a strong US Pacific presence can make life a merry hell for Japan. Add to her difficulty by sending a few Russian infantry into China and suddenly the ‘unstoppable’ Japan has a whole lot of problems to deal with. In turn, this relieves pressure on the British Empire and on Russia since Japan isnt gobbling up the backfield and threatening the 2-IPC territories east of Moscow.

Personally I think a SA IC even if ALL it does is help save Africa is worth it. And 2 tanks per round can really put the hurt on Italy in Africa, again saving Brit IPCs each turn. I’ve found that that factory eventually pays its own IPC cost off in saved territory in a few turns and thats not counting the hurt that inflicts on Italy or the potential to irritate Japan.

A Brit factory in India is a target for Japan IMO and most J1 moves I’ve seen played leave enough firepower to bear on India to take it (a costly attack, mind you) if the Brits build the IC. Australia is the same way - there is just no way to guarantee holding it long enough use it. The only safe spot is SA and I think its actually more useful than Australia would be since it helps with Africa as well as providing potential Pacific pressure.

I suppose if Russia wants to commit a LOT of infantry to defending India, the Brits might be able to get away with it, but it still a risky area IMO. Japan can bring an awful lot of firepower to bear quickly if its ever weakly guarded and that really cuts down on its utility IMO. And Russia without 4-5 extra infantry in the south is gonna feel mighty fragile for a while. Granted it will likely head off a lot of later Japanese pressure as well, but in the short term you might lose a lot more if Germany/Italy breaks in down south.

Our Allied wins have been quick - usually within the first 3 turns or so its pretty obvious. Our Axis wins have been MUCH longer games. Usually the Axis wins are much more of an attrition grind it out affair. We’ve only just started winning with the Axis though and part of the longer game time might be attributed to us become more skilled at the game and not making costly mistakes.

We havent really experimented with an Indian IC, but I definately favor some sort of Asiatic strat for the Allies… All the advantages you listed above are present if the US commits as well (in addition to or instead of). Personally I prefer a UK South Africa IC to India. India is a high-risk, high-reward play whereas SA is a more conservative and long term approach. I believe both will require the US to commit to the Pacific anyways.

In any case, my experience has been that Japan left alone is a game-breaker. One way or the other the Allies have to translate IPCs into the Pacific. There is simply too much of an econ swing there to ignore it. I think protecting India in the early game risks too much for Russia to truly be effective but I would have to see it done to see what the true cost is. But at first brush my feeling is that the US can provide the Pacific power much more safely and close to as effectively as a UK/Russian investment. And the UK and Russia are better situated to use their IPCs against Germany/Italy.

I think the only way Russia really has to worry about a massive Japanese attack is if the USA allows it by committing to KGF. Even at 50+ IPCs a turn, Japan does not have enough money to effectively fight a major US effort in the Pacific AND pressure Russia AND finish off the British in Asia (at least not without a lot of luck…).

Personally I think more frightening to Russia is the spectre of 5-6 Japanese bombers flying in and wrecking Russia’s factories turn after turn. And that can happen a LOT faster than any Japanese ground assault if they are left unmolested in the Pacific. Even if a few Japanese bombers go down to AA fire, Russia simply cannot afford to be rebuilding her factories when she is fighting for her life against Germany. And Japan can begin doing that in force on J4 (at the outside) if the US ignores them.

As powerful as bombers are in this edition, their lack of defense still makes them a luxury (especially in the Pacific). If Japan is being pressured by the US, she cant heavily build them and even if she does, they cant be used inland without falling behind at sea. And Japan’s income is pretty much a house of cards. If the US can take back just 2 of those islands, the IPC swing is massive. The Allies start gaining bonus money and Japan is in danger of losing it. If Japan doesnt match the US, her whole econ can unravel fairly quickly.

If you havent tried a US Pacific strat, I highly recommend trying it, especially if you are currently of the opinion that the Axis have an advantage in 41. Our experience is that its a very well balanced game and that honestly the pressure is on the Axis more than the Allies. And the key to that is to NOT do KGF with the US and keep Japan in check instead.

Thats true, there is more territory to defend, but its the turn sequence that messes with the coordination. Those additional territories are probably necessary to give the Allies a chance, given the new mechanics. The order of play makes it harder for the US/UK to coordinate because the Axis get a small reaction (Italy) in between the US and UK’s turns (unlike in AAR). Also, that same sequence allows for a 1-2 punch from Italy followed up by a knock out from the German Fighters/Bombers if Allies leave their fleet at all exposed.

Also keep in mind that all of the transports that the US/UK have to buy now are no longer ‘armor’. That means they have to invest a lot more to protect them than ever before. Couple that with Bombers being cheaper and it makes it harder to keep the fleet safe (and the ‘auto-dead’ transports mean more payoff for the Axis if they win a battle).

I’m ont saying its impossible to coordinate the US/UK into a KGF strategy, but its certainly not the no-brainer it was in prior editions.

The Japanese monster is too much for the Americans to handle. The japanese navy is a juggernaught with 3 carriers and 6 planes, a BB and other assorted goodies. Sure the US can toss 40 or so IPCs at the Pacific but Japan has such a head start on a Navy AND has a mountain of money to keep building a navy equal to or greater than the American Navy.

We thought that at first too - and promptly abandoned the Pacific altogether. But as we’ve played more games, its become apparent to our group that the US almost MUST oppose the Japanese in the Pacific. Japan’s huge econ converted into Bombers and Tanks to flatten Russia while Germany/Italy go defensive seems to result in an Axis victory more often than not.

Its evident that a LOT of playtesting went into the Pacific conflict for this version. Its taken a few games, but I have a pretty good handle on the ebb and flow of the fight. Our first US Pacific ‘strat’ resulted in both side just hording up ships in their respective home ports. Neither side felt strong enough to force the fight and the arms race continued until Germany was finally beaten. Since then, I’ve learned some nuances with the map that allow the US to threaten the DEI (and Japan’s bonus money!) without really exposing the US fleet to undue risk (or at least without allowing a chance for a deadly counterattack). In turn, this forces Japan to commit a LOT of IPCs to fighting the US fleet and that means they cant easily translate their econ into pressure on Russia (or ripping up the Brits in the Middle East/Africa).

My feeling with Japan so far is that they can do ANYTHING, but they cant do EVERYTHING. But if you leave them alone in the Pacific, Russia is going to go downhill pretty quickly. It may not exactly be ‘realistic’, but I believe if the Allies go for a total KGF, Germany/Italy can hold longer than Russia can.

The more I play, the more convinced I am that the reason people are thinking the Axis have an advantage in the '41 scenario is because they are trying the same old KGF strategy. A US Pacific strategy is not only possible, but IMO, necessary. Japan makes entirely too much money, too quickly, for the Allies to allow her to translate that into pounding the Russians and the Brit holdings with impunity.

A US Pacific strategy basically forces the Japanese to respond in kind or else risk losing her high value islands and bonus money. Japan starts with an advantage in fleet strength (considerable after J1), but she has to split her attention (and income) between China, pressuring Russia, conquering the British holdings, and countering a US Pacific build. If you remove the threat of a US Pacific fleet, Japan can go hog wild on the other goals.

Conversely I do not believe that the US and Britain coordinate as well in the Atlantic as they did in AAR. Maybe it more perception than reality but it seems far easier for Germany/Italy to defend against US/Britain than it did in AAR. My guess is that that is intentional.

It will be interesting to see how this shapes up in the future, but my instinct is that the game is actually quite well balanced in '41… ;)

I’m not totally convinced that its a complete KGF game. I think what we are seeing is people not yet maximizing Japan’s potential in a KGF situation. Japan can be making as much money as the US (or more) in short order if left alone. And that means that Russia is going to be losing territory and being SBR’ed into the Stone Age from the East. IMO, Germany and Italy can certainly afford to play a little more defensively against Britain/US than Russia can against Japan. And a successful Japan will be taking money from all three Allied players.

Personally I think things are set up to allow for Britain and USSR to fighting Germany and Italy while the US primarily tackles Japan. The end results of that type of play seem to be fairly historical (although the actual mechanics of Japan having anywhere NEAR the production capability of the US is insane, I believe it necessary for gameplay purposes). If the US is pressuring Japan, that can save the Brits some money in India/Australia and sometimes the Indies and Borneo. It also can save Russia from being hit in the back. Japan can either keep up with the US fleet production or she can take on Russia. Even with 40+ IPCs a turn she really cant do both. And its harder to hold onto those 40+ IPCs if the US keeps filtering raids into the South Pacific (or any Brit survivors threaten the islands).

Our first few games were definately KGF. Japan seemed so unbeatable in the Pacific that the US players just gave up and went after Germany. The Japanese players were not fast enough to translate that into relief for Germany/Italy and the Allies won. After that, our Japanese play started to improve. The next time the US abandoned the Pacific the Japanese gobbled up India, Australia, the islands giving the US bonus money, and were driving hardcore into Russia. They took Alaska and were threatening the Continental US as well. They still didnt move as quickly as they could and the idea of SBRing Russia was late. But it was scary indeed to see the Japanese making almost 60 IPCs a turn and cranking out tanks on the mainland and bombers to smash the econ. Suffice it to say, the next games we played, the US and Brits were back fighting for the Pacific! Since then we’ve learned a bit about US Pacific strategy as well and we’ve started to see more diverse battles at sea.

I think KGF is probably a viable strat. But I do not believe it is the only viable one or even the optimal one. And I think once people become better at utilizing Japan it will become less and less of an appealing strat than people seem to think. I believe that this will actually result in a more balanced approach towards global strategy than in any of the previous A&A editions.