Posts made by Uncle_Joe

Don’t forget the psycological element.

When attacking a small naval task force with planes, I don’t care about a DD.

A CA is another caliber and another threat.

It is the same with infantry/artillery and tanks. You have allways a closer look on the enmy tanks.

Shure, you can’t scare mathematicians with this psycological element, but an A&A player who cares for his planes, running out of resources.

Yeah but the point is that the threat to your air is actually GREATER from an equal investment in DDs than in CAs. So yes, for players who value ‘gut’ or ‘feel’ to statistics or facts, they might be a greater deterrent but that is perception only - not reality.

Again though, the combination of armor and tactical bombers vs. fighters and tactical bombers is cheaper, so I really see armor becoming a huge influence in the Europe game.

I hope so. :) What would a WW2 European war be like without masses of tanks on the Eastern Front!

For the Pacific, it’s pretty clear that armor has limited uses. There simply isnt enough ground to cover to warrant it and in addition, there are a LOT of planes around to deliver combat power.

For Europe, it will depend largely on the map IMO. The bigger the map, the more useful it will be. One other thing to consider is the income level and the production capacities of the nations. If Germany makes 50+ IPCs a turn and only has 1 factory (for 10)? Well, in that case armor looks a little more attractive than trying to mass up Mech or Infantry.

One other factor would be how heavy the airpower is. The more airpower there is available, the less useful armor will be. Airpower can support an infantry attack and be safely off the line. Armor has to sit in the newly taken space and withstand enemy counter-attacks.

So I’d say at this point it’s not possible to make a good evalutation of how useful ‘x’ or ‘y’ ground unit is. Clearly in the Pacific armor is a luxury, not a necessity.

I would almost always take 3 mech inf over 2 armor

The exception being production space. When producing at a minor factory, tanks are the best buy per slot for ground unit (just not per IPC). Ditto for transporting. Mech are just as ‘bulky’ for transporting as armor but deliver far less combat power on the attack.

For those reasons, armor will still have a role (if more limited in the Pacific).

But CAs just dont have even those saving graces. MAYBE if you are trying to maximize combat power in as few units as possible, but even there I’d rather have a CV and planes than a few CAs.

And as noted above, you cant compare aircraft to ground units for cost because for planes you are paying for the versatility of a four range. But you CAN compare CAs directly to the other ship types since they will be competing for the same role. And in that competition, the CA is clearly inferior in 90% of the cases.

Fact is……if Destroyer + Cruiser was less than 20 IPCs, would you ever buy a battleship?

I wouldnt buy a BB now so that is no real loss. And in actuality BBs WERE obsolete by the end of 1941.

Leave the US alone and finish off the Brits and Chinese. Americans in Pearl arent going to be doing anything to your econ for at least 2 turns. Wait until they are a threat before bothering with them.

Something else to consider is what is waiting at the US West Coast and what is waiting in the Japanese Home Waters? If you attack and win at Pearl, you are vulnerable to counter-attack from the West Coast. If you let him attack you, you can finish off any survivors with you builds from Japan.

But as long as the Brit navy is safely dead and there isnt much of an Anzac navy there is no reason for you to push the issue with your navy.

Yep, with sub most likely… or bomber.

I dont think that’s possible. The US can just scramble the LBA at Pearl to kill the Bomber(s) or at least make it an ugly fight. I think if you want to kill that TR, it has to be the sub (which dilutes combat power elsewhere).

The point remain that US needs time to advance in Japan’s “killing zone” with a strong enough fleet. If US do to soon, it’s more time for Japan to crush UK, as US will need to start over they fleet.

But that’s OK as long as the US trades off acceptably and takes an island from the DEI forcing Japan to drag more troops/TRs in that direction. The US fleet at start is expendable and IMO should be expended to pressure the Japanese.

Note also the one-two punch that US and Anzacs can deliver. For example, the US can take an island in the DEI and the Anzacs can immediately dump 4 Fighters on it. Japan is NOT getting that island back for a turn or two and as soon as things look grim, the Anzacs air can high-tail it out.

Its raids and trades like that the Allies need to rely on in order to have any chance. As I said elsewhere, taken individually any of these types of raids/stalling tactics can be defeated by Japan. But as a whole they ratchet up the pressure on Japan and eventually hope to push her to the break point.

I have it captured and untouchables at J2!
So at turn 2, thats 19 income for Japan… instead of UK, so a potential difference of 38.

Just that almost match the +40 US gets!

Add that to the fact I take Philippines at turn 2 also, a difference of 9 (2 for Japan, instead of 7 for US).

Add that to the fact I take Kwantung at turn 1 also, a difference of 11 (3 for Japan, instead of 8 for UK).

Intersting. I’ll take another look the next time we have it set up but my inclination is that you have very little margin for error here. I just dont see how you can have the DEI secured against counter-attack by J2 without leaving yourself exposed elsewhere or letting China run rampant. Even the Aussies can threaten the DEI with airpower from Western Australia and a single TR. The US will likely have their fleet at the Aussie naval base ready to hit those islands as well (with bomber support).

The wildcard is how weak the Brits would be and I admit that that is pretty appealing. Having to slog through 15+ Brit infantry with air support is a pain (but has been doable every time so far). I’ll take a look at the J1 attack and see if it is more efficient at killing the Brits than the slow and steady build up and smackdown. :)

But there are situations you will buy them, or cut one infantry from your production to upgrade a DD to a CA.

If they cost 11, that would be true and I might be tempted to buy one here and there. But unfortunately they cost 12 which is just too much for what they bring to the table.

The true strength of the CAs lies in the combination with other ships.

IMO, that is the CV’s role. The 4’s of a CVs airgroup are better off to be protected than the 3’s of a CA. In either case you are trading cannon fodder DDs/SSs to preserve the higher priced piece and I’d prefer that to be the 4.

No doubt that the DEI is a huge killing zone for both allied, and axis ships.  One other big problem ACs have though, is a high vunerability to subs.  I honestly wonder if ANZAC would be well severed purchasing primarily submarines and a sprinkling of aircraft for the blockade power, and to pick off Japanese boats lacking proper escort.

Subs backed up by LBA is a very powerful option for the Anzacs. They stat with a significant air threat so dropping a few subs to stalk the DEI is good strat I have employed in a number of games as the Allies. Anzac money is ‘cheap’ so trading 6 IPCs for a sub for 8 for a Japanese DD is easily worthwhile, especially in the game.

That formula doesnt take into account durability. Everything except BBs and CVs take one hit so low-cost units become much better bargains if the formula only takes stats into account.

By that fomula, a 6/6 unit will cost 24 IPCs and CLEARLY that would not be worth it at all. The CA is just a cut down version of that same inefficient pattern.

I think in A&AP40, BBs are also a very inefficient buy but I have less problem with that since by WW2, BBs WERE inefficient. They were useful if you had them, but they really weren’t worth building once at war. CAs were far more cost efficient as escorts and raiders. Unfortunately in the game, they are acually just as inefficient as BBs.

I stand by 10 for a cost. :)

Yeah, I agree that a J1 attack isnt all that appealing to me either. I looked carefully at it last night in a game and whereas I certainly saw some advantages, none of them outweighed the gains of waiting to set up a more powerful blow.

The biggest gain that I saw is that you can bag the Brit BB and both TRs at once and prevent them from ever making any significant IPCs. This prevents Britain from massing ground forces and drawing out the ground war in Burma/India. The flip side though is that you can’t land anywhere NEAR as powerful of a hammerblow to China, which in turn makes them more of a draw on the ground troops in the long run. I call that pretty much a wash.

At sea, You can kill a few stray US ships, but the bulk of their fleet will survive in San Fran and be reinforced quickly with a lot of US money. I dont see any major draw here. Against the Anzacs, again you can kill off a few ships but then you are open to an aerial counter-attack. In any case, I rarely see those stray Anzac ships as a major threat making them less of a priority target.

No, I still think the best Japanese attack is on J3. That gives you 2 turns to get all of your duckies in a row and take the maximum amount of territory with the minimum amount of risk. So far, I haven’t seen all that much the Allies can do that gives me pause for this strategy. Britain makes more money this way, but the US makes significantly less. I’m willing to make that trade-off because Britain’s money will soon dry up so there will be no long-term effects of that early burst. Japan’s money remains largely the same either way since she doesnt have forces in place to take the high-value targets on J1 anyways. Attacking on J1 still means that you probably wont have the DEI secured until J3 or J4 anyways.

Perhaps let them steal 2 from a convoy zone, that would make them a bit more attractive and keeping with there role.

Interesting.

I still dont think that alone would encourage me to buy them (2 subs would steal 4 or steal 2 from different zones), but I like the concept.

Probably the easiest thing would be a cost ‘errata’. The only thing would be to determine if Larry Harris sees something with them that kept him from making the change in the first place. I mean tanks were re-costed to 6 so there has to be some reason why he decided to leave them at 12.

As it is though, I just dont see it.

To me though to spend 16 for a carrier than another 20-21 for the planes just isn’t worth it compared to the 4 or 5 destroyers and subs I can get for the same price.

Whether or not that is true for the Allies, it certainly isnt for Japan who starts with a large surplus of aircraft. For 16 IPCs Japan can easily magnify her combat power FAR in excess of 2 DDs. The Allies have to build the planes as well so they might be better suited with surface ships, but even there I think a good mix is going to be preferable to an excess of either.

I’m a big fan of strategic blocking as well, but over time that will dilute your combat power as well. I find it desirable to set up kill zones where I can mass LBA and CV-based planes in tandem to thwart any attempts on the DEI.

The CV piece itself is not as powerful of an attacker as a pair of DDs, that much is true. But CVs let you play all the fun little games with aircraft which are necessary to get overwhelm kill power on an attack. Using CVs can GREATLY magnify the range of land based aircraft.

For example, you have 2 CVs (fully loaded). Those 4 aircraft all join a nearby battles and then plan to land on an island or close land base. That clears the decks to allow any OTHER planes within 4 (or 5 now) to join the same fight and then land on the CVs. That rotation increases you potential for massed sea firepower in a way that DDs can’t hope to provide. And that is offensive firepower, not defensive. CVs are the single most flexible naval units you can buy.

Sooo, does anyone really use Cruisers in this version either? I believe the popular consensus in AA50 was that CAs were a bit overpriced and should probably have been 11 (or maybe even 10). So how about in A&AP40? When I first saw the changes I figured they’d be more popular. After all, there are more IPCs in the game and BB’s suffered a hit due to not being able to auto-heal between fights. Also, since ranges are longer, bombers are often not as available for attacks. That should mean that CAs would be more attractive.

But I have seen maybe just a handful built in 8 games of A&AP40 so far. They still dont seem to have a real role yet. They are too expensive to use as pickets (so DDs are better there), they dont detect subs (again, a nod to the DD), and Shore Bombardment is weaker than ever (a single ‘scrambling’ plane or DD present can prevent a whole fleet from bombarding). So with all of those against them they just never seem to cut it when it’s time to purchase units. It seems like everything they can do, something else can do more efficiently.

I like the concept of having the Cruisers but I can’t justify that 12 IPC cost. Maybe if you could ‘hold out’ units from walkover naval attacks for bombardment? If that were the case then they might see more use. What else would make CAs more attractive to use? Just a price drop? I think 10 would probably be fine, personally.

Thoughts on CAs?

I just don’t see a point in a 3/3 unit that becomes a 4/3 for 1 more buck than an always 3/4 unit.

To me, the difference is that I get to decide when my Tac is a ‘4’, but YOU get to decide when my Fighter is a ‘4’. I’d rather have the more powerful piece when I’m calling the shots. But honestly, both units are useful for their own role. If I’m not exposing my Tac to undue attack then why WOULDN’T I want a unit that that 33% more firepower for only 10% more cost?

Everyone can see that japan has alot of airpower and with airbases can defend specific hardpoints fairly easily such as carolines and the home island.  But, the southern islands are only 1 turn further away for the US than Japan, and they do not have airbases at the start to defend them.  The allies, in my opinion, have to draw Japan into attacking there fleets, instead of the other way around.  Get the ANZAC NO early and then head for the indies for all your worth.

Japan starts with 3 carriers, 2 bbs, 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 2 subs, and 3 transports.  They also start with very little manpower in south asia.  Japan is forced to build factories and transports and men with her early income, the US has no such problems.  Sure they need an extra couple of transports  but that is about it.  Japan doesn’t have a large naval advantage and really cannot afford to invest significantly into boats for the first few turns, by then the US should catch up.  Not enough to offset the airpower, but you don’t have to attack japan directly, attack her income.

I agree with most of this. The US HAS to get into the DEI area. There is nothing else that they can take that is worthwhile short of Japan herself and that is not a realistic goal in a competitive game. The problem is how to do it without trading too unfavorably.

Contrary to what people think, the Allies do NOT enjoy a huge economic lead over the Japanese. Sure, they make more income, but the Japanese are trading on a surplus of high-cost units. At the start of the game, the Japanese have plenty of aircraft with which to mate up with newly created CVs for naval power. Every 16 IPCs Japan drops is 37 the US has to drop to match, at least until the Japanese run out of surplus planes. With that in mind, it is going to take US quite a long time to overturn Japan’s naval advantage. And IMO, the US doesnt really have all that much time. I think the pressure is on the US/Allied player to stop Japan before she takes out the Brits. Once that happens, it’s all over but the shouting unless the US is in position to do major damage within a turn or so.

Even at the beginning of the game when Japan has to invest in TRs and an IC for China, it’s still not all that heavily in the US favor. The US is only making 22 at that point and Japan is likely making in the mid-high 30s. So Japan can put 10-15 into the ground war and still keep parity with the US (although I dont think that is her most effective play).

I think the goal of the Allies is to strain Japan’s available combat power every turn, as much as possible. It’s similar to AA50 (but harder for the Allies IMO) in that Japan can do anything, but Japan cant do everything simultaneously. Many times it will be necessary as the Allies to make spoiler attacks or moves that Japan can easily thwart, but when taken as a whole, all three Allies can make Japan spread her combat power. Unless they can do that, I think the Allies are doomed. None of them can stand up to the full weight of the Japanese attacks so all of them have to nibble around the edges and force responses. A sub here, a minor landing an island there, and show of force in another area will add up headache for Japan (I’ve been on both ends of that!).

Goals for the Allies as I see it at the moment:

China - spread out, counter-attack the weakest spot once per turn to kill off Japanese ground forces. Do NOT mass up anywhere. That is just an invitation to be slaughtered by airpower.

Britain - boots on the ground. Take as much of the DEI during peace as Japan allows and invest in troops. If Japan delays until J3 (which I think is solid), then maybe a sub or a DD, but beyond that - grunts and guns. The goal is as per China - make the Japanese spread out and bleed off ground forces. AA guns are a good investment for the UK since it makes Japan have to really worry about having her combat power diluted.

US - get into the DEI. If Japan heavily defends against that, a surprise raid into Manchuria/Korea can be very damaging. Usually that is just a threat though. I can’t imagine a competent Japanese player allowing it, but he DOES have to honor it and that draws off forces. The US should be staging out of Australia so they can reach the DEI in two moves from Pearl. Taking the Carolines is nice, but it is often a trap too. Japan can bring a LOT of firepower to Truk (which is what makes it an appealing base). Take it if it’s safe, but otherwise ignore it and focus on the Australia to DEI line.

Anzac - support the US. Build them a naval base if they want it and stage aircraft and subs in Western Australia. Always be in position to threaten the DEI as well. If Japan moves out of the area to hit the US, move in and take an island. Japan will HAVE to try and take it back and that siphons precious ground power away from the Brits. Anzac money is worth less than Brit money IMO so even an unfavorable trade is usually OK here (ie, losing the TR).

Goal as all Allied powers: Stretch Japan to the limit each turn. You would rather see Japan making more numerous low-odds attacks than getting away with being able to mass overkill in her fights. Mass overkill results in fewer Japanese casualties and the way I see to hurt Japan is to force her to constantly be losing men and guns in Asia.

I agree with a J3 attack at this point. And yes, I also believe that there will likely be no ‘Pearl Harbor’ attack on the US.

The Carolines are an ideal spot to stage the IJN. I like to have the bulk of the fleet there and another group off the coast of China to support that efforts against the Brit holdings in the DEI and Kwangtung. Also, staging at Truk pretty much cuts the US off from doing anything useful to help the Brits for the first few turns as well as threatens the Aussies enough to force them to build ground troops for defense.

Given that the US will have spent only 39 or so IPCs by the time of the Japanese DoW it’s impossible for them to have anything to withstand the full weight of the IJN at Truk. That means that if they want to survive the will likely have to be back at the West Coast or someplace else out of the way. That adds another turn or so to the timeline before the US can intervene effectively to help relieve pressure in China/India.