Posts made by Unknown Soldier

Anyway, just an FYI, my copywrite has been approved so I legally own the name.

Hahahaha. Any credibility you might have had just went out the window.

Yes, the importance of attacking sz12 and/or Egypt on G1 has been discussed quite a bit on the forums already. Have a look at the thread on Egypt. As you point out, it is very much worth it for the Allies to take a slightly better than even shot at taking out the Italian fleet since it cannot be replaced. Even if you just take out the CAs, it’s pretty easy to finish off the BB with bombers on the second round.

One problem for Germany, as you alluded to, is that they can’t really do everything they need to on G1. You’d like to attack Egypt, sz12 and the British BB in sz2, but you if you do all 3 you won’t have great odds in any of them, plus you have to land aircraft in undesirable spots like Norway and Algeria. So do you gamble, or do you give up on one of those targets? And which one do you give up?

My preference is to clear sz12, hit Egypt with the bomber, and forget about the BB. But at this point, I don’t think there is any one clearly superior G1 opening.

Yes, Japan’s income of 60-65 is a lot of units, but those units won’t hit the front lines for another 4-5 turns.  So if Japan earns 60 in rd 3-4, the Allies don’t need to worry about those units until rd 7-8.  That is a ton of time for the Allies to cripple Italy and help Mos against Germany.

I’m not saying that Japan can necessarily stop the Allies from crushing Germany and Italy because they’re cashing out high. What I’m saying is that, even though you’re right that Japan’s per turn income is comparable to previous versions, they will be in a stronger position to take on the Allies themselves by the time Germany and Italy fall. Its possible that the Japs could still be in a position to win even after Berlin falls. The “cost” of playing KGF, if you like, is higher in this edition; not because Japan makes relatively more per turn now, but because they accumulate more money/units over time while the Allies are in Europe.

To be clear, I’m not advocating a KJF strategy. But, it may be more effective for the Allies (the US in particular) to not ignore Japan completely. Even a token force in the Pacific can work wonders at slowing down the Jap cash machine. There seems to be a sort of “diminishing returns” aspect in my view, where a couple extra units in Europe will help a little, but a couple extra units in the Pacific/Asia can help a lot.

So I think a more balanced approach (one which still focuses on Europe) could be more effective than a pure KGF.

Thanks for the extra pics! :)

Now I’m angry!    When they actually FIX subs you propose to turn things back to where it was, just incomprehensible.

I couldn’t agree more.

Does anybody have the .jar that they can either attach here or send my way?  I am unable to dl it without upgrading to FileFactory Premium, and I don’t want to do that.

You don’t have to upgrade to Premium, there is a second option to download for free. I didn’t sign up for anything.

I’d just attach the file to this post, but it won’t let me attach a .jar file.

they will be trading fighters and bombers for subs

Except they won’t, because aircraft can’t hit subs w/o a DD present. So unless they are stupid enough to bring one, those subs will be watching your capital ships go down from the sidelines…

Tech: Increased Factory Production

Nation: Japan

Strat: Build ICs in India, Burma, and FIC. Build 13 tanks/turn. Build a mechanized Godzilla and crush the rest of the world under its treads.

Fight fire with fire.

Protect your fleets with fighters, not battleships. A couple loaded CVs with some DDs for fodder will pretty much decimate any realistic air raid your opponent can manage.

How do you keep your income going to take Norway and then pump more planes or tanks later on?

Short answer: you don’t.

Turn 6 is exactly when the bombing of Tokyo would begin.

What’s the point?

As atarhuana pointed out earlier, Japan has 3 factories in asia building for them by this point. Anything being built in Tokyo is going to be a big-ticket item like a bomber or naval unit. They don’t need 8 units/turn from the Tokyo factory by turn 6, so they could care less about any damage your doing, especially when you’re risking 12 IPCs everytime to do it.

Take out the following:

Philippines
Borneo
East Indies
Kwangtung

plus either 3 Chinese territories or Burma + 2 Chinease territories. That’ll get you to 42, then if the Soviets pull back from Burytia you can stick a guy from Manch in there for 43.

It’s definately do-able. I’ll let you figure out the logistics of it though. :D

Interesting analysis.

I’m not convinced that KGF is dead yet either. That said, I think looking at only income/turn is missing the big picture. Income per turn is not the (only) factor we should be looking at. A more important thing to consider is this: how long can Germany/Italy hold out versus a pure KG(I)F strat?

Japan’s income in this game may be proportional to what it was in previous editions, as you demonstrated, but how long will it enjoy 60-70+ IPC cashouts? Each turn Germany and Italy can hold out is another turn that Japan rakes in the big bucks. So how does this compare to previous editions? I’m not sure, but my guess is that the european axis can hold out longer in this game. Also consider that Japan’s income explodes much quicker in this game than previous ones due to the increase in IPCs in the pacific and of course, NOs. All those turns of high cash outs translate into more and more Jap units on the board, units which the Allies will have to deal with at some point.

What this means is that, if we consider Japan’s total income over the period in which the Allies are focused in europe, your verdict on KGF might be different. Or it might not, who knows. In my opinion, KGF is still a viable strat, but it might not be the optimal one. I guess time will tell.

f US forgets about Japan, having an IC in Manchuria and India is tough to counter as the Allies.

You don’t really need an IC in Manchuria, imo.

Transports in the sea of Japan can get troops to Manchuria just fine, but its harder to get them to the southern part of Asia. I’d rather have an IC in Burma or FIC than Manchuria, even though Manchuria can spit out 3 tanks/turn instead of 2. Units produced in those territories are only one move away from threatening the Soviets, whereas they are several moves away if built in Manchuria. Yeah, you’ll have less tanks on the mainland, but they’ll be in better position. Plus you can spend more on bombers. ;)

Yup, I def agree that Japan ICs should be located in FIC/Burma/India. Honestly, I don’t see the point of putting a factory in Manch.

I like to make a hard push towards India on J1, taking out Burma and both 4 IPC British islands so that I’ve got plenty of ground units to take and hold India on J2, as long Germany was successful at clearing Egypt and the Soviets didn’t send troops to Persia R1 (which I’m starting to think might be a good idea).

This allows an IC on Burma J2, and an IC on India J3, which means Caucasus starts to hear the Jap tank treads as early as J4. I find this really helps relieve some pressure on Germany.

If Germany did not manage to clear Egypt, or the Brits have Soviet assistance in India/Mid East, then I’ll go the Burma/FIC route for the factories instead.

Doing a line by line comparison would show you that almost everything from AARe is the same in AA50e.

But AA50 is a different game from AAR. You can’t just recycle all the old rules and repackage them yourself and expect to have the same quality of rule set that is AARe. It’s way too premature for a project like this, we don’t know enough about game balance with the OOB rules yet to start making fundamental changes to the rules and expecting quality game play. A direct quote from cousin_joe:

this is a whole new game and we can’t simply port over everything from AARe to AA50e

The “Enhanced” moniker is sort of like a brand name, in that it is associated with a certain level of quality. The original developers obviously put a lot of effort into the rule set, and it was thoroughly tested. Its not just a bunch of “cool” ideas someone slapped together and presented as a ruleset. For the vast, vast majority of house rules, this is not the case.

So while you may argue that most of the rules are the same anyway, and you have the right to call it whatever you want, etc, etc. well, yeah, this is true, the rules are mostly the same and the “Enhanced” name is not copyrighted. But your ruleset is not the same quality product that AARe was, sorry. And you clearly do not have the blessing of the original development team. This is not a slam at you, its just the facts: AA50 has only been out a few months for crying out loud! By using the “Enhanced” name you are misleading people. I suspect this is why axis_roll is up in arms about this, and rightly so. I would feel the same way if I was one of the lead developers of AARe.

Like I said, you can call the rules whatever you want, but why not just call it something different for now? If not to satisfy axis_roll and the original AARe developers, then at least do it as a service to the community so that the “Enhanced” brand is not tarnished.

I agree with the above posters. Africa is far too important to ignore, for reasons already mentioned. In fact, this is the Axis “Achilles Heel” I think. Once the Allies regain control of Africa, Italy is basically out of the game, and if Germany and/or Japan aren’t yet close to taking down Russia, for all intents and purposes they are too.

If you really want to go after the Japs though, how about something like this for US1:

Buy 2 ss, 1 bmr, 1 tp, 3 inf.

The tp and inf go to EUS to start a shuck into Africa (protected by British fleet). That way, you still keep pressure on on Italy and Germany.

Bring the sz44 dd, cv, and ftr, along with the Hawaiian fighter, to sz56. Also stack your mainland ftrs and bmrs on WUS. This will give you a possible attack force of: 2 ss, 1-2 dd, 1 cv, 4 ftr, 3 bmr, enought to cripple or outright kill most of the IJN. So this will create a massive dead-zone everywhere two spaces out from sz56, which ncludes Iwo Jima, Wake, Midway, Carolines, Hawaii, and Solomons.

You could even take the Carolines US1 if your tp survived and Japan left it empty (which they likely will). This will force them to waste at least a tp and some ground units to take it back, or UK gets its bonus. If they try to defend the tp, you can kill whatever they put in that sz. If they don’t defend it, you can kill it for free with a bomber next turn, stranding the ground units there.

On US2 you could buy a few more subs, then advance the 2 you have, keeping them within the dead-zone but within range of the sea of Japan. Make sure to always keep your subs in separate sea zones, obviously. Then land your bombers in Alaska or Midway, and buy a second carrier for sz56 so all 4 fighters are in range too. Now you’ve forced Japan to build more navy, or lose what they have.

Of course, because bombers are so cost-effective at killing fleet, they won’t be able to keep up.

I don’t think you really need to kill Japan’s fleet. Just render it ineffective. Buying a couple subs (not 6) with the US can be a great way to accomplish this, especially if they lost the dd J1. The idea is to stop their freedom of movement, specifically unescorted transports, by forcing them to consolidate their fleet.

Yeah, I second the request for more pics.

If it’s not too much trouble. :)