Posts made by Upside-down_Turtle

I’ve changed my rules quite a bit:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14061.0

Korea was indeed the first war to use helicopters on a significant scale.  They were most experimental in WWII.

@dinosaur:

Well, would you rather be in a Sherman with a whole company of other Sherman tanks, air and artillery support, or would you rather be in a Panther with two other tanks in what is left of your platoon?

The problem is that the question you wish to pose compares apples to oranges.

I said Tiger, not Panther.  Oh, and btw, I prefer oranges.  :wink:

@Funcioneta:

Maybe 1939 would be best suited for one to one. A 1939 multiplayer would be boring for soviets, italians and USA (Japan would have some fun IF China received proper rules and setup)

It could be even a 1936 scenario, but it would need in-map boxes for Spanish Civil War, italian assault on Ethiopy and of course a true China  :wink:

I think a 1936 Spain would be better if done in an A&A Europe fashion, or D-Day, or something more “zoomed in.”

Yes, economy is also a factor, however, I don’t like to view IPC superiority as a “margin of error”, or something that can be wasted.  I’m more of a “save for a rainy day” type of player.  I say, if your IPC advantage is really that great, wait a turn or two to build up your forces, then crush Germany in one blow.  :evil:

Yes, if you have extra IPCs, go subs.  They’re the best fodder now that transports are out of the question.

Still, you have to be careful.  If the Allies are bothering Japan and leaving you alone, go hard for Russia.  If no one is paying attention, Russia could easily get too big.

Yeah, I was thinking about the factory one.  I like it, but the argument can certainly be made that it’s too powerful.  It was inspired by the Industrial Technology tech in Classic.  Larry Harris said, in a series of articles he did for the release of AAR, was that it hurt his brain thinking about it, since he couldn’t figure out what exactly was being industrialized.  I quote Larry Harris, “2 IPC Infantry?  Holy Cats!!!  :-o 23 IPC Battleship… :| hold me back”, or something like that.

The fifth one was inspired by one of Japan’s National Advantages in one of the Larry Harris Revised Tournament Rules.  It was strictly for Japanese battleships, and the historical note along with it said how the US had some “catching up to do”.  I wanted to give the US the ability to catch up.  Also, restricting it to battleships, however, just doesn’t make sense to me.  If on a Battleship, why not a Cruiser or Destroyer?  Yes, it does seem overpowered as well.

Still, I’m tired of the land and air units getting all the cool upgrades.  It’s about time some decent sea tech gets developed.

@bbrett3:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Perhaps this would have been a better poll question: “Which would rather be in, a Sherman or a Tiger?”   8-)

I say Sherman, if I’m in a Tiger it means I’m German, and the Germans lost :-D

There’s a big difference between being a looser and being dead.  :wink:

NUCLEAR BOMB

A Nuclear Bomb is the only technology that can be targeted.  In order to research nuclear bombs, you must buy research dice, as opposed to tokens.  You buy dice in pairs, costing 10 IPCs per pair of dice.  You roll each pair of dice separately.  If you roll a 3 or less, you succeed.  Only one Nuclear Strike may be performed per tern.  There are three types of nuclear attacks that can be conducted:

Strategic Nuclear Strike

This attack is carried out on Industrial Complexes, and requires either Rockets or High Altitude Bombers [see my 3rd breakthrough chart].  These attacks follow the same rules for rocket attacks and strategic bombing runs, however, a successful strike results in the total destruction of the Industrial Complex, and the Industrial Complex is removed from the territory.  A new Industrial Complex may be built.  Only one bomber at a time may conduct a Strategic Nuclear Strike, and is immune to AA Gun fire.  It may be accompanied by escorts and intercepted.  An intercepted bomber that is destroyed does not trigger a Nuclear detonation.

Tactical Nuclear Strike
A tactical Nuclear strike is similar to a Strategic Nuclear Bombing Run in that it is done during the opening fire stage of combat, yet it is done against units as opposed to Industrial Complexes.  Only one bomber may perform a Tactical Nuclear Strike per turn.  One d6 is rolled.  The number on the die is the number of hits scored.  (example, a roll of 5 removes 5 enemy units from play).  Rockets may not conduct a Tactical Nuclear Strike.

Armageddon Nuclear Strike
This is a special attack that involves turning an entire territory into an impassable Nuclear Wasteland, and requires both Heavy Bombers and High Altitude Bombers.  A set number of bombers is required to perform this strike.  The total number of bombers in an Armageddon Strike Force must be equal to the IPC value of the territory to be nuked.  (for example, nuking Central United States requires 6 bombers).  If a bomber is shot down before it can drop its payload, the mission cannot be carried out and must be aborted, and no nukes are dropped.  When a successful Armageddon Strike is completed, remove all pieces from that territory, and place an upside-down control marker on it.  That territory is now considered impassable, and no income can be collected from it by any player.  This strike may not be done on territories with Victory Cities.  An island territory with no IPC value does not require Heavy Bombers to turn into a wasteland.

I think I read an article somewhere that Larry Harris was thinking about it…or maybe it was another forum topic like this… :|darn, I can’t remember.

Man, a North Africa game would be great!  You could custom artillery pieces as Rommel’s stationary anti-tank guns.  Where they 88s?  Another thing I can’t remember.

Tank destroyers?  Desert Rats?  Total geeked-out sweetness!  Trenches? the list of possibilities goes on.

Um, Mr Imperious Leader, sir……I’ve seen you on the Larry Harris forum.  You guys are tight, right?  Couldn’t you…oh, forget it.

cries into the darkness Darn you, Larry Harris!!!

@Rakeman:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Think of it this way, if Larry Harris included a 1939 and/or 1940 scenario, would anyone even play 1942 anymore?

I think 1941 has an appeal not just because it’s new, but because it allows you to experience what leads into 1942.  Also, it gives just a little more freedom in terms of “what if”.  1939 would certainly have the most “what if” factor.

I would… just because I imagine 1939 scenario would have a lot of political rules, which may or may not be what I want to do.

Yeah, politics just spoil an A&A game.  That’s what Diplomacy is for.

I’ve been working on a third breakthrough chart…just because.  :| I don’t know, I just think three charts is nicer than two.  Someone described the first chart as land tech, while the second was sea and air tech.  My third one is land, sea, and air.

I guess you could call it my SEAL chart!  :-D… :-) Get it?  You know, SEa, Air, Land… :-(…Navy…Seals… :cry: guys…?
Heckler1 8-): BOO!!!
Heckler2 :mrgreen:: You suck!
Tim the Enchanter :evil:: Get on with it!

Fine, here it is.

BREAKTHROUGH CHART 3

1. Heavy Artillery
Your Artillery attack on a 3.

2. Heavy Tank
Your tanks now attack and defend on a 4.

3. Increased Factory Efficiency
All units now cost 1 IPC less

4. Combined Bombardment
Your surface combat ships can now fire in the first round of an amphibious assault, in addition to the Opening Fire stage.  Ships are vulnerable to enemy fire during the first round of combat.

5. Naval Night Fighting Skills
Your surface combat ships now fire twice in the first round of sea combat.

6. High Altitude Bombers
AA Guns now roll two dice for each of your bombers.  They hit on a combined roll of 3 or less (5 for radar).

Well, what do you think?

Think of it this way, if Larry Harris included a 1939 and/or 1940 scenario, would anyone even play 1942 anymore?

I think 1941 has an appeal not just because it’s new, but because it allows you to experience what leads into 1942.  Also, it gives just a little more freedom in terms of “what if”.  1939 would certainly have the most “what if” factor.

I know Larry Harris thought about doing it, but decided against it for several reasons.  Anyone know why specifically?  He doesn’t address it on his website forums.  :|
What would it look like?  What would be the set-up? 
More Minor Allied players? (France, Poland, Greece?) 
Would it be a cake walk for the Allies, or just a slow start?

My curiosity is driving me insane!  :-P

1941 KJF is very doable, and IMO the best Allied strategy.  Japan can fall just as quickly as it spreads.  However, you need a UK player that is willing to commit.

US goes all Pacific, and threatens a direct invasion of Japan from the Northeast.  With the bulk of the Japanese Fleet pinned down, the UK can island hop from the Southwest.  In fact, the US does not need to go all Pacific, just enough to distract the Japanese fleet.

UK builds ICs in India and Australia.  India and Chine hold the continent, while Australia is the base to retake the British East Indies.  This is a war of maneuver.  Don’t engage the Japanese fleet! You must keep your small Pacific fleet alive.  If the Japanese come after you:
“Run Away!!!”-Everyone, Monty Python’s The Holy Grail
Don’t worry if you can’t retake the East Indies at first.  Patience in the key. 
“Wait…for the opportune moment…” Johnny Depp, The Curse of the Black Pearle

@Rammstein:

Hi all

I just want to say that what bothered me the most about previous versions of A&A was the KGF strat and the fact that Japan had to go for Moscow while the US ignored her. There was very little action in the Pacific theater. AA50 is by far the most viable version to allow for a Pacific war.

My strategy is very simple, and could probably be tweaked here and there for efficiency. I’m not getting turn specific here because the strategy is fairly open.
This is how I played it though:

1. Russia does what it always does, survives as long as possible. I mostly buy infantry and withdraw as Germany advances. The idea is to build up as much defense fodder as possible for the ultimate defense of Moscow. In fact, when I played it I never attacked German troops once.
2. The UK buys nothing but fighters and sends them to Russia. I borrowed this idea from AA Europe where my friends and I would buy nothing but fighters as the Allies and send them to Russia. If Germany’s tank stack could not crush the Russian infantry/fighter stack in Moscow she would run out of steam and Russia could spring forward. Try to hold off Italy in Africa and Japan in India as long as possible.
3. The USA goes all out on Japan with everything it has, including all the east coast stuff.

At first I tried this strategy in 1942 but I found that Germany was too strong and could defeat Russia quickly. Russia doesn’t have enough fodder. In 41 Russia has more time to retreat and build up reserves. Plus the Allies start with their full incomes, which allows the UK to purchase 4 fighters on UK1 instead of 3.

My main problem is how to defeat Japan with the USA. I know that eventually it can be done, but I want to know the most efficient way of doing so. I’ve heard several people say that it’s a cakewalk, but I disagree. I find in either 41 or 42 that Japan is so damn strong naval wise. She has so many fighters that buying cheap carriers drastically bolsters her naval defense. The USA has to spend more IPCs to match this power. I also found that by the time USA liberates the 4 IPC islands etc that Japan is hardly affected because she is deep in Asia at this point. If anyone has a strong anti-japan strategy for the USA I would be very interested to hear it.

My strategy may not be perfect, maybe the UK would be better off landing troops in Europe? BTW I never play with techs or NOs as i feel they could unbalance the game too much in favor of the Axis. I haven’t tried NOs with this strat though, so who knows…
Has anyone tried this idea yet? I’d love to hear other KJF strats, or just how to defeat Japan as USA alone.

Thanks

PS. One thing I like about AA50 for the Allies is that the Axis starts the turn order in 41 and 42. This allows the Allies to maximize their efforts and exploit Axis errors. If Japan thought the USA was going to go all out against her and bought warships on J1, the USA could see that and merely choose to ignore her.

Taking the Japanese homeland will be tough if you let Japan build up too much infantry.  Assuming you’ve island hopped, and taking the homeland is all that’s left, BSR max damage in the IC.  That gives Japan 8 IPCs to repair 16 IPCs of damage every turn, and effectively stops production.  The wrest is simple, build up invasion force, and take your prize.

@rockrobinoff:

@bugoo:

One of my thoughts after playing allies is france is bait that is not worth it.  Unless it can be taken, and held, nine times out of ten it is not worth trading.

Not worth trading at 11 bucks a pop?

No, not if you loose more than 11 IPCs worth in units to trade it.  You’d end up with a net loss.  Now, if you could thereby impose a higher net loss on Germany, that’s one thing, but it’'s unlikely if your force is too small to hold France.

@Woodstock:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Yes, good idea, not going carrier.  My first AA50 game I bought a carrier. Worst A&A decission I’ve ever made.

Still, if feel the German fleet is just a pipe dream.  Yes, I played a game where Germany actually had more ships than US and UK in the Atlantic, but that was a heavy, KJF game. 
Hitler thought the Kaiser was stupid for building a fleet for several reasons:
1. It could be bottled up in the Baltic too easily. 
2. Just can’t compete w/ UK
3. Simply trying to compete w/ UK only got the UK pissed off, eventually leading to war.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Fuhrer on this one.  A German fleet is waste of IPCs.  It will eventually get destroyed, period.  And what strategic objective would you have achieved?  None, just blowing up a few UK/US ships, which you could have done with air.  So what if it ties up Allied fleets and take them down with you?  The Allies can afford to trade units with you.  By building a fleet, you play into the Allies’ hands, because it distracts you from Russia, and forces you to trade units you can’t afford to trade.  Your goal is Moscow. 
Let me repeat it.

Key to Axis Victory:Moscow!!!

Key to Axis Victory:Moscow!!!

True.
But whoever said that the Germans have to take Moscow? With each and every game I have won as the Axis, Moscow was taken by the Japanese.

Let me explain my rationale:

Almost everyone here plays the Race for Moscow with Germany vs Race for Berlin with USA/UK strategy.

What I try to achieve is break that habit, as that strategy has quite the odds to go wrong for the Axis.
Thus, I build a German navy. And here’s why.

Situation 1: Allies go full KGF.
Let them come. With Germany not focusing too much on Russia, that is one tough nut to crack. Especially if they have to deal with a decent German navy aswell.
Played well, the Allies are gonna be needing at least 6 turns before they can even pose a decent (and continous!) threat to the German shores. (Imagine what Germany can put in land, sea and air in 6 turns, and then count what the Allies can do in those 6 turns, with Japan snatching IPC’s from them everywhere).

By that 6th turn, Japan is knocking on Moscow’s doors.

Yeah, but you’re Baltic fleet will be blown to bits. So what’s the point?
Well…that is exactly the point. I’m building units to fight. And if anyone tries to attack the Baltic fleet, that fleet will defend, and take down quite some expensive units. Units, that at least UK, are unable to replace easily, setting the Allies back a couple of rounds.
By then, the fleet has served it’s purpose.

Situation 2: Allies see my Baltic built, and go KJF.
Great, I’ll go and play with UK. Good luck pulling off a KJF while UK is under heavy fire. Or I use the fleet to form a quick bridge to Karelia. Even better.

Yes, Japan takes Moscow in KGF.  The thing is, if you really want to take pressure off Japan, you’re best bet is to go hard for Moscow, not build a fleet.  The best a large fleet can do scare the allies away towards Japan.  Then what, blockade UK, b/c it’s can’t drop a huge fleet due to protecting its Empire via India, South Africa, Australia ICs?  Germany can’t invade UK unless UK is stupid, or till it has already taken Moscow, and by then, its Game Over.

Yes, you can potentially clear the Atlantic with a huge fleet, but so can a huge air force, which doesn’t have to sit idle during a KJF game.

@dondoolee:

@bongaroo:

@dondoolee:

How many games of yours have a German sub in the Med, let alone multiples?  I’ve never seen any reason for the Germans to purchase any boats nor had an IC that was capable of building them into the MED.

How does this happen in your games?

1-2 can get put in there, and if you really wanted, Germany may be able to build a sub on T1.  Even so the subs are just a chery on top deal.  The Italian navy is dead as soon as the Allies want it gone.  The fact is the navy can be gone by t2 if the allies really thought it was that important, (especially if you sit a turn and wait to buy a carrier) The defense comes from German airplanes being a threat to the allied fleet.  There lies Italy’s best bet for defense (and still the Jap carrier if you really insist on defense).

I am of the opinion, the faster Italy can get ground troops out, and open up a point of a legit threat to Russia (Think about a 1-2 punch w/ Italy-Germany or maybe even Italy-Japan) the better shape the Axis are in.  This can be accomplished T3 or 4, and if the allies start comming in, use the Italians as a way to stall before the Germans have to deal with them.  Italy is in a prime position to get the Ukraine and Cauc don’t waste it.  I think the biggest easy mistake for either the Axis or the Allies is to over commit to Africa.  Usually when one does that the other side wins.

A good German player might be able to take Egypt on T1.  In that case, let Germany blitz through Africa and go after the Middle East, then you either hit Caucuses from the south, or India from the west, and even link up with the Japanese Army.  You still get the NOs. 
I don’t think, however, that Italy can “over-commit” to Africa.  One of the great advantages to having an Italian player is that Germany can focus on a two front war and not worry about a third front to the south.  I say for Italy, go for Africa and Mid-east.  A 30 IPC Italy is a scary thing.