high profile, poor slope to armor made the sherman at best, a mediocre medium tank. the allies vast quantitative superiority ,however, more than offset any german qualitative advantages. the T 34 , and when working well , the panther were the best medium tanks of WW2
Panthers tended to break down after you rolled them out of the factory.
I’ve been using modded Risk 2210 rules for nukes. When a land territory gets nuked, all units are destroyed, including ICs and AA. A nuked territory gets an upside-down control marker placed on it, signifying it as impassable. No income can be collected from it, nor can nuked VCs be used towards winning the game.
I like it because it can change the very map you play on, but is it overpowered? If so, is it unrealistically powerful, or just a game killer. It kind of is a game killer, since US can turtle up and just roll tech till it gets nukes.
Are nukes really doable in A&A? I’d like to get some ideas and see if we can get a workable house rule.
You also might want to check out the official FAQ, Upside-down_Turtle. It has resolutions to many unusual situations like that one along with other refinements:
http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf
(and I like your avatar: may the blessings of Mercer be upon you :))
Thanks bigdog.
Thanks Lema. :wink: Btw, if you saw a turtle stuck on it’s back, you’d help it out, wouldn’t you?
@Emperor:
Please note, I am not saying that a German Baltic fleet is a good idea, but if your going to do it, this is how I would pursue it and the reasons why.
G1: Purchase BB, DD, and 1 inf
Now why no carrier? Simple, the fleet i bought would give me another shore shot at 4, would survive the UK turn 1 air force, and would be good fodder against the UK fleet. A carrier grants very little extra offensive capability in any way shape or form, and is easily destroyed by subs, or subs +air, and limits my G1 attacks on the UK fleet as my planes have to land on it. I would also shuttle the 1 inf, 1 art to Finland on G1. This forces Russia to pull back on R1 and grant me my 3rd NO even if they do take Baltic States (which with 7 inf, 1 art, and 1 arm you should attack there R1 almost every game.)G2: Choose.
If the UK went air heavy, purchase however many destroyers it would take to ensure they loose most of there air power, or an AC.
-This buys you more time against the UK building a fleet, and usually gives you enough time to have enough airpower to keep there fleet at the bottom of the ocean. Remember, UKs income goes down as the game goes on, yours goes up. They have 1-2 turns to get something going, then they no longer matter typically.
If the UK went fleet heavy, purchase a destroyer a round and possibly extra transports.
-This allows you to hold Finland, Norway, and Karelia for most of the game as you are shuttling up infantry while sending in tanks to reinforce. It helps you maintain good trades with Russia for most of the game as you use inf+air deep in there territory. Meanwhile, Italy has some breathing room and can help hold the Russians back in the south. Also, that fleet can latter be sacrificed with your air to sink the UK fleet when it becomes advantageous to do so.The big thing is not to get caught into a ‘race to the larger fleet’ with the UK and to make sure Italy uses the extra time wisely. Now yes this opens you up even more to a KGF from the allies, but thats why japan goes hulk smash.
Hmm, I’ve never really given much thought to a non-cv/non-ss G1 naval build. One could always through down a cv or 2 on G2 or 3 if needed to beef up the fleet. I like this thought. +1 Karma
I’ve always gone with a CV build also. The BB, DD build sounds interesting. +1 Karma also!
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!!!
What happens if Japan builds an IC in Manchuria, and it gets taken by the allies. Manchuria is a Chinese area, but does China control the IC? Does the US?
Perhaps this would have been a better poll question: “Which would rather be in, a Sherman or a Tiger?” 8-)
@ABWorsham:
Had the Japanese attacked only British and Dutch territories in the Pacific, would the U.S responded mil itary action?
I believe the Philippines were to vast an area to avoid had the Japanese attacked the East Indies. But it’s a decent question to ponder.
Alas, another result of American Imperialism. Turning the Philippines into a colony eventually drew the US into Asian politics and war with Japan. Had the US allowed the Philippines to be free after the Spanish-American War, Japan would have gobbled them up, and that would be the end of that. Would we have cared about Japanese expansionism? No, not at all.
“Had Britain not declared war, Hitler would have attacked an unprepared Stalin in 1940. The result might well have been the liberation of the Gulag and its 12 million souls, the eradication of Bolshevism in Russia and China, no Cold War, no Korea, and no Vietnam. Instead of six years of World War II bloodletting, we may have seen six months of a Hitler-Stalin war, ending with one dead and the other crippled.”-Patrick J. Buchanan An Unnecessary War? October 11, 1999
I voted that shipping would determine the outcome. I’ve changed my mind.
The American people viewed WWI as a waste. There was no way they would enter what was practically the same war. After Pearle Harbor, the only enemy was Japan. In fact, US aid to Britain would have most likely stopped, since resources would have shifted to fight Japan.
The H.M.S. Habakkuk. :wink:
Okay, okay, so I cheated, since it technically never made it off the drawing board.
If it must be a real ship: the Yamato, hands down!
18 inch guns!!! Take that, Bismark lovers. :-D
Remember the oil embargo of 1937? Japan attacked the U.S. and U.K. out of desperation for oil, and steel. They were on the verge of collapse. There was no way they could invade the Soviet Union. It just couldn’t be done. The East Indies were invaded for their oil, and Pearle was hit to take out the U.S. fleet and bring the US to the negotiation table. Had there been no embargo, there would have been no Pearle Harbor.
If Japan had the oil, would it have invaded the Soviet Union? The Axis Nations were originally Hitler’s anti-Comintern Pact, signed between Germany and Japan on November 25, 1936. It was basically an alliance against the Soviet Union. Still, the answer is no, not after their defeat against the Soviets in the battle of Khalkhin-Gol in 1939. Germany formed an alliance with the USSR against Poland 1 day after the Japanese lost the battle, and after Hitler had offered for Poland to join the anti-Comintern Pact in exchange for Danzig.
Why should the Japanese have trusted Hitler and gone to his aid after being stabbed in the back, and when they had no vital national interest in invading the Soviet Union?
Why should Japanese soldiers fight a war they couldn’t win, for a cause they didn’t believe in, only to have the Bolsheviks march into Tokyo, and rape, pillage, and burn the city to the ground, with millions of Japanese being sent to the Gulags, never to be seen again?
The Japanese didn’t surrender after being nuked twice, but they did surrender after the Soviets invaded Manchuria. Why? Because there are indeed fates worse than death.
Japan also had an American made helicopter. It wasn’t capable of lifting much, but the Japanese fixed that by putting in a better engine. Hurray for common sense!
If KGF is the strategy used by the allies (and often is), building a fleet for the med should be a priority for the axis, period. Japan should definitely be able to spare a carrier, planes, bs and whatever else it can funnel through the suez if America isn’t building anything in the pacific. If italy doesn’t add to its fleet every turn though, that japanese fleet won’t have enough punch to do much by round 3 when it gets there. Building a carrier either round 2 or 3 can effectively double the size of the fleet at that juncture, making it much more survivable.
Also, a waiting carrier for german or japanese planes to drop onto is awesome, since only America can intervene in 41’ between Axis turns (Italy (carrier I2), America, Germany (drops fighters G3), Russia (no units in Med), Japan (also drops fighters, adds fleet J3) . Usually only a few American units can reach the fleet by round 2, so an attack by America on a full powered italian fleet may be reconsidered, or just lose them badly needed units. The best part is that you get a combined fleet off italy by the middle of round 3.
At this point, the allies have the same problem you usually have with attacking combined fleets; one power doesn’t have enough units to make it worth fighting high value battles and risk losing all their supporting pieces (i.e. fighters and subs are expendable, while bombers, transports and carriers are not). You can’t attack them, they can’t attack you. Usually a stacking war develops in SZ 12 with the allies bringing everything but the kitchen sink… And italy can hold the fort by buying a few subs a turn or blocking with a destroyer at gibraltar, japan can bring up new naval units as needed too.
And finally, the best part about it is that if it DOES get sunk and was just a huge waste of time, it was just that, a diversion. By now it is Round 5 or 6 and Germany is waltzing through Russia, and Japan is unstoppable with 70+ IPCs. If the allies ignore it, force them to pay attention by threatening the supply route from America to Europe. Hope this helps.
Yes, I think a KGF is completely out of the question, still, the Allies may go that rout. If it’s KIF, and Italy looses its fleet, time for plan B: build infantry and hold tight. Turn Europe’s “weak underbelly” into a 6-pack, and request support from Germany if they can spare infantry.
Seriously, though, if you’re going to take either Italy of France, don’t be silly enough to do it if you can’t hold either one.
Really, the norther rout via Norway and Finland (tee hee, Finway :lol:) is the best rout.
Assuming NOs, I disagree. Taking France for just one turn grants UK an additional 11 IPC and, if Italy doesn’t retake it, an additional 5 IPC for the US. This helps the UK a lot, since the UK can then use that additional money to build more land units, threatening the same or a different invasion again on the following turn, etc. Also, Germany and/or Italy is going to have to retake France, thus depriving either the eastern front or Africa of those units. If the UK/US can force Germany to keep most of its new builds at home for a few turns, the Allies have basically won the game if Japan isn’t huge yet, since the Red Army will just steamroll west if left to their own devices, including Finland/Norway. In fact, just the presence of a large number of protected transports in the Atlantic is enough to start slowing the German advance since they have to start spreading themselves thin defending everything - they dare not let the Allies into France, even for a turn, unless they have to. Once they start trading France, that’s usually the beginning of the end for Germany.
Yes, but you also have to factor in the cost in lost units per side during combat. If it all ends with a net gain, than I guess it’s OK, but if Germany looses, less IPCs worth in units than you in the battle, is that extra 11 worth it? Maybe.
In previous A&A games, anything but 8 inf on R1 was considered suicidal. Is it now 10 inf in AA50, or has anyone done something like 3 arm and 5 inf, or 3 figt and lived?