Posts made by Veqryn

1. Yes, everything in a battle can hit everything else (unless it is strategic bombing, which is separate from battles).  Inf, Art, Tanks, Fighters, Bombers, can all hit each other.  (don’t forget to roll any anti aircraft shots before combat, if there is an AA gun present)
2. Yes, you can pick up during the combat move, and drop off as an amphibious assault.  However, combat ends any movement of transport, and all combats are done at the same time.  This means that if you have a transport in SZ13 and some inf to pick up in Algeria, and there is an enemy surface warship in SZ14, you could move you could pick your guys in algeria, move to SZ14, and drop off in Italy (pending the successful destruction of the enemy surface warship), but you could not destroy the SZ14 enemy then move once more and drop off in SZ15 Egypt.
3. No
4. You can destroy up to 10 billion.  However, if they have 10 billion and one, then one will survive.
5. They are separate islands, so they need a transport to ferry units.
6. No clue, I can’t stand games that take multiple sittings so I don’t play by forum, I only play if I can finish in the same session.

Be sure to check out this link for some tips and strategy discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15292.0

Here is the rule my friends and I sometimes play with for capitals:

If your capital is taken, instead of giving all your IPCs to the enemy, you give them all to the bank instead.  (your money is destroyed)

There is still a strong incentive to take the enemies capital, but taking his capital doesn’t make you strong, it just makes the enemy really really weak.

We have also considered playing with a rule where you still collect money but only collect half your money rounded down, and can spend it at any remaining factories you have.  Haven’t tried it yet though.

generally speaking in a competitive game, the lowest i would take would be 6 ipcs
maybe 5
also, I would not take more than 8 as that would be too high

So off of the Japan strategy stuff for a bit….

Here is something rather nice for the 1942 game:
because of the changed rules for transports and subs, the German Med fleet just got a lot weaker.

If Germany either abandons africa, or they do not roll well during their attack on Egypt (meaning they don’t take it, or they take it with only 1 unit left), and Germany did not buy any more Med navy units…
Then the UK could try to sink the BB with just a fighter and bomber, and if they succeed the UK should purchase an Egypt IC at the first available opportunity.

The bomber from england plus the fighter from india (plus your fighter from egypt if alive, but most likely not) would have a 60% chance of killing the BB AND transport with just the bomber left, and a 20% chance of killing just the BB and losing both planes thereby leaving the transport alive, and lastly, a 20% chance of doing nothing at all since the BB repairs.  Could be worth it.

Here is what has to happen for me to decide to try a Pacific USA strategy (don’t call it KJF because Japan will never die):

Russia has to do pretty well on the Eastern Front during their turn and during Germany’s turn.
UK has to do really well in Africa, since they will not be getting your support there.
UK has to move their Indian fleet West.
Japan has to lose at least 1 boat and 1 fighter during their turn
Japan has to move their East Indies fleet 2 moves West.  This usually means they crush the British fleet off of the Sinai Peninsula and horn of africa, but it really does not matter where, so long as it is 2 moves West.
Japan has to move their Battleship or Carrier to Hawaii, along with their Cruiser too (though if they move all 3 plus the sub, they might be too powerful to destroy if you don’t roll well, which would cancel this strat).
Japan has to not purchase any navy first turn.

I would then purchase as America either: 1 Carrier 3 Subs 1 Fighter, or 2 Carriers 1 Sub 1 Destroyer, or 1 BB 1 Carrier 1 Destroyer, or something like this
Then, I would attack Japan’s BB/Carrier plus Cruiser plus sub if it is there with your 2 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 BB, 1 Sub (assuming you submerged it)
If Japan has 1 BB, 1 Cruiser, 1 Sub at Hawaii, you have a 94-98% chance of winning depending on if you have the sub still.
If Japan has 1 BB, 1 Carrier, 1 Fighter, 1 Cruiser, 1 Sub, you have only a 56% chance of winning assuming you have the sub.  I would still attack.  If it goes well, then you do Pac strat, if you fail, you place purchase in Atl.
If Japan has 2 Fighter, 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 CC, 1 Sub, you are screwed and only have a 20% chance of winning, so I would not take it.

If you lose any more than your Submarine and a fighter, I would go ahead and abandon this strategy and place your purchase in the Atlantic, unless you destroyed a BB and Carrier in the process.
If you you only the Submarine, I would place your purchase in the Pacific and say a prayer.
If you lose the sub and a fighter, well, its up to you.

Basically, Japan has 4 capital ships as well as 6 fighter, 1 bomber, 2 other navy units, and a very good position.  The only way you will succeed in your Pacific strategy is to kill 1 of the Capital ships, kill the 2 other navy units (sub and cruiser), have one of her fighters die somewhere, and have 2 of her capital ships far out of position so that they can not be used for several turns.  By killing the BB at Hawaii, and by having her other BB and carrier tied up near Egypt (can get back to Japan by end of J3), this will give you approximately 2 more turns to catch up in Navy to Japan.

You will be making 38 a round, Japan will be making about the same after 2 rounds.
Japan has 3 capital ships to your 1 capital ship + whatever you just bought
Japan has 2x more fighters than you. (this is huge, you will never overcome this part)
And it is Japan’s turn… (meaning they are about to buy more, and have the initiative)

It is still an uphill battle, but your objective is mostly just to make Japan play stupidly and make her forget about her western front.  The best you can do is to Take Borneo, East Indies, and sink the Japanese fleet with 1 surviving unit on your side, all by turn 7 or so.  Most likely, you will take just 1 Island and will lose your entire fleet, but will be successful in distracting Japan and making her Western assault go very poorly.

you guys will argue about ANYTHING!

yes, the subs reach and I was counting that.  its just that any boats you build can not reach.
you could do the carrier strat, building 1 or 2 carriers, and that would then allow 2 or 4 of your fighters to make it to any seazone

Germany begins with 3 subs, 6 fighters, and 1 bomber…… so technically you don’t need to buy any more navy.  If you take out his stuff in SZ2, losing only a submarine, then you are in a position to hold off his navy for a total of 3 turns.

Holding off the navy is just as good as destroying it, because when you destroy his navy you lose valuable fighters in the process.  I would rather hold off his navy from landing anywhere for 3 turn, while buying all land units and maybe an extra fighter/bomber, than lose a ton of planes to destroy a navy that can be rebuilt the next turn.  I’ve seen games where germany takes out the UK navy, but in the process is left with only 2 fighters and a bomber, which means that when the UK rebuilds the very next turn, Germany can not threaten the New navy.  I would rather have the ability to threaten their navy the entire game, then destroy it and lose that ability for the rest of the game.

there is only one problem with this strategy.
the UK can build its Navy in a SZ that is 3 spaces away from your Fleet build

If you build fleet in the baltic, and put all your fighters in Norway, then UK can build in SZ8.  if you put the fighters in France, they build in SZ2.  if you split them up, you can’t kill a good UK build.

This means that the UK actually gets 2 turns of Navy builds before you can try to attack their new navy.  Yes, you can win and sink their navy, but can you really afford to kill 60 ipcs of UK navy?  What is the cost of German IPCs to kill that 60 ipc UK navy?  Don’t count your subs you start with, they are made for this after all and you can’t turn them into ipc.  Only count what you are purchasing as navy or losing as planes.  I do not think it is worth it, and you will have a Russia owning Norway, Karelia, Western Russia, BeloRussia, Ukraine, and also one of either the Balkans or Eastern Europe.

Points for originality, and you should give it a shot, but I just do not think it is feasible (at least not without lucky rolls)

@Funcioneta:

@Veqryn:

Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

Not true

East Indies -> 4
Borneo -> 4
N. Guinea -> 1
N. Zealand -> Australia -> 2
Hawaii -> 1
Philippines -> 3
Alaska -> 2 (rogue assaults, no more Polar Express due stupid frozen Perry channel)

17 IPCs. There are plenty of IPCs in Pacific Ocean. It can be done and it’s not more difficult than doing KGF

Also, the Atlantic suck can be severely damaged G1 and Germany can afford a fleet now with cheaper costs (the suck will be slower even if later is discovered that it’s still possible). The game can seem Revised but it’s not revised because of zero defense trannies are a mayor change both for KGF, KJF or balanced approach

It’s a new game in fact, there is not better strat until now since so few games are being played. It will need some time until we discover all consecuences of copy-pasting Revised map/setup and annyversay rules (deleting tech, that’s another twist)

However, if you are not very used to Revised, I suggest you give at least a try with Pacific fleet

how many of those actually get taken in a usual game though?
Japan doesn’t take Hawaii, Alaska or Australia and New Zealand because every spare ipc they can afford is heading for Moscow (even if you build a US fleet, Japan should still send every ipc its not spending on ships to moscow)
Japan starts with the others, and of them, I can’t see the USA taking more than just East Indies or Borneo.  USA does not have the time or income to take the others, and absolutely rarely ever gets both East Indies And Borneo.

That means there is approximately 4 to 8 ipcs in the Pacific.

As opposed to the Atlantic campaign:
Norway - 3  usually to UK
Karelia - 2 to Russia (by USA going atlantic, you free up the UK to help Russia)
Eastern Europe - 3  usually to UK
Germany - 10  take it and watch them concede
France - 6  UK won’t ever get this one alone against a germany who leaves even a minimal defense of inf and fighters
Italy - 6  for USA
Balkans - 3 for USA
Africa - 4 to 10 depending.  If USA doesn’t go Atlantic, than you can kiss Africa goodbye, meaning UK will be down about 8 and Germany up 8

Yes, I will agree with Func on this point, you should try the Pacific strategy at least once.  Just don’t expect to win.  Some points are, don’t build too many transports or ground troops, you need all your 42 ipcs going into Subs, Carriers, and Fighters.  I wouldn’t build more than 1 extra transport, though the one you start with is enough, until After you get extremely lucky and defeat Japan’s Navy in a highly unlikely battle.  Be very wary of her 2 Battleships and 2 Carriers.  Make sure that UK moves her fleet to the SZ touching Egypt and hope that Japan follows her there to crush them.  That will buy you 3 turns while that BB makes its way back to join up with Japan’s main fleet.  I would not go Pacific unless Japan makes a stupid move and brings her first BB to Hawaii, because that is the only opportunity you will have in the game to destroy that BB.  If Japan doesn’t do that, you are going to have an uphill battle.

PS: fleets are not really cheaper under the new rules.  Subs used to be a 8 ipc unit that was 2/2/2/8 and could be taken as a casualty from air hits.  Now it is a 6 ipc unit that is 2/1/2/6 and can’t be taken as a casualty.  That is pretty much equal in my mind.  Transports used to cost 8, but were a 0/1/2/8 unit, now they cost 7 and are a 0/0/2/7 unit, and I would much much rather pay that extra 1 ipc to have the first version, although the second version makes better gameplay.  Revised had a 3/3/2/12 unit, and so does this version, except that it loses its anti submarine capabilities and gains a shore shot, so that is about equal.  And now there is a 2/2/2/8 unit with the anti sub capabilities, which is pretty the same pricing strategy as the rest.  Carriers lost a defensive point and now cost 2 less ipcs, which is about equal again.  The only thing that ACTUALLY got cheaper was the Battleship, which is still horribly expensive and will almost never be bought. 
Larry has a way of doing prices for navy, and it is 2 ipcs per point.  So a unit with 2 attack and 1 defense has 3 points total, so 3 x 2 = 6.  A cruiser is 6 x 2 = 12, a destroyer is 4 x 2 = 8.

@themayor:

I have never played allies before, but I have played axis two - three times and won. But I want to try playing the allies and I really could need just a few points in what would be the most efficent way to beat another player (with the same amount of experience that I have).

Would a KJF or KGF be the best way? Getting UK troops up so they could help russia? And go into algerie with US troops in round 3?

But if you are going into algerie, this means giving up the pacific to japan?

You should read what I wrote above and you would already know the answer to all of the questions you just asked.

KGF, UK into Norway and Karelia, owning the Baltic Sea, USA into Algeria, UK might land in Algeria too depending.
Yes, you give up the Pacific, and how many IPCs do you lose from that?  Might lose Hawaii, Australia, but who cares.  There are no IPCs in the Pacific.

6 ipcs for a Blockhouse that fires 1 out of 6, and 6 more ipcs to upgrade to one that fires 2 out of 6.  so that is 12 ipcs for the full version.

1 hitpoint and can not be captured (just dies if the controller loses that territory) [could also do zero hitpoints, just like AA gun, and still would not die unless territory is lost]

fires a 1 or 2 out of 6 (depending on normal or upgraded) before combat begins on all attacking land units, up to a maximum of 10 land units more than the total number of defending units (just like shore bombard, the casualties may fire their casualty shots)

once in place, it is pointing at a certain territory border and only defends against attacks coming from that border (the border can be land or sea, and therefore does not matter if it is amphibious or regular assault)

is built in place, but can only be built in territories that contain an IC or are adjacent to a territory that contains an IC.  Only one blockhouse per border.

@Imperious:

A 0-4-0-7 unit that defended only one border

How does this model the Maginot line? You got 6 infantry defending behind something that rolls ONE 4 or less? This is nothing to worry about the model has to reflect some hideous opening fire sequence that can potentially take out alot of the punch of your army, or just lay down and wiff it. Only something that gets a roll of 2 or less for each matching ART and INF can account for the psychology of having one as a deterrent.  This piece has to make people afraid to try to attack, but also possible have a small effect.

Out of all the ideas for blockhouses, and I do disagree with the unit in general, this one has been the best:

6 ipcs to Fire a 1 out of 6, can be upgraded for another 6 ipcs to fire a 2 out of 6, for a total of 12 ipcs for full version

1 hitpoint and can not be captured (just dies if the controller loses that territory) [could also do zero hitpoints, just like AA gun, and still would not die unless territory is lost]

fires a 1 or 2 out of 6 (depending on normal or upgraded) before combat begins on all attacking land units, up to a maximum of 10 land units more than the total number of defending units (just like shore bombard, the casualties may fire their casualty shots)

once in place, it is pointing at a certain territory border and only defends against attacks coming from that border (the border can be land or sea, and therefore does not matter if it is amphibious or regular assault)

is built in place, but can only be built in territories that contain an IC or are adjacent to a territory that contains an IC.  Only one blockhouse per border.

what exactly is the problem with trading a territory?

IL talks about such things as France getting traded 20 times in a game, but that is rarely the case.  If the germans are stupid enough to leave it undefended, the UK might take it the first or second round, but after that, France never gets traded more than a couple times.  This is because in revised, 1942 and AA50, France is one big territory, so there is No Other way to simulate the give and take of advancing and retreating Within france.

There are 2 much much better ways to eliminate trading:

Bigger Map:

• This splits up the territory into smaller ones, that can better simulate the give and take of the real war.
• This makes each territory worth fewer IPCs, lessing the incentive to lose a unit or two just to get +2 ipc gain (as opposed to a +11 ipc gain).

No more National Objectives:

• This removes the incentive to trade, almost completely.

More units for the sake of more units does not make the gameplay better.  If we are adding this blockhouse unit, I can think of at least about 10 more units we can add, each of which would increase the “historical” realism of the game, but in reality would just make this game into more of an extremely complex rock-paper-scissor simulator.  KISS

yes to #3

The ONLY way to keep it balanced is to keep all Europe and Pacific income separate.

This means that the Western USA and Eastern USA’s moneys will not mix at all, which in my opinion is good.  (and also that UK’s Europe board income, and Pacific board income will also not mix at all.)

@Imperious:

@Veqryn:

@Brain:

I think if you raised the price any more, then the tanks and infantry would become a better investment

Tanks and Infantry SHOULD be a better investment.  WW2 proved that defensive fortifications were a bad investment!  I am against any defensive unit that does not take this into account!

but WW2 is replete with constant examples of them. They existed, why cant they be in the game?

Yes, and there should be a blockhouse unit IF and only if that unit is over-priced and not OP in any way. 
A 0-4-0-7 unit that defended only one border, would be a good example of a REAL blockhouse, as the war showed.

the point is to make the offensive and defense the same number since the 2 hits thing contributes SO much to defense already

PORTS

Pros:
Can repair damaged ships.
Can refuel ships and give down time to crew, giving ships +1 movement for a turn.
Can protect ships by having an AA gun.
Can protect ships by not allowing enemy ships inside.

Cons:
Ships can not evade enemy fire, bombs, or torpedoes. 
Ships are in a state of Unreadiness, meaning they are not prepared for battle; things like water locks and seals were open, ammunition was on the decks being moved, armored doors were not shut. 
Crew and Aircraft may not be present on board ships, and are not fueled nor ready to go into battle.
This should be represented in one or more of the following ways: (and they can only be attacked by aircraft while in port)
All ships and aircraft in port can not fire in the first round.
All ships and aircraft in port fight at -1 in combat rolls.
All aircraft attacking the port fight at +1 in combat rolls.
All battleship and carriers in port have only 1 hitpoint.

Personally, I would have it as:
“All ships and aircraft in port can not fire in the first round of combat”
and
“Only aircraft may attack ships in port”

I think that would be historical and good gameplay.

@Brain:

I think if you raised the price any more, then the tanks and infantry would become a better investment

Tanks and Infantry SHOULD be a better investment.  WW2 proved that defensive fortifications were a bad investment!  I am against any defensive unit that does not take this into account!

@Imperious:

That only happens when the Allies try the same old “Kill Germany first” thing. If something as ahistorical as Japan invading Moscow is happening in your games it’s probably because you’re doing something that is equally ahistorical, like ignoring the Pacific.

In order for the axis to win as a team even though they were not “a team” , the Japanese need to attack the Russians. If you play games where Japan captures UK or Eastern USA instead it becomes even more silly. The game should be two separate games with UK USA and Soviets against Germany/ Italy, and UK USA against Japan. Everything relating to victory to each side to be regulated to these concerns and to something that has to do with these localities and the situation. It should not become scripted patterns of play where you go after just Germany or just Japan and do the minimum on the front where you exert no pressure.

It should be a balanced (somewhat) need to fight both and to deny both their own victory conditions. Thet way you get warfare all over the map and not just a concentrated thing on one side.

+1
I agree.  The reason you see America go either ALL against Germany, or ALL against Japan is because it is allowed to because it is a world game.  The game really does need to be split up into two separate games in order to play out more historically.

@Adlertag:

@WILD:

PS: It would also be nice if ports offered some kind of protection for your ships.

Why ? A fleet in port are sittin ducks. remember Port Harbour, the French fleet at Oran and Dakar, the Italian fleet at Taranto, they were all sittin ducks, got no protection from the port

I TOTALLY agree with you!

I think that ships in port should NOT be able to be attacked by other ships.  BUT you can attack with only AIR units.  If you do attack with only air units, your air units should be shooting at +1, or alternatively, the enemy navy should be shooting at -1.  And I also do not think that any aircraft on carriers in port should be allowed to participate in the first round, and that BB and Carriers should each have only 1 hitpoint while in port, and that any aircraft at a defending air base should not be able to participate for the first round either.