Posts made by Veqryn

well, let me add one thing on to that…

Control Africa -> Yes, control most of it anyway.  Keep Germany to Algeria, Libya and Egypt but not any further or you will lose the game in the long run

SBR Germany -> Yes, but don’t waste all your money on bombers.  You can only do a maximum of 20 damage to Germany, and since they never repair it all the way, you can realistically only do 16 damage per turn to Germany.  This requires only 5 bombers total hitting Germany every turn.  I would never buy more than 1 bomber per turn as the UK or USA because you ALSO need boots on the ground.

You need to add:

Take Norway, North Africa, Liberate Karelia, + Have a UK fleet in the Baltic and USA fleet in the Med -> This forces Germany to defend every territory in Europe, and it will have to spread its forces thin and can not continue to hit Russia if you are hitting it.  (The Baltic Sea touches Western Europe, Germany, Norway, Karelia, and Eastern Europe.  A fleet in SZ12 off Algeria can hit Western Europe and Southern Europe / Italy, while a fleet in SZ14 can also liberate Libya, Egypt, Transjordan, The Balkans, Ukraine, and the Caucasus.)

uh….

i’m all for new versions of A&A

honestly though, they usually don’t make them that often, this just happens to be a really really good 3 years (AA50, AA1942, AA1940Pacific, AA1940Europe).

if you think making 4 games in 3 years is too much for you, please for the love of god do not try anything else that Hasbro makes or sells (like mtg, with its 8 expansions and 1 core set every 2 years)

i don’t think you understood my question jonny….
i already know they will get their own separate economy, the question is, is their combat done at the same time as UK combat, or is it a separate combat and thereby weak and ineffective? 
if they have separate turns, this means I can’t use UK resources to seamlessly transport canadian forces out of canada and into join attacks in europe.  It means that not only do i need canadian navy, but i also now have many multiple small and pathetic attacks instead of a single strong attack.  Who wants to attack France first with 2 inf, then attack with 2 more, then attack with 2 more, then attack with 2 more, or attack with 8 all at the same time?  this splitting up into gazillions of different nations is counter productive in many ways.

is Canada, ANZAC, and the other smaller players, going to get a Separate turn?  If their turns are taken with UK, will they get a separate combat phase (like china in aa50)?  Please say no, I want a combined combat for them, otherwise they will be weak and pathetic.

so, like this IL?

10 ipcs

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 2 out of 6 before combat begins on all attacking land units, up to a maximum of the total number of defending infantry and artillery (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.

i think that would also be fair.  10 or 11 ipcs for such a unit seems right

Ya, $80 is my upper limit for these sorts of things
I managed to get my AA50 off craigslist used but perfect condition for $65 :)

Previously, Carriers cost 14 and where a 1/2/2/14 unit that could carry two fighters
Now Carriers cost 18, take two hits, and I’m assuming are a 1/2/2/18 unit (with 2 hp) that can carry two fighter-type units

previously if you wished to go on the offensive, you would purchase a combination of submarines, carriers, and a full compliment of fighters for those carriers.
generally, you would attack with the subs and fighters (and perhaps other boats you started with), while leaving behind your valuable carriers)

now that carriers cost 4 more, and their extra hit point will not help on the offensive because you don’t attack with it, does this mean that the pacific just got even more defense oriented than it already was?
fighters and carriers both defend at better values than the attack with, and submarines project a proactive defense of 2 spaces away……

here are my two cents:

make the new carriers a 1/1/2/17 unit (with 2 hp) able to carry 2 fighter type units
remove the requirement that fighter-bombers be accompanied by a fighter or tank to get their full 4 attack power
optionally:
and add escort carriers as a 0/0/2/9 unit (with 1 hp) able to carry just 1 fighter type unit
and make fighters cost 9
and fighter-bombers cost 10 and be a 4/3/4/10 unit, with no silly requirement to have a tank or normal fighter present to be that 4 attack (the extra cost by 1 ipc is enough of a nerf, don’t make me split my airforce in funny ways too)
[and as a side note, i think cruisers should remain at 12 ipcs, a 3/3/2/12 unit, without AA gun ability, but as a slight and small enough boost, they could either shore bombard at 4 instead of 3, OR they could be allowed to have their casualty shot when sunk by submarines, which would not be full anti sub capabilities, but just enough to make them worth their full 12]

that should spice up the pacific and make it less about large standoff fleets that never attack each other.
and it will provide the designers more options for representing the prewar navies
and the changes, especially the first two, are small and subtle enough to not require drastic changes in strategies

5 rules:

12 ipcs

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 2 out of 6 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.

this i think would be balanced
game should start with only 1 of these units, to represent the maginot line.
the fact that it is built in place, and can be built in a territory that does not have a factory (but must be touching a territory with a factory you control) is a big plus for it, IMO

so my infantry and artillery defend at 3, and my tanks defend at 4?  I really think this is an absolutely horrible idea and I am very glad larry harris did not implement it.  sorry i’m coming out so strongly against it, but more unit for the sake of more units does not add to gameplay value, and a unit such as this would shut down entire fronts and turn the game into a defensive standoff, massing infantry stacks, etc.

Funcioneta is a hater  :-P
if he can’t play as Japan and kill the USA, he doesn’t like it
if he can’t play as the China and kill Japan, he doesn’t like it
and if it looks like there is a remote possibility of the axis winning, he doesn’t like it either

perhaps the ability of germany to choose a risky battle where they can destroy the sz2 fleet is just part of the game and exactly what the game designers wanted and feel is balanced.  after all, it is the exact same battle as in sz2 in AA50, so they obviously have experience with it.  AA50 without NOs looks to be very very similar to AA1942 (and AA50 without NOs is in Allies favor), so I think you really ought to play some serious games with serious strategies before you criticize it so much.  No more beating a newb with some odd KJF or KUSAF strat then coming back and arguing that the game is unbalanced  :|

@Imperious:

Yes right. Blockhouse is now a 12 IPC unit firing at 2 or less in opening combat phase at all land units.

If used in normal combat your defending land units are all +1 in combat.

Takes one hit and cant be captured.

Not sure I understand your middle sentence, about “if used in normal combat, your defending land units are all +1 in combat”.  What on earth do you mean? you mean I can choose to either give all my units +1 or I can choose to take a shot 2 out of 6 at each unit before combat?
You should stick to the shooting before combat idea… this new extra ability seems totally different and OP

@gnasape:

Veqryn,

Great analysis, I would suggest using Sz 2 to rebuild rather than Sz 8.  The normal response from AAR was to stack WEu with ftrs, the bmb in Lib for Egy, and depending on whether Ger moves it’s sub in range of Sz 2, 8.  If you consolidate in Sz 8, it’s really tempting for Ger to attack and have the possibility of eliminating the UK/US fleet.  It’s a chance I would take as Germany.

In this game the fleet needs to be used to protect trns but having all your eggs in one basket (trns) and leaving it to chance is very risky for Allies.

good points

where you choose to rebuild your fleet if it is destroyed is dependent on where the german stuff is that turn.  Sz8 is good because you can bring in the USA cruiser (can leave the USA transport behind, he doesn’t have to come).  Sz2 is good because it is out of the way of France.  Local considerations apply, and you should pick whichever is better.  If it looks like the entire German force that can come to bare on your new navy would make it a 50/50 battle, I often build it, simply because UK can rebuild the next turn, whereas Germany can never replace its entire airforce, as they must concentrate on building ground for the battle with russia.  I do not mind losing ships to Germany, so long as Germany is losing at least 2 planes for every 3 ships I lose or better.
That said, a force of 1 Carrier, 2 Fighters, 3 Destroyers, 1 Battleship (can substitute 2 Destroyers for 1 BB if destroyed), is enough to standoff with a German force of 6 Fighters and 1 Bomber, or 3 Subs, 4 Fighters, and 1 Bomber.  And depending on how many Fighters and Subs Germany loses during Russia’s turn and their own turn, you may not need to build that last Destroyer as the UK.  (less fleet = more boots, and boots > fleet)(my fav uk fleet if i can get away with it is 1CV, 2Ftr, 2Cruiser, 1BB, 4Transports, but i can only do this if Germany has no subs left, or lost 2 fighters)

I am assuming sz1 and sz13 and sz15 are all dead first round

even if sz2 is also dead, the UK WILL eventually need a navy, and so I would still recommend purchasing either 1 Carrier, 2 Destroyers, OR 1 Carrier, 1 Cruiser.

(if sz2 is dead, then you will want to build in the SZ8 and you should move the USA destroyer to there to help defend if germany is in a position to hit your newly built navy [or build in sz2 if germany has too many fighters in france (edit)].  then during the next turn you will have to make up for the BB by building most likely 2 more boats)

Russia can not afford new fighters, the 2 it has are enough.  Any Russia that is buying fighters is a russia sorely short on infantry and tanks.  Germany can push pretty far against a Russia like that.  Fighters are better for trading, but the 2 your have are enough.  The eastern front is pretty similar to revised, and you will never see a good revised player buying fighters with russia until the allies are in the win.

on the side note, I have never been a huge fan of massive bombing campaigns
Generally speaking though, I do start building 1 bomber per turn as the USA starting on the 4th American turn (around 4-5 bombers strat bombing germany, more is inefficient).  The first 3 USA turns though, I want to set up a transport chain into Africa and Europe.
A hybrid if this would be to ignore building the 2nd atlantic fleet as america, opting to just transport into africa instead of of into italy/france/whatever, and so then on the second turn you can start building 1 bomber per turn.
I do not like the bombers too much because you can only deal about 16 ipcs of damage to Germany per turn (the max is 20, but germany never repairs all the way, so usually they just build 6 or so units, meaning there is 4 damage left, meaning the next turn you can only do 16 damage), and on top of that, bomber cost you 12 ipcs, then the next turn the move, then the next turn after that they begin doing an average of 3.5 ipcs of damage per turn.  On average they last 5 turns, which means they do a total of 17.5 ipcs of damage before dying to AA, which is just 5.5 ipcs more than they cost.  Also, doing that last 3.5 ipcs of damage is a total of 6 turns after you paid 12 ipcs, and 3.5 ipcs in 6 turns is not worth as much as 3.5 ipcs THIS turn (i believe in ipc inflation).  Lastly, there is a very good chance they will die before doing their 17.5 damage (yes it averages out, but the ones that live longer than 5 turns do less damage after you account for inflation).

Also:
I do not like KJF strats except when playing against newbies.  They are not effective and rely far too much on very very dicey rolls.  I would rather have monster Japan to monster Germany.  It may be fun, or a novelty, but they really just aren’t effective strategies.

No, the Russian sub is there and gets to defend against the German sub (however, it can not be taken as a casualty from the Airplane shots), which means it gets to be taken as a casualty from the shot from the German sub, and it gets to shoot back at the German sub at a measly 1 out of 6.  (also note that if the Germans are doing this attack, that means the bomber is not attacking Egypt)

Basically, its a very dicey battle, with the Germans shooting at 7 points of air and 2 points of submarine, while the Allies defend at 4 points and 1 point of submarine.  
The Germans have a 17% chance of getting no air hits.
A 50% chance of getting one air hit.
and a 33% chance of getting 2 air hits in the first round (killing BB)
and also a 33% chance of hitting the Russian submarine.
Which basically comes out to this: 50% chance of scoring 2 hits in general

The allies have a 27% chance of hitting nothing the first round.
A 62% chance of sinking the German submarine.
and an 11% chance of sinking the German submarine + a German Fighter.

In the end, around half of the battles, Germany will only lose the German sub to a hit from the battleship, while sinking the Battleship and Transport AND leaving the Russian submarine alive.  About a third of the time, Germany will lose a Fighter and a Submarine, but will also Kill the BB, Transport, and submarine.  (TripleA doesn’t do a good job calculating this battle as it assumes that any hits from the submarine will go first to the Battleship as its first free hit, rather than to the russian submarine, which is what a good player would do)
But you have to remember, this is a very very dicey battle.  Because the number of units involved is so low in number, it could easily get f-ed up very quickly.  You could easily lose your submarine and fighter without getting a single hit.  Yes, if you roll this battle 20000 times it will be only a smaller percentage of times that that happens, but it could so easily happen anyway.

(and yes, larry probably should have made that Russian submarine into a Russian destroyer for this reason)

oh, I thought I should also mention, its is going to a logistical nightmare getting from Western USA to the Philippines.  I count 8 or 9 seazones in total.  That is so many, that you would have to have 8 total transports just to be able to drop off 2 infantry per turn in the philippines, and then you would need even more to chain from the philippines to wherever else you need to go.  If you thought transporting successfully from Eastern USA to Italy was nuts, this is going to be crazy.  And with shore bombardment casualties still getting to take their shots, this means you will have to keep replenishing your dying infantry.  Hell, with 3 turns until America joins the war, and most likely at least 4 turns before you can buy transports instead of warships, then another 4 turns for the first one to reach the philippines, this is going to be a long long long ass game.

so how long do you think the Burma Road will stay open?

I am assuming Japan goes first in this edition

judging from the map, Kwangsi can attack Yunnan first turn, which means the Burma Road will not be open at all

There could be an attack on the second turn, if the first turn Kiangsi can move into Hunan first turn, and Siam into FrenchIndoChina (plus any transports that can drop off in IndoChina first turn), and then combine these with Kwangsi.  If this attack is enough, then that means China will have only their first turn to buy artillery.

Then there is the definite third turn attack, which would consist of everything from Kwangsi, Kiangsi, and Siam, along with up to anything Kiangsu, Shantung, Jchoi, and anything dropped off from Japan island into Kiangsi on first turn, and anything dropped off into IndoChina on second turn.  This means China will have only their first and second turn to buy artillery units.

I am curious if the Brits will have enough resources to defend Yunnan and Burma (they will be allowed to enter China right?)

So what can China purchase?

Infantry
Artillery (if burma road is open?)

anything else?

they should be able to buy destroyers if they take back all Chinese territories, including ones occupied by Japan, that would be cool

and the USA should be allowed to repurchase the flying tigers if they get destroyed. (and how many fighter units will represent the flying tigers this time? just one?)

@Imperious:

LMFAO…ROTFL!!!

It totally figures that Funigan games YET AGAIN GETS THE NEWS ON YET ANOTHER AA PRODUCT, WHILE WOTC HAS NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS EXISTENCE.

Freaking unbelievable that this can happen. :-o

why does WOTC even both making Avalon Hill games at all when it doesn’t advertise them?  I’d be curious to read their financial statements and see if Avalon Hill even makes a profit, and I’d also be curious to talk to their marketing directors.

I’m having a hell of time finding anyone in denver who plays war games at all, let along axis and allies.  But there are no shortage of idiots playing Dungeons and Dragons or Magic the Gathering.  I can see why MTG attracts WOTC, people have to pay hundreds of dollars every three months to keep up, and not only do you need to keep shelling out money for new cards, but you have to shell out money for olds ones too since they call it a ‘collectible’.  Fucking bullshit.  It like a game a poker, except that you can buy aces from the store to add to your hand for money you will never get back.

I would have thought it would be:
Japan
China
USA
UK + Australia + All Others

One day, we’ll have:

Collect money at start of turn (no silly double pay-outs)  –-  Why?  I don’t see the point in collecting at the beginning of the turn.  I hate defensive games, and providing IPCs for territories you capture during your turn makes the game a more offensive oriented game.  I don’t agree

Ships in port preventing early naval wipeouts  — Ships in port should be easier to destroy.  Pearl Harbor anyone?  Ships gathered in port can not move well, can not evade bombs, clog with other ships, create traffic jams, and when sunk, create huge obstacles in the port that prevent the port from being used by other ships.  Not to mention that you have a ton of ships all gathered in one nice easy small place to hit with your torpedo bombers and dive bombers.  I think ports should have a free AA gun, but that the ships in the port should roll their defense at 1 less than normal (and they should cost 10% discount to rebuild after they are sunk).  so I disagree again.

No use of captured factories  — I think factories should have the option to be destroyed by your own forces.  Give them 2 hit points, and allow friendly forces to target them during battle or as an attack.  I disagree again.

Unlimited rail movement in non-combat  — unlimited is a lot.  I think all units should get 1 extra move during non-combat within friendly territories that are connected by railroads.

Capitals treated as any other territory  — There should be some advantage to taking a capital, but the current advantage is far to big.  Perhaps something like this: Instead of capturing all their IPCs, you instead destroy half their IPCs (and the other half remain with the player who just lost their capital), and you can continue to build units but you can not collect income until liberated.

Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact  — This isn’t diplomacy, this is Axis and Allies played on the entire globe.  Totally disagree

Correct roundels for each country  — don’t really care, as long as they are similar enough i’m fine with it

RE: IL, since they are firing at 2 out of 6, they should cost double what an AA gun costs since AA guns fire at 1 out of 6 and cost 6 ipcs, therefore blockhouses should cost 12.  I also think that when they are captured they should be destroyed, unlike AA guns that are still useful against the enemy, blockhouses will be pointed the wrong way and are immobile concrete structures after they are set in place.  (how silly it would be if Germany capture the maginot line and then moves it to Normandy, or the Allies capture Normandy and move it with their front all the way into germany…)