Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Veqryn
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 123
    • Posts 2,338
    • Best 4
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 2

    Posts made by Veqryn

    • RE: Another chinese bug

      @dondoolee:

      I think representing China as a non industrial power could have been done by limited income and ltd production.  A china that makes only 5-9 ipc’sa turn on avg and can produce realisticaly only 2-3 units per turn and usually going to be on the defensive is not going to be building too many (if any) tanks, fig, or bombers.  It wouldn’t build any naval units assumint the IC was landlocked.

      Besides airplanes built could be symbolic of Soviet and US fighters in China, and China did have a few Sherman tanks so it wouldn’t be out of the question for china

      More Like 0-7 IPCs per turn.

      And I see no point in having Chinese ICs, since that would only help the Japs out even more.  I believe it China could collect and spend IPCs like all other powers (chinese Inf cost 2 ipcs), they could build what they buy using the same rules as before (build anywhere in china that china controls as long as there are less than 3 chinese units there).

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Another chinese bug

      I believe Manchuria would go to Germany if Germany liberates it from the Chinese.

      Also, if Manchuria is ever actually taken from Japan, that means Japan is doing already losing badly, so the fact that China can build a few less inf there doesn’t really matter much at all.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Any Colorado players out there? AA50 and Diplomacy

      We try to, but if its taking too long we can leave it there for the next day or something.

      posted in Player Locator
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Does it annoy anyone else…?

      1 destroyer plus 2 fighters go against the cruiser and destroyer in sz12.
      2 subs plus 1 fighter plus 1 bomber go against the sub, transport, destroyer and battleship in sz2  OR  use the bomber and fighter somewhere else and send the both subs against the cruiser and destroyer in sz1

      posted in 1942 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Aircraft carrier movement…

      Basically, it is to prevent people from using carriers to give their Fighters 2 extra moves.

      Think about it more in terms of time than fuel or range.  If the carrier spends all six months moving from hawaii to borneo, there is no more ‘time’ left in the turn for the fighters to move another 4 spaces to persia.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: UK/US vs Japan

      USA usually takes out Italy. If UK takes Berlin, and USA still needs to produce more units, they could make a Factory in either France or Poland/Balkans or both.  Usually, in KGF, USA gets Berlin and Italy, while UK gets France, so in that case it would be beneficial for the UK to build an IC in France, as well as to be the one that captures Karelia back from Japan.  Generally though, if Moscow and Italy and Germany all die, the Allies have the advantage of owning Europe which I think is superior to owning Russia.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: UK/US vs Japan

      Assuming you are playing with National Objectives.
      Well, If USA spends all its money in the pacific each turn (plus moves its bombers and everything in that direction), then you can have that match-up without requiring anything special from germany or russia.

      Japan starts out making 17 or 31 a turn, depending on 1941 or 1942, but after taking the money islands plus half of china plus india, Japan is making about 55 on turn 3, and up to 65 by turn 5.

      USA starts out with 40 or 38 a turn, and after 2 turns should be making 48.  If USA is going pacific, then USA will never make more than 48 a turn.

      At the end of the first round, Japan has a fleet of expensive ships left, as well as a ridiculous number of fighters.  America has almost no fleet at all at the end of the first round, and pretty much has to build one from scratch.

      I’ve play a ton of games where America went all out in the pacific.  Japan can spend 100% of her income turn 1 towards mainland asian forces, then dropping down to 2/3rds of her income turn 2, then down to between 1/4 and 1/2 of her income the rest of the game on mainland forces.  She can knock out any American Navy that gets within range (2 spaces) of Formosa, and this usually happens on turn 4 or 5.  Even with America forcing Japan to spend money on Pacific boats, Japan can still afford to capture all of China, India and Persia, as well as several Siberian territories, and have a good sized Japanese force sitting on the doorstep to the Caucasus on turn 6, or at the latest turn 7.

      Result: With NOs, Japan can decimate any American Navy and still make it to Russia by turn 6 with a decent force.  (Meanwhile, for the first few turns Britain will be unable to take both Norway AND maintain control of Africa, therefore Britain has to pick one.  Russia then either has to fend off all of Germany and Italy by itself, or if the Brits help via Norway, the Axis get Africa and the game is lost)

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Reasons why KGF happens

      A different thought:

      Perhaps the Factory on the West Coast could have “Improved Shipyards Tech”, but the factory on the East Coast would not have that tech.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • AA50: Sea Units should less. Alternate pricing

      Ok, so I kind of think that sea units currently cost a little too much, here is my alternative pricing for AA50:
      The new price is similar to the price of ships in AA50 with the Improved Shipyards Tech, then the prices get even lower if you actually have the Improved ShipYards tech.

      Starting Cost … Cost with Improved ShipYards … Ship Type

      17 . 15 . Battleships
      11 . 09 . Carriers
      10 . 08 . Cruisers
      07 . 06 . Destroyers
      05 . 04 . Transports
      05 . 04 . Submarines

      The goal of this is to make the Pacific Theater more attractive to Japan and America.
      I also think that transports should cost a little less, to make them cost the same as Subs.
      My only issue is that with Improved Shipyards Cruisers need to cost 8.5 but i can’t decide which is closer, 8 or 9.  I am also not sure if maybe BB should cost 14 instead of 15 with ImpYards.

      What do you think?

      posted in House Rules
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Reasons why KGF happens

      If we made the Atlantic larger…  well instead of needing 4x4x4 (12) transports to send just 8 land units into italy/france, you would need 4x4x4x4 (16) transports, which is ridiculous.  I think the current need of 12 is ridiculous already.

      I think the solution would be to make the pacific smaller in a way that benefits america but not japan.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: May 2009 Balance Poll

      $6-9 Unit bid, or $15-21 cash bid.  for allies

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Subs defending transports?

      It says multiple times in the rule book, plus one more time in the official FAQ & Errata, that Aircraft may NOT attack subs, unless accompanied by a destroyer.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Victory Cities!

      We don’t usually play with victory cities, we play until someone surrenders (usually someone surrenders if moscow or berlin is taken without an immediate rebuttal or something else going for them).
      If I had to play with Victory cities, I would play with either 12 or 13.
      If you play with 12, then the axis can win by taking Karelia, India, Australia, and Hawaii, and if 13 then add in the Caucasus.
      And with 12 the allies can win by losing India, but keeping control of Karelia, Australia, Hawaii, and the Caucasus, as well as taking France, Poland, and Italy.  If playing to 13, then the allies also have to take Berlin (more likely than taking India IMHO) which makes it just like the capitulation rule above.

      To be honest, playing to 13 VC is pretty much the same as playing until capitulation, and playing to any more than 13 is like beating a dead horse, since if you have 13 you are going to win anyway, so you are just dragging it out.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Reasons why KGF happens

      very good post

      (perhaps naval units should cost even less? Like another 10-15% less?)

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Control of Territory

      It becomes Italian if Italy takes it from the allies

      posted in 1942 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: How to achieve balance part 2-> bids

      You mean like a rule like this: Every turn the allies control India and Burma = 1 free inf in india or burma?  it would be useless since the japs take burma j1 anyway, but it is an interesting idea. 
      I do like the idea of a chinese NO, but the problem with it is that they will never get it

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: How to achieve balance part 2-> bids

      Japan makes 65 IPCs every turn at turn 3, America makes 48 IPCs every turn at turn 3.  Nuff said.

      posted in 1941 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • RE: Quick Fix to the Balance Issue

      Did you guys even read my reasoning?

      It would make the Pacific an area that the Japanese will attack, rather than just half-heartedly defend.

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • Quick Fix to the Balance Issue

      Instead of this: Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, Australia, and/or India

      Japan’s 3rd National Objective should read:

      Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, and/or Australia

      Bang! No other fixes needed.  No need for China mod, No need for bidding the NOs down, You can still cash or unit bid if one player is weaker.
      I mean, face it, Japan is going to get India no matter what anyway, and they are going to keep it no matter what too.  Unlike all the other 3rd National Objectives of all the other nations, Japan’s is the only one that can’t be taken back by the enemy the very next turn under normal circumstances.  Since it is Japan’s job to pressure Moscow, the Caucasus, and British and Russian income, having her 3rd NO look like this will force her to either focus a bit more on the pacific islands, or she can continue to attack russia but with just 5 less income than normal (so 60 instead of 65, which is STILL ridiculous).  Can work for both 1941 and 1942.

      PS: we are talking about the game WITH NO’s, so if you play the game without it, this thread isn’t up your alley

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • Japanese IC, where?

      So, first turn as japan, what do you do?

      I usually do an IC in Manchuria, But I was thinking I could switch it to Burma to pressure Russia better from the south.

      posted in 1942 Scenario
      VeqrynV
      Veqryn
    • 1 / 1