Posts made by Veqryn

That might be a bit of a drive for you.  We play in either Boulder or Denver.  I take the bus around since I am paying for college and can’t afford a car. 
We play whenever we can get 4 non-flaky people together (or 6-7 for diplomacy).  Usually thursdays, fridays, saturdays, or sundays, and we try for every other week.  Usually start in the afternoon.
PM me your phone number if you are interested (i usually text people try and set up a game)

what is the polar express?  (i have always assumed it was japan trying to take moscow via siberia)

@squirecam:

@Veqryn:

1 IC, 1 Transport, 1 Submarine, (save 3)

I do not attack the chinese fighter because I play dice and that is a way risky move with full dice.  I crush everything else though.

China has 2 inf and a fighter. Japan can bring 3 Inf + bomber + 1-2 fighters. That’s enough to reasonably guarantee that the china fighter dies.

Wouldn’t you rather kill the fighter than take a 1 IPC China territory? You really reduce China’s offensive punch w/o that fighter…

The only other option is to send 1 less fighter to kill the british (so only 2 total), and send 3 fighters plus 3 inf to kill the chinese fighter.  This means you can not attack Hupeh at all, leaving 1 inf in Kiangsu, and you have to attack Suiyang with 3 inf and 1 fighter, leaving 1 inf in manchuria and bringing back only 1-2 fighter to manchuria too after combat.
This is a good move except that it is more risky, you risk losing 1 fighter or your BB during the attack on the british, and you also may lose all 3 of your inf attacking the chinese fighter. 
You must use the bomber against pearl harbor, or else you will risk losing that btl.  You want your fighter, bomber, and cruiser to live that way the USA can not take the solomons their first turn.

I agree that Techs should not be included when we are talking about balancing the game.

But I do want to balance out the National Objectives since they are not Random like techs are, and because I think they add the to game significantly.

Therefore, I voted to bid down the NOs (Axis NOs should be worth 2-4, not 5).

1 IC, 1 Transport, 1 Submarine, (save 3)

I do not attack the chinese fighter because I play dice and that is a way risky move with full dice.  I crush everything else though.
Pearl Harbor gets hit with 1 dd, 1 cruiser, 1 sub, 1 bomber, 1 fighter (i don’t use the carrier)
India fleet gets hit with 3 fighters, 1 BB, 1 carrier (i lose the carrier in btl)
I do not attack russia, I leave 1 inf in Manchuria plus I land 2-3 fighters there when I am done with combat, and I place my IC there.
My BB plus transport pick up the tank in japan plus inf in okin to land in kwangtung.
Every Chinese province I can reach except for Yunnan gets hit and gets hit with at tons.

I’m not advocating this, but in 1942, if you build a Carrier, a fighter, and a bomber as Germany, and end round one so that all your planes can make it on round 2, then you have a little better than 50% chance of winning as long as UK does not take their bombers as casualties first (G2).  If your transport south of france stays in that sea zone (and captures gibralter), you can bring an additional 1 inf and 1 tank, upping your chance to around 73%.  I am assuming that UK brings 1 inf and 1 tank from canada over during their turn, and builds no more inf that turn, and if they build more fighters they also build a carrier to take them so that there are no more than 2 fighters on the island.  Way too many IFs if you ask me.  Though, if you do fuck up your plans, what you bought is not useless.

What turn and what do you use to destroy the Italian fleet?

There are a couple options:

1. You build 2 bombers as the UK, and use 3 bombers + 1 fighter to destroy them UK turn 2 (landing in Caucasus if Italy is SeaZone 14, landing in Trans-Jordan if Italy is SeaZone 15).  You should have only 1 bomber left after this attack, but you could easily also have nothing left.  If you try this, you will most likely lose that one bomber to a German attack on G3 on trans-jordan.  The other problem with this is, you only have 7 ipcs left over the first turn, meaning you can’t buy anything, meaning your entire europe theater navy consists of the transport and cruiser you leave at SeaZone 1, which you have to leave there because if you come any closer you will get attacked by a German submarine + fighter + bomber on G2.  Turn 2 you can build more navy, but it really looks bleak since you can not move your first set of troops until either Norway turn 2, or Algeria Turn 3 (which means Germany can get Africa for a few turns anyway).

2. You build 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 transport UK1, and 2-3 bombers UK2.  You can destroy the Italian navy on turn UK3 with 2-4 fighters and 3 bombers.  This would seem far superior at first glance, but there is a major problem.  It really is not that difficult for Italy/Germany to take Egypt on their Turn 2, and then take Trans-Jordan on their Turn 3.  Without both of those, you have no place to land the planes, and without any place to land you can not attack in the first place.

3. The USA can not launch a solo attack on Italy before their Turn 3.  They can mop up after an partially successful UK attack on US2, but if USA tries to attack on their Turn 3 the run in to the same problem as before: they have no landing zones.  If the USA wants to attack with ships, this is not possible before USA4 (assuming Italian navy is in SZ15).

So…… what the heck are you guys doing to BOTH kill the Italian navy, and Retake Africa before the Axis conquer much.  It seems that if you try to kill the navy quickly you will not have enough ground to retake africa successfully before the Axis kill off Egypt and Transjordan, but if you go for a longer approach the Italian navy stays alive until turn 4, which is much too long and the axis get to control africa anyway. 
Please help.  Ideas anyone?

My friends and I have a gentleman’s agreement that USA must go multitheatre, but gets an additional 10 ipcs each turn

1942

What turn do you kill off the baltic sea fleet?  Who and what do you use to kill it?  (assuming no germany navy builds)

I have been taking it out with the 2 fighters and 1 bomber in britain on the 1st brit turn, usually losing a fighter.  but I am thinking of changing this….

if it is shorter to play I might get it if I can find it used for $25 on craigslist or something (a lot of people around me complain that aa50 takes too long)
other than that I’ll just keep playing aa50

i was thinking 1942 for that one, 1941 i don’t build anymore

thats how my friends and i have always done it, all a&a games and especially revised.  we just feel it is way to screwed up to be able to place units outside of your industrial complex countries before the game has even begun.

I wish to bring up a point that I am not sure anyone noticed. 
Many people seem to think that bidding does not mess up the setup of the game more changing the NOs or China’s rules do.  But I believe bidding and placing units directly on the board interferes with the game more.  Think about this, what gets play-tested more: the beginning engagements, or possible engagements 4-5 turns into the game?  The people who play tested this game tested the most out of the beginning turn engagements.  By adding an infantry here or there, you are royally screwing up all the balance that they DID test.  By changing the NOs to be slightly different, like requiring Germany own both Karelia and Cauc for their third NO, you are only messing with the game in a way that effects the game starting around the 3rd or 4th turn (you can first get the money for that at the end of the 1st or 2nd turn, you spend it on units that you then place during the 2nd or 3rd turn, those units then move out one or two spaces during the 3rd or 4th turn, and might reach a battle on the 4th or 5th turn.)

So, at least between my group, when we do bid, we bid for cash that we can spend at the END of the 1st turn (and any units bought with that cash must be placed where there is an IC, and count towards the max number of builds possible for that IC).

• veqryn

I have been playing a lot of 1942 setup without NOs, and I would say it needs an Axis bid of 3-6 ipcs.  I don’t know 1941 setup without NOs at all, but I’m guessing it would need around 6 but not more than 9.  With NOs I think the allies need for 1941 a bid of 6-9 ipcs (one unit in China, one in India), while in 1942 I think they may need a bid of 9 ipcs (one in China, one in India, one in Karelia).

The reason I HATE LL is because with very small battles the opponent (or yourself) have only to make a few calculations and send in a very small force, whereas with dice you must send an extra guy or two just to make sure you don’t lose (risk management, an very important factor on the russian front).

I would agree with your idea, and I also enjoy the optional rule that ImpL has written down somewhere, that each side starts with a certain number of “bad luck points” or “luck chips”, say like 5 chips, and they can re-roll or make an opponent re-roll any single dice roll for the cost of one chip (making someone re-roll an antiaircraft gun roll costs 2 chips).  We used that during our last game and limited it to only when both sides can agree that the dice rolling was ridiculous, and it improved the game a lot.

It is a lot more complicated than the first glance.  I have been testing out different fleets fighting against each other, and it really seems like once fleets get big, destroyers are a major liability. 
If the enemy has a good number of subs, along with some planes or high value ships, then the you would be better off without any destroyers. 
So when is it good to have a destroyer?  If the enemy has few or no high value ships and few or no planes, then you will want the destroyer to negate the subs first strike ability. (or if the engagement is very small, like 1-4 units total, you may want it to make sure you are just outright killed).
So in other words, avoid building destroyers until you see what your enemy is building for a couple turns.  And most likely you should never build them in the pacific.

thx Kang,

• veqryn

So this has 4 parts with 2 subparts and 2 subsubparts each.

As England, How many transports do you have going in 1941 setup with NOs, without NOs, in 1942 with NOs, without NOs?
I have been playing without NOs recently, and I use 3 transports shuttling guys out of britain to either africa, norway/karelia, or france/poland.

As Japan, How many transports do you have going in 1941 setup with NOs, without NOs, in 1942 with NOs, without NOs?
Again, without NOs, I tend to have 4 transports going for 1942, 1941 i don’t build any more.

As America, How many transports do you have going in 1941 setup with NOs, without NOs, in 1942 with NOs, without NOs?
Without NOs and KGF, I tend to get a massive 12 transports going in the Atlantic theatre, usually building 2 a turn, shuttling 8 a turn troops to africa and italy or france.

As Italy, How many transports do you have going in 1941 setup with NOs, without NOs, in 1942 with NOs, without NOs?
Without NOs I can’t make up my mind on if I should just stick with the one I start with or if I should build one more.  Whats better?

As Germany, How many transports do you have going in 1941 setup with NOs, without NOs, in 1942 with NOs, without NOs?
I don’t build navy with Germany, unless I am experimenting.

We can usually get a big enough group to play every weekend or every other. 
Anyone here interested in joining us for some AA50 or Diplomacy?
We have the games usually in Denver or Boulder. (colorado)

-veqryn

you can still bid even if you accept a change to NOs.
personally, I think the NOs are fun but WAY WAY WAY unbalanced.  By turn 3, the Axis are outproducing the allies AND have more units on the board AND those units are close to the fight.  I would argue that ALL axis NOs should be 2-3 IPCs instead of 5.

great article

I would agree about the zone of control that Submarines (and equal navies) project.
I also like your idea of making single surface warships be able to stop only a limited number of ships, rather than infinite ships.  I would argue that a rate of 1 to 2 would be better than 1 to 1 and that this hold for any kind of ship, that 1 destroyer for example could stop up to 2 subs or other ships from passing under it, or that 1 cruiser could stop up to 2 destroyers/warships from passing through it too, but that all other ships could continue past the single guy.  An interesting idea for sure.

I will make one point regarding these navy conflicts though.  Because fleets are defensive in nature, the Japanese can sit back producing only half of their income on navy while the Americans can produce 100% of their income on navy, and in the end will still not accomplish anything beyond taking back a few islands.  Sure, the US can get the Philipines, Solomons, and perhaps a couple other islands.  But in the mean time, Japan has their army (even if it is small) taking India, a few Russian northern territories, and all of China.  After 2-3 turns, Japan is making more IPCs than America.  Meanwhile, Russia and Britain are left to face Italy and Germany all alone.  Without American help, Africa will fall by the 3rd or 4th turn.  Even without africa, Italy and Germany will out produce Russia and Britain as they both lose territory to Japan.  Unfortunately for those people who want to have fun in the pacific with Japan and America, the Pacific is merely a distraction where Japan and America can hold each other off for infinity, while Japan still makes gains in Asia.

My friends and I came up with a cool idea we have yet to try (we have a lot of these).  A 5th National Objective for America: If america splits her spent income (within 5 IPCs), between producing in Western US and Eastern US, she gets an additional 10 IPCs during the collect income phase.  On top of this, if the US player decides to collect this additional income, any units built in Western US may not travel East of the Central US, and any units built in the Eastern US may not travel West of the Central US.