Posts made by wodan46

@TG:

If that isn’t good enough, you can use a Destroyer of your own as a meatshield, preventing the enemy fleet from hitting a Sub stack entirely.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.  Please explain.

Let’s say that America has a huge fleet in Sea Zone 56, next to Western US.  You have a huge fleet of Subs, which you move to Sea Zone 59, off of Iwo Jima.  Move a single Destroyer to Sea Zone 57, off of Midway.  The Allied fleet will be entirely unable to attack your subs, because they would have to destroy the Destroyer, then only after that would they be able to move Destroyers to the Sub’s hex, but attacking would already be over by then.  Air units can reach the Subs anyway, but won’t be able to attack them.

@Imperious:

Yea thats from AARHE developed like 6 years ago. We thru it out eventually because it was not very playable because the number of pieces on naval are too few and when you build them you usually buy them because of a crisis and the reaction of 2 turns could mean the difference of victory and defeat. AARHE has other ideas of great merit so keep reading it and post ideas from it.

This was an extension of stuff discussed back in boardgamegeek forums.  However, I believe that AA50 has a different dynamic, with a slower, more strategic game, and the presence of Italy, who has difficulty buying Battleships/Carriers.

Why, you ask?  Because without Destroyers, enemy units are entirely unable to hit them unless the Subs choose to engage in battle, and air units can’t hit them period.  This pretty much ensures that Subs can avoid fighting on the defense, instead doing so on the offense when they completely overpower lesser units.  Furthermore, because Subs can’t be ambushed except by Destroyers, if you spread your Subs out, the enemy can only hit as many of them as they have Destroyers.  If that isn’t good enough, you can use a Destroyer of your own as a meatshield, preventing the enemy fleet from hitting a Sub stack entirely.

If Germany uses Subs to full effect, the the seas around Britain, and possibly the whole Atlantic, will be empty of allied ships, because whenever they are built, they are immediately sunk by Subs, who are immune to attack by enemy aircraft by the time the first round of combat ends.  This is easily worth a large expenditure in Subs.  It means that the only thing Germany has to fear from the Allies is SBR and Paratroopers.  Everyone fears Paratroopers though.

The Pacific Front is more interesting, both Japan and America have viable reasons to buy Subs, but also have the money to afford flinging Destroyers around as well.

Option: You may build certain naval units over multiple turns.  You must pay the indicated cost on 2 different turns in order to complete the ship.  After paying the cost the first time, place the ship on the land region.  It is automatically destroyed if the territory is captured.

Battleship: 9 IPCs (8 with improved Shipyards)
Carrier: 6 IPCs (5 with improved Shipyards)
Cruiser: 5 IPCs

In short, at the cost of time and vulnerability, you can build ships at a cheaper cost, and allow you to buy expensive ships in small individual payments.

If you checked, I listed Jet Fighters for Japan as one of the “I win unless there is a major reversal, such as you getting a very good tech, die roll, or gambit”

The full list of things that qualify, besides Heavy Bombers for the top 4 players:

Germany: Mechanized Infantry(bum rush), Improved Manufacturing(stops SBR and makes Karelia/Caucasus a unit pumper).
Japan: Jet Fighter(9 highly mobile Fighters hitting 33% harder), Long Range(or they move 50% farther)
USA: Long Range Aircraft(Bombers built on the West Coast can bomb Japan immediately)

@TimTheEnchanter:

Looking at germany, How in the world do you rank War Bonds in the first 1/3 of the game just a 1 but Super Subs a 2??   After the first turn, germany generally doesn’t ever get an attacking shot off with a sub.  Even if they get the tech, they are rarely in position to safely build more.  The same applies to shipyards.  It would take a HUGE additional investment to be able to take advantage of that (an IC somewhe other than the baltic, or a MAJOR fleet dedication) and I still don’t know if I’d build any ships.  I’d put SHipyards at 0 and Subs as a 0 for germany unless they’re on the first turn and then give them a 1.  War bonds should pay on average 3.5 ipcs per turn for at least 2/3 of the game, which should do more than just "pay itself off’ unless you dropped 20ipcs to get that tech.

War Bonds is unpredictable and slow, and it never really gives you the kind of boost that the other techs can.

Subs are perfectly useful and long lasting.  Subs are immune to aircraft unless a Destroyer is present.  With the help of the Luftwaffe against the initial British fleet, a fleet of Subs should have relatively little difficulty sinking any fleets built by Britain before they get a chance to use them, or to work in concert with their air fleets.  If they build Carriers, they will get sunk easily.

While admittedly, this gambit isn’t always going to work, the possibility of permanently disabling Britain’s ability to produce naval units makes it well worth it.

Also, does anyone have the full list of rules regarding Subs?  Its very confusing and changes from game to game.

@Cmdr:

Check my game against A44.  He had heavy bombers long before I got them and America still stomped Japan like a bad nicotine habit.

Where do you find these games.  Also, how do you get the battlemap stuff or whatever you call it working?

@Cmdr:

Putting them on the cruiser might make the cruiser too powerful.  Though, I would agree that 10 IPC would be a much more appropriate cost for the cruiser given that it is basically the navy equivalent of a fighter.

I’ve also heard people suggest giving the Cruiser 3 Movement instead.

@Cmdr:

Paratroopers allow you to liberate islands without risking transports which means you don’t have to build a surface fleet even if the enemy has heavy bombers!

I’ve used them successfully to get NOs for Italy (using German paratroopers that is), to take Japan, to liberate the South Pacific and to take England.  It’s amazingly powerful those little buggers!  When defending against them you really have to look at the board and factor in multiple avenues the enemy could attack (all you need is a territory you control to stop them, but a movement of 6 or 8 is really flexible!)

However, those allow you to take territories by being sneaky, whereas Heavy Bombers allow you to take territories with overwhelming firepower.

Of course, the true nightmare is Heavy Bombers loaded with Paratroopers.

@Cmdr:

We’re talking CONSERVATIVE Germany, that means you do not take the Russian territories, especially not 4 of them, that’s VERY high risk and VERY aggressive (and the plan I am arguing for to be exact.)

You are interpreting conservative as meaning “Do absolutely nothing except building Infantry”.  I’m interpreting it as “don’t launch attacks that would result in expensive units being lost”.  Capturing three territories turn 1 and one territory turn 2 is not very aggressive, when Germany could take five territories turn 1 and four territories turn 2 if it really wanted to.

Here is the most conservative non-insane strategy I see:
G1: Take Baltic States, East Poland, and Ukraine.  Use Luftwaffe to kill Destroyer in Sea Zone 6, so that the 2 Subs can retreat to Baltic Sea.  Build Carrier and land Luftwaffe on it.  Spend remainder on Infantry and possible a Transport.

@Cmdr:

Cruisers are expensive, but they more than pay for themselves by keeping the luftwaffe away.

Except that Fighters cost less than them anyways.

@Cmdr:

8 Cruisers is not unheard of if the starting BB was sunk (7 if you did not lose the starting one) added to 4 transports that’s 8 shore bombardments.

8 Cruisers and 4 Transports cost you 124 IPCs, plus 24-32 IPCs per wave of ground fodder.  Britain has 43 Income first turn, their income drops by 10-15 over the course of the next two turns.  It will take them about 4 Turns to build that forces, hitting on the fifth.  By that time, Japan should have reached or be about to reach Novosibirsk, Kazakh, and Ural,

@Cmdr:

And yes, it is very realistic to have that by the time you plan to invade France.  No use in rushing, you’re already decimating Germany by -32 IPC a round (out of the 30ish IPC they will be earning) so there is no need to run to Russia’s aid.  (if anything, Russia might be in a position now to go liberate China and kick Japan off the mainland again.)

They will be earning 52 IPCs, and if America is sending that kind of forces of Bombers over, Japan will probably be milling around the Great Plains with a tank divisions.  If America goes 2 Bombers a turn, once again, it takes them about 4 turns to build up the fleet, and the fifth to land the -32 Volley

Germany going the dumb conservative plan (always repairs damage, of course)
G1: 1 IC, 5 Infantry
G2: 15 Infantry, 1 AA (7 IPCs lost due to SBR)
G3: 15 Infantry (14 IPCs lost due to SBR)
G4: 12 Infantry (18 IPCs lost due to SBR)
G5: 11 Infantry

So, Germany has built 58 Infantry by the time that Britain launches a full scale invasion.  We’ll assume that of those produced, 15 go to West Europe, 10 in Germany, 8 to each of the 3 front territories against Russia, and 8 in Karelia, on top of the majority of Germany’s starting force of 18 Infantry, 4 Artilley, 8 Tanks, 4 Fighters, and 1 Bomber.  If Allies hit Norway and Finland, Germany loses an Infantry or two a turn, but Karelia will probably hold for a bit.

Of course, I’m not claiming that this is a good strategy.  I indicated above what I considered to be the most Conservative strategy I could think of that was not suicidally passive.

The central concept of Conservative Germany is that Germany can only grab about 18 IPCs worth of territory, whereupon they can’t go further without taking either London or Moscow, both of which are hard nuts to crack.  In the mean time, Japan gains that much on the first turn of the game, and Japan’s second turn lumped with Italy’s first does it again, and they together continue to expand by about 2-4 IPCs apiece a turn thereafter.  So Germany can take its conquest, then focus on stalling Britain, Russia, and possibly America long enough for Italy and Japan to finish absorbing Eurasia/Africa/Oceania, which by the fifth turn, they probably have.

@Cmdr:

But for straight count, sorry, I didn’t keep those kinds of records.  (I can tell you I had a game where Italy had over 100 IPC per round in income!)

Let me guess, did Italy surprise capture the East US, then help itself to the remainder of North America shortly after?  That’s the easiest way I could see it happening.

I don’t think this is a problem for Japan.  While China is stronger, it now has 5 more IPCs worth of value to capture, a capital to be sacked, and an IC it can seize.  The last one in particular is a huge boon to Japan.

Before, Japan could reliably conquer India/China/Indonesia/Siberia without breaking a sweat in a turn or two.  Now it has enough forces to challenge it, but potentially even more spoils to seize.

I like it.

@Cmdr:

I think Paratroopers is more powerful than Heavy Bombers.  I also don’t think Heavy Bombers need a “fix” they just turn the game from naval war to paratroopers and bomber war.

No, they turn the game into a curb stomp, where the team with heavy bombers crushes the team without them.  That is what every match featuring them has reported.  Paratroopers are powerful, but they are far less likely to cause curb stomps.  They give you super transports that allow for crazy attacks, but they don’t give you a brokenly overpowered attack.

@Cmdr:

Give Battleships AA Gun abilities (which is my personal favorite.  I think they should have them anyway, it would help justify the immense cost of buying the darn things!)

It should probably be the Cruiser getting those abilities

Speaking of, I think the the Battleships and Cruisers could both use 2 IPCs off their cost.

Let’s face it, Heavy Bombers are brokenly overpowered, to the point that if one of the 4 larger powers gets it, they can crush the others.  Not surprising when you have a unit that has more Attack per IPC than a Tank, but has 6 movement can quickly retreat out of frontline territories.

So here’s a simple fix.  Heavy Bombers roll 2 dice, and pick the better one.

Attack: 67%(regular Bomber), 89%(new Heavy Bomber), 67%2(old Heavy Bomber)
SBR: 3.5 IPCs average(regular Bomber), 5 IPCs average(new heavy Bomber), 7 IPCs average(old Heavy Bomber)

So, with the fix, instead of Bombers getting a 100% boost to Attack and SBR, they get a 32% boost to Attack and a 42% boost to SBR.  This is still quite powerful, but isn’t an instant I WIN to the person who gets it.

*Excluding AA, which applies same penalty to all of them

@Stoob:

This is a neat idea, but the moderator has been running a thread just like this with much more data for the past couple of months already.    Why duplicate our efforts?  Everyone is encouraged to type their after-action reports on that post, as it gives more meaningful data… I hope that data eventually finds its way back to Larry Harris for tournment rules and addendums.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12942.0

Please consider deleting your post (to avoid confusion) and sending everyone to that thread.  Thanks.

@wodan46:

Wait, another thread has more info already:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12942.0

However, this thread will remain for recording raw numbers.

Many of the people in the other thread have only filled out a detailed report for their games, but have played many more games which they don’t list specific info for other than “one side won”.

@Cmdr:

That’s a very aggressive move.  It requires you to perform at least three attacks, potentially more since Russia will most likely have a very nice stack in Ukraine so they can trade Bulgaria for their 10 IPC NO. (That results in a 50 IPC + Russia each round, btw.  But axis wants to be conservative with Germany, so he has a miracle plan to defend against a Russia with an army twice the size of Germany.)

Um, the assumption remains that you take the 4 front territories of the Russians, increasing Germany’s production to 53 while decreasing Russia’s to 24.

@Cmdr:

1)  SZ 7 and 13 can shell France.  That means you will have to spend a minimum of 16 IPC to block the British from shelling France each round. (2 destroyers.  Submarines are impotent in this game, they can’t stop shelling, amphibious assaults or spit wads.  They can annoy your opponent however.)

You can’t shell unless you throw a ground force as well.  While its true that shelling will suck, Cruisers cost 12, which means that it will take them about 8 shots before they’ve paid off their costs.

@Cmdr:

2)  Germany is now capable of taking 32 IPC in damage and, as the allies, I will see too it that Germany does take that much damage EACH AND EVERY ROUND!  So you’ll have England pounding you with 3-8 Cruisers and 4 transports full of equipment and America pounding you with 10 bombers give or take.  (Obviously it takes a few rounds to get to that point, but you’re putting an IC in France, so I know my efforts will at least be usable no matter what.)

And if you do that strategy, you’ve just lost, because you’ve just spent several turns and 200-300 IPCs worth of money to pound the infantry stacks to oblivion, while in the mean time Japan and Italy conquer everything forever.

Remember, by Turn 2’s end, Germany and Japan have 50 Income and Italy has 25, roughly.

@Cmdr:

3)  When you finally surrender France, you’ve given England or America (probably England since America is working on keeping a bomber fleet up on Europe and putting some boats in the Pacific to annoy Japan so not a lot is going towards Europe) a valuable staging area.

Before the territory is immediately recaptured by 10 Infantry and the Luftwaffe?

@Cmdr:

Now you are saying, well I can put an AA Gun there.  Yes you can.  So?  It’ll cost you 6 IPC (if you move the one from Italy, just figure Italy will take 12 IPC of damage a round, since now there’s no gun there and the French gun cannot protect Italy from SBR raids.  This is anniversary, not revised, guns only fire if you attack that specific territory.)  So on top of taking 32 IPC in damage to Germany and France you’ll ALSO be out 6 IPC for the gun!

Or Germany could use 6 of its income to build an AA gun in Germany, while moving the other to Western Europe.  Or they can build the AA with the Industrial Complex on turn 2 along with 5 Infantry.

@Cmdr:

(BTW, America can easily afford to put two bombers on the board every round without ignoring Japan, they can afford 4 Bombers a round if they do ignore Japan.  So Round 3, you have 10 Bombers.  2 Starting +4 Round 2 +4 Round 3 and maintenance bombers thereafter.)

10 Bombers = 6 bombers to Germany, 4 Bombers to France.  3.5 IPC damage on average each that’s 21 IPC to Germany (20 Cap) and 14 IPC to France (12 cap).  Both should cap damage to Europe each round.  Perhaps a few IPC will be spared on the off chance you actually hit one or two bombers.

The Bombers are the primary reason that this strategy sucks.  Even so, there is a good chance that the Allies will focus on killing the newb Germany to such an extent that Italy and Japan pulverize them to the point of it not mattering.

Remember, any strategy that involves Germany being conservative will have Italy and Japan being aggressive, though Japan is pretty much always aggressive, the only question being the order in its aggressions.

Hypothetical Dumb Germany Build:
G1: 1 IC, 5 Infantry
G2: 15 Infantry, 1 AA
G3+: 17 Infantry (2 in Karelia, 6 in France, 9 in Germany)

Hypothetical Dumb Germany Alternate Build:
G1: 1 IC, 1 Carrier
G2: 11 Infantry, 1 AA, 1 Carrier
G3+: 17 Infantry (2 in Karelia, 6 in France, 9 in Germany)

@Cmdr:

Anyway, the IPM is not a conservative Germany.  Neither is mass attacking the British fleet and sacrificing your navy and some of your air force to clear the waters.  Both of those are aggressive tactics.

PASSIVE or CONSERVATIVE is when you ONLY focus on trading Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine until Japan brings up units to threaten Moscow and then, and only then, when you’ve made France, NW Europe and Germany completely impenetrable, do you advance deeper into Russia.

I interpret anything that doesn’t involve shrieking LEEROY JENKINS and making an all or nothing charge that captures Moscow on Turn 3 to be conservative.

Granted, my “conservative” strategy is oriented towards a London capture on Turn 3 as well, but it isn’t an all or nothing.  Even if it can’t capture Great Britain, it can stall Britain, Russia, and anything America throws at it long enough for its Axis buddies to conquer everything else before taking Russia down from below and behind.

@Cmdr:

Anything that is not the highlighted section, is not conservative by definition.  Conservative = Turtle (for the unintelligent out there, a turtle would be a wall of infantry defending everywhere, but very little, if any, actual attacking.  The goal being to conserve all your forces and to force all attacks to give you the defender advantage.)  Aggressive = Judicious attacks on targeted allied assets with the goal of establishing military supremacy.

Turtles have never won the game.  If the game goes poorly, turtles have been used to keep your capitol until allies can come to your aid, but it has never won the game for anyone.  Starting the game off on Germany 1 by going into turtle mode is like filling your mouth with water, sticking a pistol in it and pulling the trigger.  Sure, there’s a chance it will misfire and you’ll live, but I wouldn’t risk the game on it!

If one seriously wanted to do a Turtle, Germany should take the 2 NOs, build an IC in France, then start pumping 16 Infantry out a turn.  This strategy will work if the Allies, convinced that Germany is insane for building an IC in France, go into KGF, which in this case is like running into a brick wall made out of hate.

The main think that makes such strategies reasonable is that if Germany believes it can’t take Moscow or London quickly enough, its expansion is probably limited to 9 IPCs on the first turn, 9 IPCs on the second, and it peters out.  In comparison, Italy can go up by 12 IPCs the first turn, then spend the next few turns working through Africa, the Middle East, and maybe even the Caucasus or Brazil.  Japan can pull off something like +27 IPCs the first turn, +13 the second turn.  However, by that point, the Axis have a significant IPC edge over the Allies, and they have a better position tactically as well, holding the Eurasian landmass.

If America and Britain both get 2 Tech Dice on Chart 2, there is a 52% chance that one of them will get a tech, and a 8.7% chance it will be Heavy Bombers.  In short, with a reasonable investment, they give themselves an 8.7% chance of hitting the “I WIN” button turn 1, and a 52% chance of getting something, of which the other techs will either pay themselves off, or be major boosts themselves.

My full evaluation of techs below:

0 means this tech is worthless to the nation, 1 means it will pay itself off at the very least, though it might require some rethinking, 2 means this tech is a good boost, though it still might require some rethinking, 3 means its a major boost, probably effecting a unit that the force has a lot of, and 4 means that other if this is the only tech researched in the game, your side will have very high chances of winning, all of these keep in mind each sides relative incomes, and assumes that the tech is grabbed within the first third of the game:

Chart 1    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
War Bonds[–1–][–1–][–1–][–1–][–2–][–2–]
Mech-Inf  [–0–][–1–][–[b]4–][–3–][–0–][–2–]
Rocket     [–2–][–2–][–3–][–1–][–1–][–2–]
Adv Art    [–1–][–1–][–2–][–1–][–3–][–1–]
Manufactu[–0–][–3–][–[b]4–][–3–][–2–][–2–]
Paratroop [–3–][–3–][–3–][–3–][–1–][–2–]

Chart 2    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
Jet Fight  [–3–][–3–][–3–][–[b]4–][–0–][–1–]
Radar      [–0–][–2–][–3–][–2–][–2–][–2–]
Heavy Bo [–[b]5–][–[b]4–][–[b]4–][–[b]4–][–3–][–3–]
Shipyard  [–3–][–3–][–2–][–2–][–0–][–3–]
Spr Sub   [–2–][–2–][–2–][–2–][–0–][–2–]
LRA        [–[b]4–][–3–][–3–][–[b]4–][–1–][–2–]

@bugoo:

If your going naval purchase I would grab 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, and 1 inf.

Your Fleet: 1 Transport, 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Cruisers (12 Attack, 11 Defense, 5 HP, 2 Carry, costs 28 of start money
My Fleet: 2 Transports, 1 Sub, 1 Carrier, 2 Fighters, 1 Cruiser (12 Attack, 14 Defense, 5 HP, 4 Carry, costs 21 of start money

My fleet is better than your fleet, and cheaper as well.

Here is a sample build for first 3 turns:
G1: 1 Carrier, 1 Transport, 1 Fighter
G2: 1 Carrier, 2 Transports, 1 Fighter, remainder (14ish) on Ground Units (19 Attack, 22 Defense, 8 HP, 8 Carry)
G3: 2 Bombers, 4 Infantry, 4 Tanks, (this is useful regardless of capturing Britain on turn 3)

@Cmdr:

But what i see touted much of the time is that Germany has to be very conservative.  Reinforce France and set up a wall on the Eastern Front and that’s just going to end up getting you killed.

As I said, it’s like ripping off your husband’s testicles and wondering why he’s impotent.  You just plain cannot win most games with a turtling Germany from the first round.  You absolutely must (to win most games) go beserk on Russia kicking them in the teeth, groin and knees as fast and as hard as you can in the first two rounds and then think about protecting France and Germany from Allied attacks.

Not for sure.  Germany can simply take the 2 NOs and 6 IPCs worth of territory (doable with its starting forces), then focus on destroying Britain(if you aren’t killing Russia, you should be annoying Britain at the very least.

Here is a Conservative Strategy
G1: 1 Carrier, 1-2 Transports, Rest Infantry.  Take Eastern Front, sink British Fleet, sacrificing your Subs
G2: 1 Carrier, 3 Transports/Fighters, Rest Infantry/Tanks.  Take Karelia using Transports.  If Britain was stupid, take them instead.
G3+: Build Fighters, Tanks, and Infantry.  Take Britain when possible.  If you can’t, repel Allied forces and sink Allied Fleets, stalling for time while the other Axis Members glut themselves.

Japan should get itself a nice helping of Eurasia, but should make sure to grab Russian territory whenever possible, through the entrances  in Siberia, China, and India.
Italy should should get itself a nice helping of Africa, repel American fleets in the Atlantic, and head up through the Middle East as well.

@Cmdr:

1)  Russia can invade Manchuria with 7 Infantry.  This is a gift of 21 IPC to Japan.
2)  England or America can land something in Russian territories (again, a gift to the Axis of -5 IPC to Russia!)
3)  America can ignore Japan completely allowing them to get up to 70-90 IPC in which case, you don’t need Germany anymore!
4)  The allies can ignore Africa resulting in Italy earning 20-30 IPC in which case, Italy can save Germany from itself.

Also, if they let either Britain be captured period, or East US be captured and then successfully built in.

@OleOneEye:

I agree that heavy bombers is the best technology.  With their range and attack value, bombers are already the best offensive unit in the game.  Heavy bombers doubles their offensive capability.  No other unit can come close to the attack value of a heavy bomber in relation to its price.

Germany, Britain, Japan, and USA can all afford to purchase a bomber a round in addition to their normal allocations.  After 4-5 rounds, the offensive capabilities of a stack of heavy bombers is sickening.  In every game I’ve played thus far, where one of these 4 nations got heavy bombers early, they have won.

Have you had any games where both an Axis and Ally nation get it?

Also, another aside regarding Subs.  Fighters can’t attack Subs unless a Destroyer is present.  Hence, if you scatter your Subs, the enemy can’t attack them effectively unless they mass Destroyers, which are in turn useless for ground support.  If America masses Subs and starts doing this, things could prove problematic for Japan.