Posts made by Zhukov44

Good discussion.  But the answer always depends, I think, on how many infantry Russia lost in Belo and WR.  Generally, if Russia came out strong in these battles then its safer to stack.  Otherwise, stacking could be risky as Germany might decide its position is strong enough to destroy these units and bring more up to Ukraine at the same time.

Blitz works.  What you have to do is use the right click button on your mouse, and it will show you various ways to blitz, and you choose the one you want.

In general they have worked hard to work out the kinks and as far as I know it is now consistent with the rules.  The main drawbacks is it doesn’t show game history like TripleA, or have edit like TripleA.  Also, there are issues with OOL and problems with sub casualties that detract from the game somewhat (in this case, playing the first round or two live typically solves the problem), but its still very playable as is.

@uffishbongo:

I would probably go for it in those circumstances…I don’t really have a lot of good guidelines though, just gut feelings.

Yeah same here… If one formulated some guidelines, they would have to be tested by concrete experience…  But theoretically, it should be possible to eventually create a formula of sorts that could serve as a guideline.  This formula would have to incorporate a number of variables…

1. Did Japan build factories or transports or both?
2. Did Japan lose any capital ships, or leave capital ships exposed to be destroyed before J2?
3. Did Japan lose fighters or other essential naval units?
4. What Allied naval units are still alive?
5. What is the situation on the mainland (ie will Japan be getting a lot of mainland IPCs in the coming turns?)
6. Is the Japanese fleet out of position or in a good strategic spot?

@uffishbongo:

Yeah, that may not have come out very clearly in the article; I wasn’t trying to recommend type 1 KJF; I was trying not to comment on it one way or the other (because I feel I have insufficient data).  A more complete breakdown of the different types of KJF I’ve seen would be as follows:
(1) Go whole hog against Japan, from the start, with everybody.
(2) Go against Japan from the start, but only with the US Navy.
(3) Go against Japan (either US Navy only, or with other assistance) in response to dice and/or opponent mistakes.

The purpose of the article was to make the case that (2) is a bad idea.  In my mind the jury is still out on (1); at best it’s very difficult, but it’s possible I just haven’t honed it enough.  I think (3) can be usable.  Although, as you say, I’ve been suckered into (3) when I shouldn’t have.  I wouldn’t do (3) just because Japan skipped Pearl; in that case they still have all 4 capital ships and all or most of their air, i.e. they’re still an absolute beast.  I might go for it if they went to Pearl and left the BB and CV open to counterattack, although even then I’d be reluctant if there weren’t other things going my way too.

Returning again to the topic and this earlier post…. basically you suggest only go with a USA Pacific offensive in response to either mistakes or ill dice on J1.

What I’m trying to determine (and I imagine every expert Revised player has their own ideas on this) is when it is favorable to go Pacific in a competitive expert game where you want to win?  In such a game, there is no UK1 India factory and at best there are only the 6 Russians in Bury and 4 in Sink.  How much does Japan have to have lost…or not destroyed (ie. what Allied ships are still alive?) in order for him to be weak enough for USA to attack?

I have a Facebook game going now where my oppo lost his Jap sub on UK1.  On J1, he skipped Pearl, and hit Bury (the UK destroyer had been destroyed by the 59 tranny, enabling the Bury assault) and hit the UK fleet off Egypt…losing 2 fighters.  So all in all he was down 2 fighters and a sub…and he didn’t hit the Pearl fleet…  In addition, he went with a 2 factory approach (clearly whether Japan goes with factories or trannys should also play a role) and his attack on China was weak, enabling the USA to retake China on USA1…  So even though Japan had lost no capital ships, I felt that the USA ought to invest in the Pacific theater (giving all the factors working against Japan) even though my opponent is very skilled.  Was I right?

It is a hard question to determine.  What I am relatively certain of is that if Japan leaves either the USA or UK carrier alive that should be significant in deciding what to do.  Similarly, every spare unit left alive (such as the UK sub and transport originally from Aussie) should count to some extent.

@dondoolee:

I would think Risk, the newer versions have army figures I think.

Yeah I’d say Risk is more appropriate for a 7 year old… I learned A&A when I was 14 and it was confusing then lol.

Wasn’t there a version of Risk that had a map scenario where there were 6 powers…kinda like WW1?  Might be good for a more strategic element.

A bid of 6-7 (to the Allies) makes a big difference….without it Axis has a small edge, but that can easily be negated with bad Axis dice on G1 or J1.http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=14806.0;num_replies=9

I’ll need to play the game more before making a judgement on whether this is a better game than Revised.  It’s certainly more historical than Revised and the naval rules are better…the one drawback is the imbalance in Asia makes strategies a bit static–ie Allies go for Berlin and Axis goes for Moscow every game.

I prefer Facebook for more competitive games.  TripleA is probably better of course, but Facebook GTO is so ez to access and the design is great.

Everything depends on the bids for me.  If there are bid units in Egypt and/or Karelia then the entire situation changes.

I still prefer France over Poland…if I buy an IC…as someone pointed out above if Germany can capture Cauc or Karelia…then that works better.

The argument for France is that NOs dictate that I hold onto France for dear life, and if I can place infantry there directly that’s pretty awesome, plus this allows me to reinforce Italy easily and plop naval units all over the place if I feel like it.  The drawback–SBRs–is substantial.  Sometimes I will leave France burning for awhile if the Allies are all into bombers.  But is really the 16 land units a turn in rounds 3-6 that make France so tempting for me…after those rounds Germany’s defensive position rawx.  Keep in mind, I would only advocate for France in response to specific Allied tactics (ie KGF) and only on Round 2, never on Round 1.

The open undecided question is whether the potential for Allied SBR tactics makes Poland a better choice than France.  Jen makes good arguments for Poland above–she may be right.  Let me play the devil’s advocate though.

One objection to Poland is it means I have to defend Poland every turn, which means I’m stretched to defend Poland, France, and Germany all at once…but with wise use of armor this isn’t so difficult…but it can be annoying sometimes.  The more substantial objection is that the Poland IC will eventually be captured by the Allies.  What I mean is that in a KGF scenario Poland ought to fall before France.  Once that happens, Allies can stack it with all 3 Allies and now they are building 3 more units a turn.  If I build the France IC and it is captured…well the game is over for Axis anyway unless Japan is right around the corner.

Bulgaria is also a nice alternative with interesting possibilities, but if I’m Allies I’d try to snag it with the USA…not ez but not impossible.

Yes, this is the main place I play now.  Much easier than all the typing involved in the PBEM games here  :-)

It’s still kinda buggy, but they are nearly there.  They will need to implement some kind of OOL program eventually for super-competitive gaming, but for social games it works fine.

Yeah I like the UK IC in Norway as a way to build up big invasion forces, but it always depends on German strategy.  If Germany isn’t buying any planes then UK doesn’t have to spend much on fleet, so the IC makes sense.  However, others prefer an IC in Egypt and I can see its merits.  I do think that if UK isn’t spending much on fleet or planes then they should buy 1-2 ICs at some point.

I’ve seen many advocate for American factories in both Scandavian countries–I can see the merits of this though it will negate the Russian NO.

If you take India early and build there then I could see forgoing the Manchuria IC.  I typically need the Sumatra one right away to maximize production since I’m buying lots of inf early (assuming KGF of course).  Then I need another one–so if I can secure India by then that’s great but otherwise its Manch (ie I generally give more priority to getting as many men as I can off Japan and denying the USA its Pacific NO than I do India in the first turns–this may be a mistake I’m not sure yet).  But with NOs Japan’s income can eventually justify another mainland factory and Manch is a pretty good place for a tank factory feeding tanks through China.

Well, without a bid to the Allies the turtle strategy Lynxes described will win almost every time…the key is buying lots of inf with Germany/Italy and developing Japan as fast as possible (ie, get up to 7 transports, build inf for about 3 turns, then almost all armor, build factories J2 in Sumatra, J3 in Manch, J4 in India).  I’m not big on buying any Axis fleet in the Med unless USA is focused on Japan and not buying bombers for Europe–instead sneak a Jap carrier up there if possible.  How is UK buying a complex in Egypt early on…are you attacking Egypt?  Unless there is a bid to Egypt I’d hit it every game…otherwise Italy will never get its NO.  If you go with the turtle, once Italy gets its NO then the Allies shouldn’t be able to post a credible threat to France because Italy should be producing 6 land units a turn while Germany produces 13-16 a turn.  Sure, Allies will get Africa eventually but by then France should be totally stacked and Japan should be producing a massive wave of Hondas that will crush Moscow.

I guess this is one of the problems with giving Japan 7 fighters (sigh).

I wonder, has any strategy besides KGF proven effective in this game?  I mean, against a good Japan player, is there any point in doing stuff in the Pacific?  Frankly, unless Japan makes mistakes, it’s hard for me to see how USA has a chance of competing in this theater.  I suppose if USA goes full-on, then Japan will at least be forced into a naval build-up and won’t be able to threaten Moscow with much besides a token force.  So if Germany/Italy don’t take Russia, then Russia could perhaps keep building enough inf until Moscow is untakable….  The problem is it doesn’t seem like Uk and Russia should be able to hold off Germany/Italy without some help from USA…but maybe with the Egypt/Karelia bid this strategy has some hope.

Coming back to the balance debate…has anyone tried this?  UK gets a bid of one industrial complex, to be placed in India.  Then play game as normal…

Does this IC have any chance of holding (I’m assuming, of course, that the Russians will push at least 3-4 inf on Persia immediately to help out)?  Or will the strain of taking it slow Japan down enough to win the game for the Allies?

@dabapic:

You people don’t know what the Hell you are talking about, this game is the BEST AA game ever made! there are no flaws in this game only flawed players. I’m sick of reading you crybaby’s complaining because the game didn’t play out like you thought it should. Larry Harris designed this game to be a Game! that’s FUN to play, that takes WWII and turns it into "what if " this happened or what if that happened , it’s not going to be historially accurate because we all know the Axis lost, so the game was made to where either side could win by a bunch of different ways.
    So stop your whinning or go play a different game

I think AA:50 41 is an awesome game.  But I’m not seeing much in the way of anti-Japan strategies, which makes me question whether it will ultimately eclipse Revised and the new updated version of Revised, where KJF strategies are both possible and a lot of fun to play.  AA:50 is more historically accurate and the rules are much improved….but what everyone considered the classic game defect of Revised–that game dynamics dicated a race for Berlin and Moscow in every game–seems even more prominent in 41.  I hope I am wrong and it’s a simple matter of figuring out the strategies…  But either way I think basically everyone agrees China and India should be stronger and a few game mods in this direction make 41 a much better game.

When it comes to 41, I don’t know what the creators were thinking re. Asia.  It’s just ridiculously unbalanced…you would think it would be possible to make Axis stronger in Europe as a counterweight to give India and China SOME chance of holding for a few turns…but this game is oriented towards Europe all the way.

42 is alot better in this regard though.

@dondoolee:

@Twigley:

Imagine in Round 1 the UK buy bombers - you know they’re coming for you…

Well it depends - if Germany took Egy - then you can take TJ and your ships are out of UK bomber range.

I would then by a fighter.

Who knows what the UK does next go? She could keep buying bombers - but 4+ seems extravagant - especially as Russia needs a break; so she opts to use her Rnd 1 buy SBRing and buys other stuff. Navy, IC whatever. At this point already Japan will begin eating into the British Empire in the east.

Round 2 Buy an AC, bring your BB, cruisers, transport back and drop 2 Fghtrs onto the carrier.

From now on drop troops onto North Africa. If you are getting NO’s maybe buy alternate combinations of destroyers, subs, and inf/art couplets. At that point Italy’s navy is very powerful.

Should the Germans have an IC in France then it is possible that a careful German sub building campaign (in Baltic/Med) could come together in a big way later in the game with Italian naval back up…

I am just confused as to why people think not building any land units for 2 turns would be beneficial for the Axis.  Not only that you are building a purley defensive unit that defends just as much as a destroyer unless you force airplanes on it, not only that but a jap carrier can be sent there in 2 turns, not only that but German airplanes/surviving subs can provide better protection and more flexability than a very expensive unit (by Italinan standards).  Carriers are just not good buys for the Western Axis, particulary Italy.

As far as the 4 bombers, Its still usefull in slowing down Germany because of the SBR’s.  A little excessive, yes, but the real point was if the Allies value the Italian navy that much the navy is dead.  The whole point of the Western theater that must be rememberd is that it is designed for the Allies to rule the ocean and still have enough to take out Germany/Italy.  That is just the mechanics of the game.  If that wasn’t the case than the game could not be winnable for the Allies.  That is not to say Italy should never build a naval unit ever, just probably not on t1  or t2 particularly something as economicaly devestating and useless to her as a CV.

Yeah I gotta agree.  If I was buying a carrier turn 1, I’m not sure where I’d find the units to accomplish my objectives in Africa and help protect France.  If the Allies are KGF then the Jap carrier is pretty much the only option IMO…but if the Allies are all or mostly on Japan its a different ballgame.

I suppose all this might be possible, but only if USA is going all or mainly Pacific, and only if Germany has a factory in France or Bulgaria/Romania that can reinforce the Med fleet.

My particular oppo didn’t do China or Pearl, so yeah he was in a world of hurt in no time flat.

But if Japan attacks the Brit fleet with the 4 figs + bb+ carrier, hits China with 2 figs 1 bomb 4 inf, and buy 3 transports, then Japan is in relatively good shape.  On average Japan will lose 2 figs at 30…if they do then thats ok–the UK fleet is destroyed and the carrier doesn’t have to go to 30, instead it can go to the Fico sz and protect a landing there.  The drawbacks are the loss of the 2 figs and letting the Pearl fleet live, but USA is still behind in the naval race which means Japan will have enough time to reunite the fleet.

I think going to SZ 30 is a good deployment to go with the India fact + KJF but I wonder if there anything better.

All that said I imagine most opponents just ignore SZ 30 allowing the Allies to unite the fleets.