Posts made by zooooma

You may well be right, sea lion might not be a game winner.  But it still warrants discussion and refining.  Here are reasons to study and refine sea lion:

• If UK under prepares, in the face of a CV & 2TT build, they may allow Germany to beat them too efficiently.  If the costs are reduced, post sea lion is looking much better for the Axis.

• Japans role has not been refined.  Japan is very powerful, and can still get India (and very big) by turn four at latest.  They can be well into Northern Russia and mostly through China, with a major IC churning out mechs in Manchuria.  Perhaps Japan can pressure US enough to force them West?  This is rough for Japan but the Germany holds UK and i kicking can.  This deserves more thought and testing in so new and so huge a game I think.

• Do we know that Barbarossa can win the game?  If the axis are at a disadvantage, then the problem might be imbalance - not sea lion being wrong.  If a balancer is needed, post sea lion is obviously looking better; perhaps even best.

The first reason is the perhaps most significant.  I played the other day and my opponent under defended UK.  He spent 7 IPCs turn one and two in South Africa, and he pulled his tactical bomber into the Mediterranean.  I was able to take UK too easily and with less naval building.  I also declared war J3 (and collected sixty some Yen) because USA was not in position to retake UK that turn (and I’m not sure that they could be).

So yeah, sea lion might not win global, but we shouldn’t rule it out just yet.  Also, a good player needs to decide how much (if any) they can skimp on homeland defense before they offer too good a deal.

@MikeMasino:

As a few posts have said, a G2 sealion is, in my opinion, a better bet (if it can be done).

Without a G1 cv build, you can’t protect a fleet in sz112, and if you stay in sz113, sea lion is blocked.  If you do buy the cv, you don’t have enough transports.

@JamesAleman:

Why do you attack on G2? Would it be better to land in Scotland instead?

This is a good idea, I’ve edited the post one.  Also I now encourage taking Yugoslavia G1, allowing for a ten transport build G2.

I’m still not sure sea Lion is the best plan, but if UK doesn’t react enough to the threat it can easily become the best plan.

@Plasticdeathbydice:

$6.00 bucks an hour?!?!  At the rate my buddies drink - it is costing me $6.00 every ten minutes!

Exactly.  Over time the game does not add a significant cost to your gaming experience.  If you sick to AA50 you still have to buy that booze.

$6/hr is relatively high - ask me what it works out to this time next year.  Also I didn’t account for the games of Pacific alone I’ve already played.  This will be down to pennies an hour in no time.

@Koningstiger:

I do believe it’s worth it, but at the same time, I find A&A50 the better game (ease and relative quickness of play)

To each their own.  Some people might prefer AA42 to AA50 for the same reason, but probably not many because AA50 is only a little bit bigger and more elaborate than AA42.  Global is way bigger than AA50.  I personally think they’re all excellent.

One thing really cool about Global is that Germany (at this point seemingly) has a legitimate decision to make in terms of England or Russia.  What’s even cooler is that if England falls the Allies can still win!  I love this game!

Best A&A ever!  This game is to AA50 as AA50 is to MBs 1984 edition.

As for the price, AA50 will cost you hundreds of dollars, and this is way better.  If you compare the price of A&A to a Wii, golfing, or cable TV, A&A is an incredible bargain.  I’ve played four games, and the price for playing is so far about six dollars an hour, plus my buddies played for free.  This rate can only get lower.  Entertainment doesn’t come cheaper unless it’s free.

@Koningstiger:

You can also bring in the carrier for a free hit and an additional one if you’re prepared to lose it…

I was accounting for the CV, which BTW gives you two free hits but no fire power.  Germany matches two free hits with CV +BB.  Germany matches your DD with it’s CV (both hit on two), matches one FT with a CA, beats your other fighters with it’s defensive fighters, and beats your TB with a BB (the BB always rolls at four, even alone).

@Koningstiger:

As someone else said: The Allies can afford such losses in the beginning….

…Not attacking the German fleet (even at bad odds) will allow the Germans to build an “all land units’ buy” to use against Russia. Even if you do have to replace 15-20 IPCs worth of ships, it’s still better for the Allies than if they don’t make the Germans do that.

But attacking at bad odds allows Germany to walk into England.  UK is a small dog in that battle, but Germany only needs mutual destruction. which makes UK a big dog.

I would argue that “in the beginning” is when England can least afford losses, because this is when they’re most vulnerable.

@Koningstiger:

I built a carrier (landed two fighters on it) and a transport once and the British took it out entirely having a carrier with two fighters on it left over. Agreed the Germans had lousy die rolls whereas those of the Brits were great. The British attacking force consisted of: 1 CV, 1 tactical bomber, 1 destroyer, 3 fighters from UK.

That’s 15 pips with 7 hit points attacking a BB, CV, CA, Ft, FT - 16 pips.  Both with exactly equal units, except Germany has 4s against UK’s 3s.  Even the Tactical bomber becomes a 3 if it’s the last unit fighting, so technically England should be assessed at slightly less than 15 pips.

@spectre_04:

If I was Britain, I would attack you even if my fleet got wiped out, because I have Canada, eventually the USA as an ally, and I know that Germany isn’t gonna win the game by buying Sea units the whole game.

You are an underdog in that battle, and if you lose or even draw you have no planes to defend England and Germany still has three transports.  UK will fall terribly turn three, taking poor Canada with it.   :-(

@LHoffman:

@zooooma:

Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.

I would say, “If GErmany buys a carrier AND 2 transports on G1…” then it would be hard for the US to hold Norway.

Well, that’s how I’ve been opening, but as far as the defense of Norway is concerned a G1 CV will keep the fleet alive - the transports can always come later.

@Koningstiger:

The problem is that when being the Germans and not pursueing a Sea Lion strategy, investing in transports (and in accompanying vessels to keep them alive) is basically a waste of IPCs.

A Baltic fleet with three transports can rush six ground units a turn to the Eastern front all the way from West Germany.  That’s better than a Norwegian IC, which is no closer tho Russia than West Germany and no closer to Leningrad than Germany is).

A CV + 2trn build G1 forces UK to take defensive measures even if your aren’t pursuing Sea Lion.  Your builds keep your starting fleet alive in sz113, allowing a maximal assault on the UK navy.  Your fleet keeps the Americans out of Norway, and deters an incursion across the Baltic straight.  These things buy a lot of time against the Allies while fighting Russia.

@eddiem4145:

I know house rules may not be the answer, but I have one that might. I follows the World At War game rule. The later versions where Russian is not considered a “friend or foe”. That rule does not allow any ally troops into Russian territories as was the case in the real war.

America don’t really need to go into Russia.  USA will build troops in Norway and transport them directly into Europe.  It’s a bad scene for Germany

@Blitchga:

My worry with this strat is that if the luck goes bad on G1 then you can put yourself in a bad position against Russia, something that Germany and the Axis as a whole cannot allow. They must bring a near perfect game to pull off a win. Otherwise it would be interesting to try a couple times on an unsuspecting opponent in order to switch things up a bit.

With the addition of the African forces to the defense of UK, I agree you need good luck to pursue this - either lose no planes or keep a sub on the East of UK or both.

As for the German position vs Russia, all you’ve done G1 is conquer France and wipe out the UK fleet.  These are sound goals in a war against Russia.  The naval build will ensure a long life for your Baltic fleet.  This will speed things ups against Russia and buy you time against the Allied incursion.  Furthermore, you’ve forced UK to build cautiously and defensively round one.  I would open this way even with no rea intention of Sea Lion.

Incidentally, can you show me a G1 opening that doesn’t leave you in a tough spot against Russia should the luck go very badly?

@Almano:

What is U-Boat Peril?

An optional rule on the bottom of page 22.  German U-Boats take an extra IPC when raiding convoys.

How about no bid with the Dardanelles closed for business?

@zooooma:

A strategy which only works once against each opponent will never work against a strong opponent.

On second thought, an opponent with general A&A skill will still be a little green at such a new (and gigantic) version…

@allweneedislove:

i read all your moves but did not study to see if there is counters. even if it is not fool proof i love the idea of trying to make another legitimate strategy for this game.

@JamesAleman:

…Premise: Do not engage or threaten U.S. until turn 3. Then swing into motion and catch them by surprise. Only works if the US spends 1st turn builds in Pacific. May require 2nd turn builds in Pacific…

There’s your counter - a US1 Atlantic build.

I’d really like to try this (and analyse it) because it sounds fun, but I’m afraid my opponents tend to build in the Atlantic (at least in part); especially against a perceived Sea Lion threat.  I wonder If Japan can goad USA somehow?  Maybe J1 is sound enough to try this anyway and only follow through the odd time you face a devoted Pacific build.

Have your tried your revised strategy in AA42?  I think I’d like to.  Also, is there an AA50 version?

PS: you should push for the U-Boat Peril optional rule!

NA means National Advantage - an ability or special unit that one and only one power has access to.  Examples in AAG40 are kamikazes and U-Boat Peril.

Past versions of A&A have featured many various NAs, dating back to the original Nova Games edition.  In fact, AA42 and AA50 are the only editions which don’t feature NAs in some form.

Edit - In addition to helping balance the game, NAs can facilitate a good handicap system to balance the varying skill levels.  NAs are good.

Sounds really fun; I like multi-player drinking games!

@LordCabello:

at about this point the UK tried a daring raid to taker Berlin and my 109 IPC from me…

How’d they manage to take and hod Denmark?

@Arminius:

If I were you I would try some NA only for the axis and see how this works out.

There’s always the U-Boat rule from the manual.  That’s a good place to start.

The moral of the story is that the game should have had several NAs as independent optional rules.  Then we’d have many options to balance the game, or they could be ignored if certain groups don’t like them.

@Blitchga:

First of all three units a turn hit Union of South Africa as it is a crap shoot in Africa otherwise.

Stop right there!  Germany should build a carrier and two transports G.1 UK must build in UK or they’ll lose their capitol.
See my Sea Lion thread.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20360.0

Sea Lion might not be the strongest move, but building this way can seriously constrain England but is still good for Germany if they decide to aim their guns at Russia instead.

As for Africa, Japan should get there (and to the UK fleet) ASAP.  Hit the Allies where it hurts - the wallet!

I will admit, so far it looks like the Allies have the advantage.  But it’s too early to tell.  There is much innovation and refinement to be done on strategies at this point.

@Blitchga:

India produces as many men and artillery as they can with almost even numbers (favouring infantry slightly but not much) and this allows them to work with the Chinese to often allow for the Burma road to be open for several turns. ANZAC and India will attack on round 2 if the Japanese are not covering themselves thoroughly.

India should fall turn three.

@Chompers#2:

US spending in Pacific is a viable way to get an allied win.  The problem seems to be that spending all in the Atlantic is an even more viable way to win.

If anything, the game is “broken” because the Allies are too strong in general, and hence can gain the upper hand from a variety of strategies and approaches.  It the power imbalance, not the specific strategy, which is (potentially) the problem.

If Germany can’t hold USA out of Norway long enought for the Axis to counquer Middle East, India, and Africa, cripple Russia, and gain a favourable economic position, then the game may be imbalanced.  But don’t blame the the Norwegian factory - This is a symptom of a (possible) problem.

Incidentally, If Germany buys a carrier round one it’s going to be very hard for USA to secure Norway.

I agree, but it’s hard to come up with that $20.  If the game turns out to favour the Allies, the Axis will simply not have the resources to do everything that they “should”.  Next time I’m Axis, I will make the effort to divert this force ASAP.

A bomber build later on is nice because it can get to Africa or the Russian front.

This makes sense for France - UK/USA liberates, then France Collects, then Germany recaptures.

England is a different manner.  If USA liberates, Germany goes before UK collects.  If they wait till the next turn, USA can land planes.  Of course Germany can land in Scotland (if they’re boats are safe there) and send a double wave in after America reinforces.  Me, I found it hard (post Sea Lion) for Germany to divert any more resources away from th Russian front - including enough to hold USA out of England.

What to do with those Germans?

@LHoffman:

Trying to fight the Americans just seems like a bad idea. Why would you want to do that?

The Americans like to land in Norway and in Normandy, and if Germany occupies the UK, USA likes to attack that too.  It’s good for Germany to hold off and beat back these invasions.  If USA is building on both coasts (enough westward to kick Japan’s can), Germany should be able to hold them off for a while I think.