It seems that creating one sea zone out of the Bearing Straight wouldn’t be that great an advantage. With the two movement points for a transport one would be able to shift troops from Alaska to The Soviet Far East just as quickly as if there were only one sea zone between them.

Yeah, the personnel carrier tech means each tank can carry one INF, so you can carry as many INF as tanks you have.

Yeah, I definitely like the time sensitive research idea. That way you take a calculated temporary disadvantage to get an advantage that(hopefully) pays off. The whole game is a race and about timing, and techs should support that. I was trying to work it in to my tech system, but couldn’t come up with a simple way.

I think having 3 or 4 levels for every unit (24 or 32 technologies) is too many techs to keep track of. How often is someone going to pay $18(6 INF) over 2 or 3 turns, for a better AC? Or invest in subs?(apparently they DONT fly or launch nuclear warheads in the original game…who knew?)Those options aren’t that useful, and would only convolute the tech system. I bet we could come up with 6-12 techs that affect useful units or production, and then sort out a fair, time sensitive research method. (this way last ditch teching is really hard to do, and you wont get stuck against a super japan that will go down eventually, but not until 2 days later)I like your idea of paying an installement each turn. However, I don’t think a player should get to pick ONE tech to research for. There should be a little uncertainty, but it should be categorized. That way if you really want Heavies and have a lot of bombers, Long Range is still a useful consolation prize, but there is no chance of getting super subs. I’m still confused about creating a good way to simulate time-sensitive research and give a little chance variation to the final tech received. Here are the techs that I think we should keep from my original post, plus a few additions-have any others, or replacements?

-Revised Industrial Tech
-Future Research is somehow discounted
-Super Tanks(maybe move at 3 as well?)
-Personnel Carriers
-Long Range Air
-Air Transports
-2D Heavy BMB
-Coastal Defense
*new techs
*Heavy TRN (3INF, 2INF 1 ARM)
*Radar Guided AA Guns-Each AA gun can fire at planes attacking any adjacent territories or sea zones. (Ex: BMB attacks Germany- 3 AA shots at BMB)
*something to do with navies. (i also think naval warfare should be changed in A&A, but that’s a diff topic)
*Maybe some kind of INF tech?

LOL, not in any ways a Vietnam Vet or born even close to that time period. Where did you manage to get that from? But the statement made by Sir Yanny about North Vietnam is more of a misnomer. In the Linebacker I and II aerial offensives, we bombed much of North Vietnam to smoking ruins. In fact, it was the success of the linebacker II operation that persuaded North Vietnam first to cave in and negotiate on the conference table with America, not the other way around.

But the use of nuclear weapons? What’s not to say that Soviet supplied North Vietnamese couldn’t have done the same to us?

“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”

[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-04-23 19:24 ]

If Germany can get a foothold in Africa, and keep it’s transports alive, thats good. The US must play a balancing act between troops unloading in Finland and in Algeria.

Screw the 3 IPCs for INF–spend 12 IPCs for some FTRs!!! :grin:

Good ol’ Swiss-built “Zeros” for use by the Fatherland…

Ozone27

Huh! I always thought a SUBs submerging ability was the same as “withdrawing” in place–that is, you get a counterattack at any naval units attacking you and may then submerge or withdraw. That adds a different dynamic to things…

Ozone27

I also like the idea of an IC in India; it allows some opposition to the Japanese where there would ussually be very little. If the USSR can take Manchuria with a minimum of casualties (say, one or two) then I would do so and build the IC. This forces Japan to make a tough decision; take back Manchuria or try for India, which is extremely difficult with the transport blocking an Amphib assult. If Japan goes after Manchuria they are forced to use their airforce to give the correct punch, weakening their opperations elsewhere.

I don’t care about any changes as long as they benefit Great Britain. That’s my favorite country :smile:

the address given in the rule book is probably worth a shot.

I like to place one of my fighters in Yakut. It gives Russia alot more flexibility on the eastern front.

In my personal Opinion, Japans main point in exsisting, Is to take some of the allies attention away from Germany, and to force russia into a two front war. Since Japan has a larger Pacific fleet then America does, after you deystroy the hawaiin fleet, the coastal fleet will run to panama with its tail between its legs. While japan attacks china, india and russia, this takes IPCs away that cant be used against Germany. Japan Is usually the turning point against The sovies.

Hmmm… what particular battle are you committing your transport to? Are you making sure you knock out all of UK’s navy T1? Is this with two hit bbs?

Ha just like my pal Rommel once said, “A plan never survives contact with the enemy…”

Well put. For a new member you show remarkable insight. However with American and UK your airforce won’t be as active (except for you bombers) since there are less targets to hit. Also, if done correctly you don’t need any other naval units except transports for Germany, USA, or Japan.

Helium power? Isn’t that also flameable or am I thinking of a different element?

Naval guns are pretty accurate. But they’re more used in mass saturation then precision strikes. Sometimes you don’t have access to the neccessary tacticle information to put out such strikes. Besides, mass saturation is useful just too flatten all of the enemy’s defenses in one stroke. The BB has it’s own cruise missile to do precision bombing.

I asked the same basic question under Player Help. Look there and see if the answers I got help you.

I think the key to A&A is really resource management. Since its a zero-sum game, the player that manages their resources the best will do the best, and ultimately win the game. What do I mean by Resource management:

Getting the most out of your units on offense and defense. Planes are a good example. You want to position your planes so that they can participate in an attack every turn, and provide defense until the next turn. If you position planes so that they miss a turn without being able to attack, then that’s wasted resources.

Another example is buying transports, and not having enough troops/tanks to fill them up. Again, this is generally wasted IPCs/resources.

It is vital as any country to use exactly the right amount of resources to acomplish your goals. If you use too much, then those wasted resources will cost you position elsewhere in the game. If you use too little, you will fail in your goal and again the resources are wasted.

For example, if Russia is playing to stall the Axis, then the Russian player must spend just enough IPCs on the Western front to stop Germany. All other resources go to the East to stall Japan. If the Russian player miscalculates, then either Japan or Germany will advance faster than optimally possible.

Another example, Japan must spend exactly the right amount of resources to attack Moscow/Asia, and send the remainder East into North America, or West into Europe to help Germany. If Japan stikes the right balance, then The Axis is hard to beat.

This is true for all countries. I once played the US, and I bought 3 bombers during the game, but I positioned them terribly, and they hardly ever saw combat. It was a huge waste of 45 IPCs.

The flip side to this problem of course is risk management. the closer you come to using just the right amount of resources, the higher the risk you will miscalculate, and use too few.

What do you guys think?

whoa, i forgot the name of the subject itself!

sorry!

Basically my T1 for Russia is the same as yours mind a few exceptions. First I don’t place any inf. in the Caucasus. Why? Because Germany probably has better things to do with it’s inf like support N. Africa. Plus if Germany decides to I can just counterattack next turn, stripping German of 3-6 IPCs.

Second, I don’t use my planes on the attack on Ukraine. The inf. and ARM should be enough. Instead I use the Yaks to wipe out Germany’s trans and sub in the Baltic Sea and save my Russian sub and trans to help absorb hits when the Luftwaffe strikes against the British fleet.

Yeah, no kidding. plus there are all sorts of misnomers about transports and airplanes.