We need people. Please sign up!
Here is the link:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22003.30
AA50 Bias
-
KGF is a very boring game. Been there, done that.
Seconded. If A&A devolves into this again, then I’m quitting completely. I do hope to be proven wrong however. :)
-
you show up? We don’t see you like for once every 3 years. Your like a comet!
-
What can I say, I’m as timeless and immortal as this Forum.
Why, if you look at the picture attached, that’s me on the far right (above Monty) alongside a prototype copy of Axis and Allies. Unfortunately, the pieces kept sliding off the board so we just used it as a map.
––
After three years, I can say things have changed a lot. For instance, the rise of the Super Posters – yes, I’m looking at you Mister 7068. For a long time, I didn’t think anyone besides Yanny, CC, and I would break 5000. But A&A:50 has that effect of bringing people back. Like a Renaissance.
-
I have good news, and I have bad news.
Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.
Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.
Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory. Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.
-
The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland,
Did the Japanese really NEED to be distracted or did the Japanese player make a mistake?
What did USA do that REQUIRED the IJN’s attention? -
I have good news, and I have bad news.
Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.
Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.
Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory. Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.
ROFLMAO !!
I see that you didn’t play the ‘wee covered’ krauts yourself LOL…
Did you take glee in watching the german player touch those pieces… perhaps even hope he would suck or chew on one… LOL! :-D
-
I have good news, and I have bad news.
Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.
Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.
Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory. Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.
OMG, this is funny. I am still laughing.
It is good to hear a more balanced play strategy was rewarded. -
I have good news, and I have bad news.
Bad news first. My cat urinated a on my new copy of AA50, right in the German box in fact. Kudos to him for recognizing the Nazis and showing his opinion of them… but seriously, that smell is hard to get rid of.
Good news. After cleaning all of the German pieces and and the box, I played my third '41 game with my A&A friends. Desperately wanting to see the first Allied victory, I took the Americans. After having seen both KIGF and KJF strategies fail miserably in previous games, I split my money between Pacific (about 40%) and Europe (about 60%). It seemed to work out really well. The Japanese were distracted enough to decrease spending on the mainland, and the Italians had no hope for defending against both the UK and the USA. Once Italy was rendered impotent, I shifted my focus to the piss stained Germans, who were only beaten down in the games very tense and exciting conclusion.
Thoughts? It would seem that those boring ‘Kill x First’ strategies are no longer real options for the Allied players. A more balanced approach seems to be the way to go, which really makes things much more fun. Everyone sees some action, everyone is involved, and both sides seem to have a very real chance at victory. Also, the ending of the game becomes much more profound rather than the game devolving into a prolonged war of attrition.
- karma for your cat…
-
I actually didn’t tell the German player that my cat had left marred the German pieces until after he finished setting them up. When I finally broke it to him (I couldn’t contain myself any longer) I swear I thought he was going to faint. It was hilarious.
The Japanese player had to invest in his naval power, because after my first round purchase (aircraft carrier and a cruiser), I bought primarily fighters and submarines. I sent the submarines every which way, while my surface fleet (supported by lots of fighters) slowly but surely made its way to the islands. The Japanese were severely overwhelmed with submarines threatening both their main fleet and their transports from all parts of the ocean. They had to purchase lots of destroyers and disperse them throughout the Pacific to counter this submarine threat, which if left unchecked, would have spelt doom for the primary Japanese fleet in a combined American submarine/surface fleet/ air attack. I hope this makes sense axis_roll.
-
It is interesting, a balanced strategy works.
I think that it could be seen as KI-WEGJ = “Killing Italy While Engaging German and Japan”.
I mean spending with USA on both front allow for hindering Axis powers effort of focusing on Russia.
At same time, however, Allies are not able to deal a quick and deadly blow to German or to Japan, IMHO, so the first objective remains, as in the History, Italy, which
have to be defeated as soon as possible.The question is? Really this strategy may pay more than a KXF approach?
-
The Japanese player had to invest in his naval power, because after my first round purchase (aircraft carrier and a cruiser), I bought primarily fighters and submarines. I sent the submarines every which way, while my surface fleet (supported by lots of fighters) slowly but surely made its way to the islands. The Japanese were severely overwhelmed with submarines threatening both their main fleet and their transports from all parts of the ocean. They had to purchase lots of destroyers and disperse them throughout the Pacific to counter this submarine threat, which if left unchecked, would have spelt doom for the primary Japanese fleet in a combined American submarine/surface fleet/ air attack. I hope this makes sense axis_roll.
Yes it does. In fact, that would’ve been my USA pacific strategy as well (once we get around to playing the game)
-
It is interesting, a balanced strategy works.
I think that it could be seen as KI-WEGJ = “Killing Italy While Engaging German and Japan”.
I mean spending with USA on both front allow for hindering Axis powers effort of focusing on Russia.
At same time, however, Allies are not able to deal a quick and deadly blow to German or to Japan, IMHO, so the first objective remains, as in the History, Italy, which
have to be defeated as soon as possible.The question is? Really this strategy may pay more than a KXF approach?
KIWEGJ is a longwinded, but good name for this strat! Great coining Romulus!
As for not being able to deal a quick and deadly blow, I had those same fears while the game was going on. I worried that Germany would get a series of absurdly lucky rolls (or a tech) and would have spanked the Russians. But, it would seem that by having the Allies harassing the major Axis powers, they had do divert much of their limited resources and were thus unable to fully engage the Russians- which you pointed out. This is true with Germany especially, who simply cannot produce enough units (10 a turn is so low!).
As of now I think this strategy does pay off. Once Italy is a ravaged mass no longer capable of doing much of anything, the Western Allies should be at almost full strength and the Axis should have lost their momentum due to ‘house keeping.’ The Americans get almost all of their NO’s from the Pacific theatre, and the Brits maintain their one NO while getting the Japanese territory one and continually getting a stab at the Balkan/France one. All of this stuff is ingredients for Game Over Pie for the Axis.
Patience is a virtue.
-
I bought primarily fighters and submarines. I sent the submarines every which way, while my surface fleet (supported by lots of fighters) slowly but surely made its way to the islands. The Japanese were severely overwhelmed with submarines threatening both their main fleet and their transports from all parts of the ocean. They had to purchase lots of destroyers and disperse them throughout the Pacific to counter this submarine threat, which if left unchecked, would have spelt doom for the primary Japanese fleet in a combined American submarine/surface fleet/ air attack.
I like this way of thinking. People have been down on the subs, but I think they are key to any successful Allied strategy. I like the disruption that a bunch of Pacific subs would cause. In another thread I posted how a stack of subs on the coast would actually serve as a good defense. The idea being, any ship wanting to attack a coastline (thinking pacific theatre here) would need to move within two spaces of the coast the move before. But if there’s a stack of subs on that coast, WHAM, subs attack before the fleet can amphibious assault. They only hit ships, and after the destroyers have been hit, planes can’t hit back. I guess it’s not so much a defense as a deterrent. But, compared to aircraft carriers and fighters, a relatively inexpensive deterrent.
-
That is a brilliant idea and I’m glad you came up with it. :-D
It’s a great counter for the US player if the Japanese move an invasion force to Hawaii. -
I tried KI-WEGJ again tonight. The American submarines ruined the Japanese navy, the Germans were strapped for units due to British landings, and the Italians were mercilessly pounded into the ground. It was glorious.
-
WAHHHHHH!
this game is favoring the Allllllieeeeeess! :evil:
-
TexCapPrezJimmy
I like this way of thinking. People have been down on the subs, but I think they are key to any successful Allied strategy. I like the disruption that a bunch of Pacific subs would cause. In another thread I posted how a stack of subs on the coast would actually serve as a good defense. The idea being, any ship wanting to attack a coastline (thinking pacific theatre here) would need to move within two spaces of the coast the move before. But if there’s a stack of subs on that coast, WHAM, subs attack before the fleet can amphibious assault. They only hit ships, and after the destroyers have been hit, planes can’t hit back. I guess it’s not so much a defense as a deterrent. But, compared to aircraft carriers and fighters, a relatively inexpensive deterrent.i don´t think this is true. i japan`s mainfleet is in z62 (japan) your fleet would have to be in zone 56 or 65 to be out of striking range. you would probably choose 65 to cover a larger area. now if japan wants to attack alaska here is what they will do:
japan moves the fleet to zone 59 and places a destroyer in zone 57( i think its 57 but cant see it on the pic at bgg. but the one in between 59 and 56).
the result is that japan can´t be hit by your subs, and in order for your subs to be out of striking range of the japanese main fleet you would need to move all the way to zone 55 or 54. this means z64 is out of your subs range and japan is free to offloald in alaska. and that you would have to move your subs within range of japan in order to be able to apply pressure on their fleet again, in which case japan could destroy your subs in round one attacking with only airplanes and one destroyer, allowing you to at max kill one unit :-D -
I love the subs/air combination. When I play Europe (which has the same rules for subs) as Germany, I buy all subs every turn starting on my second turn. I can usually kill Russia on turn five (barring terrible die rolls) and use my subs to protect France, which I leave totaly empty.
I have been planning to use a similar strat for Ger. The subs combined with air make taking down enemy fleets somewhat easy, and once they are down it is hard for UK and USA to get back into the Atlantic.
Using the German sub/air strat for USA and Japan would work a little differently because of the distances, but having carriers with fighters and bombers on an Island, it can still be done.
And the best thing about this is that transports aren’t cannon fodder anymore!!! Even a large fleet will go down quickly this way. (provided you can roll 2’s)
-
this strategy was discussed in this thread http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12363.0
the uk just drops a destroyer as a blocker in the north sea. kills your few surface ships in the baltic with air units. The following round your subs will either remain locked up in the north sea or killed by the uk, depending on the will of the uk.
-
The Japanese player had to invest in his naval power, because after my first round purchase (aircraft carrier and a cruiser), I bought primarily fighters and submarines. I sent the submarines every which way, while my surface fleet (supported by lots of fighters) slowly but surely made its way to the islands. The Japanese were severely overwhelmed with submarines threatening both their main fleet and their transports from all parts of the ocean. They had to purchase lots of destroyers and disperse them throughout the Pacific to counter this submarine threat, which if left unchecked, would have spelt doom for the primary Japanese fleet in a combined American submarine/surface fleet/ air attack. I hope this makes sense axis_roll.
Yes it does. In fact, that would’ve been my USA pacific strategy as well (once we get around to playing the game)
Ok, same result in our 1941 game. A balanced Allied strategy works.
Our game ended in a time limit draw, just as US killed all 3 Japanese Carriers in the Pacific and US retook UK and UK fleet killed the German Fleet.
USSR was of course on Germany"s doorstep, with Allies having retaken Africa.
Italy then killed the remaining UK fleet and relaunched into Africa.
The whole game at this point looked like it was rebooting, to start again.
I was surprised at how effective the Chinese were at soaking up Japanese hardware.
The japanese killed China every round, but lost valuable ftrs in these attacks.
Note: The Germans were getting ready to add 93 IPC’s of hardware, (having gained UK’s IPC’s from previous turn.)
Wow, do the NO’s make a difference, many more IPC’s flowing into many units.
comment, yes, Subs and Air power, nice combo.
Why do people believe a destroyer will stop subs. They are only another surface vessel in the path of the wolf pack, out to devour, the other pricey surface vessels. Especially when teamed with airpower-Bam.
Suggested Topics
