Yoshi’s right.
Strategy: Bombs Over Berlin
-
Intriguing! Enjoying your stasticial analysis here.
However, there is a small fly in the ointment – in AA50 CVs defend at 2.
Bomber vs Aircraft Carrier = (4/6 * 13) - (2/6 * 12) = +4.67 IPCs
Makes them even more enticing.
-
There are two things I learned in Revised that I suspect are true in Anniversary as well.
1) She who controls the oceans, wins the game. Period. End of story. I don’t care if you have a billion infantry and I have 1 infantry, if I own the oceans, I win. Therefore, navy IS important. (my favorite trick in enhanced is to drop 2 or 3 submarines in the water every round with one of my nations until I dominate the oceans.)
Why is this true? Without a navy you cannot use any of your infantry offensively and, as we all know, turtle-ing as your only strategy is doomed to failure. Eventually the one controlling the oceans will control the mainland and out produce you.
2) She who has the biggest air force, tends to win the game. No idea why this is true. I suspect it is related to your ability to mass more firepower on your attacks without risking them to counter attack. It also is not ALWAYS true. Sure, if England does nothing but buy fighters for the entire game, they might have the biggest air force, but they also have no ability to land troops.
Now, if you assume both 1 and 2 above are true. Then it makes sense to use air power to establish command of the oceans early, followed by a slow build of of warships to maintain that power, then to use your air power on frivolous things like SBR damage.
-
a44bigdog,
I know of those changes. Believe me, if Germany wanted to unlock radar their odds would be a lot worst than 60 IPCs up front. Perhaps, you could provide a statistical statement of how many IPCs Germany would have to invest to unlock radar?
Bierwagen,
I did not know that. I wouldn’t say they nerfed the carrier. But you better hope you buy it with 2 fighters onboard.
Cmdr Jennifer,
Remember, A&A is a asymmetric game. I would agree with those two principles. However, it is the Allies powers as a Whole that enforce them. As long as USA can land infantry, the Allies are fine.
-
@Cmdr:
There are two things I learned in Revised that I suspect are true in Anniversary as well.
1) She who controls the oceans, wins the game. Period. End of story. I don’t care if you have a billion infantry and I have 1 infantry, if I own the oceans, I win. Therefore, navy IS important. (my favorite trick in enhanced is to drop 2 or 3 submarines in the water every round with one of my nations until I dominate the oceans.)
Why is this true? Without a navy you cannot use any of your infantry offensively and, as we all know, turtle-ing as your only strategy is doomed to failure. Eventually the one controlling the oceans will control the mainland and out produce you.
2) She who has the biggest air force, tends to win the game. No idea why this is true. I suspect it is related to your ability to mass more firepower on your attacks without risking them to counter attack. It also is not ALWAYS true. Sure, if England does nothing but buy fighters for the entire game, they might have the biggest air force, but they also have no ability to land troops.
Now, if you assume both 1 and 2 above are true. Then it makes sense to use air power to establish command of the oceans early, followed by a slow build of of warships to maintain that power, then to use your air power on frivolous things like SBR damage.
I agree !!!
-
Again all that statistical analysis is great if you get off on that stuff. I find it has very little relationship to actually playing the game. I am to lazy to go look at some of the SBR games I have won but I suspect in those my bombers never “paid” for themselves.
In line with what Jenn said, on paper 2 tanks are better that 1 fighter. However, in actual game situation you will be waiting for a long time for those to tanks to hit a ship.
-
I was rereading Black_Elk’s thread: Killing Fleets with Bombers
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12956.0There’s a lot good information in that thread and it works well with BoB.
A bomber fleet not only allows the UK to wreck Germany’s industrial center, but it forces Italy to protect the Mediterranean. A bomber flying off from England can hit any tile in the Mediterranean as long as they land on the Stalingrad airstrip.
Of course the Italians can counter by building additional naval units in the Mediterranean (i.e. a carrier), but you do create an arms race. And unlike Naval Units which are useless (IPC wise) unless they’re fighting other naval units, UK bombers can just continue to SBR.
-
thats actually what i did sucessfully in my last game, had 3 bmb´s with Uk, took down Italys flet with that +2 figs, he didn´t see them properly. thats also a strategic thing with bombers, it´s hard if your not used to them on the board to see what can happen.
- you can easily shift damage around the board.
-
@TG:
A bomber fleet not only allows the UK to wreck Germany’s industrial center, but it forces Italy to protect the Mediterranean. A bomber flying off from England can hit any tile in the Mediterranean as long as they land on the Stalingrad airstrip.
The only problem with the Stalingrad airstrip is that it negates one of Russia’s NOs. Landing in Gibraltar is a better option. That is, if you can defend it.
-
@Cmdr:
There are two things I learned in Revised that I suspect are true in Anniversary as well.
1) She who controls the oceans, wins the game. Period. End of story. I don’t care if you have a billion infantry and I have 1 infantry, if I own the oceans, I win. Therefore, navy IS important. (my favorite trick in enhanced is to drop 2 or 3 submarines in the water every round with one of my nations until I dominate the oceans.)
Why is this true? Without a navy you cannot use any of your infantry offensively and, as we all know, turtle-ing as your only strategy is doomed to failure. Eventually the one controlling the oceans will control the mainland and out produce you.
2) She who has the biggest air force, tends to win the game. No idea why this is true. I suspect it is related to your ability to mass more firepower on your attacks without risking them to counter attack. It also is not ALWAYS true. Sure, if England does nothing but buy fighters for the entire game, they might have the biggest air force, but they also have no ability to land troops.
Now, if you assume both 1 and 2 above are true. Then it makes sense to use air power to establish command of the oceans early, followed by a slow build of of warships to maintain that power, then to use your air power on frivolous things like SBR damage.
You didn’t study under Don Rae, by any chance?
-
The only problem with the Stalingrad airstrip is that it negates one of Russia’s NOs. Landing in Gibraltar is a better option. That is, if you can defend it.
Dear Larry Harris,
Thank you for ruining this game.PS: I want my $100 back.
Seriously, wasn’t the idea of NOs to add new strategies to the game, not curtail them?
thats actually what i did sucessfully in my last game, had 3 bmb´s with Uk, took down Italys flet with that +2 figs, he didn´t see them properly. thats also a strategic thing with bombers, it´s hard if your not used to them on the board to see what can happen.
- you can easily shift damage around the board.
Glorious. :-D
I’ve decided for my next game as the Allies, I’m going to bang on the table and make a big fuss about how Germany will feel the wrath of my bombers. Then after my sabre has been sufficiently rattled and the Italian player least expects it, I’m going to sneak attack his fleet in the Mediterranean! It’s great. He won’t even see it coming. It’ll be like Taranto all over again. :lol:
Every day I become more like Churchill.
-
I don’t want a refund. I just want to be consulted on the AA:50-enhanced version of the game where we fix all the bloody errors in this one!
-
@Cmdr:
I don’t want a refund. I just want to be consulted on the AA:50-enhanced version of the game where we fix all the bloody errors in this one!
Step one is not yet complete.
what is step one?
Identifying ALL the bloody errors, so that as each problem is fixed, it will not be in a vacuum.
Fixing 1 or two issues is easy.Fixing 5 or more can be a difficult task as the interactions of the fixes must be taken into proper considersation.
-
@Cmdr:
There are two things I learned in Revised that I suspect are true in Anniversary as well.
1) She who controls the oceans, wins the game. Period. End of story. I don’t care if you have a billion infantry and I have 1 infantry, if I own the oceans, I win. Therefore, navy IS important. (my favorite trick in enhanced is to drop 2 or 3 submarines in the water every round with one of my nations until I dominate the oceans.)
Why is this true? Without a navy you cannot use any of your infantry offensively and, as we all know, turtle-ing as your only strategy is doomed to failure. Eventually the one controlling the oceans will control the mainland and out produce you.
2) She who has the biggest air force, tends to win the game. No idea why this is true. I suspect it is related to your ability to mass more firepower on your attacks without risking them to counter attack. It also is not ALWAYS true. Sure, if England does nothing but buy fighters for the entire game, they might have the biggest air force, but they also have no ability to land troops.
Now, if you assume both 1 and 2 above are true. Then it makes sense to use air power to establish command of the oceans early, followed by a slow build of of warships to maintain that power, then to use your air power on frivolous things like SBR damage.
You didn’t study under Don Rae, by any chance?
I seriously doubt it, since Don Rae was a 100% supporter of infantry, infantry yet even more infantry. And rightfully so if I made add.
If I read Jennifer correct she is advocating for Russia and Germany to buy ships/subs and air power…… :roll:
-
mmm, i definitely disagree with owning the sea wins the game. just simply because that strategy isn’t effective for every country. what works for one nation, may/will not work for another
you could, of course, look at it from the perspective of each side. whichever side controls the oceans, wins the game haha :-D
-
Controlling the seas could include denying its use to your foes. not just building ships.
ie German bombers and fighters…maybe a few subs in the North Atlantic.
-
@Cmdr:
There are two things I learned in Revised that I suspect are true in Anniversary as well.
1) She who controls the oceans, wins the game. Period. End of story. I don’t care if you have a billion infantry and I have 1 infantry, if I own the oceans, I win. Therefore, navy IS important. (my favorite trick in enhanced is to drop 2 or 3 submarines in the water every round with one of my nations until I dominate the oceans.)
Why is this true? Without a navy you cannot use any of your infantry offensively and, as we all know, turtle-ing as your only strategy is doomed to failure. Eventually the one controlling the oceans will control the mainland and out produce you.
2) She who has the biggest air force, tends to win the game. No idea why this is true. I suspect it is related to your ability to mass more firepower on your attacks without risking them to counter attack. It also is not ALWAYS true. Sure, if England does nothing but buy fighters for the entire game, they might have the biggest air force, but they also have no ability to land troops.
Now, if you assume both 1 and 2 above are true. Then it makes sense to use air power to establish command of the oceans early, followed by a slow build of of warships to maintain that power, then to use your air power on frivolous things like SBR damage.
You didn’t study under Don Rae, by any chance?
I seriously doubt it, since Don Rae was a 100% supporter of infantry, infantry yet even more infantry. And rightfully so if I made add.
If I read Jennifer correct she is advocating for Russia and Germany to buy ships/subs and air power…… :roll:
Actually, no. I am advocating Japan, America and England buy ships. (Japan if the allies are not building enough ships. America and England because no navy means it’s Russia alone against everyone.)
Russia needs Infantry and tanks and allies aggressive enough to get ships to them with supplies.
mmm, i definitely disagree with owning the sea wins the game. just simply because that strategy isn’t effective for every country. what works for one nation, may/will not work for another
you could, of course, look at it from the perspective of each side. whichever side controls the oceans, wins the game haha :-D
Okay, I’ll take that challenge.
I get America, Russia and England. You get Germany and Japan.
You are forbidden to build ANY ships and all your starting ships will be removed from the board.
Who will win?
If you didn’t understand, I am saying that control of the oceans determines who will eventually win the game. If Japan has no fleet because the allies control the oceans, then they can NEVER invade England or America. Likewise, if America and England have no fleet because Germany/Japan own the oceans, they can NEVER land troops to defend Russia or attack Germany/Japan.
@Cmdr:
I don’t want a refund. I just want to be consulted on the AA:50-enhanced version of the game where we fix all the bloody errors in this one!
Step one is not yet complete.
what is step one?
Identifying ALL the bloody errors, so that as each problem is fixed, it will not be in a vacuum.
Fixing 1 or two issues is easy.Fixing 5 or more can be a difficult task as the interactions of the fixes must be taken into proper considersation.
Identifying all the bloody errors:
1) WOTC/Avalon Hill produced the game.
2) Larry did not have the “testicular fortitude” to impose logical rules such as those in AARe into his anniversary edition, instead letting his name be used on an inferior product.
3) We, the gaming community, were not forceful enough in vociferating our views to the “man” and the “corporation.”I think that about sums up all the bloody errors.
Now, the unbloody errors we need to determine. Like how can you use the rules to stop one side from exploiting bombers? Is it really so bad to find random techs like in classic, or should we go back to targeted development, etc. :P
Okay, that’s a bit of humor.
-
your challenge would be acceptable if i had of stated that japan doesn’t need a fleet. i just said that some nations do, some nations don’t
if you want me to get specific, germany and russia can get by fine without a fleet :-P
-
your challenge would be acceptable if i had of stated that japan doesn’t need a fleet. i just said that some nations do, some nations don’t
if you want me to get specific, germany and russia can get by fine without a fleet :-P
Exactly my point. But Germany and Russia alone cannot win the game. Impossible.
In Classic you only win when you get 2 Capitols. You cannot take any two capitols on the board without a fleet. (M84 being a pussy way to win and thus thrown out right off the bat. Many players ignored that rule as well.)
In Revised you cannot win without 10 (or 9 in tournaments online) victory cities. For the axis 9 are BARELY possible if they take EVERY mainland VC and not lose any of their own. (Without a navy, I wager that is impossible since Philippines will fall to America or England and thus you won’t get more than 8.) The allies could technically get 10, but again, England and America with no fleet means no units and thus, Russia would have to get insanely good dice to single handedly take out all of Europe AND secure all of Asia.
Basically, no fleet means no way to win the game. Period. I understand you need infantry to KEEP what you have, but you cannot WIN without a fleet. I’m talking alliances, not nations. Germany itself can probably get away with 20-30 rounds without a fleet as could Russia. But eventually, if you have NO FLEET and the other side has complete dominance of the oceans, you WILL lose the game. It’s inevitable.
-
you could, of course, look at it from the perspective of each side. whichever side controls the oceans, wins the game haha :-D
glad we agree on that note :lol:
Suggested Topics
