@andrewaagamer
Ah. I hadn’t understood that subtlety. It’s a bit like assuming that, as an attacker, I’m going to win - so, retreat isn’t an option. Thanks a lot for your help.
After Action Reports
-
Sorry for the omission moses. It has been corrected.
-
Title: Infantry defense
Date: Jan 2009
Special Rules: Tech + N.O. (1941)
Victor: Axis
Game Length: 14 hours?
Bias: Axis had (slightly) better player
Description: I - playing Germany - really wanted to keep my three eastern provinces for the NO, but I didn’t like to go on a Russian offensive, knowing this would be too costly. I concentrated my troops in the Baltic and in Ukraine, trading East-Poland with Russia early on. I build a IC in Ukrain, so I was capable to hold it as long as I wanted. My fighters and bomber took out two or three UK-ships, but never really bothered them any further than that. Germany would concentrate on infantry and armor for the rest of the game. I guess I only built a single German fighter in the entire game. Later in the game, I decided to build a bomber every know and then, but they got shot down pretty easily when trying to SBR Karelia.
Russia was capable to hold the invasion by training nothing but infantry. She too built a single fighter for trading purposes. Thanks to the German build-up, she was only capable to sent a single infantry to China for the first 6 or 7 turns.The UK focussed upon building her navy in the Atlantic and her IC in India. She lost Egypt after four turns to Italy, and Australia to Japan at the same time. Her NO were lost for the rest of the game, but she was capable to make a fierce stand in India, even threatening South-East-Asia. Her Atlantic fleet liberated with some minor (temporary) US-support Morocco-Algeria and even Libya (and trashed my Italian fleet). American landings in French-West-Africa, and an ever approaching British army in Northern-Africa made sure my African campaign was over. A small Japanese fleet would be capable to liberate Madagascar once more, but could make a difference.
In Asia, Japan could keep the upperhand by building quite a lot of battle ships, as did the US. Her IC’s in Kwantung, Kiangsu (?), and later in French-Indo-China-Thailand and East Indies secured the Asian mainland indefinitly. A slow advance in China, and an even slower advance in Siberia gave her a ±60IPC’s/turn.
After my early successes, I got a little cocky I think. I split my Japanese fleet in two, to fight off the UK-infantry from India and the ever rebuilding US-fleet (after Japan used Hawaii to SBR the US, my thinned fleet soon faced some 8 US-bombers as well as several ships). By falling back, and sending my own Asian bombers to the Pacific, I could achieve a stalemate (I couldn’t attack the US, and the US could not attack me), but my Asian offensive had to be halted once more (giving the UK and Russia even more time to outbuild me).
It was around that time the UK-fleet that destroyed my Italian fleet a while ago, and that sailed to Persia later, suddenly returned and took Italy. (damn!) I lost my Italian bomber, and didn’t have enough troops to retake it immediatly. The German infantry stacks managed to contain the British threat early by sending close to 20 infantry to both France and the Balcan (opposing some 10 to 12 UK-pieces).
After increased SBR against Russia, I decided to close in for Russia. Europe was still pretty well defended (some 40 to 50 german infantry, combined with around 15 to 20 Italian infantry, opposed by 3 UK battleships, 2 cruiser and 6 to 7 transports). My now huge stacks in the Baltic and Ukrain merged in East-Ukrain (some 40 to 50 infantry and 30 armor, all German). This left Ukrain vulnerable to a counterattack, but threatened Moscow directly. Since the Japanese infantry was (finally) approaching as well, and since Moscow soon got surrounded soon afterwards, the Allies surrendered.
Tech-wise: the game had been a stalemate. Only after 10 turns, I started to invest in technology, which granted me Radar as Japan and Industrial Production to Germany. Shortly afterwards, the US got super-submarines and the UK got war-bonds. Especially these super-subs were pretty frightening when the US started to spam them.
Observations/Recommendations: Not trying to fight the UK-navy, but simply outbuilding them with infantry stacks seemed to be a great strategy. The construction of an IC in Ukrain helped to secure German positions as well.
-
14 hours! I think that’s the record for longest match game in history. Plus you guys made it competitive until the end. Any idea of the total number of rounds?
-
Title: Kido Butai**(1941)**
Date: 2-6-09
Special Rules: optional Rules Black Sea Closed, carrier Islands ,
_National Objectives_yes,
Tech yes U.S. shipyards, Supersubs, jets;UK paratroopers.
Victor: Axis win -Allies Concession after Japan takes US West.
Game Length:4.5Hrs/8 rds- Hours/Rounds
Bias: Going into the game, Japan had the higher skill level.
Description: UK/USSR vs Germany/Italy and US vs Japan
Japan/Germany expand typical first 3 rounds.
Japan had easy time going through China, this time.
Italy drove everyone out of Africa took India.
US concentrated on airpower using carrier Island. Japan countered with massed Fleet strength, 3-CV, 6-FTR, BB, CA, DD,4-CT. Japan stopped US Air Armada in Hawaii, then surprised US, instead of hitting Hawaii where it was strongest, Sliced into US west Coast and ended game.
Germany beat back UK invasion of NW Europe, advanced on USSR.
Victor writes the History,Allies put all their eggs into a single basket Axis massed their strengths, Japan Naval/Air, Germany INF/ARM.
Observations/Recommendations: China still too weak in 1941.
I believe the US needs its CA and SS units in 1941.
UK needs better NO’s tweak, Like some of, not all of.
I felt unstoppable as Japan. Next time, I would want to play US.
I think the guys are going to choose a 1942 setup again for next time-2 weeks out. -
What are “Carrier Islands”?
Do you think the closing of the Black Sea had any impact on the game. It seems like Italy still had an easy time slicing into India.
-
maybe that fighters starting of an island start(and even end?) their movement in that seazone. basically jetfighters for islands only?
-
Title: Jutland again, again again, …
Date: 01/02/2009
Special Rules: NOS, optional Rules Black Sea open, escort fighters
National Objectives: yes,
Tech yes
Victor: Allies winning
Game Length: 7Hrs/9 rds- Hours/Rounds
Bias:
Description: 6 players
place : Bruges
The german player insisted on eliminating the British thread, the British insisted on a having a fleet. Us West-coast was invaded (2nd turn) america could not retake it without Lancasters paving the way thus saving Uncle Sam’ s bacon. An german desperate move on London was… desperate. Later in the game the eastfront was empty.
The game was not played till the end but slowly the axis ran out of options. Italy was playing its own game after being asked to do on the east front what the Germans did not.Observations/Recommendations: with NOS
1941: a long way for the German, fun for Japan (early)
1942: better chances to take Moscow but more a challenge for Japan.
6 players : FUN!Optional rules:
Bosporus closed: disadvantage for the axis. If so why no rules for other straits? Kattegat, strait of Oman, The Channel, singapore strait, Gibraltar, ….
Escort fighters; good idea not very balanced. -
Thanks for the insight on the two optional rules. Personally, I was not a fan of both rule changes. Closing the strait limits Italy’s options and escorts-interceptors are unbalanced and limited the opportunities to SBR.
-
Title: How the Mighty Fall… (1942)
Date: 8:00pm February 9th - 4:30am February 10th
Special Rules/ Tech: None
Victor: Allies by concession
Game Length: Approximately 8.5 hours (9 turns?)
Bias: Me (most experienced) as Germany, newbie as Japan, Intermediate player As United States, Intermediate player as UK and Russia
Description:Japan solidified it’s southern expanse by moving a Carrier and cruiser to east Indies. Moved onto mainland china, made some gains. Germany made quick gains in Russia. Later, Germany pushed into both Stalingrad and Leningrad. Put choke hold on Russian industry.
Russia, responded with mostly infantry and some tanks to counter German advances. Russia also moved stack of infantry into the backwoods of China.
UK built IC on India UK1, and began pushing on Japanese ground troops very successfully. Later, used India for naval operations to great effect. It retook almost all of it’s colonial possessions. Also increased fleet over time.
United States focused on the Pacific theater and built up large navy to combat the Japanese threat. The Chinese forces slowly pushed back the Japanese ground forces.
Overall, The Axis made great gains in the first half of the game. Russia was on the verge of collapse. But the Germans made a huge gamble for Moscow and ended up depleting it’s forces along the entire Eastern Front. The battle went in favor of Russia, just barely. Soon after the Allies landed in Norway and Finland and retook Karelia.
After this battle, the Russians retook all their possessions and forced back the Japanese tanks coming from the Urals. The Italians opened up Africa, but Russian tanks forced the Suez canal permanently closed.
After the gamble for Moscow, it was a slow downhill decent for the Axis. At the end, France was taken, and an IC was built cementing their position. The UK fleet stood offshore ready to mount more troops. Italy was undefended, Japan made a mad dash for territories last turn, reaching 40 IPC,s but to no real effect.
Observations:
I hate India. It was what derailed every operation me and the Japanese player thought up. The Chinese front proved to be more formidable than I thought it could have been. It proved one of the most annoying things on the board. I have yet to use NOs or Tech in any game for either scenario and cannot wait to see how it comes out. The 1942 scenario is definitely more balanced than 1941, and it created a very tense game.
-
**Title:**Just one of many in '42
**Date:**Feb 10
**Special Rules:**NOs and Tech
**Victor:**Axis, by Allied surrender.
**Game Length:**2
**Bias:**Even, though I made the crucial mistake.**Description:**Well, dice can be a fickle master. Fairly standard J1, EI IC. R1 overly aggressive, attacking every front in the Eastern theater, 0 kills in Baltic States results in an easy collapse of Karelia. UK1 saw the loss of the Royal AF in Britain and I didn’t even destroy the Cruiser/Trans. US1 = Heavy Bomber breakthrough Also I failed to topple France and the counterattack on the UK fleet was devestating. Very successful campaign in Africa and a successful start of an IC in Australia went for naught with no resistance to the blitzkrieg. Resignation facing overwhelming odds for the Reds and no pressure coming from other Allied powers. Could have continued the fight but the UK had almost nothing of consequence on the board to counter Germany, and though HBs would have prolonged it the Axis begin to divide up Eurasia and look without.
**Observations/Recommendations:**Don’t attack all 4 fronts with Russia, duh. Just 3. Attempt and subsequent failure to blow up the German navy is gg.
-
I love the pictures!
I sure welcome them at the end of any after action report. :-D
It seems like a lot of bad dice seemed to doom the Axis cause early. At least the Axis were partially able to recover.
-
@TG:
14 hours! I think that’s the record for longest match game in history. Plus you guys made it competitive until the end. Any idea of the total number of rounds?
No idea how many rounds. But if you figure out what one of my Japanese battleships did: they sailed off to Australia, then fought some American ships in the Pacific after several turns trying to scare off/outmanouevre the US fleet (and eventually crushing them), they returned to India. After that they threatened the UK-fleet that just passed the Suez-canal, they sailed to South-Africa (and unsuccesfully trying to retake Western Africa), through the Streets of Magelhaes… only to merge with my main fleet in order to fight off another US-fleet. They set sail to Hawaii, garding it as a bomberbase, only to fall back to Japan (keeping the US-fleet at bay). Eventually, they ended up before the Indian coasts… Well it must have been quite a lot of turns.
The longest campaign I’ve ever fought was one in the MB-version: this game was played during three days. During the first day we played like 12h, some 9 to 10h at day 2, and a couple of hours at day 3. That game became a stalemate, with balances ever turning until one of us finally broke through.
-
:-o :-o :-o :-o
why dindt UK buy 4 bombers and sink Jap BB? :wink:
-
:-o :-o :-o :-o
why dindt UK buy 4 bombers and sink Jap BB? :wink:
1. This small fleet consisted of 2 battleships, 2 transports, 3 inf and 1 armor. It wasn’t a too easy target. Anything less then 3 to 4 bombers wouldn’t even threatening me.
2. I don’t think the UK had any bombers (maybe a single one in the UK itself), nor did they have any AC’s (seriously limiting their range), they were too busy trashing my Italian inf in Libya (who were hopelessly isolated by significant US and UK forces). The UK did have a few (max 3) fighters however. Remember I didn’t even attack UK-ships as Germany. Going for a vast fleet (BB, cruisers and transports) and force landings in Europe was an obvious UK-strategy. This was even more the case since Germany put a really big pressure upon the SU, and the UK didn’t want to send forces to the SU (which would cost her a NO). The pressure was (partly) removed by keeping a considerable UK-fleet in the Med Sea. They would cut off any German forces who dared to break through to the Caucasus. At the same time a vast UK-fleet garded and harassed my North-Sea and Atlantic shores. From a UK-point-of-view, these BB and cruisers were mainly there to kill my infantry in coastal bombardments (but they could as well cut off any forces attacking the SU). They were also forcing me to keep significant infantry stacks in Europe, rather than sending them to the eastern frontier. Therefore: not building bombers and allowing my Japanese fleet in S-Afr made sense.
They didn’t bothered building bombers, since they probably didn’t think I was dangerous in S-Africa, and since they were busy building ships to invade Europe.
3. I couldn’t really threaten Africa. The best I could hope for was picking a territory or two for a couple of turns. Since there were UK forces in Northern Africa on the verge of breaking through, UK didn’t really bothered my forces. Actually I was the one trying to relieve my Italian forces (hoping to keep some African provinces for a few extra turns). A direct attack on their fleet however, was way beyond my reach.
4. The US did build some bombers in Eastern-US. Therefore I had to set sail to the Streets of Magelhaes rather than attacking Brazil (my initial plan) The significant naval buildup in W-US forced me to hury to the Pacific, rather then trying to irritate/harass some forces in Africa.
5. The UK wasn’t that rich. They had some 35 to 40 IPC/turn, due to their lack of NO-bonusses. They choose to build three units in India each turn, and their landings weren’t that expensive (they had to train tanks and inf, since their fleet was safe). Building such an amount of bombers and bringing them to S-Africa would take quite a lot of time. :-) -
@TG:
What are “Carrier Islands”?
Do you think the closing of the Black Sea had any impact on the game. It seems like Italy still had an easy time slicing into India.
No, and your right Italy still was impressive, left unchecked, unwisely in my opinion. The black sea has become an avenue for Italy to help Germany hit USSR. I have made Turkey a tactical target in my
AA50Shades of Grey Alternate setup, where you can invade certain Neutrals, like Turkey and gain access to the Black sea. You can find it here under Alternate setups folder:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=db7389213b434449d2db6fb9a8902bda
Moses, I believe you have no taste for those alternate setups. I can appreciate, you hold the game designer has achieved a delicate balance on his setup choices.
I merely find the alternate options fun to explore and experiment, perhaps discovering what the game designer saw, and the reasoning for his final choice for the setup.The Germans and USSR were at a stand off for awhile in this game,
US was unable to provide assistance in Europe.
The US had their hands full with Japan41, wow was that fun.
Next time I want to be US instead of Japan, to see, if I can stop,
the Roaring Nihon Kaigun. I believe, this is the challenge of 41 setup.
All good players, should want to overcome the impressive deployed tempo advantage the japanese enjoy. I think this is a genius move by Larry Harris considering the thoughts on AAR, that was almost always played with an Axis Bid, to overcome the Allied economic advantage in that setup.Carrier Islands, gives Islands tactical value. All Island based FTR are considered in the Air at the begining of your turn and do not count the sea zone they are in, as if the Island was a carrier. This provides Island based FTR, 1 extra move, to reach targets, increaseing the value of island based FTR/BMB.
-
maybe that fighters starting of an island start(and even end?) their movement in that seazone. basically jetfighters for islands only?
Yes, you are basically correct, as I have outlined the rule in the above choice. Again, this is not my creation. It was a National Advantage for US in AAR. Thanks again to the great creative minds that play this game. They constantly provide me with new ideas to experiment and enjoy, Kudos all.
-
<edited as=“” i’m=“” blind=“”> :-o</edited>
-
can find it here under Alternate setups folder:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=db7389213b434449d2db6fb9a8902bda
Moses, I believe you have no taste for those alternate setups. I can appreciate, you hold the game designer has achieved a delicate balance on his setup choices.
I merely find the alternate options fun to explore and experiment, perhaps discovering what the game designer saw, and the reasoning for his final choice for the setup.To me simplicity and balance defines Axis and Allies. People like add their own pet rules to the game, and that’s fine. But for me to bat one eyelash, that rule has to have simplicity and balance, as well as being worthwhile and fun.
I like the idea of invadable neutrals. They add a new element to the game, giving the invader a strategic as well as monetary value. What is the penalty for invading a neutral? Do you only have to defeat the native troops stationed there?
Tin Snips,
ah … this is incorrect (unless i’ve missed a major rule change). islands count as any other land territory. it’s one move to get off the island and into its corrosponding sea-zone. you aren’t already classed as in that sea zone
Read closer. Bluestroke stated this was an OPTIONAL rule. ;)
-
ta for that, should lay off the scotch. previous post edited for the truth factor haha
-
Title: Pacific Stalemate - Russia falls
Date: 2/13/09
Scenario: 1941
Optional Rules: Tech and NO yes both
Rounds: 9
Victor: Axis
Observations: US focused on building a pacific fleet. Japan had a headstart and with 55+ income per turn Japan could outpace USA plus build troops to send against Russia. Japan and USA both had huge fleets but it was effectively a stalemate and Japan held all the pacific islands and was never seriously threatened. When Japan got “improved shipyards” near the end of the game that tech it made it all that much worse. With decent Axis players, the 41 Scenario with N.O.s strongly favors the Axis. I have never seen Allies win 41 with NOs unless the Axis were newbies. UK built IC in South Africa but it’s too much to ask UK to try to keep Africa, invade Norway and pester france without USA help.
Despite strong play, Russia eventually was overwhelmed and Allies conceeded.
Suggested Topics
