@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.
Second Thoughts
-
@Cmdr:
Darlin, 50 IPC into 10 Units can be 10 Tanks. that’s pretty bad. Also, many players (myself EXCLUDED) like a complex in France (+6 units). And of course, there’s Improved Factories making it 12 Units cap in Germany.
Just some ideas.
I don’t like the France IC either. I opposed it being provided to Germany as a gift IC because I thought it would be too powerful for Germany’s G1 opening but, as a purchased IC, it’s anti SBR benefit is offset by the fact that it is further from the front than the Germany IC and it makes France even more of a must defend territory than it already is.
I prefer the Poland IC build. It is closer to Russia, it is protected from landings from sz12, it is defended by inf/art moving from the Germany IC toward Russia, it’s cheaper to repair than the France or Germany IC’s, and it is the perfect defensive strongpoint to hold back the Russians when the Allied war of attrition begins to collapse my fronts because it helps protect my core territory NO.
And with 13 units to build, if I’m earning 50+, I have the luxury of building a fighter or bomber if I feel like it or large numbers of art/armor if I feel otherwise. But, even when I’m pushed out of Russia, I’m usually making enough income to keep it at least partially operational.
-
I find it easier to bomb France than Germany. But I like the Allied SBR campaigns. :)
I also do not find tech to be erratic. Sure, you won’t get the one you are looking for all of the time, but almost all of them are good to have and you can narrow your focus by eliminating half the choices right off the bat. (Chart 1 or Chart 2) As you fill in a chart the odds of getting the one you want increase dramatically.
1 in 6 for the first
1 in 5 for the second
1 in 4 for the third
1 in 3 for the fourth
1 in 2 for the really unlucky
guaranteed for the insanely unlucky -
The question is:
How many techs do you unlock before the game “ends?” (Defined as the point where one side SHOULD concede).
Probably 1 or 2 with the upper limit at 3 and a lower limit at 0. So you’re odds are 20-25%, which isn’t that good.
So yes, unless you invest HEAVILY in techs, unlocking specific techs ARE erratic. -
Depends on the country I have been seeing the higher income countries having around 3 or so by about turn 6.
-
I’ve been routinely getting 1 a round for each major nation (Germany/Japan and USA/UK) from Rounds 2 through 6 or 7 so that’s what, 8-12 per side? Maybe an extra one for Russia? (Sometimes I hope to get Advanced Artillery for Russia, but I don’t use lots of cash for them.)
-
Depends on the country I have been seeing the higher income countries having around 3 or so by about turn 6.
Yes, Round 6 is normally the end game.
I’ve been routinely getting 1 a round for each major nation (Germany/Japan and USA/UK) from Rounds 2 through 6 or 7 so that’s what, 8-12 per side? Maybe an extra one for Russia? (Sometimes I hope to get Advanced Artillery for Russia, but I don’t use lots of cash for them.)
Then you must be incredibly lucky. I have yet to play or even hear about a game where each side unlocked the full tech tree. Has anyone else here?
-
I am starting to see games go well past that now. People are starting to get a better feel for the game and some strategies and such are starting to emerge.
Here is an example this is in turn 9
Improved Artillery: UK, Russia
Rockets: none
Paratroopers: Germany
Improved Industry: Germany
War Bonds: UK, Russia
Mechanized Infantry, GermanySuper Subs: US, Japan
Jets: none
Shipyards: none
Radar:none
Long Range: none
Heavy Bombers: UKIt is Italy’s turn and the only country with a researcher is currently Russia.
Keep in mind that this is online play and some of us have 5 or 6 games going at once so that is why some of our observations may seem way different. I have played around 20 games already.
-
I routinely have 4 researchers going at any one time (usually per nation, sometimes for my two researching nations.) Unlike in other games of Axis and Allies, tech has been a MAJOR blessing in my games (except with Runnyan where for some reason, I’ve fired like 42 tech rolls and gotten 1 tech….)
I have not unlocked all 6 in one chart with 1 nation yet. Normally, by the time I get 4 in one chart, I’ve gotten the one or two I wanted anyway.
I have gotten 8 with one nation before (5 in chart 2, 3 in chart 1.) That was a fun game! (It was also Germany who was the monster the monsters are afraid of! I crushed Egypt without losses and from there owned Africa for the entire game. Italy had India. It was a mess.)
-
Keep in mind that this is online play and some of us have 5 or 6 games going at once so that is why some of our observations may seem way different. I have played around 20 games already.
Online play does have its perks – easier to find players, board is already set up, steps like combat resolution and collect income are done automatically, but for me, nothing compares to the real thing. I do use Triple A on occasion, but it’s ugly, clunky, and buggy. In all fairness the program is free.
Online games generally do take more rounds to complete, for the aforementioned reason the game itself is shorter and it’s easier to see and manage pieces on the board. However, I do find the dramatic tension and sense of significance to be more palpable in real play. I also find myself making less play mistakes, precisely because you only get one chance to do things right in A&A, whereas in online play, it’s easier to reboot and play up to 3 games (or simultaneously) in one day. Plus I miss the table chatter.
-
@TG:
Keep in mind that this is online play and some of us have 5 or 6 games going at once so that is why some of our observations may seem way different. I have played around 20 games already.
Online play does have its perks – easier to find players, board is already set up, steps like combat resolution and collect income are done automatically, but for me, nothing compares to the real thing. I do use Triple A on occasion, but it’s ugly, clunky, and buggy. In all fairness the program is free.
Battlemap is free too and it’s more widely used than TripleA, it also has that added ability that you can edit the map on your computer to leave notes for yourself that your opponent cannot see if you want.
Also, I think I’ve broken 50 games of Anniversary already. So far, I can say, Tech and NOs are the key to winning the game. If you do go for Tech or can steal your opponents NOs early on (usually the Axis taking out NOs since most Axis NOs are easily recoverable) you’ll probably win.
If you do not go for tech, you’re hamstringing yourself. IMHO, the NOs are there specifically for tech buys, allowing you full IPC for builds and NO bonuses for technologies. (Hence why NOs are so important as well!)
To me that means America should be doing no less than +1 researcher every round. Period.
Germany is probably +1 or 2 a round, maybe as much as 3.
Italy is 0, but only because with NOs it’s earning in the low 20s and needs to send everything it can to Hold France and stop England from taking it anymore. (I find 15 infantry, 5 armor and 2 fighters does this nicely.)
Japan’s probably doing 3 or 4 researchers at any given time.
Of course, NOs are something you don’t get until after the first turn, therefore, technology is something I don’t think you should try for until your second turn. Though, once I did get Long Range on England 1, which was fun until none of my pilots could hit squat and the Italian navy shot me down. :/
Next: The Key to Europe is East Poland. If you own East Poland, you basically have the center four squares of the chess board.
The Key to the other side of Russia is Chinghai (if you have it, there’s no China anymore anyway.)
The Key to America is, yer screwed, America’s got 40-50 IPC income, you can’t even land enough troops in time to own America, give it up!
The Key to Japan is SZ 51 and/or SZ 64 (Alaska or Carolines.)
I like Carolines myself, they give England a NO and you can hit Iwo Jima or Okinawa from there and set up bomber airstrips.
For once, SBR is not broken. FINALLY! There is now an officially released game where you can actually do SOMETHING about being SBRed into oblivion, and if you cannot afford the damage, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY IT! Meanwhile, the risk to the enemy has only gone down slightly compared to before.
That said, I’d like to see a few changes:
1) Super Submarines. WTF is this still doing in the game??? I mean, HONESTLY! Has this EVER been the “go to” technology for the majority of players!?!?! Can we please replace this with AA Guns for Battleships and/or Carriers? (Same rule applies, only one can fire at a time) Or if that’s too powerful for you, maybe Shipyards for Aircraft? Fighters cost 9, Bombers cost 10? Again, if that’s too powerful (aren’t I nice, I give you THREE options!) how about mobile industrial complexes? They can move 1 space and can only go to territories you own! (You can’t build in them until the next turn.)
2) Italy needs a third National Objective. Before you run screaming from the room tearing out your hair at the blasphemy, I’m not talking something easy to get. The third should be: Axis Control of Ukraine, Caucasus, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Gibraltar, France, Bulgaria, Italy and Balkans and be 5 IPC. That should be easily stoppable in most situations, but at least reward Italy for doing something other than buffing the defenses of France.
3) Destroyers should only defend at 2 if they have a transport or more with them. Otherwise, they should defend at 1.
4) Escort carriers would be snazzy. But now we’re adding in extra units and that’s normally a bozo-no-no. If we did, however, it would have to att 0, def 0 carry 1 fighter. Maybe cost 8 or 7.
5) Russia should have another NO for keeping SFE, Buryatia, Stanovoj, Yakut, Evenki and Urals in Russian control. 5 IPC. It’s easy enough for Japan to stop if they want too, and since Japan normaly doesn’t want too, it will aid Russia in holding back the Germanic hoards.
6) Honestly, can England have a navy on UK 1? Please?
7) Perhaps each nation should start with 1 Technology Right off. USA/UK/Japan: Improved Shipyards. Italy/Germany/Russia: Advanced Artillery. Neither is overly powerful, but they’d give the game an added depth. (Think like the optional rule that Germany had Jet Power and Japan Super Submarines in Classic. This is not unprecedented!)
-
Battlemap is free too and it’s more widely used than TripleA, it also has that added ability that you can edit the map on your computer to leave notes for yourself that your opponent cannot see if you want.
Is Battlemap the one where you use map modules of lookalike game boards? If so, I’ve used that program too. It actually worked for several of our A&A.org Play by Forum games years and years ago. I haven’t heard much of it since, so I assumed people either lost interest or Hasbro shut it down.
Secondly, I like how TripleA was designed specifically with Axis and Allies in mind.
I think I’ve broken 50 games of Anniversary already. So far, I can say, Tech and NOs are the key to winning the game.
You don’t get out much, do you? :wink:
–—
I don’t know if the page breaks indicate the start of your own second thoughts, but:
Next: The Key to Europe is East Poland. If you own East Poland, you basically have the center four squares of the chess board.
True.
The Key to the other side of Russia is Chinghai (if you have it, there’s no China anymore anyway.)
Likely true.
The Key to Japan is SZ 51 and/or SZ 64 (Alaska or Carolines.)
Less so. I like Sea Zones 60 and 50 because they allow the Japanese a staging point without being hit by newly built ships in Western USA.
For once, SBR is not broken. FINALLY! There is now an officially released game where you can actually do SOMETHING about being SBRed into oblivion, and if you cannot afford the damage, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY IT! Meanwhile, the risk to the enemy has only gone down slightly compared to before.
Is this sarcasm? If not, please explain. How can a country not afford to pay for SBR damage?
Super Submarines. WTF is this still doing in the game??? I mean, HONESTLY! Has this EVER been the “go to” technology for the majority of players!?!?!
Actually, now that submarines are SOME GOOD in Anniversary, Super Subs are a MUCH better than they use to be. Super Subs aren’t the best Chart 2 technology, but in the hands of a capable nation (USA), they can be deadly.
2) Italy needs a third National Objective. Before you run screaming from the room tearing out your hair at the blasphemy, I’m not talking something easy to get. The third should be: Axis Control of Ukraine, Caucasus, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Gibraltar, France, Bulgaria, Italy and Balkans and be 5 IPC. That should be easily stoppable in most situations, but at least reward Italy for doing something other than buffing the defenses of France.
Italy already has two easily obtainable NOs. Sure, you could give Italy another, but I demand Russia’s NOs be tweaked as well.
3) Destroyers should only defend at 2 if they have a transport or more with them. Otherwise, they should defend at 1.
Gimmicky.
4) Escort carriers would be snazzy. But now we’re adding in extra units and that’s normally a bozo-no-no. If we did, however, it would have to att 0, def 0 carry 1 fighter. Maybe cost 8 or 7.
Probably not.
5) Russia should have another NO for keeping SFE, Buryatia, Stanovoj, Yakut, Evenki and Urals in Russian control. 5 IPC. It’s easy enough for Japan to stop if they want too, and since Japan normaly doesn’t want too, it will aid Russia in holding back the Germanic hoards.
It helps. Also we could say Russia gets +5 IPCs for controlling all her victory cities.
6) Honestly, can England have a navy on UK 1? Please?
I don’t see why not. In fact, due to the extra territories and sea zones, it’s virtually impossible for Germany to sink all of UK’s navy on the first turn. Remember, in Classic it was seen as a serious misplay if the Germans left any UK ships alive after G1.
7) Perhaps each nation should start with 1 Technology Right off. USA/UK/Japan: Improved Shipyards. Italy/Germany/Russia: Advanced Artillery. Neither is overly powerful, but they’d give the game an added depth. (Think like the optional rule that Germany had Jet Power and Japan Super Submarines in Classic. This is not unprecedented!)
Doable. Though if you head in this direction, I suggest each power should get a more “nation specific” technology. Like USA: Improved Shipyards (or war bonds!), UK: Radar (Ha!), Russia: Advanced Artillery, Germany: Jet Fighters, Japan: Long Range Aircraft, and Italy: a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Seriously, Italy doesn’t deserve tech.
-
@TG:
7) Perhaps each nation should start with 1 Technology Right off. USA/UK/Japan: Improved Shipyards. Italy/Germany/Russia: Advanced Artillery. Neither is overly powerful, but they’d give the game an added depth. (Think like the optional rule that Germany had Jet Power and Japan Super Submarines in Classic. This is not unprecedented!)
Doable. Though if you head in this direction, I suggest each power should get a more “nation specific” technology. Like USA: Improved Shipyards (or war bonds!), UK: Radar (Ha!), Russia: Advanced Artillery, Germany: Jet Fighters, Japan: Long Range Aircraft, and Italy: a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Seriously, Italy doesn’t deserve tech.
Why? Do you think Italy is already over-powered? Or beacuse Italy is an unnecessary addiction to the game? Or… :?
-
TG:
No, I don’t get out much, I have kids. :)
Battlemap is alive and very well. It was designed for Axis and Allies I believe and I’ve never seen it support other games, but that does not mean it cannot. Theoretically, if you can design the toolpieces and draw a map, you can play any game with it. You might be thinking of Mapview which is a “game module” thing and that, pretty much, is found more often in a few gaming cliques here and there. Popular, but most people who have it also use battlemap.
When i said that SZ 51 and SZ 64 are the keys to Japan I meant for the allies. You refer to SZ’s 50 and 60 which are good for Japan to own for various reasons, (I would also add SZ 37 to your list for Japan, maybe even SZ 38/Sumatra)
Some countries cannot afford to repair SBR. For instance, Russia might take 4 IPC Damage to Karelia, perhaps Russia only has 31 IPC (realistic) so they want 7 Infantry, 2 Armor. They can easily place 2 Infantry, 2 Armor in Caucasus and 5 Infantry in Russia without violating the number of units being built. So why repair Karelia, especially if it appears Germany will take it soon?
As for submarines, I disagree. Mostly speaking, submarines have been made mostly worthless in aniversary. They cannot even be used to stop you from loading transports in the sea zone they are in.
Now, if you plan on using a submarine strategy, they can be useful as an annoyance to Japan, but that’s a limited strategy for a whole technology to be built around, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion.)
So far it’s been my experience when there are no National Objectives to be gained, that England starts with virtualy no navy if in reality no navy. (Destroyer/Transport off the SE Corner of Australia being the only ships left on the board.)
Romulus:
I have to say, Italy is a very under-respected nation. Those of us who respect her adequately enough, try to crush her as fast as possible.
-
@Cmdr:
Romulus:
I have to say, Italy is a very under-respected nation. Those of us who respect her adequately enough, try to crush her as fast as possible.
I agree but just because people do not consider Italy interesting should be included in the “one free tech idea”. It may be the only one possibility for Italy to have a technological improvement! :)
-
Romulus:
…Or beacuse Italy is an unnecessary addiction to the game?
I know English isn’t your first language, but that sentence was LOL. :lol:
While I don’t believe Italy is an unnecessary addition to the game, my statement about Italy “Not deserving any tech” was more tongue-in-cheek.
My point is that Italy was barely in the war – no more than say, China, and no one talks about giving them tech. Plus Italy’s combat record during the war was so wretched and so maligned that they don’t deserve tech.
Contrary to what you guys seem to imply about me, I believe Italy is TOO Powerful in the game. Italy has ridiculous sway protecting Europe (ie France), they’ve taken Stalingrad a number of times, to make no mention of the African juggernaut they can become. It’s so completely atypical of what Italy’s actual service record indicated.
Okay, you could make some of the same arguments about Japan. But even then, did Italy make any great innovations, force any changes in doctrine, or offer any technological improvements? Was any of their equipment spectacularly different? It’s not rhetorical. Maybe you guys can convince me otherwise.
Right now, Italy having units that are equal to the rest of the Powers can already be considered a “tech roll”
CJ:
Battlemap is alive and very well. It was designed for Axis and Allies I believe and I’ve never seen it support other games, but that does not mean it cannot. Theoretically, if you can design the toolpieces and draw a map, you can play any game with it. You might be thinking of Mapview which is a “game module” thing and that, pretty much, is found more often in a few gaming cliques here and there. Popular, but most people who have it also use battlemap.
I was thinking about Mapview then. I can’t speak from experience about Battlemap.
No, I don’t get out much, I have kids.
Mr. Jennifer doesn’t hold the same interest in Axis and Allies as you do? Actually, that may be better for the kids. :)
Some countries cannot afford to repair SBR. For instance, Russia might take 4 IPC Damage to Karelia, perhaps Russia only has 31 IPC (realistic) so they want 7 Infantry, 2 Armor. They can easily place 2 Infantry, 2 Armor in Caucasus and 5 Infantry in Russia without violating the number of units being built. So why repair Karelia, especially if it appears Germany will take it soon?
The better question is: why is Germany in her right mind bombing Karelia? There are so many better targets.
As for submarines, I disagree. Mostly speaking, submarines have been made mostly worthless in aniversary. They cannot even be used to stop you from loading transports in the sea zone they are in.
Submarines have been a vast improvement for us compared to before. Then again, I don’t 50 notches under my belt.
So far it’s been my experience when there are no National Objectives to be gained, that England starts with virtualy no navy if in reality no navy. (Destroyer/Transport off the SE Corner of Australia being the only ships left on the board.)
Commandant Jennifer, could you please inform me about your battlefield strategies on how Germany wipes out UK’s Navy G1?
In 1941 how do you go after the Battleship+Transport in Sz 2, the destroyer+Transport in Sz 9, and the destroyer+cruiser in Sz 12?
The way I see it, you can go after 1 or 2 (if you’re feeling greedy), but not all three. It either comes down to the destroyer+Transport in Sz 9 or the destroyer+cruiser in Sz 12. You cannot have both.
I use to think Sz 9 was better because the odds were better. But after reading repeated AARs about UK sinking Italy’s navy turn 1, I believe the better move is to clear Sz 12.
As for 1942, don’t even get me started about that Cruiser+Transport in the Hudson bay.
-
Italy is a full fledged member. If you give 3 technologies to the allies, then Italy should get one of 3 technologies to the axis, just for balance.
Also, I would limit it to two different technologies instead of six different ones. Easier to track.
I don’t personally go after the British navy with Germany in 1941. Honestly, I use everything I have to obliterate Russians so my tanks can race through at 80mph!
However, I have lost:
- the Destroyer in SZ 6 to the Submarine in SZ 5
- the Destroyer/Transport in SZ 9 to a Submarine in SZ 7
- The Cruiser/Destroyer in SZ 12 to a Submarine in SZ 7 and a Fighter in NW Europe
- The Battleship/Transport in SZ 2 to a Fighter and Bomber (Norway/Germany)
Don’t ask me for the probabilities on all that. I guess odds in SZ 2 would be 1/3 the battleship is sunk first round and very good odds that it’s sunk in the second or third rounds (at least good odds it is sunk with loss of all attackers) The Destroyers and Submarines are both 50/50 shots, they attack/defend at 2 and who ever hits is going to win that. The Cruiser/Destroyer is harder, it’s like 50/50 since 2 units on both sides with same attack/defend capabilities.
No idea. Honestly, I don’t like not using my 5 Aircraft to destroy Ruskies…I’ll break down and use the Bomber at Sea most of the time, but it seems more common to have my German opponents go after the entire English Navy on Round 1 and be conservative against Russia. (Could explain why my Russian tanks end up in Rome so often.)
-
To say that Italy and China were barely in the war is laughable.
China fought the Japanese longer than any Allied nation the Mukden incident in '31 could serve good enough for a starting date. But at the latest '37. China also held up much better than the other vaunted allied forces in Asia. Don’t rely on Larry Harris’s game boards as any true indicator of what Japan actually held in China although AA50 is the closest to reality so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Empire2.pngItaly had the 4th largest Navy in the world at the start of hostilities. As far as ineffective, Force K, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Valiant would probably beg to differ.
-
@TG:
Romulus:
…Or beacuse Italy is an unnecessary addiction to the game?
I know English isn’t your first language, but that sentence was LOL. :lol:
Moses I was feeling like Lt. Cmdr. Data at your answer when I suddenly discover my error! lol! :-D You are right my sentence is quite humorous!
I intended to write addition…
Now I understood. -
Musta been a Freudian Slip, I find Italy quite addictive! Especially when they start earning 40+ mwuhahahaha!
-
To say that Italy and China were barely in the war is laughable.
Go back and reread my post. “My point is that Italy was barely in the war – no more than say, China, and no one talks about giving them tech.” You sir, lose. :wink:
Italy had the 4th largest Navy in the world at the start of hostilities. As far as ineffective, Force K, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Valiant would probably beg to differ.
Meh. I would say the Battle of Taranto reduced Italy navy rather effectively didn’t it? The Royal Navy also seemed more apt to winning the major sea battles in the Mediterranean pre-1943. In any case, 1942/1941 Italy starts off with a respectable navy of 2 Cruisers and 1 Battleship.
Suggested Topics
