@Panther Thanks for the speedy answer… feels like a strategy that might make me unpopular but if it’s legitimate then I suppose it’s fair game.
Paratroopers
-
No. You retain ownership of your AA Gun until it is captured by the enemy.
-
The last thing I want to say.
If I ever see you two at a board game convention, say Gen Con or Origins, I’d like to have a seat next to you at the Axis and Allies table. We would play three games, each of us as USA and each of us with a different starting tech.
Game 1: U-505 with Paratroopers or Improved Factories
Game 2: Cmdr Jennifer with Radar
Game 3: Moses with Supersubs
(To keep some semblance of fairness we’ll say USA starts off with 5 less IPCs or something)
I’m interested to see what the results would be. :wink:
-
Paratroopers for America would be wicked. But not as bad as Paratroopers for Germany.
Why not just give Germany Paratroopers, Super Subs and Radar instead of America? At least they’d be able to use each of those techs at the start of the game. :P
-
If a bomber carries an infantry to a combat, and the bomber is destroyed by AA fire, what happens to the infantry?
-
@TG:
Let me get this straight.
You would unlock Improved Factories so you (USA) could take Algeria and Libya, spend 30 IPCs on ICs, wait a turn to place ICs, and hope Italy doesn’t retake both territories before you can place six units?
…
…
…
(Do you realize what you’re saying?)
Yes, I realize exactly what I am saying.
I would take Algeria and Libya with 1 infantry and then not transport any more units to Africa in hopes that I could build 2 undefended factories right under the nose of Italy because it is so sneaky that it just might work.
And if I developed rockets, and I had the capacity to transport AA to Algeria I wouldn’t send any other units with them because 1 AA immediately makes north Africa completely secure.
And if I developed paratroops, I would leave Libya devoid of anything but my bombers to be strafed by the Axis because, when you have that tech, you don’t have to actually supply the bomber with defensive infantry to paradrop(they are automatically generated).
I was tempted to not even bother responding to this, but I have been bombarded recently by questions regarding whether I was capable of reading the rules or if I have even played the game suggesting that my strategies are outageously foolish and can be proven as such if I would actually bother to learn how to play the game against someone else.
So when you write paragraphs suggesting that I am too stupid to properly defend IC’s or bombers, then I think you deserve a little return sarcasm.
Chances are if the Allies can take and hold Algeria and Libya, you’re already winning the African War. In which case, this just seems like a “win more” move.
Sure you could do something constructive like build transports out of Libya and attempt a landing in Europe, but how do you protect said transports now that you’ve sent your entire navy west to engage the Japanese?
Same principle applies. Though you get +1 Karma for LOLs.
However, I do realize that you could ship Rockets to England, in which case I take back what I said, American rockets are useful.So your strategy hinges on getting infantry to Libya, landing bombers in Libya, picking up said infantry and parachuting them into undefended territories, while landing back in Libya so you could do it again? And during all of this, you’re relaying on your bombers not to get strafed on the ground as they await your paradrop?
No thanks.
–-----
Let’s start with Rockets. Assuming I’m smart enough to properly defend Algeria and UK and that it took me roughly 3 researchers to develop it, it would take me 3 turns, on average, to recoup my costs (21$ of damage for 3 turns of attacks. $15 for 3 researchers plus $6 for a new AA=$21). After that it makes money. Less research money and it would only average 2 turns.
Paratroops and Improved IC’s partially serve the same fuction but in different ways. If the US wants to transport troops through the Med and into Europe they have to maintain 2 fully functional fleets (one to protect the TP’s in sz12 and one to deal with the Italian fleet and protect the Med transports). Paratroops and Improved IC’s eliminate the need for one or both of those fleets and in each case there is a possibility that you can ignore the Italian fleet altogether.
With Paratroops, you can eliminate the need for a Med fleet because of bombers based in Libya and excess units transported to Africa make it difficult for Italy to get their NO’s. Just as the Italian fleet serves as support for Germany in the way of clearing Ukraine for Germany to move into and immediately land fighters for defense, US paratroops prevent this. And if Germany doesn’t retake Ukraine to eliminate one of Russia’s NO’s, it also makes it hard for Germany to gain one of their NO’s because Ukraine is usually a key territory for them. With Italy making only 9 IPC’s per turn they would have a hard time doing anything but trading Balkans every turn. Sure, an AA prevents this, but it gets costly to protect every possible territory from paratroop landings. For $48 worth of bombers, you would barely get 2 TP and a loaded CV for that price so it’s easily cheaper than putting a navy in the Med and you wouldn’t have to clear out the Italian navy to do it.
Improved IC’s in Algeria and Libya give you 2 options.
- Eliminates the need for the sz12 fleet. You can clear the Med and maintain only the Med fleet. With the remaining money after building at the IC’s, you could build aircraft in the US for support or build navy in sz56 to harass the Japanese.
or 2) You could just send your entire navy toward Japan and use the IC’s to prevent Italy from gaining their NO’s and have those ground units move toward Persia to close off the Japanese access to Russia via India. One fighter or a couple extra infantry in Algeria would be enough to protect it from Italian landings so you could effectively ignore the Italian fleet. And if the Italians get bold and build more TP’s, A mass SS and/or aircraft build would eliminate that threat once and for all.
For one tech, you can maintain a fleet of bombers for less than it would cost to have half as many TP’s and their protecting fleet in the Med, and for the the other, $30 completely eliminates the supply chain from the US to North Africa. I just don’t understand how either of those 2 scenarios isn’t cost effective.
For me it’s: War bonds, Mechanized Infantry, Advanced Artillery. Rockets deserves to be mentioned
I don’t understand how you could put War Bonds ahead of Rockets when 2 Rockets(easy to achieve for any country) average twice as much damage to your enemies as War Bonds can earn you every turn. You can’t get War Bonds twice but you can certainly get multiple Rockets. The only way for War bonds to be better than Rockets is if you reinvested that War Bond money into techs and rolled Rockets.
I believe that you should put the techs in order of usefulness.
- Mechanized infantry is useful to every country and challenges Heavy Bombers and LRA for the most powerful tech in the game.
2)Rockets is likewise useful to every country and in multiple numbers can be very effective.
- Increased Factory Production, War Bonds, and Paratroops are tied for third. You can’t put one over the other because while War Bonds is equally useful to every country, IFP and Paratroops are more useful than War Bonds to some countries while being less useful than War Bonds to others.
Improved Arty isn’t that great. Out of 30 units, [20 inf, 10 Improved art] is equal to [15 inf, 15 art]. While I like artillery, spending $100 to save $5 would take most countries 3 turns and you just can’t be that inflexible with your purchases and be effective in every game.
-
If a bomber carries an infantry to a combat, and the bomber is destroyed by AA fire, what happens to the infantry?
It is destroyed.
-
@Cmdr:
–
Thanks A44, my point as well. You can also move them to Karelia, Caucasus and Russia too.–
If Russia is being nailed for 20 IPC a round, I think losing 5 from the NO is worth having the American radar gun. Just me though.You know, it’s quite humorous that you argued against these very points that I made in the Axis SBR thread. I’m not going to search for your exact quote, but something along the lines of, the US could NEVER get aa guns to russia in time if you were the Axis player. :roll:
-
Axis, there is a difference between Revised and Anniversary. You cannot pull arguments made in one game and try to use them against that person in a completely different game.
In revised, you’re talking about 4 or 5 turns to get a gun from America to Russia when Russia will be dead long before then. In Anniversary, if you don’t do something stupid, it’d take you 5 or 6 turns to get the gun there, but Russia will have 20 rounds even with SBR damage falling on it.
U505 forgot to mention one important factor of Improved Factories in Algeria and Libya. While each can produce three units, they each can only take 2 damage! So even at maximum damage, they can still produce one unit a piece.
-
@Cmdr:
Axis, there is a difference between Revised and Anniversary. You cannot pull arguments made in one game and try to use them against that person in a completely different game.
My bad, i forgot that the ability of the US to get equipment to Russia is completely different in this game then it is in Revised. Thank You for pointing out my error.
-
@Cmdr:
Axis, there is a difference between Revised and Anniversary. You cannot pull arguments made in one game and try to use them against that person in a completely different game.
My bad, i forgot that the ability of the US to get equipment to Russia is completely different in this game then it is in Revised. Thank You for pointing out my error.
You’re welcome.
Suggested Topics
