In addition to forces above I’ll send the strategic bomber from England and fighters if their still around from the scramble for your fleet. If you send the fighters from England you have to commit your carrier. Lose those fighters 1st if you feel you might retreat. This gives you two additional fighters and a bomber.
ANZAC planes on US carriers
-
@nikola1975 said in ANZAC planes on US carriers:
This combo is strong, not only due to colours, but because you really need to watch the whole Pacific - there is no safe place anymore for Japanese.
But, we could create a thread with “nasty but legal tactics”, as you called it, @gamerman01.
One that really made me angry was the fighter attack “over” the wall of ships. Let me explain. Germans were essentially locked in the Mediteranean, with my strong US fleet at Gibraltar. They had fighter on the carrier just inside Pillars of Heracles, launched the attack of a single sub to the whole US fleet of 20 ships, and on basis of that, were able to launch the fighter to sink 10 US transports, 3 sea zones away, at West Indies :)
The explanation was that the sub had tried to break through and if it would have succeeded (?!), the carrier could go through and take the fighter. I was seeing it as sending to a suicide mission - I was wrong obviously. :cry: :face_with_head_bandage:
BRILLIANT post nikola. Your opponent has a lot of experience and strong grasp of the rules. Looks like you learned a couple of them the hard way. Very hard. But now you won’t be caught by this many times in the future, and you can use the A&A rules, though quirky, to your advantage!
-
@martin said in ANZAC planes on US carriers:
Yeah, these colors… Too often I assumed the wrong nationality of ships next to Australia, LOL. Thats why I now have the setting that a small nation’s flag shows near the units.
Something else that I find helpful is to go into the units folder and then use pant.net or something to flip the ANZAC ships so they point the opposite way
-
There is another thing to consider with an ally’s planes on your carriers.
You are giving up some of the potential attack power on the carrier owner’s turn. If it was loaded with his (the carrier owner’s) planes, the carrier owner would have more attack power on his turn AND/OR more space on the carriers to land his planes. If you put an ally’s planes on a different power’s carriers, you are trading reduced attack power and carrier capacity for your own planes, for nasty tactics like this.
Other powers, especially the US with the UK, can do the exact same thing.
-
@gamerman01 Yes, I understand and agree. I think these are better suited for Pacific, because US fleet does not need to be offensive most of the time. At least not offensive in big battles, they can pick Japanese smaller groups around. When defending, Allied fighters will still shoot.
-
@barnee Well that’s cool - thanks a lot! Although this website doesn’t work anymore. But I guess Photoshop will do the job as well.
-
Indeed.
However, UK planes on US carriers could hammer Berlin and take the German capital. Especially if US takes Denmark, moves UK planes on carrier in range of Berlin, and UK transports along with extra planes perhaps unforeseen or not anticipated by the Axis player. And BOOM - Berlin captured.
But you are right about the Pacific being more vast and having more sneaky possibilities with ANZAC
-
Especially sneaky if US carriers are in 91 with UK planes.
3 spaces to 112, UK planes in range of Berlin and back to carrier if other territories in Europe are not allied controlled.
-
@martin said in ANZAC planes on US carriers:
@barnee Well that’s cool - thanks a lot! Although this website doesn’t work anymore. But I guess Photoshop will do the job as well.
yea I would think any image editor will do the job. Doesn’t take very long. Might even ask @simon33 if he wants to add them next time he does any update. Think he still takes care of the map for triplea
-
-
@barnee is anything changed there or are they just the Anzac images reproduced?
-
@simon33 no nothing changed. They just face the other way now
-
@barnee oops forgot trprt
-
Right. But that represents Axis, so that change should not be made.
-
@martin said in ANZAC planes on US carriers:
@barnee Well that’s cool - thanks a lot! Although this website doesn’t work anymore. But I guess Photoshop will do the job as well.
I think @barnee referred to https://getpaint.net/ , the homepage of the free software “paint .net”.
-
@barnee I think I will have ANZAC only build BBs from now on just to enjoy the image.
-
@gamerman01 As a passionate player of AAA over years, let me give you my opinion on this - Not only that this is not a sneaky tctics, but this looks like an exploit in rules that is ruining your whole game mehanics turning one perfect balanced and before all game of STRATEGY in a game of ‘oversights’. Sneaky tactic is when I am planing in round for example 5 how to win something in round 8. In placing Ansac fighters on US carrier, I’m counting that my oponent: wont reckognise them, make mistake in counting movements…etc And this is all basic - not brilliant nor sneaky.
And is ruining game - You are not giving more options - you are making confusion!
Hope this willbe removed in next version.
(carryed plans must have less moves, according on host carrier movement)
(we already homeruled this in our boardgame sessions)
all the best -
That is a fair point. I would love to see the colors of each nation’s units be significantly different. Oversight mistakes are just awful.
I would not go so far though as to limit the reach of planes on allied aircraft carriers. This possibility is giving an advantage to the Allies, as it will hardly be applied by the Axis, but as it was stated before, this is kind f evening out the advantage of the Italian can opener.
-
@shkoboo said in ANZAC planes on US carriers:
@gamerman01 As a passionate player of AAA over years, let me give you my opinion on this - Not only that this is not a sneaky tctics, but this looks like an exploit in rules that is ruining your whole game mehanics turning one perfect balanced and before all game of STRATEGY in a game of ‘oversights’. Sneaky tactic is when I am planing in round for example 5 how to win something in round 8. In placing Ansac fighters on US carrier, I’m counting that my oponent: wont reckognise them, make mistake in counting movements…etc And this is all basic - not brilliant nor sneaky.
And is ruining game - You are not giving more options - you are making confusion!
Hope this willbe removed in next version.
(carryed plans must have less moves, according on host carrier movement)
(we already homeruled this in our boardgame sessions)
all the best- Does this scenario make the game more complicated - yes.
- Does it provide greater options for attack - yes.
- Does it require a Player to determine where an Allied plane might be able to go - yes.
- Does that break the game - no.
Adding complexity to the game while keeping the game mechanics simple is one of the beauties of Global. The more nuances a game has the more likely the higher skilled Player is going to win. Keeping a game “simple” means the luck factor is going to be an ever greater determining factor.
There are a myriad of items that create complexity and nuance in the game.
- Italy being a can opener for Germany.
- USA being a can opener for UK and ANZAC.
- UK and ANZAC planes on USA carriers.
- UK troops on US transports.
- Being able to land fighters and tacticals on newly built carriers.
- Being able to declare war on the Neutrals.
- Being able to attack from multiple areas and retreat to one area.
All of these are capabilities that can be taken advantage of by a superior player. That does not make them game-breakers, that makes them strategy scenarios that everyone should try and learn, comprehend and master to become a better Player.
-
Its more a problem with Tripple AAA than anything else, and not even really that.
The issue with ANZAC on USA is that the USA is less flexible as long as the spots are taken up, and they are along for the ride a lot of the time which means they are not in a position to attack or defend other things. You want extra carriers but that doesnt come until later, as a plan it doesnt come together until japan attacks.
-
Well, usually it will happen that you will have those fighters on US carriers, even without wanting to use it in this way. If Australia can earn around 15 - and usually that is what they can get until Japan is taking care of islands, India, China, Russia - they will buy a fighter every round or two. In order to be able to invest both in Europe and Asia, US can save some money by buying a fighter less. Effectively, if they buy a carrier and wait for two rounds, they are getting excellent defending power for 16 IPC.
With those ANZAC fighters sitting on the US carriers, it is then opportunism - let them sit back near Australia coast and if an opportunity arises, go kill those transports.
Suggested Topics
