Thank you sir! Figured as much, just couldn’t find it definitively stated anywhere.
Supporting units
-
hey i had this idea today that units like tanks and aircraft carriers need other units like infantry and destroyers to support it.
i think this adds a more realistic twist to the game.
for example
for every tank bought you have to buy 2 infantry to support it. this makes it more realistic because in real life tanks without infantry for support is a bad risk.
here’s a list of what units go with each otherInfantry- alone or with tanks( your choice)
tanks- 2 infantry to support it
fighters- none
Bombers- atleast on fighter
transport ship- none, altough it is smart to have something defend it
submarine- none
destroyer- none
Aircraft Carrier- one battleship, or two fighterswell there you have it. if someone else has already made this rule then sorry
-
The only problem is that this rule already has a parallel in play–just not with the straightjacket of mandatory purchasing. If you attack with all ARM & no supporting INF, your ARM will quickly weaken due to the enemy’s counterattacks, wheras w/ INF support, your ARM will stay in the attack longer. Plus, the relative cost of each unit also is a factor. With say, 30 IPCs to spend on INF/ARM to go into battle the next turn, there is a certain ratio that will get you the most “bang” for your buck. I often see players spending lots of money on “all ARM” when a more-or-less even split between ARM and INF (or especially a preponderance of INF) would serve them better numerically–ARM are just more glamorous.
I only REALLY started getting into A & A when I started playing Germany. If you play a few games as Germany, you will quickly realize that “all ARM” every turn is NOT the answer. You must become very conscientious of money as Germany–the choice often is “do I buy 2 INF or 1 ARM”? How many INF do I need? What can I get to the next battle? These kinds of questions lead one to purchase INF to support their ARM without the need for a rule.
As far as the CV purchase requiring a BB purchase, that is totally out of the question. A player would have to spend 42 IPCs in A SINGLE TURN to get one CV. You’d find massive fleets of TRs and SUBs with no capital ships whatsoever. Not to mention that logically it just doesn’t work–assuming that A & A (Basic) BBs represent all types of surface-warfare ships (that is, BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, etc), a CV still doesn’t REQUIRE them in order to effectively operate. Its aircraft can perform many “scout, detection & interception”-type tasks without the (albeit important) protection of a whole task force.
Ozone27
-
Guest,
I like your ideas of trying to add variety and spice to the game, but as Ozone said, it came up somewhat disjointed. Any Axis and Allies player will tell you, building all tanks is not the way to go. You leave yourself too open on defense. For the price of two tanks, I can buy three infantry and still have one production certificate left over. Tanks tend to do better on offense, but without any infantry to support them, you will soon caught in the same conundrum. If one player wants build nothing but tanks, let him… but don’t say I didn’t you! :)
Twenty-Seven Production Certificates to build one bomber is a little too steep for my ‘All Bomber Strategy.’ Having to pay that much for a bomber is especially painful when I see no real use for the extra fighter. In case you are wondering, the ‘All Bomber Strategy’ is a strategy I like to use when I am either the United States or the United Kingdom. The main point is to build all bombers. This allows you to continually bomb Germany with increasing severity, forcing that player into a costly war of attrition. With an ample force of five or six bombers, Germany’s national production levels can plummet well below twenty. All that is left for your Allies is to force Germany into a pitched battle, knowing we can fully replace our losses while the Germans can’t. If anything, I enjoy the excitement of rolling the dice! :)
-
Well if you think about it, ARM are never produced out of a IC with matching infantry. It’s up to the commander to figure the right mix of supporting inf. IMHO, you usually I try a 1:3 ratio in favor of inf to ARM.
-
Er…I don’t understand what SUD is talking about, but I’m sure its grand :D ! (M84…?)
What I don’t get about the “bomber strategy” is how do you take territory w/ so few INF purchases? I guess you rely on USSR to roll in and crush Gerry…?
If so, why doesn’t Gerry/Japan use the same strategy vs. USSR? Maybe they don’t see it coming…
Ozone27
-
I hope that my ‘All Bomber Strategy’ (ABS) was not too ambiguous, so I will take this time to try and explain everything in a little more detail. ABS is more of a strategy for a causal game on a mid-Sunday’s afternoon. The strategy works well with the United Kingdom, but can be applied to the United States. My main concern is that the bombers built in Eastern USA have to fly an extra trip to British airfields before making their way into Germany.
The main objective for the United Kingdom is to concentrate solely on building bombers. The only exception is when I want to launch an aircraft carrier into the British Sea Zone to help the American player out. The downside is that I cannot build two bombers on the first turn, which would greatly speed up the strategic bombing process. Other than that, my entire turn is spent maintaining an active bomber wing for guess what? more bombing missions over Germany! :)
As far as taking over territories, I leave that up to the rest of my Allies, preferably the United States. I like to think I am doing my part when, by the end of the third turn, I have a fairly large bomber wing of six or seven bombers capable of wrecking twenty one to twenty five IPC’s worth of damage to Germany’s production levels. This is roughly the equivalent of ‘attacking’ Germany each turn to inflict seven or eight causalities. Without those much-needed troops, Germany is left vulnerable to an attack at either Western Europe or Eastern Europe…sometimes even both! :)
What I like most about this strategy is that afterwards, I can fly my entire bomber force to Russia and start bombing any Japanese factories the following turn. If not, I will settle for the next best thing and position my bombers to attack the Japanese transports when opportunity strikes.
ABS may not be the best strategy, and I do get shunned by TG because says my strategy relies too much on luck. I like ABS because it is fun, and there’s nothing funnier than watching TG’s face after I rolled nothing but fives and sixes on a bombing mission and forced him into bankruptcy! Priceless! :D
PS: Sir SUD, we do play with economic victory turned ‘on,’ but TG says that it is the poor man’s way out of World Domination.
-
i have seen the all-bomber method used against me before, both the US and UK did it and i was buying a grand total of 1 inf a turn, then they both bought one tech role each and both got HEAVY BOMBERS, i was bitter. despite this i had a great AA gun that almost single handedly won the game for me. I killed 4 bombers in one turn :)
my question is: I am under the impression that when you bomb a newly made IC you can only subtract the value of the property, for example, the India territory is worht 3 IPC’s, so when japan industrial bombs them they can lose a max of three dollars. if this is true, what happens when multiple bombers attack a territory like that? do they each take of a max of three? or am i just making that rule up completely.
thnx in advance
kevin -
i have seen the all-bomber method used against me before, both the US and UK did it and i was buying a grand total of 1 inf a turn, then they both bought one tech role each and both got HEAVY BOMBERS, i was bitter. despite this i had a great AA gun that almost single handedly won the game for me. I killed 4 bombers in one turn :)
my question is: I am under the impression that when you bomb a newly made IC you can only subtract the value of the property, for example, the India territory is worht 3 IPC’s, so when japan industrial bombs them they can lose a max of three dollars. if this is true, what happens when multiple bombers attack a territory like that? do they each take of a max of three? or am i just making that rule up completely.
thnx in advance
kevini’ve never heard of (or read of) that rule before, so i’m guessing you’re confusing that with the “value of units allowed to be placed” (whose maximum is indeed the value of the property). But otherwise, no. You can bomb the crap out of India (or Manchuria etc.) as far as i know.
Also i hate playing with people who bomb me. I pray for ones like i never pray for ones on the battlefield (you atheists - i don’t know what you do . . . :) The bombing missions are a pain, but at the same time, i don’t like to use them (much) as if you check out the odds, you’re only going to “hit” your opponant for as much as the cost of the bomber when his/her AA gun blows you up. Plus that’s time that the bomber could be contributing in an attack (taking out >1 inf at a time).
-
ahh thank you for the clarification, i also agree, im not a fan of the buying lots of bombers and taking your money away, cause when im germany i like to buy stuff an go on conquests. but i cant fault someone for bombing the crap out of a complex with no AA gun.
what about the russian move of withdrawing from karelia later in the game and taking the AA gun with it? that way if the UK or US has a good enough bomber wing in place they could shred the German economy with no losses, just a thought ……
-
Thank you for insight, Sir KPwatkin, on moving the AA gun from Karelia and letting the Germans take the territory. The problem I see is that the Germans can build an AA gun there the very next turn, allowing me only one turn of unrestricted strategic bombing. Do not worry, when I play TG, he hardly shoots down one of my bombers :)
-
ahh thank you for the clarification, i also agree, im not a fan of the buying lots of bombers and taking your money away, cause when im germany i like to buy stuff an go on conquests. but i cant fault someone for bombing the crap out of a complex with no AA gun.
what about the russian move of withdrawing from karelia later in the game and taking the AA gun with it? that way if the UK or US has a good enough bomber wing in place they could shred the German economy with no losses, just a thought ……
i’ve done that before. I had a BAD ally, otherwise i think it might have worked. TM is right - Germany just might (but prolly not) by an AA gun to thwart the allies, but i think that this little plan COULD work with good allies that support their Russian colleague . . . .
I won’t try this again for a while tho’ - i just don’t like leaving Karelia undefended, and who’s to say that Germany won’t just bomb Karelia’s factory rather than assault it? That way they can keep the Russians infantry purchases a little lower and gain the advantage that way. -
Pay no attention to TM’s “All Bomber Strategy;” it is one of the worst strategies ever devised :evil: . This is sledgehammering at the worst degree. There’s no finesse or critical planning, it’s just build bombers, more bombers, and did I forget to mention build more bombers? The reason why TM’s strategy even works is because she had a incredible amount of luck that it’s sickening :o. I swear, ever time we have a SBR, she rolls nothing but 5’s and 6’s (maybe the occasional 4, but rarely anything below that). It’s not fun (after UK2) to suddenly find you [Germany] down 18 IPCs. That’s my IPCs that I need for Africa for crying out loud! :x And forget about what happens after the end of UK3, where Germany’s income drops below that of USSR (even with the Japanese trying to help me out)!
Instead I’m out in the cold as more bombers continue even more raids. And the worst part is that I can scarcely shoot any down with my “traitor” AA guns! On a good day, I might shoot down 1 bomber out of a squadron of 10! To add insult to injury, when I send my Germ or Jap bomber to attack Russia, it gets shot downing within the first 3 turns! Totally unfair! :x This strategy is luck, luck, luck – unless you have it in spades, I suggest not using TM’s “All Bomber Strategy.”
-
@TG:
Pay no attention to TM’s “All Bomber Strategy;” it is one of the worst strategies ever devised :evil: . This is sledgehammering at the worst degree. There’s no finesse or critical planning, it’s just build bombers, more bombers, and did I forget to mention build more bombers? The reason why TM’s strategy even works is because she had a incredible amount of luck that it’s sickening :o. I swear, ever time we have a SBR, she rolls nothing but 5’s and 6’s (maybe the occasional 4, but rarely anything below that). It’s not fun (after UK2) to suddenly find you [Germany] down 18 IPCs. That’s my IPCs that I need for Africa for crying out loud! :x And forget about what happens after the end of UK3, where Germany’s income drops below that of USSR (even with the Japanese trying to help me out)!
Instead I’m out in the cold as more bombers continue even more raids. And the worst part is that I can scarcely shoot any down with my “traitor” AA guns! On a good day, I might shoot down 1 bomber out of a squadron of 10! To add insult to injury, when I send my Germ or Jap bomber to attack Russia, it gets shot downing within the first 3 turns! Totally unfair! :x This strategy is luck, luck, luck – unless you have it in spades, I suggest not using TM’s “All Bomber Strategy.”
so, on average TG, how often is TM lucky relative to you? I think your sister has learned to “make her own luck” and her brother needs a fall-guy/lady (lady luck).
-
i am, of course, just teasing . . . :)
-
Awwwww… man, luck is the case for almost every game. Now I can label myself as a Conservative Player, not willing to take that many risk, esp. with the Axis. But what few risk I do take result in disaster - D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R. The worst is any battle involving an AA gun. Have one of those and watch as ALL my fighters get shot down. Those were the very AA guns that the game before, couldn’t shoot down ONE single bomber out of the 5-10 TM sent after me turn after turn! :evil: Would results like this, it would seem that “Lady Luck” is some sexist female out to get me! :wink:
-
TG, you should learn to keep a clear mind, and never lose your cool! When you start dreading every battle’s outcome… that is when your dice seal your fate, not mine. You have to stop being so pessimistic and cheer up… it is just a game! :D Lighten up :P Mind over matter, you know?
‘Don’t get mad, get Glad.’
-
Arrrrggg–- next time we meet, fate will not be so easy on you :o
-
Yes, yes. Make it a guideline for how to attack and not an actual purchasing requirement. Infantry go in with Armor, Fighters go in with bombers. (watch that AA fire though) This is a excellent way to overwhelm your opponent and secure easy victories in land battles. With naval units, it’s a lot trickier. A sub travelling beside a Transport isn’t any real help, but an AC can be. And a BS escort is always good, but costly. Never spend more than you can recoup in 1 Turn.
-
I’m kind of wondering if we didn’t already discuss something like this. I.e. the purchase of an armored “division” for 5 ipc’s implies that they have appropriate support etc. The same would go for a bomber - for 15 ipc’s you get a bomber squadron, as well as appropriate escorts. Same for trannies, etc. (admittedly a weaker escort as they only defend on a 1!).
-
Well that sort of doesn’t make sense. Why build inf support for an ARM when they already have support? And in AAE, why buy fighters when bombers should already come with escorts? Strange. :roll:
Suggested Topics
