Just wanted to mention another place to play online, which probably won’t be going AA50 anytime soon (so if you want a place to play Revised for a while, it’d fit the bill): the IAAPA, which can be found at axisandallies.net
This is one of the oldest A&A clubs around, and these folks are so old school that most of the gaming there is still 2nd edition! That’s right, Revised is cutting edge at the IAAPA. However, don’t be too quick to dismiss them, they have some very good players including some very good Revised players. I’ve played in a number of their Revised tournaments (they have three per year) and have never made it to the finals.
Your best games as Germany?
-
another question (if they get annoying……just don’t read :lol:) is it possible to PBF or PBEM with 5 people?
-
another question (if they get annoying……just don’t read :lol:) is it possible to PBF or PBEM with 5 people?
Yea, it’s possible.
Also, with respect to SBR, it takes up too much time. Also it can get extreme after a while. 6 Allied Bombers can equal =32 IPC from Germany every round. And for some reason that AA gun never hits when you’re the one being SBRed.
Much easier to just reduce the cost of the unit, simplify the game and take SBR out. (LL basically killed SBR as well…you do 3 dmg, you take 3dmg.)
-
And, I think, Switch just illistrated the fundamental flaw in the game. How many times a year do YOU pay your income taxes? Why should a nation get 100% of a year’s income off a territory by holding it for a month or two before it’s liberated by the other side?
I really think Mr. Harris needs to address this in Axis and Allies Revised 2nd Edition. Once per cycle you should collect your income and it should come before any other actions. Meanwhile, SBR’s would just push you negative until you collect income. Though, I’m also for reducing the cost on bombers to 10 IPC and doing away with SBRs and dropping their defense to 0 or something.
Considering the income isn’t money, your point makes no sense.
Edit: Just play that the total number of destroyed IPC can’t exceed the amount of territory for all bombers, not just one. Also allow fighters to intecept the bombers. It is way more realistic, both historically and economically.
The Axis lost industry from the B-17’s, and a significant amount. But they were still able to produce 40,000 airplanes in 1944. Meanwhile, the U.S. lost 33% of all built B-17’s.
-
I have no problem adding in Cover Air Patrol to shoot down bombers, but it adds more rules to the game, not less. I was aiming at less.
But we could say max damage of 50% of max production by a capital or 100% of max production of another territory not to exceed 25% of a nations total income per game round. If that’s better then doing away with it entirely.
-
Also, with respect to SBR, it takes up too much time. Also it can get extreme after a while. 6 Allied Bombers can equal =32 IPC from Germany every round. And for some reason that AA gun never hits when you’re the one being SBRed.
Much easier to just reduce the cost of the unit, simplify the game and take SBR out. (LL basically killed SBR as well…you do 3 dmg, you take 3dmg.)
I understand your point of when the allies can afford the bombers but you must understand in WWII bombers did target factories. if a new rule could be introduced to nerf bombers than maybe it would be better or maybe a rule of no more than 12 ipc to a nation. I know if you get bombed by 6 bombers its going to hurt. big time
-
I have no problem adding in Cover Air Patrol to shoot down bombers, but it adds more rules to the game, not less. I was aiming at less.
But we could say max damage of 50% of max production by a capital or 100% of max production of another territory not to exceed 25% of a nations total income per game round. If that’s better then doing away with it entirely.
But it is strategy game. It needs to have many vague, complex rules. Just kidding, though I think it would enhance the game enough. I like the 25% idea, also.
-
Has anyone ever tried only building bombers as USA and just bombing Germany to - 16 per turn because that must be annoying
-
Has anyone ever tried only building bombers as USA and just bombing Germany to - 16 per turn because that must be annoying
Yea, I’ve done it. England/America need to maintain 3 bombers each. Odds are you’ll loose 1 every round which is easily replaced by either nation. Average death: (4 bombers to germany, 2 to s. europe) is about 14dmg to germany, 7 to s. europe or 21 a round. Meanwhile, you use your extra cash to get land units and reclaim Africa and Russia basically gets a walk into Europe. Russia 24 + 38 for Europe = 62 IPC a round income to nail Japan with.
-
My best game as Germany was against the tradition allied strategy of “all forces after germany first”. Consistantly through the game I bought either 1 bomber or 1 fighter per turn and the rest infantry. My conquest of Africa was fairly quick and by the time the Americans had enough force to land (second turn) on me the US could not protect its fleet from my AF in Western that could hit both their navy and troops that had landed. I had taken Africa by the 3rd turn and kept sending 2 pieces a turn into Africa and producing 1 fighter. This may seem like a lot but it had the function of keeping the entire attention of the US and UK because they had to land on me and not the other way around. The rest of my $ went to feed the Russian front, and with the additional IPC from Africa I could afford to fight that to a stand still (the bombers in Western could still strike the Russian forces for offensive power, and I was pretty much matching them with infantry buys).
I was taking on all 3 powers by myself for quite some time. My partner was new at the game and not too good at Japan, but even he was working his way up towards Russia and the allies knew they had to do something. So the US/UK both landed a huge amount of men in Algeria. At that time I sacraficed my entire AF and navy and hit his fleet ignoring the land forces there. The net result was just about total destruction on both sides. I think they walked away with 2 battleships. Although the loss of my coveted AF sucked, it bought me a lot of “alone time” with Russia, and with Japan sneaking up from the east and me buying almost comepletly armor/infantry (with no west wall to protect) Russia fell quickly. I slowed the advance of the allied troops that had landed by placing all of my units 2 spaces from their main force. This ensured a slow advance because they could not Blitz through all of my holdings (my forces in africa could not be destroyed by their armor alone).
-
I’ve heard the 100% armor route is good too. Makes Russia a punching bag, and you really don’t need a navy anyway.
Hmm, Germany getting 8+ tanks a round, Russia making 8- infantry a round….sounds like a good proposition.
-
And when those waves of 8-14 UK/US divisions start hitting, you have very few pieces between you and lost territory/lost capital…
-
Has anyone ever tried only building bombers as USA and just bombing Germany to - 16 per turn because that must be annoying
Yea, I’ve done it. England/America need to maintain 3 bombers each. Odds are you’ll loose 1 every round which is easily replaced by either nation. Average death: (4 bombers to germany, 2 to s. europe) is about 14dmg to germany, 7 to s. europe or 21 a round. Meanwhile, you use your extra cash to get land units and reclaim Africa and Russia basically gets a walk into Europe. Russia 24 + 38 for Europe = 62 IPC a round income to nail Japan with.
Yea you would need to conquer Africa first because otherwise the bombers going to Southern from UK have to fly over WEU which has an AA
-
It also defeats the purpsose of the first 3 BOMs, sicne all they are doing is destroying teh Africa income…
-
If you’re using lend lease then Russia can use bombers too :evil:
-
@ncscswitch:
And when those waves of 8-14 UK/US divisions start hitting, you have very few pieces between you and lost territory/lost capital…
Well, yea, but you’d hopefully crush the Russians under the heel of your boot before America’s forces start comming. It’s going to be at least 3 turns before they can think about landing in force.
-
A 4 division follow up to a 6-8 division UK landing in Turn 2 is pretty nice force… more than Germany is building…
-
@ncscswitch:
A 4 division follow up to a 6-8 division UK landing in Turn 2 is pretty nice force… more than Germany is building…
Where do you plan to land those divisions? Bearing in mind that United Kingdom cannot both make 8 ground units and build the necessary 2-3 transports and try for a carrier on UK1. Just curious.
-
Your logistics skill are lacking…
Here is a sample:
UK1: Buy AC, TRN, 2 INF
Move 1 ARM from ECan to UK
Place the build
UK now has 4 INF, 1 ART, 2 ARM. They have a transport capacity of 6 divisions. They also have 3 air divisions that can be used.You will notice that i said 6-8 dvisions, because you CAN get more divisions, but it changes the UK1 build to include another TRN.
As for WHERE those landings can occur…
the UK TRNs, depending on build location and UK1 movement, can occur in full force anywhere from Algeria to Archangel from the following SZs (depending on naval presence, etc.): 12, 7, 6, 5, 3, 4. They can do a 4 division landing as far away as SZ23 or SZ14, again depending on UK1 movment and other naval presence. -
Yea, and it appeared that you said you were transporting 6 UK Divisions on Round 1. I was curious as to how you were doing that. That’s all. I guess you meant to say prepare to transport 6 UK Divisions on Round 1, actually do it on Round 2.
-
It is not what I “meant” to say, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
A 4 division follow up to a 6-8 division UK landing in Turn 2 is pretty nice force
And to add in the previous context…
That is a UK2 landing of 6-8 divisions, followed by a US2 landing of 4 divisions.
Really Jen, with this, and your other posts elsewhere, you need to spend a bit more time reading posts before you reply to them.
Suggested Topics
