National Advantages

[Wazzup]

French Resistance is not just on UKs turn, it could be USA capturing West Europe and the UK still get inf there on USAs turn.  LHTR state that allied just needs to take it.
Radar could be used in India too, to make the Zeros think a bit more before flying into/over India.
Mideast oil offers flexibility in Uk early on.  It allows for your RAF to get in better position for those early rounds.
Russian Winter can make the Germans stop in their tracks.

Nonagression/Russian Winter combined with Enigma/Colonial Garrison with Chinese Divisions and Mechanized Inf can make a big headache for Japan.

[Jennifer]

Actually, British AA Guns only get the bonus from Radar on territories that start brown.  So if you capture W. Europe and put a British AA Gun there, you don’t get the bonus.  That’s why I discount the tech.

If I could use any British AA gun anywhere and get the bonus, it would be rather nice.  Then again, Moscow would have a British AA Gun on it!

[newpaintbrush]

@OutsideLime:

Britain’s NAs aren’t useless, but 3 of the 6 are one-time-use.  Once you trigger 'em, they’re gone.  That puts a little tension on the UK player to make the correct choice about when to use them, and also means that have relatively fewer advantages once they do.  In general, Britain’s NAs are meh.

WAT?

Mideast Oil - I like this one, because it allows surprise defensive appearances by Fighters halfway across the world.  Bombers get unbelievable reach.  You can take off from London, bomb Moscow, refuel in Persia, and land in Australia all in one turn.

You’re going to use UK bombers to bomb Moscow?  HERETIC!

Colonial Garrison.  A double-edged sword.  You can put down a complex, but it could get gobbled up and used against you if you don’t devote a lot of resources to protect it.  I would prefer this NA if it were a free Complex one time during the game, not necessarily at game start.

If you start popping stuff out in India on UK1, it is FAR more difficult for Japan to take.  Three more infantry makes a big big difference.

Radar.  Useful, if there were any British territories with an AA that regularly got attacked by Axis air.

What, like London and Calcutta?  German fighters provide the big added kick against London, Japanese fighters provide the big added kick against Calcutta.  Radar is actually a g****** pain in the a** for the Axis.

French Resistance.  Three lousy infantry.  Egh.  That should slightly slow down the German retake.

True, it’s not a BIG difference.  But if it can make a VITAL difference.  Capture, add in infantry fodder, add in US fighters.

Joint Strike.  I have yet to plan and execute a proper D-day using this.  I’m sure it will be a fantastic moment when I do.

Joint Strike is pretty broken.  It’s like Voltron. (edit) “broken” - that is, game breakingly good.  Like, um, Voltron! (/edit)

Enigma Decoded.  My favourite of UK’s NAs.  I love setting traps for poor sucker Germany.  Once you’ve used it to devastating effect, it takes on a good psychological value in future games, too.  A flotilla of undefended transports won’t get attacked by German air, because I have a few combat-ships next door and Enigma Decoded in my pocket.

Germany, on the other hand, is all action all the time, and becomes a combat beast when all 6 are turned on.  Fortress Europe and Atlantic Wall together mean that _every single German unit defending against amphibious assaults in grey territories defends at 3 or better._  Not too shabby.  Luftwaffe Divebombers and Panzerblitz together means that first-cycle massacres are the norm, and that expensive German equipment doesn’t remain in range of a counterattack.  U-Boat Interdiction and Wolfpacks are not ideal, since subs are not such a mainstream purchase for Germany, but when they’re active, you’ll find the Allied player quite concerned with their effects.

If I have a LOT of stuff defending in grey territories, that just makes it so I lose slower.  Same thing for building mass subs; you can slow down the Allied Atlantic fleet, but then Russia presses very hard.  Panzerblitz frees up your fighters, so it’s pretty sweet.

Generally, the Allied NAs help the Allies to ATTACK, or are significantly powerful on defense.  That is, Allied NAs help the Allies WIN.  Generally, the Axis NAs just make it so it takes longer for the Allies to kill them.  That is, Axis NAs do NOT help the Axis win; they just make it take longer for the Axis to LOSE.  IMHO of course.

[Jennifer]

I disagree on a few points.

Joint Strike is awesome!  What other NA allows you to hit the Axis across the globe simultaniously chosing the weaker of the two powers to take the brunt of the impact resulting in massively inflating one power?  You have to set it up right though.  Set up at least 2 major engagements, and I like 3 minor engagements as well, but the more the merrier!

Also, UBoat INterdiction has multiple facets to it.  1)  Submarines are an offensive threat against the Allies.  2)  Submarines make good fodder to sink Allied ships when coupled with aircraft.  3)  They EACH take $1 from both USA and UK each round until sunk.  3)  $40 IPC income - $16 IPC for subs = $24 IPC that’s teh same as Russia’s income.  You already start iwth a bigger army and airforce, so you really only need to replace infantry losses for a couple of rounds.  After 2 rounds you’ll have 6-7 submarines (depending on the status of Submarine SZ 8.)  That’s 12-14 IPC a round the allies lose.  Or roughly, the equivalent of losing Africa (which they should not have at this point either.)  What is that, like 27 IPC give or take that England is down?  Out of 30?  Do you seriously consider them a threat at this point?

[newpaintbrush]

@Jennifer:

I disagree on a few points.

Joint Strike is awesome!  What other NA allows you to hit the Axis across the globe simultaniously chosing the weaker of the two powers to take the brunt of the impact resulting in massively inflating one power?  You have to set it up right though.  Set up at least 2 major engagements, and I like 3 minor engagements as well, but the more the merrier!

Also, UBoat INterdiction has multiple facets to it.  1)  Submarines are an offensive threat against the Allies.  2)  Submarines make good fodder to sink Allied ships when coupled with aircraft.  3)  They EACH take $1 from both USA and UK each round until sunk.  3)  $40 IPC income - $16 IPC for subs = $24 IPC that’s teh same as Russia’s income.  You already start iwth a bigger army and airforce, so you really only need to replace infantry losses for a couple of rounds.  After 2 rounds you’ll have 6-7 submarines (depending on the status of Submarine SZ 8.)  That’s 12-14 IPC a round the allies lose.  Or roughly, the equivalent of losing Africa (which they should not have at this point either.)  What is that, like 27 IPC give or take that England is down?  Out of 30?  Do you seriously consider them a threat at this point?

1.  By “broken”, I didn’t mean “broke down”, but like “game breakingly good”.

2.  Subs do not invade territories.  The Allies can fly around and blow up subs.  So basically, the subs cruise around getting blown up.  If you mass subs at Baltic, the destroyer/transport does not protect against heavy air.  If you mass subs at Mediterranean, the battleship/transport is not optimal against heavy air.  If you just move the subs around, the Allies have many places to land fighters, from where they can attack the subs.  Either way, you have to spend more IPCs on a carrier, or you have to unite the fleets.

3.  Out of the box NAs have the Allies lose 1 IPC per sub.

[Wazzup]

don’t forget if there is that Joint Strike, UB inderdiction gets creamated.

[Jennifer]

Ok, misunderstood ya then.  Thought you were saying Joint Strike sucked.  It has very useful applications, as Wazzup says, it works splendidly against Uboat interdiction.

And the submarines in SZ 5 are safe from allied aircraft.  You want to suicide a fighter for a submarine?  Okay, so not only do I get my 2 IPC out of the allies in the loss of the fighter, but the allies also have to live without a fighter or spend 10 more IPC to get another one.  No skin off my nose. :)

But if you worry about it, why not build your submarines in SZ 14?  Now you have a Battleship, Transport to protect them.  Or, if you MUST, get a carrier in Round 1, then 2 submarines in round 2 and 1 in round 3, 1 in round 4?

[U-505]

You could always place limits on the NA’s to make them more palatable. Like 2 superfortresses max on the board at one time.

The best solution I could think of was to assign a point value to each NA and then when you play each Country gets so many points to spend and with maybe a community point pool for each side to use as well. That way, if your side wants only a couple of the more powerful ones the other side can bulk up on a bunch of cheaper ones to even it out. Just a thought.

[Jennifer]

I think LHTR did a lot to fix up the NAs, though it was mostly nerfing the allies, not buffing the axis.

However, the Non-Aggression Pact is a double edged sword.  If Russia attacks it disapears, this prevents Russia from invading an abandoned Manchuria.  Likewise, Japan doesn’t need to invade Russia.  SFE, Yak, Evenki and Bury together are only 4 IPC.  India alone is 3 IPC!  With non-Agro pact in place, I’m more inclined to build an IC in Borneo and an IC in FIC and base my operations from the Indian Ocean then I am to base them from Japan and slug it out the hard way.

So, basically, this is a NA for both Japan and Russia and a hindrance to England.

[goldenbearflyer]

I prefer to limit NAs to one per nation.  If I can only have one, I vote for:

Russia – Lend-Lease.  Yes, even nerfed, as Jennifer says, it can make a big difference.  I totally agree Non-Aggression Pact is a double-edged sword and potentially harmful to the Allies.  The rest of 'em produce big yawns.

Germany – I like Panzerblitz, but others are cool too.  Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber is very tempting.  U-Boat Interdiction or Wolf Packs would be fun to try, but I think subs are too easy to kill.  Atlantic Wall and Fortress Europe sound OK, but they are kind of boring.  Germany’s NA choice depends so much on style of play, and I am not even clear on how to play Germany, so this is a tough choice!  :-D

UK – first, can we agree French Resistance is very lame?  I mean, 3inf does not come close to most other NA.  Radar seems quite weak.  I can see how a clever player might make good use of Mid-East Oil or Enigma Decoded, but the latter is too limted as a one-shot use.  That leaves Colonial Garrison, which not only is worth 15IPCs but is especially broken considering the game favors the Allies in the first place.  I would love to play Colonial Garrison but would feel like I’m cheating!  That leaves Joint Strike, which earns my vote because it captures the true spirit of what “the Allies” are about, and it is not broken because it’s a one-shot use.  Don’t you hate when the US is ready for Normandy, but UK on that turn was not quite ready to go, but together you think you have a chance, so you UK declares Joint Strike and you’re all happy now?  Come on, don’t you love that feeling?!

Japan – first time my friend and I played Revised, at a convention, I was G and he was J, and our opponents LAUGHED OUT LOUD when we even mentioned Kamikaze.  They practically begged us to take it!!!  We did not seriously consider it, to say the least.  Kaiten Torpedoes sounds OK until you realize after UK1 you may not even have any subs on the board, and if you build them the Allies may be squirming with delight.  Dug-In Defenders – Huh?  OK if you have already given up.  Banzai is too much of a double-edged sword; what, only good if I don’t use arm, ftr, or anything else I normally like to use when attacking?  That leaves Tokyo Express and Most Powerful Battleships.  The latter is actually quite weak, because it affects 2 units, and if you build more, again the Allies will probably thank you for not building 3 trn.  Tokyo Express wins by default?  Again, affects very few units.  This is a lousy lot of NA.  I guess I would commit hari-kari, eat my double-edged sword and take Banzai.  Not sure about this at all.

US – At first I like Mechanized Infantry the best; very nice.  Then I realized Superfortress OOB was broken.  Even nerfed, Superfortress means what, a 1 in 18 chance of a hit by AA, is that right?  I hate when my bomber gets shot down, so I may still go with that.  Chinese Divisions, hmmm, too boring.  I don’t even understand Island Bases, could someone explain that one?  Fast Carriers, well, too limited given that after J1 you probably have no AC.  Marines are cool, no doubt, semper fi, so that’s a possibility.

[General_D.Fox]

Island bases is kind of tricky.  Let me attempt to use an example to explain.  Let’s say you have 2 US fighters in Hawaii.  And you want to attack two spaces over.  Now, normally you would count 1 move into the sea zone after taking off from Hawaii and then go from there. In this example, that would be 1 space in to 52, and then 2 spaces to wherever you’re attacking.  Unless you had a carrier present to go pick up those fly boys, they are not going to make it home.  Not so with Island Bases.  Instead, you wouldn’t even count flying out of the sea zone surrounding Hawaii as a move.  Instead, the next sea zone you encounter ends up being move 1, and the second sea zone, where the enemy is, is move 2.  You kill them, so you turn around and go home, with your 3rd move into the sea zone connected to 52, and then move 4 is the sea zone 52/Hawaii.  So basicaly, any island in the Pacific becomes one giant landing pad/take off strip for your fly boys and bomber men. 
Is this clear enough?  :-P

[goldenbearflyer]

@General_D.Fox:

Island bases is kind of tricky. Let me attempt to use an example to explain. Let’s say you have 2 US fighters in Hawaii. And you want to attack two spaces over. Now, normally you would count 1 move into the sea zone after taking off from Hawaii and then go from there. In this example, that would be 1 space in to 52, and then 2 spaces to wherever you’re attacking. Unless you had a carrier present to go pick up those fly boys, they are not going to make it home. Not so with Island Bases. Instead, you wouldn’t even count flying out of the sea zone surrounding Hawaii as a move. Instead, the next sea zone you encounter ends up being move 1, and the second sea zone, where the enemy is, is move 2. You kill them, so you turn around and go home, with your 3rd move into the sea zone connected to 52, and then move 4 is the sea zone 52/Hawaii. So basicaly, any island in the Pacific becomes one giant landing pad/take off strip for your fly boys and bomber men.
Is this clear enough? :-P

Yes, thank you, that’s clear.  Hmmm, pretty cool, worth consideration.  It’s kind of like long-range fighers in the Pacific, in effect.  Except you would have had to conduct some island-hopping first.

[OutsideLime]

Even nerfed, Superfortress means what, a 1 in 18 chance of a hit by AA, is that right?

AA has a 1-in-12 chance to hit a LHTR Superfortress, as opposed to the 1-in-6 chance to hit normal fighters & bombers.

~Josh

[Wazzup]

wait a second…
I can’t remember what the formula is, but it’s something like this:
need:
1/6 probabilty for 1.
2/6 probability for 1 or 2.
to get probability of both I think you multiply them together:
1/6*2/6 = 2/36 or 1/18 chance.

I think that’s what he used.

[Jennifer]

Yup, about a 6% chance or 1 in 18.

Honestly, Superfortresses should be normal bombers that do 2D6 damage instead of 1D6.  Note, Heavy Bombers do 1D6+1 SBR damage or 2D6 take the best roll normal damage.

If you combined Superfortresses and Heavy Bombers (B-52s???) it would be 2D6+2 SBR damage or 4D6 take the best 2 rolls normal damage.

But your AA Guns would still have a 1 in 6 chance of shooting down the enemy bomber!

[OutsideLime]

It’s 1 in 12.

There are 36 possible outcomes when rolling 2 dice.

1&1, 1&2, 1&3, 1&4, 1&5, 1&6
2&1, 2&2, 2&3, 2&4, 2&5, 2&6
3&1, 3&2, 3&3, 3&4, 3&5, 3&6
4&1, 4&2, 4&3, 4&4, 4&5, 4&6
5&1, 5&2, 5&3, 5&4, 5&5, 5&6
6&1, 6&2, 6&3, 6&4, 6&5, 6&6

Only three of those outcomes result in a shot-down Superfortress under LHTR.  1&1, 1&2, or 2&1.

3 in 36 = 1 in 12, or roughly 8.3%

~Josh

[goldenbearflyer]

3 in 36 = 1 in 12, or roughly 8.3%

Yeah, I see that now.  And I thought I still liked those odds, but after reading Caspain Sub policy papers I decided to try and avoid sbr unless it’s the endgame and my bomber has nothing better to do.

Honestly, I wrote my “review” of the NAs before I ever looked at Caspian Sub, but I was pleased to see that I evaluated most of them about the same way as the policy paper.  But the way the policy paper quantifies the Allied advantage from NAs, it pretty much convinced me to avoid using them at least until I learn more about the basic strategies of the game.

[Aretaku]

My group plays with LHTR rules…our current game has the following NA setup.

Russia
Lend-Lease
Trans-Siberian railway

UK
Radar
French Resistance (USED)

US
Mechanized Infantry
Fast Carriers

---

Germany (Me)
Fortress Europe
Atlantic Wall
Wolfpacks

Japan
Banzai Infantry
Dug In Defenders
Most Powerful Battleships

---

Analysis…

Allies went KGF, and despite the defensive advantages, a constant flow of US/UK fighters to Russia for Lend-lease conversion, coupled with the lack of an offensive NA for Germany, spelt the end of German expansion after US/UK got their transport chains running. Even with the amphib bonus of Atlantic Wall, the Allies have had little trouble landing at will anywhere but Berlin.

Germany now only owns Berlin and it’s African territories (liberated by Japan, which owns the rest of Africa)

Railway, Radar and Carriers haven’t even come into play…but the Allies didn’t even need 'em. All they needed was Lend-Lease and Mechanized Infantry…the rest was just extra.

Japan has not made much use of anything but his battleships, which have done some bombarding. His NAs really haven’t aided him in his drive for Moscow.

It’s pretty much a stalemate at this point. Berlin and Moscow have both been taken and retaken, and it’s a big fat stalemate with me unable to do anything but wait for Japan to save me.  :-P

Oh… and don’t knock Kamikaze/Kaitens. They can be used either while attacking or defending, and while they are automatically lost, YOU choose the casualties. It can be great for selectively targeting loaded enemy transports, carriers far from land, or sinking pesky battleships. I have seen these NA’s used to GREAT effect, so don’t underestimate them!

[Jennifer]

Well, if your Lend-Lease is LHTR, you can only convert 1 ground unit from each nation to Russian.  A strong effect on the NA.

Honestly, shouldn’t ENGLAND be the recipient of Lend-Lease???  And then, only from America’s equipment (not personnel, aka no infnatry donations, but fighters, bombers, boats and tanks are okay.)

[goldenbearflyer]

@Jennifer:

Well, if your Lend-Lease is LHTR, you can only convert 1 ground unit from each nation to Russian. A strong effect on the NA.

Honestly, shouldn’t ENGLAND be the recipient of Lend-Lease??? And then, only from America’s equipment (not personnel, aka no infnatry donations, but fighters, bombers, boats and tanks are okay.)

Good point.  If the NA weren’t already heavily favoring the Allies, I would trade something like Radar for the option of getting Lend-Lease for UK.

If US has the option of Mechanized Infantry, should Germany have that option as well?