AA50 National Advantages

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

Okay, but how do you get to Karelia to hold it? It can only buy two units a turn to place there as Russia, and to get from Moscow to Karelia requires going through either Belorussia (a dreaded “$1 territory” that, according to you, should not be fought for) or Archangel. I suppose you could do the later, but if you’re willing to fight for Archangel, why not Belorussia, which directly borders Moscow and is on the German’s critical path from Berlin -> Moscow?

As I mentioned you stack Archangel on R1 and buy two armor. You could buy three if you drop the two artillery down to infantry but personally I like the artillery for Caucasus for the southern defense/push.

Also why TANKs? ART are the more economical purchase for offense because they boost the firepower of paired INF.
2 INF/2 ART = 14 IPC, 4 HP, 8 Punch (offense and defense)
compare with 3 TANK = 15 IPC, 3 HP, 9 Punch (offense and defense)
I understand mixing in TANKs if you’ve hit > 35 IPC (the point you’d be able to build 5 INF/5 ART), but for the bulk of the game I don’t see your income getting that high. If USSR is consistently getting over 35 IPC then you’re “winning” (which lines up with my original post that says USSR should start adding TANKs once they’ve reached a winning position.

Yes, the two INF/ART pair are a better offensive buy but the two armor is a better defensive buy AND more importantly the mobility gets the armor to Karelia on R2.

Going purely by the numbers, INF/ART are better than TANKs odds-wise because they have more punch and more HP for less money. However, when you start factoring in your limited deployment spots for USSR (10-12), things start getting different. At that point, since USSR can generally count on getting their 10 IPC bonus for no foreign units + hold Archangel, it might be feasible to mix in a TANK or two. To me, it’s all about whether USSR’s income is over that 35 IPC level (since at 35 IPC exactly, you can buy 5 INF/5 ART).

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

As you say, rather than defending Karelia directly, USSR can stack a neighboring territory and go for a counterattack on R2 (when the German Air Force won’t be present). Let’s look into this scenario:
USSR can stack either Belorussia or Archangel to try setting up a dead-zone on Archangel. If they stack Belorussia, you can dive on their stack with extremely variable odds depending how G1 went + how USSR distributed its forces. Assuming that they either stacked Archangel or you just don’t like the odds at Belorussia, you can walk into Karelia here no problem. Using your R1 build, the biggest Russian response I was able to get was 12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. the German force of 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK. Of course, the German INF number is variable based on G1, but lets break down the calcs:
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 9 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 14% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 6 German Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 8 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 26% USSR win/1% draw/73% German win - Average result = 5 German Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 7 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 40% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 2 USSR Tanks survive
12 INF/2 ART/3 TANK Vs. 6 INF/2 ART/6 TANK - 56% USSR win/1% draw/58% German win - Average result = 3 USSR Tanks survive
So, if Germany had particularly poor luck in the opening, then USSR can block an advance into Karelia on G2, but even in the scenarios where USSR wins, the odds are effectively a coin flip.
Germany can likely hold Karelia for G2 and G3, but by G4 they may need to withdraw in the face of UK’s naval buildup + how the rest of the game is going. At that point we’re way too far out to make concrete calculations.

Well that is a very interesting opening. Do you vacate Norway completely? What about the fighter that attacked the SZ2 BB? Do you leave it undefended?

Conditionally. It depends on how many INF Germany loses in the Baltic States fight in-particular. If things go absolutely sideways and they lose 2 INF then Norway needs to be 100% evacuated. I understand that this risks losing the SZ2 FTR to a British air attack but they’d need to send either 1 FTR/1 BOMB or send in a loaded transport from Canada + 1-2 FTR). If UK sends forces to Norway it (hopefully) means they’re missing out on either sinking the Baltic Fleet or are delayed a turn in sending their BOMB towards the center of the map (which is a more optimal position for it). Ideally, no INF are lost and you only need to send 1 of the 2 INF to Finland.

If you were to push that many infantry against Karelia than yes, it would take a bit for Russia to take it back. Also, your 4 armor + 1 infantry against East Poland is interesting. I guess you don’t worry about the 16% chance you lose an armor there?

Not particularly. That’s like saying don’t try for Egypt G1 because you only have a ~76% chance to actually take the territory (my math might be bad on that calc because I don’t have the setup in front of me right now), If that chance actually occurred taking/holding Karelia would probably be a bust and you’d have to shift to a different game plan.

Of course, if you are sending that much firepower north than as Russia I would push south to get to Bulgaria and the Russian $10 NO.

That possibility is part of while 4 of the TANKs go to East Poland instead of 100% all-in at Baltic States. If on R1 USSR positions its forces in either a balanced position or with a disposition towards the south, Germany is free to adjust how many troops its sending to Caucasus. Some of Italy’s started forces can also be used to plug the gap, as you don’t need to start spending 100% of their income on defending Rome/France until ~Round 3.

@andrewaagamer said in Allies strategy:

@domanmacgee said in Allies strategy:

You know AA50’s game flow very well (as demonstrated earlier in this thread in a post I didn’t respond to). Japan is the one who ultimately takes Moscow in most games rather than Germany. The role of Germany/Italy is to make as much money as possible during the early game and then turtle until Japan wins the game. My main gripe with NOs (and your Russian strategy of not actively fighting for space on the board) is that the easy money Germany gets makes this task much too easy.

I think we are in agreement the Allies definitely don’t want Germany taking and holding Karelia and/or Caucasus for any length of time; that is bad news. Our styles are different. I want lots of ground troops to eventually knock them out and your style seems to push for a faster more aggressive strategy that does not have as much firepower in the long run but has more in the short run.

Pretty much. The way I see it is that if USSR can punch Germany in the nose enough times during the opening turns, then their income will be stunted enough that UK/US have an easier time winning the war on their side of the map. Even if this causes USSR to lose enough units over time that Japan has an easier time taking Moscow, the Allies can usually still win as long as they take Berlin on or before the round that Japan takes Moscow.

So the rules me and my crew have been using for the last 5 or 6 years have worked for us so far.
Atomic bombs are a two part tech: require both heavy bombers and atomic bomb its self. Its a time consuming and expensive proccess. Although it is not listed here we have contemplated adding resource requirment for radioactive materials. Listed bellow is how our text appears in weapons and development:

*Enables nuclear Bombs. It costs 5 IPCs to build each atomic bomb. Must be loaded at an airfield aboard a Heavy Bomber. An atomic
bomb run can only be shot at by Anti aircraft fire. Each bomb may be used in one of 3 ways.

Infrastructure target: automatically destroy a grey infrastructure target of your choosing as well as roll a D-6 to decide
how many enemy units die. Strategic Nuclear Bombing: roll a d-10 to decide IPC property value to be destroyed and a d-6 to decide how many
enemy units die. The property value will increase by 1 IPC per turn until it is returned to its starting value. Naval Bombing: Automatically destroy your primary target, regardless of hit points; also roll a d-6 to decide how many
ships are destroyed. You may not damage ships.

(Explanations not in text)
.Bomb is destroyed from its single use
.no limit on bomb stockpile or building
.one bomb per heavy bomber
.loading a bomb consumes bomber movment for that round
.bombs can only be loaded at airfields
. a stategicly nuked territory can never deplete value below zero. Every following round its value will climb by 1ipc value per round until it reaches its original value

You’ll find out best with play test.

@Flying:

I just want to say that me and my in-laws have been playing this way for awhile and it plays very well IMO. USA without +30 would play horrible(don’t even have to think about it). Anyone else play this way?

I doubt many have.  It’s an interesting idea - what has the balance of wins and losses been?

I’d personally also include objectives related to trade/diplomacy.  The Japanese FIC objective prior to war, the German trade objective with Russia prior to war, and possibly the Russian lendlease objective, as those all affect how Barbarossa and the Pacific war play out, encouraging (or discouraging) when the axis acts.  Otherwise it seems as though it’s going to be a J1 attack (japan needs to make some gains early or they don’t have enough momentum, and the german/russian condition makes it more interesting as to when to start barbarossa - G2 or G3?

This may be better in House Rules, however, and will probably be moved.

These rules use the OOB maps for AA50 and 42. They are current files.

@Argothair Funny thing is, this is a example of an idea coming along early - Oztea’s Garrisons are mostly the same thing as A&A&Z’s Recruitment Centers. Main differences being that Garrisons can make more than just infantry and when Recruitment Centers make infantry, they do it at normal price. Of course, the fact that this thread is 10 years old may mean that it’s just you and me in here for now.

-Midnight_Reaper

Lets just say the rules you posted 1,2,3 were basicially similar. AS far as the Chinese placement the idea was to prevent a wall type of atmosphere where the Chinese would stack all the pieces in choke points.

Historically they were quasi military forces which largely came from the various regions of China, and not organized in such a fashion to move around and conduct major campaigns because the logistics were primitive to say the least. Thats why China got passed over as a proper nation, because they were not modernized at all.

So to not include some notion of preventing stacking you can readily see what will happen.

The rule book on China is deliberately over explaining a simple concept. You just cant place new infantry in a territory unless it has lass than 3 infantry total.

The other rule is Chinese cant leave greater china, which includes the 2 Japan controlled territories and Kwangtung as well as original Chinese territories, and in the case of Kwangtung they don’t get money if they take it.

Thats it.  Its like 4 sentences at most the entire rules for China. If you just rewrite the rules i am sure anybody can get the page down to a few sentences.

yea i added in planes as attackers but if non transports are in the sea zone, they must attack as normal as per OOB.