Why are the allies so gimped lately? Why transports suck?

So far, I disagree with what’s stated above.

I’ve played 5 games as Allies and only lost 1 - the Allies have some really tough challenges but so do they have already on AA50, AA42 1st Ed and Global.

The main problem with playing the Allies right now is that people have no idea of what strategies work or not because of the different SZs and the 2 additional ICs. For the Axis the choices are almost the same (specially Germany) so it’s easier to play Axis and win, specially if you’re going KGF.

To me it is a challenge to figure out the best Allied play. How to set up the US shuck with the different new SZs on the Atlantic. Or how to best use the UK Indian Ocean fleet.

Just looking at the game and criticizing rejecting the new features/rules just because they are different from previous or not up to our individual expectations, or we don’t want to learn new strats, doesn’t really help improve your gameplay, IMO.

I think this is more balanced than 42.1, I’m just saying having CVs with two hits would be great (take a beating like the Yorktown/Saratoga). 
The only problem is that it seems a KJF strat seems more successful than a KGF at the moment, but I can be wrong on this.

@Mallery29:

I think this is more balanced than 42.1, I’m just saying having CVs with two hits would be great (take a beating like the Yorktown/Saratoga). 
The only problem is that it seems a KJF strat seems more successful than a KGF at the moment, but I can be wrong on this.

2nd Edition actually favors more the Allies on Asia than the 1st Ed, if you are trying KGF. Japan will eventually take over the Indian IC but the more units the UK manages to build the better overall for the Allies, since its focus should  be first on taking that IC rather than going after Russia.
The big issue is figuring out the US shuck since it is more similar to Global than anything else because of the UK not being into range of Eastern US and the distances have increased. And where exactly are the best landing spots.

@Hobbes:

The big issue is figuring out the US shuck since it is more similar to Global than anything else because of the UK not being into range of Eastern US and the distances have increased. And where exactly are the best landing spots.

Isn’t the first place to look for US troops to shuck from Eastern Canada. They could ship out via SZ 10 –> SZ 8 (land in France or Northwestern Europe) or SZ 10 --> SZ 13 (land in Gibraltar or Morocco).

@Hobbes:

So far, I disagree with what’s stated above.

I’ve played 5 games as Allies and only lost 1 - the Allies have some really tough challenges but so do they have already on AA50, AA42 1st Ed and Global.

The main problem with playing the Allies right now is that people have no idea of what strategies work or not because of the different SZs and the 2 additional ICs. For the Axis the choices are almost the same (specially Germany) so it’s easier to play Axis and win, specially if you’re going KGF.

To me it is a challenge to figure out the best Allied play. How to set up the US shuck with the different new SZs on the Atlantic. Or how to best use the UK Indian Ocean fleet.

Just looking at the game and criticizing rejecting the new features/rules just because they are different from previous or not up to our individual expectations, or we don’t want to learn new strats, doesn’t really help improve your gameplay, IMO.

I completely agree with Hobbes. My group has never had a problem with voles lettered wanting to play both sides. Players rarely play the same nation/side twice in a row.

And for what it’s worth. I think the aa50 transport rules were one of the best changes A&A has ever made. And let’s face it, aa50 including its transport rules are pretty near perfect. Any game that emulates it so closely has a leg up on any game trying to emulate AAR.

Just my two opinionated cents.

Transports should be true combat vessels…something like 2-2-2-8 units for the extra combat punch.

Oh wait. NM.

The old rules regarding AP were needed for games like Milton Bradley since it didn’t have all the naval ships, but now we got cruisers and destroyers.

AP’s as fodder with these new units is silly.

@UrJohn:

@Hobbes:

The big issue is figuring out the US shuck since it is more similar to Global than anything else because of the UK not being into range of Eastern US and the distances have increased. And where exactly are the best landing spots.

Isn’t the first place to look for US troops to shuck from Eastern Canada. They could ship out via SZ 10 –> SZ 8 (land in France or Northwestern Europe) or SZ 10 --> SZ 13 (land in Gibraltar or Morocco).

Morocco is crucial

The power of ARM is in the 2 MOV. Compare price to FTR @ 10 IPC for the same ATK on land attacks, and you’ll see that @ 6 IPC ARM is a reasonable deal in the right situations. At 5 IPC ARM was underpriced, and it caused ‘too many’ degenerate all ARM buys.

@UrJohn:

‘too many’ degenerate all ARM buys.

“Dude, that buy was just degenerated”
“Man, don’t degenerate yourself by getting so much tanks”
“That move is an act of degeneration…”

Love the expression  :mrgreen:

LOL

@Cow:

well the most cost effective attack army was still infantry/arty. I’d rather go back to the 3/2 armor @ 5, it promotes more action.

Besides all tanks with no cannon fodder, seldom works out for people, I don’t see why you would complain. If that is fun for someone to buy all tanks and slam it at russia or something, then that is fine. That person already has a high probability of losing, why punish him further?

I can see global making tanks 5 to keep russia alive, because of the pacific oriented nature of that game.

I get that for axis and allies to improve on previous 1942 iterations, they have to make the game more dynamic, but at the same time you can’t take all the action away and expect people to get on board.

I have the experience of playing Classic with 6 IPC armor before it was dropped down to 5 on Revised and I don’t honestly feel that it changes the ability to send armor stacks. You have 30 IPC to spend on armor, you buy 5 now instead of 6.
What it does is to make players think twice about spending so much money on armor and using artillery instead (which many people only bought if they had that extra 1 IPC around). And since on 2nd Ed. the Axis can win without having to conquer Moscow it also opens the game to other ways of winning rather than the old Japanese Tank Drive To Moscow (JTDTM).
Plus, it affects the Allies as well. I used to have at least a stack of 10 Soviet T-34s to act as a mobile quick reserve. Now it’s only down to 4, 5… comrades have become poor… poor comrades :cry:

@Cow:

classic was 5 ipc for an armor, they were 3/2 units, which were only purchased before an attack. Karelia was really close for germany and vice versa for russia. So it would turn into an infantry slugfest. If I was going to attack karelia, I’d buy armor the round before and hit it with all my might and hope for the best. Since the game is pretty much won or lost in karelia.

Ah, that was the difference, the defense at 2. I stand corrected. But yeah, it was pretty much decided on Karelia… once the Germans got a foothold and were able to produce then it was pretty much done.
The distance from Karelia and Germany is still the same though, although there’s now 1 more space between the former and Russia.

@UrJohn:

At 5 IPC ARM was underpriced, and it caused ‘too many’ degenerate all ARM buys.