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

@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.

Hitler is also pissed about the 6 IPC cost:

Hitler rants about A&A Spring 1942, 2nd Edition

@Hobbes:

Hitler is also pissed about the 6 IPC cost:

Hitler rants about A&A Spring 1942, 2nd Edition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3_RZ9LmZ2I

Bwah-ha-ha!! That was awesome…

@Cow:

The best part was the paper ic / aa gun rant. I hate paper units too, it looks ridiculous next to all that plastic.

Opps. I replaced that part on the new version (link above)… please tell if you prefer the first version.

So far my group has played 2 games of 1942 2E. Both resulted in Axis victories, but that may just be that the Axis players are a little stronger than the Allied players. So far, the same people played the same countries in both games. With Global 40, we take turns playing different countries so no one is Axis or Allied every game. We’re going to try that out for '42 2e in future games.

As for 1941, we’ve played 4 games so far. Well, actually about 3 1/2 because we had to cut one game short. Of the 3 complete games, 2 were Axis victories and 1 was Allied victory. The Allied victory took much longer than the Axis victories, something like 12-13 rounds. The Axis victories took roughly 5-7 rounds each.
I’ve found the same for Global 40. Most Axis victories run 8 or 9 rounds while Allied victories usually take 13 rounds or more. I would imagine we probably won’t see any “quick” Allied victories unless the Axis make a really big blunder. I remeber one game where all three Axis tried a gamble of taking out the USA and poured pretty much all their resources for the first three rounds into this plan. It first started going bad when France didn’t fall in round 1. When the attack on USA did come, it failed miserably and the US was still in the game. Because Germany and Japan put so much into this plan, they were weak everywhere else. China and India tromped Japan in Asia while the USSR steamrolled Germany in eastern Europe. That was one Allied victory that didn’t take too long, less than 10 rounds.

i’m considering just HRing a transport defense. they can be fodder and every group of 2 trannies defend at a 1. so unescorted singles are a free kill, groups of 2 get to roll for one 1 and as soon as it’s down to one tranny it’s essentially a freebee. If tye trannies are w/ a fleet they are fodder till the last lone tranny, which is a freebee. Get it? What do ya’ll think? Best of both world’s imo.

@knp7765:

The Allied victory took much longer than the Axis victories, something like 12-13 rounds. The Axis victories took roughly 5-7 rounds each

I also share this idea, that Allied victories take longer than Axis ones. I felt it already on 1st Ed., where the Allies  win by securing Africa and earning more than Axis while preventing Russia from falling.

The game flow of 2nd Edition further enhances this. The Axis can achieve a VC victory easier than the Allies (the Allies need to conquer 3 VCs and retain all of their starting ones) and during the first rounds the Axis’ objective is basically to use their advantage on starting units to increase their income.
The Allies need to stop the Axis from reaching parity income levels and Japan has a lot more difficulty to increase its income here. If they are successful during the 1-5 game rounds in doing so afterwards the game balance switches since eventually it becomes impossible for defeat the Allies superior numbers.

@Cow:

I also share this idea, that Allied victories take longer than Axis ones. I felt it already on 1st Ed., where the Allies  win by securing Africa and earning more than Axis while preventing Russia from falling.

Look most games are not played the way you play it.

Speaking frankly, if you review your own thread you will find that it is you, not Hobbes who is the minority. I am in no way commenting on the validity or invalidity of your strategy. I’m just pointing out that your assumptions of what “most” players do have been consistently inaccurate. Your gaming group is obviously not a reflection of the A&A gaming community as a whole.

@Cow:

I also share this idea, that Allied victories take longer than Axis ones. I felt it already on 1st Ed., where the Allies  win by securing Africa and earning more than Axis while preventing Russia from falling.

omg I get it now, you always played the income game in revised.

Look most games are not played the way you play it.

Russians charge full steam. buys 4 armor and arty or 3 inf 3 armor. kill ukraine and west russia with every available unit. bring everything toward russia/caucasus from the pacific side. If germany stacks karelia, russians all in, same for ukraine or belorussia. From west russia you skirmish karelia/belo/ukraine. meanwhile the brits are either A) dropping norway round 1 B) dropping algeria round 1 with usa and germany has like 50/50 odds as killin the fleet or algeria. UK could shove 2 fighter 1 bomber at 2 sub 1 tran and 1 dd or use the bomber to take back egypt or fly all the air in range of sinking the germany transport/battleship in africa. carrier/dd should always attack the lone transport japan has. the australia transport either takes new guinea or brings new zealand to australia and threatens borneo. Sometimes uk will attack FIC or borneo same turn if egypt defended itself.

Japan will eventually churn out armor and go to take russia, usually the allies rush berlin out of the game before japan falls, hence the 7-9 bid the axis get in revised… which either A) goes toward holding karelia G1 or B) gets placed in africa to blitz

Now, if you play the turtle game. there is a huge problem. 1) the turtle game usually involves usa shuffling units to africa and those units marching toward caucasus/india while the uk shuffles archangel to russia. - It is not hard for germany to stack karelia and strafe your archangel drops.  - germany can rush caucasus alternatively - japan has 2 battleships so usa will have it hard trying to march its way in time.

Plus germany doesn’t have to keep units at west europe. He can make a good push to hold west russia and if germany holds west russia, caucasus is done, and when germany has caucasus, that is not good, because then the income starts to even out. Sure you could say usa will have 6 bombers 1 germany, but japan can do the same thing to america from alaska.

none the less the income game was always boring. I am disappointed that you play that way, when the allies can just rush berlin no problem and win outright. Now maybe if the axis started turtling right off the bat, would I go, you know what… how about I just make more money and win that way. Usually that is not the case.
~

Anyway that was a rough analogy of how revised was played. Usually players rushed. I understand the forum games are much more conservative, but it is not representative of live games people play in real life. No one does that, because there is this popular game called monopoly that is based on income. The triplea lobb is half n half, which is cool, because there is a good mix of play styles. As well as a good mix of dice and low luck games.

Aggressive strategies do work in both dice and low luck for revised. You can ask Bayder, if he ever comes back lol.

I play as I like to play and as it makes me win :)
I’ve actually played bayder several times on TripleA (never won him though) and he was a master of Revised. But he would switch between both aggressive and passive - he would also be trying new stuff all the time- and if your opponent is playing for income and his strategy is winning then you adjust your own strategy and vice-versa. It’s all a matter of the right conditions and also to force your opponent to play in a style that he’s not used to. Bayder also controlled that by almost only playing Low Luck but he would respond to your moves.
This is why critiques such as above: "I’m disappointed that you play the income game’ are meaningless to me. Actually, I’d be glad to disappoint you during a game - because it means I don’t play like you expect me to play, where you are confident of your abilities, which can give me an advantage. So, I’m already starting to defeat you even before I roll the dice :)
And from my experience on A&A (including TripleA and GTO), if you play the long-term game you have a better chance of winning, because you know the long-term effects of certain actions and how to use them to your advantage. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase: “amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics”? That pretty much sums it up for me.

“amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics”

Has got to be one of the best quotes if not THE best quotes.