Nominations for A&A Revised Strategies

@Cernel said in Revised Submerge/Withdraw Order:

This simple different wording would have probably made all crystal clear, and saved this whole (and other!) discussions, as well as my question.

I suppose that those dicussions lead to a clearer wording in LHTR and are one reason why submerging submarines had been moved to another step during ‘Conduct Combat’ starting from and including the Anniversary ruleset.

@Mr:

Kind of like one of the optional games in Mapview (Can’t remember the name of it… it’s where everyone starts out the same around the edge of a custom map with a large sea and island in the middle ?)

It’s called the Crucible, by Imp Games.

I tried it and the territories were noticably different and the costs of units was different.  I think it was some half-way point between Axis and Allies and Axis and Allies revised.

Oh, we pretty much had one.  It was based on most common out comes with Germany holding Egypt and Caucasus, Japan in China and India.

Of course we based ours off a Restricted Russia so the combined Kwang-Bang was moot.

The only difficulty would be deciding if the Pacific strategy is the right one.

This would be based on how strong Germany is:

Does she threaten Cau/Moscow?  If so, you might want to ensure some good Western Allied pressure (western, southern, even SZ14 pressure all over the med as Darth indicated)

If Japan plays it close to home fleet wise (to keep US honest), then again, a US pacific fleet may be sub optimal.

I think if Germanys a huge inf ball in their big 4/5 territories, then it might be best to be happy having them contained and go after Japan with the Pacific fleet… you have the time to do so (and the axis have proven it might be their soft spot)

Looking at the map and the way the territories are laid out, I think there are some very cool things Russia can do if they are forced to fall back to Cauc and Mos.

@prof_tc:

1: Are you sure the Superfortresses aren’t too strong? Then again, it is historically accurate.

2: what happens as you lose tanks with the Ger. heavy tanks?
I know you tested all these new rules, and I’m sure you made a decision. I assume that the first is a heavy tank, and then every 4th after that.

1. The superfortresses advantage is now counterable for the Axis, but cost a lot to develop Jet Fighters! However to old rule of mine that I have in these revised NAs may be a better choice since now the U.S. needs to develop heavy bombers as well. This variant with one additional die per bomber in a SBR is not really playtested! But compared to the original one, I am sure it wont be worse to the Axis as long as they can counter it with jets! :wink:

Damage caused by heavy superfortresses (Heavy Bombers development and Superfortresses advantage) against an IC protected by jets (Jet Fighter development):
5/63(1/61+1/62+1/63+1/64+1/65+1/66) + 5/61/610 IPCs = 10,1 IPCs

Damage caused by AA fire and intercepting jets (on a 1:1 ratio for fighters and bombers) on bombers in a SBR:
1/615 + 3/615 = 10 IPCs

This means that the German and Japanese player needs to develop Jet Fighters to an average cost of 30 IPCs and have as many fighters protecting each IC as there are U.S. heavy superfortresses within reach for a potential SBR! The allies would just have a slight advantage to the axis if conducting a SBR with heavy superfortresses, it is even less then for a regular bomber that conducts a SBR on an IC only protected by an AA gun!

2. this is from another thread about “Heavy Tanks”:

First cycle of combat:
Put the first 2 tanks on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. At the end of the combat remove casualties.

Second cycle of combat:
Remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting the first 2 on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard… and so on!