Transport Question

It doesn’t matter if the land unit survives to retreat or not.  Just its having moved into the territory establishes the retreat path.

You don’t have to take the fighter first.  It’s perfectly legal to take the carrier and leave the fighter stranded.  In order for the fighter’s move to not be a suicide mission, the only requirement is that it have a possible place to land (assuming the defender never hits).  Once the battle actually starts, it’s up to the owning player which casualties are taken.

The rules dealing with suicide missions address movement only.  There is nothing in the rules that indicates that casualties must be taken in a certain order to preserve fighters’ landing spaces.

@Corbeau:

@timerover51:

Your shore bombardment idea has been picked up in the Anniversary Edition rules, evidently.

Ya, i saw that, that’s great news :)
I can only wish i was the one to propose it to the game designer but it really is a coincidence. That was a house rule we used way back then. Still great to see he thought of it too. :)

I like the also th idea of BB acting as artillery support. Good thinking there too. I would not allow it for planes too, i find them already too flexible as a unit acting both in land and sea. I’d rather have them seperated in 2 classes, Land based fighters and CV based fighters. They already have the different molds for some nations, german stuka and Bf-109 for exemple. anyways, that’s another discussion.

For the BB acting like an AA, that’s exactly what i meant. Would give a reason to have one in a fleet.

You need to remember that roughly 2/3 of a carrier’s aircraft were attack planes, dive bombers and torpedo bombers, that would be used in support of ground troops.  This is the basis for the flexibility in fighters in A&A.  If you had a dedicated attack plane, like the Stuka, you could reduce the fighter’s role by a little bit, but by the end of the war, the US Navy’s Corsair fighter was carrying a bombload heavier than that of the Stuka, and delivering it with comparable accuracy.

As for BB getting an AA roll, that makes a fair amount of sense, and is pretty historically accurate.  Quite simply, BBs normally acted as a magnet for air attacks, even if a carrier was around.  The US South Dakato shot down 26 Japanese aircraft while escorting the carrier US Enterprise at the Battle off Santa Cruz in October of 1942, while Adm. Raymond Spruance deployed his battleline in advance of his carriers at the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June of 1944 to deliberately absorb Japanese carrier plane attacks.  However, the US did have the best naval AA fire control systems of the entire war, so what holds true for the US does not hold true for everyone else.  The Bismarck had major problems with defending against a limited number of British Swordfish, while the Italian BBs had similar problems.  The British were so-so, and the Japanese were close to hopeless until late in the war.  You could make it a National Advantage for the US, but I suspect that would not be acceptable to a majority of Axis players.  Making it universal is a bit of a stretch.  It would be up to you.

what I wanted to try was on J1 attacking Hawaii with an AC, 2 Figs (one from Japan, the other from the AC), a DD and my sub (if it survived).  Fight one round and retreat to SZ57 with at least my AC and 2 Figs (hopfully my DD also).  Everytime I attack Hawaii - heavy or lite, I get lambasted on US1 and lose most if not all my units.  I was thinking about trying this new strategy to avoid this.  Any thoughts?

2 strats work well at Hawaii.

1.  Pearl Light.  Sub (if survived), destroyer, 4 fighters, 1 bomber.  Take casualties on sub, destroyer, possible fighter or two.  Japan puts two carriers and battleship at Solomons during noncombat and lands Pearl fighters on carriers.  The US will probably not try to hit the Solomons sea zone unless they go for long range aircraft (yay), or they’re retarded (also yay).  If the battle goes REALLY poorly for Japan, you can always just not move your navy towards Solomons.  Meanwhile, the other Jap battleship stays east of Japan escorting the transport against UK2’s possible naval/air attack.

UK can mess with this move by moving their UK transport (usually) north from Australia.  (Usually UK blocks with a transport while seding the sub to attack the Jap Solomon sub).  Now Japan either has to attack the UK transport with a battleship, leaving two lone carriers with probable light to medium fighters at Solomons (the US can think about attacking then).  Or Japan has to use a fighter to clear the transport (it’s risky; Japan can lose, and Japan doesn’t really have the air to spare).

Sometimes you see the UK sending the India fighter plus Solomon sub to try to hit the Jap sub at Solomons; the UK fighter lands on the Hawaii carrier.

2.  Pearl Heavy.  You send everything in reach.  This has good and bad points, of course, like anything else.  The bad thing is that Japan’s forces in Asia suck at the beginning, so losing that transport east of Japan hurts (Russia could grab Manchuria).  Also, the dice could hose the Japs, then the Allies could really mess with Japan’s navy (pretty improbable, but possible).  You might lose Manchuria to Burytia, and you probably won’t have an escort fleet for your Jap transport build (you can get around this).  The good thing is that Japan usually takes a while to build up in Asia anyways.

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

We’re already playing it…evidentially, most players at AAMC cheat since the stuff I’ve seen done that I’ve tried to do, AxisRoll has called me on.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10442.new#new

Could explain why there’s near 100% win ratios for the axis over at AAMC.

I hope you’re not taking me as a Rules ‘Nazi’, but the rules of Enhanced are the way they are to ensure a fair, balanced game.

You could be right, the lack of playing by the rules, that might explain some of the imbalances you have observed.

A rules nazi is someone who doesn’t take into account that we’re playing on a forum and not face to face.  Not someone who enforces the rules. :P

@Dragoon_Blade:

I’m just how to get a KJF first strategy to work, especially since my teammate here at college wants to try a successful one.  But the two big problems that I see are actually cracking Japan, since it is harder to stop it capital, and how Russia can deal with the massive behemoth Germany baring down on it.

Here’s hoping for some critique of ideas and some suggestions (also note, no bid to the axis)  (my teammate and I will be both playing Russia, I’ll have Britain, and he’ll have the US)  I’m also assuming Germany r1, specifically since that is what the Germany player usually does.

Russia building 4 inf/3 art, I like having a little offensive punch  thinking just attacking West Russia, using 2 inf, 1ftr Karelia, 3 inf, 1arm Archangel, 3 inf, 1 art, 2 arm moscow, and 1 at least 1 art caucasus.  Moving 6 inf into Buryatia, 2 yakut, 2 sinkang, 2 persia.  Germany will probably take Anglo, Karelia, and send 3-4 fighters and sub against the UK battleship.

The UK will be placing a IC in India, trying to hit japanese sub, and probably hitting the sz 59 transport with the fighter.  British bomber will be going to Siankang.  The US will be building an IC in Sinkang however, we not sure on how much should the US put in Navy against Japan.  I’m hoping to convince my teammate to go after the islands with his fleet when it is built up enough.

My questions I have are
1)  Do I write off Africa to Germans, and with that much more IPC to Germany, can Russia with less than half of Britain IPCs helping, hold off Germany until Japan is cracked?
2) What should I do with my indian fleet, try to help the americans?
3) Does America send anything against Germany?

Thanks for the help.
[/quote

If you want KJF done right, you had better remember the secret herbs and spices.

I’m gonna ask you a coupla dumbass questions.  Then I’m gonna give a lot of smart-ass answers.  Tee heez.  No, srsly, these comments should help.  Maybe.  If you dare to think about what I’m writing.

Let us SAY that you are playing rock paper scissors.

Now let us say that you have DECIDED for some wacky reason that players will NOT SHOW THEIR HANDS SIMULTANEOUSLY.  One player shows, then the other.

To make things REALLY wacky, the second player doesn’t even have to decide what he has to choose until AFTER he sees what the first player chose.

Wow, this sounds like a hell of an easy game, doesn’t it?

Now, HERES THE TRICKY PART.

Your opponent wants YOU to decide WHO GOES FIRST.

WHAT DO YOU DO?

THINK HARD.

I have just answered all your questions.  Mostly kind of sort of.

–

–1)  Do I write off Africa to Germans, and with that much more IPC to Germany, can Russia with less than half of Britain IPCs helping, hold off Germany until Japan is cracked?

Answer:  If the Germans really want Africa, let 'em have it.  If you eat up Europe while the Germans eat up Africa - you win!

What should I do with my indian fleet, try to help the americans?

Answer:  As opposed to, say, helping the mighty Russian fleet?  No, just kidding.  Seriously, you should base your moves with the Indian fleet on the German move.  If it looks like you’ll want to KJF, you might want to unify the UK fleets.  If you want to KGF, you might want to suicide the UK fleet.

Does America send anything against Germany?

Answer:  Really depends on what Germany bought.  If Germany looks ripe for a KGF, go for it.
[/quote]

I should have gone heavy against Russia from the start with Japan, not go mess around n Canada to put even more brakes on US…

But im on the way… and Russia can´t take India if you want to keep Cauccasus…

That Lysdexia can be annoying at times :-P