After Action Reports

@tin_snips:

heh, they kept trying to reposition where they placed it. but i generally had fighters on finland and france, and the bomber in germany. so the reach wasn’t difficult. it was ammusing as the uk build a lot of tanks their first turn, and never got to use them  :lol:

Did the UK sink your Baltic fleet on B1?

@TG:

Yeah, poor Allied play.

Generally I invest in an Aircraft carrier and some support ships (1-2 Cruisers, 1 Transport) and land fighters at the end of noncombat.  This is 1941, so I expect to at least get the Destroy + Transport (from Canada) and possibly the Battleship + Transport, depending on if Germany takes Egypt G1.

What are your typical buys?

if i were germany, id clear sz 6,9,12. and hit egypt anyway^^

that leaves britain with BB/tran and possibly 1-2 german subs around an no destroyers to hit em ;)

if i were to face this as the british player, id buy AC/cruiser/DD + DD or transport and invade norway on the spot from sz6 ^^

btw i think hitting the BB is a mistake :)

the uk didn’t hit my baltic fleet until i pulled it out of the baltic to make an attack. but by this point i was one turn away from taking moscow, so i wasn’t concerned with opening up the fjords

my buys at uk depend on what’s going on i guess. could be fighters to send to russia, or some more boats depending on what shape my navy is in. even an ic for india depending on what japan has done

Title: Pacific Chess Match - 1941
Date: Evenings of 1/11/09 and 1/14/09 
Special Rules:  Technology - Yes / National Objectives - Yes
Victor: Allies- Player Concession (Japan contained, Moscow strong, Italy neutralized, significant allied IPC advantage) Does anyone actually play Victory Cities? We usually just go until it is clear one side will win.
Game Length:  6 Rounds
Bias: Scale-  Novice / Beginner / Skilled / Expert. I was the allies (skilled) and played against German/Italy (expert) and Japan (beginner). Honestly though the expert helped the beginner out heavily.
Description: The Allies successfully pulled off the bend but don’t break strategy. The USSR held Moscow from Germany in part because Germany bought too much infantry and artillery in the first few rounds. USSR built almost all infantry except for an occasional tank or artillery. The UK built all bombers R1 and took out the Italian fleet R2 thanks to an American bomber sacrificing itself in Gibralter to distract Germany from taking the last remaining UK landing space (Trans-Jordan). The UK then began Normandy invasions. USA spent almost all its IPC’s in the Pacific theater: R1- Consolidated fleet and built aircraft carrier/transport/destroyer/subs, R2- Take Iwo Jima and build all subs (for counterattack), R3- Take Philippines, build all subs and move fleet to Carolina Islands (between Japan’s two fleets but with destroyer blocker from main fleet), R4- spread stack of subs around Japan’s main fleet, R5- destroy main Japanese fleet (Japan terrible rolling). Game Over.

Technologies- The UK and USA invested 5 per turn the first two turns and that’s it. UK got Improved Shipyards R4 and USA got Long-range Aircraft R5. They didn’t factor in too much; the Allies would have won without the technologies.

Observations/Recommendations: I think that UK factories in India and S. Africa R1 may have been good for Revised but it is not good for AA50. If the UK invests in all bombers R1, it is imperative for the Axis to hold both Egypt and Trans-Jordan R2 so the Bombers don’t have a place to land. Japan looked good at first, but pressed into India and Asia too quickly and got caught with their pants down. Everyone seems down on subs, but I think they are cheap and sneaky; a solid USA pacific strategy can be built around subs.

Is there an After Action Bias? I mean, I would be more inclined to post on here after an inspired Allied victory then after a German tank onslaught. I’m not sure if there is any way to factor in that this is a self-selecting poll.

@TG:

If the UK invests in all bombers R1, it is imperative for the Axis to hold both Egypt and Trans-Jordan R2 so the Bombers don’t have a place to land

Not true.  The UK bombers can land just as easily in Stalingrad.  Of course this negates the Russia NO bonus.  Again, teamwork. ;)

Well if the italian fleet is in SZ15 at the end of I1, then it WOULD be safe if the axis held egypt and Transjordan

keplar galvin,

With this recent winning streak, I am beginning to think that the Allies need a bid in 1941.  A lot of you guys are still fresh, but I a few grizzled vets admit to the uphill climb the Allies have.

Also, if you write a short AAR of why (strategy only) the Axis won the other two games, I’d be happy to include them.

sure thing… our first game is hard to judge because it was the first and everything is a little bit different… the allies didn’t do much and ultimately lost because they forgot about the german paratroopers, doh!! german paratroopers descended upon london with it’s very weak defense (maybe 2 units total? plus antiaircraft shots) no IC’s were built by anyone and japan ruled the pacific and crushed china rather quickly…

in our second game, i played as the allies and eventually lost russia and gave up (it was very late by theat point, mistakes were being made by all) i failed to place an IC in india much to my demise, i eventually placed one in s africa to try to help the us in the pacific and to help in africa but it was too late (and too far away). i got super subs as the uk (crappy!!). germany built mostly bombers and tanks and got heavy bombers too. japan built an IC in manchuria and was pumping tanks out of there, and dominated the pacific.

it seems like russia needs more help in this game then before, i’m sure we’ll eventually figure out the proper strategy to make it work better. i am already looking forward to our next game in 41 with me as the allies, i have some things that i want to try next time… til then 42 awaits!!

it’s imperative that the allies help russia. just attacking germany now doesn’t cut the mustard. the uk has to send fighters and/or land troops in russia, as does the usa (although i think just fighters is more realistic)

guess it comes down to individual players then

@TG:

I disagree with this.  In our games Russia did a tremendous job holding off the Germans.  Realistically it’s VERY difficult for the Germans to capture Moscow baring some Russian play mistake or if UK/USA does nothing in Western Europe.  In our games, the Germans never moved in position to attack Moscow for fear of reprisal.  The extra territories really hurt the German supply lanes.

What I’ve seen is that either on it’s own in or conjunction with Italy, Germany threatens Moscow with a large stack of tanks (and some inf and planes) via holding Berlorussia or East Ukraine.  Italy might punch the whole by taking the land, allowing German ftrs to land there before Russias turn.

By holding, I mean can not be counter attacked by Russia.

Eastern Ukraine is the optimal since it now threatens Moscow AND Caucasus, so then it becomes likely that Russia will lost Stalingrad (they have to protect the capital Moscow).

Title:  Global Land Conflict
Date:  19th-20th Jan 2009
Special Rules:  NO 1941
Victor:  Axis Victory by concession

Bias: Two players… both with about ten games of AA50 experience

Description:
-Basically Russia was able to deny German assault into Russia
-UK quickly gained ascendecy in the channel and lauched regular raids on France which Germany and/or Italy regularly took back
-Italy was able to forge into Africa and aid defence of Germany
-Virtual stalemate in Europe with Italy commited to European defence
-Pacific- Japan makes a bold move taking Hawaii J2 (after cleaning out troops J1) and taking all of the islands
However sacrifices moves against UK not taking India, China Australia or Bornea and East Indies
-USA- at first building a KGF strategy, realizes the threat too late (First time we tried an assault against America)
      - Japan takes WUS and is able to hold it.
      - America commited to land war against Japan
      - Despite British aid- EUS lost and allies concede although Germany was vulnerable

Observations/Recommendations:
Okay both players were pretty novice type players, and we were really just trying stuff out, so don’t be too critical of the players or our strategies or anything. Basically I believe (having never played earlier AA edition and therefore not being biased by them) that a global war is possible depending on Japnese aggression against America.
While an assault on the mainland is difficult it can occupy America enough to give Germany time.
If america is not careful it can be taken
Attacking America outright is risky but rewarding. By not taking the IPC richs of the UK, Japan is not producing as much IPCs but if a foothold in AMerica is gained then this makes up for it.

:-o whoa! What a great game! Do you have some pics of final board?

Mmmm… I guess 5 starting trannies leads to this surprise moves. Interesting …

@TG:

Okay both players were pretty novice type players, and we were really just trying stuff out, so don’t be too critical of the players or our strategies or anything.

With ten games of experience, I wouldn’t consider you novices. ;)

I would of thought all you A&A experts would have hundreds of games of experience up their belt. Thats why I consider myself somewhat novice. We both made ocassional errors that were important to the course of the conflict.

that may be true for the older versions of A&A, but since AA50 has only been released late last year, i’d say 10 games is a fair amount of experience  :-D

Title:  take 10 paces, then draw (1942)
Date:  1/31/2009
Special Rules:  techs and NO’s
Victor:  none unfortunately
Game Length:  8 hours, 7 or 8 rounds maybe
Bias:  we’re pretty close in skill level
Description:  we may have set a record, the 1st 4 countries in rd 1 got tech with only 1 die!! japan got jet fighters, russia got rockets, germany got mech inf, uk got super subs (lol), no die for italy and US bought one but didn’t hit right away. tech was further pursued by ger, russia, uk and us with russia getting war bonds and US getting heavy bombers.
japan bought IC for manchuria, took out flying tiger J1, and built up pacific fleet. i threatened WUS and eventually took alaska, but lost the higher priced islands near the end of our game (philip taken back, and next turn would have got back other islands)
russia hung in there til the end, losing russia during our last round. it would have been retaken next turn. they went with a good mix of mostly inf and some tanks, and held the line quite well.they were making great money near the end (40ish with obj) but never were able to threaten germany.also took the man ic for a turn, i stupidly took off my fighters to land on carrier to threaten us.
germany took karelia right away and never lost it, kept their navy going a little bit and kept paying off damage to his IC’s. lost france on uk1 based on bad dice vs eastern canada fleet. they kept trading territories with russia and eventually took the capitol.
uk built IC in eastern canada uk1 and one in india uk2. they took france round 1 but lost it to italy right away. thay pumped out loaded transports from canada to africa and to keep gibralter, 3 tanks per turn in india and bombers for SBR.
italy had to take back france right away so they had to ignore africa 1st turn, also got attacked by uk in libya during uk1. italy could never get a good hold on africa and the multinational fleet just outside of mad was too much for her fleet to handle. during the last round she finally had a tank in africa and would have been able to take it unmolested (too little too late)
US split her monies between both theaters, and after getting heavy bmbrs spent alot of money on them. they kept sending troops to morocco and to gibralter whern necessary, eventually took some of japan’s southern islands near the end. they were primed to attack with their fleet and 4 Hbombrs from phillip but lost all of it during J’s last round.

Observations/Recommendations:  obviously tech played a huge role, heavy bombers maybe are still too strong? it was a well fought game, we need to start earlier or try to start up where we left off. we talked about playing some time w/o techs to make it more “pure”. we’ll see, i’m looking forward to our next marathon. IMO the axis were 2-3 turns from victory, i’m sure the allied player would disagree with me, but who cares what he thinks?