After Action Reports

when u use NO´s do you hand the extra IPCs out at the start of the game (eg G1 has 36 to spend, US1 has 55 in ´41) or do you start handing them out after a player finished his first turn?

@TG:

Also, I’ve been thinking: Do you guys prefer a specific way of organizing the After Action Reports? 
I’m fine collecting them in the original post for now, but if it grows to be too big, people will have to scroll down a lot to get to the newer reviews they want to read.

Or would you rather have one Review per post?  That way the most current reviews are easiest to access.  This does have the downside of not being sorted based on 1941 or 1942 scenarios.

maybe its time to split the reports into two seperate 41/42 threads?

agreed. it seems very hard for allied to gain tempo.

Ow come on. Don’t start about bids already.
Heck, I refuse to play with bids in AA:R, and I’ve even won quite a share of games with the Axis.
Tossing in bids just seems to easy.

Observations/Recommendations:  this was our third game of 41, axis won all 3 times, we each had a shot as the allies; it seems like russia needs something to keep them alive longer, we’ll see. 1st time IC built in india, it definitely helped US by diverting some of the japanese fleet, and US could spend more money in atlantic because of it. brazil IC was good idea but perhaps IMO those monies could have been spent elsewhere. money was spent on tech but it didn’t change much, NO’s def favor the axis so far… next up 42 scenario!!!

Look at it. Russia built all tanks? Strange defensive posture…they’ll lack number of units too fast.
Uk builds IC in India. Happens more often, but is it thát smart, if you want to crush Germany?
Brazil IC? Usually, a waste of money.

See…there are many more ways to win as Allied then just tossing them a few bucks. Every strategy has it weaknesses.
Sure…it might turn into the old KGF/KRF race again, but still…

Title:  moscow squeeze
Date:  13th of January
Special Rules:  NO’s and Tech were both used. 1942 scenario
Victor:  axis victory, by concession
Game Length:  5 rounds, 5 hours
Bias:  two strongest players were germany and japan respectfully, and the weakest was italy. the other 3 moderate players were the allies

Description: japan focused on crushing china, held its island gains until late in the game, then swept around india and encrouched into russia

russia did its defensive thing, but sent some infantry to help china (to no avail)

germany pushed into russia obviously, but also sunk the british fleets no less than 5 times. every time the british built a replacement and brought it within range, the german luftwaffe decimated it

uk was pretty much contained to its island, after losing its pacific holdings. it held out in africa for most of the game though

italy focused on gaining some african territories, but was held back until the last couple of rounds

usa built a fleet to match japan, and started taking back some islands late in the game. they also re-inforced africa, until germany sunk its atlantic fleet with the almighty luftwaffe

Observations/Recommendations: allies conceeded when moscow fell to the panzers. uk was reduced to watching over the channel thanks to a german airforce, so couldn’t assist russia, and the us was distracted in the pacific by japan

i love playing germany, and didn’t dissapoint this game. i tried something new, though, and built 10 infantry on the G1 build. after that it was a lot of tanks, and some fighters on round 4. the point of the infantry was to bolster my defenses on the eastern coast straight off, and send the rest towards moscow. the infantry was able to push with the tanks built later, so i could take some losses on them and keep the tanks. turns out i didn’t need to defend france too much as i kept the uk fleet going to the bottom each round

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:

@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