@Panther Thanks for the speedy answer… feels like a strategy that might make me unpopular but if it’s legitimate then I suppose it’s fair game.
Second Thoughts
-
Look at the Russian card that came with the game again Jenn. If I am not badly mistaken it says Allied control. Just checked the boardgame geek thread with the pictured of the set up cards. Word for Word:
Gain 10 IPCs if Allied powers control at least three of the following territories: Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary. and/or Balkans.
-
Cmdr Jennifer,
I don’t like the IC in France. It allows the Allies to do 32 damage markers to Germany not including retaliation against any conquests in Russia and there’s still the 12 that can be done to Italy, if it is needed.
As I said before, the SBR advantage an IC in France gives to Germany is probably too great. On the other hand, having to move troops from France to the Eastern front takes an extra turn.
Also, to be honest, what in the world do you need it for? 50 IPC is 10 tanks. To need 6 more units, you’d have to be collecting 80 IPC. (And that’s assuming you wouldn’t want to replace some fighters or build some bombers, get some tech or even repair your complexes which, as you can tell, is gunna cost you up to 20 IPC for Germany alone!)
Go back and reread my original post. The extra IC allows Germany an extra berthing spot for their U-boats. It is NOT for Germany to build something like 16 tanks.
However, I don’t think Tech comes into play until place units/collect income, does it? Did they reverse that and set it back to instantly? If so, that’s wicked powerful for Heavy Bombers!
It does. And yes, USA unlocking Heavy Bombers (esp. 1942) turn 1 is game.
- China determines how many infantry they place based on number of liberated territories at the end of America’s turn. (They go back to back, so this really isn’t too much of an issue.)
Yes, we will be playing with a variation of this rule in our next game. In essence,
“China gets one new infantry unit per turn for every two Chinese territories that are not under Axis control during the Mobilize New Units phase of the U.S. player’s turn.”
- Any Chinese territory without a Japanese garrison gets to roll for spontaneous liberation. (Roll 1d6 for each ungarrisoned Chinese territory, on a roll of 1, the Japanese flag is burned and control reverts to China.) This does not apply to Manchuria or Kaingsu. Once all Chinese territories are captured (all at the same time) then Japan no longer needs a garrison. Also, liberating a territory does not reinstate the ability.
Interesting. If China still needs the boost, we will consider implementing it.
Russian NO should be changed to Owning Karelia, Finland and Norway +5 IPC. Not the other territories on that NO. Easier for Russia to attain, makes it harder on Germany, but also stops England from taking Finland and or Norway since it only works if RUSSIA owns those three.
I agree. The +10 IPCs NO for Russia never gets used. It’s awkward too since no other Power gets a +10 IPC boost.
About adding units to the board: You know my stance, I’m generally against doing this.
-
a44bigdog,
Look at the Russian card that came with the game again Jenn. If I am not badly mistaken it says Allied control. Just checked the boardgame geek thread with the pictured of the set up cards. Word for Word:
Gain 10 IPCs if Allied powers control at least three of the following territories: Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary. and/or Balkans.
So? The problem is not about capturing Norway or Finland, which the British can easily do.
The problem lies with Poland, Romania, Balkans, and Hungary. If the Allies capture either one of these, it’s a clear indication the Allies are winning and rewarding Russia with +10 IPCs is a further drop in the slippery slope mechanic.
-
Not necessarily. In my current face to face game Russia has that NO but is in bad shape. Germany does not always have all the infantry it would like to cover the expanded frontline.
-
If Russia is indeed making +10 IPCs a turn and they’re still in danger of capitulating, then I question the aptitude of your players.
The only scenario I see this happening in is if the Japanese threaten Moscow (which would be near the endgame). In which case, a Russian NO of Karelia, Finland and Norway would still serves its purpose, while offering Russia a mid game boost.
-
It has little to due with aptitude and a whole lot more to do with luck of the dice. Germany got diced in Ukraine by 1 Russian infantry. Said Russian Infantry stepped forward into an unoccupied Bulgaria for the NO. The Russians will not have the NO after the next turn. Just because Russia gets that NO it does not mean they are sitting there drawing it for turn after turn.
-
Look at the Russian card that came with the game again Jenn. If I am not badly mistaken it says Allied control. Just checked the boardgame geek thread with the pictured of the set up cards. Word for Word:
Gain 10 IPCs if Allied powers control at least three of the following territories: Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary. and/or Balkans.
Yea, A44, I was thinking of making it easier for Russia, but requiring that it be Russian control. Instead of just any ally.
-
I’d keep the 10 IPC in National Objectives that are currently for owning 3 of Finland, Norway, etc, etc, etc. I’d just change it as I mentioned to A44. (Russia has to own Karelia, Finland and Norway AND no Allied units (including AA Guns) can be placed on any Soviet controlled territories (to include conquered ones.)
Also, TG, Not really sure what you are looking for in way of U-boat berths in France. I guess if there was a convoy raid rule like in AARe then U-boats would become significantly more powerful and thus, another area to put one or two down right next to England would be quite beneficial, but for now, I really, REALLY hesitate about building any Industrial Complexes for Germany due to the massive damage the Allies can be doing.
Anyway, wicked that you can get tech immediately. Not sure how HB for USA in Round 1 is too powerful, only two bombers right? And one of them is out of theater anyway.
However, getting some of the techs right before an engagement could seriously inflict some damage! (Super Submarines, Jet Fighters, etc…all give immediate boosts to attack power and you can spring them on your enemy!)
-
It has little to due with aptitude and a whole lot more to do with luck of the dice. Germany got diced in Ukraine by 1 Russian infantry. Said Russian Infantry stepped forward into an unoccupied Bulgaria for the NO. The Russians will not have the NO after the next turn. Just because Russia gets that NO it does not mean they are sitting there drawing it for turn after turn.
What you described was a fluke and nothing else. In the 5 games of A&A:50 I’ve played, the Russia player NEVER set foot on German home territories, unless the German let him. How about we make Russian NOs actually obtainable on a semi-regular basis?
Also, TG, Not really sure what you are looking for in way of U-boat berths in France. I guess if there was a convoy raid rule like in AARe then U-boats would become significantly more powerful and thus, another area to put one or two down right next to England would be quite beneficial, but for now, I really, REALLY hesitate about building any Industrial Complexes for Germany due to the massive damage the Allies can be doing.
A French IC allows the German options and forces UK to play defenses honest. I would like to see more combined air-sea assaults from Germany, but right now it isn’t happening.
Not sure how HB for USA in Round 1 is too powerful, only two bombers right? And one of them is out of theater anyway.
USA starts off with 3 bombers in 1942. While it’s true only 1 of those bombers is in position, by turn 2 USA can deal ~20 IPCs of damage to Germany. That’s nothing to scoff about.
however, getting some of the techs right before an engagement could seriously inflict some damage! (Super Submarines, Jet Fighters, etc…all give immediate boosts to attack power and you can spring them on your enemy!
It helps a lot. In the five games we’ve played, Jacob managed to unlock Jet Fighters each time (3 times as Japan and twice on the first turn). Amber, who plays USA/UK, ends each game with at least 3 techs unlocked.
-
@TG:
- Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck. In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone.
[…]
- Bombers are as good as advertised. There is no “hype” – bombers ARE at the top of Axis and Allies food chain. And because there are so many more territories in A&A:50, a bomber’s range is even more valuable.
- On the flip side, I often found my fighters running out of gas early
Hmm, let’s imagine UK in the first rounds: main conern is defending fleet from German luftwaffe, but still being offensive:
Options:
*2 cru + 1 bmr (cost= 36 IPC’s):
-shore bombardment
-bmr can SBR
-bmr has great range*1 AC + 2 ftr (cost = 34 IPC’s):
-2ftr’s are as good offensive as 1 bmr + 2 SBR’s
-better naval defense
-better defensive options with ftrs (in Russia ;) )
-AC adds a little bit more range to ftrs
-8% cheaper=> I’d still opt for the AC + ftrs, but I do agree that when defense is not an issue any longer, that bmrs (+ cru) are slightly better. It’s a close match anyhow, but bmrs are not that strong I think (low defense :( )
PS: your other thoughts are totally correct. Especially the Russian sub one (though I like to harass Japanese trns with it :evil: ).
-
Honestly, with England I would go almost all tech/SBR in hopes of getting Long Range and Improved Factories/Radar
But that’s just me.
-
Sry, not playing techs :-D
-
Sry, not playing techs :-D
Why not? Techs are half the fun! Good place to sink that money you were getting from National Objectives too!
-
Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck. In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone.
I think people are going to become annoyed with Cruiser bombardment.
The 1 inf per shot rule does help to prevent the cheapshots like you used to see with the Destroyer tech in Revised, but for the mass invasions, I have a feeling that Cruiser bombardment is going to make the German defense of Europe a huge pain in the a**.
-
I see no reason for Germany to have to tolerated repeated CA bombardment invasions. Bombers cost the same as a cruiser but hit at one better. When not cleaning the seas the bombers can keep England’s ears pinned back with SBR’s or used on the Russian front.
With the reduction in price for bombers the only reason I can see to buy a fighter over a bomber is for defense or on carriers which is again mainly defense.
-
Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck. In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone.
I think people are going to become annoyed with Cruiser bombardment.
The 1 inf per shot rule does help to prevent the cheapshots like you used to see with the Destroyer tech in Revised, but for the mass invasions, I have a feeling that Cruiser bombardment is going to make the German defense of Europe a huge pain in the a**.
I’m not sure that I understand why cruisers are so great. They cost 12 IPC’s, but for only 8 more IPC’s you can upgrade to a BB which attacks at a 4 instead of a 3, and it takes 2 hits to sink.
I do realize that it’s hard to cough up 20 IPC’s though - maybe that’s the problem. -
The reason not to pick a battleship in their example is that they don’t need the 2nd hit, they were talking about when they aren’t worried about being attacked.
Still sounds like bombers would counter cruisers though.
-
With more experience under my belt, I have to say that without technologies, the game cannot be won by the Axis. Germany almost has to get, or at least have the chance to get, Radar to negate the allied bombing runs somewhat. Also, improved factories are a god-send when recovering from SBR runs (50% cost, so 1 IPC repairs 2 damage!)
Without playing with Technologies, it is far too easy for America to stock up on 9-12 bombers (depending on if Germany puts a factory in France) and just keep the Germans and Italians from ever getting a break!
-
@Cmdr:
With more experience under my belt, I have to say that without technologies, the game cannot be won by the Axis. Germany almost has to get, or at least have the chance to get, Radar to negate the allied bombing runs somewhat. Also, improved factories are a god-send when recovering from SBR runs (50% cost, so 1 IPC repairs 2 damage!)
Without playing with Technologies, it is far too easy for America to stock up on 9-12 bombers (depending on if Germany puts a factory in France) and just keep the Germans and Italians from ever getting a break!
When not playing with tech what could counter this? The only thing I could imagine is Japan doing SBRs on Russia with 9 bombers of it’s own and hoping Germany can break through to Moscow before it is defeated. Some naval help from Japan in the Med helps alot to keep Italy in the game. I play guys who play a global war so your scenerio will never happen in my games. So far I haven’t heard of anyone using this type of strategy to counter that USA bomber strategy. I’d like to know if it could work. Maybe this should be a thread of it’s own….
-
Invade American mainland with Japan and USA will not have even the time to build so much bombers
Suggested Topics
