Second Thoughts

@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.

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!)

@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

@HolKann:

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.

@Black_Elk:

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

@HolKann:

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: ).

Lets just work with the fleet and not add bombers and such that contribute in different ways than what we want to analyze.

To get a solid fleet capable of deterring an Axis air attack I would estimate about 6 CA and for that cost you can build 2 CV, 4 fig. Defensively, it is roughly equal. In addition, in case of attack, you can’t lose the CV’s first to maintain defensive superiority because a strafe and retreat would leave you with fighters sitting in UK and no defensive fleet.

Also, most amphibious attacks are small engagements(2 v. 1, 4 v. 3) that don’t last more that 1 or 2 rounds which favors the more plentiful CA’s(6 over 4 fig) one shot attack over the fact that the fighters can fight past the first round.

And CA bombardments aren’t deterred by AA either.

@captainjack:

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.

You’re looking at it backwards. Look at it as 2 CA or 1 BB. For a 20% increase in cost(24 v. 20) you get a 50% increase in firepower (6 v. 4).

You want to buy a BB when you know that any naval engagement you get into is only going to last 1 round such as overwhelming attacks or when strafing is an option. In that case, the BB’s hit soak will save you money in the long run. The US fleet going against the Italian fleet is the example I would use here.

But, when you expect combats to last longer than 1 round or you will be doing multiple shore bombardments then opt for the greater firepower and go with the CA’s. The US island hopping and facing the Japanese fleet in the Pacific is where this is more helpful.

@kendric:

Still sounds like bombers would counter cruisers though.

Yes, but at what point does the German bomber build to counter the UK CA build become a money pit for Germany?

The UK CA’s are offensive(bombardments) as well as defensive. The German bombers are offensive only.

Can Germany afford to build 1 or 2 bombers per turn while Russia is building nothing but ground units and the UK is likely bleeding Germany of units in amphibious landings supported by the CA’s it is building?

Germany can’t use the bombers to SBR because any losses to AA instantly nullify the threat to the UK fleet.

I suppose Germany could build bombers to force the UK to build more navy than it anticipated(hard to justify since CA’s are versatile units and building more won’t hurt the UK unless it has more CA’s than transport capacity) and then switch to an SBR campaign against UK and Russia once building bombers becomes a liability. You would have to be careful not to become too aggressive because heavy trading losses with Russia could leave Germany woefully short of defensive ground units.

@Cmdr:

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!

With an assumption of losing roughly 1 in 6 bombers every turn to AA and an average of 3.5 damage per bomber it would require 4 bombers to Italy and 7 bombers to Germany to generally assume maximum damage to their IC’s. 11 bombers is the minimum just for Italy and Germany and 15 is required if there is an IC in France.

That is much higher than your minimum of 9-12 bombers you assume is needed and also requires a committment of 2 additional bombers built every turn to replace losses which is, at best, half of the US production and more than half if Japan decides to take away the [Haw, wake, mid, Sol] NO and Alaska.

And you really do have to quit speaking as if the US already has a massive stack of bombers. Just to get to your minimum number of 9 bombers it would require AT LEAST 2 turns of full bomber production and one more turn to get the last of them to UK. 3 Turns of no navy and no ground units by the US means that Italy can sweep Africa with a minimum of units and then begin supplying Germany with infantry to defend France and free up Germany to send as many ground units as it can afford, after IC repair, toward Russia.

Plus, while a Japanese landing in Hawaii or Alaska to threaten the west coast is easily countered by the US, as Funcioneta says, it would, at the very least, put a hiccup in your bomber production schedule.

@Funcioneta:

Invade American mainland with Japan and USA will not have even the time to build so much bombers

I’m actually trying that right now. :)

America cannot keep up with Japan in naval assets, not in this game.

U-505:

Perhaps you have not yet played this game?  So far, each time I’ve been America, by the end of Round 3 I routinely have 9 bombers with America and I’m routinely bringing Germany and Italy to almost cap in damage.  Actually, the funny part is, I’ve yet to lose a single bomber to AA Fire in AA50.  Not that it isn’t possible, but to be honest, so what?  America loses 12 out of the 50 IPC it is making each round (55 if the allies get France too!) Big whoop?

And if America drops the ball a little, maybe gets unlucky, that’s why England has 4 bombers of her own!

@Cmdr:

U-505:

Perhaps you have not yet played this game?  So far, each time I’ve been America, by the end of Round 3 I routinely have 9 bombers with America and I’m routinely bringing Germany and Italy to almost cap in damage.  Actually, the funny part is, I’ve yet to lose a single bomber to AA Fire in AA50.  Not that it isn’t possible, but to be honest, so what?  America loses 12 out of the 50 IPC it is making each round (55 if the allies get France too!) Big whoop?

And if America drops the ball a little, maybe gets unlucky, that’s why England has 4 bombers of her own!

You know I’m playing. I’ve got more games going here than just about anybody on this site and I can see what a grind it is for the Allies to make any ground gains in Europe or Africa when the US builds 1 bomber per turn let alone their entire income for 3 turns.

Perhaps you think that because the dice have been favorable to you that it means you have a good strategy. Many people make that mistake. The numbers say that you are going to lose 2 bombers every turn to AA so you will need 4 for Italy and 7 for Germany to reliably do maximum damage and have to buy 2 more every turn to replace losses. I can’t put it any simpler than that. Not losing bombers to AA is anomalous and is no reflection on strategy. If you think it is, then you aren’t a very good player because you should know that the more you play, the more those numbers will even out and, when they do, you’re going to be losing games when those bombers begin dropping out of the sky.

And exactly how are the the US making 50 IPC’s or the Allies taking France when the US and UK are spending their entire incomes on bombers and not ground units or navy to transport them? Either you are playing poor opponents or you are getting lucky or both because you can’t sustainably do what you say you have been doing without help.

It is easier for Germany to produce an air fleet than Uk to produce a naval fleet. This is based on game experience. This also counters an easy allied defense of Africa. Which means the UK barely has enough cash to scrape up units for an invasion France never mind magically pulling a Cruiser out of its but at the same time.

US Bombers can hit Japanese units as they land in Alaska. On paper SBR’s are supposed to be break even or nearly so propositions. My game experience has not found this to be true even when I have been loosing bombers at twice the projected rate.

AA50 is the best in the series IMO. My brother and I have played about eight games (with Techs and NOs in about half of them) and they have all been pretty intense,with the Allies winning about five of those. I could do without the Techs but I really enjoy that extra cash from the NOs,especially for Russia. Subs,cruisers,unit costs,tranny rules,China,new territories–love them all. The worst thing about it?–the 3 piece board!! I hate that Fukien thing. But still… I give AA50 nine out of ten stars.