Cutting the Italian legs out from under the axis

@Cmdr:

I won’t support you nerfing technology either.

Finally we agree on something, because tech should been removed completely. Larry Harris have said that he hates tech, but he has “been told” to keep it in the game. At least its optional in AA50.

Now then, back to the topic, which happens to be eliminating Italy.

Italy’s primary defense is obviously Germany. Britain can’t effectively hit them quickly because the third reich is right smack in between them. Pushing into the Mediterranean will be difficult because of the Italian fleet, which will survive past the first turn if you are playing an experienced player. What can be done about the Italian Navy then?

I intend to focus the US war effort on Japan, so that leaves Italy as Britains problem. My opponents tend to eliminate most of my navy on turn one, so I will have to start from scratch in that department. Aircraft are cheaper than ships though, and have longer striking range. Would a strong air force be Britians best bet at knocking out Italy?

I think Britain could take out Italy’s fleet pretty easily with it’s bombers and shipping, if they aren’t too screwed over by the G1 attacks of course.

And then the USA could send over it’s bomber just in case.

You can squirm all you want, fact is, tech is in the game and if the game is using tech (as most AA50 games do) you have to be a good enough player to account for it.

Missing that someone could get tech with a high probability (due to other techs on the chart already attained and a high number of researchers) is akin to missing that your opponent bought 5 submarines.  You can lose your fleet in either case, but I don’t see people complaining that their opponents bought the submarines!

Seriously, if tech is forced to take an entire turn to come into play, than all purchases should also have to take a turn to come into play.  If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.

As for Italy, best track I’ve seen thus far is to mass invade Africa with England.  Problem is, Germany generally has enough air power to obliterate the British if they even dream of going to SZ 12 before round 3 or 4, and that assumes England spends buku bucks on naval ships like extra BBs and Carriers and stuff to defend against the 7-10 German Aircraft.

Thats 3 or 4 rounds Italy has to run amuck virtually uncontested.

What has not worked, as far as I have seen, is America spending a paycheck on Submarines and hoping that the bombers and submarines they have is enough to sink the Italians.

If you want the fleet dead at any costs on UK1 land 2 figs on gibralter and 2 inf, sacing the transport, buy 3 bombers and take out the german transport with your egypt fig landing on gibralter or your bomber.  Make the Russians purchase a bomber, or a fig or 2 and place either 2 inf in persia or 1 inf and a tank or two being in cauc.  Keep your 2 inf in trans-jordan as well as the bomber or egypt fig.  On R2 they retake trans-jordan, UK blows up fleet, plus keeps surviving bombers to bomb italy.

Is it worth it?  Not really.  I prefer the US landing in algeria along with UK backup then hitting it with air/sea units preferably with carriers as there fighters can strike 3 spaces away with the carrier chasing them.

And how on earth can the UK not protect SZ12 on turn 2?  They have 43 IPC, plus at least one surviving destroyer along with the US destroyer plus whatever US deploys there turn 1.  The UK can buy up to 2 carriers (28), 1 fig (38), and whatever, land the US fig on the second carrier, if Egypt fig survived land it there and purchase a cruiser or additional transport instead.  There is no way on G3 they will sink 2 loaded carriers and 2 destroyers, not to mention an additional destroyer or two the US buys if they are so inclined, it would take all 4 figs and 4 more bombers to have 1.5 survive and i’d take that trade.  Granted the UK can only send 1 trannie worth of units but Italy really cant send much down and the US can bridge from Canada and that SZ so its not that big of a deal.

One last thought, Jenn, no one is saying that you shouldn’t pay attention when an enemy has 5 researchers and the last tech on the list is heavy bombers that you shouldn’t prepare for it.  People are complaining when the US buys a single researcher on turn 2, gets heavy bombers, and on that turn destroys Japan’s fleet change the course of the game.  Or Germany gets paratroopers on turn 2 and takes moscow when they shouldn’t have been able to reach it.  Those are 1 in 36 odds, much more common than the situation you describe, its rare but you cannot possibly expect a player to always assume that the opponent might buy a researcher, and might get that roll.  That is where the beef is.  The other thing is the only two techs that are this extreme are heavy bombers, and to a lesser extent paratroopers.  Every other tech is less overwhelming or takes time to come into play by its very nature.

And the odds of that happening are less than the chance you lose all your bombers to AA Gun fire costing you the battle and the game.

I don’t see people saying we need to nerf AA Guns which are potentially much more devastating than technology since you are guarenteed access to building AA Guns, but you have to buy researchers AND get a six (and only one per round) AND get the tech number you want.

1 in 36 chance of getting HB.  1 in 6 chance of your AA Gun shooting down the bomber and costing you the game.  Looks to me like AA Guns are a much bigger threat to game stability than technology is….but then, good players would account for that too and send in a tank instead or maybe just make sure they have plenty of units so that losses to AA Fire won’t cost them the battle…and those are probably the same players who say “uh, yea, he’s PROBABLY going to get HBs, so I might want to hang back a bit.”

Anyway, what idiot loses the Japanese fleet on USA 2 when America stumbles on HBs?  On Japan 2 your fleet should be well outside the range of American bombers anyway!

And lastly, tech is not a one way street.  Feel free to get your own tech.  You think the American HBs are winning the game for America, get some Japanese HBs and win the game for Japan.  Obviously the standpoint is you just “get” the technology like you get a battleship or a carrier, right?

Lets keep this thread on topic (discussing Italy).

Feel free to create a new thread for the Tech vs. No Tech debate.

No one’s put anyone in their place.

Good strategy will beat luck almost every time.

For instance, should we nerf building units because you were tired one night and failed to see the 4 battleships move into range of your fleet resulting in your fleets destruction?  Of course not.  A good player would not have missed that!

Should we nerf technology because you were tired one night and failed to notice your opponent had 5 of 6 techs on the chart and 6 researchers left over from last round and left your fleet vulnerable to attack if they got the tech (which was an exceptionally high probability?) Of course not!

Should we nerf AA Guns because you made an attack figuring at least one of your 3 aircraft would survive and give you odds of success, but the AA Guns shot down all 3 of your fighters? (Similar odds to someone blindly getting a technology)  Of course not.

Should we nerf battleships because someone had 4 of them, they all hit, and you didn’t manage to sink one before losing all your attackers?  No.

Can all that happen in a game?  Yes.  That’s what makes it a game, not a computer program following a script.

PS:  Tech is not optional.  It’s included in the main body of the rules, it’s never included in the section at the end of the manual with the optional rules.  Just because you’re an inferior player does not mean we should be punished because of your inability to adapt to the game rules and board when facing a superior opponent.

Now, does it suck if England gets LRA in round 1 and Germany decided not to attack the SZ 12 fleet?  Yes.  You very well might lose the Italian fleet before getting to use it.  You’re stupid game play for not even attacking the SZ 12 fleet though, not technology’s fault.

Does it suck if Japan scores those HBs and can sink the American fleet?  Yes.  But it’s your bad game play that left yourself that vulnerable.  If Japan’s blowing gobs of cash on technologies, you should own the Pacific and be able to recover from losing your fleet (probably with Paratroopers and LRA if not HBs of your own.)

Does it suck when Germany gets Mechanized Infantry and can bring the war to Russia faster?  Yes.  But then, Russia shouldn’t leave itself exposed to massive gains if they are being played correctly.

Technology, like units, are just a part of the game.  If we start pulling out valid, functioning rules like technology, why don’t we just get rid of all the pieces and have 1 navy unit, 1 air unit and 1 ground unit that way everyone has exactly the same thing…oh wait, your bad game play will still be bad game play and you’ll try to figure out a way to nerf that too.

Anyway, with or without tech, GOOD players will endeavor to do a few things:

1)  Italy needs to start getting control of Africa.

2)  If the Italian fleet is in imminent danger, it might be wise to put an IC in Egypt.  At least it will replace the lost transport.

3)  Why leave the fleet unaugmented?  A destroyer goes a long way to increasing the long gevity of the Italian fleet.  A carrier and another fighter wouldn’t be a bad investment either.

Given that, good allied players won’t rely on one thing to give them a win.  Good players will use tech, position and units to win (instead of crying like a 3 year old when they don’t get there way.)  So how can the allies take out Italy?

best way is to take out Germany.

Second best way is to control Africa and then move some submarines and bombers in range.  If Italy dumps a lot of boats in the water, at least they are not dumping a lot of ground troops on the map.

Third best way is to put a 500 IPC Russian army in Balkans forcing your opponent to chose between Italy and Germany. (They’ll chose Germany probably, and then you can take out Italy.)

I’m not in favor of nerfing anything; I’m just saying that a tech can change the winning side to the losing side. This can happen for both the axis and the allies, basing your overall strategy on combating the possibility of the other getting it is ridiculous. Your assumption that we should base our tactics off of the possibility of an enemy getting a tech is worthless. In the basis of this thread it was about saving the Italian fleet not winning all battles, just the first few rounds.

I agree.  Technology can change the winning side to the losing side.  So can an AA Gun, so can a single round of a single battle, so can Battleship/Cruisers and so can superior game play.

I don’t think we need to moan and cry about AA Guns, single rounds of single battles that go way out of the expected range (but within the valid sample set) or battleships and cruisers that cannot seem to hit anything or moaning about better players winning or lesser players lucking out and winning any more than I think we need to cry about technology being unfair or broken.

Technology is not unfair, it’s not broken, it’s not optional, it’s a valid, functioning, integral part of the game.  Good players will account for it’s impact.  Bad players will not.  Just like good players realize there is a chance that an AA Gun will score 12/15 hits when you attack (which is why I run simulators assuming all my BBs/CAs miss and all my fighters/bombers are shot down).  It might be unlikely (like getting a technology is) but it’s still a valid result and should be accounted for, even if you account for it by dismissing it as a valid threat.

Don’t get me wrong CMDR Jenn. I meant no offense but you can get a little ambitious in your replies, just that good play can be thwarted by the inconvenience of tech, or just plain old bad luck. You cover alot of possibilities with optimal play being the focus. I applaud most of these posts and digest them as good strats to use against others but some seem like your looking for good dice rolls.

Yes, good strategy, which could include doing tech research, can win the game for you just like the dice can cost you the game.

Problem is, some people want to get rid of technology all together because they don’t understand how to use it too their advantage.  It’s like someone arguing that AA Guns should be taken out of the game because there is a chance they can shoot down your entire air force and thus, cost you the game.

It’s technically a valid argument on the face of it.  But if you look closer, you’ll see it’s just a silly, petulant argument by a child who lost a game due to poor game play and poor planning.

Should you always assume every bomber on the board is a heavy bomber and account for it?  Heck no.  If there’s only 1 bomber then the tech is hardly a threat, if the player has no technologies yet, then odds are slim he’ll get heavy bombers.

But if your opponent is sitting on half a dozen bombers, and if they were heavy bombers they, in conjunction with his fleet, would have a good chance to sink you, then yes, you should assume they are heavy bombers and act accordingly.  Even if he does not get the tech, it’s better to make the safe move instead of the risky move and hope he does not get them.

It’s all planning and strategy.  If you take the risk and get spanked, it’s not the fault of technology, it’s your bad game play.  Instead of whining about it, why not learn the lesson of being safe instead of risky all the time?

Heck, you have a more valid leg to stand on if you get ridiculous dice in your major battle.  At least there you can say that with 100s of units involved, the odds of a major swing is effectively nil and thus, if it occurs, the dice gods hate you.  But to complain when someone gets that 1 in 36 shot of getting a technology that can be harmful to you, and they have the pieces available to do the harm to you, and you were stupid enough to put yourself in a position the harm can be done to you, is far in excess of bad luck.

The odds of all those things falling into place at the right time and the right place to cost you the game is astronomical.  They have to be lucky twice over, and you have to be a complete dunce to get into that situation.  In cases like that, I have no pity for you.

@Cmdr:

PS:  Tech is not optional.  It’s included in the main body of the rules, it’s never included in the section at the end of the manual with the optional rules.

Both tech and NOs are optional rules, just check the factsheet: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12601.0

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

PS:  Tech is not optional.  It’s included in the main body of the rules, it’s never included in the section at the end of the manual with the optional rules.

Both tech and NOs are optional rules, just check the factsheet: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12601.0

Sorry, but the only optional rules on your link are the closing off of SZ 16 and escort fighters for SBR missions.

Nothing in there says that National Objectives or Technologies are “optional.”

I think you are just really, REALLY hoping they are optional.  They are not.  They’re part of the main rules.  If you want to have house rules to disqualify technology that’s fine, but those are house rules, not out of the box rules.

And really, technology is much improved in Anniversary.  You have the targeted technology of Revised with the randomness of Classic. (You can select your chart, so it’s targeted in a way, but it’s still random which one you get on that chart.)

@Cmdr:

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

PS:  Tech is not optional.  It’s included in the main body of the rules, it’s never included in the section at the end of the manual with the optional rules.

Both tech and NOs are optional rules, just check the factsheet: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12601.0

Sorry, but the only optional rules on your link are the closing off of SZ 16 and escort fighters for SBR missions.

Nothing in there says that National Objectives or Technologies are “optional.”

I think you are just really, REALLY hoping they are optional.  They are not.  They’re part of the main rules.  If you want to have house rules to disqualify technology that’s fine, but those are house rules, not out of the box rules.

And really, technology is much improved in Anniversary.  You have the targeted technology of Revised with the randomness of Classic. (You can select your chart, so it’s targeted in a way, but it’s still random which one you get on that chart.)

Page 11 of the rulebook under Phase 1: Research & Development it states “Note: This is an option rule–players should decide whether or not this phase will be included in their game.”  I always play with Research & Development i.e. “Tech”, but it does say on page 11 that this phase is optional.
And on Page 22 under Phase 7 where it lists the Nation Objectives & Bonus Income it says “Note: This is an option rule–players should decide whether or not this rule will be included in their game.”  I always play with NOs, but it is an optional rule.  :wink:

@Cmdr:

Sorry, but the only optional rules on your link are the closing off of SZ 16 and escort fighters for SBR missions.

Nothing in there says that National Objectives or Technologies are “optional.”

I think you are just really, REALLY hoping they are optional.  They are not.  They’re part of the main rules.  If you want to have house rules to disqualify technology that’s fine, but those are house rules, not out of the box rules.

We can have Krieghund confirm it then if you don’t believe me. NOs, tech, SBR interception rules and closing of the Dardanelles are all optional rules. If you’re playing OOB rules then none of this can be included.

Why do I get the feeling that Jennifer is trying to antagonize people?

The rules are quite simple when they are written down in the rulebook. There really shouldn’t be any kind of argument when the book is quite clear. Read Calm Dragon’s post. Can that be the end of this childish argument please?

Back on topic: Italy. I have made up my mind to use an Italy First strategy with the UK in the game I will be playing today. I will let you folks know how it works out.

@wally:

Why do I get the feeling that Jennifer is trying to antagonize people?

The rules are quite simple when they are written down in the rulebook. There really shouldn’t be any kind of argument when the book is quite clear. Read Calm Dragon’s post. Can that be the end of this childish argument please?

Back on topic: Italy. I have made up my mind to use an Italy First strategy with the UK in the game I will be playing today. I will let you folks know how it works out.

Do you have further details?

Will you flood africa with ground units (using both US and UK)

or

try to go right for the Italian navy buying air force with UK and trying to hold Transjordan thru UK 2 to finish the med fleet

or

a combination of both (ground units, navy, planes) moving into the Med in round 4 or so to threaten not only the Med fleet, but Italy as well?

I know what you ‘actually’ do is dependant upon the axis moves, but you should have a plan/idea of which of the above three you plan to implement.

Care to share?

I’m going to try a balanced air and naval approach. I am assuming that most of my navy is destroyed on round one, and that after wards my opponent shifts his air power to the eastern front. (I’ve played him alot so I’m certain he will do this) A carrier and pair of fighters on B1 will provide a good defense while I prepare a force to invade Africa.

The United States will be putting pressure on Japan, but depending on the situation, I could send a few ships into Africa if the Brits need help, but for the most part, this is going to be a British invasion force.