The US can go after Japan in the Pac, I’m not sure if it is better than a KGF or a game where you split resources but it can work.
Back to topic - when USA builds 100% in Pacific, it’s not to go toe to toe with the IJN. It’s about finding cracks and crevices, and taking NO islands. Possibly even trading them. It’s far more effective than it sounds on paper.
This is correct.
The US doesn’t have to engage the Japanese fleet, just sort of out manuever it. It depends on how you build your US fleet and what did J buy to counter. It isn’t that hard to get a US fleet to the Sol, which from here can threaten a lot of places. There is potentially a lot of dancing around you must do to either get in attacking range or get away from attacking range, but if J is buying DDs and Subs that means less for troops to Afr or Mos. And gamerman is right, somtimes even trading a low value island is worth it b/c Japan typically can’t ignore it, b/c the samll value islands are really close to the high value islands or stategic islands and to counter Japan needs enough to sink any little fleet you sent in, plus it must pull off the Amphib assualt. It can get real annoying at times.
People I find, also lack the understanding on how to make gains in Europe.
They double attack France with UK/US, which is ok I guess, but rather, they could double defend NWE. Forcing Germany to attack your 16+ Defedning units in NWE is far superior then spreading them out and trying to attack the Germans.
Worse, if they don’t take it they LOSE the 7 NO, and are BADLY exposed to a FRA/GER Counter.
Allied players these days are too busy building Aircraft and destroyers it seems, then men and transports that win the game.
People I find, also lack the understanding on how to make gains in Europe.
They double attack France with UK/US, which is ok I guess, but rather, they could double defend NWE. Forcing Germany to attack your 16+ Defedning units in NWE is far superior then spreading them out and trying to attack the Germans.
Worse, if they don’t take it they LOSE the 7 NO, and are BADLY exposed to a FRA/GER Counter.
Allied players these days are too busy building Aircraft and destroyers it seems, then men and transports that win the game.
The addition of NWE greatly changes the game, and for the better. I admit that I still don’t think I know the best way to deal with NWE as the Allies.
I really like the addition of NWE, because Axis can’t get fighters from France to Karelia and back in one movement, Allies can’t attack France from SZ5, and Germans have to have it for the NO.
What can I say, I love AA50. It could be even better, but what a huge improvement on Revised.
I prefer unopposed landings as well as they do provide a good springboard for a main assault if allowed to survive. Besides it is better to have the inf defend on 2 than attack on 1. Multinational occupation of Nwe is good for subsequent can openers. Besides, it is costly to build a fleet of cruisers or BBs for bombardment. That fleet serves little use if Germany falls because it almost never gets to be used against Japan.
no NO’s and VC’s
like it was ment ;)
@Frontovik:
no NO’s and VC’s
like it was ment ;)
Wham! Hardcore. I like the NO’s - but some of my crew have a similar outlook, it’s good stuff as well.
I have no problem with Axis getting stuff to balance the game out. The problem is that the other Allies (UK and Russia) have no effective means of aiding the USA to combat Japan in the Pacific.
Outside of the Aussie fleet, and a usually unviable Indian IC, there isn’t much the allies can do to support the US directly in the Pacific. Where the UK and russia can easily assist the US against Japan is on the mainland.
The Soviets:
-have a decent amount of inf in the far east that can be used a couple of different ways
In the end, the advantage is still to the axis, but there are some things you can do to help against Japan a little
When playing WITH NOs, it has become typical and accepted that the allies get a 6-9 ipc bid
i do not know anyone on tripleA who plays without a 6 ipc bid for the allies (when National Objectives are active)
When playing WITH NOs, it has become typical and accepted that the allies get a 6-9 ipc bid
i do not know anyone on tripleA who plays without a 6 ipc bid for the allies (when National Objectives are active)
What are the bid rules in Triple A….are those Allied bids unrestricted?
Somehow I thought they were instantly placed and restricted to one unit per territory
When playing WITH NOs, it has become typical and accepted that the allies get a 6-9 ipc bid
i do not know anyone on tripleA who plays without a 6 ipc bid for the allies (when National Objectives are active)What are the bid rules in Triple A….are those Allied bids unrestricted?
Somehow I thought they were instantly placed and restricted to one unit per territory
There are no official bid rules in TripleA, but most players agree on one unit pr. TT.
I also doubt there are any TripleA players who don’t use bids, in NO games. $6-$9 is most common.
@Subotai:
When playing WITH NOs, it has become typical and accepted that the allies get a 6-9 ipc bid
i do not know anyone on tripleA who plays without a 6 ipc bid for the allies (when National Objectives are active)What are the bid rules in Triple A….are those Allied bids unrestricted?
Somehow I thought they were instantly placed and restricted to one unit per territoryThere are no official bid rules in TripleA, but most players agree on one unit pr. TT.
I also doubt there are any TripleA players who don’t use bids, in NO games. $6-$9 is most common.
does the bid have to be placed or lost?
For example, if I bid 4, can I place an inf and give $1 to Russia?
For example, if I bid 4, can I place an inf and give $1 to Russia?
Yes, this is how it is usually done in the TripleA lobby.
ok so i have been playing triplea and your right they all want to use that bid system for the allies so u would think there is a bit of an unblance between allies and axis… the few that keep saying it’s dead even are fine with that statement but why is it 95% of other people say its axis that are a bit stronger … ive done my number crunches and ive come to axis 54.324 and allies 45.676 with wins so it came to me in a dream last night all we have to do is place 1 single unit and it will even this very close too 50% and that is a UK sub in sea zone 35!
ok so i have been playing triplea and your right they all want to use that bid system for the allies so u would think there is a bit of an unblance between allies and axis… the few that keep saying it’s dead even are fine with that statement but why is it 95% of other people say its axis that are a bit stronger … ive done my number crunches and ive come to axis 54.324 and allies 45.676 with wins so it came to me in a dream last night all we have to do is place 1 single unit and it will even this very close too 50% and that is a UK sub in sea zone 35!
:lol: Great post, packrat. I like it. Sub in SZ35 is very intriguing. We’re talking '42, right?
+1 to you! :lol: :lol:
I haven’t played as many 42 games as 41, but I guess the bid level to balance the game is about the same.
And in the TripleA lobby it is common to use LL, although, many players also use regular dice. This doesn’t seem to influence the bid level.
Personally, when playing 42 as allies, it is a nightmare to decide the R1 attacks in regular dice setting. I would rather play axis with a higher allied bid just for the difficult decisions regarding the opening rnd for Russia.
For both 41 and 42 scenarios with experienced players, unless axis got very unlucky dice rolls rnd1, a bid is needed or axis will win almost all games.
Outside of the Aussie fleet, and a usually unviable Indian IC, there isn’t much the allies can do to support the US directly in the Pacific. Where the UK and russia can easily assist the US against Japan is on the mainland.
The Soviets:
-have a decent amount of inf in the far east that can be used a couple of different ways
- can pump some inf, etc to china quickly
- can establish flexible zones of control with air
- can stack the Cauc/ Per easy with inf. more importantly, tanks stacked in the Cau create a presence without actually commiting to Japan.
The UK
-can unite her fleet with the US at SZ 12 and send all that gear towards Persia/India
-Send fighters to a US carrier and use them in conjunction with the aussie tranny
-Send the bomber to Asia to bomb IC’s/ harrass Jap shipping/use in conjunction with Aussie fleetIn the end, the advantage is still to the axis, but there are some things you can do to help against Japan a little
The problem is that allies cant direct all their energy towards stopping Japan’s outrageous expansion of the mainland. UK and Russia dont have enough options for fighting a second front against Japan. Yes they have some very limited options but not enough to stop Japan from turning into Godzilla.
ok so i have been playing triplea and your right they all want to use that bid system for the allies so u would think there is a bit of an unblance between allies and axis… the few that keep saying it’s dead even are fine with that statement but why is it 95% of other people say its axis that are a bit stronger … ive done my number crunches and ive come to axis 54.324 and allies 45.676 with wins so it came to me in a dream last night all we have to do is place 1 single unit and it will even this very close too 50% and that is a UK sub in sea zone 35!
UK sub in 35 is something Ive seen a few times on TripleA. It slows down japan a little since it stops them from taking east indies first turn (which also means japs dont get that NO). However without the bid in Egypt you can almost certainly expect Germany to pulverize Egypt and Japan move into the mediterranean by Round3. Axis control of the suez with an east indies factory is a very tough situation for allies to beat. I dont think id do the sub bid unless you can also put 1 infantry in Egypt (for a total bid of 9). Bid9 is a pretty big bid but I feel allies are at enough of a disadvantage that they need at least a Bid of 8-9 to balance the game.
There are no official bid rules in TripleA, but most players agree on one unit pr. TT.
There are official bid rules for ladder matches. Its one unit per TT and you can only place units in a TT that has existing units belonging to your country.
Khobai, I think the most unrealistic and/or annoying thing with all the A&A games has been that they start at the pinnacle of Axis power, and puts them in a great position to expand from there.
I mean, the most unrealistic thing is Japan growing so much, so easily. At least it’s way better than in Revised :-P
But hey, you could always make house rules to make the game into whatever you want it to be. It’s not hard. And you could probably find people like me to agree to your house rules and play you, if you don’t have people to play F2F.
Sometimes I can’t stomach the whole Japan buying tanks strategy, and rampaging across the Asian continent. Especially when those pups only cost 5 and attack and defend at 3. Have you ever seen a powerful Japanese tank? I haven’t.
Have you ever seen a powerful Japanese tank? I haven’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_90
but not in WW2… :-)
A testament to the poor quality of Japanese ww2 tanks: Shermans cut them to shreds in combat.
A testament to the poor quality of Japanese ww2 tanks: Shermans cut them to shreds in combat.
i heard even a BAR could shoot through the panzer of a japanese tank
