Posts made by Blaarg

What part of PA?

/also from PA

@dondoolee:

Can some one explain the advantages of a T1 invasion of the Philipines to me (other than you gat an NO that turn)?  I really fail to see the advantage of it.

Assuming, NOs: The difference between taking Philippines on J1 is 14 IPCs. (Japan gains 7, US loses 7)  I think I’d like to keep a carrier’s worth of money between me and my principle opponent.

@axis_roll:

Assuming you are playing with NOs.

If you want to skip the phillipines for the first round (you’ll get it round 2)

this option is not on your list.
Then I have seen:
1 to EI
1 to Bor
1 to Kwa
2 to Burma

This really threatens India/australia/persia/ & africa.

The UK units in India can only run to persia (with TransJordan units), and be pressured by the remaining Burma Japanese invasion force (2 inf, art?), and 2 inf from east indies, and 2 ftrs on sz37 a/c.  Russia may need to help.

Taking Philipines presents a chance for the UK DD to block and stop 2 of 4 transports from going after Australia (sz48).  Philipines are a money grab though, and stop USA from getting some money as well.

I think that would be the 3+ Asian mainland option, and I might try it my next game.

@Cmdr:

If you are winning with technologies, you would probably have been winning anyway.  If you are losing with technologies, you could have cost yourself because you spent too much on technologies.

This is exactly it.

Game mechanics that usually result in the winning side ‘piling on’ don’t make for fun games, IMO.

In my current game, Australia held versus the J2 attack of 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 fighter.  The AA gun hit the Japanese fighter and the land units mopped the Japanese invaders.  Australia ended with an infantry and an artillery and Japan won’t achieve one of their national objectives for at least 2 turns.

@mpc220:

@cymerdown:

Who says you need to keep it?

Maybe you don’t.  I’ve played the scenario a few times and I think it very well might be worth trying to save; you can delay British landings for a turn or two and that might be worth the 14 bucks you blow on it.  But I’m not sure.

Usually you get to blow the fleet on a suicide strafe with your aircraft, and it takes it’s money’s worth before dying.  That is, assuming the dice gods don’t take a dump on you.

I’ve seen the Battleship at Hawaii (SZ53) survive against 2 fighters and a destroyer on J1.  I’ve seen the Battleship in SZ2 survive the G1 attack of 2 subs and a fighter.  I’ve seen G1 Egypt turn into a disaster where both the British tank and fighter survive.

@DarthMaximus:

I think LL in AA50 might change the game a bit more compared to previous versions b/c of the number of Axis attacks in Rd 1.

G and J have roughly about 20 combined attacks to do. 
In ADS (no matter how good the odds for each single battle) you will lose (or have a disaster in) probably 2-4 of these battles.

LL takes that away.  Even in Egy (the worst of the rd 1 attacks) is essentially a guaranteed clear of the UK ftr.

Japan doesn’t have to worry about a bad Pearl with 1 dd, 2 ftrs vs. 1 bb.  2 ftrs are guaranteed to sink the UK dd in Sz 35 and US dd sz 56.  Ger is guaranteed to kill the DD in Sz 12 with an attack of 2 ftrs vs. dd and ca.
Ger is guaranteed to only lose 1 air in attack on Kar if they do that.  There is just no risk to any of the Axis attacks.

The biggest Allied adv in AA50 is the number of Axis attacks on rd 1 and the mathmatical probability that all of the combine attacks won’t succeed.  LL removes that.

20 attacks with individual odds of 95% to succeed still means you will only succeed in all of them like 35-40% of the time.  This of course doesn’t even count that Egy isn’t a 95% winning battle.

Although, I do still think the Allies will have the Adv.  I don’t think the Axis can maintain the economic lead long enough.

Interesting analysis.  I’ve never played with LL, but it sounds unappealing.

very nice.  I used to play 40k and was a pretty good painter if I don’t say so myself.

Tech ruins the game.

A lucky paratroopers roll can result in the immediate fall of Great Britain.  Heavy bombers usually results in a timely concession in whatever power opposes that who rolled it.  Long range aircraft, at least in the Pacific, it pretty much game over.  Especially when the US rolls it and is now about to hit an undefended stack of bombers with their new found range.

Our gaming group plays with the house roll that techs are delayed, and don’t come into effect until the end of your turn.  However, even this probably isn’t enough for heavy bombers, which is just ridiculous in it’s power.

We’re toying around with an espionage rule that allows you to steal techs reached by other players, in order to ‘balance’ tech.

Our gaming group has yet to see an Axis victory in 1941.

France is a tempting target, but assuming all other factors even, taking a capital seems to be a better use.  You deny Italy a build, and you take their income.  If they can’t immediately reclaim Italy, you can start building there.

I am still of the opinion that Armor’s mobility and increased defense is generally well worth the 25% increase in cost over artillery.  Artillery is a situational unit, IMO.

@d142:

artillery is very important for attacking opponents, 6 infantry attack at 6@1 at a cost of 18, while 3 artillery, 3 infantry attack at 6@2 at a cost of 21,
for defensive reinforcement infantry are the obvious choice, i always build artillery and infantry at a 50/50 ratio, when attacking with 10 infantry, 4 artillery is a great back up, because the attack would be 6@1 8@2, and when casualties are counted the 4 artillery still increases the infantry attack to the last unit, for large scale attacks a ratio of 33% is a good build to attack land units, if there are fighters defending, armor would be needed to increse the overall attack strenght,
building too much artillery is counter productive, I.P.C. could be used to build armor and fighters when too much artillery are purchased,
a player needs just 50% infantry, 50% artillery to get the highest attack values,
and if a player has advanced artillery the need for artillery decreases to 33% to get the highest attack values,

You only build art/inf in a 50/50 split?  You’re out of your mind.  Sure if you only use those artillery in large attacks where you over power your opponent, the 50/50 split is the best bet.  However, that build is horrible for trading territories or building in a battle that will last many rounds, as infantry heavy battles tend to do.

@Bardoly:

@Blaarg:

@Bardoly:

@Blaarg:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Personally, I feel 10 inf is the best G1 buy in order to preempt Russia’s 10 inf buy.  This allows those inf to move to the front early.  The tanks can catch up.

If you’re going to do that, you might as well use your whole income and buy 9 infantry and an artillery.

Unless you think ahead to G2 and see that you need that 1 extra IPC to build that 1 extra unit on G2.

Generally, IPCs on the board now are worth more than IPCs on the board next turn.

Very, very true.
I was just making the point that often (at least once per game) you realize that if you had just saved 1 IPC last turn by purchasing an art instead of that arm (or something like that), that you could buy what you really wanted to buy this turn.  For G1, I usually spend all 31 IPCs, but for some of my stategies, I feel that on G2 that I will need that 1 extra IPC, so I only spend 30 instead of all 31.

I understand what you say, but unless you’re building something awesome, it’s better to have units deployed and moving sooner rather then later.

@mikecool70:

4.  Despite the USA building nothing but fleet and sending it all to the Pacific, Japan can STILL get very powerful.  I’m talking about close to the 60 IPC range.  The problem is, in order for Japan to get that powerful they need to use their navy to escort their transports and assist in battles; this allows the USA to secure Caroline Islands fairly early and get them up to 53 IPCs, which is very close to Japan’s IPC total.  If Japan is actually fighting to take back Caroline Islands every turn, then they are sending a lot less units to the mainland; I think this is actually to the Allies’ advantage if Japan does this.

I’m confused, how does taking the Caroline help the US economically?  I understand, if nothing else, it gives the UK their 5 IPC/turn NO, but you speak as if it helps the US achieve a NO?

Tanks have two big advantages over artillery to justify their increased cost.

1. Mobility
2. Defense

@Bardoly:

@Blaarg:

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Personally, I feel 10 inf is the best G1 buy in order to preempt Russia’s 10 inf buy.  This allows those inf to move to the front early.  The tanks can catch up.

If you’re going to do that, you might as well use your whole income and buy 9 infantry and an artillery.

Unless you think ahead to G2 and see that you need that 1 extra IPC to build that 1 extra unit on G2.

Generally, IPCs on the board now are worth more than IPCs on the board next turn.

@Subotai:

AA50, (and also Classic & AAR) is not about VCs. It’s about production, attrition and money.

Then why have them?  First side to take an enemy capital wins?

If you’re going to have ottawa as a victory city, the lack of a German Naval strat seems like a problem.  Either move the vc or give Germany a fighting chance in the Atlantic.