Posts made by Chrisx

@M36 Not really because in a typical game France, USSR and India get knocked out by turn 7 or 8 making it 3 v 3 (plus or minus China) and by then one or both of the Axis are earning as much or more than the US. Generally the US can only concentrate on one map which lets the Axis win on the other.

@M36 But this is what the Axis is doing to the Allies with the current victory conditions. In fact Axis players don’t have to do much more than stick to their scripts and time tables to win and if Japan migrates West and more or less ignores the Pacific it gets even cheesier.

I think that the victory conditions in Global are fundamentally wrong because it should be the Axis that needs to win on both maps while the Allies should only need to win on one map. Historically, the Allies pursued a kill Germany first strategy and Japan surrendered a ‘turn’ after Germany was knocked out. Could switching the victory conditions solve the Axis bias in the game?

@Ichabod:

I got a Sea Lion game going on right now. Russia just moved their stack back from E. Poland (R4) and won’t be getting lots of NO money anymore. Germany will secure Leningrad on round 6, and should have no problem sustaining the push while keeping the fleet reinforced underneath the w. germany air base. I had 9 tanks left on London in the Sea Lion game.

G1 purchase was:  2 bombers / 1 sub  (I got diced in the G1 opener on the UK fleets and lost 4 planes in this game). UK got too aggressive with their purchases.
G2 purchase:  8 transports / 1 destroyer
G3 purchase:  1 carrier / 1 destroyer (sz 110 placement) and a mixture of ground for Berlin.

In the game, Japan has virtually no US opposition other than a little bit that the US added to their starting fleet. All Chinese territories are gone on J4 and UK Pacific is turtling.

The onus of the race is on the US in my opinion when Sea Lion is well executed.  I am pushing Russia back now, but they were able to purchase a lot of tanks. This means that Moscow will still be safe for a long time regardless of no UK support. Therefore, I think in a Sea Lion game, the US should still continue to go after Japan to slow them down.

I really don’t understand the difficulty behind not just defending London.

Didn’t you surrender in that game around turn 11?

The best way to achieve the balance that you’re striving for is to have different combat factors for separate air to air, air-land and air-naval battles but that would transform A&A into a different game and add more complexity. Air to air combat would take place before any land or naval combat in an area. At the conclusion of the air battle phase, surviving victorious air units would be involved in the subsequent land/naval battle in the area but applying a different set of combat factors. Strategic bombing runs would be conducted as a fourth kind of combat (more or less as it already is OOB). To keep things manageable you’d need 3 different battle cards (or 4 if one is included for strategic bombing runs).
To give you something to think about I suggest the following air combat factors:
F A3 D4, TB A2 D2, SB A0 D1. In air-land battles: F A1 D4, TB A4 D2, SB A2 D1. In air-naval battles F A0 D4, TB A4 D3, SB A1 D-not applicable. Fighters are the unit of choice in air battles or defending, TB’s when attacking in air-land and air-naval and SB’s for strategic bombing runs.
Needless to say, the IPC cost of air units would need to be changed.

In a recent game as UK/India (that was a bit of a free-for-all with the true neutrals being attacked by the Axis and Japan taking on Russia) I turtled in India while removing Italy from Africa and built up a nice income from the neutrals in S. America, Africa and the Middle East. I then left Germany and Italy for Russia and the USA to deal with, started building strategic bombers every turn and sent them to India where they gradually destroyed the Japanese navy (even though I didn’t have a fleet) and every smaller stack of Japanese planes that I could target. Japan’s position collapsed and the massed SB’s were even able to eliminate the Japanese defence force in Japan. So, it seems that all you have to do to be a ‘genius’ at this game is to build loads of super bombers and there’s no question that they are over-powered in their current form. On a side note, in reality Germany didn’t have any 4-engine heavy bombers until 1943 and Japan didn’t have any at all. Could that be why they lost the war? I feel there is enough material here for another Hitler Plays A&A sketch.

Thanks for the reply but you’re wrong about the J1 declaration of war against the UK because it then enables the US to declare war on Japan in US1 (with a 30 IPC bonus). In addition by declaring war in J1 any fleet in the Hainan base could be blocked from reaching India by Allied ships before J3 and if the Allies build their Johnston-New Guinea highway the Japanese fleet (and transports) is vulnerable to the destruction shown in the J3 India-Crush crush. Also, Yunnan might be harder to capture if the UK/China turtle there. Almost all crush strategies assume a fairly passive response but a more aggressive one can turn the tables and might require abandoning the crush strategy. The Japanese player should probably have reconsidered his position when the US fleet moved to New Guinea in US2.

@Baron:

attacking SB’s cannot inflict battle casualties on fighters

Why not make it more general such as “cannot inflict battle casualties on other planes”?

That sounds even more sensible. Arguably, though,  there’s always the chance that bombers could eliminate unprepared enemy planes that are on the ground (as happened in sneak attacks like Pearl Harbour and the first few hours of Germany’s attack on Russia) but as that’s rare it’s probably best to ignore it in favour of a good general rule.

@amanntai:

There goes bombing the mainland/London to prep for an invasion…

Not really because you can do that with tactical bombers instead.

Thanks for the links, Baron. An interesting read and I’ve got a few ideas that don’t seem to have been thought of so far. In order to limit the use of SB’s in land battles, each attacking SB must be paired with an attacking land unit. This will prevent a weak land power from dominating combat with SB’s alone, stop SB’s from attacking non-front line areas and force a player to buy at least as many land units as SB’s in order to get the most out of his SB’s. Similarly, in order to attack a naval force each SB must be paired with an attacking surface warship. This will stop a weak naval power from dominating the waves with SB’s alone. SB’s can continue to attack infrastructure according to the OOB rules. The logic behind the above is that without at least some form of surface contact to pinpoint a (mobile) enemy location SB’s are blind and therefore ineffective (and it’s also good for play balance). Another idea is that attacking SB’s cannot inflict battle casualties on fighters (in a similar way to submarines being unable to hit planes). Thus if a force of attacking SB’s found itself alone in an area with fighters it would have to retreat or be eliminated. SB’s would defend against fighters as normal and hits from interception combat during a strategic bombing raid would apply as normal OOB.

I would add that restricting StB to SBR will too much restrict players options.

I think the opposite: at present super-powered SB’s or ‘super bombers’ are restricting options. As the USA I would like to do a KGF strategy but am restricted from getting anywhere near Europe by spammed super bombers. As the UK I would like to build transports and/or a fleet next to England but am restricted from doing so by spammed super bombers. As an Allied player I would like to have some sort of presence in the Mediterranean but am restricted from doing so by spammed super bombers. As Russia I would like to move a force out of Moscow but am restricted from doing so by spammed super bombers. As Germany I would like to try a different strategy but am restricted from doing so because spamming super bombers is a no-brainer.

@Baron:

@Chrisx:

@Baron:

I would agree with you only if their was a specific unit for medium bomber.
It is not the case. German’s JU88 and Japanese’s Betty Medium twin-engine bombers were used in tactical missions.
That’s why I think, as long as there is no 4 fourth air units in A&A (Fg, TcB, MedB and Heavy Bombers), Strategic bomber can do both types of missions (Regular and SBR), since this units included both medium and heavy bombers.

Above are the small changes which can gives more historical feel to both TcB and StB IMo.

If SB’s represent both heavy and medium bombers then their movement should be reduced to 5. My interpretation is that TB’s represent all light and medium bombers with a battlefield role while SB’s represent heavy bombers intended for destroying infrastructure. In their current form SB’s trump TB’s and make them all but superfluous: for one piffling extra IPC they are better attackers, have a longer range and are better at strategic bombing (the only thing they should be good at). They can’t defend as well (but who buys SB’s or TB’s for defence?) or land on a carrier but with their long range and the right base SB’s can be positioned to threaten any strategically important sea area. So who’s buying TB’s instead of SB’s? It’s no wonder that it’s not the players doing extreme SB strategies!

I see it in the oppossite way.
If StBs sculpts OOB were made only of 4 engines heavy bombers, then I would have given them a 7 spaces move. So, with Air Base such High Altitude Heavy Bombers would be able to go 4 TTs away and come back.

The German and Japanese models are medium bombers but for most intents and purposes they didn’t have much in the way of heavy bombers, certainly nothing on the Allied scale, so the developer had no choice but to use iconic medium bomber sculpts. However, the British and American models are heavy bombers. Also, the battle board uses a four engine heavy bomber illustration for SB’s and a twin engine medium bomber for TB’s which would seem to indicate that my interpretation is closer to the mark. Perhaps you’ve inadvertently presented a case for Germany and Japan not being able to build SB’s, only TB’s? That would certainly solve the problem of extreme Axis OP SB strategies.

@Baron:

[q
I would agree with you only if their was a specific unit for medium bomber.
It is not the case. German’s JU88 and Japanese’s Betty Medium twin-engine bombers were used in tactical missions.
That’s why I think, as long as there is no 4 fourth air units in A&A (Fg, TcB, MedB and Heavy Bombers), Strategic bomber can do both types of missions (Regular and SBR), since this units included both medium and heavy bombers.

Above are the small changes which can gives more historical feel to both TcB and StB IMo.
[/quote]

If SB’s represent both heavy and medium bombers then their movement should be reduced to 5. My interpretation is that TB’s represent all light and medium bombers with a battlefield role while SB’s represent heavy bombers intended for destroying infrastructure. In their current form SB’s trump TB’s and make them all but superfluous: for one piffling extra IPC they are better attackers, have a longer range and are better at strategic bombing (the only thing they should be good at). They can’t defend as well (but who buys SB’s or TB’s for defence?) or land on a carrier but with their long range and the right base SB’s can be positioned to threaten any strategically important sea area. So who’s buying TB’s instead of SB’s? It’s no wonder that it’s not the players doing extreme SB strategies!

@ItIsILeClerc:

ChrisX, how about building lots of defending INF/ART instead?
Defending vs. 10STR (@4^40): 20ARM (@3^60) = 40INF (@2^80) = 9ART + 28INF (@2^74).
Attacking vs. 10STR (@1^10): 20ARM (@3^60) = 40INF (@1^40) = 9ART + 28INF (@1 or 2^55).

True for defence, but tanks are much better offensive units and you’re going to have to build them sooner or later in order to take the fight to Germany. All the talk of German economic victory starts to seem less credible when there’s a mass of tanks bearing down on poorly defended areas. The UK can join in the fun by churning tanks out of Egypt, South Africa, Persia and India etc. and move them up into Russia.

An extreme SB strategy might be best countered by building a lot of tanks as that is the best defensive land unit in the game. Statistically, for the same amount of money, 2 defending tanks will inflict more casualties than 1 attacking SB. Once defending tanks have punished and discouraged bomber raids the tank builder can then look for opportunities to use his tanks offensively.

@Dafyd:

Stragegic bombers would carpet bomb a battlefield but this manuever was done prior to launching an attack and was one pass over the field.  It did not stay and engage in the battle.  If you use a strategic bomber on  a battlefield it should be limited to one pass over the field prior to the combat phase and the D6 total applied to the damage to the units in the field.  Say a stragegic bomber is going to be used in Western Ukraine.  The German player would launch all of his SBR’s to hit London’s I/C and air base and one to Western Ukraine.  All of the SBR’s are done prior to any combat rolls.  The Western Ukaraine bomber rolls a 5,  if the Soviet player has 4 infantry, 2 artillery, and two tanks; 5 points of damage would be inflicted on the Soviet’s forces.  One tank and one infantry (defense of 3 & defense of 2) would need to be taken as casualties (or any combination that would equal the amount the bomber inflicted).  Unless there is AAA in that territory, the bomber flies away unscathed.  The ground forces involved are not going to shoot a strategic bomber down.  The casualties would be removed and the ground combat phase would begin.  I don’t think the Strategic bomber should continue dropping fours in a ground or naval battle.  This just wasn’t their function.  My humble opinion only.

This sounds like a good idea but would make massed SB’s even more powerful than they currently are. As you’ve described it, 20 SB’s could inflict up to 120 points of damage on defending ground units without any danger to themselves. At least you’ve seen the point that SB’s should be SB’s and not TB’s. Most of the other posters can’t seem to see that there is a great distinction between the two types of bombers and that the battlefield role essentially belongs to short range TB’s not long range SB’s. I’m not advocating the removal of bombers from battle - they will still be there but as TB’s not SB’s. The latter will be used to perform their historical role of attacking infrastructure rather than enemy units. On a side note, reading about how difficult it was to destroy the Turpitz, makes me think that battleships should have an attack and defence of 5 and 5 hit points!

@knp7765:

So strategic bombers would pretty much only be used for SBRs. Is that pretty much what you are suggesting?

Yes, they are called strategic bombers so that’s what they should be. The introduction of tactical bombers means that strategic bombers are no longer an abstract composite of all types of bombers (heavy, naval and light tactical bombers) and so should be treated just as heavy strategic bombers whose function is to destroy enemy infrastructure. Bombers should be primarily represented on the battlefield by the tactical bomber, otherwise what is the point of introducing the latter when strategic bombers are currently better battlefield units. Whether players would want to buy strategic bombers in their proper role is up to them. Not all units are popular: how often are cruiser and AA units purchased?

Currently strategic bombers have a better battlefield attack than unsupported tactical bombers and are also capable of attacking defending fighters on an equal footing. Is this feasible? When new units are introduced into the game the role and function of some of the older units must be reconsidered. Another example is the introduction of mech infantry, a good thing that allows blitzing tanks to have ground support. But the introduction of mech infantry should have also provided the option for mech artillery/self propelled artillery.

The recent thread on OP bombers got me thinking that when the game had only one type of bomber unit it performed a composite of strategic, anti-naval and tactical battlefield roles. However, the introduction of actual tactical (TB) bombers to perform the anti-naval and battlefield functions should have reduced the role of strategic bombers to, well, strategic bombers. Consequently, they should have an attack and defence of 1 each, making them of little use in battles and more or less requiring an escort to keep them safe on strategic bombing runs (as was usually the case historically). Their ability to conduct strategic bombing should remain unchanged and, with the reduced attack factor, will be their primary function in the game. TB’s, while great at attacking surface targets, were weak against enemy fighters so should have a defence of 2. Also, TB’s, with their heavy bomb loads, generally had shorter ranges than fighters so should have a movement range of 3. To provide a fighter escort for strategic bombers, a new rule will probably be needed to allow fighters to move at the same rate as bombers that they escort throughout a strategic bombing mission (starting and returning to the same area). As these changes give each air unit type more clearly defined roles they should probably all cost the same, say, 11 IPC’s

J1: Japan built a TT, artillery and naval base in Hainan. He moved the entire Japanese fleet except for a BB, CA and DD (which remained in SZ6 to protect the home waters) to SZ36. Land units in Korea moved to Manchuria, those in Manchuria to Jehol (except for the mech which blitzed to Anwhe). The provinces of Chahar, Anhwe, Hunan and Yunnan were captured. Army Shantung moved to Anhwe and Kiangsu to Kiangsi. Inactive air units non-combat moved to Yunnan. The 3 TT in SZ36 were loaded with 3 infantry, 2 artillery and a tank.
USA1: The US built a naval base in Johnston Island and moved all of his fleet there except for the DD and SS in SZ35. The transports were loaded with 3 infantry and an artillery. The fighter in WUS moved to Hawaii, the 2 fighters in Hawaii moved to Wake Island. 41 IPC’s in the bank
C1: China saved its money. The infantry in Kweichow moved to Shensi, those in Suiyuan to Kansu. 20 IPC’s
UK1: The UK built 5 infantry. The TT convoyed 1 infantry from Singapore to take control of Sumatra. 2 infantry in Singapore moved to Shan.  The force in Burma moved to India. The DD moved to SZ37 and  the BB to SZ41.
ANZAC1: ANZAC saved its money. The TT convoyed an infantry and artillery to take control of Dutch New Guinea. 3 fighters moved to Java (without taking control of it). The infantry in Singapore moved to Shan. The DD moved to Java and CA to SZ46. 20 IPC’s

J2: Japan built 3 TT and 3 tanks. The fleet in SZ36 moved to SZ39. The transport in SZ6 moved to SZ39 with 1 infantry and 1 artillery. All air units (except those on the carriers) moved to Yunnan.  The force in Manchuria divided, some moving to Chahar, others to Anhwe. Suiyuan, Hopei and Kweichow were captured by armies Chahar, Anhwe and Hunan.  The Mech blitzed to Yunnan.  46 IPC’s.
USA2: The US built 3 SS and moved his entire fleet to SZ45. The fighters in Wake moved to Guam. 18 IPC’s.
C2: China saved its money and held its line. 26 IPC’s
UK2: UK built 7 infantry.  The TT transported 2 infantry from Shan to India. The other ships moved to SZ 45. 20 IPC’s
ANZAC2: ANZAC built a naval base in Dutch New Guinea. The TT transported the units there to take control of Java. The fighters moved to India.  The DD moved to SZ39 (to prevent a shore bombardment). The CA moved to SZ37 (to block the Japanese TT in SZ36). The infantry in Shan moved to Burma (to block the Mech from blitzing to India). 19 IPC’s

J3: Japan built 3 tanks, 1 artillery, 2 DD and 1 SS. Japan declared war and captured Kwangtung, Burma, Shan and French Indo China. The units on the TT in SZ36 captured Borneo. 6 land units (including the tanks) crossed the TT bridge to Korea. The front line armies  in China were  reinforced from the rear in preparation for a major offensive next turn. The force in SZ39 eliminated the ANZAC DD and UK TT (losing 1 SS in the battle) and then conducted an Amphibious attack on India assisted by every Japanese air unit. Japan had 3 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 tank, 2 bombers, 11 fighters and 8 Tac against 22 infantry, 1 artillery, 3 AAA, 1 Tac and 5 fighters. The AAA shot down 2 fighters. At the end of the first round the UK had lost 12 infantry and 3 AAA but Japan had lost his infantry and artillery and was reduced to 1 tank, 4 fighters, 4 Tac and 2 bombers. It didn’t look good so 3 Fighters and 3 Tac retreated to their carriers, the other air units retreated to Yunnan. The lone tank, unable to retreat,  was eliminated in round 2. 46 IPC’s.
USA3: With the bonus, the US built 1 BB, 1 CA, 2 DD. The fleet in SZ45 attacked the  Japanese fleet in SZ 39 supported by the fighter in Philippines (which would land on the carrier, the other fighter would land in India). Japan won the battle, eliminating the US fleet but had little left. The TT moved to SZ19. 2 units landed in Manchuria and 2 in Kiangsu. The fighters in Guam eliminated  the TT in SZ43 and moved to Philippines. 62 IPC’s.
C3: China built 8 infantry and placed 6 in Manchuria and 2 in Kiangsu. 14 IPC’s.
UK3: The UK built 3 tanks and retook Burma. The UK fleet attacked the remaining Japanese fleet in SZ39 with air support from India and eliminated it. 14 IPC’s
ANZAC3: Anzac built a bomber and TT and captured the Celebes from Java. The fighters eliminated the infantry in Shan. 27 IPC’s

After his would-be India-Crush was crushed, Japan surrendered. Japan starts the game with a more powerful military than each individual Allied state but it is less impressive compared to the combined Allied military: Japan’s army (including AAA) and fleet is is about the same and the perceived air might amounts to just 8 extra units, which superior Allied production soon surpasses. High attrition Japanese ‘crush’ strategies that end up exchanging air units for Allied infantry are lethal to Japan as it instantly removes its starting advantage. On the other hand, if the Allies co-operate fully, exploit 1-2 combos and wage an aggressive war of attrition they should win most if not all games regardless of what Japan does.