@coachofmany:
Revised is one of the best.
The new games have flaws in my opinion and need setup changes like the alpha rule changes.
I have spare revised pieces, go to
_That site is amazing. :-o I love you.
So are there still people playing revised? There’s no way I have time for a real time game over triple a but if there are any games by e-mail or forum left in revised I would be interested. It seemed to me like everyone had moved on to the new games._
Hello all. I have a copy of A&A revised that is in excellent condition. However even with good care, I am missing maybe 1-7 pieces, something like 1-2 german tanks and a few other random pieces. Also Avalon never has been very good at providing enough pieces in the first place. I don’t really want to buy another copy of the same game, and I’ve wanted to try out one of those smexy variants. Out of all the other A&A games (spring 42, 1940, global, etc) which one is in your opinion the best/most fun/most similar to revised (I really do like revised). Also which of them have pieces that could be reasonably well mixed with the revised pieces as I would like to have a lot more spare pieces for my games.
Thanks
Heh heh doh, I am a noob. Never bother moving those AA guns cause I always forget about them. :-P Course two in and a fighter on offense is still a really bad battle against 2 inf and a fighter on defense. So Japan still keeps India. If your bomber moves in, as you said there is a chance of the bomber dying, Germany will know whether defending India is smart or not.
Why did I somehow think you were going to come up with something witty for that dancing comment? Anyways…
I think there is no situation that Anglo can be held by Germany (barring good luck) if the UK really wants it back. However taking it strongly as you said forces the bomber to come in, which allows a German fleet unification in the med. The UK should be just about finished, after UK2, the vast majority of their infantry spent. So after G2 no opposition for the Germans.
So to be honest I think my strategy now will be to take Anglo hard, and use that SZ8 sub for fodder against the BB, hopefully forcing the UK player to choose between Anglo and my fleet. Either way I win something with no cost to me, apart from the already unavoidable UK counter on Anglo. Another transport would be helpful here, but there’s already a bid in Africa so no luck. Well it all comes down to luck it seems, who gets luckier in Africa. Can’t say I like that but meh there it is.
Now that my strategy is getting ripped down to same old same old German standard moves it’s time to go think of something else interesting to think about. So if no one else wants to ponder some more I think I’ll call this quits. (and go back to games with NAs :-P)
Not to sound offensive Mr. Switch but if you had actually bothered to spend the time reading my original post you could have saved yourself the trouble of writing a counter to a false premise. :wink:
I bought 2 fighters on G1, and apart from the one in Libya all the others should be in range. I will not go into all the details, as I already explained this in my original post. But the UK fleet of 1BB, 1 loaded AC, and 1 DD will be facing 2-3 subs, 7 figs, and a bomber, resulting in an overwhelming win for Germany. With a very likely chance of losing no fighters. Even if you do drop two fighters, those were fighters that you opted for instead of the G1 AC buy. So instead of an easily countered restrictive AC buy you get to pound down the entire UK navy, most of the UK airforce, and the entire UK1 purchases. This looks like a win-win-win for Germany.
And how the heck is an AC threatening London? Transports threaten london, aircraft carriers just annoy the allies and force them to spend more time, shooting down your boats. But those boats are units not working against the russians, cater the allies strength, unlike fighters which are flexible dual use units usable to the end of the game.
Actually I had been toying with some idea with the idea of a German airforce expansion on G1, instead of a naval buy. I had wondered at times how 2 fighters would be used. The Caspian Sub Paper on the Baltic fleet (the fourth one) does call for a Bomber, but while I found the paper interesting, I disagreed with the strategy. The extra range on the bomber is nice, but I’d rather be able to split up and roll two 3s rather than one 4. The extra 7 points of defense are also crucial, and you will be hitting yourself when Germany needs that defense and you are rolling a one for the bomber instead of two fours.
Bunnies, I feel that we are dancing around several different issues so I will try to address each one.
Anglo: Clearly this is a sore spot for Germany, and a crucial element of any strategy. Taking Africa is essential, it’s free IPCs for you and less for UK once you get past Anglo. Unfortunately I’m not seeing how this strategy is working out very well if you send in the BB + tran with another 1 inf and tank. Realistically, you should expect to end that battle with 3 tank and 1 inf on Anglo. The UK counters with the Fighter, Bomber, and 3 infantry. Best Germany can hope for without just hoping for good dice ( a bad strategy :-P) is to kill all the infantry and stop the UK from getting the land. But then you just lost 3 tanks, and one of those was one of your “valuable valuable tanks from Europe”. Now if you want to do any blitzing you’ll have to rebuild at least one.
Also if you really want an IC in India on J2 it’s not that hard to manage. The German fighter from Libya can hit Anglo on G2, and land in India on a NCM. How do you feel on the odds of 2 inf + 1 ftr vs 2 inf + ftr + aa gun?
So I think I have come to the conclusion that if the UK wants it bad enough, Germany cannot realistically stop a UK recapture of Anglo. And I don’t really feel like leaving more tanks exposed than I have to there. Perhaps this means Germany should just hit Anglo harder with Artillery/infantry and hold off on the tanks. Personally I’m starting to opt for this strategy. Darn now I want to reposition that tank and artillery in Africa (flip them around). And hit Anglo with 2 inf, 2 art, 1 fig, 1 bmr. Odds are good, you’ll still take the land. No precious tanks exposed. ;)
TEH GERMAN FLEET! The problem is that if you still want the baltic fleet out, that sub from SZ8 is kind of crucial. Without it the airforce wins the battle far too easily. Of course if you don’t take Anglo as strongly, the bomber is then not needed, and is free to take the fleet on. Then again this has a good chance of decimating the British airforce, at no cost to Britain, as these are not any units that you bought but rather units that you started with.
The only issue remaining is that stupid British Battleship. By sending the German battleship to Anglo, and the SZ8 sub to SZ7 the fighters will be hitting it with no cover. I really really don’t like this and I’m beginning to wonder if this plan is even worth it considering that.
It’s obviously not the ultimate ownage strategy, but I still like having an expanded airforce, restricting some UK options, potentially aiding Japanese aggression towards the Caucus early on, and not spending any money on expensive boats that won’t be used against Russia ever.
Hmmm perhaps I did not make myself clear, or perhaps you disagree with my conclusion. If the UK bomber goes to Anglo it cannot attack the reinforced Baltic fleet in SZ7. So I will be able to unify my fleet. Sure you got Anglo back, but now I have two transports instead of one for pounding the Russians and holding Africa, and I have enough fleet to keep the Allies out of Africa for a good long while. Anglo will not survive the G2 counter. And now Africa is in German hands for the duration of the game until the Allies can overpower the combined might of the enhanced Luftwaffe + German unified fleet.
Also a UK2 counter on Japan is not that great an idea. It can be done but sending 2 inf and a fighter vs 2 inf + AA gun doesn’t seem very attractive to me. Especially when that fighter could prove crucial elsewhere (i.e. Moscow).
The tank blitz across Africa was not halted by the purchase of 2 ftrs, but by the movement of the battleship to Gibraltar instead of Anglo Unfortunately I don’t see a way around this. That sub must join the fleet in SZ 7 for this to work, and sending naked fighters against the battleship is very unattractive to any Germany player. Is losing a 10 IPC fighter worth delaying your blitz across Africa by one turn? On the other hand this way you don’t lose 2 tanks, which equals 10 IPC. It still feels wrong somehow, but I suppose if it works well within an overall strategy sacrificial risks are ok?
Not sure if this has been tried before. Assume no NAs in this game, and Germany has a pair of bid units in Africa. (tank in Algeria, inf in Libya). Yes I hate bids, but most people here seem to hate NAs so I though I’d try a strategy that uses the bid to balance instead of NAs which seems more popular to people on this forum.
Germany purchases are:
2 ftr
5 inf
1 art
Germany moves their Baltic Fleet to SZ 7, joining with the Sub from SZ 8. The battleship will attack the UK BB off Gibraltar, and the transport will load up with one inf to take Gibraltar to prevent the UK fighters from being able to counterattack. The fighter from Norway, the Fighter from Western, and the fighter from Germany join in this battle.
In Anglo you will have two tanks, two inf, the bomber, and the fighter from the Balkans. Troops can then rally in East Europe, leaving a picket line behind in Ukraine and Belorussia. The fighter in Ukraine and the fighter in Eastern can join in a counter on Belorussia and still make it back to Western on non-combat move.
The three infantry from Norway move into Karelia, which was hopefully abandoned. If not you probably can use a plane or two to clear it if Belo was skipped, if not maybe an art will be necessary.
Now your turn is over. Let’s look at the ramifications of this move. By moving the fleet to SZ 7, you force the UK to contend with it immediately. As it can now slip into the Mediterranean. The UK have 3 options, none of them particularly enticing.
1. Ignore the fleet. I think this could be a disaster as Germany could now have a fleet of one Battleship, 3 subs, a destroyer, and 2 transports. Combined with the airforce in Western which will consist now of 8 fighters and a bomber, the Allies are not going to be landing in Africa for some time, and those transports will give both Africa and the Russians a lot of pain. Or they could come out and cause problems for allied shipping.
2. Attack the fleet with Air + Navy. At first this looks like a win for the UK. They can bring a battleship, a transport (two if they foregoe the tank in East Canada), 2 ftrs, and a bomber. However this battle turns ugly really fast. As the subs can only shoot at naval units, the German player stands a very good chance of sinking your battleship, and because of opening fire they will know before they choose their casualties whether they want to stick around or submerge. With two hits they will obviously be sticking around, and the UK will be in serious trouble, with less they can simply submerge and let the transport and destroyer die. Now the Battleship is sitting alone in a seazone with 2-3 submerged subs. Likely the UK player thought in advance that he would need naval defense, and bought a carrier. But it should be obvious very quickly that one battleship, and one AC is not sufficient defense against 2-3 subs, 7 ftrs, and the bomber from Libya. Let’s say the UK also bought a destroyer. Even with this purchase the battle swings in the German player’s favour. Even if the Med fleet never comes in they stand a very strong chance of pounding down that whole fleet without losing a single plane. Even if they do lose a couple fighters, remember those were fighters you opted for instead of a naval purchase. So blasting the entire UK navy and most of her airforce (including the entire UK1 purchase) is a very acceptable use for that money.
3. Risk an air only attack on the fleet. This is inherently risky. The UK stands a good chance of losing both their fighters, and even their entire airforce. And the German player didn’t spend a penny in the water.
I think the 3rd option is the only real option the UK player has. As illustrated the other two give the UK player too many problems, so as the UK I’d be hoping for lucky dice. :-P
Those two fighters will be a blessing all game. Karelia is a deathtrap for the allies, as 8 fighters + 1 bomber can hit it and still return to Western. Allied shipping will be more difficult and may necessitate more money spent on defense. The allies cannot just build planes, as they could against a German navy, this threat can only be countered by defensive naval builds. Once again by building not a single boat, but building multipurpose units that can aid in the last defense of Berlin.
My biggest issue at the moment is the defense of Anglo. If the UK want to they can hit it with 3 inf + 1 ftr. (not the bomber unless they let the SZ 7 fleet slip into the med). Which generally means they will probably take it back unless the Germans got real lucky in the battle they probably only have two tanks left. Is this worth it? After all to do so the UK opens India up very early and Japan could capatalize on that and have an IC in India on J2.
Further thoughts?
@GuderianHG:
And sometimes the allies are nice enough to build ICs for you in India/Sinkiang. :-D
Yeah, I’ve made that mistake! Once bitten, twice shy :-P
It’s not a bad strategy if you’re going KJF. It just requires a lot of coordination between the allies. It’s an all or nothing deal really. It’s not going to work unless Russia defends Sinkiang and both ICs are built on R1, followed by massive naval builds by the US. If you only do part of the plan then Japan parties in Asia. :-P
ZOMG text wall. :-o
Not even going to try and read all that tonight.
Anyway I find that as Japan I like transports, and lots of them. There’s a whole lot of infantry on the islands to grab, they can threaten US, take Australia, prepare to assault Africa, and contribute to general mobility. Unless I start outstripping the 8 unit limit on Japan I never build ICs. That doesn’t happen till about J4 or 5 though, depending on the game. I don’t see the point of a East Indies IC if the game is true KGF, as by then if things are going as they should be you’ve already pressed through India, Sinkiang, and are pressuring past Yakut into the Russian heartland. Might as well build them on the frontlines.
And sometimes the allies are nice enough to build ICs for you in India/Sinkiang. :-D
Just because a man is a brilliant general doesn’t mean he’s infallible, and can’t make a crucial mistake. You don’t fight a war like that for 4 years and then decided to throw it away by slaughtering thousands of your own men. Grant earned the title butcherer through his willingness to use lives to win battles. From everything I’ve read Lee cared about his men. I find it inconsistent with everything I’ve understood about his character to think that he would intentionally order thousands of men to their deaths, in order to lose a war he’s been fighting for 4 years.
Lee was not an idiot. He had to know that defeat would crush the South and send it into the third world status it achieved in post civil war/post reconstruction times. You’re trying to say that a man who cared deeply about his men, and his state, and southern society in general, who suddenly decide to throw it all away at once? I find that hard to swallow. Even the best men make mistakes, and I think that’s what this was.