Posts made by gtg21

@Xayd74 (apologies - not going to quote your last post responding to my questions - would take up too much space!)

I see your points, and think that it seems pretty sound.  I just cant help but be a little skeptical of too strong a reliance on one form of strategy.  Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the conveyor system from WUS to Australia is critical, particularly if that region is going to be the emphasis of the game.  And I see your point about HI and WUS being weak - but ultimately secure.

I just wonder what the effect is if the system is stalled in Queensland by a Japanese player that has done more than just box in the UK, but essentially obliterated it and taken India.  Seems the Japanese player can then concentrate his force out the DEI or the Philippines and begin a concentrated effort of rolling you back (assuming you’ve attempted to expand into DEI).

I like that it accounts for various Japanese starting round attacks.  But is it fair to say that this strategy contemplates a KIF strategy by the Japanese player?   And not a KAF one?

But I see the flexibility the approach has, particularly in shifting north through the Carolines and perhaps bringing the battle to the central Pacific, in effect incorporating some of the elements Uncle Joe has discussed.

These approaches seem pretty sound.  I wonder if people claiming the game is out of balance (in favor of Japan) have ever really encountered something like this.

Thats a very interesting concept employing the CAs.  Ive read alot of posts on here seriously questioning (or openly bashing) the usefulness of CAs in this game.  The general sentiment has seemed to be load up on DDs and CVs and overwhelm the Japanese.

Ive always disagreed, though never taken the time to bother to counter post or elaborate an alternative.  Your post does a great job of explaining their value when integrated into a overarching strategy that maximizes their use.  Hat tip sir!

@Uncle_Joe:

Yes and no. The goal is to present the Japanese player with two unpalatable options. You aren’t necessarily relying on them to make ‘mistakes’ or to ‘bite on’ a trap for this to work. Either of those certainly helps, but the main idea is to spread them out OR force them to have a weaker econ and less stable front via incursions onto critical areas.

Obviously if both (or all) players are playing ‘perfect’ games without mistakes then the results can and should be determined by the dice…there is nothing else to do it. But I find it hard to imagine playing a ‘mistake-free’ TURN let alone GAME of A&AP40. And a mistake doesn’t have to be an ‘oops, that was dumb’, it could be more in the form of not sending quite enough into battle ‘x’ to get the job done properly or on the opposite spectrum, perhaps a ‘mistake’ might take the form of overcommiting to a battle and being out of position on a future turn.

But in any case if you present a LOT of different targets and intrusions, you greatly magnify the potential for the enemy to deploy incorrectly. For my part, I tend to err on the side of caution (sometimes to a fault) since I refuse to rely on ‘luck’ or on ‘decent odds’. I want to ensure I win my battles and often have to send along a little more than SHOULD be necessary. I’ve seen too many games lost due to a single critical battle where the attacker skimps to stretch elsewhere and it comes back to bite them in the end.

I see.  That makes sense to me and I certainly agree with you in principle.  I suppose the devil lies in the details of the execution of that strategy, particularly in identifying those “critical areas” which if pressured, would more likely than not force a Japanese reaction.  I can see how those would change game to game - and certainly turn to turn.

I also couldnt agree with you more on the effects of errors in executing turns.  There is so much room for miscalculation in force allocation in this game, particulary I think for Japan, that its very difficult to really espouse a winning strategy in specific terms for this game.  One example that immediately comes to mind is determining which casualties to take as an attacking fleet.  Do you err on killing TACs so that you have room for more FTRs for defense to a counter attack, or vice versa for a later planned offensive strike.  Just one small example.

Of course, another pitfall of this general strategy is to simply launch too many of such incursions, or launch them in strengths that either dissuade a reaction, or leave you open to the loss of too much capital.  Finding that balance, along with picking the right “critical areas” to hit, are very difficult things to gauge in a generalized way.

@Xayd74:

Instead, I am creating noteworthy (but not large) resources banks in a line across the Pacific. Each fleet itself is not big enough to commit a significance japanese offensive against it, especially when you consider there are two noteworthy resources on either side of that seemingly defenseless target that can both converge in one move to finish any remaining ships in the japanese offensive. Once this line is created, you have a solid foundation for building resources in San Fran that immediately appear on the other side of the map (through the conveyor belt shuffle). Before the belt is created though, you are sending 1 transport at a time (the first with 2 infantry and the rest with 1 inf and 1 tank) down into certain destruction. Yes, the men will land where you wanted them, but the transport is dead. It seems desperate and foolishly risky to do this just to offload a couple of men, but man it adds up quickly while not appearing to the japanese to be a big problem.

How many turns is it taking you to establish this?  And does it depend on the UK and ANZAC fleets forming one such “resource bank”?  From what I’ve seen so far (which is admittedly limited), the Allies are put on their heels relatively quickly in this game and depending on the sizes of these “resource banks” that you’re creating, what is preventing the Japanese from hitting you at your flank and rolling the entire line?  Is this belt simply a SF to Queensland line, or are you extending it farther?

In my experience its only really been worth garrisoning an island that has an airbase (or an airbase and naval base like the Philippines).  Though in real terms, if you’ve massed your air forces there, and can get an AA gun to them, you dont need an exceptionally large number of land forces.

But otherwise, I would generally agree that if a power is in position to make landings without a naval challenge in advance, then they’re usually likely to succeed regardless of how many troops you place.

In fact in certain instances, it may be better to lure a player into a landing, particularly if the supporting naval forces are withing striking distance of your own air and sea power.

I think Uncle Joe’s strategy is the closest I’ve seen to those that have typically won a game for the Allies.

Though isn’t it also fair to say that alot of the success of that strategy of employing so-called “bad” moves against the Japanese presupposes a Japanese player that is willing to bite?  If you have a focused Japanese player gunning for the objectives he needs to win, wouldnt it seem that an effective counter would be to just ignore the nusiance bad moves, however tempting they may be, and simply carry on, full steam, with whatever overall strategy they plan to use?

I guess my only point is - while I agree with what Uncle Joe says and have seen similar strategies work for the Allies - I can also see how a focused Japanese player can avoid the pitfall of over extending himself by simply not responding to an Allied strategy of “bad moves.”

It takes a certain kind of Japanese player to really fall into the trap of responding to every Allied incursion - and Im just not certain you’ll always get that player.  Its a calculated risk I suppose.

But like so many “strategies” for this game, it really does depend on the game at hand.

Excellent!  These look fantastic!  I’ve mentally committed to two sets for certain, very likely 3.  Will pre-order as soon as the opportunity presents itself.  Thank you so much for all your hard work on this, and please keep up the great work!

In AA Europe I once SBR’d with 6 bombers which were met by an AA gun that rolled six 1’s rolled all at once.

And its funny - for awhile after that I completely lost an appetite for doing SBRs - even though every part of my brain told me it was a total statistical fluke and to ignore it.  Funny how that happens!

I’ve experienced some other incredibly bad rolls/lopsided losses or victories - but that one still stands out clear as day in my mind.

So the US takes Korea.  Then what?  I guess my question is what’s the end objective here?  A landing in Japan? Or a diversion?

The move is clearly telegraphed with the placement of the navy base in Alaska.  Plenty of time for the Japanese player to redeploy significant air (and also presumably) naval forces to within striking range to eradicate the landing forces and/or fleet.

And maybe Im missing the point, but why the need for the naval base?  You can get from SF to Alaska in one move, and then Alaska to SZ 5 in one move without the base.  The fleet movement telegraphs the move less than the naval purchase assuming the end point is SZ 5 and not SZ 6.

Is the base simply for reaching SZ 6?  Or is this move centered on a Korean landing? If the latter, then you don’t need the naval base.

Sounds interesting in theory, but I wonder what the practical effects would be in the South Pacific and Hawaii.  Seems like you’d be leaving Hawaii fairly vulnerable, and ANZAC on their own - not exactly the best scenario.

I admit, I only have a few AAP40 games under my belt at this point, but this seems a little too “novel” to actually work.

Though I could see the merit in an AK naval base intended solely for harassment purposes.

Pre-ordered 2 copies from CoolStuff back in early October.

They arrived, in mint condition, on the 15th!  Very very pleased with their service!

@Army:

$67 = £42

I can’t understand why the cheapest I’ve seen it in the UK is £57 which is $96.

Doesnt work like that - overseas pricing is never matched 1 to 1 on a conversion rate basis.

Just try to feel fortunate its not £67, which more often than not is exactly what some retailers would do!

Im assuming your an ex-pat, right?  If so, maybe have someone from home buy it in the US and then ship it to you.

Actually came across a picture of someone who modded their carriers and planes w/ magnets.  Looks pretty sweet!

http://foldinggametable.blogspot.com/2008/04/magnetic-carriers-and-planes.html

And by page 4 this thread has completely fallen off the rails…

Back to Sealion.

The gov’t in exile rule sounds to me like a must have, considering Sealion (on a probablity scale compared to prior editions) appears to be a more viable option.

However, the exile rule should probably be limited to major nations (which excludes France, China, etc.) that start the war as transcontinental powers (which excludes Germany, Japan, and Italy) as in theory they’re the nations most likely to have potential centers of power farthest away from their capital and therefore independently capable of continuing on with the fight.

That would essentially mean only UK, US and USSR have the option to establish governments in exile, which as previous posters have mentioned, would likely be either a center of production still in their control - or - a fixed location, which if already captured would negate the exile.

Is this historically accurate?  No.  Clearly France and Italy both established governments in exile (Free French and Mussolini in Northern Italy).  But as other posters have noted, historical accuracy and balance dont necessarily go hand-in-hand with a boardgame.

Where any fixed locations would be, would be fun to consider.   For the US it would almost certainly be the west coast.  For the USSR perhaps somewhere beyond the Urals. And for the UK, probably eastern Canada.

I also like the reduced IPC capture for any nation that has an exile option.

But ultimately, these kinds of rules may be too cumbersome to include in the official rules, and are best left as alternate rules or interesting house rules.

Just pre-ordered my two copies from CoolStuffInc  (on IL’s earlier suggestion).  Thanks for the heads up on that store IL, I usually use another site, but with the free shipping over $100, it just makes sense to get two on pre-order.

If only I had been so smart as to snatch up more than one copy of AA50.  That game has a higher YoY return than my 401(k)!

@Bjergmose:

What do you need an odds calculator for?

Are you playing the odds or are you playing the game  :-D

Sometimes its nice to know the odds when planning ahead.  Though in this particular instance, I just finished a game where I lost a particular battle that the victor claims was a statistical lock for him to win.  I sincerely doubt it and just wanted to do my own due diligence.

Its always comforting to know it was just a fluke that caused a certain outcome, and not necessarily a strategic flaw.  Though I suppose one could argue a strategy that doesn’t account for flukes is probably not so great a strategy!

And many thanks P@nther! Appreciate the link!

First real post here - even though I’ve been a longtime reader of these boards (and an even longertime player of AA)…

But I can’t seem to find an odds calculator for AA50.  Does anyone have a link to a good one?  Apologies if there’s already a thread on this somewhere else.