I played 3.9 this weekend, thanks for the new setup!!
Does anyone have the 3.9 for abatlemap? We have some problems playing Russia, always loosing Moscow on G5. I have to really plan Russia in detail next time. Perhaps giving up all territory without fight to germany, and stack in Moscow, hoping for the sibirain forses to arrive in R6. Or something… At the moment we dont know how to respnd to the German panzar/luftwaffe angriff… So I have to do my homework…
I played a game this weekend, with a friend I haven’t been playing with since early 1990. He is extemly good when it comes to strategy games, but it was the first time to test Global 1940 (last he played was revised).
He reacted to the huge amount of air units, and find it strange that there are no limits to air units you may send in, just that there are a limit when it comes to bombardment (you man not bombard more than landing units), now when you have this massive concentrations of air units.
At the moment I was winning with German and Japan air-fists (as always I give much priority to the air-units), so I did not agree to limit their capabilities/stacking. But what about you, anyone out there that have house ruled this and got a good balance, without obvious negative side effects?
Yes, thank you for report! Good for the Axis’ moral. Since my last defeat - which was the most humiliating since I started playing A&A - I have been planning my next Axis opening. I think I have found out a pretty solid opening.
Today was a big day. My daughter is quite used to sit by his father when she is playing A&A. She can sit for hours and play whit the small plastic units.
http://hem.bredband.net/b335249/A&A.png
Today I tried to explain what the small plastic units represents in the “real would”. So I put on the move “The battle of Britain” from 1969. Now she is running around the apartment screaming “Spitfire, spitfire”.
http://hem.bredband.net/b335249/H111.png
I think she will be a great A&A player some day!! :-)
Yes, Hakan, you’re obviously no rookie. AA50 has quite a few different dynamics than previous incarnations of A&A. You’re right, the western front is weak for Germany at game start.
I would suggest in '41 with the way it sounds like you are playing, that you try to have Germany just hold her own. That is, make sure you’re getting between 1 and 3 NO’s as often as possible and make sure you deny Russia the big 10 NO.
It is difficult to really threaten Russia hard and defend against the western Allies at the same time. Japan is so hi-powered in '41 that you should just wait a few turns for her. Japan is very capable of putting a serious threat on the USA (see my current game vs. Anchovy - round 3 and America is in serious danger of going down) especially if US bombers go to Europe. In AA50, I almost always go nearly all out against Japan with the USA in both scenarios with great success.
Yes I do agree. Japan is the key to win. I will try to play them better next time.
My general Axis tactics has been to play conservative with Germany, and aggressively with Japan. But if you don’t put some pressure on Russia, Russia may support India with tanks from Caucasus. And when this happens, Japan have to make a quite hard commitment to take India with an IC. And when Japan must commit hard to take India, at the same time as Germany plays conservative, Japan cannot put so much pressure on China, at the same time as the US bombers gets time to take good offensive air bases in the Pacific. And when Japan hit hard south, Japan also faces the threat that the defensive infantry stack in Stanovoy may advance. It doesn’t bother so much since, but still… I actually prefer to put pressure on USA with Japan, rather then going all out on India, China and Russia.
As Allied I often buy bombers T1 for all my IPC. I think they are so price worthy in A&A50. And depending on how Germany and Japan are playing, I ether send them to the Pacific or England. If the Japan naval units is in striking distance of Alaska, I have my bombers in East Canada, so I may strike both against a Japanese naval invasion, and support a sea born invasion on France.
Anyway… I really FEEL like a rookie with the Axis playing A&A50. But… I guess I have not done my home work with the Japanese planning. However, it seems to be a quite strong strategy to put pressure on USA with Japan. Perhaps that will be my game plan next time (hope my friend isn’t reading:)
Buy 9 inf 1 art.
Egypt–Send all Africa units, plus the bomber, plus 1 inf 1 tank in the transport.
Karelia–Send all Finland units, plus 1 inf 1 art in the transport, plus 3 fighters. Risky, but worth it if you get that NA.
SZ3–send 2 subs and 1 fig after the British BB
Send 1 sub 1 destroyer after the destroyer in SZ6
Attack East Poland with a few inf, 1 fig, and some tanks.
Attack Baltic States with everything else.There are several variations on this. It might be wise to take Ukraine too, but this requires spreading out a bit thin for my taste (still, you will be destroying the main Russian force at Karelia, so the threat of counterattack is much less). At sea, you could decide to send the subs after the other destroyer/tranny pairing instead of the bb and use a 4th fig in Karelia…the problem with this is it allows UK to land in Finland on UK1, which I’d prefer to avoid. On the other hand, if the Brits go to Finland, they aren’t going to France.
Or you could skip the Karelia attack and just securely hit all 3 Eastern territories, while using your air to destroy British units in SZ12. Either way, in a non-bid game I’m always going to attack Egypt full-force because UK cannot reinforce that region easily, and I want to dominate that region using all 3 Axis and keep getting the Italian NO.
In any case, there is a reason that Allied bids usually go to Egypt and/or Karelia. If Axis is denied these G1 attacks it is much harder for them to win.
I have tried variants on this theme several times, but I always became to “thin” in the end as German. Perhaps just bad luck. Or, perhaps my friend is just to strong when he plays Allies. Anyway, I think I will planne and go with this one more time. We are obviously not playing “wrong” then. Thanx Zjukof.
Ok, thanx a lot for all tips. I will analyse them before our next game. (We play 1941 with NO)
Me and my friend have been playing A&A in about 20 years, but there is obviously some thing we are missing something, since most players say that Axis are easer…
The problem is that the western wall is so weak, and we have never manage to put heavy pressure against Russia with Germany before Germany comes under heavy carpet bombing and/or invasion… But I have always used Italian infantry to defend France. Perhaps I should try to send them to Russia instead. Never thought of that… Hmmm… But how will you then stop allied invasions?
The only time acually I manage to win with the Axis, was when USA went all out on Germany. That’s obviously a big mistake, if you’re not careful. I simply made an heavy sea born invasion on Alaska and then Western USA. Since then we always play quite balanced with USA. But even if you do that, not leaving the Pacific, USA may put heavy pressure on Germany. First with bombers, than with sea born invasions.
But… We are obviously missing something. I will test your strategies on ABattleMap before next game, and calculate the odds. I will leave nothing to random… :-)
I will put out my G1, G2, G3, J1, G2, G3 and I1, I2 and I3 plan before next game, for you to comment. It will be interesting.
Me and my friend have played lots of games now, but we never manage to win as Axis.
How do your favourite openings look like G1, G2, G3 and J1, J2, J3? What is your grand strategy?
Sorry for a stupid question, but english is not my mothertung. What do you all mean by “bidding”? Or have I missed something in the new rules? Oooops…
I have been playing AAorg since the mid 1980. After a few years, we started to make plenty of house rules. Then came AArev. I was sooo happy. We played it over and over again. Then came AA50. Once again I was soooo happy. It seemed perfect. It’s hard to describe. I love AA. I grow up with it, and will play it until the day I die. I thought that AA50 was the final and ultimate version. That there would not be any more versions.
But I was wrong. Just a half year later, a new almost similar game is out on the market. To be honest, I feel a little bit fooled by Larry. Larry usually don’t act like this. What has happened? I actually felt a little sting in my AA hart. :-/
But for sure I will buy it. As I have bought all outer AA games. Larry knows this. Obviously.
Just a small question: All of us hanging here are the few lucky who got A&A50 before it was sold out. Instead of a reprint, it seems as there will be an new update of AArev. The name will be AA42. It will have 5 players (no Italy), the smaller original size map, some new rules and the new cruiser navy unit.
I guess all that those who didn’t got AA50 will buy it. And perhaps those who don’t like to play with Italy. Will any of you go from AA50 to AA42?
I don’t like AAE. I would go for AA42, I think it will be great, taking the best from AA50, but without Italy.
I have been using a few tecniques, and it depends on how the board looks, but generally I prefer to stand strong and fight for France, almost ignoring NW Europe. I just take it back NW Europe with inf+fgt+bmr.
If UK and USA are going after Germany first, my building strategy for Germany and Italy is to maximise quantity. I always build 10 units for Germany and try to build 6 for Italy. I always build at least one German bomber, and if possible some Italian air unit to. Bombers are so flexible. They may hit both on the west and east front, and may threaten the invading navy units.
When UK and USA go for Germany first, try to secure the Japanese NO as quick as possible, then swiftly turn against USA with a heavy invading force. Build 1-2 bombers per turn. Then start pumping in hardware and bombers in to Alaska. This is not only putting pressure against USA, but the bombers in Alaska also threatens the US naval units in SZ 1 & 9. And if also Germany and Italy also is heaving a strong bomber force, this becomes a very serious threat against the Allied navy units. USA/UK must respond to the threat, or they will simply loose their navy. When USA goes for Germany, I think its very effective for Japan to put pressure on USA. If USA don’t answer against the treat, he will lose West USA.
Well… some thoughts…
Regards,
Håkan
Yes, I love them to! Today I will go for Karelia the first turn, even thou I don’t really like that strategy. If it fails, it’s down hill from there.)
Edit: I did my Karelia opening with Germany, but as always it was at total failure. I didn’t hit anything in the Atlantic and Soviet took Karelia back directly. putting heavy pressure on my German east front. The game seemed lost. However, when I played chess on quite high level, I learnt how important psychology is: If you stand in a hopeless position, you might try to exaggerate how sad you are by shaking your head etc. Then the enemy may become ignorant. And bingo - this is what happened!! I kept buying Italian and German bombers, bud he didn’t build any more naval units. He just kept invading France, until “bang” I hit his naval units in the Atlantic. He lost everything. At the same time I started occupying the west USA with Japan. And 3 turns later, I was holding both west USA and England with the Axis. He then gave up. Things may change very fast. Don’t underestimate psychology when playing chess and A&A. :roll:
//Håkan
@Greand:
Germany might take London with it. If you go for a strat using bombers and hope for
paratroopers, its not that unlikely to take London as if you get paratroopers at a lukcy point London might be very poorly defended.
… After reading all this I am rally thinking that it might be better to play without the tech… I hate loosing because of a dominant tech. And this technology seems poorer than most tech - even worse than Rockets and Havy Bombers.
Taking London with only fallschirmjägers or Berlin with only paratroopers is just impossible in my eyes. Rangers are to light equipped and would be out of supply in a short while. In my eyes, being a real Jäger, it seems difficult to coordinate such a massive drop, and total suicide to carry out an infantry assault on a capital without massive heavy equipment like artillery and panzer.
A&A is not a detailed game, and shouldn’t be, but one does not have to make it totally unrealistic…
Is it possible to modify the rules a little bit? Perhaps:
Perhaps a little bit off topic.
No one, except me and my friends, seems to thinks that the rule when a liberated capital falls in enemy hands the very next turn, could be made better. The most obvious example is the differences when Germany liberates an Italian territory or the Capital.
Example1: Germany liberates the Balkans while Rome is occupied. In this case, Germany (axis) collects +3 IPC during Collect Income from the liberated territory, even if the Balkans is re-occupied during the UK turn.
Example2: However, if Germany has liberated the Balkans, and some later turn liberates Rome, then Germany directly hand over all liberated territories and the capital to Italy. Hence, Germany don’t collect any “liberated -Italian-IPC”. However, before the Italian turn, Rome is re-occupied by UK. In this case, Germany (axis) collects 0 IPC from the liberated areas.
This “feels” wrong. I often don’t liberate Rome, if I am not 100% sure to hold it during the UK turn. We think that it shouldn’t be a penalty to liberate a capital, even if you loose Rome to the UK before the Italian turn. The same rule when it comes to collecting IPC, should be applied for both liberated territories and and liberated capitals. We are probably alone on this planet who have been annoyed by this rule, but if there are anyone else out there in cyberspace that also thinks that this rule could be made a little bit better, this is how we cut the Gordian Knot:
House Rule Liberating territories and Capitals
If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you “liberate” the territory. You do not take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the territory and its income. Antiaircraft guns or industrial complexes in that territory revert to the original controller of the territory.
If the original controller’s capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the territory, you capture the territory, collect income from the newly captured territory, and use any industrial complex there until the original controller’s capital is liberated. You also take ownership of any antiaircraft gun in that territory.
When a capital is “liberated”, the liberator still collect income from liberated territories and the newly liberated capital. However, this money is separated from the rest of the income.
If the capital remain liberated until the original controller’s turn, then revert ownership to the original owner of the capital. Territories and industrial complexes that are controlled by the newly liberated capital’s owner but are in the hands of friendly powers also revert ownership. Antiaircraft guns outside the newly liberated capital territory remain under their pre-liberation ownership. The re-liberator must also transfer the previous turn’s income from liberated territories and capital. This money may be used directly by the original controller for Research and/or Purchase Units.
However, if the capital is “re-occupied” by the enemy before the liberated country’s turn, then the preliberator keep control over non-occupied territories. The pre-liberator also incorporate the collected money with the rest of his income. (Note that this money is not transferred to the occupant.)
Edit: I was typing a little bit to fast… The example became complete wrong!! :-)
@Cmdr:
Likewise, because of their massive income; Japan and Germany skew differently with something like 9/1/4. (Germany can only build 10 units guys, 5 Infantry + 5 Armor = 40 IPC. Even that isn’t enough to use up all the cash most of the time!)
Speaking of this, and a little bit off topic: I have only played without the NO’s, and felt that the limited production was quite balanced. However, with the extra IPC it seems that the production capacity in Berlin (and Moscow) is quite low, don’t you think? You might end up buying expensive Me 109 and JU88 (or saving money!!), then precious Panzer and Infantry.
But as a simple guideline, if you’re looking to build a versatile army that is good on Off and Def go with a 3/1/1 or 4/1/1. I tend to skew a bit higher b/c real game conditions aren’t the same so I tend to buy in a 5/1/1 ratio or higher since you of course already have planes on the board and other starting units.
Hmmm, yes… This strategy seem to be very balanced and sound in the long run. I just might use that one my next game. Thanx for the tip!
Regards,
Håkan
You can only place 10 new units in Germany.
Yes, for sure. And this is a very good modification from earlier versions. I remember playing A&A original, where we only bougt infantry for hours and hours, stacking them in Karelia and Ukraine SSR, if I remember the territories correctly, until one side decided that it was time for supper, and then attacking! :-)
My “2/3 infantry + 1/3 panzer strategy” is what I “aim for” in general, and for sure you have to plan your purchase depending of how it looks on the battlefield, if you are on the offensive or not, distances etc. And also, we have not been playing with the NO, hence we have some what less IPC.
However, my question was not primarily regarding if you should buy 2/3 inf and 1/3 tanks, but rather if you ever should buy artillery rather than only tanks? In my groups, we NEVER purchase them - and it seems as we are not alone in our thinking?