Well I even said, even if there’s not enough fleet protection to go around, there’s still the 100% protection of not getting into range. My question stands - how good could the Japanese player have been to throw lonesome transports into fig range?
Good job on capitalizing on mistakes, and believe it or not I like the idea of tossing the AC at 2 tps if it’s an AC that’s not going to do much anyways, but that doesn’t mean you can always count on the enemy exposing tps like that to make your Russian figs so useful.
The player in question is my regular F-T-F opponent and we have been playing at least 2 rounds a night for over a year or so. I just don’t think she saw the fighters being able to range SZ34. Also since we play each other all the time we have got prone to some rather un-orthodox moves at times to throw the other off balance.
All that said I think why fighters are such a high value to Russia is that they can kill repeatedly and never really ever be in jeopardy unless you so choose. I think it was you earlier that said they like to use ART for the trade territories. Look at it this way the ART kills on the attack then kills on the defense and is gone. The fighters just keep killing and unlike ARM they can easily flip back and forth from attacking Germany to Japan. I have also found them able to be able to dissuade Japan from some attacks on defense. My Russian fighter strat is NOT based on hypothesis but results and so far it is the best I have found for Russia.
I don’t think an extra Russian fighter is bad, and I’m not saying that you’re not grounded in experience. Just a few months ago I was all for buying a Russian fig immediately as well. I’m just saying you’re exaggerating if you expect them to beat up that much navy against somewhat watchful opponents, it really does not take rocket science to know if there’s a fig in range of your lonely transport.
I know figs increase the efficiency of infantry in trading zones and save you from using art, but there’s definitely a point at which buying too many of them costs you by not even having enough infantry. That point for me is 1 more Russian fig, and I don’t even really do it unless the Germans continue to up the blinds in Belo/Kar/Ukraine.
Also, as Germany I tend to relax if I see Russia build fighters. Although that means Russia can trade increasingly efficiently, it still never exceeds the efficiency of the mass Luftwaffe I have, and every fighter built means a significantly less chance of Russia being able to actually move in to areas like Ukraine with enough defense to hold it. 1 fighter cannot even land immediately in a territory it just took, which is in very large contrast to 2 inf 1 art helping to hold the land it just took.
If Russia builds more than 1 fighter, Germany might be able to move in and Russia unable to dislodge a large force since they’re so busy increasing the efficiency of trading territories at the cost of land forces.
I have a different view. I don’t think Russia can hold the territories in question, Germany can out muscle Russia which also leaves Russia weaker against the Japanese (lost hardware). Yes the Luftwaffe exceeds the Russian air force but Germany has other concerns as well. If the Luftwaffe is tied down with Russia what is harassing the Allied Navies?
Also I have been playing longer than what was stated. The year or so is just against that opponent as my former room mate played prior to that.
I almost always purchase a fighter for russia on rd1, they need the extra fighter as early as possible to trade units and keep their income up. My favorite R1 build is 1fgt, 1tnk, 3inf. It sounds lite on infantry but you have 6inf you can move up from Evenki, Novo, and Kazakh. I will sometimes buy a 4th fighter, but usually I’ll buy tanks instead, making sure I’ve got enough infantry to protect Caucasus and trade belo, karelia and Ukraine. Russia is usually under no real pressure until rd4 or later, by then the US\UK should be have reinforcements coming in either through Norway or Africa.
It’s not about “not being under pressure” it’s also about being able to pressure Germany. Trading territories with them with 1-2 inf is no pressure at all, while a big move in of units to Ukraine is. First fig I can’t really categorically say that is a bad thing to do and I even said earlier in this thread I used to like to buy one immediately as well, but the second and third is making the Allies too trading oriented without the control factor of moving in with a lot of units.
Russia has no hope of taking on Germany alone, they can put pressure on Germany just by being alive and trading units. They need only delay Germany long enough for US\UK forces to start landing troops. I would welcome a heavey German move into Ukraine rd2 or rd3, Russian forces from the Caucasus and WR would crush them, and Germany would have no real follow up forces.
I would welcome a heavey German move into Ukraine rd2 or rd3, Russian forces from the Caucasus and WR would crush them, and Germany would have no real follow up forces.
My whole point is you can’t crush them if you build more than 1 fighter. If you build 2 fighters you’re missing 6 inf 2 art with which to crush Germany. That’s a lot.
This is my point exactly! Russia benefits from playing patty cake with Germany simply from the delay factor. Also by increasing the Russian airforce to 6 fighters Russia can continue to play tag with Germany with 1 fighter plus infantry per territory while detailing the others against Japan or targets of opportunity. Now also consider what happens when Germany fails to retake one of the trade territories and Russia moves all in with 6 to 10 infantry, 3 arty, 6 tanks, and 6 fighters.
All right all right, you wanna play a game bigdog? I want you to go ahead and build a lot of Russian figs and we’ll see how it plays out. This is for fun because I’m not sure how it turns out, I want to see instead of continually discussing it. Low luck or ADS? What level of bid would you allow me to take? I want to take 9 at least for the Axis.
Sounds fine to me Bean; however note I am only online on weekends so it will take some time. 9 bid is fine and I only play ADS. Probably a better test is for you to go the fighters route. I know you disagree with it. But before I became convinced this was the way to go I would stop building fighters after the first one and I noticed the results just were not as good. If you wish to test this as Allies I will go with no bid. Your call.
I prefer you go Allies to show me how it’s done, I’m not particularly interested in trying it myself. I’m sort of slow with games too so it’s fine, this match doesn’t have much to do with pride or anything anyways so we’ll take it slow. I’ll take 1 inf Libya, 1 arm Algeria, and 1 IPC to Japan.
Due to ADS this has a 50% chance of not showing accurately how well Russian fighters work, but that’s fine.
@Bean:
I prefer you go Allies to show me how it’s done, I’m not particularly interested in trying it myself. I’m sort of slow with games too so it’s fine, this match doesn’t have much to do with pride or anything anyways so we’ll take it slow. I’ll take 1 inf Libya, 1 arm Algeria, and 1 IPC to Japan.
Due to ADS this has a 50% chance of not showing accurately how well Russian fighters work, but that’s fine.
It always amazes me when people say they have to use LL to prove their strategy. The game was designed to be played with Random Dice…the whole layout of the board, initial placement of forces, starting incomes…etc. If your strategy can only win by changing the rules of the game…it’s not really a strategy. Breaking the game to prove a strategy proves nothing.
It always amazes me when people say they have to use LL to prove their strategy.
I guess I’m not amazing you, because that’s not my position. My position is that LL quickly shows you strategy, while ADS takes many games because the dice has a humongous chance of making the strategy either a lot worse or a lot better than it actually is.
Breaking the game to prove a strategy proves nothing.
Hot dice proves nothing. What if I tried a big naval German strat but then all of them didn’t hit on defense and the Allies beat it at no cost? I guess the big naval German strat sucked then. Or should I just keep rerolling like in your AARE game until there’s “acceptable” results? Which is akin to LL?
You completely miss my point. The game was designed to be used with random dice.
Should I attack country X…statistically I should win, but what if I lose? Will it cost me the game? If yes then I may not attack. In a LL game I would attack. That’s why I say LL breaks the game.
So proving or disproving a strategy in LL means nothing, since it won’t hold up, when confronted with the REAL RULES.
I will also say in regards to dice I am having to adjust slightly to using diceys and not real dice. I agree with Emperor Mollari that factoring in the possible outcome of the dice is a huge part of the game. Besides I don’t understand the LL stuff anyway.
@Emperor:
The game was designed to be played with Random Dice…the whole layout of the board, initial placement of forces, starting incomes…etc.
Revised is not very unbalanced, that is compared to classic.
With no bids it’s still just as unbalanced in ADS as with LL.
How balanced is revised with cash only bid? Axis need more than 10 ipc for sure.
Again, because of bigger variation of dice outcome, same players play each other 100 games with ADS and LL, then
axis will win more games with ADS than LL. This doesn’t mean that the game is balanced though.
As I said earlier, the only way for axis to win approx. 50% of all games without any bid is to roll for LRA G1, and
go for sealion also G1. Otherwise the game is unbalanced.
The balance of revised does not relate to LL or ADS.
Certain tactics are all but unassailable in LL. Almost every crack pot, insane idea I’ve had for a strategy in AAR has worked flawlessly in LL but been crippled in a myriad of different ways in ADS.
That’s probably do to the spiraling effect that the luck of the dice bring.
Losing the battle for Stalingrad does not only effect the battle for Stalingrad. It effects what your allies have to do to help you recover, it effects your builds, your position, what you have available, what your enemy can do, etc.
In LL, if you lose a battle you initiated, it’s never going to be a devastating loss (unless you failed 3rd grade mathematics.)
@Cmdr:
In LL, if you lose a battle you initiated, it’s never going to be a devastating loss (unless you failed 3rd grade mathematics.)
Yes, it can. To attack a capital with only 30-40% would be a smart move if the map looks bad and a player
has less tuv so that he would not win otherwise an attack on a capital succeeds.
And players do mistakes and bad combat also in LL. The difference may be that in LL a player will lose
because of not doing combat, rather than losing battles.
To attack a capital with 80% can be a good move, even if it fails.
I once (LL game) had a tuv disadvantage of approx. 150-200,
I could take Moscow with 1-2 punch but failed,
it was 80% with more than one unit left. If I had taken Moscow I would still be in the game.
I also won a game (LL) where the opponent attacked my capital with approx. 40%. He failed and I won.
This is not uncommon.
You may disagree with my opinion that many, if not all, tactics and strats that works good in LL also works in ADS.
Many of your statements about LL is actually wrong.
I do not hate ADS, but I hate losing to dice…I still play ADS though,
I think I favor LL vs ADS about 60-40 or 70-30.
