@Cow:
sent lone fighter to battle it lived… do i have to land it or can i crash it?
I assume you’re asking because you committed a carrier to pick it up. If the carrier can still make it there, you must move it to get the fighter.
Has anyone tried a German fighter bid?
-
Ah bunnies, what a great combination of condescension, humour and informative points in every post. :-D +1 karma
A 3 inf Ukr bid does seem much superior. I don’t see any mildly conservative Russian player attacking with 3 extra inf there. Plus you both raise good points about placing land forces closer to the front and building the extra, highly mobile, fig G1. Plus with 3 inf in Ukr you get an extra fig in a sense since you hardly ever get to keep the Ukrainian fig.
I’ve always thought bidding navy as kind of a waste, with the exception of an extra Jap tran.
thanks for the replies fella’s :-)
-
:roll:
A prebid fighter in Finland/Norway to go after that BB Tran and Rus sub though, now that has merit! 2 fighters, a bomber and the atlantic sub, and there should be no UK navy anywhere around Europe, really peaks my interrest. :-o
But nobody is crazy enough to give me 10 bid. :evil: -
@Crazy:
:roll:
A prebid fighter in Finland/Norway to go after that BB Tran and Rus sub though, now that has merit! 2 fighters, a bomber and the atlantic sub, and there should be no UK navy anywhere around Europe, really peaks my interrest. :-o
But nobody is crazy enough to give me 10 bid. :evil:You can do almost that exact attack with an 8IPC bid. Just place another sub in the Atlantic. Yeah, Russia can maybe take Nor, but the odds aren’t that hot, and who has the troops to hit Nor, WRu and Ukr on R1? Something’s gotta give…
Bunnies, I think the phrase you were grasping for was “the elephant in the room.”
-
Yeah, Russia can maybe take Nor, but the odds aren’t that hot, and who has the troops to hit Nor, WRu and Ukr on R1? Something’s gotta give…
I’ve been forgoing UKR in favor of NOR in recent games, and I’ve been quite pleased with the results.
If you want to kill one fighter, it’s an easier target. Germany can’t retake without risking a UK counter, and doing so leaves his transport in the Baltic. The extra 3 IPCs don’t hurt either. It’s not a sure thing, if Germany has good defensive rolls, but it leaves you far less exposed than a UKR attack.
-
Yeah, Russia can maybe take Nor, but the odds aren’t that hot, and who has the troops to hit Nor, WRu and Ukr on R1? Something’s gotta give…
I’ve been forgoing UKR in favor of NOR in recent games, and I’ve been quite pleased with the results.
If you want to kill one fighter, it’s an easier target. Germany can’t retake without risking a UK counter, and doing so leaves his transport in the Baltic. The extra 3 IPCs don’t hurt either. It’s not a sure thing, if Germany has good defensive rolls, but it leaves you far less exposed than a UKR attack.
Indeed I think it leaves Russia far more exposed the Russian fighter from Mosca have to land in Karelia and so Germany have no problem to destroy it!
You may strenghten Karelia sending three inf from Arkangel instead of sending thme in West Russia, but this weaken the West Russia attack.Moreover, I do not see NOR as an Easier attack, I used TripleA battle calculator with 10000 runs and odds are:
NOR: 3 inf 2 fig vs 3 inf 1 fig -> 60% propability of winning (with 1,36 units left….)
UKR: 3 inf 1 art 3 tank 2 fig vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fig -> 96% probability of winning (with 4,84 units left)It seems to me that UKR is far better as attack (personally I am oriented to West Russia/Belorussia or only West Russia but this is another discussion).
-
Bunnies, I think the phrase you were grasping for was “the elephant in the room.”
Yes, everyone can see Aloysius Snuffleupagus these days. I suppose Big Bird must have started passing around the hooch.
Thanx, hyogoetophile.
BTW, I’m guessing Aretaku’s thinking about 2 inf 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 fighter at Norway. Long odds, with a pretty good outcome if successful, but I don’t like the attack myself. I’m a proponent of W. Russia/Belorussia or W. Russia/Ukraine.
-
Taking Ukraine on Russia1 leaves you exposed. I semi-proved my theory on a german tank blitz by taking caucasus on turn 4 ( i expected turn 3 but could not count on Japan) despite at least 4 allied planes reinforcment and opponent knowing the strategy.
I still have to play Mazer and refine last details but in any case, last game i played resaw that common scenario and gemany had taken Moscow by turn 5. Average opponent maybe or simply the fact he did not knew my strat.
For the above, i did something different though, wich is the sub bid pointed out by hyogoetophile. With their whole fleet sunk, it kept UK out of action until it was too late.
I solved Africa by going for anglo-egypt on G2 only. On G1 i took Trans-jordan instead to prevent UK fleet entering mediteranean while massing my forces from algeria in libya and many fighters within strike range. This saw UK try to fortify egypt commiting most of it’s unit there. I brought back units with transport and striked from all direction with a shore bombardment you don’t normally get because of UK destroyer ( which was sunk G1)
Overall, i’d say you better off taking Anglo-egypt turn 2 after this expiriment and really sink the whole UK fleet G1. So yea, for me a 10 bid for a fighter has it’s appeal as long it’s in Norway to strike UK fleet. But i never got 10, always 8 for bid so far, eheh.
-
@Corbeau:
Taking Ukraine on Russia1 leaves you exposed. I semi-proved my theory on a german tank blitz by taking caucasus on turn 4 ( i expected turn 3 but could not count on Japan) despite at least 4 allied planes reinforcment and opponent knowing the strategy.
Tsk. Tsk Corbeau. If you are referring to our game has your “semi-proof”, then I an afraid you have gotten some details wrong. You have made it sound like you took a re-enforced Caucus with allied planes on round 4. But the fact of that game was, you exposed all german tanks to me in west russia round 3, so I conceded Caucus to you round 4, in order to destroy every tank the Germans had owned. You took caucus defending with 2 inf via your med fleet (1bb, 2 trans, 1 sub). I made the mistake of letting that med fleet live that long, if destroyed, you would have never taked caucus that game. :) PS - i retook caucus round 5 and germany was very weak in unit strength.
-
Corb, we need to run the opening again, with you controling both axis powers. Then it will be less semi-proved or dis-proved.
-
Your game proves/disproves nothing, NOTHING! ahahahaha the power!
-
@Bunnies:
Bunnies, I think the phrase you were grasping for was “the elephant in the room.”
Yes, everyone can see Aloysius Snuffleupagus these days. I suppose Big Bird must have started passing around the hooch.
Thanx, hyogoetophile.
BTW, I’m guessing Aretaku’s thinking about 2 inf 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 fighter at Norway. Long odds, with a pretty good outcome if successful, but I don’t like the attack myself. I’m a proponent of W. Russia/Belorussia or W. Russia/Ukraine.
Sending in also the tank? It will be in danger and out of reach of Ukraine. But it is possible.
Sending the tnak increases win% to 89% (with 2,86 units left on average) and still leaves 1 fig in Karelia. It is better then the 60% but I still prefer to attack West Russia/Belorussia.
-
@Bunnies:
Bunnies, I think the phrase you were grasping for was “the elephant in the room.”
Yes, everyone can see Aloysius Snuffleupagus these days. I suppose Big Bird must have started passing around the hooch.
Thanx, hyogoetophile.
BTW, I’m guessing Aretaku’s thinking about 2 inf 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 fighter at Norway. Long odds, with a pretty good outcome if successful, but I don’t like the attack myself. I’m a proponent of W. Russia/Belorussia or W. Russia/Ukraine.
Sending in also the tank? It will be in danger and out of reach of Ukraine. But it is possible.
Sending the tnak increases win% to 89% (with 2,86 units left on average) and still leaves 1 fig in Karelia. It is better then the 60% but I still prefer to attack West Russia/Belorussia.
Under most circumstances, barring some really game-changing house rules &c:
Russia losing fighter on G1 = stupid as h***.
If you’ve got anything approaching a normal game, it’s not even worth discussing a strategy that ends up with Russia losing a fighter on G1 with 90+% probability, and parking the Russian fighter at Karelia on R1 is a great way to do just that.
WHY:
1. Russia fighter’s good for trading territory. Also good on defense. Also good at forcing Germans to keep battleship escort for the Med transport (what, you just want a rogue German battleship cruising around looking for trouble?)
2. Russia can’t really afford to buy another fighter at the beginning of the game. One fighter? Three infantry? Hm. One can soak up 3 hits, attacks worth 3, defends worth 6. Another can soak up 1 hit, attacks worth 3, defends worth 4. What should I do. Or I can get 2 tanks, which can soak up 2 hits, attack at 6, defend at 6. O ya, let me go buy a FIGHTER HAHAHAHA no wait, a BOMBER, no a BATTLESHIP HAHAHAHA. No, really, you CAN buy that stuff for Russia after you’ve won for all practical purposes, but if the game result is still in question, you probably ain’t gettin another fighter.
-
What I can say? I completely agree!!!
-
PS - i retook caucus round 5 and germany was very weak in unit strength.
bah, cmon, you took it back only because Japan player refused reinforce it with 9 tanks and fighters. There was no way you retook it if he did reinforce. Can’t do more than that if im also playing against Japan. Not the thread to debate this anyways, we will do it in game.
I still would consider a plane bid to sink another UK BB round 1. It has the advantage if surviving of not getting wasted after the attack like surviving subs are wasted by american planes.
For Russia, i been seen buying a bomber for Russia every now and then on 2nd turn depending on how Germany forces are looking. A third plane make its way easier to swap the 3 territories with minimum infantry. The bomber range also enable to trade territories in the Far east or bomb thoses Japan complexes if it has nothing better to do. In 4 turns, if japan went IC, i normally do get a good 30 ipc out of japan hands when i combine the 2 allied bombers for the effect. If they did not, thoses bombers forces Japan to escort their transports and can help with ground operations.
-
@Corbeau:
For Russia, i been seen buying a bomber for Russia every now and then on 2nd turn depending on how Germany forces are looking.
You sure are brave to admit to buying a Russian Bomber on r2 in this forum. I am going to duck now, as you might take some abuse!!!
But in all honesty, i can and have bought a third russian fighter in say round 6-7. I buy it if russia is doing well in land piece count. At this point in the game, you will have germans staged to the west, and japanese staged to the east. You end up swapping novo, kazah, and western front territories with these forces. that can be 4 -6 territories you have to swap per turn. An extra fighter certainly helps at this time. And it helps in the ultimate defense of Moscow.
-
:-o
Russian bomber!!!
May as well go tech and get heavy bombers too! Deal out some real damage, to yourself :roll:
If you think you can win with Russia giving up 3 tanks=9 attack/defence points, or 5 infantry=5 attack points/10 defence points for 1 Bomber=4 attack points/1 defence point! Then I want to play you. I could use an easy win for a change.
Now go look in the mirror, and say to yourself, stupid stupid stupid, and slap yourself silly. And promise yourself you will never post again when you are drunk. If I had my way, Russian bombers would not even be on the units list. same goes for Russian Battleships. OK, don’t anyone confess that they have ever built a Russian Battleship or I’ll come over there and slap you myself!
:-o 8-) -
I did say round TWO and depending how Germany is looking.
Things to consider:- Did G1 buy an AC or tranport in baltic ( thats 16 ipc )
- Are UK in position to reinforce Karelia
- Do i have a stable enough front
Also, it may seem a lot but each time i spare one infantry swapping territory, it’s a +3 ipc. A bomber does imply most of the time sending one less infantry. After 3 round, i did spared 9 ipcs in infantry.
Note: I don’t play low luck, so high dice value counts for a lot.
Yes Russia doing only infantry is what everyone does ( And i do when the situation calls for it) but you can adapt a game to what is happening. Another exemple of seemingly too pricy expense: if mediteranee is holded by allied boats, there is nothing against building 1-2 russian transports to ferry troops in south Italy or the balkans.
I did not yet build a russian battleship but eh, i might do it if i am playing you, if only to give you a chance ;)
-
:-o
OMG!
Is this a challange :?
I only play on the tripleA site.
Bring it on Bomber boy. :-P……LOL…lol…lol…lol…lol…lol…lol…lol…lol…lol…
-
Did you not know that a battleship buy on R1 is the best Russian move in the game. It’s totally broken. Those germans sure will have egg on their faces when you start bombarding Berlin :-D
-
@Bunnies:
BTW, I’m guessing Aretaku’s thinking about 2 inf 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 fighter at Norway. Long odds, with a pretty good outcome if successful, but I don’t like the attack myself. I’m a proponent of W. Russia/Belorussia or W. Russia/Ukraine.
Yes, I was advocating 3 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig. You have to be careful if Germany has a good first roll, otherwise the fighter is at risk. The odds are long…but I like 'em better than 3 naked tanks in the Ukraine!
Three games now, and in two I have ended with 1 Arm, 1 Fig remaining in NOR, and one saw 1 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Fig survive.
That armor is safe unless Germany wants to waste needed infantry against a UK counter, and it can be used on the following turn to retake Karelia, or wait until Inf/Figs do the job and blitz it back to Archangel. Also, provided that Russia and UK know their stuff, Germany will NEVER get that money back unless they do the turn 1 counter, and follow it up with Baltic fleet investment, which is not always feasible. A (semi)-permanent 6 IPC shift in favor of the Allies before the Axis even get a turn is worth the longer odds, IMHO.
Moreover, I do not see NOR as an Easier attack, I used TripleA battle calculator with 10000 runs and odds are:
NOR: 3 inf 2 fig vs 3 inf 1 fig -> 60% propability of winning (with 1,36 units left….)
UKR: 3 inf 1 art 3 tank 2 fig vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fig -> 96% probability of winning (with 4,84 units left)It seems to me that UKR is far better as attack
But what is the goal? If the goal is simply the destruction of any and all German forces, then perhaps UKR is better, but if the goal is the destruction of a German fighter…
Norway attempts this while putting only 1/4 of Russias starting tank force at some risk.
Ukraine attempts this while sacrificing 3/4 of Russias starting tank force, along with half the artillery…and this is if the attack goes well!
I’m not saying that a strafe of the Ukraine isn’t a viable option, but after seeing how advantageous a successful Norway attack can be in my last three games, I don’t think I’ll bother trying to take and hold Ukraine ever again. It costs too much for too little gain.
Suggested Topics
