Most Important Piece

[Crazy Ivan]

:|
It is possible I suppose, that one Russian fighter, supporting territorial exchanges and the defense of Russia, could account for the demise of up to 16 or more enemy units!

[Petrucci08]

hard to argue with the Russian fig.

What about the Med tran. Without a bid this is the key to africa and a good way to retake Ukr threaten cau.

[Romulus]

IMHO, trying to select a single piece as the most important one is worthless.

It depends from a lot of factors. The board situation is one. The player approach and feeling about the units (I can be ruthless in sending a bomber in SBR until it is shot down or never SBR bombing at all). The opponents strategy is also to be considered. The mix of units available.

I have selected the Russian fighter from the above list. But I think there are units more important that has been left out of the list.

I agree with U505 that the Med BB is a very important piece, for German more important than a single fighter for sure. Maybe the entire Luftwaffe could be more important than the entire Med fleet (or even the entire German fleet) but we are speaking of single unit here.

Speaking of UK I think that the sz2 BB is also important, being a useful centerpiece for building a fleet being both an offensive/defensive piece, while in the naval strategy a bmb is useful only for retaliation. Without those BB UK/USA are slightly slower in starting troops landing agains Germany, or not?
Even the Indian Ocean AC is important being useful to give problems to the Japanese, as Fleet in Being, or useful returning back to UK for reinforcing the Home Fleet. Indian AC initial positioning give her a lot of value.
Speaking of replacement, it is more painful to replace the BB than the bomber, but I think that a UK player that suffer the loss of the BB in sz2 (together with the UK Med BB) is more willing to replace it with at least an AC than it could be willing to replace a lost bomber.

More generally speaking I think that a piece that is useful only in 1 turn in the 5 that compose a round can not be the more important piece even in a single round, not speaking about 8 rounds.
A bomber is strong in the turn of the owning nation, but is less useful in the turn of the other nations, for reason related to the defensive value and the need for being placed in a safe place (if you leave it exposed to counter you are not evaluating it important). Instead a BB is a piece useful in his owner turn but is valuable also in the turns of the other nations as addictional fleet defense for multi national fleets.

Speaking of single unit value I cannot see a bomber as a valuable unit alone. It may be a worthy addiction to an already strong attacking forces. In defense it is useless.

Finally I do not remember who said this thing: the exact attribute for the UK bomber is no valuable is EXPENDABLE, and I agree. The UK bomber is expendable in the sense that it is useful to sent it in combat, because if it is lost, UK player may be sad but have no problem to continue without the bomber.

If we are speaking of IPC then definitely a bomber is more costly than a fighter so it is more valuable…

[axis_roll]

I think the debate was the most important piece in the game.  Not sure why / how the poll question now limits this to the first 8 rounds.

[allies_fly]

@Romulus:

Finally I do not remember who said this thing: the exact attribute for the UK bomber is no valuable is EXPENDABLE, and I agree. The UK bomber is expendable in the sense that it is useful to sent it in combat, because if it is lost, UK player may be sad but have no problem to continue without the bomber.

That was me :) 
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=11991.msg322959#msg322959

[Romulus]

@allies_fly:

@Romulus:

Finally I do not remember who said this thing: the exact attribute for the UK bomber is no valuable is EXPENDABLE, and I agree. The UK bomber is expendable in the sense that it is useful to sent it in combat, because if it is lost, UK player may be sad but have no problem to continue without the bomber.

That was me :) 
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=11991.msg322959#msg322959

Thanks!

I strongly agree with you allies_fly.

[losttribe04]

I think the UK bomber is a luxury (that’s why it doesn’t get replaced) and the Russian FTR is a necessity (that’s why they buy more).

LT

[Jennifer]

Okay, keep in mind that the Russian fighters are not needed to defend Russia as England and America will have plenty of fighters there.  It MAY come in handy to trade territories, but really, that’s not going to be much of an issue after a few rounds when England and America are trading the territories for Russia (liberating Novo/Kaz from Japan) and pressing on Germany.  That means, Russia’s fighters are purely for defense and the off chance Russia needs to liberate something for itself.

The German battleship is important, but hardly the most important.  Many players waste 16 IPC on carriers for Germany anyway (in my opinion it’s a waste) so put the carrier in SZ 14 instead.  Much better defense than the battleship.  However, realistically speaking, that battleship is either never destroyed or destroyed so late in the game it’s not really in jeapordy.

Rather surprised someone chose a Japanese fighter.  Be interesting to see why they feel that piece is so important.

However, the British Bomber is needed all the way until the end of the game unless the allies are conceding defeat.  Without it, attacks on Germany itself from SZ 5 are all but impossible.  You especially need it if you are planning a 1-2 punch on Germany itself, even more so if you hope to do it before Round 8!

Not to mention, that bomber adds significant punch to British forces if Germany gets too close to SZ 13 with her battleship.  Sure, you take Gibraltar, but let’s say England’s fleet is in SZ 8 and it consists of a battleship, 2 fighters, carrier and transport.  You have 2 transports, battleship in SZ 13.

England needs 4 hits to sink you and cannot afford any losses. (Germany can usually afford to lose the entire med fleet without being completely decimated.)

Add in the bomber, you have 2X4, 2X3, 1X1.  15 Punch, 2 to 3 hits.
Without the bomber, you have 1X4, 2X3, 1X1.  11 Punch, 1 or 2 hits.

Huge frakkin difference!  With 3 hits, and the Germans with 1 hit, you have a decent shot of getting out of the battle without loss.  Even if you do take a loss, it’s almost certainly not more than one, and it’s easier for you to replace just one hit.  Without the bomber, you may as well expect to lose two units - a good trade for Germany! (because Germany’s luftwaffe can destroy the remnants of your fleet at will then.)

No Russian fighter?  Oh well.  It sucks, but it’s hardly catastrophic!  We’re talking a minor set back.  So you have 2 fighters by round 8 instead of 3.  So?

No English bomber?  That really sucks!  Now you have significantly less long range punch, a huge set back on any early attacks on Berlin, no method to strangle Japanese construction on the mainland early in the game and the game will be almost over before you can even dream of replacing it.

What other piece is so important and has such small chance of being replaced than the British bomber?

And if you think the British bomber is so worthless, how about we play a game when you don’t have it from the start of the game!  I can play without a Russian fighter at the start if I have too and not be too dramatically effected, at least not as dramatically stunted as if I had no British bomber!

[Mazer Rackham]

I categorically reject this false “choice”.

There was not ONE tank listed in the options, when, in fact, we all know that tanks are STRONG!

[Jennifer]

@Mazer:

I categorically reject this false “choice”.

There was not ONE tank listed in the options, when, in fact, we all know that tanks are STRONG!

Yea, but now seriously, which do you think is most important?

Another thought, naval pieces cannot be most important since they cannot take capitols or victory cities. :P

[losttribe04]

Jen,

If you want to get technical Japan’s BMR should be a choice then.

LT

[Jennifer]

@LT04:

Jen,

If you want to get technical Japan’s BMR should be a choice then.

LT

Hmm, I guess it could be.  Should change America to a fighter then.  But honestly, I almost never really use the Japanese bomber after round 1. (Use it in Pearl, but after that, it’s only used if Germany fails to take Russia.)

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

@LT04:

Jen,

If you want to get technical Japan’s BMR should be a choice then.

LT

Hmm, I guess it could be.  Should change America to a fighter then.  But honestly, I almost never really use the Japanese bomber after round 1. (Use it in Pearl, but after that, it’s only used if Germany fails to take Russia.)

Therein lies the beauty of the poll… to see what the OTHERS players think.

How can the japanese bomber NOT be used after the first round?  It has what Japan needs the most… POWER and RANGE.

Your reply really indicates that to me, it is more a players STYLE than dictates a piece’s importance more than anything else that’s been said to this point.

So the poll (if enough players vote) will be a better telling of the importance of the pieces listed above since it will be a sampling of many playing styles.

[Corbeau Blanc]

Well, the most important units are not in the choice for me. I don’t see the air units as the most valuable. Sea units are the most valuable.

• German BB Bismarck. (Like mentionned)
• UK atlantic BB
• Japaneses Kwantug sea transport ( or any jap transport )
• Usa atlantic BB
• Russian sub ( R1 at least.)  Fighters i guess after that though i’d trade them both readily for 4 tanks…

[Adlertag]

I think the brit infantry in western Canada is the most important piece on the map, yeah I know he comes late into the game,  but when this guy finally comes, he kicks a*s for sure, man.

[Romulus]

@Cmdr:

@Mazer:

I categorically reject this false “choice”.

There was not ONE tank listed in the options, when, in fact, we all know that tanks are STRONG!

Yea, but now seriously, which do you think is most important?

Another thought, naval pieces cannot be most important since they cannot take capitols or victory cities. :P

While UK bomber can?

[U-505]

Actually the most important piece is my loaded six-sided die, uhhh, I mean, my “lucky” six sider.

[DarthMaximus]

I agree that “importance” is more based on your strat, no single piece is a game winner or game loser.  I’ll also say that I hate lose any Russian units including ftrs, but I also feel bombers (for all countries) are immensely important.  IMO, bombers are potential game-changers.  It might be the one unit (all by itself) that can effect the most of your opponents potential moves.  For the question that started the debate (Rus Ftr vs. UK Bom), As the Axis, I typically don’t worry where the Russia ftrs are, but I always have an eye on the UK/US boms.  And I’m always glad when I see my opponent lose his bom (doesn’t matter what country he is playing).

I do think any excessive loss early by Russia can be devasting whether it is losing a ftr or just 3-4 extra inf in a dice job, so b/c of this I’ll just vote for the ftr, it is worse losing 10 ipc of Russian units compare to 15 of British in Rd 1, but come mid to late game I really want my bombers around.

[dezrtfish]

Of the choices I say the Russian fighter, I use both of the Russian fighters every turn or very nearly every turn.  I also will not replace a russian fighter untill the german threat is neutralized, and by then no pieces are really that important.

[AxisOfEvil]

hmm. so many stipulations and things we all need to keep in mind. I think Jen makes alot of assumptions about game positioning, which you really have to do to answer this question. But Couldn’t the UK use their forces to pressure EE and berlin? this is what I do with the British. So i dont have the UK forces in Moscow trading eastern territory with the japanese. My allied game always has at least 2 territoires Russia needs to trade. Especially in the early game.

Agreed, the defense with the fighter can be replaced by an extra US fighter. I also dont buy another russian fighter unless i have the German threat stood off, and I want more trading power. So I am curious, you speak as if 3-4 Russian fighters is both common and ideal strategy, however, you have pages of reasons why Russia can survive with one 1 fighter. If Rusia doesnt need to trade in your scenarios, and doesnt need the fighters for defense, as allied fighters take that role, why do you suggest buying 1-2 more of them? paper weights?