I must retract my statement about the IC in Alaska. I did not realize this was the AAR board and assumed we were talking AA50. Not sure if it would make a difference or not but…… I have done it in AA50 but not in AAR. Sorry.
Forbidding ICs…?
-
This is why I am a strong supporter of landing the British fighter in Pearl on UK 1 and why I am almost adamant that Japan must send every possible unit to hit SZ 52 that can reach to avoid being left with Battleship, Carrier, 2 Fighters.
That said, let me get back to the 6 submarines vs 4 destroyers.
Technically speaking, yes, if the battle was SOLELY between 6 submarines and 4 destroyers and some idiot decided to go until the death, then the majority of the time the submarines would win. However, this will never, EVER, happen. There will almost always be fighters involved as well as carriers, transports and battleships!
How many wars have been won with 6 submarines + 1 transport? How many wars can be won with just 1 destroyer and 1 transport? Why? The destroyer can bombard and that can give you land and it is land that allows you to win the game. Submarines are great. I recommend all navies have them because they make wonderful sacrificial units and are one of the better bangs for the buck (Carrier + 2 Fighters is better than 4 submarines and approximately the same cost) but they are worthless without surface ships.
Scenario:
You have 6 Submarines
I have 4 Destroyers, but I also have 3 fighters and a bomber.
You get in range. I sink 2 of your submarines before you can submerge (LL average.) Now it is 4 submarines attacking 4 destroyers and those 4 destroyers will win most of the time.
Why will it work out like this for you? Because you were not strategic enough to consider that your submarines are powerless against enemy air units and that you would have to be in range of enemy air units to also be in range of the enemy fleet.
How do you fix that? Buy destroyers. Or, if you are lavish enough, a battleship and or carrier/fighters to defend your submarines. But now you have ruined the pure analogy you so wanted, the cherry-picked analogy. In other words, the destroyers are the better option because they can defend themselves against submarines and enemy airpower.
And before I am taken out of context, I am not attempting to say you should only buy destroyers. I am saying you need to buy some. 4 is plenty which would mean +2 USA and +3 Japan (assuming you did not lose your starting one.) Submarines can take up the rest of the slack, but you need some and you need to be able to split them up between different fleets if it comes too it.
-
You are constantly contradicting yourself. Your original argument for destroyers was that they have a higher chance to hit, and so 4 destroyers beat 6 submarines, while these navies have exactly the same expected value to hit every round. Now you expect me that i make all my ships disappear with the US somehow, including the 2 destroyers and the battleship, which are not really killable before my move just to be able to go 100 % submarine? Sure, if i do that, i’m not strategic, but i don’t really know how it is possible. I have never said that you should go fight with pure submarine army, the US has 3 fighters at start, assuming that Japan killed two on J1, it would be a sin not to build carriers to utilize the air power that is already there. You said 4 destroyers>6 submarines, now you are saying that 4 destroyers + 3 fighters and a bomber. If i get in range, and you attack with just air, then i’m quite happy, as if you’d take just one of your destroyers to combat, you would wipe out pretty much all my subs, since i can’t submerge after the first round. But, coming back to the armies, 6 submarines = 48 IPCs, 4 destroyers + 3 fighters and a bomber = 93 IPCs. Please tell me a situation where 48 IPC of units can beat 93 IPCs anyhow, without putting bombers to defence. In your last post, you recommended 3-5 subs for every destroyer, now you’re saying that you need 4. That would mean 12-20 submarines, which would be 96-160 IPCs, it’d take 3 rounds to build if you buy nothing else basically, and you are the one who is saying that you shouldn’t only build submarines.
-
While I would agree with you, Bazse, that her example seems poor, I would not say she is contradicting herself. All she said is…1) buying 1 destroyer for every 3-5 subs is a good idea, and 2) 4 destroyers is plenty. ‘Plenty’ certainly doesn’t mean ‘necessary,’ in fact it would mean closer to ‘more than enough.’ So for US to buy 2 destroyers and say 10 subs, that’s 104 IPCs. Easily doable in 4 rounds with extra money going to carriers and transports. And if you’re going to say that by that time the game’s over because US didn’t do anything in 4 rounds, no one ever said US has to wait 4 rounds until they have 4 destroyers before they can set out from the US west coast. And in the situation she drew (though again I think it seems rather poor), 4 destroyers would be “better” than 6 subs since they would kill more IPC-worth of attacking air than the subs would kill worth of defending destroyers on average.
That said, I can’t say I agree that destroyers would be a good buy, except very rarely. Perhaps I am missing something, but the way I see it both Japan and US will have 1-2 battleships, probably 2 carriers, and at least 1 destroyer. I don’t see where the need for more anti-air naval power is coming from. Now I might be able to see a destroyer escorting some subs while they make their way to the main navy, but I don’t think that would really make a difference vs. any kind of decent air attack.
As for destroyers bombarding for territory, you’d need a tech and I really don’t like depending on the randomness of techs and don’t care to hope for a lucky roll to make the destroyers worthwhile.
-
I’m not sure if I agree that CJF fails 99%, but even with it fails 60% it’s still not as good as KGF. I think KJF fails well over 90%. I mentioned this before a few months back, my first true 1vs1 game victory in the lobby was a game where the opponent went for KJF, at least with US. He had 40% to take tokyo (my bad, should stack it more solid) but he lost, and so he lost his fleet and surrendered soon afterwards.
I seen the KJF once, possible a few times, but I watched lot’s of games played by the best and played by players who are not at the highest level, conclusions have been made by AAR communites and different playgroups, either you need luck, or the axis players is unexeprienced if KJF is gonna succed.
In any game Japan shouldnt be left alone 100%, but Germany is far more dangerous and important until rnd 4-5. To stop Japan in persia by US forces, or Novo by help of UK is a much safer strategy.
-
I disagree. KJF works well. You just have to know what to do. And KGF is not a garanted victory, you have traditional ways of beating it with Axis and some wicked strat that very few try. Anyway, days of KGF are ended with Anniversary edition. There is no way USA can defend America against a 60+ ipcs Japan if allies try ignore Japan.
-
Ya kgf is done no more ignoring japan but even still usa v japan navy even turn 2-4 that measn japan loses asia most likely
-
Thank you for clarifying, 03321.
KGF, in my most humble and sometimes wrong, opinion, is actually the harder of the two games to play. This is mainly due to a few easily recited reasons:
1) With no restraint on Japan, the allies can easily find themselves in a situation where Japan is just too entrenched to beat off. Even if Berlin falls, I’ve found it difficult - at times - to repel Japan.
2) An ignored Japan could wind up sinking the Allied fleets. It would not take much. Just move your fleet around, entice the allies to attack or ignore it, meanwhile, get some extra build fighters to Berlin to add to the attack. More than once this has resulted in the downfall of the allies. (If you ignore the Japanese fleet, what is Japan to do with those warships? Why not add a carrier and maybe a couple of submarines and send them out? Even if the allies attack and sink it, you’re not really out much, you’re still pushing on Russia!)
3) England + Russia earns as much or more than Germany. Japan earns less than or equal to America. It almost seems designed for the allies to break up after the axis, using the resources available where they are and the rest going to their respective theaters.
4) With proper planning and execution, you can easily take out Japan’s major islands without risking the combined allied fleet. This alone should be able to turn the tide of battle. (ie: use the british and american submarines as blockers and slide in while Japan builds defensively in SZ 60/61.)
5) No plan is foolproof. I’ve been working long and hard on methods to counter KJF without castrating my army going after Russia. And if America goes on the right building strategy with average dice, it’s getting to be darn near impossible. Especially if England goes postal in the Pacific on round 1 (Borneo taken, New Guinea taken, SZ 45 submarine sunk and SZ 59 transport sunk with the British fighter in SZ 52.) Risky, but happens more often than one might think.
-
@Cmdr:
Thank you for clarifying, 03321.
Well, between defending you and making fun of Switch I seem to have become one of the less popular people around if the karma’s to be trusted. Works for me :P
I am curious, though. Do you still prefer KJF if Japan gets a solid opening? I don’t know how you move pre-J1 (such as the Russian inf that I personally like to stack on Bury), but say Japan takes China with a good number of inf, you don’t manage to kill the sz 45 sub, and then that sub ends up as his only Pearl casualty (+maybe a fighter). Say you didn’t take Borneo either, maybe you took New Guinea although that’s obviously not as important. Do you still prefer KJF in that situation? I would be worried about going KJF there, but as I said I don’t have much confidence in my KJF game. And do you ever go with an India or Australia IC?
-
@Cmdr:
1) With no restraint on Japan, the allies can easily find themselves in a situation where Japan is just too entrenched to beat off.
What exactly goes on during your A&A games?
-
It doesnt seem like we have an agreement on a CJF/KJF definition, so I try to define KGF.
UK+RUS goes all out against Germany first rnds, UK naval units outside Europe is irrelevant for KGF strat.
UK1 may land in Afr (or Nor), this is also KGF.
US moves all units to Afr or UK–>Nor, regardless if Jap skips Pearl. All of US building and movement goes to Afr, or Nor, eventually Kalia or EE.Simply speaken, this is KGF.
-
I never purchase destroyers in Revised regardless of which team I’m playing, or what kind of strategy it is. If you’re going to spend money on anything other than transports, it should be carriers and fighters. The DD is a busted unit in Revised, too expensive for its value. I never see anyone buy them, just like I never see anyone buy a new battleship. Its too bad really, but hopefully this will be fixed in AA50.
Also for a stall/kill Japan strategy, I will always send the British fighter with the destroyer against the Kwangtung transport and land in Bury, over the sub-attack/land on US carrier move. Pearl is almost always a lost cause if the Japs really want it, but Bury combined with a successfull Borneo attack and carrier block at Philippines will force a much tougher decision on the Japanese player. Especially if you land your British bomber in the right place, and properly back India with the Russians (eg 3 tanks place in Caucasus). In some cases you can save the US carrier anyway, because the Japs have too much else to worry about.
:)
-
DD are OK in Revised. If they were 10 ipcs, it would be a no brainer choice for fleets. Even without shore bombard tech.
-
Ok! forbidding ics is nice because that way the axis have a chance and territories are unlimited!!! when they ar ein hands of rightful owner but for the conquerer they do not get the unlimited a know nice tactic!!
Suggested Topics
