Interesting. Yes the ability to put subs in the med probably greatly increases their utility by precluding the uk from placing a destroyer in the english channel to protect a landing in Morocco, which hopefully bus Italy some time to earn some objective money. I know they only have two, but with such a small economy the NOs increase Italy’s capacity to contribute by quite a bit, proportionally speaking.
Lets discuss Japan Round 1
-
Its Round one. No tech. No National Objectives. No bid.
You are Japan. What do you build, and where do you attack.
Builds…
2 IC?
3 Transports + 2 Inf + art?
2 Transports + IC (save 2)?
Defensive fleet?Do you take out…
the Flying Tigers?
India Fleet
Pearl II
Bury?
Fukinen or other china territories?Remember that you have no idea what the allies will do. And you cannot count on easy NO income. You’ll have to earn it.
In order of importance, I think the India fleet and the china fighter are tied at #1. Pearl is a solid #2. Bury is my number 3, and I forgo attacking other china territories in favor of adding a fighter here/there to aid in my odds.
Given that Japan has only one transport, she needs at least 2. So either 2 + IC or 3 + land units is what I like.
-
The chinese fighter is the 1st target without doubt. A second chinese territory should be also taken to prevent a 3rd popcorn chinese inf
The fleets are tricky. Both are risky but can be taken
I don’t think Buryatia should be taken. Conquer more chinese land instead. Soviets can replace inf much quicker than chineses
I’d buy 3 tra, 1 dd, save 2 IPCs, assuming you sacrifice 1 dd in Pearl II
And I’d play with tech and NOs, but that’s offtopic :-)
-
The chinese fighter is the 1st target without doubt. A second chinese territory should be also taken to prevent a 3rd popcorn chinese inf
The fleets are tricky. Both are risky but can be taken
I don’t think Buryatia should be taken. Conquer more chinese land instead. Soviets can replace inf much quicker than chineses
I’d buy 3 tra, 1 dd, save 2 IPCs, assuming you sacrifice 1 dd in Pearl II
And I’d play with tech and NOs, but that’s offtopic :-)
Taking a second chinese territory means that you send 3 Inf vs 1 Inf (which is ok odds wise) or you take away a fighter from another attack.
The reason why Bury is important is that the USA bomber can reach Bury while attacking your transports (if left alone) and that you get the free BB shot. Plus you are close to getting a polar express option if it becomes necessary.
For the fleet, I use 3 fighters + BB + AC on India and Cruiser + DD + Sub + fighter on Pearl.
If you dont do Bury, what exact attack placements do you do?
-
1 IC, 1 Transport, 1 Submarine, (save 3)
I do not attack the chinese fighter because I play dice and that is a way risky move with full dice. I crush everything else though.
Pearl Harbor gets hit with 1 dd, 1 cruiser, 1 sub, 1 bomber, 1 fighter (i don’t use the carrier)
India fleet gets hit with 3 fighters, 1 BB, 1 carrier (i lose the carrier in btl)
I do not attack russia, I leave 1 inf in Manchuria plus I land 2-3 fighters there when I am done with combat, and I place my IC there.
My BB plus transport pick up the tank in japan plus inf in okin to land in kwangtung.
Every Chinese province I can reach except for Yunnan gets hit and gets hit with at tons. -
I think allies are favored in the settings as stated by the OP.
-
@Subotai:
I think allies are favored in the settings as stated by the OP.
Was that the extent of your knowledge of the subject, or were you going to answer the question? :-D :-D
-
1 IC, 1 Transport, 1 Submarine, (save 3)
I do not attack the chinese fighter because I play dice and that is a way risky move with full dice. I crush everything else though.
China has 2 inf and a fighter. Japan can bring 3 Inf + bomber + 1-2 fighters. That’s enough to reasonably guarantee that the china fighter dies.
Wouldn’t you rather kill the fighter than take a 1 IPC China territory? You really reduce China’s offensive punch w/o that fighter…
-
Its Round one. No tech. No National Objectives. No bid.
I think with this setting, axis will lose, and as Japan is an axis power, they will also lose this…
I.e.: AAR, rnd1, no bids, no tech, J1, ‘what you gonna do when they come for you…’
-
Was that the extent of your knowledge of the subject, or were you going to answer the question? :-D :-D
We could play some games with this setting in TripleA, maybe you can prove me wrong?
-
@Subotai:
Its Round one. No tech. No National Objectives. No bid.
I think with this setting, axis will lose, and as Japan is an axis power, they will also lose this…
I.e.: AAR, rnd1, no bids, no tech, J1, ‘what you gonna do when they come for you…’
In Revised, Axis can win at least 40% of the time without a bid. Are you saying that in Anniversary they can’t win at all?
-
In Revised, Axis can win at least 40% of the time without a bid. Are you saying that in Anniversary they can’t win at all?
So far I think the balance in AA50 is better than revised, that is, any bid needed is less than $9 in units.
But it’s not true that in revised axis will will about 40% of all (no bid) games between equally experienced players, assuming both players are decent. Not even the best players I played or seen, will play me w/o bids.
I don’t think any player will win 40% of all (no bid) games against me, if I’m allies. Perhaps 10% or probably the number is even lower, maybe 1%-5% perhaps.
Unless you are talking about Germany spending everything G1 on tech, long range aircraft, and then they go for sealion G1. I thought you meant playing balance, and not some stats based on every single game decided at the end of G1. -
@Subotai:
In Revised, Axis can win at least 40% of the time without a bid. Are you saying that in Anniversary they can’t win at all?
So far I think the balance in AA50 is better than revised, that is, any bid needed is less than $9 in units.
But it’s not true that in revised axis will will about 40% of all (no bid) games between equally experienced players, assuming both players are decent. Not even the best players I played or seen, will play me w/o bids.
I don’t think any player will win 40% of all (no bid) games against me, if I’m allies. Perhaps 10% or probably the number is even lower, maybe 1%-5% perhaps.
Unless you are talking about Germany spending everything G1 on tech, long range aircraft, and then they go for sealion G1. I thought you meant playing balance, and not some stats based on every single game decided at the end of G1.Ok, lets examine this for a second. Lets presume you are correct, and 8 is a “fair” bid for Revised. Now where and how bids are placed can be the subject of many rules, but lets say you cant place both somewhere, and must be limited to 1 per territory.
As a basic example, we will purchase an inf/tank, one placed in UKR (to somewhat dissuade an attack there, or to aid in taking more tanks) and one in Lybia.
A Normal attack on Egypt can involve the transport, or not (should Germany decide to go west instead). W/o a bid, Germany can bring 1 inf 1 armor, 2 fighters (reason for UKR bid) and 1 bomber (14). Egypt has 9 Defense.
Germany should get 2-3 hits the first round. UK should only get 1-2. This is sufficient force to “guarantee” taking the fighter, but not the territory.
Adding a bid unit means you are more likely to take Egypt, but in “many” games Uk will only get 1 hit back. I’m sure everyone has also seen UK get three hits as well. So the bid unit could just as well be lost.
Now, as to the unit itself, an art or armor makes the attack force a 17. Still not quite a “guarantee” of 3 hits, but close. But the UK still can hit back, possibly with 3, and 50% at 2.
The point is this…
In 50% of the “w/o bid” games, UK may only get that 1 hit. In which case, Germany has 1 unit (armor) left.
In 50% of the “bid armor” games, UK gets 2 hits. Germany still has 1 armor left.
That bid unit actually left you in no better shape than you would have been in without any bid, but UK got one less hit in defense.
And certainly, there is no difference (from this point on) in the game to say that having the bid “won” it for you.
Bid units generally only make first round attacks a bit better or worse odds wise. The rest of the “effect” is largely inside people’s heads.
The secondary effect (dissuading a first round attack in UKR) may happen, but the result is USSR just attacks elsewhere (belo/WR) OR perhaps USSR wasnt going to attack UKR in the first place.
-
ugh…no more talk of ‘bids’. :x J1 buy 2 factories. put 1 in manchuria and 1 in burma or FIC. land all planes in burma. prepare to take India J2. put reinforcements in Manchuria to protect IC. on G1, take ukraine. on J2 take india, use fighters, then land fighters in ukraine. prepare to take caucusus. play defense in pacific. put IC in india. use ICs in SE asia to take east african coast, and put pressure on russia. sometimes i have ICs in india burma, FIC, and east indies. depends on allies. use subs to deter americans in pacific.
-
ugh…no more talk of ‘bids’. :x J1 buy 2 factories. put 1 in manchuria and 1 in burma or FIC. land all planes in burma. prepare to take India J2.
Are you talking 1942?
-
yes
-
Good topic Squirecam,
I definitely think #1 is the Brit fleet over the Chinese ftr because the ftr can’t fly out of China proper anyway. #2 is Bury (because the main goal is always Russia), then #3 US fleet.
My buy in the 42 is 2trn and 1IC in Manchuria. I pretty much build an IC every round until the 5th round. Japan needs major land production to assualt Russia effectively.
With this said though I think the Allies have a 60%-40% advantage over the Axis in the 42. In the 41, I think it is Allies 55-45 advantage.
-
ugh…no more talk of ‘bids’. :x J1 buy 2 factories. put 1 in manchuria and 1 in burma or FIC. land all planes in burma. prepare to take India J2. put reinforcements in Manchuria to protect IC. on G1, take ukraine. on J2 take india, use fighters, then land fighters in ukraine. prepare to take caucusus. play defense in pacific. put IC in india. use ICs in SE asia to take east african coast, and put pressure on russia. sometimes i have ICs in india burma, FIC, and east indies. depends on allies. use subs to deter americans in pacific.
So you only have 1 transport. Do you sacrifice planes? Or dont attack China/Pearl? Or what?
-
And certainly, there is no difference (from this point on) in the game to say that having the bid “won” it for you.
Bid units generally only make first round attacks a bit better or worse odds wise. The rest of the “effect” is largely inside people’s heads.
If you think I will win largely based on skills vs the best players w/o bids, then why won’t they play w/o bids?
I don’t think emprical date is only “inside our heads”, while I probably lose against some players with 8-9 bids, I will probably win most games w/o bids, you think this is only psychology, and not the effects of the bid itself?
Some players use a fixed $9 bid, and let opponent choose side, and the TripleA warclub ladder have been restored, and they use a fixed $9 bid.
I’m not sure how many games I would lose against the best players, in a game w/o bids, but probably very few, and most interesting is that no player who is regarded as very experienced will play w/o bids.
-
Good topic Squirecam,
I definitely think #1 is the Brit fleet over the Chinese ftr because the ftr can’t fly out of China proper anyway. #2 is Bury (because the main goal is always Russia), then #3 US fleet.
My buy in the 42 is 2trn and 1IC in Manchuria. I pretty much build an IC every round until the 5th round. Japan needs major land production to assualt Russia effectively.
With this said though I think the Allies have a 60%-40% advantage over the Axis in the 42. In the 41, I think it is Allies 55-45 advantage.
Im playing this out w/o NO’s. Japan doesnt have the income to support 5 IC’s….
-
@Subotai:
And certainly, there is no difference (from this point on) in the game to say that having the bid “won” it for you.
Bid units generally only make first round attacks a bit better or worse odds wise. The rest of the “effect” is largely inside people’s heads.
If you think I will win largely based on skills vs the best players w/o bids, then why won’t they play w/o bids?
I don’t think emprical date is only “inside our heads”, while I probably lose against some players with 8-9 bids, I will probably win most games w/o bids, you think this is only psychology, and not the effects of the bid itself?
Some players use a fixed $9 bid, and let opponent choose side, and the TripleA warclub ladder have been restored, and they use a fixed $9 bid.
I’m not sure how many games I would lose against the best players, in a game w/o bids, but probably very few, and most interesting is that no player who is regarded as very experienced will play w/o bids.
-
If you are talking some sort of ladder or tournament, then you are correct. If someone will give you +IPC, then you naturally will accept them (even if they only slightly aid you Round 1).
-
That does not mean that a bid is necessary.
-
If Triple A, starting tommorow, used a fixed “3-6” bid, the ultimate split of games will be the same approximate 50/50, give or take. Don’t be misled that “9” is the magic number. It’s not.
-
Suggested Topics
