“Bids and Scramble”
sounds like a good name for a board game :lol:
IDK “Chutes and Ladders” just came to mind lol
The key to (killing) Russia's heart is in Nenetsia, 2.0
-
I like the Baltic idea better than the Caucasus route. That’s 3 TRNs you’re building that the Russians will just shoot up with a plane on R3. Plus, if you build 3 transports in the Black Sea G2, the UK is already at war with you, and its perfectly legal to FLY through the Dardenalles to kill them with a plane.
However you get the Jap air force to Europe though, earlier is probably better! Its ridiculous that the Germans and Italians get as far as they do with the pitiful navies they start with!
-
Ah, yes, the best thing about this strategy are the OPTIONS. You’re not pigeonholed into playing entirely defensive on the mainland, with 20 Japs threatening.
-
gsh34, wouldn’t it be good for this strat to have Italy buy/move some tanks/mechs to Romania?
This shows more commitment in the southern region, distracting more from a northern offensive. And they can still be a modest can-opener threat in the South.
-
@special:
gsh34, wouldn’t it be good for this strat to have Italy buy/move some tanks/mechs to Romania?
This shows more commitment in the southern region, distracting more from a northern offensive. And they can still be a modest can-opener threat in the South.
I have no problem with this. I don’t play FTF games as often as many here on the boards, so I need to try this out in a real game and see how it goes.
-
IPM?
Another example of why this game will never be won, except in lucky situations, by gimmick moves that either “win” the game in 3-5 rounds or in the first round. Its called Infantry Push Mechanic and it has won every game that its used in. Read the boards of some of the other games to find out the details.
Even if you take Moscow for one turn,unlikely but possible, you have no supply line that is worth it to back it up. Your victory is only won for a round and then Germany is a hollow tiger, and so is Japan. You have hamstrung both major Axis powers to do this. No Atlantic wall, no reactionary force, no win. Not with sane allied builds and a strategic outlook.
I just played at a Convention and my team (of course we have played extensively together) would have won based on IPM, the constant supply of fodder without the loss of high powered units. The other team conceded, but it was a given with time considering their waste of high powered units…
deadbunny,
I don’t doubt IPM. I’ve played hundreds of FTF games (mostly Revised and 2nd edition) and I can attest to it’s value.
From reading here and my limited number of games, America likes to go 100% in the Atlantic. This crushes the Euro-Axis. The role of the Nenetsia gambit in conjuncture with Japan is to either kill Russia or reduce it so much that it removes one front to worry about in Europe. If it works, the Euro-Axis can fully concentrate on the UK and US while Japan’s ground forces arrive by round 5 and beyond to mop up what is left of Russia. If the Europe board is kept a two front war with a massive stack of Russians to deal with along with 82+ ipc of units from the US, the Euro-Axis are toast.
The goal is to eliminate one front of the war.
-
From reading here and my limited number of games, America likes to go 100% in the Atlantic.
I have been reading that also, which I feel is a Mistake for America to do that. If a Japanese player sent all of his planes to Europe I would run rampant over the pacific with the Allies. You can place all ship builds in the Pacific and move them to the Atlantic if needed. Without Japans planes most of their ground units in Asia will be helpless and it would entice India and Anzac into motion. I would even consider preempting Japan with a UK attack if the big offensive units are gone.
In the scenario that’s being talked about here Germany places little to no ground units for two turns (CV and factory, then 8 transports etc). I feel that this may be deciding factor in the long run. With average dice rolls it may work but all it takes is a few rounds of good defensive hits to throw it off.
-
In the scenario that’s being talked about here Germany places little to no ground units for two turns (CV and factory, then 8 transports etc). I feel that this may be deciding factor in the long run. With average dice rolls it may work but all it takes is a few rounds of good defensive hits to throw it off.
I can’t imagine a simple IPM build for the Axis would win. They start the game about 60-70 ipc behind the Allies in income even after taking France. The two German complexes are 5-6 rounds from Russia. The supply lines are too long to take out Russia with a simple IPM. In order for a credible Sealion or Nenetsia threat, they need to build a carrier and transports. Five or six transports does nothing for a credible Sealion.
-
I agree if Japan moves its planes away as the allied players in the P I would run all over Japan’s islands. And the allies have more then enough to do it. So America builds enough to defend itself in E and pours everything else into the treat of taking Japan. If Japan manages(somehow) to get its planes back to Japan in time then the USA lands in India and pours its troops up into Russia in a few turns(or frees China), either way it opens up a second front from the axis and causes issues a few rounds down the road. Then the USA switches back to focusing on E while using its fleet in P to keep Japan pinned at home. Japan can use its fighters to sink a USA fleet sittting off its coast but it takes them away from E and messes badly with the allied plan. Again each time they try to fly back the USA repeats its trick and threatens Japan. They can afford to do this a lot longer then Japan can. Meanwhile the USA forces in Asia get close and close to defending Russia or counter attacking Germany.
-
I can’t imagine a simple IPM build for the Axis would win. They start the game about 60-70 ipc behind the Allies in income even after taking France. The two German complexes are 5-6 rounds from Russia. The supply lines are too long to take out Russia with a simple IPM. In order for a credible Sealion or Nenetsia threat, they need to build a carrier and transports. Five or six transports does nothing for a credible Sealion.
You seem to not understand that the IPM also involves a sea wall defense against an allied landing. 6 turns to Moscow as you say, then America can only land once, two turns from Berlin. Build 3-4 infantry per turn in France and coupled with your air force no landing will last. That gives you room to maneuver and pressure/take Moscow. The 60-70 IPC discrepancy is helped by the Total Unit Value (TUV) that the axis start with and should be taken advantage of. I personally think the CV build first round is necessary but some of the other ideas coming out of peoples post seem non logical.
-
[ You seem to not understand that the IPM also involves a sea wall defense against an allied landing. 6 turns to Moscow as you say, then America can only land once, two turns from Berlin. Build 3-4 infantry per turn in France and coupled with your air force no landing will last. That gives you room to maneuver and pressure/take Moscow. The 60-70 IPC discrepancy is helped by the Total Unit Value (TUV) that the axis start with and should be taken advantage of. I personally think the CV build first round is necessary but some of the other ideas coming out of peoples post seem non logical.
[/quote]Again what stops America from doing a Japan crush if this shapes up? Thats the big issue America is too strong and in the hands of a skilled player can win the game by doing full crushes on one side or the other.
-
Again what stops America from doing a Japan crush if this shapes up? Thats the big issue America is too strong and in the hands of a skilled player can win the game by doing full crushes on one side or the other.
No redhunter. This is an illustration of why the game is easy in the hands of unskilled players. For the Axis to be successful they have to THREATEN on both theaters (including the western US) to keep the USA from spilling all IPC’s into the Atlantic. If you allow the US player to use its full force in one theater you are asking for defeat.
-
I say go for the “gimick” win. The first time I tried something along the lines of building German Aircraft Carriers was back in Revised. I built two (and a transport), landed four planes and went on my Merry way attacking the med coast and I took stalingrad on turn two.
I think the original idea of this thread is to try something NEW, and win, rather than press on with the old, dull, IPM. Hey IPM wins more games than not, but if you can surprise your friends with a strategy they have never seen before they may not be able to figure out the counter quick enough. (If Mr. Rick Bunnell did read this thread I guess gsh34 you are out of luck).
Try this out and let us know how it goes.
-
Also, a counter to Russia building surface ships is very simple. Wouldn’t using all those Japanese planes to sink Russia ship do the trick? Hell, if Germany doesn’t know what to build on G3 why not an Airbase for his Japanese allies!
-
I say go for the “gimick” win. The first time I tried something along the lines of building German Aircraft Carriers was back in Revised. I built two (and a transport), landed four planes and went on my Merry way attacking the med coast and I took stalingrad on turn two.
This was not a gimmick, it protected the German fleet and allowed it the same range as if staying in France in revised. Global is a different game and what you would call a “gimmick” strategy in this case is null and void in Global.
-
I say go for the “gimick” win. The first time I tried something along the lines of building German Aircraft Carriers was back in Revised. I built two (and a transport), landed four planes and went on my Merry way attacking the med coast and I took stalingrad on turn two.
I think the original idea of this thread is to try something NEW, and win, rather than press on with the old, dull, IPM. Hey IPM wins more games than not, but if you can surprise your friends with a strategy they have never seen before they may not be able to figure out the counter quick enough. (If Mr. Rick Bunnell did read this thread I guess gsh34 you are out of luck).
Try this out and let us know how it goes.
I always appreciate an opponent who tries daring, unusual strategies. They always make a fun game, and that is more important to me than winning or losing. This doesn’t mean someone should just do stupid random things, of course.
Sounds horribly boring for every game to be the same, or worse: merely stacking!
-
@SalothSar:
Also, a counter to Russia building surface ships is very simple. Wouldn’t using all those Japanese planes to sink Russia ship do the trick? Hell, if Germany doesn’t know what to build on G3 why not an Airbase for his Japanese allies!
Build it where?
Nenestsia on turn 4.
-
I say go for the “gimick” win. The first time I tried something along the lines of building German Aircraft Carriers was back in Revised. I built two (and a transport), landed four planes and went on my Merry way attacking the med coast and I took stalingrad on turn two.
This was not a gimmick, it protected the German fleet and allowed it the same range as if staying in France in revised. Global is a different game and what you would call a “gimmick” strategy in this case is null and void in Global.
I didn’t mean gimmick win in a bad way. That’s why it was in quotes. For the future we will call this a non-conventional strategy. Though this game is so new and unplayed who knows what the “conventional” moves will end up being.
-
calvin just conceded a game where he tried this out. I believe he executed it correctly, but I don’t really see any way it could work. Even if the Russian player doesn’t see it coming, he’s got 2 full rounds to react and that’s plenty of time to consolidate and buy more cheap units. Three when you see the air base being built and see where it can reach. The German tank purchase also made me wary. As usual though, I huddled when I saw the naval buy, expecting at least an attack at Novgorod.
The tanks would have been an irritant blitzing around, but my next purchase would be 4 tanks and 4 mechs to chase them down. At this point with my Russian hordes vastly outpipping both the Germans and Japanese, I can easily afford to go with the pricier and more mobile units and begin pushing out in all directions. This also gave the UK a chance to start buying ships again, along with units in Africa. Japan is in no position to hurt India or ANZAC, and the US is coming to Europe shortly.
I’ve attached a map so you can see what the Axis are up against. This is the end of Russia in round 3. Japan should be landing planes, then Germany has to advance. If they come closer to those stacks, they are going to get creamed. They could survive a round by going to Archangel or the Urals, but then that’s missing the point of reaching Moscow. Russia even has enough troops to deal with the southern forces at the same time. Japan could put a decent dent in the Russian stack, but it’s not going to be nearly enough and they’ll lose everything doing it.
Japan planes clearing a path or as part of a final push for Moscow has always been a sound strategy, but this is quite different. It’s less than dicey because you’ll never get close to landing enough Germans to push all the way to Moscow, and your normal front will be very soft.
-
Yeah, I saw no point in continuing.
-
Guys,
Thanks for trying this out. Calvin, did you also have Japan shuttling troops across northern China so that a constant supply of Japanese troops would be arriving at J5? Would six to eight Japanese troops a turn even matter against Russia in this scenario? Did you see any thing that showed promise about this strategy? Do you think this could be something possible to do after a successful Sealion so the transports are utilized?
I wish I knew how to view your map download. Can you explain that please?
Suggested Topics
