Hi, This is my first post. I have been reading this board for about a month.
I would like to propose a radical idea for the U.S first turn. I think the U.S. should buy 6 tech rolls and 2 infantry. The U.S, more than any other country, has the ability to spend 30 IPCs on tech without really threatening the Allies ability to hold off the Axis. If you happen to get Heavy Bombers, the game is essentially over on turn 1.
I calculated the odds. There is a 2/3 chance of getting at least one technology. A 40% chance of getting exactly 1 technology, a 20% chance of getting 2, a 5% chance of getting 3, and insignificant chances of getting 4, 5, or 6 technologies. The overall odds of getting Hvy Bombers is 1 in 6.
I haven’t gotten to try this idea out yet. I will get to play the U.S 2 games from now in the group I play with (we rotate). I plan to try this out. I will let you know what happens. I would like to hear any other opinions on this idea.
Suggesting your odds (1 in 6) in getting heavy bombers pans out, what do you do in those 5 games it doesn’t. The US has basically no purchases in turn 1. Since this scenario is the norm, what then?
Well, I won’t get Hvy Bombers every time, but I have a 2/3 chance of getting something. All of them are useful to some degree.
If I don’t get anything, then the U.S will just go one with business as usual, but 1 turn later than normal.
I routinely read on this board about how people say that the U.S. can afford to rebuild its fleets, while the Axis can not. If that is true, then the U.S. should instead protect its fleet, and buy tech rolls.
Buying Tech rolls on the first turn is the best option because any results you get wil be in effect for the whole game.
If Japan is intent on destroying the US Pacific fleet, there’s little the US can do to stop it. Even if the US counter-attacks in turn 1, they will still lose most or all of they’re naval and air forces. As for the Allies having the ability to “afford” to rebuild their fleets, they actually have little choice in the matter. The US MUST build a sizable transport fleet to be effective in the Allied war effort. The UK has the the same problem, but to a much lesser extent.
If your playing against someone with equal or greater game experience, the game comes down to strategy and time tables. If your strategies are for the most part similar, your playing the time table game. Do you want to start off one turn behind with the US? Alot will depend on what happened before the US gets it’s first turn. If it looks fairly even, any player can’t really afford too great of risks and win. Standard US strategy calls for a “Germany First” scenario. If you get “super subs”, what good is that against Germany who loses their fleet by turn 3 anyway???
you can do the technology thing with all nations. Not just US. I wouldnt suggest using it. The chances are very small you will gain a war winning technology, the changes are nevertheless far greaer that the dice roll will fail and you will end up one turn and a lot more military units behind.
I play with restricted/modified rules for Heavy Bombers anyway.
I have always felt the discovery of Heavy Bombers throws the game off too drastically.
Just my .02
taking that risk ethir wins the game or blows it for you.i don’t like taking risks like that.
I think risk is what makes this game so enjoyable. If you aren’t certain your stratagies and tactics will work it makes for much more fun games. I’m very rarely afraid to try out completly new and seemingly outragous stratagies just to see if they pan out.
[ This Message was edited by: bossk on 2002-01-08 16:59 ]
I know its not a great strategy because it relies too much on chance, but it could cetainly make things interesting.
An alternative would be to have GB and US each take 3 tech rolls on their first turn. The probabilities are the same, but the reduced units are spread over 2 countries.
In a situation like that, Germany is given an extra round of fun and romping thru the park. I only take tech rolls for fun when the game is almost over. Its risky, and adds a twist to the game. If your trying to have fun, do it. If your seriously trying to win, don’t do it.
I feel strongly that tech rolls are an important part of the game (read some of my other posts), but buying six techrolls in one turn, much less on the first turn-is rediculous(sp.-i know). The US is one of the most important countries in the game and, in my opinion, they mostly do Britain’s job for him. Tech rolls advantages are tempting and should definitely be considered in most strategies, but don’t allow them to tempt you into sacrificing unit production too much. Japan and UK are in my opionion the only units that have the money to risk on large amounts of tech rolls (UK no more than three per round starting around round 3 or four; and Japan only three on the first and second turns combined, after that only up to two per turn until income hits 35+ after that up to 4 untill income gets so high the game is already won.) US is so important that I believe they should never buy more than one unless germany has fallen, and then perhaps two. They are required to capture and defend Africa and to attack West Europe. They also need to annoy Japan (IC in Sinkiang is usually a good idea). I know tech rolls are more valuable the longer you have them (specific examples are #'s 2, 5, 6) but the first turn or two is the setting up of the board for important action later and tech rolls can wait.
hey bossk it’s not that im not a risk taker i love radical new strategies but im not a big fan of devolping weapons.
Heres is how I see it. Tech rolls serve two purposes. First, say you have 5 IPCs change, you buy a tech roll. Second, say you KNOW that 4 or 5 turns down the line, your going to be defeated. An example of this is Japan taking all of asia, only to see Germany fall. When I see this, I immediatly start teching. Heavy Bombers or Industrial Tech can save the game for me.
I agree with a lot of the above answers;
However, You should have some sort of plan
if the heavy bombers don’t pan out. It sounds
to me that you would like to create some
hitting power with the United States. This
is good but it must be sustained. Most
axis players try to resist the U.S.
instead of going head to head with. Therefor
your hitting power may not be effective
enough from stopping the Axis real intentions
I wouldn’t say that as a rule the U.S. should
go after Germany first like many of the others.
Don’t get me wrong going after Germany first
is far from being a mistake it can be very
effective if the opponent becomes shocked.
The question all AA players should ask
themself is " How can I keep open as many
options as possible " Every round should be
played this way. Try this many times then
refine it over and over. Become a master
of general rules in the game. Like many
mentioned by the others here. " Defense wins
championships" this should be your goal with
the United States.
On 2002-01-14 16:08, KING TIGER wrote;
“Defense wins championships”, this should be your goal with the United States.
So, are you saying that the US should play a defensive role? It sounds that way to me…
There’s just one thing wrong with that strategy . . . everything.
If the US play a defensive role, then the allies are pretty well dead. The UK and especially Russia, totally depend on the US help. If every country took a defensive stance, how would the war be solved?
The US as a defensive power for UK and Russia
that means the US must HELP defend the UK
and Russia. Like I stated most axis players
don’t engage the US head on head they go
after the other two like you stated. Therefor
the US has to engage the axis by defending
UK and Russia. The US role could be totally
defensive or attacking depending on the
preference of the player. The US role depends
on the broad perspective in which they see
fit. For example if Germany went after Russia
immediately then the US would have to adopt
a different strat… than going after africa
and france (D-day). If they went after
Germany immediately (offensively) than
Russia might completely fall. Keep Russia
alive keep your options open. I hope that
clears things up.
as i pointed out in an other post, offensive play is better then defensive play. I might only consider defence my main goal when playing germany and allies are going all out for me.
As an attacker you can choose the battlefield and your victims as well. People do not attack countries (in most cases…) if the result will be negative. By attacking countries you can gain a lot (only bad rolls give bad results), thats why my game is based on offensive play.
The allies should attack Germany and Japan whenever they can to give russia the opportunity to raise their NP to 30 or more. Thats my basic goal when playing allies.
[ This Message was edited by: greensleeves on 2002-01-15 16:17 ]
I think the US should be an offensive tool. If the Germans go hard after Russia the US can usually land troops in W. Europe creating a two front war for Germany. Two front war=death (in most cases).
I agree, the US’s role is not to defend Russia, I think Britain can do that. US needs to take Germany.
One question-
What would you do if Germany game after game
held out against the onslought of the allies
while at the same time Japan took Russia?
