…to attack Japan with in a regular game(RR? Bid?), what in the beejeebers has Germany been doing? Playing ‘Spin the Swastika!?!’
Not at all. Russia starts with 7inf in Asia, and 4arm total. To get to 9inf 11arm one only needs to add 2inf 7arm which comes out to only 2 armor heavy purchases something I’ve advocated here previously. Also, you must consider that even in a RR game Germany is quite weak in Europe and that to defend WEuro in the early stages it must sap production away from the Eastern Front enabling Russia to make tank heavy purchases.
USSR @ 24 IPCs v Japan @ 25 IPCs…now that’s more like it!
Would you recommend that variant, AgentSmith?
Definately a USSR advantage.
Germany @ 32 IPCs v USSR @ 24 IPCs…not a very fair match-up. Maybe if Russia is not RR in the game…Nah!
Actually quite close. German production lags behind Russia 1 turn equaling the production advantage, but I fear this too might be a USSR advantage.
I still want to know why you are playing an opponent(s) who cannot give you a good game? If you’ve got…
Well this isn’t just me that does this, but many of the best of the AAMC including a few former GOAs, and in my experience the AAMC has some of the best talent in the Axis and Allies community. This is more a matter of chosing armor over infantry which I will do to a point. Like I said I’d rather have a 3:1 inf/arm ratio than a 10:1 which is not worth much.
But if they don’t does that hurt me. Keeping Japan backed up in Yakut for a turn or two longer than usual is a good trade off I think. There are even times when Yakut can be made a deadzone as late as turn6 this way despite Japans huge numerical advantage because of what I described as Japans main problem/weakness.
If Japan holds up 1 extra turn or 2 in Yak, that could be a worst case for Russia because when they do more they will likely have such overwhelming force that makes strafe impossible. It is much better to lure Japan into the strafe situation you described then to have them hold up a turn and come in even stronger where stafe is not an option.
No they have value as offensive weapons, but they are not valuable especially when compared to the tank.
I disagree with this. I’m not a big fan of tanks I perfer infantry and fighters unless I’m hitting an aa-gun spot. And since I don’t build many fighters that means it is infantry, infantry, and more infantry with the occassional tank if I have the extra 2 IPC’s or I’m preparing for a big move.
Again this isn’t totally false, and in a Low Luck game this would likely prove true, but in dice games two things can happen. First the Axis can make a M84 lunge, and here is where the walk through the Caucausus can come into play, or the Axis can roll tech. You can complain after the fact that your opponent got HB too cheaply, but that won’t help you then. The key to victory is versatility, not stacking.
Of cousre the Axis CAN do this or CAN do that. Every strat has a counter and that is why I made the point about having to see the game board and how the game plays out. If they move, I can just as easily move.
Infantry are extremely versatile especially in large numbers. They are the best on defense and a good on offense in large numbers. Here’s why they are so good on offense:
Odds of 12 inf attacking
2 or more hits - 62% <– the key is the ‘or more’ part, over 60% of the time you’ll get your 2 basics hits plus possibly more.
3 or more hits - 37% <-- about 40% of the time you’ll get a MINIMUM of 3 hits.
4 or more hits - 17% <-- about 20% of the time you’ll get a MINIMUM of 4 hits.
I picked 12 inf cause it was easy to calculate but the numbers get better and better as you have more and more inf, because you get many more rounds out of combat and many more chances to hit.
I did also do 24 inf:
4 or more hits - 58%
5 or more hits - 37%
6 or more hits - 20%
And with large stacks that build up in that reach in the 40’s-50’s, it just means you have more and more chances to hit with better odds then just having 60 inf and saying I’ll get 10 hits, there is a good chance you’ll get
about 15 hits, plus you get more and more rounds of combat and dice rolls.
Shoot, I’ve got more to say but I gotta go for now.
Problem with attacking inf is that the variance is so big. 15 hits w/60 inf? You might as well hit 6 times (both chances arent that big btw).
Yeah, 15 was probably 2 hits too many. The red zone is 7 to 13 hits which comes out to the standard 10 hits.
Interestingly enough, the odds of hitting:
6 or less - 10%
7 to 13 - 88%
10 to 15 - 52%
13 to 15 - 15%
More than 12 hits - 20%
More than 15 hits - 4%
I just like having the inf because then they can turn around and defend at 2. I kinda think about it this way:
20 inf vs. 10 inf and 6 tanks.
If the 20 inf attack the 10 inf, 6 arm the defender will hold with about 3 arm, whereas if the 10 inf, 6 arm attack the 20 inf the defender will hold with 7 inf. No one is going to do that attack but it is just an example. Anyway you look at it the inf come out better.
You have 7 inf left over = 21 IPC vs. 3 arm = 15 IPC
You killed 16 units vs. 13 units killed
(this ignores strafes and the mobility of tanks or blitzing ability)
I just don’t like large tank buys and I perfer the tank buying if I have the extra 2 IPC, or I’m planning on hitting a capital or something.
And here is why I don’t put as much emphasis on IPC production as you do. In PE bids the Axis rarely out produces the Allies, but they can if they are smart about it, take down Moscow. However, if you merely play to get an ipc advantage, which is the essence of the PowerAfrica play, a good Allied player is going to know this is what he has to prevent. So because of this I make the taking Africa from Germany my first priority.
I said with the Axis, I just use the 70 as a guide, figuring if I’m not near 70 by the end of round 3, then either Japan is going too slow, or I’m having trouble in Afr, or I’m not doing well against Russia. It is just an easy way to take stock of the game status, IMO.
Generally, as Germany I like to hit Russia hard early if possible and esp with bids. I think Africa is overated (shhhh, don’t tell anyone) esp if you have a bid. I say put the early pressure on Russia, force them to make a decision about Kar, and if they don’t pull back then hit them if you have the odds and if they do pull back at the very least you can trade Kar and claim Cauc, which is 6 IPC, making up for Afr.
Let me give another example.
Your example of 24 inf attacking for instance 12 inf, 6 arm. Defender will hold on average w/2 arm.
Now instaed use 14 inf, 6 arm in attack (same ipc value): attackers would win w/3 arm on average.
Both our attacking armies should win on average in defense (of course, the inf stack has higher odds).
Now if you use this principle w/Rus who can use 1 stack of arm to threaten 3 important countries at once (EEu, Yak, Sin) w/Inf in Kar and Nov and you know why a decent arm purchase by the Russians is interesting and a problem for the axis (as long as defense holds of course).
Definitely, don’t get me wrong, thinking about my most recent posts I may have given the impression that I never buy tanks or ignore them completely, which isn’t true.
I just tend not to buy in large numbers, and chooses to go with large inf buys and a tank here or there. For example if Russia is at 26, I’ll go 1 arm and 7 inf. I think 8-10 arm is sufficient with Russia, with one bought per rd, and Germany I usually have between 10-12, unless I think I’m winning where I may buy more.
And in your 14-6 example, I may go with 19 inf, 3 arm instead and perhaps I survive with an inf or two and 3 arm. Anyway, I get your point but I tend to usually have approx 5:1 inf to arm ratio, rather than say a 3:1.
This is of course country and board dependant.
True.
If Japan holds up 1 extra turn or 2 in Yak, that could be a worst case for Russia because when they do more they will likely have such overwhelming force that makes strafe impossible. It is much better to lure Japan into the strafe situation you described then to have them hold up a turn and come in even stronger where stafe is not an option.
This is silly. Keeping them far away is best because while it gives them a bigger stack when they do advance it also gives me one extra turn to prepare as well. This could mean the Russians build more armor and delay them another turn, and it could mean the allies rush troops to Karelia so that Russia can swing much of its Karelia army to Russia to create a massive deadzone. The key is time, as you’ve said time is one the Allies side so the longer you hold of the Axis the better chances the allies will have to deal with them.
I disagree with this. I’m not a big fan of tanks I perfer infantry and fighters unless I’m hitting an aa-gun spot. And since I don’t build many fighters that means it is infantry, infantry, and more infantry with the occassional tank if I have the extra 2 IPC’s or I’m preparing for a big move
And infantry are almost soley an defensive weapon, that is they need tanks. Lets say I stack Ukr with Germany a move I’ve alluded to before. Russia would need almost double the infantry the Germans put into Ukr to prevent this move. Worse yet if you didn’t have many tanks I might just fly in a Jap fighter or two to defend, but regardless to maintain the neccessary infantry advantage against Germany you would have to all but ignore Japan which isn’t wise.
And with large stacks that build up in that reach in the 40’s-50’s, it just means you have more and more chances to hit with better odds then just having 60 inf and saying I’ll get 10 hits, there is a good chance you’ll get
about 15 hits, plus you get more and more rounds of combat and dice rolls.
Herein lies the flaw in this argument, infantry are not versatile. Yes you can stack infantry ad nauseum, but so can your opponent. At the same time Allied infantry stacks must fight seperately meaning a 30inf stack of Americans combined with a 60inf stack of Russians is somewhat weak if Germany has 45inf themselves since america is not strong enough to actually attempt a 1-2 punch. Also, infantry are weak because an opponent can match infantry for infantry, and even if he’s at a production disadvantage this would have to be very large for a very immediate gain to be made. For example, if Germany sends 6inf to the East each turn as compared to Russias 8 they will get outproduced, but this advantage won’t large enough to be use until several turns down the road, by which time I should be able to have diverted your attention somewhere else. The point being it is actually hard to outstack an opponent with one nation, as he possess virtually an equal ability to stack. More importantly I think its important to play so that you could defeat an opponent one on one, and without much assistant of an ally.
Problem with attacking inf is that the variance is so big. 15 hits w/60 inf? You might as well hit 6 times (both chances arent that big btw).
Good point, and I would point out the norm is actually 10, and your odds of getting +50% can’t be very good.
Yeah, 15 was probably 2 hits too many. The red zone is 7 to 13 hits which comes out to the standard 10 hits.
Yes but lets assume that you hit 7, but your defender gets a normal amount say 10-11, whereas if you assume with 10-13 hits you’ll get a good exchange with 7 you get a bad one. As Optorch said with infantry there is just too much variance.
I just like having the inf because then they can turn around and defend at 2.
And I think this says it all. You like infantry not because they ARE better but because they defend better, and of course its always better to have too much defense that too little. However, the best defense is a good offense. Playing defensively can cost you the game against a good player.
Generally, as Germany I like to hit Russia hard early if possible and esp with bids. I think Africa is overated (shhhh, don’t tell anyone) esp if you have a bid. I say put the early pressure on Russia, force them to make a decision about Kar, and if they don’t pull back then hit them if you have the odds and if they do pull back at the very least you can trade Kar and claim Cauc, which is 6 IPC, making up for Afr.
This sounds like a PE bid, and I will say that I think with PE bids you must play to win by turn 5 because after that things seem to fall apart too quickly for the Axis. IMO with a PE bid you absolutely cannot play a defensive game or you will get eaten alive.
This is silly. Keeping them far away is best because while it gives them a bigger stack when they do advance it also gives me one extra turn to prepare as well. This could mean the Russians build more armor and delay them another turn, and it could mean the allies rush troops to Karelia so that Russia can swing much of its Karelia army to Russia to create a massive deadzone.
Sure Russia COULD do this or COULD do that, again your assuming a whole bunch of things for Russia, I guess Russia can just manufacture whatever weapons they want and I guess Germany is doing nothing either. You keep changing the parameters midstream. The point of waiting is to sychronize the attack with Germany. Now Germany hits Karelia and Japan hits Novo, and since they waited they now have 26 inf in Novo instead of 12. Russia can’t take both. Your tanks may allow you to hit both Ger and Japan, but by attacking in the same round you negate that. It just takes some planning. Also waiting a turn can be EXTREMELY beneficial to Japan if that means you can HOLD Novo. The key is to hold it, not get there fast and then continually lose it. I’d rather wait a turn in hold, then trade for 3 or 4 turns, that to me is silly.
Good point, and I would point out the norm is actually 10, and your odds of getting +50% can’t be very good.
You actually have a 52% chance to hit more than 10.
Infantry are extremely versitile and are extremely valuable on offensive as well as defense.
The chances of hitting 7 or less is about 11%. It just isn’t going to happen with large stacks. The greater the number the less varience, that is just statistics.
And I think this says it all. You like infantry not because they ARE better but because they defend better, and of course its always better to have too much defense that too little. However, the best defense is a good offense. Playing defensively can cost you the game against a good player.
Depends on which side you are.
This sounds like a PE bid, and I will say that I think with PE bids you must play to win by turn 5 because after that things seem to fall apart too quickly for the Axis. IMO with a PE bid you absolutely cannot play a defensive game or you will get eaten alive.
Definitely. If you wait too long, you lose your adv of having your extra units.
The point of waiting is to sychronize the attack with Germany. Now Germany hits Karelia and Japan hits Novo, and since they waited they now have 26 inf in Novo instead of 12. Russia can’t take both. Your tanks may allow you to hit both Ger and Japan, but by attacking in the same round you negate that. It just takes some planning.
We are not talking about the situation where Rus has its arm in Mos and the inf in Nov anymore, right (since the Japs wouldnt be in Sin/Yak to strike Nov b/c of the deadzone)?
This means that Rus arm is prolly in Kar so extra inf can go to Mos. If thats not enough to keep the Japs out of Nov than something has gone very wrong for the allies (only when Ger has taken Kar early -> weak Russians, but we are not talking about that I pressume, since Ger is pressuring Kar).
Im just not sure what you mean by Rus arm cant attack both……
I don’t know anymore. Too many what-ifs, coulda beens, and should-do’s for me. I’m done talking in circles.
And back on topic, Japan is still the strongest country in the game. :D
The chances of hitting 7 or less is about 11%. It just isn’t going to happen with large stacks.
No it’s going to happen about 11% of the time, and my point is that when that happens in a game you are winning big it hurts and can turn a sure win into a sure loss. My way ensures you will win all the games you should, without really exposing yourself to too much more risk.
And back on topic, Japan is still the strongest country in the game.
Back on subject you really haven’t supported your claim here. Both Torch and I have suggested that a Japanese drive no matter how strong can be slowed down by cunning Russian play, not because Russia has more Ipcs per say, but because the more they fall back the shorter their supply lines become, and the longer the Japs lines become. This in my opinion show they are not strong. To furthe offer this use betamap sometime during a game and see how long it takes for Japan to actually have a great ipc value in troops than Russia. If Russia plays well it can be a while, and I ususally subtract the value of the airforces as they only reflect the inequality at the start of the game and not during it.
Ugh. :roll:
OF COURSE JAPAN CAN BE STOPPED!!!
I never said they couldn’t!
Also Russia can fall, Germany can fall, lots of stuff can happen, that’s why you play the game!
I stated why, IMO, Japan/US are the strongest many posts ago, so you can go back and read it if you choose to or keep ignoring it.
And I stated why supply lines don’t matter in considering which country is the strongest. You should probably go back a read that as well. Well, here’s the short version since I doubt you will. The supply line problem is true for EVERY country, especially the aggressors.
So, because a counrty is on the offensive and has longer supply lines they are weaker??? That is just stupid! So, as Germany I should let Russia take EE, so I can be stronger as Germany because the Russians have farther to go. That makes no sense!
And as Japan, from now on I’m going to let Russia take Man, Fic, and Kwa, so Japan will have the shorter supply lines and thus be the stronger country. Again, that is just stupid.
Those are tactics and strategies, that is an independent discussion then what country someone thinks is the strongest.
This is not a strategy thread, and I probably should have stopped my part of the discussion long ago when you first derailed the thread, but oh well I got caught up a bit.
If Russia were so strong they wouldn’t need help from the other Allies or their Capital would never fall.
Japan is the strongest - they out produce every other country often earning 45 IPC or so, they have the largest empire by rd 4, they can tech at will, and their capital never falls, that is why they are the strongest. Period. If you don’t agree fine, so be it.
Just ask yourself why KJF’s are so hard, then you’ll have your answer.
The supply line problem is true for EVERY country, especially the aggressors.
So, because a counrty is on the offensive and has longer supply lines they are weaker???
Exactly, Japan is only on the offensive because the Allies let them be on the offensive to concentrate on Germany. Also, for any of the land based
powers should they have to go on the defensive they need only fall back, but for Japan this is not possible as Tokyo will alway be somewhat weak to take, and for this reason a clever Allied player can sneak in and take it if they get HBombers at the right time.
I stated why, IMO, Japan/US are the strongest many posts ago, so you can go back and read it if you choose to or keep ignoring it.
Yeah I can read thank you, but I rejected it completely because your claim is that Japan is strong because they never have to defend, and because they can out produced Russia so quickly. Both of these I have repeatedly refuted.
And as Japan, from now on I’m going to let Russia take Man, Fic, and Kwa, so Japan will have the shorter supply lines and thus be the stronger country. Again, that is just stupid.
Is it though? I never attack Manchuria on Russia1 regardless of the bid the infantry are too important to keep Japan out of Novo and Yakut in turns 3-6 which is far more important than slowing Japan down one turn and taking out a fighter which they don’t need anyway. IMO inexperienced players place far too much emphasis on attacking Manchuria which will certainly not be a game ender, and could end up hurting Russia more than Japan.
This is not a strategy thread, and I probably should have stopped my part of the discussion long ago when you first derailed the thread, but oh well I got caught up a bit.
Again I don’t agree you illustrated perfectly why it is that Germany/Russia are stronger, and why Japan and the US are far weaker than many people think. Like I said before if Germany is losing badly it can be very hard for Japan to intervene in a way that will greatly affect the outcome of the game. Likewise can be said for the Americans. I find it is often how Russia/Uk are played that decide the Allies outcome.
If Russia were so strong they wouldn’t need help from the other Allies or their Capital would never fall.
But consider how hard it is to actually make Berlin/Moscow fall, and then think about the inequity of being double teamed by Japan and Germany. If the game were Russia versus Germany or Japan I think they could hold out a long time 30-40 turns, but that wouldn’t be a fun game would it?
Just ask yourself why KJF’s are so hard, then you’ll have your answer.
Well duh they are hard because it is difficult to get to the center of their ipc production. Even if you go after Ocenia this only reflects 8ipcs of their production, and won’t cripple them by any means. On the other hand IMO the best way to pursue a KJF is to build up an enormous Russian army and park it in Mongolia in order to make Sink,China, Yakut, and more importantly Manch deadzones. Once Manch becomes a deadzone if Russia can park this army in Manch the game may be over unless the Japs have a large enough army to hold Kwan/China/Sfe and most importantly push you out of Manchuria. Otherwise their ability to dump troops into Asia will be severely limited from there on.
Japan is the strongest - they out produce every other country often earning 45 IPC or so, they have the largest empire by rd 4, they can tech at will, and their capital never falls,
Their capital never falls because people don’t target them, and because its hard to get to. They outproduce everybody because the Allies will surrender much of Asia to them, but in my experience once it becomes 3 on 1 against Japan the game ends quickly. Unless as Torch suggests the Allies especially America screws up badly. They win because the Allies should be able to retake Africa, and tech at will which Japan cannot afford.
I would disagree that Japan can tech at will because they need to build many guys if they are to advance on Moscow, but at the same time threaten Africa, assuming the Allies retake. What I’ve seen is that if Russia plays as I’ve suggested Japan needs to concentrate on weakening Russia first, Africa second, and tech third. Because of this there is very little pie to go around when tech comes up.
We’re just looking at strength differently. I see the US/Japan’s isolation as a positive, as they are allowed to have a singular focus - which front they want to attack.
I see Russia and Germany as weaker because they have to fight more on multiple fronts, and generally can’t concentrate on just one front. I find when I play either of these countries my job is to stay alive, doing whatever is necessary to stay in the game while I wait for an opening or my Allies help me out.
If more KJF’s were played I’d view Germany as the strongest as it would be their job to get to Russia before Japan fell, but KJF’s aren’t played that often. And since most games are played with the gang up on Germany strat, I find Japan is often left alone and allowed to grow almost untouched till they get near Novo. Thus making them the strongest with 40+ IPC’s and 1 focus.
I place so much on production because that was part of the initial question:
Who do you guys think is the most powerful country in the game? In other words, who is the country who takes the most I.P.C.'s and racks up the most capital kills in most of your games.
I find Japan generally leads in that, while if Russia falls they are the one to take it.
As for the US, I find they do the most damage for me when I play as the Allies.
We’re just looking at strength differently. I see the US/Japan’s isolation as a positive, as they are allowed to have a singular focus - which front they want to attack.
Except this can be a liability as well even defensively. One trick I used to like to use was to get IT for Japan and then launch offensives against both the US and Russia. If you consider that Japan with 42-44 ipcs can build 21-22 guys then they can send 10inf to Asia, but 12 to Alaska. As long as they keep the transports in the JapSz they can pump a lot of guys towards both fronts. This can present America with problems if they only produce 11 units a turn, and will eventually lead to their defeat. More immediately though it takes them completely out of the war in Europe giving Germany a 2 on 1 which they can handle. Who’s weaker now?
If more KJF’s were played I’d view Germany as the strongest as it would be their job to get to Russia before Japan fell, but KJF’s aren’t played that often. And since most games are played with the gang up on Germany strat, I find Japan is often left alone and allowed to grow almost untouched till they get near Novo.
And this doesn’t make them stronger only less focused on. Have you not considered that people pay so much attention to Germany because they are dangerous?
I find Japan generally leads in that, while if Russia falls they are the one to take it.
As for the US, I find they do the most damage for me when I play as the Allies.
Of course the US leads in that because they are the closest to Japan as well. If Berlin falls how/why should the Uk take Tokyo? Furthermore, the US is also more likely to take Berlin as the Brits will have a hard time since they go first, and unless they’ve got HBombers or catch the Germans napping I don’t see it happening. As for Japan taking Moscow I don’t see this as an inherent advantage, and in fact sometimes I let them do it. If Russia is getting weak, but my Allies have spent the time and money to develop tech unlike the Japs I might let Japan take Moscow if I’ve got HBs or a strong likelyhood to get them before Japan can build on Moscow. The net effect is that with HBs you can nuke Japan and Germany making Japan have to take Karelia without the help of more troops. If you can use this to buy time to kill Germany I’d take it.
Yeah, once Tech is involved all bets are off. I’ll take any country with IT and they are the new strongest, IMO.
Have you not considered that people pay so much attention to Germany because they are dangerous?
Or could be just easier to take them out. UK is really in no position to hit Japan all that easily, barring an IC somewhere. Also Russia can’t get ships to the Pacific and would have a hard time holding Man. It is just much easier to hit Germany 3-1 then Japan. And there’s more chances of failure in a KJF than a KGF. Why take the chance unless you have too.
As for Japan taking Moscow I don’t see this as an inherent advantage, and in fact sometimes I let them do it.
Yeah, I can see that. Tech changes everything though. It can also work the other way too. If Germany takes Moscow, there is the possibility of Berlin falling, thus making Moscow, Kar and Cauc all dead territories for the Axis. Whereas if Japan had Moscow they’d still at least have the 8 IPC and be able to place there. It can go either way, IMO. Depends on the players, board, do people have tech, among other things.
Yeah, once Tech is involved all bets are off. I’ll take any country with IT and they are the new strongest, IMO.
Not really because the average cost to get IT is usually around 60ipcs, assuming any player would be equally happy to have either IT or HB. So if you think about it like that IT should cost around 2-3 turns of all tech rolling, and that does not even offer a guarantee you will have it. IMO unless both the US and Uk have IT it isn’t that much of an advantage, and certainly doesn’t offset its cost for a while.
Or could be just easier to take them out.
Yes its a bit of both, but I wouldn’t say it easy to take out Germany. In fact barring a total disaster or a mistake the Germans should drag this out a lot.
Also Russia can’t get ships to the Pacific and would have a hard time holding Man.
Early on yes, but in the later game not at all, and if they do Japan is usually done no matter how strong they are in the south or in Africa.
Yeah, I can see that. Tech changes everything though. It can also work the other way too. If Germany takes Moscow, there is the possibility of Berlin falling, thus making Moscow, Kar and Cauc all dead territories for the Axis. Whereas if Japan had Moscow they’d still at least have the 8 IPC and be able to place there. It can go either way, IMO. Depends on the players, board, do people have tech, among other things.
But some players, especially those in the AAMC from Indianapolis(guess who I’m talking about Torch), will tech as part of their overall strategy. For example, they might spend 20ipcs a turn on tech rolls which should yield HBs in 7-8 turns. Such an allocation ensures that they should have it eventually, and at only 20ipcs it isn’t going to set them back much. Generally if Germany can take Moscow they are going to be okay just so long as in the process they aren’t trying to hold on to too much ground ie WEuro. When I sense Moscow is threatened I will give up WEuro and even EEuro by falling back to Berlin. If the attack is successful then I can hold out until I can use the Russian money at which point I’ll be safe. Moreover if I feel there is even a chance Berlin will fall I might only strafe Moscow with Germany, this way if the Allied do take Berlin they won’t also get the Russian money back. Once Moscow is strafed to the point where Japan can take I’ll back off to at least preserve my army, and let the Japs finish of Moscow.
I was just making a general statement about tech and IT, I wasn’t advocating anything by it, I was just saying if I could magically pick a tech I’d take IT.
Early on yes, but in the later game not at all, and if they do Japan is usually done no matter how strong they are in the south or in Africa.
LOL!!! :D Yeah, if Russia has ANY ships anywhere other then the 2 they start with, it’s game over. As soon as I’d see a Russian ship get bought, it’s game over. Lol! Russian ships! I do like the dreaded Russian Battleship, I like buying those. :D
And, as I’ve said before, I don’t like tech and tech games, I think it can take some of the fun out of it. Once and a while, I don’t mind tech games, but not every game. To me it’s not fun. I like the really long grueling games of position, and back and forth fighting over various dead zones.
