Island hopping is great, but its not critical. Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great. This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers. They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults. I will have no less than 2. I then will support my fleet with destroyers. I try to build 2 for every carrier. If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment. This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically. Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower. Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines. If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics. Your maximizing your money and strength. Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry. You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault. the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition. But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up. Battle should be over without losing anything. Your fighters land for fleet defense. Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea. Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.
Japan landing in western US –--- how can i do this?
-
Jennifer, don’t bother with the Canadian Shield strategy. It’s basically a one-trick pony that won’t work on anyone twice and an astute US player will be able to prepare for it.
Yipes! That was a masterful demonstration that you do not understand the move.
As the paper mentions repeatedly, A) you don’t have to land the killer blow to get value out of the setup, B) you don’t do it in all situations, and C) if you are playing a good transport game, the setup won’t be a deviation from your normal pattern.
But other than that, you have fully understood the gambit. :roll:
-
@CrazyStraw:
Jennifer, don’t bother with the Canadian Shield strategy. It’s basically a one-trick pony that won’t work on anyone twice and an astute US player will be able to prepare for it.
Yipes! That was a masterful demonstration that you do not understand the move.
As the paper mentions repeatedly, A) you don’t have to land the killer blow to get value out of the setup, B) you don’t do it in all situations, and C) if you are playing a good transport game, the setup won’t be a deviation from your normal pattern.
But other than that, you have fully understood the gambit. :roll:
And the setup proceedure is……(insert drum roll here)
-
@CrazyStraw:
Jennifer, don’t bother with the Canadian Shield strategy. It’s basically a one-trick pony that won’t work on anyone twice and an astute US player will be able to prepare for it.
Yipes! That was a masterful demonstration that you do not understand the move.
As the paper mentions repeatedly, A) you don’t have to land the killer blow to get value out of the setup, B) you don’t do it in all situations, and C) if you are playing a good transport game, the setup won’t be a deviation from your normal pattern.
But other than that, you have fully understood the gambit. :roll:
A) And if you don’t land the killing blow, what value will you get out of the setup with 5 armor in Western Europe and 3 purchased transports on G1? Perhaps an angry bird flip across the channel at the UK. I’m sure the Russians are getting plenty of value from that setup. If you assume value from that setup means the UK/US won’t be able to land in Europe for 3 or 4 turns, that they will have to purchase more navy than usual, or bulk up their ground forces before they have enough transports to move them from their staging points, then yes, that is value. But it is offset by the fact that Germany has made little or no gain in Africa beyond Egypt, Germany bought a bunch of transports that are costly and largely useless when a Baltic CV buy is cheaper and works better on defense, and 5 armor are sitting in Western Europe for at least 2 turns when they could be on the Russian front.
B) Exactly what situations you avoid using it in must be so insignificant as to not be worth mentioning in the paper or in your post, apparently.
C) What good transport game? With Germany? Japan always has a transport game. For Germany, it seems to be a very large deviation from any normal pattern I’ve ever seen. And where are the Germans going to transport anything if the gambit fails, anyway? Back toward Russia likely. Where they should have been from the beginning. Or maybe Africa. Germany should have made some gains there by G6.
There, have I even begun to slightly understand or am I missing a great deal of the subtle parts of the gambit? :|
I notice you only quoted the first two sentences and didn’t bother to dissect the rest of the post. Perhaps I understood more of the Canadian Shield one-trick pony than you were willing to give me credit for. :-o
Tell you what. When I am done with the 2 on 2 Tourney here, maybe Caspian sub can send one of their weaker players to this board to challenge my Allies, display all of the merits of the Canadian Shield gambit, and crush me. I’ll even play low luck so I can’t whine about getting worked over by the dice-roller.
-
Frankly, when it is so clear you haven’t really read the paper, why would I spend time debating you? If you were serious, you would at least look at the original document rather than dismissing it like you know what you’re talking about.
I enjoy a good debate. But you’re just beligerent.
As for playing a game, sure. GenCon is in a couple weeks and at least two CSub teams will be there. Show up and let’s see what you can do.
I don’t plan on replying to this unless something substantial comes up. So the last word is yours. I’m sure you’ll use it well.
Adios.
-
I don’t think you understand, U-505, that it is recommended to buy only 2 transports against experienced players. That is exactly the same amount you spend on 1 carrier. Even if you buy 3 transports, that is the same amount of money that you like to spend on your carrier/transport in the Med. You are hardly spending yourself into a hole compared to other naval buys.
-
@ncscswitch:
If the US sets up a traditional Shuck pattern, especially if you have a former Classic player using the Classic shuck in Revised, then there is no way in heck you are going to get a free, or even an easy, landing in Canada. Both ECan and WCan will have somethign like 6-8 divisions there at all times from US2 forward.
Bingo.
This strat should NEVER work against a competent Allied player.
The US should ALWAYS set up Shuck-shuck through WUS, not only to prevent a Canada landing but to discourage Japan from expanding to Ala and Hi mid game.
This is straight from Classic and hold true for Revised.
US 1 - buy 2 trns, rest inf
US 2 - buy 1 trn rest inf
US 3 - buy 1 trn rest inf.
US 4 on…etc.You now have 7 trns on the board (start with 3), 2 dd’s and 1 BB. With UK ships you should be unsinkable and this is with minimal thought and just buying inf.
You can even get away with 1 trn on US 1 as well as doing a “reverse shuck”, ie building in Eus then to E can, then drop off excess inf to W Can with a placement of the same amount in Wus.
But I find it much more efficient to just start in Wus on US 1.
This also allows the US to eventually play around in the Pac come mid game since you should always have a steady supply of about 8 inf in Wus and 8 inf in W Can.
If you don’t set it up in Wus from the start you are asking for trouble (not from an early Canada landing) from Japan, but with a mid game Japanese expansion when they are earning 40+, have IC’s already set up and can now afford a few trn/inf to harass Ala/Hi/Mid and then mess up a US shuck-shuck when it really counts.
-
Hey Darth,
I kind of did an exception to your below standard Shuch-shuck. ( so for our game for the futur you start to plan on hitting the states from the pacific :P)
I kind of went crazy with the transports, I have like 12 after 4 turns. :-D
-
Yep. Actually Pac or Afr pending how the game is playing out.
And you could be in trouble should Japan go to Ala as Germany hits HI.
Not trouble trouble but it could be a nuiscance.Had I not been stupid and left those 3 trns undefended Japan can certainly afford to be a pest in the Pac. I lost 5-6 inf to Asia (on that turn) and then 16 more IPC to replace 2 of the trns.
Once Japan owns Asia, assuming they have a steady supply of troops to continue the march on Mos, it is much more feasible to spare 2-4 inf and 2 trns to pick off Hi or Ala or at least get the US to think about throwing some inf down in Wus, esp if they don’t have troops there already.
Now I have slightly different plans and you noted that by noticing the position of my BB’s in our game thread.
And while it is unlikely that Japan does anything in the Pacific on this turn (or next), certainly in the future it is an option.
In general terms if Japan has 2-3 IC’s that is ~9 inf to Asia which is only 27 IPC. Well, they are likely to be earning 42+ which makes your 1-2 (of your 3-4) trns expendable, to go either to Afr or the Pac.
Likewise, as the US I anticipate that at some point Japan will take Aus, NZ and set its sites on HI/ALA, which is why I try to deter that thinking immediately. I think 4-8 inf on Wus on US 1 and another 4-8 on US 2 goes a long way to nip Japanese Pacific expansion in the bud.
Even if you only start with 4 inf on Wus on US 1, with 4 more on US 2 that still leaves you with a ~30 IPC’s to spend on other things on US 1 and 2.
Note:
I’m not talking about the actual taking of Wus (unless it is left open or given) by Japan, just that for a minimal investment later you can be a real nuiscance to the US without disrupting your march on Mos. However, if you go early (rds 1-3) you are in real danger of going to the Pac at the expense of getting to Mos.
-
Yeah those 3 you left undefended definetly hurt you.
It pushed all of your IC’s back 1 turn to build I think. But I was never worried about them. I always had tanks on Eus
im at the point that I believe I will now be making a lot of purchases at Wus so i’m not worried about the pesting of Japan, especially not the taking of Hawaii with Germany, only worth 1 Ipc.the way our game is going. I rather it be in german hands then Japan hands.
I got some plans for germany in a bit. The way I see it, if I take Germany and Russia falls anyway. I still think Japan looses.They will then have to deal with the Europe front, africa front, and Pacific front as with the states I will definetly be building a fleet. and with 12 Transports I can spare some fodder.
I’ll put it this way, if Germany doesn’t fall in the next 3-4 turns then the axis wins. (you should have enough japan troops by then to take russia out.)
-
I like how we hijacked the thread. :-)
I’ll continue my response in our game thread. :-D
-
Not a hijack at all.
For anyone who does not know, Darth is probably one of the BEST Classic players out there. Many of you think that I am a “high value target” for a game of Revised, but bear this in mind, I have lost every game of Classic I have ever played against Darth.
The WUS to Canada shuck of US forces is such a strong move for the US, both defensively and offensively, that it is basically SOP for folks who have been playing agianst high grade opponents for a long time. It prevents “gimmick” moves like Canadian Shield, leaves the US free to go into the Pacific on short notice if they choose, maintain a VERy strong defense against any attempts by Japan to invade North America, and does NOTHIGN to reduce the effectiveness of US forces landing in Europe (in fact, it is quicker once established to use the WUS shuck than it is to direct build in EUS for shipment).
Go ahead, try Canadian Shiled when the US is has 8 divisons per round in WUS, WCan, and ECan. All that is going to happen is Germany is going to lose a LOT of Naval IPC’s for zero gain.
Also, for anyone who may not have been around for many months, this is the second time CrazyStraw has come in with a Caspian Sub Paper on some grandiose move involving German navy, somethign that usually does not live long enough to do more than kill some UK planes. Caspian Sub papers have some good info. But also need to be taken with a grain of salt.
-
@CrazyStraw:
Frankly, when it is so clear you haven’t really read the paper, why would I spend time debating you? Â If you were serious, you would at least look at the original document rather than dismissing it like you know what you’re talking about.
I enjoy a good debate. Â But you’re just beligerent.
As for playing a game, sure. Â GenCon is in a couple weeks and at least two CSub teams will be there. Â Show up and let’s see what you can do.
I don’t plan on replying to this unless something substantial comes up. Â So the last word is yours. Â I’m sure you’ll use it well.
Adios.
Actually, I was being sarcastic, not belligerent. Two posts from you insulting my intelligence aren’t even close to making me belligerent. Although, it is more than enough to make me sarcastic. You see, I happen to know the difference between being sarcastic and being belligerent.
Why do you persist in your false assumptions that I haven’t read the Paper on the Canadian Shield?
Let me enlighten you. I have been a member of Caspian Sub for about a year now. The posts get sent to this e-mail address. I have the Canadian Shield paper in pdf form and I have read it more than once. And I even double checked it to make sure I was correct in my assessment of the buys, moves and unit placement. How else would I have known about the armor in WE, the fleet in sz7, or the TP buys on G1?
And I love the part about you replying to this unless something substantial comes up. Your posts have been insubstantial. They have been nothing but insults about my knowledge, while the bulk of my posts have analyzed the gambit in detail. Apparently an insubstantial post involves having an opposing opinion to yours.
Trihero is the only other Caspian Sub member that I know plays here, and while I respect his intellect and gameplay, it’s really hard for me to take you seriously when you have a grand total of 27 posts on this board consisting of: 2 insulting posts toward an ACTIVE member of this board and 25 advertisements about how great Caspian Sub is.
I thank you for your generous offer to go to GenCon and would like to say that if the Caspian sub group would chip in and pay for my flight, hotel and rental car to go to GenCon, I would be more than happy to pay for them to sign up here and actually prove the merits of their strategies by playing games at this board. Â :-D
So that this post comply’s with the flavor of this thread, I will respond to Trihero’s statement. Much more substance in Tri’s post.
@trihero:I don’t think you understand, U-505, that it is recommended to buy only 2 transports against experienced players. That is exactly the same amount you spend on 1 carrier. Even if you buy 3 transports, that is the same amount of money that you like to spend on your carrier/transport in the Med. You are hardly spending yourself into a hole compared to other naval buys.
Tri, trust me, I do understand. The G1 purchase for Canadian Shield is 3 TP, 2 inf, 2 arm. A 2 TP build is only effective versus a UK1 air attack and after that it becomes a lot less useful than a CV build. The allies can have more than enough navy in sz8 to make a naval/air attack from sz7 simply a fleet trade. The Allies rebuild and Germany is out of Africa for good.
And come on, man. Throw me a bone, here. Canadian Shield is nothing but a one-trick pony. You gotta admit that the gambit relies heavily on the bid to ensure that an attack on Egypt is manageable. The fleet merge in sz7 leaves Africa to easily fall. And the worst part is that he needs max fighters in WE to make the threat stick and keep the Allies at bay. Otherwise, the Allies can just strafe the TP’s out from under him and put the gambit out of business without having to worry about about a German counter attack. Or, like I said, the UK can just build a sub in sz7 and then he can’t load units so it’s easily countered. And with 5 armor and the bulk of his fighters in WE, the Russians are coming hard with lighter than normal resistance by Germany in Europe. Canadian Shield takes 2 turns to set up and 1 turn to execute. A lot can go wrong in between.
My CV/TP Med build is not without it’s shortcomings but at least I control Africa and that makes up for Russian and UK gains in Europe. Plus, I have the flexibility to shuttle units through T-J or back to Europe to threaten the Russian advance with frontline landings and BB shots.
-
And if you add US forces being staged in ECan for shuttle to Europe or Africa, the gambit really is a non-starter… and with heavy losses as already mentioned for Germany in Africa and central Europe.
Basically if you attempt this you are assuming the US and UK players to be idiots and not able to count spaces. Because if it fails, Germany is TOAST.
Now, I am wondering at this point, what is CrazyStraw’s facination with German navy? This is twice he has posted these schemes for the Baltic Fleet. The first easilly countered by a UK AC purchase on UK1. And now this one countered simply by “normal” Allied staging and movement in the Atlantic. Sure, I would imagine all of us would lvoe to figure out how to have a Kreigsmarine that could park of Washington and tear some stuff up. But, it ain’t gonna happen… at least not until after Germany has long since already won.
-
I’m a member of caspian sub, have read the paper, and I agree with U-505, Canadian Shield is just not a viable strategy against even a moderately experienced player.
-
Isnt staging from W. USA going to delay the US by two full turns? E. USA to E. Canada vs W. USA to W. Canada to E. Canada?
-
Not really. Consider this:
US 1 - buy 2 trns, 8 inf save 2
You transport 2 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm
Non-com 4 inf to W can (wus, cus)
Placement:Â 2 trns in Eus sz, 4 inf on Eus, 4 inf on WusUS 2 - buy 1 trn, 10 inf + some left over
Tranny your 2 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm to Nor (or wherever)
tranny 4 inf to UK
Non-Com: 4 inf to E can, 4 inf to W can
Placement: 1 trn Eus sz, 2-4 inf on Eus, and 8-6 inf on Wus.And now you’re set. You gradually move 1 trn from sz 8 to sz 6 each turn to cover your growing numbers on UK and you buy a new trn to replace it.
You don’t really lose much at all. Plus you have a trn and BB from the Pac to use by rd 3.
You don’t need to get crazy with placing in Wus but as long as you have at least 4-6 inf moving from Wus to Wcan, you can discourage Japan from really testing you in Ala.
Then later, (once you have your shuck fully set up - only cost you 24 to buy 8 inf), you now have at least 14 “extra” IPC to spend on whatever you want, ftrs/boms or perhaps a trn to harass the SE Pac islands.
-
I thank you for your generous offer to go to GenCon and would like to say that if the Caspian sub group would chip in and pay for my flight, hotel and rental car to go to GenCon, I would be more than happy to pay for them to sign up here and actually prove the merits of their strategies by playing games at this board. :-D
Noted! For a while I’ve been trying to figure out how to embezzle funds from CSub, but I haven’t succeeded yet. If I do, I’ll see about getting you a “scholarship”.
Trihero is the only other Caspian Sub member that I know plays here…
True, TriHero is a good guy. I owe him a Triple A turn one of these days…
Ok, you raise some points about substance so let’s assume at this point that we’re talking past each other and you were really trying to fire up some debate. Cool!
What I mean when I say I’m looking for a substantial argument is that a real debate ought to take into account points already made in the discussion.  Your points about a “one-trick pony” are addressed in the paper. You’re saying “it doesn’t work”, but to me that’s not substantial argument because you are ignoring the battery of information that already discusses your concerns.
For instance, there are 5 major variations listed in the paper:
1. Full Canadian Shield (perhaps the one-trick pony, but one freaking tough pony)
2. Asymetrical Can. Shield (staggered timing)
3. Partial Can. Shield (one power only)
4. Aborted Can. Shield (establish threat to force response; don’t pull the trigger)
5. Land Bridge Can. Shield (monster naval threat)But even with those 5 major variations, and several minor ones, you say with a dismissive hand wave, “one-trick pony”. What? That’s at least 5 tricks! :-D
And that’s why I was not interested in engaging in debate. There’s no point in arguing about a straw man; ask me about your straw man and I’ll say, “yeah, that may be a straw man. But what about all the other issues you’ve ignored?”
Ok then. The floor is yours.
-
Darth, Jennifer,
If the threat of combined landings makes you squeamish then, building armor in W US and inf in E US both to be moved into E Can won’t delay you at all. And it allows you to move the armor directly to E US in case the landings happen and you need to fortify the E US at the expense of W US.
Crazystraw, I will even give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the landings somehow happen. The US/UK combined fleet can crush the German fleet in sz9, the UK rebuilds TP’s, and begins landing in E Can to help keep Japan bottled up in W US. The UK army won’t be needed in Europe because Germany will have it’s hands full facing a Russia that likely has more units, more income, and is trading E Eur and Balk every turn. Don’t forget, Germany spent most of it’s income on TP’s in G1 and the Canadian Shield attack means 5 inf, 5 arm have just left W Eur for Canada. What does Germany have left to fight off the Russians? The fighter’s certainly. But, if Russia manages to somehow get into Balkans in force Germany would be in trouble.
Also, Japan will be spending the bulk of it’s new income just trying to hold onto the W US so Russia could probably bleed off a couple units and hold them off in Asia.
I will asses the other possible uses for the aborted Shield in another post, but for now, I have to say I neither enjoy nor desire slinging sarcasm at anyone and it is a welcome relief to finally get into the non-partisan portion of the debate. I wave the white flag of truce.
And I have used the Partial Shield without knowing it with japan versus Trihero to turn the US back from landing in Africa with mixed results. The US was delayed but it left me lean in ground units in Asia.
-
Sounds good.
The paper addresses the point I’m about to make, but because of the type of play that seems to occur in this forum, let me emphasize it again: the full Canadian Shield is most likely to be effective in a KJF game, and only rarely in a KGF game.
The reason is that in KGF the US is building ground troops right from the start, but in a KJF game, the first two rounds are often entirely naval. That means on round three there is a good chance you are landing 10inf 10tnk in Canada before the US has built a single ground unit. Even worse, in KJF some of the ground troops may be in W Can so you kill them during the landing.
So what does this mean practically?
Well, every CSub editor (nine guys) plays KGF almost exclussively. We rarely have an opportunity to threaten the full attack (but wow, the first time you bust someone with the move it is beautiful :-D). Even the partial attack, however, has been enough to change our playing style. We used to run 4x4 Atlantic transport fleets in KGF. But often enough Japan would either land “light” to screw up the US trasnport shuttle or just move up to threaten LA directly. That caused us to move to a 3x3 Atlantic transport system so we could buy extra fighters to compensate for sneak attacks yet still shuttle fire power to Europe.
The second practical application is that many tournament players play KJF. Because of the bonus points awarded in the tournaments, KJF is a much better option than it is in a standard domination game (though I still prefer KGF even under tournament rules). So CShield has a lot more potential in that venue.
(Squirecam, the successfull Apostle of KJF, is scrupulously copying and pasting this post right now :-D)
I’d be surprised if you use this move A LOT versus KGF players. But if you don’t know about the full move and the ramifications of the variants, you are asking for a beating (or ten). If nothing else, you should make your opponent see the move coming even if you have no intention of pulling the trigger; make him pay the price of countering even the moves you don’t make.
Peace
-
Darth, Jennifer,
If the threat of combined landings makes you squeamish then, building armor in W US and inf in E US both to be moved into E Can won’t delay you at all. And it allows you to move the armor directly to E US in case the landings happen and you need to fortify the E US at the expense of W US.
It has nothing to do with being squeamish or worried, it has to do with efficiency.
Armor in Wus could work, but I don’t find it a proper deterant and not very efficient when challanged.Infact, as Japan (if given the opportunity say post rd 4) I’d land 4 inf in Ala just so the US has to divert armor to Ala, then I’d counter with another inf or 2 from Japan and force the US player out of his Eus placement.
I’d gladly trade inf for armor. Â Cost to Japan 6 inf (4 for the initial landing and 2 more with bb-shots) to counter the US armor. Â Cost to US min 4-6 arm + disrupted Shuck-shuck right in the middle of the crucial part of the game. Â (this assumes Japan already has IC’s on Asia and has secured at least Chi and Yak).With Inf from Wus to Wcan, worst case you can ignore the Ala landing, let them have the 2 IPC they cant go anywhere from there. Â Avg case a couple inf and a bom (maybe ftr) and you wipe them out, Inf for inf. Â Best case you deter the landing altogether.
I’ll take any one of these over a disrupted US shuck-shuck post rd 4 or 5.
Suggested Topics
