I do agree that beginners should stick to the London factory. It does require skill pulling off the india IC. But It just depends on how you and your allies play the game. If each of you are gonna do your own thing, the game will certainly be over quicker than usual. Thats the key…… Teamwork and persistance. Control the game by limiting the enemy of options. Do this and you’ll win no matter who you are.
Russia, round 1!
-
Such a strategy will unquestionably lead to the, for lack of a better term, “turbo death of Moscow”.
1. You have lost just about all of USSR’s hitting power. Now the Germans can attack with total impunity without fear of a USSR counterattack. It is like a blessing from God. Or a miracle, maybe.
2. Loss of fighter means no trading territories. Two infantry and one fighter attacking a territory worth 2 IPC held by one infantry is a good idea. Two infantry and a tank, or even one infantry and a tank, attacking a territory worth 2 IPC held by one infantry is a bad idea. (In the first case, you gain 2 IPC from the territory and kill 3 IPC of units immediately, have 1/3 chance of losing a 3 IPC unit for immediate net gain of around 4 IPC; the surviving 1-2 infantry can kill 3 IPC units with 1/3 chance, giving 2 more IPC worth. Two infantry are lost, making the trade supposedly even, but USSR has a positional advantage in that its infantry don’t have to move as far, and Germany has to commit forward placed infantry to retake the territory. Change the equation to a tank and an infantry, and the cost efficiencies are changed. Not good.
3. Japan cracks Burytia with fighters and Japanese transport. Soviet Far East is now wide open.
-
Such a strategy will unquestionably lead to the, for lack of a better term, “turbo death of Moscow”.
1. You have lost just about all of USSR’s hitting power. Now the Germans can attack with total impunity without fear of a USSR counterattack. It is like a blessing from God. Or a miracle, maybe.
2. Loss of fighter means no trading territories. Two infantry and one fighter attacking a territory worth 2 IPC held by one infantry is a good idea. Two infantry and a tank, or even one infantry and a tank, attacking a territory worth 2 IPC held by one infantry is a bad idea. (In the first case, you gain 2 IPC from the territory and kill 3 IPC of units immediately, have 1/3 chance of losing a 3 IPC unit for immediate net gain of around 4 IPC; the surviving 1-2 infantry can kill 3 IPC units with 1/3 chance, giving 2 more IPC worth. Two infantry are lost, making the trade supposedly even, but USSR has a positional advantage in that its infantry don’t have to move as far, and Germany has to commit forward placed infantry to retake the territory. Change the equation to a tank and an infantry, and the cost efficiencies are changed. Not good.
3. Japan cracks Burytia with fighters and Japanese transport. Soviet Far East is now wide open.
Grr, Switch, re read it.
Part 2 of your post has no bearing anymore. THERE IS NO LOSS OF RUSSIAN FIGHTERS to attack OR counter attack in the Finland Norway and Ukraine attack.
Meanwhile, Russia has 10 Infantry, 4 Artillery and 2 Fighters. That’s not exactly a loss of all combat power.
Bury will cost the japan a lot. 6 Infantry, 1 Fighter (UK) vs at most 4 land units (1 tank or 1 artillery and 3 infantry), a BB, 4 fighters and a bomber and that gives America it’s pearl fleet back. (DD, CV vs CV, FIG, SS is not a win for japan)
So the East is secure, teh germans are down two fighters, the russians are down 3 tanks and 1 artillery, but have plenty of reserves comming up. Germany’s maybe strafed in W. Russia, but even if they arnt, they cannot hope to take Moscow and are forces to retreat and consolidate in Karelia, E. Europe, Balkans, retake Ukraine, maybe take Archangel for a turn, maybe retake Finland until England takes it again….
I’m not seeing the doom and gloom for Russia you are painting. And I don’t get where you’re seeing a dead Russian fighter in this attack.
-
-
@ncscswitch:
Grr, Switch, re read it.
That was not my post you were responding to.
Sorry, on passing glance newpaintbursh looks kinda like ncscswitch. My bad.
Still, Russia’s out 3 tanks, 2 artillery. Germany’s out 2 fighters, 1 tank, 1 artillery. That’s 23 IPC hit to Russia, 29 IPC to germany and not including infantry lost.
-
With a more traditional Russian open, Germany is out 1 FIG, 2 ARM, 2 ART, 6 INF
That is $46 IPC’s of units.
Excluding the INF, it is still $28 IPC’s… $1 difference.
And, Russia would NOT lose their ART in a more traditioanl open.
So now that open is $7 WORSE for Russia.
-
my god, mistaken for ncsswitch
my life is over
:-o
-
Test Game set up for detailed review of Amon’s version of the 3 territory attack on G1.
(Eastern, West Russia, Ukraine): -
A test game will not reveal the optimal strategies for both sides unless both players do the right moves.
I strongly advise that Germany ignore everything else, and use fighters to smash USSR’s offense immediately, using infantry and transport and fighter production (transport in Med), or tank and fighter production. Caucasus should be smashed by the third turn with Japan fighter reinforcements, Allied fleet fended off by the additional German fighters.
-
I’ll review each potential move after combat occurs.
But on first thought, I disagree with a total Russia smash by Germany; for the same reason that it is ill advised in any other game… it lets the Brits and Yanks run havoc elsewhere.
And this is not to determine optimal strats. It is just a test to see if a 3 territory attack is viable.
-
I’m starting to rethink the whole Finland idea. I think it is best for America to get it, build an IC and start pumping out tanks.
-
yeah, of COURSE us gets it if possible
usually not workable thoughuk is usually better placed to take it initially, and shutting that 3 IPC off for Germany is good to do early.
Late game Germany usually won’t divert units from the attack on Moscow to retake Norway.Sometimes USSR takes it early, same thing.
Rarely do you get to hold it with the US.
-
yeah, of COURSE us gets it if possible
usually not workable thoughuk is usually better placed to take it initially, and shutting that 3 IPC off for Germany is good to do early.
Late game Germany usually won’t divert units from the attack on Moscow to retake Norway.Sometimes USSR takes it early, same thing.
Rarely do you get to hold it with the US.
You could set it up for the US though. 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm to England on US 1. US 2 they take Norway instead. It’s only +3 for Germany but it allows America to put an IC there and pump continual units in, instead of them ALL comming on transports.
Normal 10 round game, that’s 21 units built on the mainland. (7 rounds with the IC able to produce) and if Germany retakes it, it is not exactly a windfall for them.
-
Sounds good but two things.
1. If US does not go to Algeria first turn, Germany runs free in Africa. If US commits to Norway second turn, that seals the deal. You could theoretically put three tanks and three infantry into Algeria on the same turn that you put two infantry, artillery, tank into Moscow, but then one of the fleets is going to be underprotected. Both of the sea zones you’re unloading from will be vulnerable to W. Europe fighters, and either the Baltic and/or Med fleet.
2. A US Norway is worth taking back, because it is so cost-efficient. Think; US takes. USSR will not reinforce (it has to get through Karelia, which is usually a deathtrap). Then Germany retakes on its turn from Karelia and/or German transports. The mechanism is usually UK takes, US reinforces.
Combine those factors, and what do you have? Very unlikely that the US will hold Norway until late game. If US does hold Norway, it is because Japan was left almost completely alone. In that case, Germany builds infantry-fighters, and Japan goes crazy in the east.
-
I dunno, Russia can keep Germany from taking Norway just by killing whatever you put in Karelia. Meanwhile, your fleets arn’t under protected, not really. Considering you’re going to have to have SZ 7 and SZ 8 in use anyway to ferry troops around. (well, maybe not those two in specific, maybe SZ 2 and SZ 6, or whatever - point is, you’re split in half anyway.)
Also, Germany in Africa is one thing. Once you get a few rounds in and are up and running, you can divert some forces to Africa. Germany’s GOING to be up and running in Africa for at least 3 turns anyway. I don’t see any way around this without over extending England unnecessarily. By consolidating England and moving Allied forces to Europe instead of Africa you are giving Germany 2 rounds of 6 extra IPCs, give or take while getting over 100 IPCs in lined up for Europe you were not before.
(AC, TRN, DD, FIG for UK, + 3 rounds of American production + Ameircan IC + american forces that don’t have to reposition later to change course hitting Europe instead of Africa.)
-
Once UK lands in Norway the first time (often UK1), then SZ2 no longer needs to be protected.
So splitting the fleet is not an issue since the US TRNs off NW UK are safe. But if you are paranoid about them, leave 1 DST with them.
-
I’m starting to rethink the whole Finland idea. I think it is best for America to get it, build an IC and start pumping out tanks.
Hmm! I’ve seen this strategy mentioned somewhere else, but I’ve never actually done it myself. I think I read it from a guy on the CSub forums (not a Csub author, just a member of the yahoo group), he claims it’s common to use a 3x3 US fleet and an IC in Norway to pump out units to kill Germany.
The way I play, I say give Norway to the UK. I want to keep the UK’s paycheck inflated to 32 or higher so I can fill out 4 inf 4 arm every turn. This can be difficult when you lose parts of Africa, India, Persia, Australia, New Zealand, etc, and you can’t always just waltz into W. Europe for free cash. The UK could really use that Norway money.
The US has enough money to make a large support force, and any extra gains it makes are a few turns away from you being able to see it. If you have extra money to build inf for instance, it’d be one turn to build it, one turn to move it to E. Canada, one turn to ship it to UK, and one last turn to put it in Europe. A few turns from you seeing that extra money in action, as opposed to UK which is just 2 turns from being able to use it. An IC in Norway also tends towards getting bombed unless you have a free AA gun, which you don’t always have.
-
I would have to agree.
3 units produced in Europe by the US while UK TRNs are not filled is sub-optimal.
US can still do a 4x4 shuck very quickly, and by UK having Norway, UK can also maintian a 4x4 shuck (even if some of the units have to be douwngraded to ART from ARM) thanks to the extra income (in a worst case scenario, UK can at least upgrade 3 INF to 3 ART thank to Norway income and increase their amphib attack strength by 6 points.
Also, I did roll a test set of rolls using Amon’s version of the 3 territory R1 attack in the Games area. I am waiting for Amon to confirm the specific NCM’s, and to see if he wants to try 1 ARM against 1 ARM, 1 FIG in Eastern. But the results from a real set of rolls was that West Russia and Ukraine taken slightly heavier than expected, Eastern not taken. And all 3 territories, plus Archangel, are subject to German recapture in G1; and Russia will ahve only 2 offensive units: 2 FIGs, for future combat.
-
6 Transports = 48 IPCs + 15 IPCs for Industrial Complex. Total: 63 IPCs
12 Transports = 96 IPCs. Total: 96 IPCsImagine what you could do with an extra 33 IPCs as America! That’s 2 bombers. That’s 4 Submarines. 2 Destroyers. 3 Fighters. More tanks instead of artillery. Combination there of.
Also, you could redivert into Africa easiy enough. Now you have 3 tanks into Europe, 6 ground units into Africa a turn. Go back to Europe and you have 9 units a round into Europe.
It’s also FASTER to set up then 12 transports!
-
6 Transports = 48 IPCs + 15 IPCs for Industrial Complex. Total: 63 IPCs
12 Transports = 96 IPCs. Total: 96 IPCsThat is not an equivalent comparison.
Norway is only 3 IPC, so it can only produce 3 units. So 1.5 TRNs worth of units.
US sets up 4x4, requiring 8 TRNs to get 8 divisions to Europe per round. With a Norway IC, to still get 8 divisions requires 6 TRN plus Norway production (they do get 1 extra unit this way).
But for UK… 3 IPC’s is about 15% of their mid-game income. And as I said, that means eitehr keeping ARM in the mix for them to TRN, or allows 3 INF to be upgraded to ART, and thus add 6 points to their attack (an extra dead German every round).
US only needs 64 IPC’s of TRN’s to send a full 8 divisions to Europe every round. And if UK can keep their income to where they can fill their 4 TRNs, that is 16 divisions per turn. And that is serious trouble for Germany.
Suggested Topics
