POLL:favorite player

[newpaintbrush]

@Baghdaddy:

@newpaintbrush:

@axis_roll:

yeah, I meant to say losing western permenantly…

Oh, I can think of times that you’d want to lose Western US permanently.

“If you lose Western US and let me keep it, I’ll take off and keep off my bra.”

yay!

Owl, if you really want to see my man-boobs I’ll just link a photo for you:
http://www.media-post.net/mob2.jpg

Hawt.

[Jennifer]

You just have to time it right, not necessarily bad play, just a mistake.  If W. USA is lightly defended, Alaska/W. Can/C. USA almost undefended and America doesn’t have any Armor in N. America (a situation I’ve seen a majority of the time) you could easily take it.

But even if America retakes, you’ve diverted assets, you’ve taken 13 IPC for 1 round, at least 2 the next round since America can’t possibly take W. Can, W. USA and Alaska all in the same round without naval assistance, and you’ve lost roughly 9 IPC in units, tops.

15 IPC for 9.  Your transports arn’t out of comission, cause they just move back to SZ 60 after the assault to shuttle troops.  You got 1 transport out of position, but hopefully that’s not one you need.  (You only NEED 4 transports.  more is desireable, but you only NEED 4.)

Besides, the manuever alone is worth the games you don’t get to do it!

[newpaintbrush]

@Jennifer:

not necessarily bad play, just a mistake.Â

By my thinking, a mistake that you can see coming, and can avoid through good play, is definitionally bad play.

Let us say that Western US has 2 infantry, and that Japan’s air is out of range.  So say Japan commits 2 transports 2 infantry 2 armor to attacking W. US.  US loses 2 infantry worth 6 IPC and Japan gains a 10 IPC territory, say the US kills one Japanese infantry worth 3 IPC.  On the US turn, let us also say that the US has some god-awful number of fighters on Eastern US, so kills the transports, infantry, and tanks in one big smasheroo along with infantry from Central US.  The US risks about 3-4 IPC worth of fighters, and 3-4 IPC worth of infantry, killing 29 IPC worth of units and regaining the territory.

So sometimes taking W. USA is bad for Japan.  Rarely, because Japan often has air support that changes the numbers above.  But SOMETIMES.

[Jennifer]

I wouldn’t commit those kinds of numbers though.

Best you are looking at is 2 infantry, 1 bomber, 2 battleships and MAYBE a fighter or two, though, honestly, my fighters are usually strafing Russians.

And you’d be surprised how many players, even here, build in E. USA to deploy faster to Europe.

[triforce]

I like Japan best in part because I’m an old navy guy and in part because I used to live in Japan.  Besides Japan is the key to an Axis win.

[OutsideLime]

My favourite player is myself.

Every time I play, I root for me.

~Josh

[Jennifer]

Pnazers are the key to an Axis win, IMHO.  Japan adds pressure, but it’s the German war machine that makes the allies commit the forces necessary to stalling their advance so that Japan can steal the show.

[Baghdaddy]

I believe Japan on the back door of Russia is key to the German assualt.  Without that meat grinder chewing up units, Russia can hold off the Germans forever.

The 6 Russian IPC and 4 US IPC are a major part of the 16 point difference between the starting values of 70 (Axis) and 96 (Allies).

If you consider the long term game to be all about economics, there are 166 points available.  The Axis needs to get at least half of this to handle a long term war of attrition so they need to increase 13 points from 70 to 83.  10 of those points are between Japan and Moscow.

[frood]

Call me crazy, but here’s my theory - the axis need BOTH Germany AND Japan to win. Gasp! Without either one doing its job, the Axis is farked.

[Baghdaddy]

Frood!!!

You are such a radical!!!

Frood the Man!!!

:-D

[triforce]

your right but the same holds true for the allies.  Even more so with them.  If you do not coordanate well, it goes downhill fast for them.

[Jennifer]

Actually, I am beginning to think the key to the allied victory is ensuring England takes the land to keep England between 30-40 IPC and using America for reinforcements or Japanese distraction.

[polywog]

This has long been my theory - I think the UK with 30+ IPC’s can be the most useful/flexible (& most fun) of the allied players. <30 IPC’s and they’re a liability.

[Guest]

I would agree.  UK needs to have a MINIMUM of $30 in order to be a viable force.  That allows for builds of 4 INF, 2 ART, 2 ARM to fill 4 TRN.  It also allows them to build 7 INF and replace/add a TRN in a single build if needed.  Better is in the mid 30’s to allow a FIG to be purchased each turn for added offensive punch, or to fly to Moscow for defense of the Kremlin.

[Jennifer]

Problem, Switch, if you are building 4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor a round with England, how do you build a fighter?

That’s why I’m perfectly content with 3 Transports.  3 Ifnantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Armor + 1 Fighter/Transport

[Guest]

Seperate sentences there Jen.

Multiple options based on varying levels of income.

At $30 you can do the 4/2/2
At $30 you can also do TRN/7INF

With more you can add a FIG to the mix.
And YES you would have an empty slot on a TRN that round… OR you can use the slot to pick up “staged” forces from perhaps Norway and add them to the TRN to send to Eastern (as an example).

There are MANY reasons why you may want more than 3 TRNs as UK (or even more than 4).

[frood]

As Germany, I LOVE when UK has only 3 TRNs - with that it is never a serious threat against Germany, and Germany can send a lot more stuff against Russia.

As Germany, what makes me sweat is when the UK has 7 TRNs and a bunch of stuff in Karelia or Norway already. Then I have to defend both Berlin and WEU against potentially 7 Inf 7 Arm 2 Ftr 1 Bom 1 BB. That’s not cheap, and can even force me to fall back from EE, which only means that Berlin faces even more pressure the following turn.

[Guest]

Dan GETS IT!

[Jennifer]

Dan,

Tell that to Weekend Gamer.  I have England crawling all through the South Pacific and all over Europe and I never built a fourth transport in the Atlantic.  I did build a battleship ther,e but never a 4th transport.

The 4th one is nice, but completely irrellevant.  In fact, it might actually HARM you.  Since now you feel obligated to fill those transports instead of, say, buying a fighter or a bomber or something of more importance at that moment.

3 Inf, 2 Art, 1 Arm, 1 Fighter = 32 IPC, very easy to attain for England and that added fighter a round is a royal B*TCH when you want to take Moscow and there’s 14 British Fighters sitting there in Round 12.

[Guest]

But with only 3 TRN, the msot you can bring on Berlin is 6 units plus air and BB.  That means Germany can stay VERY THIN on home resources, and basically send EVERY BUILD to the front instead of adding more and more to Berlin.

Just 2 INF that get to leave Berlin and head East (or West) is equivalent to a gain of 6 IPC’s for Germany over those same INF having to be held in Berlin for fear of a 12-14 division UK strike using UK and Norway/Karelia forces.

It ALSO means that Germany can be FAR THINNER in Western since they only have to worry about countering 7 divisions isntead of 14 landed there…

Extra TRNs for UK are a FORCE MULTIPLIER in terms of making Germany play conservative.