@cernel That’s quite a loophole you’ve discovered. It’s things like this that made LHTR necessary. You are correct about point 1. Regarding point 2, I see nothing in the rules that would disallow attacking an unoccupied enemy-controlled territory with only air units.
Air Force
-
Read my German strategy, it does work (if Japan does he´s job)
-
@Nix:
Read my German strategy, it does work (if Japan does he´s job)
There’s much to be said for an intensive ground unit Fortress Europe for Germany.
KGF is quite prevelant, mainly because it is fairly easy to implement and it works well.
Given this fact, which leads to Japan being given the job of winning the war for the axis, then a turtle shell germany can work.
The key is what does Germany trade it’s airforce for…? It has to be worth it.
-
@ncscswitch:
Actually aircraft are CRITICAL to Russia, perhaps more critical than to any other nation.
Those FIGs provide incredible anchors for INF stacks, allow for improved territory trading with Germany, and most importantly massed FIGs make Moscow nearly impossible to crack with even a 1-2 punch from the Axis (ususally 1-2-3 or even 1-2-3-4 is required)
What he said and
@Baghdaddy:You keep thinking that.
I will keep buying an airforce.
What he said…
I think it is a deleted scene in We Were Soldiers Once and Young (The Mel Gibson Nam film) Mel’s character is looking at piles of enemy corpses just killed by an airstrike and says, “That is a beautiful thing.” Sam Shepard’s character says, “Air support sir?”
If you think that aircraft aren’t important look at the current armed services and tell me which one doesn’t use something that flys. Here’s to the pilots.
-
KGF is prevelent because just about anyone with average dice results can win it, assuming no bid.
KJF is easier, but it takes intelligence and cunning to pull it off and a bad round of dice in the first few rounds can severely kill you.
Anyway, Germany and Japan are probably the two nations that do not need fighters. There are policies that state that 1 fighter a round for each nation for 6 rounds is a good policy, but I’ve implemented it twice and seen no real improvement, in one case I saw a lack of improvement, rather a detriment. The other I still won, but I did it in Round 15 instead of Round 10.
Russia needs a 3rd plane, IMHO, and should buy it prior to Round 3.
England needs a plane every other round if at all possible.
America should be getting a plane a round until she has 6 fighters. The mobility alone is worth it, and let’s face it, if you can afford 6 Infantry, 4 Artillery and 1 Fighter a round, filling 5 transports easily, why not?
-
KGF is prevelent because just about anyone with average dice results can win it, assuming no bid.
KJF is easier, but it takes intelligence and cunning to pull it off and a bad round of dice in the first few rounds can severely kill you.
Hm. I wonder what Jennifer plays. Could it be . . . KJF?!! I sadly admit that I am one of the “prevalent”. Instead of being very intelligent and cunning (like American Civil War general Robert E. Lee), I will be very plebian (like American Civil War general Ulysses Grant).
Anyway, Germany and Japan are probably the two nations that do not need fighters.
wat?!heresy!
There are policies that state that 1 fighter a round for each nation for 6 rounds is a good policy, but I’ve implemented it twice and seen no real improvement, in one case I saw a lack of improvement, rather a detriment. The other I still won, but I did it in Round 15 instead of Round 10.
There should be no “1 fighter a round” policy. Things that say “Ignore your opponent and charge foolhardily ahead with one fixed strategy, regardless of what your opponent does” are things that should be left alone in a corner to die an unmourned death. UNLESS you are playing against me, in which I heartily recommend those things.
Russia needs a 3rd plane, IMHO, and should buy it prior to Round 3.
agh! the heresy!
England needs a plane every other round if at all possible.
MORE heresy!
America should be getting a plane a round until she has 6 fighters. The mobility alone is worth it, and let’s face it, if you can afford 6 Infantry, 4 Artillery and 1 Fighter a round, filling 5 transports easily, why not?
Burn the heretic! Burn!
Of course, you realize that I am saying this is heresy from a KGF point of view . . . KJF requires a lot of Allied fighters.
But saying that Russia needs fighters, that the Axis don’t need fighters . . . that is quite bold.
(cough CRAZY cough)
Of course, the crazy ones are always much smexier.
-
I should clarify, Germany and Japan do not need to BUY fighters, as they start with 6 already. I’m not saying they should feel free to leave them where enemy infantry can destroy them. :P
And yes, there are times I use KJF. No one is ever ready for it and almost no one can defend against it because they are neither ready for it nor experienced in dealing iwth it. Some have said it is very easy to defend against, and I’m sure when the game was new it was, since no one knew how to implement it either. But times have changed and it has become a very viable and logical strategy. In fact, I would actually recommend this as a route for first time players of Axis and Allies because of the simplicity of hitting Japan first and then hitting Germany. It is much more dynamic to hit Germany.
For instance: KJF: You take islands with England and America and then take the mainland with England. Russia stalls Germany.
KGF: You invade W. Europe OR you land in N. Europe to support Russia OR you walk through Africa OR you combine two of those avenues.
1 method vs 4 methods. Which is an easier concept for a beginner to understand?
Likewise, just for the shear desire to have a different game, KJF is fun! I mean, who wouldn’t have fun actually buying a battleship for once! Who wouldn’t have fun watching a combined value of 600 IPCs sink to the bottom of the board in a single engagement!
-
Is it possible to find all that excitement on YouTube? Maybe someone can tape their game and show that happening!
“Oh my look, the Yamato and all her escorts just sunk to the bottom of the paper floor. Hurray!”
-
I believe the History Channel did that, you know, Taffy 7 vs the Japanese Center Force?
heheh.
Seriously, next time I promise to tape it. I might even play at GenCon and see if I can foster it. Though, you’d have to ask JSP how much he enjoyed it when my Japanese fleet obliterated his combined allied fleet. Though he won the game, I most decidedly won the engagement!
-
@ncscswitch:
Actually aircraft are CRITICAL to Russia, perhaps more critical than to any other nation.
Those FIGs provide incredible anchors for INF stacks, allow for improved territory trading with Germany, and most importantly massed FIGs make Moscow nearly impossible to crack with even a 1-2 punch from the Axis (ususally 1-2-3 or even 1-2-3-4 is required)
What he said and
@Baghdaddy:You keep thinking that.
I will keep buying an airforce.
What he said…
I think it is a deleted scene in We Were Soldiers Once and Young (The Mel Gibson Nam film) Mel’s character is looking at piles of enemy corpses just killed by an airstrike and says, “That is a beautiful thing.” Sam Shepard’s character says, “Air support sir?”
If you think that aircraft aren’t important look at the current armed services and tell me which one doesn’t use something that flys. Here’s to the pilots.
In real wars yes. In fact Disney did a feature during WWII, Called Victory through Air Power. In the game it doesn’t seem so important.
At least I didn’t think so before. In light of what has been said in this thread I must change my mind. Thats the whole reason I posted the thread in the first place.
-
If you want the REAL poop on WWII airpower, may I recomend Airwar by Edward Jablonski. It was not only required reading at USAFA, but was ISSUED to me on my first day (right after my copy of Contrails, the Cadet knowledge text…)
-
@ncscswitch:
If you want the REAL poop …
I have two young boys, I don’t need anymore real poop, sham-poop is good enough. (aka shampoo, get it?)
-
Hey Switch, you were in the air force? Wow that’s awesome, I didn’t know that. What did you do (aside from fly) and what rank did you achieve?
-
@ncscswitch:
If you want the REAL poop …
I have two young boys, I don’t need anymore real poop, sham-poop is good enough. (aka shampoo, get it?)
That is somewhat disillusioning for certain members of the forum, namely everyone not named Jennifer, namely men. :-o :cry: :lol:
-
Hey Switch, you were in the air force? Wow that’s awesome, I didn’t know that. What did you do (aside from fly) and what rank did you achieve?
USAF Academy. Rank of C4C (call it 3rd Lieutenant)
-
@ncscswitch:
If you want the REAL poop …
I have two young boys, I don’t need anymore real poop, sham-poop is good enough. (aka shampoo, get it?)
That is somewhat disillusioning for certain members of the forum, namely everyone not named Jennifer, namely men. :-o :cry: :lol:
To be disillusioned, you must first be illusioned, dear.
And Switch, C4C is a cadet rank, didn’t you go active duty?
-
Not until I was in the Army after I blew out my knees the first time (when I lost my commission and pilots qualification).
-
So you are putting a cadet rank above the enlisted ranks???
-
@ncscswitch:
If you want the REAL poop …
I have two young boys, I don’t need anymore real poop, sham-poop is good enough. (aka shampoo, get it?)
That is somewhat disillusioning for certain members of the forum, namely everyone not named Jennifer, namely men. :-o :cry: :lol:
To be disillusioned, you must first be illusioned, dear.
Damn straight. Â And don’t you dare ever change that “picture” of yours! :-D
If I say my brother was in Air Force ROTC, does that get me back on topic? :roll:
-
Academy yes, ROTC no.
According to regulations, were were equivalent to just above the highest grade of Warrant Officer 9which were obsolete in the USAF by that time) and below 2LT. We had no authority to USE that rank, but it is where we fell in the food chain.
In terms of practical realities, we all know that a SFC has more clout than a 2 LT, but the 2LT still outranks the SFC.
-
<according to=“” regulations,=“” were=“” equivalent=“” just=“” above=“” the=“” highest=“” grade=“” of=“” warrant=“” officer=“” 9which=“” obsolete=“” in=“” usaf=“” by=“” that=“” time)=“” and=“” below=“” 2lt. =“” we=“” had=“” no=“” authority=“” use=“” rank,=“” but=“” it=“” is=“” where=“” fell=“” food=“” chain.=“”>I would be curious to see that regulation.
As I understood it, the US Navy midshipmen were never in a position that would give them authority over enlisted personnel, period.
The guidance I remember is that in a line of succession question at sea, midshipmen, chaplains and supply officers were respected passengers who held no command authority over even the lowliest E1. This was the classic “life boat” question where we would take a random selection of people in the service (or other services) and stuff them all in the proverbial lifeboat, then demand to know who had “command at sea” in the lifeboat. Chaplains, supply officers and midshipmen all fell into the category of not eligible for command at sea while all enlisted personnel are eligible for command at sea.
Mind, “respected passenger” can carry an awful lot of weight. I would hate to be the newly minted PO3 (E4) with a chaplain Admiral as a “passenger”. Actually the ADM would probably be pretty easy, it is the young energetic types that get confused about rank, resposiblity and leadership.</according>
Suggested Topics
