Do you prefer the dardanelles open or closed? Why and who does it favour?

Redrum, I didn’t realize you were a Triple-A Developer.  I hope you take no offense.  I didn’t mean to insult your baby.  I appreciate the work you guys have done on Triple-A.  As of late, I have found myself playing the AI more often than I would like (as I cannot get my friends together to play often enough).  I am confident the AI will continue to improve over time.  I guess I should put up or shut up.  I ought to be submitting my bug reports to help you guys tweak the game.

I think this strategy has a lot to recommend it.  Playing as Japan, my first turn objectives are as follows (roughly in this order):
1. Destroy the fleet at Pearl Harbor.
2. Take India.
3. Destroy the Indian Ocean fleet.
4. Take China.
5. Take Alaska.

If the main British fleet links up with the small Australian fleet and adds a fighter, it’s going to take a huge force commitment to destroy.  Tough to pull off both #1 and #3 in this scenario.

Flying the fighter to the US Carrier? Ooh, never actually considered that.

Although, I think no matter what you do, you must kill the defenseless Japanese transport, slowing their onslaught into Asia.
I tried Borneo, but in all honesty, the UK can’t hold it, so is it going to work in the long term?

I am thinking about this for my next game…

Amphibious assault into French Indo-China with 3 infantry & fighter & cruiser bombard. Carrier destroys transport. Fighter lands in China, optionally with the one from Russia for 2 infantry & 3 fighter defense. US factory in Sianking.

In our games, we are in a trend where the US builds a factory in Sianking with Russian (two inf.) support, which is making the games more even as it stops the Japanese steamroll to Moscow.
I am sure three planes in China will be taken as a sure sign of a US factory in Sianking.
Even if the amphibious fails, wiping out the French-Indo infantry leaves Japan with 2 fewer men to attack China. Manchuria needs some defense from the Russians, and they need something to attack French-Indo, if the attack was successful.

Japan may retaliate with an all-in to China, which is 1 Bomber, 4 Fighters, but assuming at least one man is left behind for Manchuria, only 4 infantry going in.
With three fighters (one US, one Russian, one UK) the Japanese may take enough losses so that it: a) cannot not take China, b) take with one or two men.

It then would have very few if any men actually on the land territories of Asia, and Russian, English and American troops able to challenge the three 3 IPC territories.
Japan may even hold off on a factory purchase if it thinks it may lose the factory?

In any case, this is taking a lot of attention away from attacking the US, and any attempt to do so would result in an even stronger hold of China.
The US can observe what Japan does, and possibly even hold China for a 2nd factory there, if things go horribly on the Japanese open.

@Isnala:

Hobbes: Remember as the attacker you not only delcare what your attacking, you also decide which attack happens when. Using you example you delcare that your attacking Egypt and blitzing  with the intent for the tanks to reinforce Egypt. You then decide which of the attacks first, I.e. do the tanks blitz first then aid in the attack on Egypt (which IMOO, would be the better plan in your example) or do you attack Egypt first and then blitz congo with the tanks winding up in  as the second move in the blitz.

Like I said unless your worried about losing the attack and thus too many troops to make holding the territory a bad idea, adding the tanks to to  could help prevent this as they attack on a 3 or less.

-Ish

I think you misunderstood my point. The idea was that the UK makes 2 combat movements to Egypt and Congo and then moves the armor in non-combat from Congo to Egypt.

@dustwhit:

@Advosan:

Att.
-CHN with KWN and MAN inf, ftr + JAP bmb
-SZ52 with BB CC SS AC 2 ftr
-Clear all UK surface vessels with the remaining BB AC and 2 ftr
-Unload to MAN inf and arm and land ftr+bmb to MAN, place 2TT and DD in SZ61, 2art in JAP obviously.

As R, I would be incredibly tempted to take my 6 inf in Bury and attack Man at roughly a 50/50 chance of winning, and if not, likely to destroy a fgt or bmb. I consider Bury a loss by J2 anyway, so I’d go on the offense and if I loose, I’d have a tank rdy to retake Yakut when J got in range (with an inf or 2 in Nov by that time) to reestablish the choke point. Why not send 2 fgt, bmb, Kwn, and 1 inf from FIC (particularly if B sent trans back to Egt leaving 1 inf in Ind) or only 1 from Man to Chi. A minor change, but safer for Man.

Imho, J1 CHN invasion must be massive, because the real objective is a J2 XNG invasion that cannot be delayed no matter what happens in FIC or MAN. That is why I need all that inf and airforce in CHN and that one arm in MAN. And if IND is almost empty, I would prefer to add a FIC inf to CHN assault and leave 1 inf in MAN, but I would never attack with less than 5 inf 2 fgt 1 bmb (a total 2.5 hits avg)…
The R 6 inf stationed in BUR can always try and assault MAN, especially if supported by 1-2 fgt. But what happens if that fails, what happens if J scores 4 hits and R only 2 (assisted by the 2 fgt, that is…)? Will there be a second round? Can R risk a total collapse of its eastern borders? Can R afford to be so reckless, just in order to kill a fgt or 2? Because MAN cannot be conquered with 1 bmb, 1 inf, 1 arm and 4 fgt stationed there, not even by 6 inf and 2 fgt, which is pretty much all that can possibly reach there by R2.

I can certainly understand the graphics thing…the first time I played TripleA I felt the same way.  But now I’m used to it and don’t think one version has better graphics then the other.

There are pros and cons on both sides.  Possibly the biggest pro for GTO is that it’s much easier to find a game of Spring42 or Revised on GTO because of the high volume of gamers on the lobby and playing PBE.

TripleA, by contrast, is primarily 41 and NWO, with Revised the 3rd most popular.  The main pros for TripleA are it is less buggy, takes up less memory/bandwith, and boasts better features.

@Imperious:

40-50 not more

I don’t think I paid much less for it.  :-D

Touche.