Developing a British Navy

If you are playing Revised with a bid then one possibility is to add a 2nd G transport to the Med fleet instead of adding units to Libya/Algeria. It doubles the transport capacity and can make the Russian player weary on an amphibious attack on the Caucasus/Ukraine.
Like mentioned above the drawback is that additional units sent to Africa won’t be used on the Eastern front and the 2nd transport will be sunk with the rest of the fleet if the Allies decide to do so.

@gnasape:

TDJ that’s classic.  Mr. T. says “Tanks are strong!”  Is that from the Caspian Sub paper?

Blitz2: It never hurts to try but I would have to agree with both Dan and TDJ, buy ground forces.

It might work in AA 1942 but not really in revised?

It should be even worst in AA42: 1 less hit and 3 less dice points. Germany could ignore it, of course, and even mimic building tons of navy. Since you, as soviet, gave them time in east, Germany could buy a uber fleet to create havoc in allied fleets. A powerful german combo would be: take gib, kill z2 or z1, send 2 subs to English channel, buy, say, ac, bb, 2 inf, tons of subs or any other wicked combo (join fleets round 2 or 3, ouch!). UK will struggle to keep the pace, and USA cannot join the fight and also buy enough land guys to protect their rear/contest Africa (silly Bering strait icecap  :-P ) OR germans could still do the moves and simply make a tank rush while Japan does the same

In Revised, it could be interesting trying, but without a bid. I doubt it can work by the way, it’s just slightly better

A note: stick to Revised, it’s better than AA42 (KFJ is viable and also Polar Express)

@AxisOfEvil:

So whens the poll?  I guess it should be phrased like this, if you were playing a 1v1 game, and had the allies, would you choose to start the game with 1 less russian fighter, or 1 less UK bomber.

My vote, ditch the bomber

Poll is up already.

Question is, what is more valuable in the first eight rounds of the game.  A single Russian fighter or a single British bomber (and I chose a piece for Germany, Japan and America too.)

The caveat is you have to take into consideration not only what the piece can do, but also replacement cost, opportunity cost for losing it, function of the piece, what your allies can do to minimize the loss of the piece, etc.

It’s not as simple as 1 nation vs 1 nation.

@mrsoccerchessman:

Do you try for developments?  If so, which ones?  Please give your reason for “yes” or “no”.

I usually try for developments at times.  I usually try for LRA for USA because it’s much easier to take Japan’s sea vessels from a far away distance.  I usually don’t try for any other development.  But developments are the last thing I think about when I’m contemplating what to spend my money on.

There is a big difference in the rules set you use, as LHTR removes ‘instant’ tech.  They are deferred to the end of your turn, so no rolling for Long Range for Germany on round1 and try for the UK capital.

Even in LHTR, rockets are still very powerful for both Germany and the allies (UK and US).  It’s hard (over time) to beat bombers that can not be shot down.

OK, not sure that came out clear…

Example:
US has $38 to spend.  They have 2 existing TRNs in the Atlantic.
US buys 1 TRN, 3 INF and 3 ARM for the Atlantic, leaving $6 IPC, which they save.

The next round, the US has $38 to spend again, plus $6 saved from last round, and now have 3 Atlantic TRNs.
They buy 1 TRN, 4 INF, 4 ART for the Atlantic (4 loaded TRN).  With the $8 remaining IPC’s they buy a TRN or SUB for the Pacific.

Round 3 with $38 to spend, they buy 4 INF, 4 ARM to refill their Atlantic fleet, leaving 6 remaining.

Round 4 with $38 plus the 6 remaining, they buy 4 INF, 4 ARM to refill their Atlantic fleet and add a DST to the Pacific.

This strat assumes a solid UK, no cross-Pacific push by Japan, and typical moves in Europe and Asia.

If you start out with this strat, by mid-game, the US has floated a fair navy in the Pacific for Japan to contend with… prior to them massing for a final push on Moscow…

It’s a pitty to see that Bobbychicken is indeed a machine in his strategies (you use this word yourself)…

your dad and you can as well play the game solo, while you both do nothing to surprise your opponent with strats…

I love playing without techs because with heavy bombers in the game, the dice is rolled (allia iacta est - latin).
If USA has them? Allies win the game, so simple as that! so, no fun in accomplishing something everyone knows to be the outcome!

there is no doubt with the battleships 2 hit rule that they are the kings of the seas.

@Alcibiades:

I jsut wanted to note that I was aware of the errata regarding rockets that limits the amount of times any given IC can be hit. This changes things a little, but rockets are still pretty solid with Germany, assuming a good roll. But I’ve never been big on WD in general, it’s too risky and additional units are too important.

That said one know that there has to e a bigger incentive for techs - the pay off is simply not good enough! The true problem lies in not making them to good and not too cheap! Today I found the original rule for Rockets too lousy!