BTW, yes, I do know that LL and NL skew the statistics, Fire Knight, hence why I said run the 10,000 battle calculator and go with the statistically typical results. That way, it is theoretically possible for 1 infantry to stave off 500 infantry, but it won’t be the most typical outcome and thus will not be recorded in the game.
In general, I am attempting to see how waiting for one round might give Japan a better edge against America. I do not really see it being possible, as America has only to put an IC in Mexico and thus produce 6 naval units a round before the War starts. This is an issue because I have found, in naval engagments, you want to have 3 hit points for every 2 hit points the defender has (A battleship and a cruiser have 3 hit points) and you want to have 125% of the punch (a battleship has 4 punch) before attacking.
OBVIOUSLY, that is not a hard and fast rule, it is just a guideline, and one that has been of insurmountable importance in many a game for me, hence the title I have been given as The Fleetkiller (of course, EM gave me the title because I usually won against slightly poor odds and won decisively, because I am lucky in naval engagements and unlucky in land engagments.)
Also, I never said they would ALWAYS win, I said they would generally win. Dice will ruin any game. “Good Dice beat Good Tactics Everyday!” as they say. However scenario:
America is reduced to SZ 10 and mainland USA.
ANZAC/ENGLAND are sunk before getting the Dutch Islands and thus preventing them from collecting an extra 11 IPC over 4 rounds (actually you should take Borneo too, so that would be -15 IPC over 3 rounds and the loss of 11 IPC for the actual islands. You will need 2 rounds to take them, 1 round to get in position, 1 round to take them.)
China is strong, but who cares? As I said, China cannot leave China, thus they cannot do anything of consequence to Japan. They can be annoying and they are relatively difficult to destroy, but none of what they have is what Japan needs anyway.
On the otherside of the world, England is beat on Round 3. We all know that, over 10,000 battles the vast majority of the time, Sea Lion is successful. Since America is investing in the Pacific, they obviously cannot then invest in the defense of London nor the liberation of London for quite some time. Therefore, it is safe to assume that London will be firmly in German hands for most, if not the entire, game from Germany 3 on.
With America fighting for dear life in the Pacific, London in German hands, Italians taking out Africa (since African defense forces will slowely dwindle and die off whereas Italian military forces can be replenished, this is safe to assume) and perhaps even a minor Japanese invasion into Russia, it is safe to assume Russian days are numbered.
After all, all Germany need do is sit a submarine in SZ 125, and she should have some to spare for this. Russia, with no destroyers of her own, and no realistic ability to create any, and with their fleet trapped in the Baltic, will never dislodge this submarine and thus, should never have their NO.
With all those floating transports Germany will have, keeping Scandinavia shouldn’t be hard at all. With the Egypt, England and Sweedish NOs, they should quickly consume Russian hegemony and replace it with Socialism.
@Cmdr:
Questioner,
I see what you are saying, but I think you missed the idea. The idea is to remove America as an effective force by crushing it’s naval power early (and thus, preventing them from ever getting a navy of any decent power.)
Since England has only a Cruiser, 2 Destroyers and a Transport, France has a Destroyer and ANZAC only has a Cruiser, Destroyer and Transport at the start of the game, Japan does not really have to invest against them.
By round 3, those two powers will probably only have a few submarines as well which is still not much of an investment.
Now, it is possible for America to have good defending odds, using CAP fighters, so it is, theoretically, possible to keep the fleet in SZ 10. Unfortunately, it will also be trapped in SZ 10, and it will mean locking their fighters in W. USA and investing solely and fully in the Pacific with no aide to Europe.
Japan to will be locked, but honestly, Japan has no need to invest more, just to move surface ships over to counter the Americans, collecting the NO for Hawaii and denying it to America (along with denying them the Philippines NO) and put submarines in the water to sink whatever ANZAC/England put out. (A new carrier and some destroyers to protect a set of 5 transports, of which you should have all 5 by the end of round 1.)
No, I got your point, I just haven’t had time to look at the map (starting setup to A2) this weekend- little busy. I’m just going off memory here for the moment.
You know a simple setup change- DD to block in SZ (i forget now) off Hawaii could stop all this. Might be needed if this gambit seems to powerful.
Also the Guaranteed Sealion on round 3 in practice is not as simple as in Alpha1. According to my calculations, Allies have a very slight punch advantage- the extra ftr in Fra- flown back to England makes a huge difference- Britain can stack and make Germany pay. Are you assuming an AC is not bought to get you some extra TTs or aircraft???
Really I’m gonna have to play out your opening moves and see for myself- I think I’ll try that today and see when I get home tonight.
The fighters in France should be toast on Germany 1.
Germany should get Normandy, France, Yugoslavia, SZ 111 in Germany 1, leaving them with 70 IPC. (Perhaps SZ 110, but generally, if I hit SZ 110, its because I am not intending on Sea Lion.)
England should have: Fighter in Scotland, 2 Fighters in England (+1 French one), 1 Fighter in Gibraltar, 1 Fighter in Malta and 1 Tactical Bomber in SZ 98. If you move them all to England, you do have a slight edge (assuming you block shore bombardments with a destroyer and move an infantry/armor from canada to england.)
However, this gives Italy a free hand and I have yet to see an England player do this. Generally they might build everything in England, but they do prosecute a fight against Italy and thus, under those circumstances Germany with 10 Aircraft and 22 Ground forces SHOULD be able to win. Indeed, if England does not reinforce from England, the odds of German success goes to 90%. (Still assumes fighters in England and they do not fly cap and thus do not die, assumes Canadian forces go to Brazil or something and some British surface warship is used to block BB/CA bombardments.)
@Cmdr:
Germany should get Normandy, France, Yugoslavia, SZ 111 in Germany 1, leaving them with 70 IPC. (Perhaps SZ 110, but generally, if I hit SZ 110, its because I am not intending on Sea Lion.)
Why ? I am really curious because, personally, i do the oposite : sz 110 is my most important target on G1 if i intend sea lion.
@Cmdr:
The fighters in France should be toast on Germany 1.
Germany should get Normandy, France, Yugoslavia, SZ 111 in Germany 1, leaving them with 70 IPC. (Perhaps SZ 110, but generally, if I hit SZ 110, its because I am not intending on Sea Lion.)
England should have: Fighter in Scotland, 2 Fighters in England (+1 French one), 1 Fighter in Gibraltar, 1 Fighter in Malta and 1 Tactical Bomber in SZ 98. If you move them all to England, you do have a slight edge (assuming you block shore bombardments with a destroyer and move an infantry/armor from canada to england.)
However, this gives Italy a free hand and I have yet to see an England player do this. Generally they might build everything in England, but they do prosecute a fight against Italy and thus, under those circumstances Germany with 10 Aircraft and 22 Ground forces SHOULD be able to win. Indeed, if England does not reinforce from England, the odds of German success goes to 90%. (Still assumes fighters in England and they do not fly cap and thus do not die, assumes Canadian forces go to Brazil or something and some British surface warship is used to block BB/CA bombardments.)
Jen, you will have to list your Buys, CMs and NCMs for G1 and J1- assume that USSR just builds and NCM of course. I feel like you are leaving something out here. What you describe doesn’t seem to really add up. Just sounds like a lot of ifs to me.
Yeah, I’m already starting to see counters to some of these moves- yet again, a lot of analysis (talk), but no play results. I wanna see some games results that prove this.
I want to see a link to the module so I can open up this file so I can start. :\
@Cow:
I want to see a link to the module so I can open up this file so I can start. :\
Ask Functionetta, you’ll need his file for it, unfortunately.
Germany 1 Buys are simple enough: Destroyer, Submarine, Aircraft Carrier. You may need the warships to attack SZ 110 later and you’ll need the carrier to defend your transports from British air attack.
Japan 1 buy is also simple, 2 submarines, 2 transports or 3 transports save 5. I generally go with the submarines since you may need them later.
Germany 1 Combats: Normandy, France, SZ 111, Yugoslavia, SZ 106 (off canada), SZ 91 for sure. I’d like to see better odds to stretch Germany thing by hitting SZ 110 too, to be honest.
Anyway, certain things really screw up the game: highly effective British counter fire, highly inaccurate German naval fire or both for one.
hmMmmmmMMM… I have all the modules I need and I followed the instructions. Are you using windows 7 or OSX or a linux OS? I am on windows 7, but I also have ubuntu partitioned.
Me? Windows 7 / Vista as the need arises. I know there was a second module released a month or two ago that “fixed” some bugs. Since I do not know what “bugs” were fixed, I cannot say it was better or worse, but I know you cannot open the file saved in one module with the older module…and no, I have no frazzin clue why about that either…I hate users, I double hate power users and I am really getting the feeling that 99% of users should pack up their computers in the original packing material and return their computers to the manufacturers with the following note: “This user is to stupid to own a computer.”
But I digress…I’ll never check my email account, and I don’t give out the one I do use to anyway, so I would ask Mollari, Gamerman, JMite or Functionetta for the most recent incarnation of the battlemap module.
For the record, I am not starting our game until I get some games cleared. I need to end my game with Gamerman and my Tournament game…though, I fear I will win my tournament game and be subjected to another, if only to retain my crown as Jennifer, the Omni-Radiant, Queen of Axis and Allies, Consort of Enhanced Axis and Allies and Die Flottenmörderin. lol
if only to retain my crown as Jennifer, the Omni-Radiant, Queen of Axis and Allies, Consort of Enhanced Axis and Allies and Die Flottenmörderin. lol
The best part is… you’ll never be The King baby. :P
either way jen, you never win aa50 or revised matches so I doubt you’re any good at global. you shouldn’t even bother with the aa50 tournament.
@Cow:
either way jen, you never win aa50 or revised matches so I doubt you’re any good at global. you shouldn’t even bother with the aa50 tournament.
What in the world are you crooning about? I have yet to see you win a game of anything, even solitaire.
moo cow MLG
CowGoMoo starcraft 2
google it.
If you lose to JWW after his round 1 opening axis moves, you’re pretty bad. you’re also lucky his hit on manilla failed. you have no excuse for that game.
He didn’t send enough to ukraine to hold it on G1 so he can’t crack egypt with as good odds (pick 2 off ukraine drop egypt). his burma attack on J1 was just silly, need 5 units there to hold against india attacking it, the whole idea behind burma stack is that 2 transports can load units there to nab some africa or 99.999% india and sail back toward japan. usually skip Philippines round 1 if you do burma or use 1 inf 1 tank 50/50 it.
Yes, but that is the tournament game, not in line with this thread. I will be glad to point out what I feel are his tactical deficiencies and bad luck in his tournament game via PM if you like.
For the record, I do feel that the Allies will win most of the Global 40 games if allowed to enter the war at their choosing. Hence why I started to come up with some other tactics to stop them from getting too powerful. Some tactics I have read, mentally reviewed and revised in a manner I, personally, feel is better.
For instance, the massive attack on American shipping on Japan 1 is STRONG! It is not invincible, after all, there are dice to contend with! But what it does do, virtually all of the time is allow Japan to control the Pacific for a far greater period of time. This is in part to America being knocked out of the Pacific for the most part, but also because what Japan has left is plenty to take out what the British and Australians have left, but only true if you kill that British Battleship in the south - IMHO.
Yes yes, if you can leave it alone and use only air power on round 2-17 to kill the British fleet, I suppose, but it’s a loose end that is neatly tied in a ribbon if you just sink it now.
Downside, America can put an aweful lot of submarines in the water off the coast of LA. It’s an issue one has to contend with.
Also, if you do not hit America on Japan 1, I doubt you will be able to on round 2. For one, if you cluster in SZ 6, America is just going to pull back to SZ 10 with all it’s units and you will have lost the attack on the DD/Trn off Philippines for nothing.
(Note, you cannot get reinforcement planes from Carolines or Mariannas to LA SZ.)
I have come up with an untested round 2 action with Japan. It’s not so much a means to remove America from the war as it is to cripple the American financial system and force them to spread out.
But again, why should I allow those funny round eyes to get the Dutch East Indies!
A little bit of patience so germany can take UK.
your pacific strat doesn’t match your europe strat. it would if germany/italy was doing heavy russia or africa play instead of sea lion.
@Cow:
A little bit of patience so germany can take UK.
your pacific strat doesn’t match your europe strat. it would if germany/italy was doing heavy russia or africa play instead of sea lion.
To what are you referring too?
If in reference to my Japanese sneak attack idea, I am already considering Japan attacking on Round 2, so that America could do nothing to help England against Sea Lion, well, nothing if they stacked against Japan, as is current philosophy.
no reason to do anything for japan rounds 1-4. not in danger of losing the game, plus building up for japan takes time. saving uk is a priority so allies don’t lose on the europe half.
With early $$$$$ :-D, America can load up with tons of subs and still have some to invest on Europe side slowly- if Sealion suceeds which is another matter in Alpha+2- I think the chances of getting it are slimmer this time according to my calculations- 4-5 aircraft make up the difference. If it does succeed- its usually very costly. It was very doable in Alpha+1 but not so much in Alpha+2.
Jen with your opening moves in Europe, Brits can still salvage a navy and reorganize in Canada. By the way, the problem with Sealion is the “spread thin” factor- comes into play by rounds 6-10.
Also, if Russia marches through China with 18inf, you might rethink your whole strategy…China worth nothing you say??? Still think that is true with 18inf marching through China toward India…buys time for UKPacific.
I give you some credit for trying though…this strategy seems more like Swiss cheese- too many holes. The overall idea makes perfect sense for a gambit- the details of how to do it are another matter.
@Cow:
no reason to do anything for japan rounds 1-4. not in danger of losing the game, plus building up for japan takes time. saving uk is a priority so allies don’t lose on the europe half.
It seems that the allies win most of the games still. I believe this is because you leave America alone to build a massive unsinkable navy while blowing your forces in China getting territories you don’t need to win the game AND because you allow England/ANZAC to have 2 or 3 rounds of the DEI to add to their bulk, allowing them to get 30 infantry to stop you at Calcutta and a number of submarines that convoy you to death so while you’re trying to counter build america, you’re losing cash to the submarines.
The sneak attack round 1, 2 or 3, stops that from being an issue. You stop America dead in its tracks and have your cash available to go knock out some British/Australian stuff. Since America is so weak in the first couple of rounds and super huge later.
Sea Lion is almost always a forgone conclusion. The only time it seems to not happen is if Germany gets stomped on Round 1 and doesn’t have the airpower to do it anymore.
The new trick is to wait until its too late for America to do a blessed thing about it, then stomp England. By round 3 Germany should have 4 NOs going to rebuild a little lost, then 3 NOs once Russia gets in the war.
you really think usa can’t stop germany from taking united kingdom?
I been saying axis wins usually, because taking uk out of the game is rough for allies.
Let me explain USA’s movements at war to stop sea lion:
R1 usa sends a bomber. so if germany plans to shuffle units to scotland germany has to keep something back to gaurd transports (usually not a problem). USA only needs to send a couple fighters on R2 to fly into UK to make R3 uk takedown look really grim for germany. Then you got to fly 2-6 fighters more to UK on USA R3, which is no problem. Then the takedown looks really bad.
as long as uk buys inf and artillery (to strafe whatever drops hit scotland), UK should be fine.
It’s actually hard for germany to take UK if USA is at war. even a stingy USA would send at least 6 fighters + bomber. 4 hits a round on defense in LL.
~
If you really really really really want to do HEAVY pacific play with USA. you could ALWAYS fly back the fighters you sent to UK back to the pacific half of the board.
so it is not like you GAVE UP on pacific. USA flying air to UK to guard them temporarily is then going to pacific when the threat is over is not a bad idea.
~
Also if you look at the amount of air usa sent… it isn’t the maximum amount I could send if I wanted to. I used a low ball numbers to prove how hard it is for germany to take UK with USA in the mix. I am the paranoid type and would rather send 2 many than 2 little to save UK and MAKE SURE I don’t have to come back to europe and that UK and Russia has it.
