I think a war is brewing on the horizon between Mantlefan and Com.Jen, maybe the best of 7 each one gets the axis 3 times and each one gets the allies 3 times. Then on game 7 a 3rd party chooses who’s who , and maybe they get to choose a partner in game 7. Play all 7 regardless of the score. Tactic’s, strategy and dice may or may not favor one player or another.
It would be interesting…… may the best General prevail
Once should be sufficient.
Mantlefan reminds me of the tobacco companies. “Well sure our customers have died of cancer. But’s it’s not like smoking caused the cancer.”
Apparantly its bad to be skeptical to a claim of imbalance to a game.
I’m sorry if I offended anybody I didnt mean to, I enjoy all the games Ive played win or loose, ( the dice have decided too many.)
We set up multiple boards and the players all get their chance to play their ultimate Germany,Japan,Russia,etc. and the results are never the same they may achieve their goals but no 2 games are alike some players are tougher to take your objectives against. Then there are the people who do better with certain countries. Then there are win streaks Ive them at just 2 and then there are some that are 10 + or so. They become the people to beat.
We havnt played enough Global to see if one side or the other has a definite advantage Its only been 13 games so far and its about 50/50
You could play a round and analyze your moves round by round or go 10 or 15 rounds maybe more then see where you stand, I belive that even if you did 4 or 5 games of the exact same strategy that your opponent would come up with a counter for that particular move.
Untill I have played each country alot of times and have seen one side takes all time and time again then I’ll say that it needs to be balanced. As of now I think its the best they’ve put out, I just have to remember all my forgets and hope that if I draw one country 8 or so times that I can learn to win from that spot and when I do draw a different one Im not left wondering what to do
Again sorry, I think that on any given nite with some good rolls and sound strategy you’de be the one to beat. I think that applies to everyone on this forum.
That’s what we need to know if we are to have any clue whether or not they have legitimate points.
So perhaps less invalidating another posters experience and a little less “its not broken, but i can’t prove it so i’ll make more posts to raise doubt and show nothing by way of any counterargument”
Play a game with Jennifer and let her show you how she does it, it does not matter who wins, but to prove she is wrong you need to back up your own statements. Jennifer did that by many games she played and can easily be seen on this site.
Part of what, I feel, is the error of those who claim the allies will always lose when America goes all into the Pacific is what I call “Machine Play.” One NCSCSwitch, a former moderator who left after getting the snot kicked out of him by yours truly, after claiming my strategy held no water, was such a player. Once confronted by something “different” their entire strategy goes up in smoke.
These players find it extremely difficult to imagine the possibilities of varied game play, as they have found “the one” strategy and anything short of that is not optimal. To which I say, “yup, not optimal, but it beat you, now didn’t it?”
It is the lack of imagination that causes them to demand detailed play reports. Reports that state you must purchase these units, make this non-combat movements, etc, etc. It is when they get these reports they retort “well, the Axis can just do this and stop it.” Duh. If you KNOW what we are going to do because we told you what we are going to do 8 rounds out, then HELL YES you can stop it. What’s your point? Hey, I’m going to play you in a game of chess, but I am ONLY going to try and get you in the “Fools Mate.” Okay? Now, don’t alter your moves any!
Sheesh!
Now, I have been EXTREMELY clear on how I envision the OVERALL, undetailed, Allied strategy to go down.
England and Russia turtle, giving up only what land they have to give up to maintain the strongest possible defensive force on the board. They don’t have to have Denmark or Norway, or anything at all. They probabily will have one or both of those territories during the game at some point, but the strategy is not contingent there-upon and I never claimed it was.
India works to secure the Middle East after sending a MODERATE reinforcement team into China. 14 Infantry, 2 or 3 Artillery and 1 or 2 Armored units is perfectly within the realm of belief for British units in China. This should be more than enough, with significant pressure on Japan, to push Japan out of most of China and limit them to Korea, Manchuria and Jehol (trading Jehol with China.)
China turtles as best it can, to prevent the loss of their fighter until America can get in the game. This is not hard. This is not implausible. In fact, unless Japan wants to trade 10 aircraft for the pleasure of getting the Chinese fighter, it is very simple to keep the Chinese fighter alive! You only need 3 rounds!
England should be super aggressive in SZ 97, Tobruk and Ethiopia (or that little piece of Italy on the African Horn, if the calculators are not giving you what you want.) Can this be derailed? Yes. What’s the result of derailing it? Uh, well, now Japan has 1 Cruiser, 2 Battleship, 2 Destroyers, 1 Aircraft Carrier and 5 planes to deal with, instead of 3 planes, a battleship and a cruiser, thus, America can afford to leave the Pacific sooner. Derailing the British aggression seems like a very poor idea, given the long range strategic situation.
Russia should retreat 18 Infantry and an AA Gun all the way back to Kansu (assuming they do not go to Muskva, a decision which has to be made at the time the units get to TIM.) From here they can swing into China’s back door and help push out Japan. Yes, I realize this gives Japan 6 IPC a round after 6 rounds of pushing into Russia (and giving Russia 12 IPC in the process to use to slow down Germany.) But this is a very small price to pay once you realize Japan has lost significantly more due to the lost units. (Of which at least 7 to 8 infantry and Mechanized Infnatry, two or three artillery, at least one or two armor and some planes are going to have to press into Russia and thus be unavailable for use in China. That alone, if for no other reason, makes this retreat a resounding success!)
Australia needs to have destroyers and Submarines in the water. With 3 fighters following the American fleet like a lost trio of puppies, America should EASILY be able to press in further than Japan could (given Australian planes can land on territories taken by Americans as well as British and Australian naval units along for the ride.) The general idea is that Australia, instead of America, trades destroyers with Japan thus maintaining American warship strength while sapping Japanese strength.
America’s only job is to end up with a sizable force of naval warships in both SZ 26 and SZ 33 so that England and Australia can take the islands in the south Pacific. A very small detachment can go to liberate the Philippines. Eventually, it would be ideal to have the warships around Okinawa or Iwo Jima. From here sorties of Strategic Bombers can pummel the Japanese into submission. (Cost per attack run: 2 IPC, Damage per attack run: 4 IPC (3.8…rounded to 4). This would be assisted with an Airbase in W. USA. From this point on, about round 7 or 8, Japan is no longer a threat and 100% of American builds (less replacement bombers) can go after Europe.
8.) Germany is now faced with a major problem. Italy, with about 30 IPC a round income, is going to lose what little they have quickly, as American ships can readily get from Washington DC to Gibraltar and back. Germany is losing 8 IPC a round from England (thus only getting 5 IPC a round, assuming they took England at all.) Territories that must be defended:
While some of these can be lightly defended and traded, some of these must be defended strongly enough to prevent an American foothold. This would, by simple logistics and financial reasoning, require German units to be pulled off the Russian front and sent to the west, just as happened in the real war.
Now, it has been shown multiple times by myself, and at least once by another, that a 900 IPC American fleet by round 7 or 8 is not only realistic, it’s virtually assured given a strong Pac Strat. Further, it’s been shown that Russia can easily have 80 to 90% of the number of units of the Germans, which should - by all the laws of probabilities - be enough to prevent Germany from “winning”, especially if they lose a significant force in England.
Further, if Germany ignores England, England becomes an impenetrable rock and thus, Germany will never get the VC win. It was already a long shot, and that was assuming a Russia forced to stand alone for 4 or 5 rounds before the Americans came over to help and the Indians came up from the south to assist. With the British reinforcing from the North, the Germans have no prayer in winning in Russia.
Now, that, of course, is not very detailed. No where in it did I state that XYZ had to be built on this round, and these units had to be moved to these territories on those rounds. Why?
A) Dice. Good dice beat good tactics every day! A set of good, or bad, dice can subtly alter your strategic path as you adjust to the new situation. Why should I tell you that you MUST do it MY way? No. Play the game, you’ll see where to go, or you won’t and you will lose.
B) Your opponent. Unlike many on these boards, I do not assume my opponent is a complete dithering idiot. I am well aware that my opponent realizes that the American fleet is now the exact same size of his Japanese fleet with a pretty decent chunk of Australians to help defend it. They will almost certainly realize that they are throwing perfectly good destroyers out to kill pretty useless Australian ones (the reason I have the Australian ones is to trade with Japan.) However, they must still do something else leave the door open for America to attack them. Likewise, they might think a “tank dash” could work. If it does, see (A). But it has been the history of the game that Tank Dashes rarely work, and when they do, it’s generally because of (A).
C) Position. All these subtleties can add up to a completely unique playing field. Perhaps Russia finds itself in the enviable position of having those 18 Infantry in TIM without Japan ever having invaded! Maybe along with that, China and England were slightly ahead of the curve in their counter attacks into Japanese territories in China?
D) Then there are the cases where Japan hands you a victory right out the door. I am talking a round 1 all out blitz on everything in the Pacific. Boy that sure speeds up your strategy!
E) Lastly, you may not have noticed this (of course you did!) but the board is friggin HUGE! This is not classic, you cannot just say build in Germany, move to E. Europe, Karelia and then Russia. How do you go to Russia? Rostov? Bryansk? Belarus? Novgorod? Volgorod? Novosibirsk? Arkhangelsk? Did you lose England? Did Germany try to pull a fast one and get spanked? Did they reinforce Tobruk and SZ 97 but you attacked anyway and got lucky? (Doesn’t take much luck even with German reinforcements, all it really takes is one or two fighters to miss instead of hit and those battles QUICKLY swing back in favor of the British!) and thus, you eliminated 2(4) Germany aircraft on UK 1 and now, you have PLENTY to defend yourself earlier than you expected and thus, you can start with landing planes on Russian conquests to reinforce against German counter attacks, thus giving Russia more NOs and thus, 1 infantry for each new territory conquered (on top of the value of the territory, of course!)
Etc.
I know DEMAND and REQUIRE a demonstration of how the Axis WILL ALWAYS (as seems to be the argument) win given an American intervention in the Pacific.
As far as I can tell, the main detractor here has never played a game of Axis and Allies, let alone one in which victory was had. Perhaps if he would like to enlighten us as to his detailed maneuvering so as to pull victory from the jaws of defeat, against a fully engaged American force, we can better know his mind.
Granted, I presume he is nothing but the rabble rouser we have come to know and despise over the ensuing year. One who enjoys to pick at nits for his own self glory, never providing us any new information nor any useful critique. We can all, after all, look upon a game with hindsight and declare “well, knowing you will build 3 battleships on round 8, on round 3 I want to buy 6 submarines.” This is neither constructive, nor of any benefit to the community at large.
What we need, from those who presume to insinuate, either directly or indirectly, that Germany will (in a statisitcal certainty) gather enough Victory Cities to win the game before America can implement its plan in the Atlantic is a detailed annalysis of what they feel the allies are going to do, how they plan to over come it, and what possible methods the allies might employ to negate what they plan to use to overcome the allied strategy.
Keep in mind, the claim that Russia will win the game has never been made and never will be made. I have no intention, nor vision, of Russian hegemony over Germany and Italy. To the contrary, I highly suspect that Russia will be clinging to Muskva and Novgorod with every ounce of it’s being, for at least two or three rounds of America pounding the Germans and Italian and then, and only then, having the forces needed to start pushing the Germans and Italians away.
Keep in mind, no claim has been made that Russia will hold the eastern territories. To the contrary, if they are held, great, but I suspect that Russia will retreat with 54 IPC worth of units to assist in Muskva or Kansu, units that Germany and Italy now have to contend with.
Keep in mind, the assumption was made that Germany would go Sea Lion. If Germany does not go Sea Lion (and this contingency is, of course, planned for) then the Allied strategy is made that much stronger as now England has the wear-with-all to seriously threaten the German fleet (enough so to tie up 5 Aircraft, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer and X number of Transports, all rotting at harbor in the Baltic Sea) and the airpower needed to drop onto Russian acquisitions to hold them against German counter attack.
Keep in mind, the assumption that Japan would wait until Round 4 to attack America was made. Contingency plans have been discussed if Japan wants to gift the Allies with a pre-emptive attack as this allows them to move faster and harder into a now woefully under-prepared and significantly disadvantaged Japan. (for one thing, 1-3 rounds of no FIC NO, roughly 10-30 IPC lost coupled with 1-3 rounds of +25 IPC for America (25-75 IPC extra) + America can build up to 10 units a round in SZ 10, instead of 3 without needing a second complex in Mexico.)
Keep in mind, Australia is relegated to American fleet defense both by adding ships to the defensive line, aircraft to islands adjacent to the fleet (with airbases, of course) but also in replacing the need to use American destroyers to sink Japanese destroyers and block direct attack on the American fleet before they are prepared to engage in said combat. If Japan does not engage in this trade, it seems likely that Japan will lose control of the Pacific all that much faster, as now the Americans can line up numerous submarines to attack Japan. (Note: With Australia dealing in Submarines and Destroyers to block the Japanese, America can focus on more submarines and less destroyers. This is a net gain of 2 IPC for every submarine America can purchase in place of a destroyer, while sacrificing nothing in offensive punch and, since America is not blocking the Japanese, nothing in tactical superiority either. This allows America to grow faster.)
Keep in mind, this assumes a British contingent in China. This may be unnecessary given Japan will most likely be unable to replace lost units with new units AND keep the fleet up to snuff. Losing 2 or 3 destroyers a round adds up FAST guys. How long do you think Japan can trade 16-24 IPC a round (or more, if they have to replace units due to mutual destruction). Sure, Australia is probably only building 2 or 3 destroyers a round, but we’re not counting on Australia to do anything but sink Japanese picket ships anyway. America, meanwhile, has lost zero ships and yet, sunk 3 Japanese ones. (Australia literally did it, but the effect is 3 less Japanese ships.) So Japan loses 24 IPC in ships, gains 0 IPC for NOs and America gains 25 IPC for NOs and loses 0 IPC in ships. Great trade for the allies!)
Dang, I get long winded.
Nutshell:
Major Issues for Japan:
Other points:
England has to go balistic on Italy, or they have to go full disengage. Either way, Italy is a null issue, since Italy is going to be stopped at Iraq, Congo and Gibraltar.
Russia, of course, does not have to win the war! All they have to do is not lose, and not losing something is a lot easier than winning it! Look at my tourney game with JWW. I conceded only to have my life back, but I could have drug that battle out for another 10-15 rounds EASILY by refusing to concede defeat. (I had a major unlucky break, was unable to recover and if I had never tried the gambit, may not have lost, IMHO. But that’s hindsight again!) Again here, Russia just has to not lose. That’s all. Hold two victory cities, Russia can do that easily!
Good work jen with the analysis, just i don’t think people were arguing that the axis will ALWAYS win if usa goes 100% pacific for the first part of the game, they thought u were saying that the allies would ALWAYS win if america goes 100% pacific. So it probably be more accurate if u demanded how the axis can win at all, not ALWAYS win.
What are my own statements? Where did I say the game is not broken? Please quote (and please don’t cut off in the middle of sentences or meaningfully linked sets of sentence (called paragraphs) to distort on purpose like you often do)
Your own statements are not even close to paragraphs. Look up how to construct a proper paragraph. They are not a series of questions you pose and not bother to provide any answer too. All you do is ask questions and avoid playing a game with Jennifer and avoid looking at her games to see what she is saying.
Do you know anything of logic?
Do you have another question or do you just ask them post after post, offering nothing to this thread but complaints?
If they are so easy to see where are they? If it’s so simple as to post a link why not post a link?
She has addressed them in this thread, probably a better idea to read her posts and look up her games on your own and latter post your own review of HOW she is wrong by proving otherwise.
Jen made a claim ,the burden of proof is on her.
Play a game with her or look up her games or go away. Pick one. But stop all the contentious posts where you bring nothing to the table.
Excellent post Jen. I knew you would take the time to explain well as you usually do. Now people just gotta try it and come up with some game reports for mantlefan.
Ok Lets keep out the name calling. Some posts will be edited. :mrgreen:
@mantlefan:
@mantlefan:
That is much more detailed, thank you.
WOW…LET’S MAKE THIS A HOLIDAY
What we really needed was some detail.
What You needed was some detail. Leave the imperial we out of it.
Jennifer, I read your recent posts and am going to look into them next time I play (hopefully very soon). However, one of the things you said I’m not sure if I agree with. You said that Japan should wait until round 4 to attack America? I always (and my opponent too) attack on turn 2. We do this b/c when my opponent didn’t attack turn 2 as japan, I reasoned as the allies that since Japan would attack round 3 automatically (b/c America earns their money that round no matter what), that it would be smarter for the allies to attack turn 2, in order to catch japan off guard and get the at war bonuses (15 ipcs, plus positional advantages). So then the next game as the axis I assumed that the allies would do the same and, to prevent this, attacked turn 2 as japan, which prevents anzac and ukp from getting any of their war bonuses, the additional dei, and allows me to get the money islands and territories earlier. I believe that this more than compensates for the 20 ipcs that America would earn extra. And, anticipating your argument for a turn 4 japan attack (which is what it seems like you’re advocating and which I believe is ridiculous), I see the problem of an invicible India, and I don’t really think this argument can make up for that
“Contingency plans have been discussed if Japan wants to gift the Allies with a pre-emptive attack as this allows them to move faster and harder into a now woefully under-prepared and significantly disadvantaged Japan.”
Under-prepared Japan? If the U.S. isn’t at war until round 4, then it can only have built 3 ships per turn in the pacific, something Japan can, and doesn’t even need to, match. The way I see it, attacking earlier (turn two) allows for optimal player set up (which a turn one attack lacks), earns more money for japan than a later attack, and puts them in a better position to threaten the entire pacific.
edit: Was just thinking about it some more, and came up with a possible argument that you could use to support a turn 4 japan attack: that attacking earlier allows the u.s to put 10 units instead of 3 into the pacific. But this isn’t a reason to change when you attack, b/c America can just make its planes in central or eastern U.S. instead of west.
Good work jen with the analysis, just i don’t think people were arguing that the axis will ALWAYS win if usa goes 100% pacific for the first part of the game, they thought u were saying that the allies would ALWAYS win if america goes 100% pacific. So it probably be more accurate if u demanded how the axis can win at all, not ALWAYS win.
ghr2:
I believe I am quite clear that there is no possible way to predict that a specific strategy will be 100% effective. It is why I refrained from entering into blow by blow analysis of what should be accomplished on each specific round of the game.
Further, I brought into play the fact that each opponent is different, the dice are different and what happens on the board will always be different. Despite that, I believe the allies have a much better than even chance of succeeding in a long term strategical goal of winning the game by quickly, and decisively, eliminating Japan from ever having a chance of getting 6 victory cities, and then going to recover the situation in Europe which, presumably, will be close to the brink of loss. (Defined: Germans are knocking on the door of either Novgorod or Volgorod, but as of yet, the Axis only have 6 Victory Cities in Euro-Asia, perhaps trading for the 7th.)
Excellent post Jen. I knew you would take the time to explain well as you usually do.
Thank you. Obviously no plan is absolutely certain. For one, I have noted that a game of Low Luck drastically and irrevokably alters the over all success and failure of certain missions. Japan just has a ton of aircraft it can bring to an engagement and in LL, every two of those fighters is a hit, every 3 of those tactical bombers are 2 hits. It really adds up to a very different game! Therefore, I do not know what should be done about Low Luck games. They have always been the bane of civilized discourse on game tactics and strategies as they greatly distort the results. (It is counter-intuitive. One would think they would stabilize the game, but in fact, it seems to have the reverse effect.
Example: 4 Fighters will always sink a battleship with maybe 1 loss, while ADS results (actual dice server) show that the attack would only have a 99.5% chance of victory with a 13% chance of losing 2 fighters in the process. That’s significantly different than the 67% chance of losing only 1 fighter!
It is precisely for this reason I will not engage in Low Luck games to test my theories and, in fact, the low luck game I am currently involved in has a significant American investment in the Atlantic, precisely because I know I can manipulate every battle to achieve optimum results as I desire, where I desire and how I desire. There will be no “upsets” because of the way Low Luck is designed.)
Russian strategies very based on Italian and German strategies. It is very hard to detail all possible strategies for Russia when all Russia needs to do is hold two victory cities to prevent the Axis from winning.
In the example that Germany ignores England:
Russia builds primarily infantry in forward positions until they cannot be held any longer. Russian units slowely retreat to Moscow (Muskva) over 8 rounds. Losing Leningrad and/or Stalingrad is not such an issue, as London has not fallen and therefore, Germany essentially needs both Leningrad and Stalingrad as well as potentially Moscow.
With Germany ignoring England, Egypt is no longer a certain event. Neither is the German NO for having a ground unit in Egypt, as England can readily put 6 units a round into the holding of Egypt if needed. 3 from Central Persia/Iraq and 3 from S. Africa. One might even go so far as to put a complex in Iraq and Persia to augment the one in S. Africa (and the transports needed to get them up to Egypt) and thus have 9 units a round. After all, once London is secure from attack, it is SECURE from attack. There’s no second chance at Sea Lion, you miss your chance, you’ve missed it permanently. It will only be under-defended so long, after all, and then it becomes cost prohibitive.
Should Germany go Sea Lion, this is at least 4 transports and 20/30 ground units lost or trapped in England the water. That’s at least 100 IPC probably closer to 180 IPC worth of units that Russia now does not have to face. That alone gives Russia the advantage in stalling the Germans and Italians. (Again, I look at a strong British open, going for the throat whereever possible against Italy on Round 1 to neuter it. If Germany augments, this will probably make England that much more secure, if Germany does not augment, then British forces should win more decisively. Essentially, I want to kill every German plane I can with England on round 1. If I cannot kill any German planes, then I can have a much easier time sinking Italian ships and killing Italian soldiers.)
In regards to “back dooring” Russia, as I have said, I invite it. Many have claimed, erroneously, that this is 48 IPC for Japan. (6 IPC a round for 8 rounds.) That is blatantly untrue! First off, you cannot take 6 IPC worth of Russia in one round! Secondly, you are not just walking in, you have to send something! And you have to send something to protect that something. And you have to send something to reinforce that something.
So as I said:
Japanese Gains:
Russian Gains:
Benefits: Japan 55 IPC loss, Russia 81 IPC gain
I do not see invading Russia as a winning proposition, unless you can convince Russia to send units to go fight you. However, I do not feel a good Russian strategy is to go fight Japan. You don’t really need too. It is 4 rounds minimum before they can get units to trade for TIM, and 5 or 6 before they can send enough units there to hold TIM. By then, the Japanese should be completely strangulated with Chinese forces making strong pushes into Jehol, British units from India (the ones I detailed that could be sent to China to help, less the aircraft which should go back to the Middle East long before now) in Kansu holding the Japanese out of China’s back door and what I will detail about naval position now:
Japan is also losing at least 24 IPC in warships a round. It is probably an even trade with Australia, who is putting 24 IPC worth of warships in the water each round. This is to prevent the Americans from attacking SZ 6 by blocking (with picket ships) SZ 16, 17 and 18. Australia then counters with Destroyer, Fighter to SZ 16, SZ 17 and SZ 18. (If both destroyers are lost, then it’s an allied gain, if only the Japanese one is lost, then it is an allied gain, if only the Australian one was lost, then it’s neither a gain nor loss for the Allies. Yes, this means the Allies cannot lose here.) This means that America loses nothing in position, war materials or strength, rather only gains in the latter two while Japan at best stays even, at worst starts to lose strength.
Thus, if Japan invades Russia you have:
24 IPC a round into replacing lost destroyers to Australia (does not include anything to counter American builds.)
Probably another 18 IPC a round into China to hold your own.
69 IPC in units lost in the Russian hinterland giving you virtually no benefit.
But what about Germany and Italy?
Well, with Russia building and retreating (and keeping in mind that if Russia earns less than 30 IPC, they can build it all in Moscow still) and with 6 rounds to walk someone from N. Italy to Russia and 5 rounds to walk someone from Germany to Moscow, it shouldn’t be hard to imagine it taking the Axis 9 or 10 rounds just to get in position to trade territories around Moscow.
That can be cut down with transports, but not significantly, since transports would negate much of the gains in movement speed by cost of the transports and the opportunity cost to divert units to protect said transports.
A tank dash is another option, but you quickly find yourself trading 6 IPC tanks for 3 IPC infantry. That means you need 2 IPC for every 1 IPC Russia earns to break even. Worse yet, since it takes roughly 3:1 odds to win a battle, you are risking at least 2 armored units (with airpower to assist) to kill 1 Russian infantry, whereas Russia is risking 2 or 3 infantry to kill 1 or 2 armored units. This is a trade deficit and will eventually lead to Russia overpowering the Germans. This is why virtually every tank dash in the game has been defeated. Assuming the person being dashed against has seen the solution before (either by trying him/herself or just reading someone’s game who has done it. It is how I learned.)
Parting thought, in regard to Russia: Russia is not the weak kitten it is made out to be. Granted, it does not have nearly the offensive capabilities of Germany, but then, we are not asking it to march to Berlin, we are asking it to stop Germany from marching to Moscow. It does not need the offensive capabilities, it needs the defensive, and it has the defensive.
But but but…I need: {Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Egypt, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow} to win! I don’t need London. Of course you do not need London! No one said you did! But you are going to need Moscow! I can stop you from taking Moscow with Russia! I can stop you with planes from England to help! yes, it takes 2 turns, but if you are not going for London, I have all these extra planes (and a French one, the hell else am I going to do with a French fighter???) to fly over to Moscow to stop you!
Fire Knight:
I once believed as you did. It was my greatest hope that an early attack by Japan would effectively stop America from becomming the dominant force in the Pacific and here is what I learned:
1) Japan cannot afford to replace units like America can.
2) Japan has no national objectives if it attacks too early. America has 20 IPC right off the bat.
3) England and Australia will press Japan and reinforce China, negating any meaningful gains you get in the Pacific early.
4) Japan cannot be everywhere. You have to be in SZ 33, SZ 6, SZ 37, SZ 35, you have to have planes in Korea, Carolines, Philippines, Japan, you have to have ground forces in China, Malaya, Hong Kong, Carolines (else why bother, if you don’t threaten an invasion of Hawaii and New South Wales?), Siberia, etc.
5) America has major complexes immediately and the full income needed to utilize them. This does not sound great, but, and I am assuming here, you probably do not attack until round 2, meaning the Americans probably withdrew to Jonah Island or W. USA and are out of reach. If you attack on round 1, you are WAY out of position. You cannot damage your carriers, since you cannot take Hawaii and thus, any left over fighters will splash into the ocean, lost forever, thus you have to take warship casualties and not soak hits iwth your carriers. America can take hits to the carriers as it can land planes on Hawaii. Futher, an attack on American builds in SZ 10 will only result in the loss of whatever ships you have left. And yes, there is the fact that Hawaii is still American, thus, your ships are trapped, you cannot get to the Carolines, New South Wales or Japan from Hawaii, because the Naval Base is American.
It just has never worked out for me. It always looks like it is going to work out! It looks great, up until about round 3 or 4 when you look at the board and realize that you really need another beer because you just hung yourself.
Jen, I dont get how ur response in any way relates to what i said
Actually I see the point of mantlefan.
But I’m not against Jen’s idea either. In my opnion, more test are needed before implementing a solution.
Jen,
What if Japan does not invade the evacuated Russian territories. Do you move the troops into China anyways?
Jen,
What if Japan does not invade the evacuated Russian territories. Do you move the troops into China anyways?
One would assume, given the financial impact on Japan, that Japan most likely would not invade Russia. Russia invading China, however, is a provocation of war, and therefore, would give Japan the 12 IPCs. One would have to think on whether the potential payoff offsets the losses. For one, you have 60 IPC worth of Russian equipnment in China. If China needs you to protect their plane, then this might be worth it, if only to give China the punch needed to take a territory and then have England fly in to defend it. However, if England and China are doing okay, then it may make better sense to move those units up to the Germans as, speaking logically here, Germany is probably the bigger threat right now.
The biggest hurdle here is to get over the mindset that you have to beat Germany. The second biggest hurdle is to get over the mindset that losing territory to Germany is a “bad” thing. You WANT to lose territory to Germany! You want to do this in a logical manner, mind you, but the idea is to lose the territory slow enough you can build enough to stop Moskva from falling, but fast enough that Germany is hard pressed to mass a single, devastating, army. Invite them into Novgorod. Yes, they get an NO, but if you just retreated 150 IPC worth of ground units and 30 IPC worth of planes agianst a force that would have beat them, you came out the winner there. Not to mention, all those units can go reinforce Russia while Russian units can go reinforce Volgorod. Germany will most likely then pull their fast units out of Novgorod to go down to Volgorod in which you retake Novgorod, etc.
The idea is to harass Germany and Italy, stop them from getting what they need to take all three Russian cities as best you can. If that means building fighters for England and flying them into Russia every round, so be it. Without all three Russian cities, the Axis cannot win. (Because they are not going Sea Lion, I guess. That seems to be the consensus of the nay sayers. IF they do go London, they only need two Russian cities, but again, they lost hundreds of IPCs in equipment taking London and only gained 40 in return.)
Either way, Russia is perfectly able to stop a VC win by the Axis in most, if not all, games. (That will later be taken out of context, the commas removed and the word “most” deleted so that the nay-sayers can claim I declared 100% Allied victory, but I am not declaring that. I don’t care what your strategy is, you can never declare 100% victory for one side or the other. Even OOB.)
Elementary my dear, elementary. Jen- c’mon now, flex those “Caspian Sub” muscles. :-D
