I almost pulled it off

For tournaments, I can see doing this, for friend games, why won’t it piss them off?  It’s not because your doing something different, its that you usually end the game with that kinda move, when hardly anyone got to do anything, which ends up waisting like 3 hours.  If your friends have any sort of lives, they probably only play like once a week at most and they would not like taking time out of their busy schedual for someone to just end the game and waist a significant amount of time where they won’t have much to do another game.  Its basically like if one would fail a G3 sealion, its gg for germ automatically, but alot more extreme.  Just banking the ENTIRE game on one attack so early is like no fun at all.  So, if your friends are rooks or open minded, they would be like “oh, cool attack”  for a short time, and it be alright to try once if you have extra time, but the strat in general messes up the game royally.

I do applaud your creativity and thought proccess in planning this strategy, just its only a strategy to show off, not a practical/realistic one if you want a serious game.

@ghr2:

It’s not because your doing something different, its that you usually end the game with that kinda move, when hardly anyone got to do anything, which ends up waisting like 3 hours.

No kidding! I posted earlier saying that this strat is a 3.5 hour time waster but they claimed I had my head up my a**. As well, I brought it to their attention the total carnage the Axis is going to face on the home front. Keplar and Mantle both claim Germany is plowing into Russia with East Russia forces in full retreat, Italy is steamrolling in Africa and Japan is squashing India. Short of the 100% hit/miss scenario I don’t see this strat even coming close to working. But if anyone is into wasting time and ruining games go with it!!!

@keplar:

even though the attack itself failed, the outcome was not a failure. The US was extremely delayed in attempting to take gibralter.

Typically when the US enters the war, Italy has to spend every ipc it earns to hold/retake gibralter until eventually the US finally has enough to take and HOLD it. When the US finally holds gibralter, usually it’s 2-3 turns until Italy is done. Plus all that time and effort to take/retake gib forces italy to spend less on the african front. With this strategy, Italy had no threats of any kind and was able to freely send 30ish ipc’s worth of units to africa every turn. By this time UK is only bringing home 20ish with convoy loses and they can’t compete with that.

With Germany, keep in mind that I had only 4 transports in my attack, which leaves TONS of troops to head towards Russia. Germany is making 50ish per turn, all towards Russia. Russia starts with very little and only makes 37. Once again, it’s hard for them to compete with this.

I never said Japan was “squashing India”, Japan was trading interior territories with China, and sending transports to Asia and collecting islands when possible. They took Hawaii on J4 and eventually relinked the both fleets together to make a monster fleet that the US could do nothing about w/o spending every penny on the Western coast. Japan makes mid 40’s per turn, US is down to 60 ish. India had a HUGE land army retaking China, but by endgame was making 11 with loss of territories and convoy loses. ANZAC is usually just a small thorn in Japan’s side.

With all this in mind, it seems hard to say that this can ruin a game. Bad dice can ruin a game.

Please break down Japan’s income so we all can see>

@keplar:

With Germany, keep in mind that I had only 4 transports

So let me get this straight, your going to take America out of the war with 4 Nazi transports……Hmmmmmmmm

@keplar:

@Idi:

@keplar:

even though the attack itself failed, the outcome was not a failure. The US was extremely delayed in attempting to take gibralter.

Typically when the US enters the war, Italy has to spend every ipc it earns to hold/retake gibralter until eventually the US finally has enough to take and HOLD it. When the US finally holds gibralter, usually it’s 2-3 turns until Italy is done. Plus all that time and effort to take/retake gib forces italy to spend less on the african front. With this strategy, Italy had no threats of any kind and was able to freely send 30ish ipc’s worth of units to africa every turn. By this time UK is only bringing home 20ish with convoy loses and they can’t compete with that.

With Germany, keep in mind that I had only 4 transports in my attack, which leaves TONS of troops to head towards Russia. Germany is making 50ish per turn, all towards Russia. Russia starts with very little and only makes 37. Once again, it’s hard for them to compete with this.

I never said Japan was “squashing India”, Japan was trading interior territories with China, and sending transports to Asia and collecting islands when possible. They took Hawaii on J4 and eventually relinked the both fleets together to make a monster fleet that the US could do nothing about w/o spending every penny on the Western coast. Japan makes mid 40’s per turn, US is down to 60 ish. India had a HUGE land army retaking China, but by endgame was making 11 with loss of territories and convoy loses. ANZAC is usually just a small thorn in Japan’s side.

With all this in mind, it seems hard to say that this can ruin a game. Bad dice can ruin a game.

Please break down Japan’s income so we all can see>

J1 26 + 10 obj
J2 30 + 10 obj
J3 32 + 10 obj
J4 orig 26 + 9 of china + hawaii + phillip + kwangtung = 41 + 5 obj
J5 roughly the same with 10 obj instead (5 of 7 islands)
J6 trade some china for borneo/celebes + 10 obj
J7 trade some china/kwangtung for borneo/celebes/java (whichever one is available) +10 obj
Whatever isn’t mine gets convoyed anyways which is how India makes 11 by endgame…

Convoyed with what?? Your funny…I thought you said you take your whole navy against the USA.

@keplar:

@Idi:

@keplar:

even though the attack itself failed, the outcome was not a failure. The US was extremely delayed in attempting to take gibralter.

Typically when the US enters the war, Italy has to spend every ipc it earns to hold/retake gibralter until eventually the US finally has enough to take and HOLD it. When the US finally holds gibralter, usually it’s 2-3 turns until Italy is done. Plus all that time and effort to take/retake gib forces italy to spend less on the african front. With this strategy, Italy had no threats of any kind and was able to freely send 30ish ipc’s worth of units to africa every turn. By this time UK is only bringing home 20ish with convoy loses and they can’t compete with that.

With Germany, keep in mind that I had only 4 transports in my attack, which leaves TONS of troops to head towards Russia. Germany is making 50ish per turn, all towards Russia. Russia starts with very little and only makes 37. Once again, it’s hard for them to compete with this.

I never said Japan was “squashing India”, Japan was trading interior territories with China, and sending transports to Asia and collecting islands when possible. They took Hawaii on J4 and eventually relinked the both fleets together to make a monster fleet that the US could do nothing about w/o spending every penny on the Western coast. Japan makes mid 40’s per turn, US is down to 60 ish. India had a HUGE land army retaking China, but by endgame was making 11 with loss of territories and convoy loses. ANZAC is usually just a small thorn in Japan’s side.

With all this in mind, it seems hard to say that this can ruin a game. Bad dice can ruin a game.

Please break down Japan’s income so we all can see>

J1 26 + 10 obj
J2 30 + 10 obj
J3 32 + 10 obj
J4 orig 26 + 9 of china + hawaii + phillip + kwangtung = 41 + 5 obj
J5 roughly the same with 10 obj instead (5 of 7 islands)
J6 trade some china for borneo/celebes + 10 obj
J7 trade some china/kwangtung for borneo/celebes/java (whichever one is available) +10 obj
Whatever isn’t mine gets convoyed anyways which is how India makes 11 by endgame…

Please break down Japan’s income country by country

@keplar:

even though the attack itself failed, the outcome was not a failure. The US was extremely delayed in attempting to take gibralter.

Typically when the US enters the war, Italy has to spend every ipc it earns to hold/retake gibralter until eventually the US finally has enough to take and HOLD it. When the US finally holds gibralter, usually it’s 2-3 turns until Italy is done. Plus all that time and effort to take/retake gib forces italy to spend less on the african front. With this strategy, Italy had no threats of any kind and was able to freely send 30ish ipc’s worth of units to africa every turn. By this time UK is only bringing home 20ish with convoy loses and they can’t compete with that.

With Germany, keep in mind that I had only 4 transports in my attack, which leaves TONS of troops to head towards Russia. Germany is making 50ish per turn, all towards Russia. Russia starts with very little and only makes 37. Once again, it’s hard for them to compete with this.

I never said Japan was “squashing India”, Japan was trading interior territories with China, and sending transports to Asia and collecting islands when possible. They took Hawaii on J4 and eventually relinked the both fleets together to make a monster fleet that the US could do nothing about w/o spending every penny on the Western coast. Japan makes mid 40’s per turn, US is down to 60 ish. India had a HUGE land army retaking China, but by endgame was making 11 with loss of territories and convoy loses. ANZAC is usually just a small thorn in Japan’s side.

With all this in mind, it seems hard to say that this can ruin a game. Bad dice can ruin a game.

If germany still has a large army to keep russia down, how did it afford the strike force to hit us?  if its only 4 trannies, then the attack would of been a flop, if you built extra naval stuff, thats less vs russia. A good Uk would of locked down italy in africa/mid east if italy tried to help at gib.  I don’t see how the US would be knocked out for a while.  The attack required more form the axis than it would be for the US to get into gear.  Since your attck failed, the US will still be getting well over 60 IPCs every turn, Japan can’t take Hawaii and WUS unless it commited over 90% of its navy to the cause.  If he goes through with attacking WUS then his navy would be hella crippled and if he took any dmg on his carriers, his planes won’t be able to land, cause logically you would take hawaii at the same time so thath the US won’t have a war income for a turn.  Also, you let russia build for 4 turns.  I don’t see how russia would have problems especially with a failed US attack.  Britain will still be alive and well and a big threat on italy.  With india supporting africa (since jap navy moving to Hawaii)  the taking of perisa and eth quickly, and Italy dedicating a significant portion of his money/starting units to Gib and US, Uk would be in perfect position to contain italy.  The only way this can go well for the axis, ESPECIALLY after the attack did not knock out the US, is if the UK/Russian/US players are rooks and/or dice rolls were favorable to the axis.  Its just not logical Captain.

@ghr2:

If it succeeds marginally, then the game might last, if it succeeds overwhelming, then the allies lose and you waisted time.

Umm…did you just suggest one should avoid winning the game after “only” four hours?  How many hours do you have to play before losing to feel like you haven’t wasted your time?

Cause most of the playters did not get to do anything but sit there with a dumb look onm their faces.  Russia did not get to do jack, UK did not get to do anything, I consider a good game riding anywhere from 7-9 hours on avg before a side conceeds.  Otheriwse why not conceed after 2 hours?  Or 1? or right after G1?  A good game should give people time to do soemthing and have the game able to go any direction for like 4-6 turns.  Why play then if the game is going to be so short?  If you plan on playing mutible games in one sitting, thats fine to end the game early, but for people are busy and have set down precious time for this game, they want a game that is dynamic, and eventful.  Do or die attacks like that are either autowin or autolose.  Its like, why don’t I DOW everybody G1 and suicide my planes in france all alone?  If every game lasts for like 3-4 hours or less, this would be one of the shortest board games of all time.  Why play it if people will commit every game to the exact same do or die attack and end the game so quick?

@ghr2:

Why play it if people will commit every game to the exact same do or die attack and end the game so quick?

Erm, I don’t think anybody has suggested attempting this “every game”.  In fact, it seems to be the consensus that this would probably only work once (if at all).  It may be useful in future games to force particular responses (namely, staging a navy at Carolines and SZ6 would, apparently, lead certain individuals to upgrade the Horrywood factory early), but I don’t see it as a standard strat.

@ghr2:

Cause most of the playters did not get to do anything but sit there with a dumb look onm their faces.  Russia did not get to do jack, UK did not get to do anything…

True, Russia did not get to do much, but certainly the U.K., at war (in Europe at least) from the start of the game would have a chance to contribute.  Moving past that, however, I’m not of the opinion that one should “take it easy” on opponents to artifically stretch the game out.  Just not how I play.  I suppose you can call that “douchebaggery” if you like.

@ghr2:

Otheriwse why not conceed after 2 hours?  Or 1? or right after G1?

Umm, I haven’t ever played a game that was decided G1.

@ghr2:

If every game lasts for like 3-4 hours or less, this would be one of the shortest board games of all time.

Again, your “every game” thing is a straw man, but, that aside, 3-4 hours is “one of the shortest boad games of all time”?  Seriously?
Catan?  Monopoly?  Chess?  Roborally?  Puerto Rico?  Clue?  Stratego?  Mastermind?  Go?  Scrabble?

@keplar:

@Idi:

@keplar:

@Idi:

@keplar:

even though the attack itself failed, the outcome was not a failure. The US was extremely delayed in attempting to take gibralter.

Typically when the US enters the war, Italy has to spend every ipc it earns to hold/retake gibralter until eventually the US finally has enough to take and HOLD it. When the US finally holds gibralter, usually it’s 2-3 turns until Italy is done. Plus all that time and effort to take/retake gib forces italy to spend less on the african front. With this strategy, Italy had no threats of any kind and was able to freely send 30ish ipc’s worth of units to africa every turn. By this time UK is only bringing home 20ish with convoy loses and they can’t compete with that.

With Germany, keep in mind that I had only 4 transports in my attack, which leaves TONS of troops to head towards Russia. Germany is making 50ish per turn, all towards Russia. Russia starts with very little and only makes 37. Once again, it’s hard for them to compete with this.

I never said Japan was “squashing India”, Japan was trading interior territories with China, and sending transports to Asia and collecting islands when possible. They took Hawaii on J4 and eventually relinked the both fleets together to make a monster fleet that the US could do nothing about w/o spending every penny on the Western coast. Japan makes mid 40’s per turn, US is down to 60 ish. India had a HUGE land army retaking China, but by endgame was making 11 with loss of territories and convoy loses. ANZAC is usually just a small thorn in Japan’s side.

With all this in mind, it seems hard to say that this can ruin a game. Bad dice can ruin a game.

Please break down Japan’s income so we all can see>

J1 26 + 10 obj
J2 30 + 10 obj
J3 32 + 10 obj
J4 orig 26 + 9 of china + hawaii + phillip + kwangtung = 41 + 5 obj
J5 roughly the same with 10 obj instead (5 of 7 islands)
J6 trade some china for borneo/celebes + 10 obj
J7 trade some china/kwangtung for borneo/celebes/java (whichever one is available) +10 obj
Whatever isn’t mine gets convoyed anyways which is how India makes 11 by endgame…

Please break down Japan’s income country by country

Do you mean, Which countries i took to reach that income?

YES

@eudemonist:

@ghr2:

Why play it if people will commit every game to the exact same do or die attack and end the game so quick?

Erm, I don’t think anybody has suggested attempting this “every game”.  In fact, it seems to be the consensus that this would probably only work once (if at all).  It may be useful in future games to force particular responses (namely, staging a navy at Carolines and SZ6 would, apparently, lead certain individuals to upgrade the Horrywood factory early), but I don’t see it as a standard strat.

Exactly my point earlier, this is not a practical strategy to be used.  It may be good once if you dont care about time, you are in a tournament, or you are showing it off to friends just for kicks.

I just don’t see a reason to end an 8 hour game in 3-4 hours on a friendly face to face game.

@ghr2:

Exactly my point earlier, this is not a practical strategy to be used.  It may be good once if you dont care about time, you are in a tournament, or you are showing it off to friends just for kicks.

Wait, so, if you don’t do it every time, it’s not a “practical strategy”?  Not sure I agree with that.

Also, I believe most people care more about winning the game than making sure it takes “at least X hours.”  Again, could be wrong.  Maybe more people play just to play than to win, but that seems silly to me.