I almost pulled it off

@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.

@ghr2:

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

If you’re with friends, you can talk about the game, of have some drinks together  :-D

… or start a new game!

I lost a game after 2 rounds to an utter failure in France.  retreated from Normandy with 1 arm and took paris with 2 arm.  France recaptured and forced me to do it all over again.  Even getting paid twice by France didn’t offset the troop losses and time lost.

@eudemonist:

@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?

Dudemonist! have you even tried this strat in an actual game? Or is beekin off without knowing your speciality?

So far only Keplar and Mantlefan’s other profile have claimed to win with this strat.

@eudemonist:

@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.

Well you did say its not a standard normal strategy, and yes it is not practical cause of the crazy high risk.  I never said that what ever strat you don’t do is not practical, i’m saying this one is not practical cause this one in particular rides enormously on factors the axis don’t control.

Also, I believe most people care more about having fun, and gameplay.  Winning is not everything.  I won’t mind losing a game if I had fun doing it.  I was playing L4D2 the other night and my team only lost by 3 points (where the difference can be in the thousands), it came down to the very end, I was the last one alive and i just needed to move just a little further.  We ended up losing but becaquse it was soo intense and adrenaline packed the entire game, EVERYBODY, were happy and extremely excited about the game.  They all loved it even though we lost.  People like games that are fun, exciting, and intense.  Winning only really matters when you want bragging rights, or your playing a sport.

@Idi:

Dudemonist! have you even tried this strat in an actual game? Or is beekin off without knowing your speciality?

Nope, haven’t tried the strat.  Of course, the quote you posted made no statements as to the efficacy of said strategy, nor have, I believe, at any point in this thread made such statements.  You’ll notice many of my statements include such qualifiers as, “Seems like…”, “Probably…”, “I don’t think…”, “It may…”, “I see it as…”, etc.

Let me ask you the same question–have you attempted this strategy?  Given statements like:

@Idi:

An experienced USA player would have bulked up enough home defence to stop any invasion…

@Idi:

Way to screw the game kid>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

@Idi:

The only way the USA will ever be invaded is if Mantlefan is playing them.

@Idi:

this is not the best strategy…… However this would be the best strategy if you wanted to waste 3.5 hours of other players time.

@Idi:

His whole strategy rides on playing his son and his rookie friends after school

@Idi:

With this strat you are going to bankrupt the Axis for a gain of 12 IPCS.

@Idi:

The only down side to it is for it to work you’ll need 100% hits for the Axis and 100% misses for the the Allies.

That looks like an awful lot of “beekin off without knowing” to me.  You make far mmore assertions throughout this thread than I have.  Either you’re willfully ignoring that (which means you’re straight trollin’), or have an incredibly low level of self-awareness.

@ghr2:

Winning is not everything.  I won’t mind losing a game if I had fun doing it.

I do agree with these statements.  I greatly prefer close, competitive games, without a doubt.  The key, though, is close AND competitive.  Making a game close by being less competitive isn’t fun at all to me.  Used to have a girlfriend who whipped my arse at pool regularly…the LAST thing I wanted was for her to take it easy on me, because, when I did win, I wanted to know I’d done it against the best my opponent had.

I do understand, I think, to some extent, your points about taking a long-odds win shot early in the game.  I generally avoid 50/50 all-in bets myself, but for strategic reasons, not because I feel some sense of duty to the other players or something.

@JamesAleman:

With this conservative play, when Japan moves to sz64(west of canal), I move the whole US fleet(from sz 101+sz89) to sz89(east of the canal).

There is a danger, that your fleet will die in sz89 from a German navy/air, Japanese air one two punch, but it is a setback, and London survives this scenario.

@JamesAleman:

Turn 3: defensive moves (assume worst case scenario: I am caught flat-footed) Units pulled out of Hawaii last turn into WUS simply move to CUS, with all air units stacking EUS. WUS fleet moves through peaceful Japanese fleet to sz 89 to link fleets. 1 DD attempts a feeble block in sz102 to force Italy to clear for German invasion. CUS land units move to EUS (I keep all excess land units unable to fit on Hawaii bound transports here, this should be your starting land forces(-3 land units[art,2inf] sent to WUS turn2, tank and mech can reach EUS) + 5  built infantry (as 1 built turn 1 is in WUS bound for CUS this turn.)

Excellent critique. I agree. After G3 the gig is up and I stack my fleet in SZ89 with a blocker in 102 to prevent a 1-2-3 punch on EUS. If you want to save the fleet you could even build an airbase in SE Mexico, W. Indies, and/or Central America to scramble any plane that won’t fit on the ACs, but, I suspect you’ll need those to defend EUS.