Hope it worked (works) out!
Stop the madness, and start the presses
-
Now I know how Charlton Heston felt at the end of Soylent Green! This is not srtatgey but abuse and minipulation of the rules to achieve some inane end result (like russians in ireland) just for its own sake. You spend 45IPC on infrastructure(IC) to do what excatly? Is Germany or Italy really threating the middle east that much? Think of what you could do with that money spent on units and launching attacks on western Europe. This sounds like just faffing about for the sake of it.
45?
5x12 = 60 IPC. wink
No, it’s an end game tactic to open a second front into Europe and convince your opponent to surrender. Up until that point, you have maybe the complex in Egypt and MAYBE a second one in the Middle east to support it, but the second one is probably not needed. (I like Iraq, it means you can walk infantry to Egypt in 2 rounds instead of 3 and if you are not doing well in the Med for whatever reason, that means more defenders faster.)
Towards the end of the game you might drop a new complex a round and then start amassing an army to walk through Turkey into Greece and threaten the SE European theater, just to put some nails in the coffin. I never intended to imply that 5 or more minor complexes in the Middle East was something standard!
-
@Vance:
Any scenario may be possible, but not necessarily probable. The Russian NO might motivate me to try and take Finland and Norway but that would be a real stretch. Islands? no way.
Ireland is guarenteed. Why not take it? Cost: 7 IPC, gain: 7-11 rounds of 3 IPC each round for 21-33 IPC. That’s probably the best return on investment that Russia can EVER expect to have!
Crete, Sardinia and Sicily are just a little harder and requires getting the Americans into the Med to guarentee. By then that one Russian you walked to Egypt early in the game might not be there anymore, but probably will. Then it’s just a matter of not losing it and loading it on an American transport to offload at will anywhere you want.
-
One problem is that Sweden becomes pro-axis if USSR takes Ireland. If Germany has the means to take Sweden, they could activate those 6 infantry and also earn 3 IPCs per turn (which cancels out what USSR gets for Ireland). I can only imagine it being worthwhile if USA is going to violate the neutrality of Spain or some other strict neutral anyway, and if USSR solidly owns Finland and Norway. That latter condition is hard to guarantee.
-
@Vance:
One problem is that Sweden becomes pro-axis if USSR takes Ireland.
I think thats incorrect, isnt Ireland pro-allied?
-
@Vance:
One problem is that Sweden becomes pro-axis if USSR takes Ireland.
I think thats incorrect, isnt Ireland pro-allied?
Correct, Ireland is pro-allied, so Sweeden is unaffected by Russia annexing it.
-
Oh look, so it is! Ireland is pro-allied (except the IRA). So USSR can have Ireland as a freeby if they can manage to build a transport in z127, keep Germany from sinking it, and then float a unit to z111. Hmmm nope.
-
@Vance:
Oh look, so it is! Ireland is pro-allied (except the IRA). So USSR can have Ireland as a freeby if they can manage to build a transport in z127, keep Germany from sinking it, and then float a unit to z111. Hmmm nope.
All it takes is 1 turn of the transport being alive. Transport is dropped in SZ127, next turn it can move to 111 (and potentally protected by any UK Navy and Scrambled Fighters) and drop the infantry off in Scotland. Losing the 7IPC’s the transport costs is worth the recurring 3IPC bonus. Keep a few Russian fighters Novogrod (can’t remember if that’s the name of the Russian Territory there or not) to scamble against any German planes sent the turn that it’s vulnerable. If Germany sends several planes to try and destroy it than you’ve diverted a fairly large amount of units that could defnately have been used in other places that turn.
For the pros definately outweigh the cons in my opinion for Ireland.
As for the middle east debate you guys have going on I think it’d be a waste of resources for Britan to build that many IC’s in the area (excluding Egypt, I build one there myself when I play as the UK). You’d be much better off just buying the units and moving them through Tranz-Jordan. -
a submarine could also sink that transport
-
If Germany has a Sub in 112, then Russia should build a Destroyer in 127. That ensures that the Transport will survive Germany’s initial attack. It’s still very worth it, and will serve later to help open up 125.
This NO still needs work. I like the intention a lot - give Russia a bonus for Finland/Balkan states - but it definitely needs some fine tuning. -
@Vance:
a submarine could also sink that transport
So could a battleship, what’s your point? It’s not all that unlikely that Russia could get a man to Ireland, if Germany placed a ship in 125 to try and block the Russian NO there then Russia (provided it couldn’t sink the ship on it’s turn) wouldn’t move the transport until after the path has been cleared.
If Germany loses the ship (likely to happen because Russia wouldn’t have bothered purchasing the transport to begin with if there wasn’t already an Allied presance around England) then Germany would have to continue to buy ships to prevent Russia from moving the transport, tying up more Axis resources while not costing Russia anything. Tactics like that make it an easy victory for the Allies.
I agree with Alsch, I like the principle behind the NO, but it definately needs some adjustments. -
The point is that you need at least a transport, a destroyer, and 1 infantry, which adds up to 18 IPCs. If you manage to pull it off and take Ireland, will you make back that 18IPCs before the game ends? USSR could spend that $18 on 6 infantry instead.
-
@Vance:
The point is that you need at least a transport, a destroyer, and 1 infantry, which adds up to 18 IPCs. If you manage to pull it off and take Ireland, will you make back that 18IPCs before the game ends? USSR could spend that $18 on 6 infantry instead.
I disagree.
1) I buy a destroyer for Russia anyway. I can more than recoup the cost by sinking a German submarine in SZ 125 which would net me 11 IPC. (5 IPC for the National Objective + 6 German IPCs for the Submarine I just sent to Davey Jones’ Locker.) That’s a 3 IPC benefit to me as Russia. Of course, Germany COULD attack it, but they have to plan for 2 Fighters and a Tactical Bomber scramble (even if I do not scramble, they have to plan for it, which means they are sending a LOT of planes to SZ 127 and not into ground combats elsewhere!)
2) The Russian infantry is not lost. It is now defending against Sea Lion and may even be reincorporated into the combined Allied armies at a later time.
3) The transport might be lost, it might not. Sure, in SZ 111 it is suseptible to German attack. Again, you can land 3 fighters in Scotland and make Germany assume you will scramble them and thus weaken their attacks elsewhere. Or they might fore go the attack or you can defend it with British ships.
4) Ireland is net gain all the way. Germany and Italy will NEVER get Ireland, so one may as well just assume 8+ rounds of +3 IPC for Russia each round. Sure, there are the off games where the Italians or Germans might be in position to recover Ireland, but it’s not SOP.
-
mm i’ve always played you could only build IC’s on territories you started with, I take it by reading throu here none of you follow that?
how exactly would say canada build and run a manufacturing complex in a foriegn land during a war… everything was built at home and shipped to where it needed to go…
-
mm i’ve always played you could only build IC’s on territories you started with, I take it by reading throu here none of you follow that?
how exactly would say canada build and run a manufacturing complex in a foriegn land during a war… everything was built at home and shipped to where it needed to go…
Do you play with Canada as a separate power? In the basic Global 1940 game, Canada is simply a part of UK Europe’s economy. I know that some people like to make Canada a seperate power though.
In any case, if you take a territory worth at least 2 IPCs or more, you can place a Minor IC there and build your forces closer to the front. That way you don’t have to transport it all the way from Canada. You just can’t build Major ICs on foreign territory. -
I think I should make mention what I find off about the ideas you’ve put forward here Jen, I see it alot with people posting here, so im not just singeling you out, but now seem like an appropriate time to mention.
Years ago, when I used to play a table top games called warhammer 40,000, I had a friend that would talk about things a unit could do, as though it was something it would do, ie: a unit could move an extra D6 inches, and therefore, he would always talk as though the units movment was 6in more then it was. This belies the true nature of the unit, as you had to roll the dice, and you could get a 1. I see this basic problem comming through here as well, and in a number of other posts. You are correct in everything you say, as all these things can in fact, happen, however there is no guarntee of success. You can buy a single destroyer and transport for the Soviets and use it to kill the German sub, however you could not hit it, and get your entire Soviet artic fleet sunk. Odds would say you should win in a naval battle with 1 destroyer vs 1 sub, but that is no guarante that you will win. The Dice Gods can be a fickle and cruel, and I think most people are seeing the obvious danger in all of the scenarios you have put forward. You can do all these things, but they could also all end horribly. I think most people dont see the risk to pay off ration as being worth. Having an air fleet get wiped out while attempting to clear out Sweden because of bad dice could be a game changer. Simply because something can be done (the rules allow for it) dosnt mean it will.
-
I think I should make mention what I find off about the ideas you’ve put forward here Jen, I see it alot with people posting here, so im not just singeling you out, but now seem like an appropriate time to mention.
Years ago, when I used to play a table top games called warhammer 40,000, I had a friend that would talk about things a unit could do, as though it was something it would do, ie: a unit could move an extra D6 inches, and therefore, he would always talk as though the units movment was 6in more then it was. This belies the true nature of the unit, as you had to roll the dice, and you could get a 1. I see this basic problem comming through here as well, and in a number of other posts. You are correct in everything you say, as all these things can in fact, happen, however there is no guarntee of success. You can buy a single destroyer and transport for the Soviets and use it to kill the German sub, however you could not hit it, and get your entire Soviet artic fleet sunk. Odds would say you should win in a naval battle with 1 destroyer vs 1 sub, but that is no guarante that you will win. The Dice Gods can be a fickle and cruel, and I think most people are seeing the obvious danger in all of the scenarios you have put forward. You can do all these things, but they could also all end horribly. I think most people dont see the risk to pay off ration as being worth. Having an air fleet get wiped out while attempting to clear out Sweden because of bad dice could be a game changer. Simply because something can be done (the rules allow for it) dosnt mean it will.
I agree with your observation, and I would just like to add that everyone has different perceptions when it come to this game and how it should be played. I consider myself aggressive but cautious, however, some play the game differently than I, and would never do some of the things I do, even though it makes complete sense to me.
It’s not rare for me to look at the things Jen suggests, and know that I will not try them, as I feel it’s not parallel to my style of play. However, the questions are, how often is Jen applying her suggestions into her own games, what does that say about her style, how much does she play, Is it always online, and If she doesn’t play the way she writes, does it really matter?
I understand that Jen has been the lightning rod of many conversations on these forums and perhaps your analyzation explains a lot about that. However, maybe it’s us and not Jen that needs to change, maybe we should all accept her difference in perception the way we would want our strategies to be respected. If you have ever played in a 6 player group as I do regularly, you learn to appreciate everyone style of play, no matter how frustrated it makes you.
That said, I go back to my earlier concern, “is Jen expressing her style of play by applying the theories and strategies she writes about into her own games, or is she simply writing about unit possibilities we are all aware of, but would never accept as viable options”?
-
Clyde,
I too played Warhammer 40k. I think I lost every possible game, but I played it!
Anyway, there are two things you have to look at in Axis and Allies (and similar games.)
- What can the unit do potentially and what your opponent will do to stop it.
- What you want to do with the unit.
For instance, since Alpha +2 I have been routinely buying a destroyer for SZ 127. The only times I did not is when there was an insanely large German fleet AND (inclusive and) I had no British destroyer to move to lock the Germans into SZ 127. The idea was to have something that can pop SZ 125. (Adding a Strategic Bomber is something I do routinely as well…it’s a total of 20 IPC but if you get the NO for 4 rounds, you’ve broken even.)
Under the new Russian NO, I almost always get Ireland. I have not in one game (against JMite on the boards) but that’s due to not having a third turn with Russia in which to move into Ireland, not because it is out of reach. I have never seen Ireland “saved” from Russian Hegemony due to Axis interference.
The Med is harder. For one, you have to get a Russian guy down to Syria/Jordan/Egypt which can be tricky. Then you have to bring the American fleet in, which is easy, but not going to happen on Round 1! And then move out and take the islands. I can see this being too annoying for players to do routinely, but it’s still a valid and achievable move.
Finland/Norway is a lot harder. For one, you have to hit it just right and clear it so a minimal Russian army can take it. Not impossible, but it could get expensive.
Then there is the trifecta: Spain, Turkey and Sweeden in one game round. (England, America). Routine as well, at least hitting Spain and Turkey together is routine, it shouldnt take too much effort to also hit Sweeden.
-
I have to admit I take chances at times as a player. Many of these “off the wall” strategies backfire, but they always teach me something. I have never claimed to be a conservative gamer!
However, here’s a map of a Russian game in which I will be getting Ireland. There’s virtually nothing Germany can do (it’s their turn) that will stop it. There are 2 infantry (1 russian) and 1 aa gun in scotland and all that Germany has are 2 strategic bombers that can reach. Can those clear the zone? Theoretically, but is it worth risking 24 IPC? Probably not.
Yes, I express how I play the game. I cannot argue how someone else should play the game. And yes, men and women have different bio-chemistry so maybe you see patterns and I see options, or you see options and I see patterns? And of course, nothing in this universe happens in a vacuum. What works today might fail tomorrow. For example: Sea Lion in Alpha 2 went from “I win” to “holy hell, I’m going to get destroyed!” not to mention Jimmy’s efforts in figuring out how to abandon the world and save London. Likewise, Barbarossa was unbeatable until someone figured out how to get 30+ allied fighters to Moscow in 10 rounds and stop it!
That said, currently (and I attached a proof of concept map) Ireland WILL fall to Russia almost every round. Sure, JMite did not build a fleet for Germany, he didn’t like how fast I got to Moscow with Germany in our last game and is trying to recreate it now, but I don’t think that’s as huge a thing. For one, if Germany buys a fleet, then Russia will get stronger on the mainland.
-
@Cmdr:
Clyde,
I too played Warhammer 40k. I think I lost every possible game, but I played it!
Anyway, there are two things you have to look at in Axis and Allies (and similar games.)
- What can the unit do potentially and what your opponent will do to stop it.
- What you want to do with the unit.
For instance, since Alpha +2 I have been routinely buying a destroyer for SZ 127. The only times I did not is when there was an insanely large German fleet AND (inclusive and) I had no British destroyer to move to lock the Germans into SZ 127. The idea was to have something that can pop SZ 125. (Adding a Strategic Bomber is something I do routinely as well…it’s a total of 20 IPC but if you get the NO for 4 rounds, you’ve broken even.)
Under the new Russian NO, I almost always get Ireland. I have not in one game (against JMite on the boards) but that’s due to not having a third turn with Russia in which to move into Ireland, not because it is out of reach. I have never seen Ireland “saved” from Russian Hegemony due to Axis interference.
This is a great and interesting read, however……
-
@Cmdr:
The Med is harder. For one, you have to get a Russian guy down to Syria/Jordan/Egypt which can be tricky. Then you have to bring the American fleet in, which is easy, but not going to happen on Round 1! And then move out and take the islands. I can see this being too annoying for players to do routinely, but it’s still a valid and achievable move.
Finland/Norway is a lot harder. For one, you have to hit it just right and clear it so a minimal Russian army can take it. Not impossible, but it could get expensive.
Then there is the trifecta: Spain, Turkey and Sweeden in one game round. (England, America). Routine as well, at least hitting Spain and Turkey together is routine, it shouldnt take too much effort to also hit Sweeden.
This is just proving Clyde’s point.
Suggested Topics
