Battlestarpimptastica vs BarbaLoca

@andrewaagamer Thanks!

@simon33 Yes and I pointed out that you just had a foolish engagement of limping a carrier if the enemy scored a hit which it will statically would.

It’s also worth remembering that one sub on one cruiser is a coin flip, because the cruiser only rolls its attack if the sub misses.

Final word?

As Japan starting turn 2 I buy 1 warship of some kind….typically a DD…Turn 1 I buy a Navy base so I can shoot my fleet back to Japan from SZ 36

My moves are very methodical with Japan…I will not bring the US at war until their factories automatically become majors…reason is…he can only put 3 into the pacific…I know how to play Japan without the need for factories…my 1st factory might be turn 5 in Indochina…I make the US mirror my fleet

with the US…I try and match the Japanese ship for ship…problem is positioning my fleet…attacking is not an option until way later in the game…usually turn 7…I know I am better off with defending…so Hawaii…3 plane scramble is economical and easy to reinforce
If I move into SZ 54…now I have to rely on the Anzac and work in tandem

Caroline Islands is good but now I am independent and longer supply path…so vulnerability is there

So my favorite spot is Hawaii…a lot depends on what Japan does and where I position my fleet

@ItIsILeClerc:

@theROCmonster:

Don’t know why anyone would play a game in revised to 8 VC’s. This seems impossibly easy for the axis to do.

How big of a bid do you think the axis would need in a world domination game? maybe a bid that keeps the Italian fleet alive?

Don’t think the axis need a bid for this in 2nd edition.
IMHO: with the other axis strategies not so much (a VC-hunt from the start), but definately with an economic  domination strategy, the axis are very hard to defeat already! In game turns anyway, because this kind of strategy requires 20+ turns to beat (if at all possible). During the first 10 turns or so, the axis at least equalize in economy and TUV on the board but more likely will leave the allies far behind in both aspects.
AFAICS, the only way the allies can maintain rough economical parity with the axis is to go KJF and this will cost them Moscow big time, seriously endangering Cairo later on (or London, or both for that matter).

Because I don’t like the fact that the majority of the axis strategies already require the allies to resort to this ‘KJF thing’, I have never explored this beyond my typical J1DOW response (which indeed already is very Japan heavy).

I’m not saying that the axis will actually win if they leave the allies behind both in income and TUV on the board, because there is also something like where all that TUV is positioned. Are the allies able to once again stabilize the economical imbalance and if yes, will that be lasting…

…Anyways, for me personally, about 15 turns of playing A&AG40 is my tolerance-limit for this game. So with this kind of axis play we always end up with calling it a draw unless the majority agrees that the situation is easy enough to predict a winner.

Ya, that is the problem with a really competitive global game. Most of them go over 15 rounds, at least in LL. In a game where VC’s don’t matter it would take forever to win as allies. You are right that the axis will be ahead, or even, after the fall of Moscow if you are going KJF. The thing is once US gets a large enough fleet majority over Japan the TUV swing will be massive. It would be something like 700 in TUV lost with Japan if you completely defend against US. Even with a KJF you should still be able to easily hold Moscow till turn 9. Also in a game where VC’s don’t matter I think it is always best for Japan to attack T3, unless the allies leave it open for a turn 2 attack. This is because Japan needs to kill china and set up in a better position against US. Also US is down 40 IPC’s if you wait till T3.

It would be interesting to see what would be best for allies. KGF or KJF.

Going KGF would leave a super Japan, but he is really out of position. Russia would be immensely powerful because he would be able to get Iraq, Italian somali land, Tobruk, and Libya. This would mean Japan would have a hard time taking Russia, and Germany has no chance to do it. US would be a lot weaker because of all the NO’s he looses in the pacific, and he would have to keep at least 10 infantry in western US to keep Japan honest. Britain would be weaker as well because he wouldn’t have India for very long. Anzac becomes a worthless country that is only building infantry to defend.

Going KJF would leave a super strong Germany that would have a lot of options open to him. Japan would eventually die, but not before doing serious damage. He can still take out India and China and survive till around R10 or so when US’s fleet just becomes too much for him to handle. US would be way more powerful than in a KGF, so when he switched to going against Germany he would have a ton of fleet and would only need to build transports and infantry. He should be making 90+ vs a Germany that is making the same. It would come down to US/UK/Anzac vs. Germany and Italy.

I would probably lean towards going KGF because it allows you to keep Russia, and even if Japan is making 120 PU’s, he is so out of position it would take him forever to take Russia, and by then Germany should be dead.

I don’t think the axis would stand a chance in hell if VC’s were taken off the table, but the problem is what would a fair bid be? Because allowing the axis to bid ships would be too powerful, especially with Japan. That is why I think a fair start would be to allow Italy to have their entire fleet merged to start the game.

What do you guys think?

@SunTzu7:

Just wanted to check a sub rule. If a sub goes up against other non transport, non destroyer type ships (in this instance a damaged carrier and cruiser), can the sub keep doing a surprise attack till the opposition are destroyed without them firing back? That’s how my friend read the rules.

Like Brado explained, yes the sub gets a “surprise strike” each round.  But the defending carrier and cruiser do fire back every round provided it was not sunk by the sub surprise strike.

So in your example, if the sub hit, the defender would choose a casualty.  Whatever he chooses will not roll (will not fire back) but the other unit will fire back.
Subs get surprise strikes at the beginning of every single round of combat (the first round AFTER the last enemy destroyer is sunk), even when they are on defense.

If you read through Step 2 under General combat (Submarine Surprise Strike or Submerge), the rule book tells exactly how to handle sub combat and makes it very clear that surprise strike happens every round, and also how to handle surprise strike casualties.
One such sentence:
“As long as there are attacking and/or defending submarines and no opposing destroyers, this step is repeated during each round of combat.”

An extra submarine, if my opponent is foolish enough to give it to me, is always welcome!

The tournament bids are averaging out to 6-9 IPCs for Alpha 2.  That’s relatively miniscule given the size and scope of the game.

@Gargantua:

Where does your playgroup live? Maybe we can how and play a game?

We all live in Northwest Ohio… Toledo specifically. It seems that not many people on this site live near us, otherwise we’d love to expand our group. You are cordially invited if you ever pass through.

Well, it seems that Darth Maximus made an error. I agree that no transports means absolutely nothing. That is, it means America can do next to nothing with real meaning. I didn’t say we/I don’t build transports early with the US, we simply believe in defense first: more combat ships than transports. It isn’t impossible to fight America, they are fallible and you do have to exploit their mistakes. It just isn’t always easy to see.

It is hard to fight America due to distance and economics. Ultimately, there is no stopping them. You simply have to delay them. Yes, I am reiterating what you have said and what we have been discussing; delay is the only way.

One just has to be wise about it, not wasteful. And it isn’t an easy job if the Americans know what they are doing. If one’s aim in the game is to strike the Americans I find it typically to be a distraction and a diversion for the Axis, one they cannot routinely afford.