I agree with Simon’s conclusion that Moscow falls G6. No need for Sea lion after UK1 DOW on Japan. This game is going to end very badly for the Allies unless the Axis player is very weak. Play some tougher competition!
Converting to KJF
-
What bid would you normally use for the British?
-
@thedesertfox said in Converting to KJF:
What bid would you normally use for the British?
See this thread.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/29613/bids-a-a-global-1940
I am a ftf player and my “short” answer would be a bid of 12-18. My long answer is alot more complicated in that what bid is necessary to “balance” the game differs in peoples minds. I can post my longer version if you really want to know my thoughts.
-
I’d be interested, granted I don’t usually prefer bids but I definitely can see why they’d be of need since the Axis definitely do have the game in their hands from the beginning
If you wanna post the longer version I’d read it since I do actually want a more typical understanding of fair bids to use
-
@thedesertfox said in Converting to KJF:
I’d be interested, granted I don’t usually prefer bids but I definitely can see why they’d be of need since the Axis definitely do have the game in their hands from the beginning
If you wanna post the longer version I’d read it since I do actually want a more typical understanding of fair bids to use
So I’ve been playing tournament games at Gencon since 2004 revised. And that game was pretty balanced with a tank bid in Egypt which was considered “necessary” for the axis to get med income quickly and not fall behind considering there is a time limit to the game.
But in reality tank bid doesnt have much of an overall effect as beyond that first round it really comes down to the dice rolls. IIRC in that game UK had a 50% chance of getting one more hit or not, so the tank was really more of an insurance policy to get Egypt but in half of the games Egypt was taken with more than the rank surviving. So is it really necessary? You could win at least 40% of the games as axis between those of equal skill without any bid.
AA50 is the same way. A gencon AA50-42 bid with interceptors and no objectives is generally either 5 or 6 depending on whether you want the sub for germany or the tank for Japan. But having one means that the other attack is without aid. And people do both attacks anyway. So in reality it’s not really “necessary” to balance the game. You dont need either unit. But playing competitively you need a bid and most people would want that insurance. So for a tournament game I’d say it is “necessary”.
With that as background, a high bid in global isnt really necessary. No one needs tobs of extra units in china or Russia. And if you buy conservative for UK you should protect vs a sea lion. But it’s acceptable in my book to bid a fighter and/or sub to have that insurance. So that’s why I say 12-18.
Also ftf players dont have 48 hours to run endless simulations to get the right answer according to the dice statistics.
-
Interesting, you’ve given me a much better understanding of bids.
From the way I interpreted it, most people treat bids as if they’re something that a player should have to get an age over someone else no matter what the circumstances, which obviously was in the aspect of the Allies since granted they are arguably a bit more complicated to play than the Axis and have a tougher time winning, but it absolutely does make sense that these individual pieces of say a fighter and sub act as insurance or that extra thing to remove in the fight in the event that battle takes place, it just cuts the UK’s losses and limits their attrition all the more since even a player of lower skill level to another doesn’t need an unrealistic bid to win over against an Axis player.
Also, sorry if I ever conveyed that all of us have the time to set up the board to test stuff out, I definitely do know that now especially in these circumstances that not everybody has that kind of time like other people such as General Hand Grenade or Young Grasshopper to sit down and just continually test out strategies and different bids, but I do still try to get in what time I can to revising my Axis strategies.
Other than that, a bid of 14-16 IPC’s feels like the sweet spot for the UK. Likely 14 since it still keeps them from killing both the Bismarck and doing the Taranto Raid without cutting their losses to sharply since even if the UK has loose ends, I don’t think they should be given a handicap just to get back on their feet to properly fighting Germany and Italy in Europe.
-
@thedesertfox said in Converting to KJF:
Interesting, you’ve given me a much better understanding of bids.
From the way I interpreted it, most people treat bids as if they’re something that a player should have to get an age over someone else no matter what the circumstances, which obviously was in the aspect of the Allies since granted they are arguably a bit more complicated to play than the Axis and have a tougher time winning, but it absolutely does make sense that these individual pieces of say a fighter and sub act as insurance or that extra thing to remove in the fight in the event that battle takes place, it just cuts the UK’s losses and limits their attrition all the more since even a player of lower skill level to another doesn’t need an unrealistic bid to win over against an Axis player.
Also, sorry if I ever conveyed that all of us have the time to set up the board to test stuff out, I definitely do know that now especially in these circumstances that not everybody has that kind of time like other people such as General Hand Grenade or Young Grasshopper to sit down and just continually test out strategies and different bids, but I do still try to get in what time I can to revising my Axis strategies.
Other than that, a bid of 14-16 IPC’s feels like the sweet spot for the UK. Likely 14 since it still keeps them from killing both the Bismarck and doing the Taranto Raid without cutting their losses to sharply since even if the UK has loose ends, I don’t think they should be given a handicap just to get back on their feet to properly fighting Germany and Italy in Europe.
I just mean that during ftf play people cant take forever to decide moves. You play with gut instinct and experience. So people rely on that vs the right bid amount or the best math move.
-
Ahh okay sorry my bad lol
Still though I tend to have a mindset that everybody can just sit down and play out test runs even though I know not everybody has time to do that.
I kinda do like a battle clock though. It doesn’t give your allies time to really tell you what you’re doing wrong and what you’re doing right, and you really have to commit to getting opening moves for playable nations implanted in the mind so that you’re ready to go.
-
@squirecam a deal breaker?! Wow. Glad technology wasn’t an important factor in ww2. I’ll do no tech but I wasn’t asking for a bid.
Greatest failure in design of both ana and war room. It allows for a shrinking of strategic options and a standardization of play that can bore.
-
@crockett36 said in Converting to KJF:
@squirecam a deal breaker?! Wow. Glad technology wasn’t an important factor in ww2. I’ll do no tech but I wasn’t asking for a bid.
Greatest failure in design of both ana and war room. It allows for a shrinking of strategic options and a standardization of play that can bore.
Yo crockett. What do you mean by failure ?
-
@marshmallowofwar the simplest way to think about this is switching dance partners. US and anzac are 100 percent kill IJN. Russia comes into Manchuria t2 and all fast movers to w China. British dow t1. Perhaps a sub purchase in Calcutta. Up the ante and produce 9 mechs in Moscow and send East. Wake island becomes a dead zone where US waves of subs and fighters and bombers throw themselves against the navy like what happened at Midway. Casualties are taken from the air corps so that the ships take the torpedoes.
Do you want to play a game?
-
@gen-manstein a ww2 game without long range air? Heavy bombing? Radar? V2s? Etc. ridiculous
-
Then this for real is a saving grace to Germany and Italy
For Russia to use it’s Siberian units to attack Manchuria, the US to fully commit to the Pacific, and the UK Pacific turn it’s priorities toward protecting China and taking it to the Japanese instead of providing assistance to UK Europe means Germany has won.
Japan is a wolf amongst a flock of sheep. They are quite literally designed to fight every single playable Allied nation in the game, and have the ability to win over each and every one of them at that matter. Stacking Allied units in the Pacific doesn’t work anymore, the Allies, specifically America, are going to have to actually use battle tactics to win over against Japan. Because as japan, if I’m getting every bodies money on me than that’s great. Someone else like Germany though wouldn’t want that, because Germany doesn’t have the capability of such an impressive navy and airforce like Japan does, let alone the ability to fight a war on 2 fronts.
-
@thedesertfox perhaps we could do a live stream game and you could instruct me on the phone your moves. I did it on my channel with war room and i have vacation week after next. I’m dying to try this out. I think you might be wrong. Let’s roll some dice. You could also just show me your j1 move. I will respond and then show me your j2. After that, who knows.
Of course, I know I am swimming upstream but all the more glory if i wreck Japan, reshape the sides and put oob into overtime.
-
@thedesertfox try not to get too excited about a game that is universally recognized as imbalanced in favor of the side you’re saying is unbeatable. No one is disagreeing with you.
I’m talking about reshaping the map the sides, sacrificing, slowing down Europe all just to see if maybe just maybe i can grab the ijn s attention, hold it still and dismantle it, stunt Japan s income and spread out it’s air and own all of Asia. It’s certainly an entertaining puzzle for me. When i live stream, I’ll alert this thread. You could even recommend action in the comments.
-
True that, and by no means are you wrong about america
Like Germany, the us has the ability to impose their will on any axis member, so youre strategy can absolutely work, it will simply prove fatal for you on the other side of the board
just my opinion tho
-
@thedesertfox btw you are making the classic mistake of double counting units. Again please give me your t1 Japan moves assuming a Russian gathering in amur, and 2 mechs, 2 tanks, 2 figs and 1 tac heading towards yunnan. Russian dow.
-
Absolutely true on this one.
I guess what I’m trying to convey is that spending wave after wave on nothing but ships and aircraft can get a little dicey for the Americans since unlike 8 grounds units a turn, that sorta stuff can get to be pretty expensive for America.
I like your idea, and I like the base of it, but instead of bringing the fleet to me, let it go down south, let it split apart. Here’s what I have in mind.
Do you remember the Anaconda Plan made by the Union in the American Civil War? If not, to summarize it the Anaconda Plan was a sort of Blockade on the Confederate Coastline, keeping goods from moving outward and making money, as well as strategic movement of landing troops in key areas that they were losing to the Union, as well as making other naval invasions in the North part. Both sides possessed decently formidable navies that would often have skirmishes with eachother, to inevitably take control of the Mississippi River, splitting the CSA in two pieces.
So basically what I’m trying to say is to take advantage of the state of Japan’s navy. Japan will more often than not split their navy into 2 or assort their fleet in some sort of fashion to support transports and amphibious assaults down south Malaya and the Money Islands. When the Japanese navy is there, move the American navy in with Wake Island. Part of this strategy involves putting a naval base on Wake Island, and then capturing the Caroline Islands. With this you’re going to use the Caroline Islands as a strategic base of operations to basically break the Japanese Empire in two. The beauty of the Caroline Islands is that it has potential of reaching absolutely everywhere on the Pacific, you can go to the Sea of Japan, the Money Islands, Australia, even the Chinese coastline, or just back to Hawaii and the Western United States if you need to reinforce. With this, a block of 3 lane transports should be set up shucking 6 units every turn to Caroline Islands and with that you’re capable of sending those units wherever you need them to go to put pressure on Japan, and like Japan before you, they will have no clue where you will strike, because you can strike quite literally EVERYWHERE.
Just a strategy I had in mind though, tell me what you think o f it.
-
@crockett36 said in Converting to KJF:
@thedesertfox btw you are making the classic mistake of double counting units. Again please give me your t1 Japan moves assuming a Russian gathering in amur, and 2 mechs, 2 tanks, 2 figs and 1 tac heading towards yunnan. Russian dow.
I cant speak for him but assuming OOB and you stack 18 inf in Amur I would buy 3 transports and take the 4 standard Chinese territories. Move the fleet that can reach to Caroline’s, leave the other fleet off paulau. Leave the Japanese up north stacked in manchuria.
Alternatively I might consider attacking Amur if BM because the Dow eliminated your lend lease bonus.
-
Pretty much, I mean what are you literally gonna do with 18 infantry on Amur aside from send the only armory and airforce you had access to over to fight Japan
-
@thedesertfox said in Converting to KJF:
Pretty much, I mean what are you literally gonna do with 18 infantry on Amur aside from send the only armory and airforce you had access to over to fight Japan
Well he’s waiting for a 1-2 punch on korea with the USA.
Suggested Topics
