TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: D-Day 2 Improved
Game History
Round: 4 Germans Combat Move - GermansCombat Hit Differential Summary :
ABH and crockett36, (A+69) tutor game
-
@squirecam why don’t we work together to defeat abh? Ownership and loyalty. You could be in charge of X. And you own it.
I also need options, not orders. Not one but several. I will be asking for abh s critiques BEFORE I roll dice so I can change and not just be pigpiled on after a mistake.
The two big changes this game will be bringing the US fleet to 54 not the north Pac. Also I must combat any German deviation from a Moscow crush, like buying navy or bombers with Russian aggression West.
-
@squirecam if you would like to be point, you may. I will advise you if you play oob and will act like an officer under you, never a smarmy arm chair quarterback blasting you for losing against a better player. Which helps no one
-
@crockett36 said in ABH and crockett36, (A+69) tutor game:
@squirecam why don’t we work together to defeat abh? Ownership and loyalty. You could be in charge of X. And you own it.
I also need options, not orders. Not one but several. I will be asking for abh s critiques BEFORE I roll dice so I can change and not just be pigpiled on after a mistake.
The two big changes this game will be bringing the US fleet to 54 not the north Pac. Also I must combat any German deviation from a Moscow crush, like buying navy or bombers with Russian aggression West.
There is no point to arguing over moves. Part of the issue with the Allies is that they must work together well or they hang separately.
I’ve given you my suggestions on how to use the bid. If you choose your own path that’s fine but I dont see how I can help you in that situation.
-
@crockett36 I don’t think it is convenient to have a 3-person game. Inevitably one person stops responding due to other life conflicts.
Do you still want to start a new A+100 game?
-
@arthur-bomber-harris yes. Just trying to figure out a scenario where the community latches on and stays engaged,
-
@crockett36 @Arthur-Bomber-Harris I would think if you want the community to be involved, you have to allow them to provide inputs. If you want to have a game between 2 players and you coach one player along the way, that is perhaps interesting to a few.
But the thing that got many people interested in the original game between @trulpen and @AndrewAAGamer was the interplay between moves. The problem that I saw that caused @crockett36 to get frustrated was that although there was much discussion (initially) about combat, there was little to no discussion about the non-combat moves afterward. This caused much consternation because the choices made at non-combat forced action in later moves that could not be undone and frustrated the community and caused unhelpful comments to fly.Possible solution: allow input after combat on best movement for the advance/retreating troops
-
@surfer very good. Will do.
-
@crockett36 98ipc.tsvg
Messing up G1 and Russian knife to Japanese throat? What do you all think? -
Here is what I see for your added units. They add up to 103 PUs if I did my math correctly. I am not sure what is the point of those UK and Scottish infantry as they won’t be useful for many, many turns.
• EDIT: Adding units owned by Russians to Sakha: 1 armour
• EDIT: Adding units owned by Russians to Amur: 1 armour
• EDIT: Adding units owned by Russians to Buryatia: 1 armour
• EDIT: Adding units owned by Russians to Russia: 1 armour
• EDIT: Adding units owned by Russians to Volgograd: 1 armour
• EDIT: Adding units owned by Russians to Caucasus: 1 armour
36 IPCs• EDIT: Adding units owned by British to France: 1 armour
• EDIT: Adding units owned by French to France: 1 armour
• EDIT: Adding units owned by French to 93 Sea Zone: 1 submarine
18 IPCs• EDIT: Adding units owned by British to 98 Sea Zone: 1 submarine
• EDIT: Adding units owned by British to 71 Sea Zone: 1 transport
• EDIT: Adding units owned by British to 111 Sea Zone: 1 submarine
• EDIT: Adding units owned by British to 109 Sea Zone: 1 carrier
• EDIT: Adding units owned by British to 110 Sea Zone: 1 destroyer
• EDIT: Adding units owned by British to Scotland: 1 infantry
• EDIT: Adding units owned by British to United Kingdom: 1 infantry
49 IPCs -
I also don’t see that much added value from the carrier in SZ109 and two armor in France. It doesn’t seem to affect the first few rounds of gameplay very much. Not awful choices but there should be far more impactful use of the points.
-
Sakha: 1 armour [artillery gives the same benefit for 4 PUs?]
Amur: 1 armour [artillery gives the same benefit for 4 PUs?]
Buryatia: 1 armour [artillery gives the same benefit for 4 PUs?]
Russia: 1 armour very useful but put closer to the front lines?
Volgograd: 1 armour very useful
Caucasus: 1 armour very usefulFrance: 1 armour [not a big swing of TUV during G1 fighting]
France: 1 armour [not a big swing of TUV during G1 fighting]
93 Sea Zone: 1 submarine Not a big help during Fr1
18 IPCs98 Sea Zone: 1 submarine Very helpful during UK1
71 Sea Zone: 1 transport Very helpful during UK1
111 Sea Zone: 1 submarine [not a big swing of TUV during G1 fighting]
109 Sea Zone: 1 carrier Not a big help during the first couple of turns
110 Sea Zone: 1 destroyer [not a big swing of TUV during G1 fighting]
Scotland: 1 infantry Not a big help during the first couple of turns :-1:
United Kingdom: 1 infantry Not a big help during the first couple of turns :-1:
49 IPCs -
@arthur-bomber-harris I was thinking that the extra armor means more units needed for invasion of Paris. The extra units in UK are the for the defense of London. The subs both require additionalattackers and can submergeand remainfor counterattack. The carrier is for the counterattacks well.
2 paths for axis victory are Moscow or London crush. I’m trying to take them off the table.
-
London crush is not really viable, unless UK misplays.
I’d advice to place a fig each in Moscow and Stalingrad. The idea is to help China control Yunnan. It will be a huge problem for Japan. The tanks won’t matter nearly as much.
It’s not a bad idea to boost Siberia, but also not critical.
UK needs some love on the sea. Subs are a great bid, especially for z 91, 98, 106, 110 and 111.
-
London is only an option in no-bid games where the UK decides to spend minimal amounts to defend the homeland on UK1. If I see my opponent put all of their money into Africa on the first turn, it pisses me enough to say, “here comes Sealion” because they disrespected me to such a big extent. I hate doing it, but I can’t let people be so neglectful of Germany’s potential. You see so few of those openings in League play.
With a bid, there is very little chance that I would be tempted to go after London early in the game unless there is nearly zero income spent from the bid and UK1 turns to protect the homeland or bolster the Russian forces on the Western Front. I won’t say Sealion is impossible, but just the six additional Russian armor is enough for me to be afraid that they will roll into Norway if I focused too heavily on attacking London. I will be starting with such a deficit in this game and need to be far more conservative in the first few rounds, slowly grinding my way back to a more competitive position in the mid-game if I am lucky.
-
With such a huge bid actually a fig also in Caucasus can be wise. It will more or less keep Japan out of the game, helping US to contest in EU.
-
@trulpen agreed. Additional planes in Europe or APAC are always helpful to provide both flexible offense and defense. They keep contributing throughout the game, never stuck on the sideline as action has moved to other sidelines like what can happen with infantry.
-
@arthur-bomber-harris @crockett36 If you go with the Russian defense of China with 3 ftrs (which sounds like a good idea). I would add 1 inf to Yunnan. Then you can hold Yunnan J1, (4ftrs + 1 tac+ 5 inf vs 3 inf + 1 art + 1 tac + 1 ftr + 2 sb) which will pay big dividends.
33 IPCsI would agree with @Arthur-Bomber-Harris about art vs. armor in Siberia. I would only buy 1 out of the 3
+4 IPCs = 37Do you allow placement of inf in New Guinea? If so, go for it.
+3 IPCs? = 40Scotland ftr buy is much more standard /recommended than inf
- 10 IPCs? = 50
Sub in SZ98? Yes!
In fact just like the Russian ftrs, I like the UK subs everywhere.
SZ 91, 110, 106, 111- 30 IPCs = 80.
I like the transport in SZ71
- 7 IPCs = 87
With the remaining 13, I would put another ftr + inf in Med. Probably SZ98 and AngloEgyptian Sudan.
-
Standard League bid rules: Only one unit per territory or sea zone that already has a unit of that nation. Hence, no infantry in New Guinea. Also only one unit is permitted to be placed in France.
-
@arthur-bomber-harris Understand. Then put another inf in Med. Egypt? I think the fighter support spends enough in the Pacific.
-
S surfer referenced this topic on
-
Suggested Topics
