bump to get rid of spam post
UK Basics
-
@Cmdr:
It’s not meant to protect Brazil. :P
I was joking, I should put a smiley behind.
Seriously, I can’t see any good use for the UK pac fleet, other than spending it to slow Jap, even if there’s not much
UK can do alone, New Guinea is only 1 ipc, Borneo is 4, but my experience is that it doesn’t hurt Jap much
to lose Borneo a couple of rnds. Preferably I take it back J1, but Borneo J2 is not too bad either. If
UK takes Borneo then Jap will have an easy way in India at least, so the Borneo attack is not as good as it may
seem. The trans in Australia can be sailed towards Afr. with 2 inf, thats an ok move.
The sub and DD+AC I have no use for, other than stopping Jap from landing 2 more units.What are you gonna do with the UK home navy until rnd 4-5, when the UK pac fleet is in sz 6?
Nuthin? And buy 10 ftrs instead?If you go KJF then UK navy can be brought as fodder, I can see that, but then again, KJF will not help you
win games :-P :roll: -
Think of it this way, Lucifer.
It’s generally not until Round 4 that England can attack the SZ 5 fleet if Germany puts a Carrier in there anyway. So why not spend those rounds building fighters instead of boats and bring the boats you already have home? Now you have a big airforce, a normal fleet and the ability to make the SZ 5 battle very decisive for you, or force Germany to invest in even more boats to protect against you, thus making Russia’s job that much easier?
-
Well, if G buy fleet in sz 5 then the UK pac fleet can be used for something useful later.
I don’t see a G AC investment often. Many players, and most of my opponents have moved away from the G baltic navy strat.To buy ftrs with UK I think is a good strat. I usually buy inf/tank/art, but many decent players buy a ftr each rnd, or
every second rnd with UK. -
Except when they know it’s KJF. Then for some reason they go SZ 5 AC + Pearl Uber Heavy. Two moves I rarely see in “normal” games.
-
@Cmdr:
Except when they know it’s KJF. Then for some reason they go SZ 5 AC + Pearl Uber Heavy. Two moves I rarely see in “normal” games.
Sry, but I can’t really see that G AC have anything to do with KJF. 2-3 or 5 trans G1, thats gonna stop a KJF, at least
until rnd 3-4.
I’m also moving away from pearl, I will only do it for tuv trading, and/or make US buy more navy instead of ground units
US1-US3.
I’m not afraid of what US can to to Jap in pac, I’m much more worried of US in Europe.As for UK basics, UK usually can attack sz5 before rnd 4-5,
and kill all Baltic navy, even without the UK pac fleet, if not G buys 1 AC, 1 BB, 3 trans, 2 subs?? :lol:My point is that since most of the games I play end before rnd 10, both the games I win and the games I lose, I really can’t
find much use for the UK pac navy. If your games last 10 rns or more, usually, then you may have good use for the UK navy,
even if this means its idle for some turns. -
It does if you think England’s going to be playing conservatively so they can send aid to America. Then you can pretty much end threats to Northern Europe with a small investment.
Same with the BB to SZ 13. It’s a small move you can make to pretty much ensure that KJF is delayed or called off all together.
And Pearl Heavy, again, really good positioning to repel KJF. Not so good if it’s KGF because now you’ve tied up 4 capitol ships and have nothing to attack with them. Meanwhile, you’re very light on support in the west keeping you from landings in Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Madagascar and Italian Africa on Japan 2/3. (Because allied fighters will pick off your transports.)
-
Just going to throw this out there,
Good positioning I like on B1, is to send a fgt after the Transport, Land it in Buritya if it survives, and as long as the Russians have committed there. Put your Bomber in Novisibirsk or Yakut, and Hopefully your Sub survives 1 round against the japs. Depending on what you do with that DST Carrier and transport, (which you could just keep alive) you have a bit of a surprise attack against the weak parts of the Japanese navy, and anything they build in Tokyo. In the least you’ve brought your bomber into play against undefended complex’s if they’ve built any.
This can keep Japan down for an extra round, and force their navy to play conservatively. Most often they are atleast going to have a peel a destroyer to defend a transport build, that’s even if they notice. And you can still strafe with an American fighter as well.
In a KJF this force can be used to destroy a minor Japanese fleet.
-
Lately, I’ve been ignoring SZ 5 again. I go straight for landing the 2 Fighters, Bomber in W. Russia so they can come to bear on SZ 15 and SZ 16 on UK 2. (Add the fighter from SZ 35 for good measure!)
Africa is more important then dealing with the SZ 5 fleet. SZ 5 fleet can be a pain, but it won’t be a pain for more then one round. Or it will sit unmolested in SZ 5 until I’m good and ready to kill it.
-
Same with the BB to SZ 13. It’s a small move you can make to pretty much ensure that KJF is delayed or called off all together.
And Pearl Heavy, again, really good positioning to repel KJF.
The funny thing is that both of those are primarily anti-KGF measures. Doing Pearl light actually is worse for anti-KGF because you have to send 3 fighters 1 bomber, whereas normally you only need 2 fighters 1 bomber. That extra fighter is crucial in J1 attacks. Pearl heavy not only conserves your navy but also gives you more airforce on land or elsewhere.
Lately, I’ve been ignoring SZ 5 again. I go straight for landing the 2 Fighters, Bomber in W. Russia so they can come to bear on SZ 15 and SZ 16 on UK 2. (Add the fighter from SZ 35 for good measure!)
That’s definitely a neat move I haven’t seen before (using the SZ34 carrier to bring 2 more fighters to kill SZ15, very cool).
-
I’m not saying Pearl Heavy is wrong. Just interesting that players who have never gone Pearl Heavy against me in regular games do so in games where KJF is being tested.
However, I, honestly, like Pearl Light because it gives me, as Japan, a lot of flexibility. I can send the battleships to FIC and use them in Australia next round. I can use them in Egypt. If England doesn’t run away, I can use them to kill England. Etc.
And yes, in my opinion, the SZ 14 fleet is a much higher priority target then the SZ 5 fleet. Generally speaking, the SZ 5 fleet is normally stuck in SZ 5 where it does little, if any, real harm. The SZ 14 fleet can escape to give Germany Austrlia, India, New Zealand, Madagascar, etc. WHOA dangerous that! Even if it doesn’t escape, it can trickle units into Africa and attack Caucasus forcing you to defend both.
3 Fighters and a Bomber in range of the SZ 14 fleet will effectively end that as a threat. To counter Germany will have to put a Carrier to sea in SZ 14, now Germany’s bought two carriers (assuming they bought one in Round 1 for SZ 5.) And, yes, I have run the numbers of 3 Fighters/Bomber vs Transport/Battleship. Odds show only one British fighter being lost at sea. A good trade in anyone’s book I dare say. And if Germany has put a carrier to sea in SZ 14 and SZ 5, they also have 4 fighters to sea out of 5 fighters (assuming Russia killed one in Ukraine) leaving only one fighter for coastal defense. AND, out of two rounds, they have spent 32 IPC out of 82 IPC. (40 in round 1, 42 in round 2 assuming Karelia and Egypt are taken, but W. Russia remains lost - safe assumption I think.)
In this case, with the fighters lined as they are, I think Russia could leave Caucasus open. Remember, this is round 2, so if Germany does take the bait, Russia can still use all their income on units, they just have to put them in Russia itself. Not too bad. Especially if you just got the Med fleet sunk in return for a 1 turn delay on your builds getting to Europe, eh?
-
And yes, in my opinion, the SZ 14 fleet is a much higher priority target then the SZ 5 fleet. Generally speaking, the SZ 5 fleet is normally stuck in SZ 5 where it does little, if any, real harm. The SZ 14 fleet can escape to give Germany Austrlia, India, New Zealand, Madagascar, etc. WHOA dangerous that! Even if it doesn’t escape, it can trickle units into Africa and attack Caucasus forcing you to defend both.
Does your opinion mean anything? If you don’t do what you say, then why should people even bother to reply to it, since you obviously do not truly believe in it? I know you’re trying to be cute and unpredictable, but if you don’t stand by what you say in order to test it for reals, then why should anyone take you seriously in a discussion? It’s wasted effort if you call the exterminator for termites, then when he gets there, he finds out it’s really bees there.
I’m not saying Pearl Heavy is wrong. Just interesting that players who have never gone Pearl Heavy against me in regular games do so in games where KJF is being tested.
Well that’s clearly not me, since we haven’t played many regular games where I’m the Axis and haven’t gone Pearl Heavy.
3 Fighters and a Bomber in range of the SZ 14 fleet will effectively end that as a threat. To counter Germany will have to put a Carrier to sea in SZ 14, now Germany’s bought two carriers (assuming they bought one in Round 1 for SZ 5.) And, yes, I have run the numbers of 3 Fighters/Bomber vs Transport/Battleship. Odds show only one British fighter being lost at sea. A good trade in anyone’s book I dare say. And if Germany has put a carrier to sea in SZ 14 and SZ 5, they also have 4 fighters to sea out of 5 fighters (assuming Russia killed one in Ukraine) leaving only one fighter for coastal defense. AND, out of two rounds, they have spent 32 IPC out of 82 IPC. (40 in round 1, 42 in round 2 assuming Karelia and Egypt are taken, but W. Russia remains lost - safe assumption I think.)
That’s pretty good, I was thinking about this a few days ago.
-
Bean,
The ONLY reason I attacked your fleet was because it was in SZ 7 and your Battleship/Transport was in SZ 13. If it was in SZ 5, I wouldn’t have attacked it. And, may I point out, the thing I am always saying will happen when you attack the German Baltic Fleet happened? Both your destroyer AND your transport hit in Round 1 and my fighter pilots were blind (hit a submarine, but only because they CRASHED into it when they were shot down!)
Generally speaking, I’m about 80% in following every last bit of advice I give. Course, if you go back far enough you’ll find statements that I don’t follow anymore because the game tactics have changed.
For instance, by passing the SZ 5 fleet and landing in W. Russia on UK 1 to guarantee you have 3 Fighters, Bomber available to hit the SZ 14 fleet if it stays in range. I like the idea, but I have yet to have a game to try it in since it’s a UK 1 move and all my games are past the UK 1 stage at this time.
-
- Atlantic: it’s essential to show that UK (after Germany) is the moment to think of naval moves of the WHOLE alliance ! Any discordant UK-US moves will impact badly !
- Unification in SZ8 is quite good; for the benefits of beginners or those without access to simulators it’s necessary to show that basic forces (UK btl 2tra US des 2tra RUS sub) can hold only up to GER 4ftr bmb. More German threat (planes, fleet closer), and SZ8 will need reinforcing by UK (more tra, maybe car+US planes etc).
- If unifying in SZ8, they still cannot reach to attack SZ5 Baltic in Turn 2.
- When is an early SZ12 unification with UK+US landing to Africa advantageous ?
-
Africa: being so important in the long term, it is worth detailing the long term strategy to defend/retake its IPC without diverting too much from Europe. Should US do it alone, or UK+US etc. From Morocco, or a component to West Africa ? etc.
In what way an Egypt counterattack on Round 1 or 2 helps ? (At least they delay a German tank blitz to the inside) -
Pacific: so much to discuss even theater-analysis article won’t be enough…
-
What’s your thoughts on UK placing an industrial complex in India and using Australia’s units to help defend?
-
I usually don’t like IC’s for the UK early. I think it becomes quite a task to defend and could even require the occassional Russian support.
I think Japan does one of two things
1 - They B-line for it and probably eventually take it. Which even if this is rd 4,5, or 6 it is still a free IC and within a tanks distance of Cauc.
2 - They kind of ignore it and B-line Mos with the Center-North routes. Yes Japan has to trade Fic but with 2 BB-shots UK is essentially just throwing away inf (or worse tanks) for nothing as Japan can still land inf on Fic (with BB-shots, air support) and Inf on Bury (which is quicker to Mos). They’ll still get Aus and Nz in a few turns and now if Japan has a stack of troops in Sin/Yak poised to merge at Novo, what good is a stack of Allied troops in Ind (or even Fic)?
Now if you are thinking UK IC on Ind, US IC on Sin and a KJF strat (or contain/slow Japan strat) then it is probably a better play, but you have to be confident in your Russian game that you’ll be able to hold of the Germany onslaught for a good 5,6 turns, while the other two Allies set up the Asian defense and try and squeeze Japan.
Suggested Topics
