Most Important Piece

Of the choices I say the Russian fighter, I use both of the Russian fighters every turn or very nearly every turn.  I also will not replace a russian fighter untill the german threat is neutralized, and by then no pieces are really that important.

hmm. so many stipulations and things we all need to keep in mind. I think Jen makes alot of assumptions about game positioning, which you really have to do to answer this question. But Couldn’t the UK use their forces to pressure EE and berlin? this is what I do with the British. So i dont have the UK forces in Moscow trading eastern territory with the japanese. My allied game always has at least 2 territoires Russia needs to trade. Especially in the early game.

Agreed, the defense with the fighter can be replaced by an extra US fighter. I also dont buy another russian fighter unless i have the German threat stood off, and I want more trading power. So I am curious, you speak as if 3-4 Russian fighters is both common and ideal strategy, however, you have pages of reasons why Russia can survive with one 1 fighter. If Rusia doesnt need to trade in your scenarios, and doesnt need the fighters for defense, as allied fighters take that role, why do you suggest buying 1-2 more of them? paper weights?

@Cmdr:

However, the British Bomber is needed all the way until the end of the game unless the allies are conceding defeat.

So when the UK bomber is lost, the allies must concede defeat. Hmm. Wouldn’t 15 ipc to replace the bomber be doable if it meant preventing defeat?

I mean 15 ipc, thats (consulting NASA)  umm like 5 dudes. So in theory, a bad swing of die could easily cost you five dudes in the first 8 rounds. Does that swing of the die mean defeat? no it doesnt. So instead of 5 dudes, replace that bomber that it sure defeat, and save the free world!!!

@Adlertag:

I think the brit infantry in western Canada is the most important piece on the map, yeah I know he comes late into the game,  but when this guy finally comes, he kicks a*s for sure, man.

Ah yes, Yukon Jack.

Many is the memory of Yukon Jack fighting off the Yellow Hordes from my Classic days…

Ya always forget where he died like he was supposed to in the battle, but those games where he fought back amphib after amphib…  THOSE stick with ya!

@Cmdr:

However, the British Bomber is needed all the way until the end of the game unless the allies are conceding defeat.

No it’s not.

Unless you’re telling me you’ve never won a game in which your British bomber died, which I somehow doubt.

I’ve lost the British bomber in SBRs in rd 2 or 3 on numerous occasions, and I’ve still won handily. I’ve kept it for the whole game and still been defeated.

–-

For me, the most important pieces are those which you KNOW the enemy is going to attack on rd 1, and which have the greatest potential to cause damage to the enemy.

In many games, especially between players of similar skill levels, the first couple of rounds can make or break the game.

An “important” piece should aid you greatly when it rolls well, and leave you enraged when it rolls poorly.

I’d say it’s a tossup between the British fighter in Egypt, or the American fighter in SZ52. Each has the capacity to aid greatly in their respective battles, and set the opponent up for a potentially devastating counter…or to do nothing and leave the enemy in a strong position with many options.

@Romulus:

@Cmdr:

@Mazer:

I categorically reject this false “choice”.

There was not ONE tank listed in the options, when, in fact, we all know that tanks are STRONG!

Yea, but now seriously, which do you think is most important?

Another thought, naval pieces cannot be most important since they cannot take capitols or victory cities. :P

While UK bomber can?

Exactly my thought.

Frankly I don’t think the bomber is even the UK’s most valuable unit.  I’d have much more heartburn if the sz2 BB disappeared than I would if the bomber was gone in the early game.  Neither are absolute game killers, but in terms of replaceability and impact:

• the UK can ill-afford the 24 ipcs to replace it and will probably buy a carrier instead just for affordability.  This requires at least one plane to be stationed on it, and does not have the same offensive power, but it’s probably all england can afford.

• losing that BB will SIGNIFICANTLY slow the UK’s arrival in Europe both because of the lack of protection to advance the trns and the likely need to reduce/delay ground unit and trn purchases until some capital ships are purchased (or she waits even longer for uncle sam to provide the cover).  This means there will be many more german units on the ground when she finally does arrive, probably at Russia’s expense.

• losing the ability to bombard means a few extra units defending because they weren’t killed along the way, plus losing the THREAT of using the bombard means germany can probably defend a little lighter across all it’s threatened coastal territories, moving more units to the front.

For me hands down the Russian fighter. I will willingly trade the UK Bomber for a German Destroyer while I willingly trade a Russian fighter for a German Battleship.

@Cmdr:

…
The thing is, that bomber adds a significant threat to E. Europe, Germany and W. Europe landings while staying in a centralized position on the board where it can add threat just about anywhere.

The same range can be achieved with a ftr on a carrier.  I can get 1 more hit point for the same cost ($30 = 3 ftr {9 hit point} or 2 bombers {8 hit point})

@Cmdr:

The Russian fighters are only trading territories or cowering on the Russian capitol.

NOT TRUE!

I have used russian ftrs for covering a D-Day style mass invasion of Western Europe more than once.

@Cmdr:

The Russian fighters are very important.  But each individual Russian fighter is less important than the individual British bomber.

When this thread goes to three pages, will we be graced with ANOTHER post highlighting your reasoning?

@Cmdr:

2) ….  Russia can easily trade territories without air support if it needs too.

It’s a matter of reusability, which translates into lower costs of trading territories.

@Cmdr:

3)  … Meanwhile, England and America only need to take Berlin, which is one territory, and one bomber can attack one territory every round of the game.

This has got to be one of the silliest statements on strategy I’ve ever read.

@Cmdr:

4)  My England normally does have troops in Moscow to support the Russians, I find it more economically feasible to attack Japan with England than with Russia.  However, Karelia is often liberated by the British which would mean, even from an early stand point,

Yes, YOUR style uses the UK bomber with God-like efficiency…
But to my point:  You like the UK bomber.  It appears MOST others (22/31 votes) disagree with you.

@Cmdr:

Russia only has to deal with Belorussia and Ukraine.

I thought they’d have to trade 6 territories?

@Cmdr:

Obviously, these are just my opinions.  I base them on years of experience and literally 100 games or more some won, some lost.

So none of the other posters and voters in this thread have any of this experience and win-loss record?

@Cmdr:

Each time I see the British bomber play a pivotal role in the Allied strategy and it’s clear, and effective use (even if it NEVER engages in combat) has clearly turned the tide in favor of the allies in most of these games.

Yes, that piece is so important that you don’t even use it each turn!
eh gads!

@Cmdr:

However, no matter how well you use the Russian fighters, without the British and American air forces (specifically their bombers, but also their fighters) you’ll eventually lose.

I need to retract my earlier statement about the silliest sentence on strategy … THIS is the silliest.

OF COURSE the British and American air forces are needed to win.  How did we go from arguing one plane of one country against another single plane of another country to comparing entire air forces?

I sense much anger in this one.  Anger and fear.

Soon, axis_roll’s journey to the Dark Side will be complete.  :-D

Jen’s making a lot more sense these days.  I mean, I’m not planning on drinking the Kool-Aid just yet, but yeah, she makes sense.

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

…
The thing is, that bomber adds a significant threat to E. Europe, Germany and W. Europe landings while staying in a centralized position on the board where it can add threat just about anywhere.

The same range can be achieved with a ftr on a carrier.  I can get 1 more hit point for the same cost ($30 = 3 ftr {9 hit point} or 2 bombers {8 hit point})

Suppose you have German fighters based on carriers in almost any sea zone except the Baltic zone or the Mediterranean.  So, how long is Germany’s fleet going to stay there?  Stay there, and the combined UK and US fleets will pound you.  Now how about German bombers in Western Europe?  Much harder to attack.

As for the utility of increased range, if you have bombers in Western Europe or fighters on carriers outside the Baltic with Germany, you can disrupt unescorted transport traffic northwest of London, which means if the Allies are setting up a W.Canada-London / London-Europe or Africa transport chain, the Allies must now buy twice the defensive fleets.

@Cmdr:

The Russian fighters are only trading territories or cowering on the Russian capitol.

NOT TRUE!

I have used russian ftrs for covering a D-Day style mass invasion of Western Europe more than once.

Yes, yes, and one time, I hit a cat in the butt with a Russian fighter, causing it to jump out the window into the arms of a girl, who also happened to be Russian, which led to my current months’ letter to Penthouse.  Or something.

Look, Jen’s point is generally you use Russian fighters to trade (true), or if defensive, kept on Russia’s capital (true).  If you have a “mass invasion of Western Europe” then at that point it probably doesn’t matter what the hell you did with Russia’s fighters, because at that point at worst it’s a trade of Moscow for Berlin, with massed Allied forces at Berlin making Japanese capture of Berlin impossible, resulting in almost certain Allied win.

@Cmdr:

The Russian fighters are very important.  But each individual Russian fighter is less important than the individual British bomber.

When this thread goes to three pages, will we be graced with ANOTHER post highlighting your reasoning?

GRARGH said Axis_Roll.  But I was not fazed.

@Cmdr:

2) ….  Russia can easily trade territories without air support if it needs too.

It’s a matter of reusability, which translates into lower costs of trading territories.

Well, I don’t think Jen’s saying the Russian fighter is NOT useful.  I think she’s just saying that the UK bomber is important, which is particularly true UK1, and more or less so depending on subsequent moves.  Generally, though, the UK bomber is pretty pimped out.  Would you rather have a third Russian fighter or that first UK bomber?  What about a second UK bomber instead of the second Russian fighter?  I think I’d prefer a second UK bomber to a second Russian fighter myself.

@Cmdr:

3)  … Meanwhile, England and America only need to take Berlin, which is one territory, and one bomber can attack one territory every round of the game.

This has got to be one of the silliest statements on strategy I’ve ever read.

Hm, I didn’t understand it.  But bombers are useful.

@Cmdr:

4)  My England normally does have troops in Moscow to support the Russians, I find it more economically feasible to attack Japan with England than with Russia.  However, Karelia is often liberated by the British which would mean, even from an early stand point,

Yes, YOUR style uses the UK bomber with God-like efficiency…
But to my point:  You like the UK bomber.  It appears MOST others (22/31 votes) disagree with you.

Well, I say the Russian fighter’s loss is more significant than the UK bomber’s loss, so the importance of the Russian fighter is exaggerated.

Generally I stack my Russian fighters somewhere pretty safe - if one or both got lost, it’s because Russia just got its ass kicked somewhere.  On the other hand, there’s any number of ways to lose the UK bomber.

I voted for the Russian fighter, because if I did lose a Russian fighter, I would probably be losing the game at that point.

But that’s not to say at all that the UK bomber is not important.  It is very important to initial Allied strategy.  You can’t really do without it.  If I had a choice, I would choose to start the game with 2 UK bombers and 1 Russian fighter.

@Cmdr:

Russia only has to deal with Belorussia and Ukraine.

I thought they’d have to trade 6 territories?

Generally, England and US try trading Karelia, or Archangel when necessary.  Russia concentrates on the territories bordering the Mediterranean, as the Allied navy has a tough time breaking in there.  Anyways, I seriously doubt you will see Russia trading 6 territories a turn on average.  Perhaps 3-4 average in some games, but not even that many for most games, I’d suspect.

@Cmdr:

Obviously, these are just my opinions.  I base them on years of experience and literally 100 games or more some won, some lost.

So none of the other posters and voters in this thread have any of this experience and win-loss record?

Hm, so you’re saying that Jen’s experience don’t count, of course.  Naturally you point out that she must be wrong because there are other opinions than hers.  Naturally, of course, your opinion must be right because there is no opinion but yours.  Lol.  Well, I’m sure that’s not how you see it, but anyways, you don’t speak for me, and other posters can express their own opinions.

@Cmdr:

Each time I see the British bomber play a pivotal role in the Allied strategy and it’s clear, and effective use (even if it NEVER engages in combat) has clearly turned the tide in favor of the allies in most of these games.

Yes, that piece is so important that you don’t even use it each turn!
eh gads!

It’s because of the threat potential, you buffoon.  If I have Japanese bombers in Western Europe, they don’t have to do anything but sit there to force the Allies to build two good-sized defensive fleets for the E. Canada/London - London/Europe route.

Next thing, you’ll be saying to use Germany’s tanks properly, you must send them roaring towards Moscow as fast as they can go.  I mean sure, Russia will just kick German tank ass when the Germans don’t have infantry to support their tanks - but Germany’s certainly using their tanks, aren’t they?  I mean, putting German tanks at Eastern Europe, that must just be retarded, right?

@Cmdr:

However, no matter how well you use the Russian fighters, without the British and American air forces (specifically their bombers, but also their fighters) you’ll eventually lose.

I need to retract my earlier statement about the silliest sentence on strategy … THIS is the silliest.

OF COURSE the British and American air forces are needed to win.  How did we go from arguing one plane of one country against another single plane of another country to comparing entire air forces?

A contextual argument, maybe?

May the Force be with you.  :lol:

Funny though, you buffoon :roll:, is that you voted for the Russian Ftr  :|  :|  :|  :|
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, EVERY piece has a threat potential.  I also think you are being facetious.

My point was how can such an important piece go unused?  It can’t be that important if it sits.  I DOUBT I would ever see a russian ftr unused.

And this isn’t the cold war.  A piece unused is like not having that piece at all.  At the very least, it should be moved into <better>position</better>

:-D
Well, everyone has a special unit that they like and use to it’s maximum potential. And when they lose it, they are sad, very sad. :cry:
But, according to this thread, the Russian fighter(s) seem to be regarded more important over all the other availiable options. :-D
I know this for sure, once you lose that fighter, you are probibly going to lose Russia, that is how much a game barometer it is. And Russia lost is most often, game lost. :roll:
So, Russian Fighters Rule!
I built a russian fighter on R1 recently, and sank the Med fleet on R2 with 3 Russian fighters! Africa was saved by Russian planes  :wink:  Now where can one fighter make that kind of a difference?
See ya around the gameing boards, and stay away from my fighters!  :wink:

At least everyone is agreed on the importance of one American Bomber…

Btw, I un-modified the poll because sometimes the df givith and sometimes the df taketh away…

@Bunnies:

Generally, though, the UK bomber is pretty pimped out.  Would you rather have a third Russian fighter or that first UK bomber?  What about a second UK bomber instead of the second Russian fighter?  I think I’d prefer a second UK bomber to a second Russian fighter myself.

I’ll take that 3rd Russian fighter, no doubt. Nobody ever asked before (gee that was easy). Can I get a 4th too instead of the 1st UK bomber? I’m not understating the importance of the UK bomber either, when you have it. It gets pimped out a lot and you end up counting on it. But given the choice… ?

Russia is the one trading turf as quickly as possible from round 1, swapping some territories just for IPC leverage in the first couple rounds. Having Russian fighters in on every battle you possibly can saves those precious boots on the ground. A 3rd Russian fighter buy is somewhat a trump card, if/when you can pull it off. Having the extra one from the start? Pfft. Wouldn’t even have to think twice about that.

Hells yeah, I’ll trade the US Bmb for another russian ftr too.

Could the US and the UK both trade???  Maybe they will get a group rate  :-D

@Cmdr:

The Russian fighters are only trading territories or cowering on the Russian capitol.

You might get more respect for your opinion if you didn’t use such inflammatory language. I mean, to use cowering for the self-admitted “second” most important piece in the game, you arent winning over any of the non-believers.

So when a moscow battle goes badly, you take a uk bomber before a russian fighter? interesting. No need to reply, i know a fighter defends at 4 while bomber defends at 1.

And you speak of “typical” games where russia is earning 30+. I recall a debate about this before on this forum. In a typical (IMO) game, japan takes bury pretty early, and SFE + yakut not far after. That 3 ipc. So for russia to earn even 30 ipc, they need to be trading EE, balkans, or norway pretty early. and to earn 30+ they need to trade 2 of 3 of these. If russia is trading 2 of 3 of these territories, i dont think u need the bomber or fighter!!!  :)  germany is toast.

As well as uk earning in the teens. I think the emphasis that most put on countering egypt is to prevent Uk from earning in the teens. If you kill those germans tanks UK1, they cant blitz thru africa, and drain UKs income, and in my “typical” game, US get to afirca pretty early to regain that lost Uk income. My “typical” game has UK and russia earning about the same.

The Soviet fighters are the most irreplaceable units in the game considering Soviet options for safe play. That may not translate in the most important “piece”.

The Japanese first transport purchase and losing them is a huge hole for japan and can mean defeat if they are lost before they make their presence felt.

Germany losing 2 fighters or its bomber is a big hurt on Germany

I guess its got no answer because depending on strategy, some items are more valuable than others, because their is no finite rule about what strategy works best…only approximations of this truth based on ever changing conditions ( dice) and enemy plans. So its really impossible to say “this unit is the MVP of the game”

I think the Russian FIGs have got to be tied for the most important piece, perhaps THE most important piece that ever gets to attack in the game.

Other “most important pieces” would include the USA FIG in China and the UK FIG in Egypt.  Neither of those units ever seem to live long enough to attack, because they are so dangerous that virtually ALL strategies for this game include the death of those units before they can be killed.
:mrgreen: