Favourite axis openings

@gamerman01:

It’s on  :wink:
I have a lot of games going now too, so no pressure on you to move timely.
I’m just posting here in case someone following the discussion wants to view the game, I wanted to confirm that there will be a game.
I guess I will forgo the Egypt attack so you can show me the dire consequences of this failure.  I might have been thinking of 1942 more with the whole leave the flying tigers alone thing, so not sure if I will be attacking them or not in 1941.  I’ll see if I can let them go so I can commit the “double failure”  :wink:
I usually play with Dard closed and no new Island complexes, but welcome a chance to play Axis without these “handicaps”.  I’ll go set up G1.

42 scenario is a diferent animal, but that’s not the matter. I’m not against Dardanelles, but I feel it’s better not using FAQ optionals this time

As for non island complexes: no way, pal, I want Mc Arthur’s HQ in long run (Philippines) :-D

Heh heh, I’m sure we’ll have a great game.
Just so everyone knows, I got heavy bombers in G1 with 10 IPC’s, so the joke’s on me.  I really want to attack Egypt now, but not going to, since that’s kind of the point of this game  :lol:

You should be playing without tech to limit the variables (IMHO)

@gamerman01:

Heh heh, I’m sure we’ll have a great game.
Just so everyone knows, I got heavy bombers in G1 with 10 IPC’s, so the joke’s on me.  I really want to attack Egypt now, but not going to, since that’s kind of the point of this game  :lol:

if you spent 10 bucks on tech and got a the right tech, you have to attack egypt. i think spending 10 bucks on tech on G1 an outrageous move by the way - considerably more suspect than Egypt G1

@rockrobinoff:

if you spent 10 bucks on tech and got a the right tech, you have to attack egypt. i think spending 10 bucks on tech on G1 an outrageous move by the way - considerably more suspect than Egypt G1

Nonsense.  Even Funcioneta acknowledged that with a naval build, using the heavy bomber on SZ2 was a good move.
10 bucks is far from an outrageous move.  This is AA50, where you don’t throw away the money, remember?  If I didn’t roll a 6, I’d get a chance the next turn and the next turn until I did. 
10 bucks gives you 30.5% chance of a breakthrough.
I play this game for fun, not like some cold, calculating killer who must always make the optimal strategic move.  Getting tech is fun.  Not to mention the fact that having heavy bombers helps my chances of winning big time.
I don’t understand why people act like tech is such a big gamble or waste of money or whatever.  Jeez, it’s not Axis and Allies without tech.
To each his own.  I don’t care what you think about spending 10 on tech.  I spent 15 with Japan and got improved shipyards, and then I spent 10 with Italy and got nothing.  What do you think about that?  I think I’m going to win.

@axis_roll:

You should be playing without tech to limit the variables (IMHO)

Axis, I understand what you’re saying.  This is EXACTLY why I still didn’t attack Egypt G1 even though it was suddenly a much better move.
I deliberately left the flying tigers alone, too.  It was kind of the point of the game we’re playing.  I challenged Funcioneta because he said not attacking Egypt G1 and Yunnan J1 was a “double failure”.
We both wanted to play tech.  Funcioneta suggested it first.  You know, a lot of people like us don’t really care to play Axis and Allies without it.  I think it’s lame, for example, to know for sure that the enemy’s planes can’t exceed a 4 or 6 move range.  In this game, I had to leave units in Germany and Italy that I normally would have moved out toward the front lines, except I had to guard against the possibility of paratroopers.
Tech is not going to ruin the purpose of this game, which was whether it’s a really bad idea to skip Egypt G1 or Yunnan J1.

@rockrobinoff:

if you spent 10 bucks on tech and got a the right tech, you have to attack egypt. i think spending 10 bucks on tech on G1 an outrageous move by the way - considerably more suspect than Egypt G1

You’re making me want to challenge you, too!  :lol:
I’ll show you the power of tech!

@axis_roll:

You should be playing without tech to limit the variables (IMHO)

And we could play also LL to kill all the fun  :-P Anyway, my point was that not Egy and not Yunnan is less powerful than doing both. I’m not saying you are going to lose for not doing them, I say you will have a harder road to victory, and a slighter lesser chance of win, but it’s still a uphill battle for allies

As for the Kriegsmarine buildup, I have seen one ubercrappy player doing it and still winning because there is no way of stopping Japan and you still have to kill Kriegsmarine first to start menacing Germany. I think gamerman is better than that player I’m saying (one I play FTF), so I guess I’ll have even more problems than usually against naval strat

And yes, he got HBs and IS, but I could get Paratroopers next round with UK, war bounds with USSR or LRA with USA so what? As he said, he spent a total of 35 IPCs of tech, so a result of 2 techs is still in the average. I spent 5 and got none, I don’t see any wrong with tech: I’ll have more units and he will have better units, as should  :wink: Not that I’m going to cry for HBs round1: I’ll search the way of countering this

@Funcioneta:

@axis_roll:

You should be playing without tech to limit the variables (IMHO)

And we could play also LL to kill all the fun  :-P

Haha - Funcioneta, the irony is we strongly agree about some things.  I love tech, and agree LL would really kill the fun ;)

Oh, and by the way, you’re up!  Good luck!!!
Agree - no shame in losing with Allies in '41 - jeez, the setup borders on ridiculous (see Japan).

@Funcioneta:

And yes, he got HBs and IS, but I could get Paratroopers next round with UK, war bounds with USSR or LRA with USA so what? As he said, he spent a total of 35 IPCs of tech, so a result of 2 techs is still in the average. I spent 5 and got none, I don’t see any wrong with tech: I’ll have more units and he will have better units, as should  :wink: Not that I’m going to cry for HBs round1: I’ll search the way of countering this

Heeeey….  Gracias, amigo!!  You got my back, how about that?  Long live tech!
I really appreciate your attitude.  So he got heavy bombers, there are ways to deal with that.  I’m gonna thoroughly enjoy playing Axis and Allies with you - I hope we can play games sometime beyond this first one.

@Funcioneta:

As he said, he spent a total of 35 IPCs of tech, so a result of 2 techs is still in the average. I spent 5 and got none, I don’t see any wrong with tech: I’ll have more units and he will have better units, as should  :wink:

:-D Correction - I will have better units, and you will BUILD more units, not HAVE more units  :evil:  :wink:
Yes, I’m a tech fiend.  Now that it’s not near the gamble it used to be (get to re-roll every turn) and everyone has more money than previous games (NO’s, more territory), AA50 is the best A&A game so far, partly because it has tons of tech on both sides!  But you can’t get it if you don’t buy researchers.  I almost always have at least 1 going for nearly every country.  You have to give yourself a chance.

for the record, i am all for tech. i just think 10 IPCs on G1 an extravagance almost certainly sub optimal.

@gamerman01:

Yes, I’m a tech fiend.  Now that it’s not near the gamble it used to be (get to re-roll every turn)

In my opinion, it is more of a gamble than when compared to revised. You can get techs you dont want, unlike in revised where you roll for specific techs. Nothing like spending 40 bucks on Rd 6 with America to get Heavy Bombers to wipe out Germany.

@rockrobinoff:

@gamerman01:

Yes, I’m a tech fiend.  Now that it’s not near the gamble it used to be (get to re-roll every turn)

In my opinion, it is more of a gamble than when compared to revised. You can get techs you dont want, unlike in revised where you roll for specific techs. Nothing like spending 40 bucks on Rd 6 with America to get Heavy Bombers to wipe out Germany.

I like the excitement of not knowing what you’ll get.  It’s like the grab-bag.

@rockrobinoff:

for the record, i am all for tech. i just think 10 IPCs on G1 an extravagance almost certainly sub optimal.

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion.
My opinion is 10 IPC’s is a modest investment that has a good chance of bearing tremendous benefits.
Also, now that we’re back to the Classic method where you can’t pick your tech, getting tech you don’t really want is good, too.  Obviously, it increases your odds of getting the ones you do want in future turns.

@gamerman01:

You know, you could miss with that 40 bucks and have absolutely nothing.  It sounds like YOU’RE the gambler  :lol:  What do you do if it misses, quit?

Well, i don’t think rolling 8 dice for a tech a very high probability of missing, and I would certainly take that risk if the payoff was a lock on a capital falling. Note failed invasions that were a low probability of failing often result in the other side winning - no different then rolling for lots of tech at critical moments in my opinion.

@gamerman01:

My opinion is 10 IPC’s is a modest investment that has a good chance of bearing tremendous benefits.

The same argument is being made by Funcionetta about the chances of Egypt failing… and that works out 75% the time, and not 33% (plus the times you dont get the right tech). If you are planning on investing even more money later if you miss the right tech, it also isnt 10 bucks any more.

I’ll take the two extra inf + art in east poland or karellia guarunteed at turn 3.

I’ll take heavy bombers.