Posts made by aaFiendish

1. Everything can attack everything. The ONE exception is that subs cannot hit planes.
2. Memory?
3. Typically just the ones that didn’t start off as yours. That is, even though the country is dark red, if germany owns it you want a token on it. If there is no token on a land, it is assumed to belong to the original country.
4. Hmmm, I don’t know, or I forget.
5. A plane can land anywhere that was owned by it or an ally at the beginning of the combat phase. You cannot land in newly taken over territories or anything owned by an enemy. If there is not enough movement for a plane to reach a safe landing area, then it may not attack.
6. Trihero does a good job elsewhere, but basically you must state when you move a fighter into combat a valid place for the fighter to land. That can either be, as above, a territory, or it can be a sea zone. If it is a seazone, you must show how a carrier can reach that sea zone. If it is even vaguely conceivably possible for a carrier to reach, then it is fine. BUT, the carrier must follow through on the actions stated at the beginning of the turn. Example: A fighter moves 4 spaces to attack 1 transport, therefore it must land in that sea zone. There is a carrier two spaces away that will move there, but there are 20 battleships in between the two. That player can attack the battleships with a bomber, and say they are going to move the carrier into the fighter sea after the battleships are cleared in noncombat. Of course, the battleships are never going to be cleared because they, just won’t, but it is still a valid possibility. At the end of this turn your fighter will die, because it has nowhere to land. But, there was a potentially valid place for it too land at the beginning of the turn, so it was able to make the attack. If there was no valid conceivable place to land, it couldn’t attack the transport. (answer editted from being 20 subs to battleship, thanks to trihero’s point. I knew there was going to be something wrong with the example).
7. Find better friends  :evil:

@ncscswitch:

Another risk with Ukraine is it leaves Caucuses less well defended.  Germany can get there with Amphib forces, BB, and AF.

Not really a big deal though switch. You can bring 1 inf, 1 arm via transport and drop them. You can only bring 2 fighters. Ukraine one is dead, west europe, norway, germany cannot reach and land anywhere. So, the most you can bring is 1 inf, 1 arm, 2 figs, 1 bmb, bb shot. That gives you about 20% shot on caucus, with only 4 inf 2 figs there.

I would definitely expect the germans to counter the tanks, to me it is completely worth it for germany to do so. However, I estimate the trade of 2 russian armor, 1 artillery, 3 inf to be well worth 1 german armor, 1 art, 1 fig, 3 inf. I could see how it may not be worth it for some though. I just hate german figs.

Are you sure that 9 inf, 1 arm, 1 art vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm is a 80% chance? I am pretty sure it is not…

Hmmm, I’m not so sure about that trihero. If I attack ukraine with…

3 inf, 1 art, 2 arm, 2 figs

then that leaves for west russia…

9 inf, 1 art, 2 arm. I guess you are talking about a full ukraine attack, so that’d be 3 arm in ukraine and 1 arm in west russia. So, with 9 inf, 1 arm, 1 art in west russia, you are looking at as you say about a 99% chance, don’t you? I mean, 9 inf, 1 arm, 1 art vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm? Then in ukraine you have 3 inf, 1 art, 3 arm, 2 figs vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig. You’ll say that’s about 96%. Attacking without that extra armor still gives you a greater than 80% chance. I very often keep the armor back and use it against west russia instead, because as you say, you will lose armor in a counter. Maybe my odds for west russia while doing the ukraine attack are very off for some reason…

With the extra armor in west russia that is a sure win, so you have about a 20% failure rate in ukraine. It’s probably more than that if don’t want to risk your fighters at all. I usually play lowluck so ukraine is always valid percentage-wise, so I guess I should have taken that into account.

I still think the move is valid though, even with “only” a 80% success rate. The question is, do you think it would be legitimate if you were guaranteed to take out ukraine and in return lose 2 armor? I can see that losing 3 would be worse news, but I am willing to trade 2 arm, 1 art 3 inf for 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig. I would not be willing to trade 3 arm for that same amount as russia.

The one thing about ukraine is that it is a riskier battle. Well, it is certainly riskier than west russia in terms of dice. Belorussia is a bit closer, but the end result if you did west russia/belorussia and belorussia went south was that it was only 3 inf. Ukraine is not a battle that is always won, though it usually is. Still, even in LowLuck it can go wrong. I would suggest that anyone who is planning to take Ukraine takes a look at the board with ukraine held with 1 arm, 1 fig, and the russian 3 inf, art, 2 arm dead, and see what they will do. If you cannot come up with something you feel comfortable with doing at that point, then I would not suggest you do ukraine, because it is a very real possibility. I still think it’s worth it, but when it goes south it does set russia back moreso than the west russia/belorussia move. I’d say just be aware of the consequences, and think of something to do when the consequences are poor, because it will happen.

I can see how you think it might be useful theduke, but I guess I just…don’t. Your points about the indian IC are definitely agreeable, but the reason that I feel the indian IC is better is because, while you are right those troops will be headed there anyway, at least you are taking out a substantial chunk of them and keeping moscow sitting nicely for a few more turns. From my previous posts you can probably tell that I still don’t like it, but it at least accomplishes this.

Australia can definitely be useful in taking back those weak territories, and harassing the japanese. I just don’t see this harassment as worthwhile. While your are nickel and diming japan, you have to build up enough with the US/UK to make any real push past the indies/new guinea viable, since they are two steps away. Thus, this carries with it the normal issue with KJF of allowing Germany to grow ripely, especially with continued UK naval building in the pacific combined with US building. The UK/US pressure on Japan leaves Germany strong. Normally this isn’t quite as much an issue in KJF because the ICs in asia can hold back japan for awhile, and the effort that the UK/US can expend against germany is enough to allow russia to deal with them.

However, if you place the australia IC and devote resources to maintaining it and the navy to effectively harass, you allow asia to fall even more quickly than normal. It still certainly takes japan awhile to march across, but my feeling is that japan will be sitting pretty near russia when germany is. I see how you can use an australian IC, but I don’t see that it is useful. Certainly japan taking it is pretty worthless for them, as you state. But why would they bother? I’ll let the UK keep sinking 16 IPCs into the pacific each round if they want.

I would rate the indian IC as the most valid UK IC. The australian one I would rate as the least valid. I do not see in what capacity you can hope to slow down the japanese by an australian IC. You would not hinder any push to moscow, and if you actually want to use land units you need your transports and a big navy to do so. If you delegate navy building to US, then you still have to wait for them to escort you, and if you build yourself you are still building 2 very expensive units in the far corner of the earth, that are unlikely to have any real effect on the japanese.

Fox,

The annoying answer is that…it depends. What are you going to take the territory with if you win? If you take it with a lot of troops that will die on a counter, then it would be silly to take it. If you take and can withstand a counter, then go for it. Typically germany will only have 1-2 inf on their frontline, unless they are moving in bulk. If you can take out that bulk, then the move you suggested is great. If you can’t, but it is weak on offense, then just sit tight and attack what you can.

Be careful about trying to strafe too much (the term “strafe” is a common term for what you are suggesting), as if you take something and are vulnerable to a counter, you could well have screwed yourself out of a game.

88,

I forgot about the pearl thing. Honestly I have only been playing the ‘pact of steel’ variant in triplea, and while most of the concepts are applicable to revised, the manchuria stack is a discrepancy. There is no ‘pearl harbor’ option in ‘pact of steel’, so creaming manchuria is a simple decision to make. My bad, should have paid more attention to this difference.

I definitely like the offensive purchase thrown in with the ukraine attack. I don’t know how applicable it is to revised, but I sometimes purchase 1 fig, 1 arm, 1 art, 2 inf on the first round. It hurts until you stabilize your stacks against germany because you are obviously a bit weak, but in the long run that extra fighter is extremely valuable. Still, the safe route for a new player is definitely a big inf stack, inf/art, or inf/tank.

I’m pretty sure it needs to be in a territory with an IC.

I find it unlikely that you would be getting support from australia, as I doubt japan will let you do so with an indian IC in place.

So, lets say you have 11 inf, 3 fig, 1 aa. Lets also say you manage to get some US figs over, 2.

In JP1 there are 3 inf,1 art in FIC, 2 originally, 2 from phillipines. Japan builds 3 xports, 1 arm.

In JP2 there are 11 inf in FIC (3 from china, 1 from borneo, 3 from japan), 1 art, 2 arm, 6 figs, 1 bmb. On attack the two inf from east indies could be brought in, and that battle leaves us at about 80%. Of course, if japan buys 2 bombers on round 2, then their win percentage is in the high 90’s.

Obviously you divert japan’s attention, but I still don’t think it’s worth it for the UK. Russia can definitely help out, but with the UK not dumping significant resources into europe, and the US potentially not, their front will definitely be weakened.

Don’t expect to be able to move to ukraine on R2 though. Only do it (or anything!) if you will not get creamed on a counter.

@88:

As a rule I’d say only trade with Germany if your allies are fully engaged in killing Germany first. It can get really lonely trading pieces with Germany if the U.S. and U.K. aren’t landing any footsoldiers to help out.

I would argue that if your allies aren’t helping you kill Germany than why bother trying yourself? I would never advocate that a novice tries KJF, though at least Japan would probably be easier to handle.

@88:

Try taking (or at least strafing) the Ukraine. 3 Inf, 1 Art, 2 Arm, and 2 Ftrs should do the trick. The upside is the death of a German Fighter before it ever gets off the ground. For some reason not many people on this board use this move, and no one has been able to articulate why it’s not a solid move. They won’t even try. Again, only do this if your allies are also going all out vs. Germany, as you’ll lose too much Russian hardware to go it alone.

I prefer this move as well, and do it just about every time. I like taking out the fighter and also alleviating any crazy attacks on caucus, and especially a full stack on ukraine if belorussia goes south. So I’m with you on this one, but I think for a beginner it might be better to take the safe road. If ukraine goes seriously south I wouldn’t expect a novice russia to be able to dig themselves out. Taking belorussia and west russia are far less risky, and provide decent enough gains.

@88:

Stack 6 Russian Inf in Buryatia on R1.

Every time I do this I smack myself when Japan crushes them, but I do still do it pretty often. Still, Japan killing all these inf hurts a lot. If you can retreat with them to novo then by about turn 4 you will have a very large stack of infantry, with at least a few armor/fighter to support them. I find that I can hold off japan longer doing it that way then making a hold in bury. Of course, if japan shuns away from bury it’s a good move, but again…for a novice russia I would assume that having 1/5th of your infantry destroyed on the first turn would be a bad thing, and that they could accomplish more with a safer strategy.

Maybe he means 2nd edition is no good. Oh well, I’m sure it was worth posting a forum topic about.

There are lots of ideas, and they are strewn throughout this forum. I reccomend that you pick through them and pick up the bits that are around. As detailed strategies are difficult, given the variables, I usually would give the following advice.

1. Trade territories with Germany. Do this as cheaply as you can afford. You may be able to trade belorussia, karelia, and ukraine. I try and trade with either 2 inf, fighter OR 1 inf, 1 fighter (if i am feeling feisty) OR 1 inf, 1 art, etc. Obviously if germany has more than 1 unit on a territory, you should probably hit it with more. Against two, you might want to go 1 inf, 1 art, 1 fighter. Always keep a large force in west russia if possible, as it threatens a large amount of territory.
2. If you ever gain the advantage, step into germany if it does not expose your backside. If I can take and hold a territory I will do so, as it results in an IPC differential and forces defense of further back territories. It also means you don’t trade, which means you are less likely to take casualties on the assault.
3. Fall back in the east in an orderly fashion. If you can ever form a solid block that can’t be broken by japan that round with allied planes and other help, do so. Every round you keep japan at bay is critical.
4. Beg your allies. Seriously, I spend a lot of time as russia begging my allies to come to the rescue. They tend to get distracted after a few beers and start thinking that battleships are a cool idea when there are 10 of them. You need your allies to land in europe to save your ass. Russia can be a very strong force, but only if your allies allow you to be.
5. Once you have fallen back to around novi, take stock of the situation. Hopefully along the way you will have built up an arsenal, and most critically german movement against you has all but halted due to allied threats. If germany is on your doorstep AND japan is on your doorstep, you are screwed. Blame your allies, I always do  :-)
6. If germany has been halted by your allies, turn most of your meat towards japan and pummel them mercilessly.

Those are the general guidelines I give. To play it safe I’d attack belorussia with 3 inf, 2 fig, and west russia with everything you have got the first turn. A general safe buy is 3 inf, 4 art. I rarely do either, but it’s a good place to start.

Just how do you manage to keep your indian IC? Why don’t you tell me normally what you would have on it by the end of UK3, and I’ll tell you what I could have on it by JP3, and we’ll do a little comparison shopping.

Also, russia should not be able to “dance around germany” for the whole game. Without any allied intervention germany WILL overwhelm russia. With a disparity of 16 IPCs in income, lets say 12, not going anywhere fast, you have 4 extra inf on the side of the germans. That combined with their initial troop superiority will walk through russia if given enough time to do so.

In the interest of the “Catch a man a fish he’ll eat for a day…” motto, you should type “bid” into the search form at the top of your page. You can look through all of those, but a good explanation can be had under the title “How much do you bid?”. Look, listen, learn. Then speak. That’s how I do things anyhow.

Hmmm, well I guess it is not more effective, you’re right. I just went and looked at the numbers and by the end of round 6 the transport method would only yield you 12 units, while the factory method would yield you (assuming you use original 2 transports) 4 on round 2, 3 on round 3, 4, 5, 6. The method I would be advocating would require two extra transports to shuffle down to brazil, which obviously costs substantially more than the factory and only allows you to get 1 more unit there a turn.

I think I just have an aversion to having a factory around not doing anything later in the game, but in your case it would definitely be worth it. In every other case I would definitely suggest against a brazilian IC, but for the smallest amount of IPCs I guess the factory in brazil would have to be the way to go, assuming you just want to use the original EUS transports.

Thank you switch. Sometimes I feel like people only hear what they want to hear.

What I fail to see is why you cannot shuck down to brazil, then to africa, then back again.

I’ll call 2 original eastern us transports EUST.
I’ll call 2 US1 built transports NT.

US1: EUST to brazil seas.
US2: EUST to africa (somewhere)
US3: EUST to brazil
US4: EUST to africa
US5: EUST to brazil
US6: EUST to africa

US1: Build NT
US2: NT to brazil
US3: NT to EUS
US4: NT to brazil
US5: NT to EUS
US6: NT to brazil

Every two rounds you get four units to africa if you want. The commitment of two transports is rather equivalent to the factory, but it seems to me that you can get troops there just as quickly and effectively, for cheaper, and with extra transports to use later if you go the transport route. Can you give me a 6 round breakdown of what you would do with the factory so I don’t make assumptions about transport buys vs. arm/inf?