Posts made by dondoolee

@Cow:

Why is Japan not going to war? Makes it easier for the US to liberate UK, you dont want to do it right away anyway, but having less pressure in the pacific gives the US 2 rounds of freedom to get itself on london.

It is so much easier in the pacific for USA when all he has to do is build 2 subs 1 dd every round to keep japan down.

The theory is to keep Britain isolated and the us low on production and not able to reinforce Britain on the turn the UK is captured, this leaves the axis time to maneuver into a position.  With the us out if the war, the axis control all the movement on the board and have only 1 target to hit.

Japan can still maneuver.  Are their any maneuvers Japan can do that the US HAS to respond to?  That was one of my main questions.  The other one is, can Japan maneuver and virtually guarantee itself the odds to take India J3/J4.  If that’s possible, that’s the UK eliminated before the other two allies are even in.the war.  I don’t see how they can recover.  But of there is really nothing statistically the U.K. can do to get favorable odds on both fronts (even it’s just 51% for the axis) by a mad rush from the Axis, I see no reason not to do that every single time as an axis player.

Can the The isolated UK can be virtually wiped out by the axis before the other allies even enter?  And if so that probably means a couple of things:

1. Italy is not insignificant in the early game.
2. Italy and Japan have linked up in the middle east and are now a force Russia has to think about. That should be a big enough that to Russia to keep her busy while a strong Germany makes adjustments.  Germany also had a lot of translated that can hit Russia hard and deep into get territory.  Russian troops are still going to be in a conservative position.
3. The U.S.A. Is on its cost and unable to reach UK for 2 turns.  It also has to build a strong enough navy to withstand the German air force and possibly even a combined German Italian navy.  That’s money not going into ground units.   If one is playing a kill an isolated UK, and Japan can get planes on Normandy by J4, that adds to an even bigger headache.

Even if Japan can’t kill UK Pacific I still wonder if it can do this:

1. hit Russia.  Either by hitting Russia in the far east J1, our hitting China particularly hard (1 factory and 2 bombers ought to be enough to contain India) and being at the USSRS back door on J4, while gobbling up a few far east territories before that.

2. Force America to build heavy in the Pacific

Either way, Like I said Japan is a mystery to me on how to optimize sea lion.

But even if the U.K. can protect itself with favorable odds, this seems to be what’s happening:

1. Germany buys nothing G1, lands planes in tobrook and Italy.  This costs Germany nothing, and cripples the allies.
2. UK has to pull fighters from India, and leaves Italian Bb/Tran alone, withdraws navy from med.

I don’t get how the allies survive that opening.  India is as good as dead, Italy it’s going to swell, and Russia is going to get crushed quickly.

Anyone ever try strafing Iraq with the Brits/Ussr and taking Iraq and building an IC with Anzac?  3 units in a safe and critical area from another power seems like it could be a decent idea (reenforceing any needed of the 3 fronts it is around with 9 - 12 ipc worth of units a turn). The Anzacs could have 2 inf and 1 fig to clean up.  I guess this would take place on AZ 4, or 5…and this assumes Egypt and the mideeast are stable as well as India.  Those are big if’s, but not inconceivable.

I think I’m too afraid to try it.  I keep thinking UK/USSR (esp with the USSR NO) need that cash way more, and it seems like it would take too long to pull off to be worth it. But an extra secure factory from a third power seems to be a decent trade off.  If you tried it, I’m just wondering how it worked out.

Also, If UK gets captured t3, does UK Pac own recaptured UK territories (ex:  Italy owns Egypt, UK pac liberates it, does UK Pac the IPC’s?).

Is there a way to send the Japanese AF to Europe?  Or do serious bombing threats on Russia/America/Atlantic shipping by J3/J4?

Thanks for your reply’s, its nice getting advice from experts on this.  I get that some of the scenarios (esp. the 55% odds scenario) may be Pyrrhic.  To be honest most scenarios I’ve seen Germany is between a 66-85% chance for success.  My main concerns are:

1. Is England not supposed to try to negate the advantage?  Is it just supposed to try to make it too costly for Germany?  I say this mostly because that means the UK is forced to abandon the med, and send Indian fighters to London.  That seems like suicide too.   All Germany as to do G1 is not buy anything(or maybe buy one bomber) and you would have to abandon everything at no expense to Germany, and with a free gift to Italy.

2. Russia:  In the scenario I gave, Italy is getting max income. I’m used to seeing Germany land 1 fig in Tobruk and 1 SB in S. Italy from Eastern Europe…these are very dicey battles that may have to be fought. along with the It. Destroyer in the Med off of Malta. (a dicey Ethiopia may have to be fought too).  If England doesnt do good here, Italy will be a pretty impressive buffer against USSR while Germany reorients herself.  So far I see these battles as very dicey and very critical.

Even Worse if Germany has a lot of troops left, Russia cant do much because it’s a pain to overextend with Russia anyway, even with a weak Germany and Italy, those transports Germany has, makes it near impossible.  Maybe the US turning into a bomber factory helps (can the US land bombers? if its that critical, I bet the Axis could own Gib/Morocco by t3).

3. Japan:

Ever since AAR, I have never been the best Japanese player but anyway,  I don’t know if there is a “magic bullet strategy” Japan can do to really put the nail in the coffin.  My guess is, if you are going for Sealion, you have a weak Japan because you have to wait to declare war. But here are my crazy mostly untested thoughts on this:

a) Take the shortest path to Russia, str bomb a strongly fortified UK Pac to keep the production down.  This is what we have been doing every time we do sealion.  Usually its done by hitting China and Ignoring Russia until China is wiped out by t3 or t4.  But A direct t1 hit on Russia may be the better option (though that means I’m dealing with 24 inf and 2 AA for far east Russian territories). Set up to hit all the Islands by J3.  Either way, this path seems the safest way to coordinate with Germany.

b) Slightly more crazy:  Ignore the islands turn 3 and try to wipe out UK Pac by t3.  This would completley eliminate the UK on t3.  If its doable, that may be worth it.  This opens up a path to Russia and Axis NO’s.

c) insane:  Throw everything at the US t3.  Is this possible?  has this been tried?  I don’t think this could work, I’m ust throwing it out there.  If Japan starts out with enough initial material odds that can reach the US on J3/J4, this may be doable.  Either way, this means its Russia alone vs Germany/Italy.  It takes time for Russia to drive to germany.  If Japan hits the US, Germany is guaranteed to have transports no matter what, and time is on Germanys side. and as time wears on no matter how much the UK hurt Italy t1 (germany may even be able to get the Eg NO by turn 4 or 5), it will recover and be useful.  I guess if this idea is viable, the UK Pac and Anzac see this, they may be positioned enough to seriously check Italy, or maybe even Japan.  not sure.

But the real crux of a US “invasion” is this.  Is there a way for Japan to seriously anatagonize the US with little cost?  Sort of like a Germany buying nothing on G1.  If Japan can do that, while Germany is contemplating sealion, that makes sealion even more possible because the US has to focus on a Japanese bluff.  In this case, Japan can declare war anytime it wants on anybody, as long as it’s guarantying the US has to focus on her. And even more to the point, if sealion is possible with these initial moves, if nothing else it forces the Brits out of the Mediterranean and even Egypt to protect their borders with little cost to the Axis.

I only played this map 8 times, so I’m new to it, I also won’t be able to look at the board.for a few days.do my memory may be off.

By odds I mean at least 51% success rate.  And this assumes Paris falls t1 as the only prerequisite.

Here is how I see the board granting UK good luck, and Germany bad luck:

UK has all the men from Canada in.

buys 6 inf 1 fig t1.

Buys 9 inf 1 tank t2.

Has 3 fig to scramble (which forces Germany to buy an AC).

All German subs are cleared, the Bb is destroyed.

By turn 3 Germany had lost 6 planes (either in.an initial attack, or helping clear the med for Italy use one fighter for Italy)

Germany does not take Normandy territory t1, leaves Bulgaria, southern France, and Yugoslavia alone for Italy…this leaves Germany with leery income possible.

Germany buys 1 AC and all transports (total of 12).

As for the other axis, if it matters:

Uk smashes Italy (bb destroyed, as well as Ethiopia, Tobruk, and the dd).  This forces the bomber and fighter in UK down to Africa…but leaves Italy in the worst shape assuming all rolls went England’s way.

Japan does not declare war on anybody (except maybe Russia) to keep the U.S. At limited production and two turns away from landing on the UK.

German odds, 55%…with all the breaks going U.K’s way big time in an unrealistic setting.  USA two turns out of position, and Germany may have 5 fighters and an AC the USA has to build up for.  Japan has the option to press Russia (on t1) or USA (t3) hard if that’s useful.

The only other option I see on this is to leave Italy / the med alone and keep the fig at bomber at home which seems like a pretty grim situation as well.  Which means if everything breaks perfect for England, she will have the odds in her favor, and give up the Mediterranean.

@Subotai:

With no bids it’s all out against Russia, take Moscow within 4-5 rnds usually, but with an allied bid Germany should be aggressive at first, then turtle, and wait for Japan to take Moscow and Africa and the rest of the world.

I agree, it also works much better if Italy makes Russia priority #1 (or at least builds enough to prevent 1 unit USSR blocks), and Japan throws the Kitchen sink at India / Persia for opening moves (going as far as to abandon Phil and maybe even Yunnan J1).

@Darth Maximus

While it is true bombarding ships are the only ones that are directly valuable to land attacks, if I were concerned about an over time bombarding ship with intangibles I would choose 1 20 IPC BB to 2 24 cru, as it is cheaper, offers more protection and has comprable bombarding stats.  The IPC differential adds even more due to the absorbtion on an attack (as in it may be worth more than a 4 IPC cost).

Also I think, it isn’t so much as comparing a cruiser to a destroyer but comparing a cruiser to an air unit.  Air is just a superior build 9/10 times.  The only reason you build a navy at all is because you absolutely have to. When compared to air navy has; less power projection, has more limited range, has more limited movement, has worse stats (ipc for ipc), still can’t take land, has less than or equal to movement, is in danger of becoming next to worthless past a certain point in the game, and less versital/ flexible. I will take 1 carrier and two airplanes over 3 cruisers any day of the weak and on UK1 (where you are in the best position to buy multiple capital ships) to not build a carriers in favor of cruisers seems particularly like a bad idea (as in you can immediatly utilize up to 4 allied fig by G2 making your fleet untouchable for at least 3 turns and giving your fig better range). I may even take 2 battleships over three cruisers.

Not only that the cost deficiancy is even more when you consider the otherwise worthless extra transports you are building (for those advocating the over 4 cruiser bombard strat) and the infantry you sacrifice everytime by straffing.  Add that to the fact that you can’t be doing much in any other theater with the UK other than straffing and weaking 1-2 German territories per turn.

I just think the UK is capable of a lot more with better money managment and unit allocation.  That being said, buying a cruiser can and should happen sometimes, just not very often, particularly with a UK making less than 30 IPC’s.

In short

carriers at least utilize fig (which are cheaper, stronger, and more versitile)

destroyers are cheaper if you need a “quicky” unit to defend (though this is when I would buy a cruiser if I had the money), or if you have to build one due to subs

While I still don’t advocate buying the BB, I think the math is better on them than on a cruiser in most cases.

@ those advocating German builds

The problem compounds itself 10 fold with Germany and Italy (Japan can build anything it wants, because it’s Japan).  The game is designed for the Allies to dominate the Atlantic almost at will.  If the Allies can not control the Atlantic due to the mechanics of the game, the game becomes truley hopeless for the Allies.  Even if that was not the case I think the math still shows fig / bomb will be the better buy in over 90% of G1-G3 purchases than a cruiser.

@ HolKann

While I agree with your overall assesment, I still see a marginal semi regular use for them with the US and maybe UK.

I have noticed times with the US when trying to build a fleet up in the pacific, and you need actual fleet to re-enforce a somewhat difficult area cruisers can come into play, that or you don’t want to spen money on a carrier/fig combo.

This also works for both the US and UK in the Atlantic.  It works once in a while as a semi-luxury item, or a quick fix re-enforcment unit in a jam that isn’t too bad in the long run because you can shore bombard with it later.

Am I the only one who considers a t1 bomber? It can help keep some japanese shipping honest, helps with an offensive unit in the east if you are sending any troops to china/persia, can be used for a counter attack on Jordan (which is one reason why I like to put tanks on the Cau), it can helps to “perserve” offensive units when going against Germany (especially if you think you can get away with building another fig on R2 or 3).

I think the attacks on the UK navy / Pearl Harbor essentially dictates the tone and tempo of the game.  The material left on the board and the position of the units is usually going to set the allied strategy and determine who has the momentum.

The Russian attacks are done with cheaper, more expendable, and easier replaced infantry to a front that can be easier re enforced.  I think it is easier to make a tactical withdraw and do somewhat of a recovery than the high cost and flakier probability of the naval battles.

1. I said consistent use.  I just don’t see how Germany can make a Cruiser a cornerstone in a strat consistently.  Any power can utilize anything at any time, it is when it can become a backbone to a countries overall agenda consistently is what I am concerned with.

2. It has been awhile since I thought about the 8 tran 8 cruise strat, but I remember spending long hours calculating and it always added up as being economically inefficient.

In fact I think that is part of the problem with cruisers, they are economically inefficient in most cases (sans the USA).  Germany is usually going to be better off with a fighter, bomber, 2 tanks, 4 inf etc.

If Italy wants to build a navy, the Destroyer and Carrier are far more appealing, though I could see a Cruiser built it just won’t happen often

Japan can build whatever it wants, but I don’t see any reason why it should specifically want to build a cruiser (not that it would be a bad build)

Russia is Russia, and I have yet to see a naval strategy that can be explored with consistency, much less one with a cruiser.

Might depend on the openings and what (and when) you expect to do with the UK

The US is in the best position to utilize cruisers (in both theaters).

The UK may be able to buy one on occasion

I see no consistent use for them with any other power though

Persia to me is definitely the most critical to hold.  Novo is probably #2.  Those two territories seem like THE game, everything else seems minor when compared

@Khobai:

I have no problem with Axis getting stuff to balance the game out. The problem is that the other Allies (UK and Russia) have no effective means of aiding the USA to combat Japan in the Pacific.

Outside of the Aussie fleet, and a usually unviable Indian IC, there isn’t much the allies can do to support the US directly in the Pacific.  Where the UK and russia can easily assist the US against Japan is on the mainland.  
The Soviets:
-have a decent amount of inf in the far east that can be used a couple of different ways

• can pump some inf, etc to china quickly
• can establish flexible zones of control with air
• can stack the Cauc/ Per easy with inf.  more importantly, tanks stacked in the Cau create a presence without actually commiting to Japan.
  The UK
  -can unite her fleet with the US at SZ 12 and send all that gear towards Persia/India
  -Send fighters to a US carrier and use them in conjunction with the aussie tranny
  -Send the bomber to Asia to bomb IC’s/ harrass Jap shipping/use in conjunction with Aussie fleet

In the end, the advantage is still to the axis, but there are some things you can do to help against Japan a little

Four times I have bought 1-2 subs all in the Med

1. For kicks An r1 2 sub purchas to see what would happen (Answer, bad things)

2. An experimental UK Aussie IC thing bought 1 sub r1 to send to a linked pacific fleet, used baltic sub in pacific as well (the strat didn’t work at all)

The other two times) Just two situations where it was obvious I could take out the Italian fleeet due to carless Italian/Jap play (he split the fleet, forgetting about russia I think), this worked and help win the game once, the other time I was losing too bad anyway for it to matter

1. Unite the allied fleet in Africa, pump all UK troops to Persia, have the US build up pressure to take France/ Italy, pray you get some luck.  It is way easier to stack, pressure, and cordinate from africa.  Usually this makes the game last 12 turns until the allies are inevitably a lost cause instead of 7.

@Imperious:

That was busted on BGG along time ago. In fact i was the guy whom it was first tried against and failed twice, with the guy latter claiming he had an “unstoppable axis move for Germany” and "comments like “didn’t they even playtest this”

Needless to say i put him in his place, but i have no idea why he still clings to that idea. I posted strategy maps on this but admit it’s just one way to do it, but not the best. I favor a more balanced strategy because it is easily countered.

While a blitz shouldn’t usually work when everyone has plaed the game a few times, I think the concept is useful.  Example:  If you think G1 can get by building all tanks, the Allies have to keep an Axis blitz option on the table and prepare for it, or they are toast.  It is useful to show it can be done (with no real expectations of doing it) if the allies ignore it/ get awful dice, in order to limit ally play options.

I would agree that forgoing an AUS factory in fav of UK fig would be the better of 2 options.  Even then there is no wa this strat could be applied with an consistency, nor could it be used for a set up in an “average” game once it has been initally employed, it’s just to easy to spot and crack once it has been seen once while working under “typical” circumstances.