Posts made by Geist

@jim010:

…then you’ll want to go get rated…

I already come highly rated.  :wink:

Endorsed by 9 out of 10 Doom bots!

I agree. If only there was a section of the forums for actual game play, then we could all go there and see examples of these games played out….if only.

I’m up for a game. I can be Axis.

I’d be down to test it.

I also heard he said he can play basketball better than Michael Jordan…

I’d like to see it rolled into the Hawaii and Alaska NO, lump them all into one called US territory and allies. Then replace it with a North African NO (perhaps Morroco, Tunisia, Egypt and Gibraltar).

If you retreat the RAF from the Med, along with 9 Infantry in your turn one build, then 10 infantry (you usually can make a beter turn 2 defensive build) with your turn 2 build you’re looking at 23 Infantry, 6 Fighters and one Tac Bomber for defense (french forces included) that does not include any transports that survive to bring over additional Canadian troops. The transports will die, but, the objective is for the UK to survive. Let’s assume the Germans build 12 transports between turns they will be able to get a Max of 26 land units and 11 air (this assumes a best case scenario for Germany, no air units lost turn one and an aircraft carrier and two transports bought turn one, 10 transports on turn 2) so yes, in this best case scenario Germany brings 13 Infantry, 8 Artillery, 5 Tanks, 5 Fighters, 5 Tac bombers, and 1 Bomber vs 23 Infantry, 6 Fighters and one Tac Bomber for defense at this point you have good odds (roughly 99%). But what if a transport survives the G1 attack and brings over an infantry and a tank from Canada, now your odds drop to 92%, still good but you get mauled on the ground.

If you go with a standard G1 build of 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 Sub you now have 4 less ground troops and your odds (not assuming the two additional Canadian troops land in the UK) your odds drop down to 88% (72% if Canadian reinforcements come) with high ground losses and on a bad die roll you’re losing air units to keep a tank alive to claim the capital. None of these scenarios take into account the possibility of German air unit losses or the possibilty that the UK will park the Med fleet in SZ 110 to buy an extra round of building up.

With the 10 point London NO, you’ll do one of two things, you’ll encourage the UK to turtle above all else or if I’m missing something here and it truly is a cake walk to take the UK, then you’ll make that the new standard opening for Germany because the Allies get hit twice, once for losing a capital and a 10 point hit to the US economy.

I don’t really care for the 10 point London NO. I don’t think it would have the desired effect of committing the US to the Atlantic, London can turtle in fairly effectively without help from the US, so now it’s just a guarenteed 10 IPC for the US and as long as London play conservatively the first few rounds and protects it’s capital USA get’s a guarenteed 10 IPC. I’d like to see the NO encourage action and attempts to actively contest territory rather than reward inaction.

I wouldn’t mind seeing the 10 point US NO reduced to 5 and an additional 5 point Europe based NO in the game.

If you have two evenly skilled players, how much of an edge do you need to win? A slight one or a huge one?

How does Japan go after Russia and keep enough of a fleet to fend off a US Pacific build? You also don’t mention what the UK did in the game. The Axis can win, but, I think it relies more on Allied mistakes.

My last game, I built mostly Atlantic for the first three rounds of the game, giving only a few DD’s to the Pacific, and once Japan got strong enough to worry about, I switched to an all Pacific build and put Japan in an untenable position by turn 8 or 9. Japan is simply pulled in too many directions. If you try and operate in the south, you’ll get cut off in the North and your naval builds will dry up. If you operate in the north you’ll lose the DEI’s, and if you split up your navy you’ll delay the hammer fall for a few rounds, but, it will likely come at the expense of any land campaign you have going on, because you’ll need your air power to guard Japan and threaten a counter attack on the US fleet.

Don’t forget Montreal…

Rolls: 4@2 6@3 1@3; Total Hits: 54@2: (6, 1, 4, 3)6@3: (3, 6, 1, 6, 5, 1)1@3: (1)

Rolls: 4@2 6@3 1@4; Total Hits: 64@2: (3, 5, 5, 2)6@3: (3, 4, 3, 1, 3, 6)1@4: (3)

@Cmdr:

@Cmdr:

(Yes, I realized that 101 scrambles out of 100 attacks is mathematically incorrect, I am illustrating a point, not writing a mathematical proof!)

@Geist:

Technically in 100 attacks you could only scramble 100 times, not 101.

Or I could just be poking fun at you pointing out the obvious… By and large I agree that the Axis needs some tweaking.

Technically in 100 attacks you could only scramble 100 times, not 101.

I think the US has been nerfed somewhat, but, where they are now is good. I would rather add a Japanese NO than take away a US one.

Hey! I said that earlier…

I was thinking more along the lines of an invasion of the DEI doesn’t automatically force anyone to declare war and a declaration on ANZAC or the UK still brings the US into the war. What I think might balance, the early Japanese IPC’s it out is that if Japan invades the DEI then ANZAC and UK both can gain their NO without being at war with Japan, kind of a gearing up for an attack reaction and offcourse Japan loses the 10 point US NO. Though in all honesty, at this point I’m more in favor of smaller changes to the Alpha +2 set up, since it seems to be pretty good as is. To me there seems to be a small bias towards the allies, but, hopefully there will be a few tweaks to the set up in the final version.

Back to the point of the original post, I tend to agree, Japan has limited options. Personally, I’d like to see the US unable to declare war until turn four and Japan able to invade the DEI, however, if they do this the US can then declare war on Turn 3.