Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Hobbes
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 44
    • Posts 1,647
    • Best 3
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by Hobbes

    • RE: Allied National Advantages (LHTR 2.0)

      @Cmdr:

      As for number of NA’s per side, generally speaking the tournaments that I play in have 3 for Germany, 3 for Japan and 2 for each England, America and Russia.

      With those numbers, we’re talking bids for the axis in the amount of 0 to 2 IPC.  I’ve even bid for the Allies with those numbers because the Axis have a better assortment to chose from.  Especially since they are randomly selected (2 random per nation, one chosen by Germany and one chosen by Japan.)

      So, if I got it right, all of the Allied NAs are random while G/J can choose one of the 3. They choose before or after they roll for the random NAs?

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Allied National Advantages (LHTR 2.0)

      Interesting so far. I’m curious on how many NAs per side do people usually assign. I put 4 because that’s how I use to play it.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • Allied National Advantages (LHTR 2.0)

      Probably this poll isn’t new here but I saw a post that made me rethink this question and decided to run a little poll  :-D

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Japan invading Brazil - An option?

      It’s a diversion, nothing more. Distracts the US but it’s impossible to hold Brazil unless the US makes some major mistakes.

      I once had a game on triple where J invaded Brazil (which I ignored for that turn) and built an IC on the following turn. He had his entire fleet (2 ACs, 4 FTRs, 2 BB, 1 DES, 1 TRN) and started building submarines. The US simply bought subs, FTRs and ACs. Meanwhile the 24 IPCs spent meant that only 16 or so were being used on Asia which was great for the Russians. The US kept using their 35 IPCs until finally they attacked and sank the entire Jap fleet. The IC was lost on the following turn and Brazil recovered  :-D

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Balanced Strategy

      @Romulus:

      As you said, and I agree, Axis powers are separated and cannot collaborate. Their best options is to attack Russia, because their are indirectly collaborating in those ways.

      I disagree: what about G/J units working together on Africa? Or the Japanese fleet linking with G’s Med fleet and threatning the Atlantic? Things get a lot more interesting when that happens.  :-D

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Current Japanese Pushing Strategeries?

      Plenty on variations possible on this one, according to each one’s personal taste. Here’s mine:

      • Get 4-6 transports: 2-3 offload troops from J into the mainland, the remainder are used to transport inf from J and the islands into FIC and from there to SZ34 where they can hit Persia, Egypt or East Africa.
      • Australia sometimes can be a tempting target (if the UK has only left 1 INF) there but NZ and Hawaii are not worth moving 1 transport there.
      • 2 ICs (1 in FIC, 1 in India) are essential. The India transport should only build INF until there’s enough of them massed on Persia to prevent any R counterattack. Then it switches to ARM. More ICs are usually not worth it if you use your transports well.
      • Just buying tanks for the ICs can be a waste of IPCs, especially when you are advancing towards Novo/Kaz because of them being destroyed by allied counterattacks.
      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Nit picky German Economizer

      Playing defensively is the worst strategy, IMO of course, for either G or R: it just invites the other player to go against you.

      Not really. Maybe your definition of defensive is retreating indefinitely, and that’s how you perceive my argument. That’s not it at all. I don’t even have a defensive/offensive way to play. I just play conservatively, making sure that I’m not using a bit of effort or money that can’t be backed up. .

      I perceived it exactly as you described on your last line: playing conservatively, or waiting for backup before making a move. Perhaps I should reformulate my argument: sticking on a single strategy is the worst strategy, IMO. There’s a time to be conservative, a time to push, a time to spend INF and ARM like crazy, a time to fortify in your core territories.

      Counting on luck is the worst strategy, IMO; hoping that one infantry or tank will take out a bazillion units. Because guess what, it doesn’t just happen for your side, and just as often as not your luck could be the other way.

      Who said anything about me counting on luck? :) When there’s that lonely INF out there I don’t expect it to even kill 1 unit before the 2 INF + 1 FTR (or whatever the combination) gets it. But this is not even luck: it’s relying on probabilities.
      Luck is something that happens when opportunity and preparation meet, not when the dice roll. And a good player makes its own luck on the choices and moves he/she makes. After 10 battles where a single INF is killed defending a territory there’s a fair chance that at least in 1 of them it will survive and give you an opening. And if you are not in position to take advantage of that result then you just missed an opportunity.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Nit picky German Economizer

      Oh, and I think this tactic works better but as a Nit picky Russian Economizer against J.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Nit picky German Economizer

      @trihero:

      The problem with using this tactic is that you assume that your opponent is willing to do the same. The moment he decides to occupy the vacant territory with inf you’ll have to attack it.
      The result: you just gave him a territory or more for him to occupy for free and force you to take it back. You’ve just surrendered the initiative on that front for him.

      But I have to point out that I believe your second statement is incorrect, where you say that “you’ve just surrendered the initiative.”

      When you’re in trading wars with 1-3 inf in a territory, the advantage goes to the attacker, because 1-3 defending inf don’t hit with great accuracy, while the offense containing fighters/art + inf have a great chance of killing the defending units. The offender usually comes out 1-2 units ahead.

      Thus, to prostrate yourself in a defensive position in those trading territories is not good. It is, in fact, giving the attacker the initiative.

      I think you misunderstood me there on who’s the attacker and the defender. What is more offensive? To blitz to and back from a territory or to move 1 INF there?
      OK, the attacker can use 3 INF and 1 FTR and kill the lonely INF on that territory, but what other choice does he/she have? Leave the INF there and fall back on the IPC curve and have a hole on their front that can be used by the other player to take other territories behind? Does the attacker then have the initiative or he’s simply forced to react (and use FTR/ART/ARM that could be used in other places?) to the lonely INF moving?

      If your goal is as Germany is to fully conserve your forces, then you will not start with the wrong foot by sticking an infantry where it doesn’t need to be. Let Russia start the quibble.

      If you mean that G’s goal should be to conserve its forces, then I reply that when I play as G my goal is to kick Russia as hard as possible, regardless of the Allies’s strategy being KGF or KJF. And even the Allies are going for KGF you have several turns worth in advance to move towards Russia, looking for an opportunity to take and hold either WR or Caucasus. Then if the pressure gets too much its just a matter of pulling back the tank stack (10-20 tanks) to G and leave J to finish Russia. Playing defensively is the worst strategy, IMO of course, for either G or R: it just invites the other player to go against you.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Nit picky German Economizer

      The problem with using this tactic is that you assume that your opponent is willing to do the same. The moment he decides to occupy the vacant territory with inf you’ll have to attack it.
      The result: you just gave him a territory or more for him to occupy for free and force you to take it back. You’ve just surrendered the initiative on that front for him.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Czech this scenario…

      Hmmm…I’m not so sure R and G would have such a tough time. True, they would only start with 64 production against 102 but they would have the advantage of being at the center, with Russia being secure.
      Russia could move against the US/UK/J on Asia and still take Africa. Meanwhile G could focus on UK, leaving the US to either help J, retake Africa or defend the UK (which would drop in production after a takeover of India/Africa). Just from the UK R/G could take 14 IPCs, plus the chinese territories, which would balance the production.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Edit mode of TripleA

      @Amon:

      go to Game and then turn on the edit mode

      when you come to combat/noncombat you ll be available to remove any units on the board you want and move any unit on the board wherever you want to

      Hm? I’ve been playing triplea for quite a while and I’ve never seen that option available (especially considering how easy it would allow to change a saved game…). Are you sure you’re taking of triplea or of that other mapping util? (map view? I dont use so I’m not sure of the name)

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Battle of the North Atlantic

      Winners write History :)

      I only researched this because I’ve done some postgraduate studies on political science and the matter discussed brought my curiosity. According to the university site mentioned above the armstice was legally signed by the 3rd Republic, as Pétain had been legally empossed as the Prime Minister on the 16th of June. He then used his powers to form the French State.

      And, like the law proposal mentions, even in France they prefer to refer to the French State as Vichy (it does not mention that the proposal was approved, so most likely it was rejected).

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Battle of the North Atlantic

      Hello,

      I’ve been browsing the forums and found this discussion about Vichy France rather interesting so I decided to make a few research on my own. The easiest way to settle this is to look at the Constitution of the Vichy regime (the legal document that defines and codes the state) and see the name that they called itself.

      Here’s the link I used: http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/france/france.htm

      It’s a database from a french university and contains all french constitutions (in french, of course). According to it,
      the regime established after the 1940 defeat didn’t call itself ‘Vichy France’, it was called ‘L’Etat Français’ (The French State) in the ‘Loi constitutionnelle du 10 juillet 1940’ (constitutional law of July 10th, 1940), in substitution of the previous ‘3e République’ (‘3rd Republic’ - which was the one crushed by Germany).
      It would make no sense (on a political or constitutional level) for the ‘French State’ to call itself Vichy France because that would simply remind the french citizens under its control that its actual power only represented the portion of France not occupied by Germany. In the constitution there’s no reference to its power being limited to that area, it presents itself as a continuation of the 3rd Republic, since nearly all new political regimes present themselves as continuations of the previous ones, in order to claim legitimacy.
      Thus, Vichy France is merely a label applied to it because the seat of the government was on Vichy France and the name stuck because that’s how Germans called it (Ribbentrop calls it ‘l’État français à Vichy’ on a letter to Pétain, the president of the French State, available on that site) and the Allies as well.

      And the name stuck so well, in fact, that in 2003 a law proposal was presented at the French Assemblée Nationalle (National Parliament): http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/propositions/pion0729.asp

      It’s propose is: “visant à substituer, dans les communications publiques invoquant la période de l’État français, aux références à la ville de Vichy, l’appellation « dictature de Pétain »”. Or, to replace in all public communications that refer to the period of the french State any reference to the village of Vichy by the designation ‘Pétain’s dictatorship’.
      According to the text of the proposal the honor and reputation of the citizens of Vichy is tainted by the association of their village with ‘treason, capitulation or outrage at the republican regime’.

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Importance of Japan

      @Jennifer:

      I disagree to the extreme!  Do not, under ANY circumstances, by an IC for Japan!  Sink the American fleet, then work on landing troops in Buryatia or FIC and work from there!
      If it’s a KJF, England has an IC in India, America has IC’s in China and Sinkiang.  Your IC in Manchuria will just get over run or your fleet will be sunk.

      And I agree with you if there are all of those ICs laying around and G is merely sitting around without pressuring Caucasus/West Russia enough. However a KFJ is not an easy strategy to pursue because of the amount of coordination necessary between the allies and having to coordinate Russia’s defense at the same time.
      An IC on Manchuria can help prevent the Allies from taking Asia while releasing your fleet to retake the islands, if the Sinkiang/India ICs have to help defend R from G’s attacks.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Importance of Japan

      I’d add: if the Allies are going after Japan, don’t buy any ICs for Japan, with the possible exception of 1 for Manchuria. If the Allies take control of japanese ICs on FIC, Kwangtung or India then you’ve just made the Allies task of conquering J a lot easier.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: A Big Mistake

      SZ20 and 21 are at the distance of 1 move on Triple A. However there’s an error where SZ25 and 43 are at 1 move distance instead of 2. This has been fixed already on the next unstable version and it can be fixed easily on the stable 9.0.2 by editing the revised.xml file and deleting the connection between both SZs 25 and 43 (although this fix will only work if you are hosting the game)

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: A Big Mistake

      Which SZs are you refering to?

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Hypothetical German 1 Move

      @ncscswitch:

      But the main thing is, once you wipe out West Russia, THEN WHAT?  You are spent as Germany.  You have no more forward units, no ARM, and probably lost some airforce as well.  What will you use to follow up your attack on Russia?  Not much, you have nothing left in range, and will need at least 2 turns just to get ARM there without an INF screen.  By that time, Russia can build 15+ INF in addition to Allied aircraft, so Germany is NOT going to crack Moscow that way.

      Don’t take the bait, play conservative, and wipe the Russians out when you will still have units for the subsequent attack against them.

      On my move up there I forgot to mention 3 inf from norway to kar on NCM.

      Then you have: 9 inf (Kar+Ukr) + 4 arm (Ukr+EE) to move again on WRus. Or you can split them between Cauc, WRus and Archangel if you want to bleed R a bit. If UK moved the fleet to the Med sink it with the Med fleet + airforce. Then allied player will have to sacrifice Africa if he wants to pressure G that hard.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • RE: Hypothetical German 1 Move

      Take out Russia

      WRus: 5 inf, 1 art, 3 arm, 6 fig, 1 bmr (lose a fighter if you have to take WRus)
      SZ13: 1 BB, 1 sub, 1 trn (to land 1 inf on gibraltar)
      Karelia 3 inf, 1 arm (from G)

      Non Combat:

      • Move 1 inf 1 art from Algeria to Libya
      • Land all fighters on Ukr/Balkans/SE (depending on their unused moves)
      • 2 inf (EE) + 2 inf (Balkans) + 2 armor (G and SE) to Ukr
      • 1 sub to SZ3 (to prevent UK from landing on Kar)
      • 2 inf from WEur/G to Kar
      • 2 arm from WEur to EE
      • WEur AA Gun to G
      • SE Inf + Art to Balkans
      • 1 DD + 1 SUB to SZ7

      Russia will be limited to taking back Cauc + WRus.
      UK can move the Indian fleet to the Med but risks it being attacked by G (1 trn,1 sub,1 BB,ftrs,bmr vs 1 AC, 2 ftrs, 2 des, 1 trn)
      Egypt is threatened (3 inf, 2 art, 1 arm + whatever comes on the transport/BB if it’s still alive)

      The risk is in the SZ13 attack (losing more than a sub) and on the AA rolls on WRus.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      HobbesH
      Hobbes
    • 1
    • 2
    • 79
    • 80
    • 81
    • 82
    • 83
    • 82 / 83