Posts made by ScottishOne

@Amalec:

Thanks for the responses! I’m still not quite convinced…

On spending the 30IPC on ground forces against Russia:
While I agree that ART/MEC/ARM are better ground forces against Russia - I think INF are a better first turn build. ART can be built on G2, arriving in time for Moscow but kept safe from the small attack/counter attack battles that take place in pushing Russia out of Leningrad and Ukraine. ARM and MEC are best built on G2-5, since they can catch up. I digress though: the important aspect here is spending on land forces against Russia vs spending on naval units.

Any inf/art placed down in Berlin will take an additional 5 turns to get to Moscow. That means any G2+ inf/art buys in Berlin will arrive after the Soviet Far East forces could potentially return home. Unless economic parity is attained and maintained, the axis chances of victory will decrease each round they fail to win. IMO, the axis must be in position to win by Rd 8 or very shortly thereafter. While they are cheap, I don’t really think Germany can afford to be buying slow movers to push into Moscow past G1 unless you’re building them in captured factories.

Germany does start with a bunch of infantry, so I’m not sure more infantry are needed. If nothing else, get arty to boost your existing infantry plus all the planned mech builds that will be rolling off the factories G2+.

I don’t like buying a ton of ground units on G1 unless I’m doing a G1 Barb. If UK sees an all ground units buy, then they can take the gloves off against Italy. Others have enumerated why a carrier can be an effective G1 build, but I’d be hesitant to buy those transports. Maybe save the money or get something else.

My favorite G1 buys are either saving that money up or spending a partial buy getting 1-2 bombers. The bombers give you a little bit more options G2 and can still be used in a SL.

@ShadowHAwk:

@taamvan:

It seems pretty fair;  you have to commit to what is going to die before you see how you do on the retaliation.   That usually means avoiding losing your destroyer or tipping a carrier until later in the battle;  forcing you to take these casualties without gaining another piece of information (your defensive performance) seems like a great idea.

Its the exact same as buying your units; you are not allowed to purchase units and then see how you do and what dies and lives and revise that buy to make up for what was lost or not gained by luck.   Same in each round of combat;  you don’t get to know how you perform before you are forced to choose what dies.  Usually, its losing a DD at the wrong time.   Without this rule, subs would be slightly weaker because as it is; they force that choice on the defender.

This favors the attacker pretty heavy as they know what they did before they take hits where the defender does not know the result of the roll.
Normaly we play that we first roll the battles and then remove the casualties, defender first then attacker if it makes a difference.
Just makes defending a bit better currelty the attacker has all the advantages.

If done right, attackers should have the advantage, they get to pick the when and where. If the odds aren’t favorable for an attack then they can choose not to attack in the first place. That’s why defense in depth is such a crucial strategy in the real world. Defenders do have some things going for them, it’s cheaper to build a defensive force then an offensive one. Usually you need to have around 1.4-1.5 times more/better units to be able to have good odds of winning a battle. You often have a decision to make in regards to scrambling/kamikazing which forces your opponent to account for the potential that you might do something. This can lead to the attacker diffusing his attack power all on his own.

Lastly whatever advantage or disadvantage a player (nation) might have, the roles will oftentimes switch in the near future.

@WILD:

Example if you have 11-12 bombers bombing western germany, intercepting with 3-4 German fighters that usually sit on western for 2-3 rounds isn’t worth it. You would probably just hope the AA guns would work

Odds are with 11-12 bombers you would be losing money or at best breaking even at that point. If you send that many you should  expect to lose ~2/turn costing you $24. The max damage that you could do to a major factory would be $20, which you would expect to reach with 4-5 bombers. The other bombers are extraneous at that point and you’re just subjecting them to enemy aa fire that could get lucky.

If you have that many bombers and are still buying more, a better strat might just be to start strafing small stacks of German units. It would either force Germany to abandon various territories or really pile on the units so your massive bomber force can’t touch them.

As far as where escorts could land, they could land in sz110 (assuming allied fleet there), somewhere along the French coast, or Norway.

Well you could also add a Frenchie in London. But I can’t figure out anything really worth bidding.  :-D

@simon33:

@ScottishOne:

@Tirano:

The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist

Have the bid rules changed? I thought that limitation only applied to sea units?

League has the default rule as it applying everywhere.

Ah, I haven’t played any games with that rule. Wasn’t even aware it existed and had to look up those league rules. I’ve usually played with 1 unit per territory, no ships where there aren’t already ships, and you had to put down a unit matching the nationality of the terr you were placing it in.

I guess that rules out putting an Aussie in New Guinea or other similar moves. With those rules I’m now trying to figure out if there’s a way add an Aussie or French unit in any of the territories they share with UK that would be really useful . . .

@Tirano:

The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist

Have the bid rules changed? I thought that limitation only applied to sea units?

@simon33:

I’m going to take that as meaning “You don’t have to, but it may be advised”. On that point, I’m happy to agree.

It’s 79% IIRC correctly of killing a 3ftr scramble and the BB with 3ftrs (2 from London) and no sub.

Yeah, that was my intended meaning. Your way of writing it conveys what I meant. I guess it all comes down to what you’re willing to risk percentage wise in that battle. Some people might be comfortable with something in the 80s, others might prefer a higher percentage.

The great thing about G40 is there’s never really a right or wrong answer. I’ve never looked back from the classic or even the revised editions once I tried G40.

If UK can hold the Middle East and Egypt then yes. They can hold off Germany long enough for US to switch back to Europe IF US doesn’t take too long against Japan. Germany will eventually overpower the European allies without US intervention, but you can stall Germany for some time. You can lose all the Russian VCs and still get the win. I feel a lot of players think all is lost once Moscow falls. You can slow Germany long enough to allow US to focus on Japan through the early and into the intermediate game. Spend too long focusing on Japan or allow Germany to take Moscow too early and you could easily be facing some poor odds though.

US fighters could reach Egypt in two turns if you really need to hold that last VC in Europe. Just be cautious of London’s defense as it could be vulnerable if you’re putting most/all the US money into the Pacific. I’ve lost a couple games when I wrote off the threat to London when US wasn’t in the Atlantic and Germany was building land/air. One turn is all it takes for Germany to reposition its large airforce and put down 9-10 transports.

I’ll scramble for mainly for two reasons.

1. Germany didn’t commit enough to a seazone.
2. Germany bought ground units for Russia or went G1 Barb

Sometimes if I know my opponent doesn’t like to SL or isn’t very good at handling USSR after a SL, I’ll scramble just to tempt them into going down a path I know they’ll struggle with. Depends on what Japan’s doing as well as where I’m planning on spending the bulk of my US money.

@simon33:

I’m suggesting buying cheaper units like inf to save money rather than spending up on an expense mini navy which won’t be much use anyway.

I dunno, I think the Aussies need to build up some ships. It’s not a bad idea to use your Aussies to block SZs as needed instead of using a USN ship. And when the opportunity arises to target the IJN blockers. Do as much of the light work as possible in order to conserve the strength of the USN for big clashes with the IJN.

@Gamerman01:

Yeah, that was a good fix - was so bogus that Russia could collect 5 a turn from Iraq

Their biggest territory is Moscow, at THREE IPC’s!!!

That one didn’t bug me as much. But people running mech down into Africa to claim some of the Italian terr really struck me as wrong. Yeah Italian Somaliland is really that important to the common Russian.  :roll:

I alternate between the 3 trn buy and the 2trn, IC buy. Both are strong imho, they just have slightly different focuses. Grabbing as many of the DEI, Phi, and Malaya on the turn you DOW is usually key towards upping Japan’s income and more transports are needed in order to accomplish that goal.

The 2 transport buy allows you to go after those important territories right off the bat. Early on especially, those transports aren’t going to be bringing many troops to the mainland as they’ll be focusing on grabbing islands. So plunking a minor down early really helps Japan get the troops they need on the mainland in order to control the road longterm as well as eventually push into India.

A 3rd transport bought gives Japan a little flexibility in landing somewhere to disrupt the Aussie NOs. Sometimes an allied player will stack a single island heavily in order to deny the Japanese their NO. Having an extra transport could be handy in those situations. But more importantly a 3rd transport can be the difference in pulling off a J3 India crush and I like to have that flexibility if I see an opportunity. Another strike against the minor is Japan’s lower income at the start of the game. It’s hard to justify fully using all 3 build slots every turn before Japan’s income climbs into the 50-60 IPC range. There are just so many things Japan needs to build and only so much money to spread around.

@simon33:

You don’t have to send the cv in and doing so expends a 16ipc unit on absorbing two hits. Hardly optimal.

You may not have to send the CV, but you can’t say that you don’t have to send it. Too much depends on the bid, whether London’s under threat of a SL, whether Germany landed air in S Ita, and if the cruiser in sz91 survived G1. Can you kill the Italian navy without the carrier present? Yes, but you’re probably only going to have odds in the 70s unless you bring 2 ftrs from UK, didn’t lose the CA in sz 91, AND bid at least a sub in sz98. Too many things need to happen in order to having to bring the CV or risking 73% odds in such an important battle. Not only do you ensure high odds of killing the Italian navy, but you also have a greater chance of having more units survive that will either land in Malta to fight another day or give you more dice to kill German air.

@taamvan:

Not losing the BB last is inadvisable and does not make sense.  It’s irreplaceable and can heal itself where it sits.  Then, they have to come and kill it again.  The only time this would be the right move is if subs are present and first striking activated.

Sometimes it’s not a bad option to kill the bb if you will only have 1-2 units survive to another round of combat. Perhaps the allied player will say mission accomplished and retreat instead of pressing the battle. Better to have the transport and 1-2 fighters survive then to lose it all. It’s not like you really change the odds by selecting the bb over a fighter if they do in fact press. Plus if they retreat, you won’t get raided in sz97 and it opens up some options for you having that 2nd transport plus air unit(s) live rather then die.

There is a pretty rare case where allied air can get ‘stuck’ on a damaged carrier. Since joint attacks aren’t possible, a friendly air unit on a carrier would stay on the deck as a carrier moves into battle. If that carrier takes a hit, then the friendly air unit can’t take off until the carrier is repaired.

And thanks for the quick response.

*  3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).

Do the Vichy rules impact this whatsoever? If Russia took Syria do they get a bonus? Speaking of, what exactly comprises mainland Europe here? I got lost earlier in that discussion. I’m pretty sure I know the answers to most of these, but I just figured I’d ask just to be clear.

• Scandanavia (y/n)
• Sardinia (y/n)
• Sicily (y/n)
• Iraq (y/n)
• Syria (y/n)

New Unit - Marines: Cost 5; Attack at 1 (2 during amphibious assaults); Defend at 2; No bonus from artillery; Can be loaded onto cruisers and battleships (1 to a ship).

Damaged carriers aren’t usable as landing platforms for air. And air got stuck on the carrier until it is repaired in the rare case where an allied fighter was on the carrier when it was damaged. Do damaged BBs preclude you from using them with marines? Would said marines become stuck on the bb if already loaded prior to taking that damage?

Fleet at Toulon: In addition to the change in French territorial control, the Armistice changes control of the the French fleet in sz 93, from French to Pro-Axis neutral. The Vichy French fleet maintains a strictly defensive posture. It may not be moved. It may not be captured by the Axis. The fleet is immediately destroyed if any power, other than the Free French, occupies Southern France

Do the Vichy ships block movement from any power? If air movement can fly over Vichy terr, can ships boat by these ships? Can Italy safely occupy the same sz with these ships? Or does strictly defensive mean they’ll engage anybody entering that sz? Lastly, if Italy and Vichy can cohabitat in the sz, what happens if the allies attack the Italian ships? Do the Vichy just watch from the sideline or would they also defend?

Thanks!

Try and take Tokyo?  :-D

I’ve been able to take out Japan multiple times by clearing Tokyo and blockers and paving the way for a lone transport to capture the Japanese capital. If you have 4+ loaded US carriers plus some bombers, you can usually strafe Tokyo down quite a bit. Especially as Japan if strips most/all of the starting land units to move against the DEI/mainland and doesn’t build many replacements. US could always ncm a carrier or two into sz6 after strafing Tokyo and clearing out any blockers so the Aussies can use their air to help with the take if needed. US or Aussies could also throw out a blocker or two so Japan doesn’t just retake their capital.

Even trying for it can depend a lot on your opponent’s complacency, luck, and how much of a gambler (or desperate) you are. Trying to take Tokyo can be a very a high risk-high reward situation as you’ll likely be losing most of your US air force. But oh boy if you get it. I’ve tried it 6-8 times and taken it 4-5 of those ones.

One of the times I took it really salvaged a game for me that I in all honestly should’ve lost. A combination of bad dice and bad decisions against a really solid opponent had the axis poised to win on both sides of the map. My opponent got a little too cocky as he was kicking my ass up and down that board and left Japan lightly defended after ensuring my US trn were out of position or blocked from trying an invasion. But US air was able to mostly clear Tokyo, leaving the Aussies to send in 2 inf plus 4 fighters to finish it off. The only Japanese transports were off India, so Japan was done building in that game.

Good thing too as China, India, & Russia had all fallen. US was finally able to focus in Europe and left the Aussies to clean up the Pacific with the fighterless US Pac fleet. The British ME factories were overrun as the Brits retreated back to Egypt. 4+ US fighters a turn started landing in Egypt just in time to bolster the defense. Despite that Egypt still fell twice, but was recaptured both times either with US troops or UK mech/arm from SAF.

Meanwhile Aussies had 90+ IPCs from sacking Tokyo plus their regular income and could only build 6 units a turn. I eventually was able to get Korea, Kwangtung, & FIC producing plus a 2nd minor in Australia itself. By the time my opponent surrendered, the Aussies owned all the DEI, Korea, FIC, Japan, most of the 1 IPC Jap islands, and had liberated most of the SFE for itself as well as getting both India and China back into the game. Anzac was making like 55+/turn and actually had more income before India itself was liberated. Probably one of the crazier games I’ve played in.

Our group uses poker chips for our money. When someone makes a purchase, we just stack the units on top of the respective chip(s) so everyone can clearly see what the purchase is and how it’s being paid for.

Regardless of how you check the money, a dedicated cheater will still find ways to cheat.

I can’t speak for anyone else. But I usually don’t use the CV in the pac for two reasons.

1. Containing Italy is of huge importance; sending the CV into 97 ensures better odds of success and will save you some air.
2. The Japanese fleet can easily crush the RN even if the entire Med fleet sailed towards India and consolidated with the Indian ships. And they’re usually in position to block thwart any attempts made to combine the USN and RN.

Granted, it could pay off if you are doing a KJF. I’ve sailed the CV into the pacific a couple of times and it can definitely complicate Japan’s plans. I just feel like it’s probably sub optimal in most cases. But as a change of pace it can be fun and interesting.

Very true. But if (big IF) Germany has a shot to kill all or some of the Russian air, I would risk that bomber just about every time. This is all hypothetical anyway as Leningrad usually has enough to hold unless Germany does put some transports in the water.