Posts made by theROCmonster

What is a .5 defense transport? What does that mean exactly? Would that mean if you have 6 transports defending you would roll 3 dice @1 and after all the surface ships are killed the transports automatically die or something?

The only way I found this map remotely balanced was playing full LL on AA, battles, and bombing raids. This opened up the US to build bombers early on and bomb Germany with 6 bombers hitting Berlin and 1 hitting Italy. US would consistently build a bomber a turn, after it had 7 bombers total, and the rest transports/fleet/ground. The bombers served a multi purpose being able to bomb or attack a land target with US’s fleet/ground, and when Japans fleet eventually made it’s way to Africa they had to worry about being hit with 7 bombers plus 4 fighters. With a 7 bid for allies, playing against myself, the games felt very even. With dice the bombing strat is way to risky because of the times that you loose 2 or 3 bombers on a run would be game over for allies.

Hey Harris how exactly can you make it to where China can take, and hold, Yunnan? If I saw a full out bid for China as Japan I might just wait till T3 to declare war against the allies, and instead shore up the Asian mainland to stop the allies from stacking Yunnan. I do agree with you that if the allies hold Yunnan it is probably game over for axis, but I’ve never been able to do it…

Also what exactly does a Russian bid accomplish? I guess with a 40 bid you could get 13 extra pieces to help defend against Germany, and then you would easily be able to stack Bryansk for a while, but eventually Germany would have enough to overcome it, and with all that bid going to Russia instead of UK isn’t it much worse for the allies in the long run?

Changing the IPC value’s in triplea would be easy, as Argothair said. I don’t know if this map is best played with just a bid of 20+. Much like Global, this map is pretty busted by design, and as such, needs drastic changes to make it more fun/playable. I love the new IC in India, over the original 1942, but everything else seems off.  US is way too weak and to far from the fight to be enough help fast enough. Africa getting an extra territory really throws off US’s shuck because of the extra turn it takes to walk across Africa. Trying to have a shuck from UK to support Russia is nearly impossible because it takes two turns to go from UK to Arch, if you can even safely land there. The biggest issue is just where the hell does the US land it’s forces to get the most bang for the buck? The answer is there isn’t one… Maybe if US started off making 50 he could come in with some punch to save the allies, but as it stands the US is too damn weak for a bid to help with that glaring issue. That is why I really like the US restricted idea.

Ever since revised the maps have been getting more and more “weird” for the allies because of how weak fleets are. IMO fleets should be something to be feared, and not just something that works as a super expensive/inefficient, compared to plane counter, transport guardian. If only there was a new transport unit that was 10 IPC’s with 1 defense and could carry 3 inf or 2 inf 1 art/tank. That would help out the allies so much. As it stands with transports things aren’t going to get better for the allies on any of these boards, nor will a bid solve various problems that they have.

I don’t mean to hijack the thread. I’m just frustrated with the shape of 1942 second edition and global because of the super weak transport :(.

Ya I love the idea of US doing Non combat/Purchase before anyone and then axis bid. In every board since revised US has felt weak to me. That is mainly due to the new transport rule that was introduced forcing US to buy way more fleet to protect its transport shuck, and this change helps with that a ton actually making US feel like a threat again! What do you guys think would be a fair bid for the axis with this set up?

India won’t fall as easily as you think. With US going 100% pacific UK is going to build 2 fighters/3 inf a turn. All of which is going to go to India. 2 fighters place on UK then go to West Russia then to India. If Japan does some crazy buy like 3 transports R1 then the axis should auto loose because Japan won’t have any ability to protect them. India shouldn’t fall with US getting to purchase/non combat move before the game starts, unless Japan wants to throw the game… Normally when US goes 100% Japan first I’d agree with you that India is going to fall eventually because UK needs to pull back to save moscow, but US will be so much stronger having their pearl/east coast fleets survive that they can pressure Japan earlier and faster.

It would be interesting to see how balanced the map would be with the US getting only a non combat move. I still think you might need a 3 bid to get an infantry in Egypt, but who knows. Very interesting.

If you allow US to purchase/noncombat move the allies will have a huge advantage because Japan is going to be toast. As the US I’d just go 100% pacific, and Japan would have 0 chance, and then the game would come down to US/UK vs Germany, and US/UK should win that one.

Again perfectly said Bomber Harris. On your Pacific talk about using sub or not to use the sub. I’ve found that using the sub is a mistake also because usually then anzac will just sac a destroyer to kill it, and now you just lost a 6 IPC unit for basically “free” because it doesn’t take away any of the attack power of the US fleet, also you will have to kill the destroyer as Japan next round just as you said. I think one of the big keys that separates expert/master level players and intermediate/advanced players is the ability to make sure your strongest power doesn’t loose units but instead your weaker power makes the back and forth trades. In the pacific that means Anzac should do all the island taking/sub/dd killing, leaving the US fleet to only get stronger. In the Atlantic board killing Russian units with Italy is a huge win for the axis because of the same principle. This is also another reason why the allies are so poorly off on this map. In the Atlantic the allies can never seem to get strong enough to attack Germany because they have to attack separately, whereas Germany is a much more unified force.

So in summary you guys are saying that eventually the US would have had to declare war on Germany because of the pressures imposed on them by submarine warfare, being allied to Japan, and our closer ties to UK/France?

What Ozymandiac said. This map is a great 4 player map. Have the more experienced players play U.S./USSR, for the allies, and Germany for the Axis. Europe is, IMO, one of the best maps of axis and allies. It isn’t nearly as complicated as the global version, and the U.S. gets to concentrate 100% on the European theater. I still wish there was a better staging area for America outside of Spain though. I’ve found that the only way the allies can win is to declare war on the true neutrals and for the U.S. to take Spain so that they have a constant shuck into Europe.

Does anyone here think that the US would have declared war on Germany in WW2 if Germany hadn’t declared war on the U.S. after Japan bombed pearl? Personally I don’t think the public would have allowed congress to declare war against Germany, but it is an interesting debate to be had. Because the public sentiment at the time was to be isolationist and stay out of the war. When Japan attacked the U.S. then congress passed the vote going to war against Japan, but do you thing the U.S. would have declared war against Germany too if Germany hadn’t declared war against the U.S.?

Thank you Bomber Harris. Couldn’t say it better myself. I wish bombers had a 2 attack value. That way they would be used more for the purposes of strat bombing and not be an all around amazing unit. Well not an amazing defensive unit, but an a good offensive kind of equates to a good defense since you deprive your opponent of being offensive by having the bombers that can reach everywhere! lol.

I think you are talking about weak opponents Taamvan. A good player doesn’t use the term “never” when describing how they play. You have to be malleable and adjust your play according to what your opponent does. Most of the time there are good moves and bad moves, and if your opponent leaves themselves open to be exploited than you exploit them regardless of the fact that in most games a good opponent won’t allow you that option.

I never said Japan should take Sydney. I’ve tried many times to go for Sydney and it just isn’t worth it. Japan is too out of position to take it. Hawaii is actually easier.

@ShadowHAwk:

After they took care of india and china they will not have 19 airunits left.
Taking india and taking care of china normaly involves losing air to take the countries, and india has 3 AA guns and the potential to build a pretty big stack of inf-art with it.

Also the investment of 8 carriers is a lot more then japan can build in a single round, it takes at least 2 rounds to build that amount, and US can just send in a fleet of subs and sink them all.

Japan will loose around 2 planes, on average, taking India. This is because Japan will have enough ground to stack Burma and prevent a UK attack against it, unless UK has put all of her planes in India, which would need to be around 8 at the very least. A well played Japan will have your fleet positioned off Japan/Philippines, so the US won’t be able to just kill that fleet. You don’t need to move your fleet off the coast of India to take India herself, maybe a couple fleet pieces can move there to protect your transports, if you need them in the assault. Besides it will take Japan a couple turns to regroup all of his units to strike Hawaii. After taking India, which normally happens around turn 7-9. Lets say it Japan takes India late, on turn 9, and then their planes are non combat moved to Yunnan. On the turn you take India you are building subs/DD’s. The following turn you build the carriers and the planes move to the Philippines/carriers you already have. Keep in mind that Japan should be be spending 70% of her income on fleet for most of the game anyways. Turn 11 you would put the planes on the carriers in Japan and set your fleet up for a strike on Hawaii, with Germany having 2 bombers to kill any blockers the allies might throw out. I have played many games against myself, and the only way to defend against this is to pull every US fleet piece, that isn’t a transport, from the Atlantic back to the pacific to stop Japan from winning.

Maybe you aren’t playing against a Japan opponent who has the foresight to know when they are going to hit India by turn three because of the layout of the allied units, and their own units. The hardest part for Japan is getting enough ground to stack Burma, but once this is accomplished India always falls with the loss of only ground, plus the planes killed by AA fire. Even in my Games where US goes 100% pacific Japan is still able to take India unless UK sacs Russia early by keeping their fighters in India instead of Moscow. I think where most Japan players go wrong is not being completely consolidated in their efforts to take India, maintain the DEI, and keep China at bay by keeping their forces grouped on/around Yunnan. The real reason, IMO, why Japan can win so easily is because German bombers can can open any blockers the allies put up making it a nightmare for the US/Anzac in the pacific. If US were allowed to stall for a turn by putting up a blocker that would be huge in allowing a little more leniency in the way the allies play the map. Sigh I really can’t stand how powerful bombers are on this map :(.