@Jennifer:

As the allies, how do you counter the German 1 build:

3 Transports, 1 Aircraft Carrier, built in SZ 5. (+2 Fgt from the mainland.)

Assume a standard 6 or 7 IPC bid to Africa to close Egypt.  All fighters and bomber not on carriers in WE and the Med fleet in SZ 13 (SS, Trn, BB because odds of the defender getting two hits is almost nil when you attack it heavy with your own BB.)

9 Victory Cities or more: Play more aggressive with Russia to the south.  Have US & UK build a Sub instead of a Transport, or upgrade one to a Destroyer.  I anticipate the difficulties Germany introduced to US and the UK will be offset by the lack of pressure against Russia.

8 Victory Cities: …um… KJF?  shrug  Germany just built a nice bridge from Berlin to Leningrad.  I have doubts that Russia can hold it in the short term.  Perhaps I would protect against Sea Wolf, and try and defend Calcutta.  I don’t know.  Have set up a board and think about it.

i like apples…

I would like to thank everbody for their input on this topic. I think I am gonna give a try in my next game.

@U-505:

The goal isn’t to discourage an attack on Ukraine, but to encourage one for the aggressive Russian players.

The person who played the bid, switch, said this:

It spooks the Russians, so they only attack ONE territory, West Russia.  Germany saves not only the FIG in Ukraine, but the 3 INF, the ART, and the ARM as well.

Sure sounds to me like one of his goals was to discourage an attack on the Ukraine.  Which it does, but only by encouraging a WR/Belo attack which is basically just as good for Russia as a no-bid WR/Ukraine attack would be.

@U-505:

With 2 inf in WR the Ukraine/WR attack gets pretty risky especially in WR.

I agree, and I would not do a Ukraine/WR opening if Germnay placed 2 bid Inf in WR.  I would do a WR/Belo opening though, and be only down 1-2 Inf, on avg, from what I would be if those 2 Inf from the bid had not been placed.  Killing one or two Inf in WR is not a very good return on investment for your 6 IPC bid.

@U-505:

2 inf in Ukraine doesn’t present any dilemma for the Russians. Belo/WR can go on just as if those inf were placed in Libya.

Yep, they can attack Belo/WR.  But the difference, as compared to placing 2 Inf in Libya, is that Germany has 2 extra Inf on the front lines in Europe to play with on G1.  I’m not saying 2 Inf in Ukraine is a great bid either, but it is a heck of a lot better than 2 Inf in WR.  Actually, 2 Inf in Belo might be the best bid if you are going to place your bid on the front lines in Europe.  If Russia attacks WR/Belo, it has to commit a tank which will be killed in the attack or the G1 counter, plus all that nifty hardware in the Ukraine gets to live.  If Russia goes WR/Ukraine, Gemany has plenty of fodder in Belo to punish Russia with if the WR attack goes bad.  And I’ve seen the WR attack go bad (as in all but 3-4 of the Russian Inf are killed) a few times on WR/Ukraine openings.

@U-505:

The problem is that WR has to be attacked on R1 no matter what. By adding the bid to the territory that ALWAYS gets attacked you put the pressure on the secondary territory. Either you make the secondary attack with the minimum amount of units or run the risk of taking a beating in WR. The risk may be high enough to a conservative player that both Belo and Ukraine aren’t attacked which provides immediate value.

2 Inf in WR would not change what I attack Belo with at all (3 Inf, 2 Fighters) and it does not make it very likely I will take a beating in WR.  I agree that if it does convince a player to only attack WR, it is worth it.  But I think such a player is making a poor choice, and I don’t like to base my strategies on hoping my oppenent will make a poor choice.  If Russia responds wisely to that bid by attacking WR/Belo, then the bid basically bought Germany nothing.

@U-505:

Attacking WR/Belo is probably the best move …. [but] it becomes entirely likely that a good defense in Belo coupled with the extra unit or units Russia lost in WR gives the German player an opportunity to counterattack WR with a good deal of firepower. Even if it costs you a lost fighter to AA, smashing the Russian vanguard might be the right play to make. And if you don’t counterattack WR, at the very least it will give you Caucasus for a turn.

3 inf/2 Fig vs. 3 Inf in Belo results in Russia taking the land 70+% of the time and at least clearing it with both fighters living another 20% of the time.  Not much room for a great defense there.  And if the WR attack does go poorly, which is not likely either, Russia can always fortify WR with Inf from the Caucus.  Sure, that may leave the Caucus a little weak, but getting Germany to overextend by taking it on G1 is not really a bad thing for the Russians.  (as long as they make damn sure to retake on R2)

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

@way2slo:

My question would be:  Why would you want to?

The only reason I can think of is to move an AC to pick up planes from combat.  Other than that, wouldn’t you want to just include those units in the combat itself?   :?

Not necessarily.

Let us say that you undertook a battle in which you thought that you would either withdraw from or win with only a slight edge.  (You may choose to attack, but withdraw early, to weaken an enemy stack of forces.  After you withdraw, your forces are vulnerable to enemy attack, but if you move up reinforcements, you strengthen your position.  In theory, then, you can attack, inflict casualties, and retreat to a strong place that you cannot be attacked at).

But anyways, say you thought you weren’t gonna do so hot, but suddenly you kick ass all over the place, and lose nobody.

So then, instead of having 1 infantry to hold that territory, you suddenly have 6 infantry.  Plus your opponent just got whuppped.

So you move up reinforcements that you WERE going to hold back - those reinforcements help you secure the territory, because the enemy’s so weak that the enemy can’t really risk attacking your pile of units.

Thanks.

@Baghdaddy:

Once a transport unloads a unit, movement for the unit and the transport is done.

No “transport chains” as you describe them.

BTW, welcome.

Stick around, there is a lot of useful information on the boards.

Thanx for your prompt response. :-)

This forum absolutely rocks :-)!!! Heaps of info, great discussions, and someone knowledgeable enough always seems to be around to respond to queries or thoughts…

im doing that fairly well Vs U-505 in the league  (don´t know where the game is going exactly but anyway)

i like it becuse it enables germany to “controll” All UK SZ from SZ7.

Air units can retreat from any combat, but must do so all at the same time.

If the land units retreat, then ALL remaining units must retreat.
Land units all have to go to the SAME TERRITORY, which must be a territory that at least 1 of the land units that fought in the battle came from.
Air units can land in any friendly territory in range (friendly as of the start of the current national turn).

thanx guys you’ve all been a great help :-)

@rjclayton:

I disagree with one part of NPB’s post.  The LOWEST bidder should be awarded the country, not the highest bidder.

Otherwise I bid 7 million and o lookee here I get to play Germany with 7 million extra IPC?

(sigh) I was so gonna kick Aretaku’s ass and get that beer.

NOW SEE WAT U DID!

Well that all depends on what you guys are offering before I toss JC back into the pot.

@General_D.Fox:

@newpaintbrush:

@mateooo:

Im sure this has been discussed and resolved a million times over, and as far as I know it is true, but I would like a clarification for a game I am in.
In order to use the suez canal, you must have control of both sides (EGY and TRJ) at the beginning of your turn.
Is this true?
Thanks
Mateo

Right, right.  Since the BEGINNING of your turn, so if you take control of one of those territories from an enemy power during combat, you cannot move through it durning noncombat.

If you are playing the Axis and Allies Drinking Game, you must also hum a tune that another player on your team must identify, while drinking either a beer or a shot (depending on the version of the game you’re playing).  This happens while you are physically moving the units from one side of the Suez Canal to the other.

So how does humming a tune help while crossing the canal, bird man? Do you plan to walk across using your 8th and 16th notes as a land bridge?

Most of the territory you are marching through (barring the canal) is desert.  Therefore, it will be parched.  Therefore, singing and whistling will waste moisture.  Since soldiers need something to do while they’re marching, and they might as well do something as long as they have those nice percussion instruments (boots on the ground), they should hum.  That is how humming helps you cross a canal.  It passes the time.

Writing, editing, and adding to the rules for the drinking game is what the fat bastards with all the stars do while they’re riding in the jeeps watching you poor schmoes do your “exercise”.  You don’t think we became generals just because we got Purple Hearts, do ya?

Besides, we’re technically working when we’re doing it.  I think the unofficial designation is something like “Practicing for justifying budget expenditure”; it’s how the military justifies those billion dollar military budgets.  The OFFICIAL designation, of course, is something like “Filling out paperwork for determinance of optimal cost-effectiveness free-form tactical maneuvers”, which looks damn good on those stupid papers we have to send in, and has the added bonus of making anyone that reads it fall asleep by the time they finish the sentence, so they never CAN track down all those expenditures anyways, which is precisely the point.

–

I’m not really a general, you know.  Unless it’s “general-ly looking at girls”

And Russian troops have 1 more space to walk to get to germany…

Just FYI the non-graduating C1C convertions to active military as E-6 are not enlistments, so they would be exempt from that rule.

i agree with jennifer.  I never really grab brazil until i have africa under control.  and at that point I use it as a place for bombers to destroy the american fleet or at least harass.

@Jennifer:

Leaving the second BB alone is bad for two reasons:

You gave England a capital warship that can bombard you at will.  That means two bombardments for the price of 1 infantry.  (6 IPC for 3?  That’s a good trade!) England is not out 16 IPC for a carrier to defender herself.

Don’t forget that the Allies don’t have to worry about keeping 1-2 Figs on the carrier giving them even more versatility

@newpaintbrush:

Where are you guys getting 8 VC from?

I can’t read!   :-D

Thinking OOB ruleset and seemingly quick victories.

@Baghdaddy:

@Wazzup:

What if you bought the trannies, but the Battleship you started the game with.

I consider that a win if you take out something you start the game with, vs. something you had to buy… and it cost the same or close.

I don’t accept the idea that units you start the game with are of lower intrinsic value than ones you purchase.  If position has any bearing on the value of a unit, and I believe it does, start units that are forward deployed are of significant value compared to the same unit sitting at the IC.
As for the arguement that “Germany doesn’t need an XX”, I would instead offer the idea that imaginative players (good ones anyway) can make every piece on the board count.  One measure of player effectiveness is what percentage of units are engaging the enemy each turn.  If you have “starting” units that you are not engaging the enemy with, I would rethink your strategies.

I think that poor sentence structure may have led to an interpretation of Wazzup’s statement as that newly produced units are more valuable than starting and placed units.  I think we can all concur that units that are already placed on the board are typically of HIGHER intrinsic value (thanks to better positioning) than purchased units.

Similarly, I am sure Baghdaddy does not mean to say that ANY piece is worth purchasing (as opposed to other pieces), but instead that any piece that is on the board can be used.  That is, I am sure Baghdaddy is not recommending Russian bombers and battleships, but is instead recommending that one make the best of what one has.

Is that the sort of arrant pedantry up with which you shall not put?