UK, USA and URSS are on the same side. Even if the TRN could do nothing directly to the UK it may be used to do “something” to the Russian or to the USA.
I believe that absence of the TRN in J1 introduces a delay in Japanese landings.
UK cannot wait round 4 to land in North Europe. The landing has to be performed before. Or UK buy 1 AC (that is really useful IMHO) or USA build 1-2 AC to protect the Allied shipping. Indian Fleet is too far and so need something of useful to do.
Creating prolem to the Japanese is a good option.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
Attacking SZ 59 is the same as pissing in the wind. ….
Anyway, to the SZ 5 question…
Again, you are assuming that the ALLIES always are running KGF.
This is not a valid assumption.
When it can be run, KJF is much more deadly to the axis, IMHO. The reason? It is much easier to contain Germany than it is to contain Japan when the allies focus on one of the two Axis powers.
I will attack SZ5 when running a KJF and I can land in Africa round 1 safely. The Indian IC is a required build for KJF, and then I am not really adding much defense to UK round 1 buy. I want to kill that sz5 transport so London is safe.
Also killing sz59 tpt is vital in a KJF game to keep as many units from asia as possible.
I believe that even if the Allies goes for KGF they should slow down Japan a little in the beginning gaining useful time.
I will attack SZ5 when running a KJF and I can land in Africa round 1 safely. The Indian IC is a required build for KJF, and then I am not really adding much defense to UK round 1 buy. I want to kill that sz5 transport so London is safe.
How many rnds do you usually keep your IC in India?
The sz5 attack is about 73% according to tripleA BC. 1,3 attacking units left.
With low luck it’s 77%.
I prefer the percentage numbers instead of the ones you listed, Ivanova…. :-)
That means generally 3 out of 4 attacks is success.
Aproximately same as the G sub attack in sz1.
Frood, you have any other numbers?
I will attack SZ5 when running a KJF and I can land in Africa round 1 safely. The Indian IC is a required build for KJF, and then I am not really adding much defense to UK round 1 buy. I want to kill that sz5 transport so London is safe.
How many rnds do you usually keep your IC in India?
I only buy an Indian IC if I am doing KJF. In this case, the allies never lose the IC.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
Attacking SZ 59 is the same as pissing in the wind. ….
Anyway, to the SZ 5 question…Again, you are assuming that the ALLIES always are running KGF.
This is not a valid assumption.
When it can be run, KJF is much more deadly to the axis, IMHO. The reason? It is much easier to contain Germany than it is to contain Japan when the allies focus on one of the two Axis powers.
I will attack SZ5 when running a KJF and I can land in Africa round 1 safely. The Indian IC is a required build for KJF, and then I am not really adding much defense to UK round 1 buy. I want to kill that sz5 transport so London is safe.
Also killing sz59 tpt is vital in a KJF game to keep as many units from asia as possible.
I will attack SZ5 when running a KJF and I can land in Africa round 1 safely. The Indian IC is a required build for KJF, and then I am not really adding much defense to UK round 1 buy. I want to kill that sz5 transport so London is safe.
How many rnds do you usually keep your IC in India?
I only buy an Indian IC if I am doing KJF. In this case, the allies never lose the IC.
How are you attacking me for saying that the Allies always go KGF and then lauding the point I made about KJF by building the IC in India if you are killing the transport in SZ 59?
Common, you can’t keep switching arguments half way through.
Fact: I said that the SZ 59 attack is only worthwhile in a KJF situation where you build an IC on India and only because it prevents Japan from taking India on Round 1. (No Battleships to assist.)
Fact: I said that if you are NOT going KJF, then the attack on the SZ 59 transport was about as effective as pissing in the wind. I shoulda said it was even less effective then a space heater in hell because to be honest, you are throwing away a major portion of your fleet for a transport. When in the world would you make that trade in any other situation? Would you attack a British Transport with a German Carrier and Destroyer and Fighter off the coast of England in the first few rounds of the game when England has 2 Battleships + fodder to go sink you? Hell no. Because it’s a bad trade. It’s still a bad trade, you’ve just convinced yourself it does more then modestly slow the Japanese forces. And, to be honest, I don’t even think it modestly slows diddly. My builds are the same if I have the SZ 59 Tran and if I don’t. 3 Transports, 2 Infantry. Either way, you’re getting 8 units a round into Asia from J2 onward. The “extra” transport will just save me 8 IPC building an extra to go island clearing for me. That’s it.
@Cmdr:
Attacking SZ 59 is the same as pissing in the wind. ….
Now, if you are putting an IC in India, sure, kill the tranny so she can’t bring forces to knock over your little mini-capitol on round 1. But you better darn well be sure you are backing that maneuver with Russian and American forces (and US ICs in China and Sinkiang!) so you can keep Japan off the mainland forever!Now, more realistically, if you bring those forces home, …
This doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement for killing the SZ59 transport to me.
It sure sounds condescending to a KJF strategy to me…
however, you did give the sz59 caveat, even if only half heartedly :evil: :roll: :wink:
I thought I was pretty whole hearted. If going KJF then IC in India and kill the transport to protect the IC in India. If not going KJF, get the heck out of there and leave the transport alone.
@Cmdr:
get the heck out of there and leave the transport alone.
Hey… UK… Leave that transport alone!
@Cmdr:
get the heck out of there and leave the transport alone.
Hey… UK… Leave that transport alone!
All in all its just a
'nother ship in the wall…
:roll:
@Cmdr:
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
Attacking SZ 59 is the same as pissing in the wind.
And you stated earlier that is because a game often lasts +/- 10 rnds, and in this perspective you’re right, but a lot
of games will end sooner, say rnd 5-7, so if you don’t know that the game will last that long then the sz 59 attack is
much more important.
It takes 4-5 rnds to bring the UK pacific fleet to London, and UK needs AC for protection asap.
If Germany do not buy any navy, then the pac fleet is useless in the atlantic, better to use it to harass Japan.
So again, sacrificing UK pac fleet to avoid pearl attack, or to bring it home, may or may not be the right decision, depending
on how the game unfolds.
Warships are built for attacking… also lone TRN.
A&A is a game in which creative use of force at disposal may obtain worthy result.
I think that attacking sz59 have the benefits of an immediate use of the UK fleet in Indian Ocean.
AAR games end in less then 10 rounds or one of two reasons:
Extremely mismatched skill levels
or
Extremely unlucky/lucky dice for one side.
However, Switch is a better player then I, so is JWW and DM, but I’m more then capable enough to force them to take 10 rounds before I have to capitulate. Why? Because we’re mismatched, but not by much. And, to be honest, I really never see games of 5 rounds in Revised any longer, they’re almost always 10-13 rounds and in that amount of time, Japan should have earned a total of 546 IPC. 8 IPC out of that is negligible at best. The added punch of two more infantry somewhere in round 1 is more significant then the transport alone is over the course of the game and even two infantry (def 4 punch) is near negligible in the grand scheme of things, IMHO.
First off Jen, thanks for the compliment on my skill level.
Now, on to your analysis.
OK, let’s grant a 10 round game.
You lose a TRN before J1 worth 8 IPC’s.
TRN’s are something that Japan HAS to have in order to play the game.
A UK navy in the Pacific is optional to the UK strategy in many cases (at least in many KGF).
That TRN, if it lives, would be used every single round by Japan. $80 IPC’s of use over the course of the game (considering its value over 10 rounds).
The value actually is higher than that because 1 TRN used over 10 rounds is worth far more than 10 TRNs purchased in J10 in terms of the game for Japan’s advances.
And before you say that Japan immediately replaces it, Jen you yourself stated that your bid does NOT change if the SZ59 TRN lives or dies: 3 TRN, 2 INF (assuming no Japan bid).
So now Japan is down the use of that TRN for both J1 (reducing thei landing strength by 50% in J1)
Down 1 TRN in J2 (reducing their landing strength by 20%
And with a TRN a round purchase by Japan from J3 forward, and with Jen’s previously stated position that she likes 7 (or more) Japan TRN’s to allow for naval fodder, clearing the islands, mobility and to use on Africa…
It will be AT LEAST J5 before Japan catches up and finally builds the TRN that actually replaces the dead TRN.
So you lose at least $40 IPC of transport power over the span of 5 turns by losing that TRN.
UK’s Pac and Indian fleet on the other hand has no real value (outside of KJF) for anything except killing the SZ59 TRN (and SZ45 SUB), until about the same Turn 5, and then pretty much only as a final “don;t even think about a desperation strike on my Navy” kind of usage by UK.
UK loses units with no real value to UK’s KGF strat
Japan loses a time-weighted value of $40 for losing the TRN.
Not to mention potential opportunity costs of fewer TRNs early, and the additional revenue spent on TRNs that could instead be ground units at the gates of Moscow around J7 or 8 (assuming that the 7th TRN is all Japan wanted, and thus the dead TRN is finally replaced in J5, instead of an INF and ARM built in J5 and sent toward moscow… )
:-o
It really doesn’t matter which strategy the allies plan to persue, the UK must try to sink that transport in sz 59 on UK 1. Send the fighter after it, that should be enough. I usually land it in China. It usually dies there, but it often takes out one or two Jap infantry. Which means I usually hold Sinkiang longer with less commitment from Russia, which helps the Russians hold out the Germans longer. This gives the Americans another turn or two to funnel troops overseas …… you get the picture.
Kill the damn thing, it’s just sitting there asking for it anyway. :wink:
I think you have an error in your calculation, Switch.
Japan Round 2, buy two transports + 6 Infantry, save the rest.
Now you’ve more then made up for the transport, while England is still out a Fighter, a Destroyer, 2 Transports, an Aircraft Carrier and a Submarine for what? So Japan can buy a transport in Round 2 instead of something else?
I just fail to see why England throwing away half it’s fleet to kill a transport and maybe a submarine is worth it. Japan can easily afford a replacement transport. Can England afford a replacement destroyer, carrier, fighter, 2 transports and a submarine?
I usually send only the DD to sink the TRN and so the only thing I may loose is a DD.
But maybe other units may be sent to kill it. I have to ponder.
Even sending all the Indian Ocean Fleet there UK may gain something.
For sinking 1 AC, 1FIG, 1 DD and 1TRN (defensive die points 11) Japanese should send something there. And we have now what Switch said in other threads; forcing the enemy to fight multiple battles with relative good odds means that the overall probability that all goes well is low.
The sinking of the TRN is a irreparable and unrecoverable loss of tempo for Japanese. In the Chess a player may loose the game even having more pieces of the opponent because their pieces are deployed later than the pieces of the enemy, or they are doing useless thing, or are defending worhtless spot, or are retreating to safe themselves (in chess usually retreat is a double loss: of position, space given to the opponent, and of timing, tempo, if the useless moves do not place the piece in an active position). The concept is related to: active or passive positioning.
Similarly in A&A units may be in active or passive position. They are active when conquering enemy territories, when menacing enemy units, when blocking enemy advances and when waiting to fight the enemy with good odds of inflicting hits.
They are passive when they are far from the front, when wander around the boardmap, or when they are waiting to be killed with minimal or no probabilities of making damage.
I find the loss of the SZ 59 transport to have an almost null effect on my games. If I have it, great. If I don’t have it, well it’s not going to slow me anyway because at the end of J1 I have 4 transports and 8 units to transport. If it’s alive, I have 5 transports and 8 units to transport. Either way, I have 8 units to transport that can be transported.
Meanwhile, if England sent the Carrier and Destroyer to sink my transport (people usually send both, cause transports have a nasty habit of killing destroyers when you really don’t want them too.) I have now made Germany’s life exponentially easier because they are cleaning up Africa and England has to buy another capital ship which means less British guys in Russia to slow Germany down.
1. Japan is STILL down 2 units per round into Asia until that TRN is replaced (and I don’t mean you just buy a new one, I mean until you actually get the number of TRN’s you want, meaning when you buy your LAST TRn it is replaced), so again, about 10 units are delayed overall getting to Asia.
2. You assume zero losses by Japan on killing the fleets
If you look at the example of this move in a real game:
1. China taken lighter than normal (open to potential counter attack, at a minimum unable to advance further until reinforced)
2. Japan loses a total of 1 AC, 1 BB, 2 FIG, 1 BOM, 1 SUB, 1 DST, 1 TRN from actions on UK and US fleets, and Allied counter
3. Japan loses either Manchuria or FIC for a round due to needing to stack either in Manch or FIC in order to block UK and/or USSR assault (they have insufficient TRN capacity on J2 to adequately defend both).
And that game IS a good example of this in a real world setting.
UK attacks on SZ59 and SZ45 were exactly average results
Japan attacks were ABOVE average in SZ59 and SZ52, below average in China.
So even if you disallow the liberation of China by the US that occurred in that game due to bad Japan dice, you then also disallow the good Japan dice in the other 2 battles where the US would typically have a BB alive in SZ52, and Japan would have lost another FIG in SZ59.
So Japan collects $32, with 3 INF in China, only 3 FIGs alive on the entire board, 1 BB, 1 AC, and 3 or 4 TRN, plus a modest number of land units, almost none of them in Asia.
India secure for at least another round
US with a strong potential for a mid-game Pacific move with the BB anchor for new TRNs
Sinkiang secure for several rounds with modest USSR expenditure
Siberia a round slower for the Japan advance.
Where is the downside for the Allies (other than Egypt)?
