Crazy George!

[U-505]

@Cmdr:

U-505,

I NEVER SAID THE FIGHTERS WERE GOING TO INDIA.  Sinkiang is a completely different territory.

READ MY EDIT THAT I POSTED BEFORE YOU POSTED THIS ONE. AND YES, SINKIANG IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TERRITORY BUT WITH THE EXACT SAME RESULTS. 2 TURNS OF RUSSIAN FIGHTERS ONLY BEING USED IN UKRAINE AT BEST. HOW MANY RUSSIAN ART AND ARMOR DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO TRADE KARELIA AND BELORUSSIA WITH WHILE YOUR FIGHTERS ARE IN ASIA? DO YOU HAVE LONG RANGE RUSSIAN FIGHTERS BECAUSE IT IS AT LEAST 5 MOVES TO ATTACK BELORUSSIA AND KARELIA FROM ANYWHERE INCLUDING CAUCASUS AND STILL BE ABLE TO LAND THEM IN SINK OR VICE VERSA.

[Jennifer]

Absolutely none.  Because, as I mentioned three times now, the fighters in Sinkiang can REACH Ukraine and land safely behind the lines.  Same with W. Russia, Belorussia, Karelia and Archangelsk.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

You have fighters in a central location to use in Europe or Asia, your choice.  If Japan tries to go to China, you can annihilate him.  If Japan does not go to China, you have an extra fighter for America and can easily pull out if you want too in either case.

Germany’s in no advantage.  They’re in the same boat as normal.  The only difference is that they may, like you, forget that fighters in Sinkiang can easily still be used to trade European territories without being at risk.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Because, as I mentioned three times now, the fighters in Sinkiang can REACH Ukraine and land safely behind the lines.  Same with W. Russia, Belorussia, Karelia and Archangelsk.

Looking at my map, I do not believe Russia fighters based in Sinkiang can do battle in karelia or belorussia.

Does that mean you were wrong three times?  :wink: :-P :lol:

[U-505]

@axis_roll:

Looking at my map, I do not believe Russia fighters based in Sinkiang can do battle in karelia or belorussia.

Not without cheating, anyway. I didn’t take that option into account.  :-D

[frood]

Maybe Russia has researched long-range fighters  :-D

[Jennifer]

My bad, didnt have the map in front of me.  Yes, they can hit Archangelsk, W. Russia, Caucasus, Ukraine, Manchuria, China, Kwangtung and FIC at convenience.

However, on Russia 2, what territories do the Russians need their fighters to attack?

W. Russia and Ukraine most times.

But it would be nice to have the option to hit Manchuria with 6 Infantry, 2 Fighters to make England and America more safe.  Meanwhile, the Germans are still getting their ducks in a row to push on Russia and England can handle keeping Karelia liberated quite easily for a few rounds while America liberates Africa and Pressures the Japanese Fleets.

Point is, the argument that Russia is out of her fighters for 2 rounds is absurd.  They aren’t even out of them for one turn!  And they are safe, unlike parking them in Caucasus if you hit W. Russia/Belorussia.  No way to make them safe in Caucasus then.  Not 100% safe that is.

[U-505]

@Cmdr:

Yes, they can hit Archangelsk, W. Russia, Caucasus, Ukraine, Manchuria, China, Kwangtung and FIC at convenience.

However, on Russia 2, what territories do the Russians need their fighters to attack?

W. Russia and Ukraine most times.

OK. Let’s break this down by territory groups.

Kwang, and FIC: Russia won’t have any ground units to support fighter attacks here until R3, at least. Bad idea to attack with only fighters on R2.

Archangel: moving your fighters to Sink on R1 just to move them back to attack Arch on R2 is just wasteful. Might as well leave them in Russia or Caucasus in that case.

West Russia!: Russia usually stacks here. If germany has units in West Russia by G1 such that you have to use the fighters to counterattack them on R2, then the game is probably over already.

Caucasus: Russia usually leaves the AA here to prevent a German free SBR so if they took it on G1 your counterattack will involve only ground units unless you want to risk your fighters to AA shots. Another bad idea.

China, Manchuria: territories with merit. If you want to use them to attack China or Manchuria on R2 then they can only participate in the WR attack to be able to make it to Sink in non-combat which means on R1 you are limited to A) exposing an armor to help take Belo, B) attacking Ukraine with only 3 inf, 1 art, 3 arm and no fighter support, or C) attacking ONLY West Russia on R1. Any one of those gives Germany a bonus. And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that you also move an armor to Sink by R2.

Ukraine: another territory with merit. But that means that you have commit artillery and armor to take Belorussia or Karelia for 2 turns while your fighters are going to Sink and coming back which was my whole point.

@Cmdr:

Meanwhile, the Germans are still getting their ducks in a row to push on Russia and England can handle keeping Karelia liberated quite easily for a few rounds while America liberates Africa and Pressures the Japanese Fleets.

With the UK building an IC in India, how do you propose they keep Karelia liberated on UK1 or 2 without their underdefended fleet being crushed by a Germany air and/or baltic fleet attack? You can’t build a CV on UK1 if you build an IC in India so the UK fleet will be vastly outnumbered and outgunned on UK1 and UK2 meaning Russia will be responsible for Karelia and, with their fighters in Sink and unable to reach it for 2 turns, they are committed to using art or arm to trade it or leave it in German hands.

@Cmdr:

Point is, the argument that Russia is out of her fighters for 2 rounds is absurd.  They aren’t even out of them for one turn!  And they are safe, unlike parking them in Caucasus if you hit W. Russia/Belorussia.  No way to make them safe in Caucasus then.  Not 100% safe that is.

If you move the Russian fighter to Sink on R1, they can only hit WR on R1 and Ukraine on R2 when they return. That adds up to 2 turns you have to use ground units only to trade karelia and Belorussia while your fighters are going to Sink and back. And if you move them to Sink on R2, they can only hit Ukraine on R2 to be able to make it to Sink no matter where they are based at the end of R1 and only Ukraine on R3 on the way back. Again, 2 turns of only ground units able to reach Karelia and Belorussia. Plus, if you use your fighters to attack Manchuria on R2 they will be unavailable for anything but Ukraine for 3 turns. This is simple math and I thought that you had a degree in Mathematics. THAT’S the absurd part.

Unless you are willing to let Germany keep control of Karelia and Belorussia, Russia will be throwing away a ton of offensive ground units trading those territories while their fighters are screwing around in Asia. Best hope Japan does something stupid to make that a good strategy.

[axis_roll]

personally I like Kazahk as a landing spot for my Russian planes round one.

You can hit Karelia, archangel, belorussia, ukraine and more importantly for KJF: INDIA, CHINA and MANCHURIA

[Jennifer]

Yes, let’s break this down!

Russia:  6 Infantry in Buryatia, forcing Japan to defend it or go all out on Buryatia to destroy the stack and go lighter in other battles.
Russia:  2 Fighters in Sinkiang where they can easily assist in an attack on FIC or Manchuria or Ukraine (or W. Russia if Russia didn’t stack it heavy.)
Russia:  1 Armor in India forcing Japan to leave at least one unit there or risk a Russian blitz through FIC and Kwangtung.

Germany:  No change

Russian Set up?  1 less armor on the German front for 1 turn.  No other changes.

It pays off if Japan gets poor dice or makes poor decisions.  Cost to Russia is almost nothing.  1 Armor less, a unit Russia normally wouldn’t be using for trading anyway.  Good for defense, but not really something Russia’s going to risk.

Meanwhile, if you strafe FIC with England you’ve probably reduced FIC to a fighter and sunk the SZ 59 transport.  1 Armor, 2 Fighters vs whatever in FIC is usually going to be a win for Russia and secure India for at least UK 2 and UK 3 while Japan gets back to FIC.  By this time, America has ICs in China and Sinkiang because Japan had to for go hitting China on J1 and J2 while they tried to move into strike position on India.

Realistic game?  Japan hits China, India has a full turn to build, Japan moves to build up enough force to take it while Russia and American push back in Sinkiang and China with and American IC in Sinkiang at least, possibly another in China and American fleet builds to pressure Japan into naval purchases.

[Crazy Ivan]

:-o
axis roll,
  I like Kazak as well but not on R1, R2 is better as it gives Russia one more turn to beef up the defenses in the Caucasus. I like my fighters in Stalingrad at the end of R1.
The Manchuria gambit can wait for another turn.
        :roll:

[DarthMaximus]

When I play the Axis I usually like to see the UK make somewhat aggressive moves against Japan whether it is FIC, Bor, Sol sz or wherever.  I really don’t think it slows Japan down all that much considering their first 2-3 turns require building trns and an IC anyway.  It isn’t like Japan can attack Moscow on J3 or 4 with the hope of actually taking it.  Germany on the other hand can be an immediate threat to Cauc/Moscow within a turn or two given certain Russian moves.

I’m not going to go through 3 rounds of moves but IMO, it seems likely that Germany will have stacked Ukr on G2 or G3 putting Cauc/Wrus in jeopardy on G4.  Sure the Allies/Russia can consolidate and fall back and defend but they also conceded early position to Germany which is not good.

[Jennifer]

Threatening W. Russia/Caucasus is just a replacement and a better replacement for Japan threatening Kazakh, Novosibirsk and Evenki while holding SFE, Yakut and Buryatia from a Russian standpoint.

Why?  Because England can, and should, be easily feeding troops into Karelia and down through Europe from there.  Meanwhile, Japan does not have India, Persia, China, Sinkiang, FIC, Kwangtung, Manchuria, Evenki, SFE, Buryatia, Novosibirsk and/or Kazakh.  A potential loss of 25 IPC to the Axis income.

When compared to the gain of +9 IPC to Germany for Africa, it only shows the benefit to the allies for a quick strike on Japan early.  After all, the only reason Japan becomes a monster is because people let it.  It’s really not all that strong financially or militarily.

[DarthMaximus]

@Cmdr:

Threatening W. Russia/Caucasus is just a replacement and a better replacement for Japan threatening Kazakh, Novosibirsk and Evenki while holding SFE, Yakut and Buryatia from a Russian standpoint.

I disagree b/c Russia and the Allies can do this without losing early UK units and without adding an IC.

I’m a huge fan of strategic withdrawl.  Extend Japan’s supply lines, have them rush in, then samsh them on the counter in about rd 4 or 5 after you’ve contained Germany.  Then you push back hard against Japan with all three Allies.

@Cmdr:

Why?  Because England can, and should, be easily feeding troops into Karelia and down through Europe from there.  Meanwhile, Japan does not have India, Persia, China, Sinkiang, FIC, Kwangtung, Manchuria, Evenki, SFE, Buryatia, Novosibirsk and/or Kazakh.  A potential loss of 25 IPC to the Axis income.

I don’t think that is possible to hold all those IC or not, unless Japan is incompetent.  Worst case is Japan continually unloads 8 inf into Bury/Man or Kwa.  They can even split 4 to Fic, 4 to Bury.  Japan can pretty much ignore India/Fic if they want to.

I’d just go north, you only need 24 ipc to unload 8 inf a turn.  That means Japan can lose FIC and still offload 8.  One turn to Man means 16 on Bury the next, which means 16 on Yak and 8 on Bury, etc.  The Allies can have all the troops they want in SE Asia I’ll take Eve as the Germans take Wrus and then bye bye Moscow.  Now I’ll go back and get SE Asia once Russia is out of the game.

[Jennifer]

Yes, but can 8 infantry push back American and British units?  Say America has China, Sinkiang and FIC with ICs and are making 7 units a turn there. (4 inf, art, 2 arm for argument’s sake) and England has 2 inf, 1 arm going into India.  Can Japan’s 8 infantry push all that back and hold them back?

Meanwhile, Germany’s still scrambling to get 3:1 odds for their major assaults. (I estimate it takes 3 Attacking Punch to successfully kill 1 Defending Punch since you need left overs.  That is, 2 Armor can be expected to almost always kill 1 defending infantryman with at least one unit left to hold the ground. - Note, this is PUNCH, not IPC value!)

[trihero]

Meanwhile, Germany’s still scrambling to get 3:1 odds for their major assaults. (I estimate it takes 3 Attacking Punch to successfully kill 1 Defending Punch since you need left overs.  That is, 2 Armor can be expected to almost always kill 1 defending infantryman with at least one unit left to hold the ground. - Note, this is PUNCH, not IPC value!)

Off the top of my head that sounds a little high. I’m thinking you want somewhere around 1.5 : 1 or maybe 2:1 odds in terms of punch, provided you have a split force of inf/tanks, and your total unit count exceeeds theirs (which should already happen given the odds). Remember, defense punch dies off more quickly because infantry are losing 2 punch on defense instead of 1 on offense, so if you’re evenly matched up on punch I would go for it as the offender since the defense will lose their punch faster.

I have to say though this is contigent upon having a large inf screen, or else the offense will lose at a faster rate if it’s all tanks.

[U-505]

@Cmdr:

Why?  Because England can, and should, be easily feeding troops into Karelia and down through Europe from there.  Meanwhile, Japan does not have India, Persia, China, Sinkiang, FIC, Kwangtung, Manchuria, Evenki, SFE, Buryatia, Novosibirsk and/or Kazakh.  A potential loss of 25 IPC to the Axis income.

First, you keep saying that the UK can easily land troops in Karelia while the Russian fighters are in Asia. You can’t build a CV on UK1 if you build an IC in India. Even a poor Germany player is going to crush your UK fleet if it is landing in Karelia and undefended by a CV. It just makes no sense.

Second, Maybe you’ll get control of Manchuria for a turn until Japan lands heavily there, but Kwangtung? There is no possible way japan isn’t going to be able to control Kwangtung permanently. And Japan will be trading China and FIC so you can’t say that they won’t at least be able to collect on those territories if not hold them outright. Japan can have 20 units, including aircraft, in Asia by the end of J2. I’ve played against some pretty damn good players using KJF and even they couldn’t do what you said you could do. You’re just fantasizing.

[newpaintbrush]

@U-505:

You’re just fantasizing.

(slobber) yesh, yesh I am!

(edit) ah, the things I do to increase post count (/edit)

[DarthMaximus]

Bean is right.  The Attacker can win even if it is outnumbered in punch provided the attacker has more total units.  But even if it is a much closer battle at this point it is good for Germany to kill the Russians since they should still maintain an IPC lead of 40+ to 25ish, since the Allies are helping in Asia.  Geramny should still have some Afr income coming in as well as its Med fleet.

@Cmdr:

Yes, but can 8 infantry push back American and British units?  Say America has China, Sinkiang and FIC with ICs and are making 7 units a turn there. (4 inf, art, 2 arm for argument’s sake) and England has 2 inf, 1 arm going into India.  Can Japan’s 8 infantry push all that back and hold them back?

Yes.

US should not have an IC on Chi.  There are 2 must attacks on J1, China and Pearl.  Even if Fic was taken by the UK, Japan can ignore it.  5 inf + planes to Chi, tons o’ ships to Pearl and as a bonus attack with the EI fleet as it cleans up Sz 59 or any loose UK ships floating around.

Chi should be fairly safe from counter attack on round 2 unless Russia brings in armor/ftrs (very good for Germany).  Sin is a different story but those new units can’t attack until Rd 3.  By that time Japan has 4-5 trns and plenty of inf, to force the issue North.
I really don’t care if the Allies want to trade Fic/Kwa/Man in rd 2, I’ll have 2 BB’s and 5-7 planes.  Russia won’t be able to hold 6 inf in Bury/Man/Yak for very long, plus without ftr support in Bury in Rd 2, chances are Russia loses its stack there when Japan attacks with 2 BB shots, 6-8 units and planes.

I’ll kill the Russian troops before I worry about Fic, if they wisely fall back to Yak, then Japan has its foothold in Bury and that protects Man and essentially puts it out of reach for the Allies for the early part of the game.

Now, the Allies should not be able to safely drop an IC on FIC for quite sometime.  Even if UK holds it after J1, I can’t see anyway they place an IC on Fic after putting one on Ind on UK 1.  They will not have enough troops yet to defend the Fic IC and Japan can take it.  Japan will certainly have the ability to trade Fic on J2, which means the Allies won’t have another opportunity to put an IC there until Rd 4.  I can’t see how the US would be able to take back Fic on US 2 so that leaves UK 3 or US 3.  I’m not buying it, not without a full fledge KJF and US Pac build up as well.

What all of this means is Japan can essentially go about its business as normal for the first 3-4 turns.  Yes, it might cost you some early IPC in rd 1-2 but as long as you collect over 24 you can still do normal Japan buys and get plenty of troops to Asia.  I don’t think the Allies can hold Fic or Kwa as long as Japan has its full navy.

I think a better quesiton might be, could the Allies mixed force push back the 8 Japanese inf?

Mixed forces are great on Def, but on Off they are very weak, so once Japan lands it is not that easy to trade with them, esp since Japan has 2 BBs and a far superior airforce.

Now if the US goes Pac strat and it is a KJF, okay then the Allies can do some real damage, but my impression was we were mainly talking about an annoying Japan strat and some pesky UK 1 attacks.

My point is if you aren’t going to follow-up your UK 1 attacks with anything (read KJF), then what is the point?
On its own I don’t think it is that much of delay to Japan and those units could be better served fortifying Per/Cauc/Kaz for use against the Germans or Japanese as needed.

I just don’t like throwing away early units as the Allies esp when it is so tough to get reinforcements there.

Edit:

I agree with U-505.

[Jennifer]

U-505:

You keep forgetting the Russian fighters are in Asia for a mere 1 round and are not ever out of conflict with the Germans.

Furthermore, you keep assuming I need to buy a carrier.  Why?  I have a perfectly good one in SZ 35 I can easily sail home without risk.  By turn 3, the British are landing with impunity in Karelia/Archangelsk and have Africa seized (with minor American help.)

Japan, on the other hand, have been completely wiped off the main continent by Japan 4 with serious American threats in the Pacific forcing them to counter with naval units or lose their islands to a superior American force.

Meanwhile, Russia can now ignore the Eastern sea board and focus 100% of it’s energy on Germany who is having problems of it’s own.  37 IPC income vs 24 in Russia and 15 from England (the other 15 going to India.)

But if you want to keep living in your fantasy world that just because you have an IC in India England has 0 forces to use against Germany and America has 0 forces to use and Russia is totally inept and retreats to Moscow on R1 instead of attacking, or whatever is running through you mind right now, then I’ll gladly destroy you with a KJF in the next league/tournament game we play.  Granted, some time will have to pass so you don’t know it’s a KJF before G1.  :evil:

[U-505]

Oh,come on. There is no way you can restrict Germany to 37 IPC’s in a KJF. With the UK not retaking Egypt Germany is going to be up 2 IPC’s on G1 and probably around 45 or 46 by G2. And if you’re not going to build a CV with the UK and wait until UK4 until the Indian Ocean CV arrives, Germany can chase your Atlantic UK fleet all the way back to sz10 using just a CV purchase to go with the Baltic fleet and a few aircraft in Western. And since Germany won’t be transporting units to Africa they can add the Med fleet as well. Once their back door is safe from the UK, Germany can leave Western empty and focus all 45+ IPC’s every turn at Russia.

And I have no problem playing a League game to prove my point. Ask EM and Gamer how good my anti-KJF game is. Give me a 6 bid :-o  8-) and you’re on. You can hamstring Japan all you want, but you have to be fast because Germany head to head with Russia for too long is a bad idea.