Most Important Piece

[losttribe04]

I think the UK bomber is a luxury (that’s why it doesn’t get replaced) and the Russian FTR is a necessity (that’s why they buy more).

LT

[Jennifer]

Okay, keep in mind that the Russian fighters are not needed to defend Russia as England and America will have plenty of fighters there.  It MAY come in handy to trade territories, but really, that’s not going to be much of an issue after a few rounds when England and America are trading the territories for Russia (liberating Novo/Kaz from Japan) and pressing on Germany.  That means, Russia’s fighters are purely for defense and the off chance Russia needs to liberate something for itself.

The German battleship is important, but hardly the most important.  Many players waste 16 IPC on carriers for Germany anyway (in my opinion it’s a waste) so put the carrier in SZ 14 instead.  Much better defense than the battleship.  However, realistically speaking, that battleship is either never destroyed or destroyed so late in the game it’s not really in jeapordy.

Rather surprised someone chose a Japanese fighter.  Be interesting to see why they feel that piece is so important.

However, the British Bomber is needed all the way until the end of the game unless the allies are conceding defeat.  Without it, attacks on Germany itself from SZ 5 are all but impossible.  You especially need it if you are planning a 1-2 punch on Germany itself, even more so if you hope to do it before Round 8!

Not to mention, that bomber adds significant punch to British forces if Germany gets too close to SZ 13 with her battleship.  Sure, you take Gibraltar, but let’s say England’s fleet is in SZ 8 and it consists of a battleship, 2 fighters, carrier and transport.  You have 2 transports, battleship in SZ 13.

England needs 4 hits to sink you and cannot afford any losses. (Germany can usually afford to lose the entire med fleet without being completely decimated.)

Add in the bomber, you have 2X4, 2X3, 1X1.  15 Punch, 2 to 3 hits.
Without the bomber, you have 1X4, 2X3, 1X1.  11 Punch, 1 or 2 hits.

Huge frakkin difference!  With 3 hits, and the Germans with 1 hit, you have a decent shot of getting out of the battle without loss.  Even if you do take a loss, it’s almost certainly not more than one, and it’s easier for you to replace just one hit.  Without the bomber, you may as well expect to lose two units - a good trade for Germany! (because Germany’s luftwaffe can destroy the remnants of your fleet at will then.)

No Russian fighter?  Oh well.  It sucks, but it’s hardly catastrophic!  We’re talking a minor set back.  So you have 2 fighters by round 8 instead of 3.  So?

No English bomber?  That really sucks!  Now you have significantly less long range punch, a huge set back on any early attacks on Berlin, no method to strangle Japanese construction on the mainland early in the game and the game will be almost over before you can even dream of replacing it.

What other piece is so important and has such small chance of being replaced than the British bomber?

And if you think the British bomber is so worthless, how about we play a game when you don’t have it from the start of the game!  I can play without a Russian fighter at the start if I have too and not be too dramatically effected, at least not as dramatically stunted as if I had no British bomber!

[Mazer Rackham]

I categorically reject this false “choice”.

There was not ONE tank listed in the options, when, in fact, we all know that tanks are STRONG!

[Jennifer]

@Mazer:

I categorically reject this false “choice”.

There was not ONE tank listed in the options, when, in fact, we all know that tanks are STRONG!

Yea, but now seriously, which do you think is most important?

Another thought, naval pieces cannot be most important since they cannot take capitols or victory cities. :P

[losttribe04]

Jen,

If you want to get technical Japan’s BMR should be a choice then.

LT

[Jennifer]

@LT04:

Jen,

If you want to get technical Japan’s BMR should be a choice then.

LT

Hmm, I guess it could be.  Should change America to a fighter then.  But honestly, I almost never really use the Japanese bomber after round 1. (Use it in Pearl, but after that, it’s only used if Germany fails to take Russia.)

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

@LT04:

Jen,

If you want to get technical Japan’s BMR should be a choice then.

LT

Hmm, I guess it could be.  Should change America to a fighter then.  But honestly, I almost never really use the Japanese bomber after round 1. (Use it in Pearl, but after that, it’s only used if Germany fails to take Russia.)

Therein lies the beauty of the poll… to see what the OTHERS players think.

How can the japanese bomber NOT be used after the first round?  It has what Japan needs the most… POWER and RANGE.

Your reply really indicates that to me, it is more a players STYLE than dictates a piece’s importance more than anything else that’s been said to this point.

So the poll (if enough players vote) will be a better telling of the importance of the pieces listed above since it will be a sampling of many playing styles.

[Corbeau Blanc]

Well, the most important units are not in the choice for me. I don’t see the air units as the most valuable. Sea units are the most valuable.

• German BB Bismarck. (Like mentionned)
• UK atlantic BB
• Japaneses Kwantug sea transport ( or any jap transport )
• Usa atlantic BB
• Russian sub ( R1 at least.)  Fighters i guess after that though i’d trade them both readily for 4 tanks…

[Adlertag]

I think the brit infantry in western Canada is the most important piece on the map, yeah I know he comes late into the game,  but when this guy finally comes, he kicks a*s for sure, man.

[Romulus]

@Cmdr:

@Mazer:

I categorically reject this false “choice”.

There was not ONE tank listed in the options, when, in fact, we all know that tanks are STRONG!

Yea, but now seriously, which do you think is most important?

Another thought, naval pieces cannot be most important since they cannot take capitols or victory cities. :P

While UK bomber can?

[U-505]

Actually the most important piece is my loaded six-sided die, uhhh, I mean, my “lucky” six sider.

[DarthMaximus]

I agree that “importance” is more based on your strat, no single piece is a game winner or game loser.  I’ll also say that I hate lose any Russian units including ftrs, but I also feel bombers (for all countries) are immensely important.  IMO, bombers are potential game-changers.  It might be the one unit (all by itself) that can effect the most of your opponents potential moves.  For the question that started the debate (Rus Ftr vs. UK Bom), As the Axis, I typically don’t worry where the Russia ftrs are, but I always have an eye on the UK/US boms.  And I’m always glad when I see my opponent lose his bom (doesn’t matter what country he is playing).

I do think any excessive loss early by Russia can be devasting whether it is losing a ftr or just 3-4 extra inf in a dice job, so b/c of this I’ll just vote for the ftr, it is worse losing 10 ipc of Russian units compare to 15 of British in Rd 1, but come mid to late game I really want my bombers around.

[dezrtfish]

Of the choices I say the Russian fighter, I use both of the Russian fighters every turn or very nearly every turn.  I also will not replace a russian fighter untill the german threat is neutralized, and by then no pieces are really that important.

[AxisOfEvil]

hmm. so many stipulations and things we all need to keep in mind. I think Jen makes alot of assumptions about game positioning, which you really have to do to answer this question. But Couldn’t the UK use their forces to pressure EE and berlin? this is what I do with the British. So i dont have the UK forces in Moscow trading eastern territory with the japanese. My allied game always has at least 2 territoires Russia needs to trade. Especially in the early game.

Agreed, the defense with the fighter can be replaced by an extra US fighter. I also dont buy another russian fighter unless i have the German threat stood off, and I want more trading power. So I am curious, you speak as if 3-4 Russian fighters is both common and ideal strategy, however, you have pages of reasons why Russia can survive with one 1 fighter. If Rusia doesnt need to trade in your scenarios, and doesnt need the fighters for defense, as allied fighters take that role, why do you suggest buying 1-2 more of them? paper weights?

[AxisOfEvil]

@Cmdr:

However, the British Bomber is needed all the way until the end of the game unless the allies are conceding defeat.

So when the UK bomber is lost, the allies must concede defeat. Hmm. Wouldn’t 15 ipc to replace the bomber be doable if it meant preventing defeat?

I mean 15 ipc, thats (consulting NASA)  umm like 5 dudes. So in theory, a bad swing of die could easily cost you five dudes in the first 8 rounds. Does that swing of the die mean defeat? no it doesnt. So instead of 5 dudes, replace that bomber that it sure defeat, and save the free world!!!

[Guest]

@Adlertag:

I think the brit infantry in western Canada is the most important piece on the map, yeah I know he comes late into the game,  but when this guy finally comes, he kicks a*s for sure, man.

Ah yes, Yukon Jack.

Many is the memory of Yukon Jack fighting off the Yellow Hordes from my Classic days…

Ya always forget where he died like he was supposed to in the battle, but those games where he fought back amphib after amphib…  THOSE stick with ya!

[Aretaku]

@Cmdr:

However, the British Bomber is needed all the way until the end of the game unless the allies are conceding defeat.

No it’s not.

Unless you’re telling me you’ve never won a game in which your British bomber died, which I somehow doubt.

I’ve lost the British bomber in SBRs in rd 2 or 3 on numerous occasions, and I’ve still won handily. I’ve kept it for the whole game and still been defeated.

–-

For me, the most important pieces are those which you KNOW the enemy is going to attack on rd 1, and which have the greatest potential to cause damage to the enemy.

In many games, especially between players of similar skill levels, the first couple of rounds can make or break the game.

An “important” piece should aid you greatly when it rolls well, and leave you enraged when it rolls poorly.

I’d say it’s a tossup between the British fighter in Egypt, or the American fighter in SZ52. Each has the capacity to aid greatly in their respective battles, and set the opponent up for a potentially devastating counter…or to do nothing and leave the enemy in a strong position with many options.

[TimTheEnchanter]

@Romulus:

@Cmdr:

@Mazer:

I categorically reject this false “choice”.

There was not ONE tank listed in the options, when, in fact, we all know that tanks are STRONG!

Yea, but now seriously, which do you think is most important?

Another thought, naval pieces cannot be most important since they cannot take capitols or victory cities. :P

While UK bomber can?

Exactly my thought.

Frankly I don’t think the bomber is even the UK’s most valuable unit.  I’d have much more heartburn if the sz2 BB disappeared than I would if the bomber was gone in the early game.  Neither are absolute game killers, but in terms of replaceability and impact:

• the UK can ill-afford the 24 ipcs to replace it and will probably buy a carrier instead just for affordability.  This requires at least one plane to be stationed on it, and does not have the same offensive power, but it’s probably all england can afford.

• losing that BB will SIGNIFICANTLY slow the UK’s arrival in Europe both because of the lack of protection to advance the trns and the likely need to reduce/delay ground unit and trn purchases until some capital ships are purchased (or she waits even longer for uncle sam to provide the cover).  This means there will be many more german units on the ground when she finally does arrive, probably at Russia’s expense.

• losing the ability to bombard means a few extra units defending because they weren’t killed along the way, plus losing the THREAT of using the bombard means germany can probably defend a little lighter across all it’s threatened coastal territories, moving more units to the front.

[a44bigdog]

For me hands down the Russian fighter. I will willingly trade the UK Bomber for a German Destroyer while I willingly trade a Russian fighter for a German Battleship.

[Jennifer]

I’ve yet to see a game where they allies have won decisively without replacing a lost British Bomber and generally speaking, replacing that bomber is an entire turn’s pay chit or very close. (If England is earning 18 IPCs, not unthinkable, it’s a bomber and an infantry, hardly the 6 infantry you need to keep up pressure on Germany.)

The thing is, that bomber adds a significant threat to E. Europe, Germany and W. Europe landings while staying in a centralized position on the board where it can add threat just about anywhere.

The Russian fighters are only trading territories or cowering on the Russian capitol.

The American bomber is likewise important, but at least America is more than able to replace the loss of her bomber without overly impacting production of ground units.

The Russian fighters are very important.  But each individual Russian fighter is less important than the individual British bomber.

1)  Russia can afford a new 10 IPC Fighter, England cannot afford a new 15 IPC Bomber. (Assuming Russia and England are at typical strength and position in the first 4 rounds of the game, Russia should be earning in the low 30 ipcs, England in the low 20 to upper teen IPCs.)

2)  England and America are the only two nations who can realistically count on posing a threat to W. Europe, Germany and E. Europe (maybe even S. Europe).  Therefore, England and America need large air forces to accompany their amphibious assaults.  Russia can easily trade territories without air support if it needs too.

3)  Eventually Russia will need to be trading 6 territories, since two fighters cannot possibly engage in all 6 battles, this shows the Russian fighters are nice to have, but hardly necessary to win the game.  Meanwhile, England and America only need to take Berlin, which is one territory, and one bomber can attack one territory every round of the game.

4)  My England normally does have troops in Moscow to support the Russians, I find it more economically feasible to attack Japan with England than with Russia.  However, Karelia is often liberated by the British which would mean, even from an early stand point, Russia only has to deal with Belorussia and Ukraine.  So what if you need to use Inf, Art instead of 2 Inf, Fig once in a while?  It’s only 1 IPC more.  You can easily do without the second fighter if you have too.  Though, as mentioned in step one, Russia’s more than capable of replacing fighter losses if she has too, most players even figure on a 3rd or 4th fighter in their over all Russian game.  Rarely do I see someone plan on a 2nd or 3rd British Bomber in their over all strategy.

Obviously, these are just my opinions.  I base them on years of experience and literally 100 games or more some won, some lost.  Each time I see the British bomber play a pivotal role in the Allied strategy and it’s clear, and effective use (even if it NEVER engages in combat) has clearly turned the tide in favor of the allies in most of these games.  However, no matter how well you use the Russian fighters, without the British and American air forces (specifically their bombers, but also their fighters) you’ll eventually lose.