Funny though, you buffoon :roll:, is that you voted for the Russian Ftr :| :| :| :|
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, EVERY piece has a threat potential. I also think you are being facetious.
My point was how can such an important piece go unused? It can’t be that important if it sits. I DOUBT I would ever see a russian ftr unused.
And this isn’t the cold war. A piece unused is like not having that piece at all. At the very least, it should be moved into <better>position</better>
:-D
Well, everyone has a special unit that they like and use to it’s maximum potential. And when they lose it, they are sad, very sad. :cry:
But, according to this thread, the Russian fighter(s) seem to be regarded more important over all the other availiable options. :-D
I know this for sure, once you lose that fighter, you are probibly going to lose Russia, that is how much a game barometer it is. And Russia lost is most often, game lost. :roll:
So, Russian Fighters Rule!
I built a russian fighter on R1 recently, and sank the Med fleet on R2 with 3 Russian fighters! Africa was saved by Russian planes :wink: Now where can one fighter make that kind of a difference?
See ya around the gameing boards, and stay away from my fighters! :wink:
At least everyone is agreed on the importance of one American Bomber…
Btw, I un-modified the poll because sometimes the df givith and sometimes the df taketh away…
axis_roll:
May I point out that it is true you can provide equal threat to E. Europe, Germany and W. Europe with British fighters on a British Carrier in SZ 5, the problem is that you must first purchase the Aircraft Carrier and then move it into position in SZ 5.
The bomber, on the other hand, is already present in England and can easily move to Russia where it can still pose a threat to those three territories (and many more) but also serve as a casualty if Russia is attacked and the battle goes poorly for the allies?
The thing about threat potential is that it forces your opponent to react to it, or leave him or herself vulnerable. If my bomber sits in Moscow for 15 rounds but forces Japan to build a destroyer for SZ 60 and Germany to keep fighters stationed in Germany instead of E. Europe, has the Bomber served me gainfully? Even considering it not once engaged in combat?
In my opinion, of course! I cost Japan 12 IPCs and kept Germany’s fighters a full territory farther from Russia than they may otherwise have been.
Of course, that’s not to say the British bomber won’t engage. Japan could leave an IC open to SBR without AA Gun protection or some British fighters and the bomber could engage German or Japanese shipping in the Med/Gulf area. Maybe the bomber is brought in on an attempt to take Germany in an amphibious assault?
Bunnies, many thanks, you clarified many of my points, and I appreciate your consideration of my personal opinions on the matter. I fully realize and understand these are my opinions and thus are not facts to be rammed down the throats of unbelievers.
I do not think any less of those who feel the Russian fighter is more important. I am slightly bewildered by the assertation of the German Battleship, but that’s okay as well.
As to Mr. Ivan:
I understand your perspective. However, I’ve lost so many Russian fighters and ultimately won the game it isn’t even funny anymore. Russian fighters are very valuable, but remember, we’re only talking about the loss of ONE Russian fighter. That means you’d still have one left. Also, keep in mind the cost of a Russian fighter is 67% the cost of a British Bomber and that Russia is generally earning 33% more than England is for much of the opening of the game. (29 IPC income for Russia one is not rare. 30+ for Russia two, three and four is also pretty common. While England is usually looking at closer to 28 on England 1 followed by low 20s upper teens for the next 4 rounds.)
To me, the cost analysis alone is enough to catapult the British Bomber to more valuable than a single Russian fighter. (Loss of both Russian fighters would be worse than loss of a single British bomber, but that’s a different discussion.)
Topping it off is the threat of the bomber. It forces Germany to keep two AA Guns back, it forces Germany to add defensive units to counter the Bombers attack in W. Europe, E. Europe and Germany (maybe other places if England can hit them amphibiously) and it forces Japan to keep an eye on it’s own stacks and complexes.
And, of course, it’s combat effectiveness is pretty strong as well. Any amphibious assault with bomber support is going to see better results than without, assuming the bomber hits 67% of the time as it should.
@Bunnies:
Generally, though, the UK bomber is pretty pimped out. Would you rather have a third Russian fighter or that first UK bomber? What about a second UK bomber instead of the second Russian fighter? I think I’d prefer a second UK bomber to a second Russian fighter myself.
I’ll take that 3rd Russian fighter, no doubt. Nobody ever asked before (gee that was easy). Can I get a 4th too instead of the 1st UK bomber? I’m not understating the importance of the UK bomber either, when you have it. It gets pimped out a lot and you end up counting on it. But given the choice… ?
Russia is the one trading turf as quickly as possible from round 1, swapping some territories just for IPC leverage in the first couple rounds. Having Russian fighters in on every battle you possibly can saves those precious boots on the ground. A 3rd Russian fighter buy is somewhat a trump card, if/when you can pull it off. Having the extra one from the start? Pfft. Wouldn’t even have to think twice about that.
Hells yeah, I’ll trade the US Bmb for another russian ftr too.
Could the US and the UK both trade??? Maybe they will get a group rate :-D
@Cmdr:
The Russian fighters are only trading territories or cowering on the Russian capitol.
You might get more respect for your opinion if you didn’t use such inflammatory language. I mean, to use cowering for the self-admitted “second” most important piece in the game, you arent winning over any of the non-believers.
So when a moscow battle goes badly, you take a uk bomber before a russian fighter? interesting. No need to reply, i know a fighter defends at 4 while bomber defends at 1.
And you speak of “typical” games where russia is earning 30+. I recall a debate about this before on this forum. In a typical (IMO) game, japan takes bury pretty early, and SFE + yakut not far after. That 3 ipc. So for russia to earn even 30 ipc, they need to be trading EE, balkans, or norway pretty early. and to earn 30+ they need to trade 2 of 3 of these. If russia is trading 2 of 3 of these territories, i dont think u need the bomber or fighter!!! :) germany is toast.
As well as uk earning in the teens. I think the emphasis that most put on countering egypt is to prevent Uk from earning in the teens. If you kill those germans tanks UK1, they cant blitz thru africa, and drain UKs income, and in my “typical” game, US get to afirca pretty early to regain that lost Uk income. My “typical” game has UK and russia earning about the same.
The Soviet fighters are the most irreplaceable units in the game considering Soviet options for safe play. That may not translate in the most important “piece”.
The Japanese first transport purchase and losing them is a huge hole for japan and can mean defeat if they are lost before they make their presence felt.
Germany losing 2 fighters or its bomber is a big hurt on Germany
I guess its got no answer because depending on strategy, some items are more valuable than others, because their is no finite rule about what strategy works best…only approximations of this truth based on ever changing conditions ( dice) and enemy plans. So its really impossible to say “this unit is the MVP of the game”
I think the Russian FIGs have got to be tied for the most important piece, perhaps THE most important piece that ever gets to attack in the game.
Other “most important pieces” would include the USA FIG in China and the UK FIG in Egypt. Neither of those units ever seem to live long enough to attack, because they are so dangerous that virtually ALL strategies for this game include the death of those units before they can be killed.
:mrgreen:
@ncscswitch:
I think the Russian FIGs have got to be tied for the most important piece, perhaps THE most important piece that ever gets to attack in the game.
Other “most important pieces” would include the USA FIG in China and the UK FIG in Egypt. Neither of those units ever seem to live long enough to attack, because they are so dangerous that virtually ALL strategies for this game include the death of those units before they can be killed.
:mrgreen:
Along those lines, wouldnt the UK BB in the med be even more important then those fighters?
And the Pearl Fleet as well then.
Truth be told, OUTSIDE of Europe, I think the Jap SUB off Solomons is pretty damn important. If it lives to be used at Pearl, it pretty much kicks the US out of the Pacific.
@ncscswitch:
Other “most important pieces” would include the USA FIG in China and the UK FIG in Egypt. Neither of those units ever seem to live long enough to attack, because they are so dangerous that virtually ALL strategies for this game include the death of those units before they can be killed.
Glad someone else finally mentioned 'em.
I saw a J1 attack against China fail once…the results were NOT pretty for Japan.
No German player wants to watch that Egyptian fig go off and land somewhere else.
I’ve seen the Pearl Fig kill a BB all by itself.
These fighters are crucial pieces, hence my earlier comments.
:cry:
I love it when my Jap transport off of Kwangtung survives! That is a pretty important piece for Japan. :wink:
@Crazy:
:cry:
I love it when my Jap transport off of Kwangtung survives! That is a pretty important piece for Japan. :wink:
And yet some players don’t even TRY to sink that tpt (UK1). :? :? :?
@Cmdr:
The Russian fighters are only trading territories or cowering on the Russian capitol.
You might get more respect for your opinion if you didn’t use such inflammatory language. I mean, to use cowering for the self-admitted “second” most important piece in the game, you arent winning over any of the non-believers.
I am sorry you took offense at my choice of words. Honestly, I call it cowering in your capitol when you are reduced too, in effect, only your capitol and you have the main bulk of your army there. (This of course does not mean you ONLY have your capitol, you may have say Evenki as Russia or maybe you are trading W. Europe or S. Europe with Germany, but in those cases, you are pretty much reduced to just a capitol.)
In either event, the Russian fighters are almost only reduced to one of two rolls:
1) Liberating Russian territory
2) Defending Moscow from attack
Yes, they MIGHT one day land on an Allied carrier to defend their fleet. They MIGHT one day make up for a botched American invasion of Berlin and finish clearing the land taking Berlin (with some Russian armor or infantry say) for the Allies. They MIGHT one day land in W. Europe or S. Europe just long enough for the allies to pull in reinforcements.
Then again, my dead Grandmother may one day grow testicles. Should I plan to start calling her Grandpa, or keep my ideas more mainstream? (Sorry, my attempt at humor there.)
Anyway, if Russia falls, what good are the Russian fighters now? Granted, the British bomber is even more useless if England falls, but how often is it that England falls before Russia? Now, how often is it that you need that extra umph with England (and America) to hit Germany and make it fall just before, during, or just after Russia falls?
Yes, it is a very bad thing to lose a Russian fighter. Catastrophic? No. But I do feel, in my personal opinion, the damage potential of the British Bomber, without having to purchase one, is more conducive to the allies winning the game than a Russian fighter.
After all, if you have to trade Novosibirsk with 2 Infantry and a Fighter it costs you 6 IPC. If you have to trade Novosibirsk with Infantry, Artillery then it costs you 7 IPC. Not a huge difference in cost and both (when one infantry is defending) are pretty good odds of Russia winning the liberation.
But England only has the troops it can bring by transport to attack Germany (Usually, sometimes you have a stack in E. Europe or W. Europe, but then, you probably have your bomber in Russia to be used as first casualty as Germany is already defeated.). That means the only way you can get more firepower is by air power. A bomber you don’t have to pay for is worth an inestimable fortune in that case, to me.
:-o
Oh no Jennifer, you didn’t write, testicles!
Now first off, only those with testicles may refer to testicles, in any joking matter, because those with testicles are sensitve on just how testicles can be joked about, and to imagine them hanging from your Grandmas’, er, uh, private area, is not viewed as paticularly humorous, by most of us anyway, (especially me for sure).
So, in future, stick to joking about what you got not what ya ain’t got, please.
Now I have to go wash out my brain from what I read on her post.
:-P Gezz Jen, yukky, yuk, gaaaa…… :roll:
I think that it would be funny if Jen’s gramy had testes
But I’m a pretty twisted individual so there you go…
Same sort of silly rhetoric too.
Your sarcastic list of things Russian ftr(s) MIGHT do is only more reasoning WHY a Russian ftr is more important because, guess what… I HAVE used Russian ftr(s) in EVERY SINGLE way that you say they MIGHT be someday used:
defending allied carriers
taking Berlin
supporting Western
supporting Southern
Oh yes, I have used Russian ftr(s) after Moscow has fallen too.
I think that it would be funny if Jen’s gramy had testes
But I’m a pretty twisted individual so there you go…
That might explain some of the posts we read in this forum
