Agreed.
Stop the madness, and start the presses
-
Here is the map with Russia in control of Ireland.
Notice they also control Finland and the threat is on for Norway.
The Germans cleared the Egyptian navy out, but lost the Luftwaffe in the process. But, as I said, he was unwilling to attack the Infantry in scotland for fear of losing bombers. Now Russia is going to collect for Ireland until the end of the game, there’s no conceivable way for the Axis to take Ireland away.
-
Frankly, I don’t get how you are sparing Russian units to go out and take Ireland, let alone the Med islands with help from the US fleet. Okay, say I’m Russia. Germany has declared war on me and is pounding my troops all along the Eastern Front and in the north. They are closing in on Leningrad AND the Ukraine. So I’m going to spend some of my precious IPCs building ships and sending a guy to Ireland or through the Middle East? I think not.
He took the Ukraines. don’t care. I have Finland and Ireland that makes up the loss of income (more than makes up the loss of income!) and my destroyers are keeping SZ 125 cleared of enemy warships. Egypt has a little fleet in SZ 109 and the ability to pop out much more as needed. Lost India, but don’t care as America does not have to focus so hard on the Atlantic anymore. (Germany is down to 2 Fighters and Italy only has 1 fighter. Neither nation has fleet big enough to worry about.)
Sorry, missed some planes in Greece. Again, not as big a deal as people make it out to be.
-
Well if you get the refrence Jen, I called it the “Genestealers move 18in” syndrome. I was always reminding my friend that yes, you could wind up with 18in movment, or they could just have 7in.
I do appericate you giving evidence to show what you’re talking about, i’ve never doubted that what you said was possible, I just dont see why you would want to spend the IPCs on such things. You can do all this, but it dosnt answer the lingering question of why you would want to? I can respect that everyone plays things differently, everyone interprits rules differently, but I dont think the problem im having with this is from a lack of perspective. Like you mentioned you have to look at a units potential, but I think you also need to temper that with a grounding in a reality of whats more likely to happen. My lack of perspective on how you play keeps me from understanding how Germany is unable to hold on to Scandanavia, because i’ve never seen this be a problem in my games(and I think a German airbase in Norway that we often see in my games would effectively shut down this Ireland grabbing nonsense). The law of averages plays an important part in this game when determining strategy, but luck plays an equal if not greater part in this to averages, and your ideas seem to ignore the latter of these.
To touch upon a bit of what grasshopper mentioned, prespective is important and so is context. I have trouble understanding your perpsective on your posts Jen mostly because there is always a lack of context. To give an example in your last post you said this: @Cmdr:He took the Ukraines. don’t care. I have Finland and Ireland that makes up the loss of income (more than makes up the loss of income!) and my destroyers are keeping SZ 125 cleared of enemy warships.
This lacks the context of the situation, how did you get Finland? What is happening in Scandanavia, why cant Germany re-take it and perhapse most importantly what are you doing about the Germans in the Ukraine? With out this context this is just a statment with the same meaning as “I have axis&allies” or “I can fit 10 infantry pieces up my nose”, they might be true but why are they relevent. If I tell you a story that after a game of A&A ended I and my ally jumped up and beat up one of the axis players. This is given without much context and would leave most people to believe im some sort of aggressive violent jerk and maybe I did this because I lost when I dont give the context that the game had ended when the Japanese player had just knocked the table over(accidentily) and spilt drinks everywhere at the height of a very good game. So you can see how context makes a huge difference. :-)
-
@Vance:
The point is that you need at least a transport, a destroyer, and 1 infantry, which adds up to 18 IPCs. If you manage to pull it off and take Ireland, will you make back that 18IPCs before the game ends? USSR could spend that $18 on 6 infantry instead.
I wouldn’t need to build a Russian Destroyer, as I said in my previous post I wouldn’t have started this endevor if there wasn’t already an Allied presance in the Atlantic, UK kills the destroyer and I move the turn after that. Unless of course Germany keeps buying subs every turn to replace the one he’s continuously losing. Inwhich case Russia is tying up at least 6IPC’s a turn for the 1 time cost of 7.
I also don’t need to buy the Infantry since Russia starts with a pretty decent amount. 1 Infantry isn’t going to make or break Barbarossa.
All it takes to ‘pull it off’ is some form of cooperation between the UK and Russian players. -
@Cmdr:
Ireland: 3 IPC
Crete: 3 IPC
Sardinia: 3 IPC
Sicily: 3 IPC
Norway: 6 IPC
Finland: 5 IPC
Sweeden: 6 IPC
Moscow: 3 IPC
S. Ukraine: 2 IPC
N. Ukraine: 2 IPC
Rostov: 2 IPC
Caucasus: 2 IPC
Smolensk: 1 IPC
Karelia: 1 IPC
Novgorod: 2 IPC
Volgograd: 2 IPC
Belarus: 1 IPC
Bryansk: 1 IPC
Kazakh: 1 IPC
Tambov: 1 IPC
Vologda: 1 IPC
Arkhangelsk: 1 IPCTotal: 52 IPC in relatively easy to get and maintain territories.
Needed: 28 IPCTurkey: 5 IPC
Baltic States: 1 IPC
E. Poland: 1 IPC
Romania: 6 IPC
Hungary: 6 IPC
Poland: 6 IPC
Greece: 5 IPC
Yugoslavia: 5 IPC
Bulgaria: 5 IPC
Albania: 4 IPC
S. Germany: 7 IPC
N. Italy: 7 IPC
Holland: 6 IPC
Denmark: 5 IPC
Portugal: 4 IPC
Spain: 5 IPCTake your pick, in any case, eventually Russia is earning so much money that Germany cannot possibly beat it back at which point, the Russians start pushing the Japanese back and the Germans and hit the heartland of Europe. Once you get there you are making more money than the United States of America at which point, you get REALLY bored and start dropping Aircraft Carriers and Battleships in SZ 100 to start signalling your opponent it’s time to give up so you can play again.
Does syria count aswell then?
say italians took it, and russia reconquers it?
it’s a possible +4 then… -
No, because Syria is French not an original axis territory nor a neutral on the Europe map. Not to mention the only middle eastern territory in the list is Turkey (a NATO nation…kinda weird, but whatever.)
-
OK here is how I see it (I am no expert but whatever):
If Germany hits the UK fleet G1 (which they usually do), they will normally have a fleet parked in z112, with air cover from West Germany, maybe a carrier, and most likely a sub or two depending on what they bought and how G1 went. UK often does not have enough to take on that fleet at this stage so USSR will need to devote at least $18 worth of units to the Ireland project (1 transport, 1 destroyer, and 1 inf) because of the sub(s) (maybe a good reason to buy a sub G1).
USSR starts the game nonallied so they can move the inf to Scotland no earlier than the round when Germany declares war on them. Let’s suppose that happens G2 and USSR can try it R2, but only if they were prescient enough to make the naval investment R1 and if z111, z125, and z126 are clear or can be cleared. If they have to wait for UK to clear those zones (and Germany doesn’t subsequently unclear them), it will be R3. Notice that Germany might like to have something in z125 to deny USSR the Murmansk NO and the only way planes based in Novgorod can reach it will be if they land them in Scotland or Finland if you own it.
OK now let’s suppose it all works and Ireland is taken R3 or R4. USSR now gets an extra $3 per turn and will recoup the $18 investment in 6 rounds. Will USSR be alive R9 or R10 if that $18 was spent this way? If they are around, the USSR will finally turn a profit R10 or R11. That’s an awful long time to wait for $3…. (it’s like a friggin’ pension fund!)
RUSSIA NEEDS INFANTRY AND ARTILLERY NOW; NOT LATER.
-
Vance,
I get what you are saying. Let me try to say what I was intending to say in another way.
1) Germany goes Barbarossa, so there is no fleet buy on Round 1 (they need ground troops!). Then Russia puts a transport in the water and moves an infantry to Scotland. Total cost of this is 7 IPC since the Infantry is still used, it just ends up going to Ireland and then back to London to defend against a possible Sea Lion later. A destroyer build is ALWAYS recommended for Russia, it keeps the Germans honest about SZ 125 and doesn’t just let them park a submarine there forever and a day.
2) Germany goes Sea Lion, so you dont WANT Ireland, as it’ll fall easy. But that’s okay, since you’ll be getting Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Romania and Hungary anyway. (Since Germany obliged you by spending 100 IPC in the water for Sea Lion, which is 100 less infantry, artillery and armor for Russia to deal with.)
-
Ahh OK. That makes sense.
-
@Vance:
Ahh OK. That makes sense.
How dose the that make sense?
I mean I can see that its a balancing act. If Germany is focusing on sealion then you know your transport fleet wouldnt sruvive in the waters near Britian so dont build it although you say dont build because Germany could then take Ireland making it a wasted effort which is also true (though you’d think the German AC in the north sea would make that obvious first).
The other scenario seems to be saying that if Germany forucses on the Soviets then build the transport…… at some point(its not really made clear), the logic being that if Germany is focusing on the eastern front then it isnt buying naval units and for some reason hasnt decimated the British fleet in the north sea. The problem is why wouldnt you take the British fleet down even if you werent doing a sealion? Also, why isnt the German player doing more to interdict the north sea and keep something up near sz125? Again, this would just seem like good policy reguardless of which greater strategy your following.
-
It makes sense because it will only work some of the time (i.e. if Germany has no navy at all). It is not a standard thing that would happen in every game.
-
@Vance:
It makes sense because it will only work some of the time (i.e. if Germany has no navy at all). It is not a standard thing that would happen in every game.
There are very few standard moves that happen every game, and the majority of those happen during the first round.
-
@Young:
@Vance:
It makes sense because it will only work some of the time (i.e. if Germany has no navy at all). It is not a standard thing that would happen in every game.
There are very few standard moves that happen every game, and the majority of those happen during the first round.
Amen. No plan survives implementation without failing at some point!
-
Back to the topic for one moment. Who believes that Larry has finalized the Global 1940 rules, and who thinks there will be more alpha changes?
-
@Vance:
It makes sense because it will only work some of the time (i.e. if Germany has no navy at all). It is not a standard thing that would happen in every game.
Nothing happens the same way in every game (except that Italy is just about always screwed).
I’m not talking about Russia taking it as soon as the game starts or even the same turn they have war declaired on it. I see no reason why if they’re attacked by Germany turn 3 that they couldn’t have things ready turn 4 or 5. Or if Japan attacks Russia on J1 (happens a lot in my games) that Russia couldn’t start thinking about how to round up potential Neutral countries. In probably 80% of my games Germany does not dominate the Atlantic, so while they could place a sub or two there it isn’t out of the realm of possibility that the RN or USN would be able to kill whatever is barring the way.
The games that Germany does end up being able be the dominant force in the atlantic you wouldn’t bother building it. It’s as simple as that.
I never play a game of A&A with a 100% strategy in mind. I go into it with a general idea of what I want to do and firm goals to accomplish. But I always leave a little wiggleroom to pick up on openings left by other players and weaknesses I can exploit. This Russian dude drinkin’ it up in Ireland would not be something I would look to do every game as Russia, but it would be an option for something I could do should the opportunity present itself. -
@Young:
Back to the topic for one moment. Who believes that Larry has finalized the Global 1940 rules, and who thinks there will be more alpha changes?
Were I a betting man, I’d expect more changes. If nothing else some changes need to be made to fix the last round of changes that were made
( . Y . )
^ ^
________/ -
@Young:
Back to the topic for one moment. Who believes that Larry has finalized the Global 1940 rules, and who thinks there will be more alpha changes?
Were I a betting man, I’d expect more changes. If nothing else some changes need to be made to fix the last round of changes that were made
( . Y . )
^ ^
________/He said final revisions on 2 November 2011. That’s tomorrow, so we’ll probably have a “final” set of rules and the new games will probably ship with them.
-
Ummm so if some of these oddball gamey things like USSR taking Ireland will only happen some of the time (perhaps rarely), then doesn’t that kind of suggest that they are exceptional things that exceptional players might do, rather than flaws with the game itself? I kind of like the Russian NO because Stalin most definitely wanted the Balkans and as much of Eastern Europe as possible to be Communist (except Greece maybe). For the game, it counters some of the really pro-axis things in the latest version (i.e. setup changes in france, loss of airbases in med).
Anyway, it will be great to see the final version!! The game is much cooler than it was a year ago and everyone has benefited from considering the possibilities of each iteration.
-
@Vance:
Ummm so if some of these oddball gamey things like USSR taking Ireland will only happen some of the time (perhaps rarely), then doesn’t that kind of suggest that they are exceptional things that exceptional players might do, rather than flaws with the game itself?
No, because any player that realizes the cost-benefit to taking Ireland will see it as a beneficial strategy - in most cases, that is.
It’s not even remotely an exception. It is too easy for Russia to do and pays off too much. The pay-off doesn’t make much sense anyway. It’s extremely gamey but is too worth it for Russia to overlook as an “exceptional” thing.For the game, it counters some of the really pro-axis things in the latest version (i.e. setup changes in france, loss of airbases in med).
Hardly. Russia will get +3 for the rest of the game for Ireland, but realistically won’t attain any other bonus for the rest of the game. That has no relationship with the amount that UK has been nerfed. Balance doesn’t work like that.
The removal of those airbases serves only to be an entirely arbitrary change in an attempt to “balance” a pro-Allies set-up. -
No, because any player that realizes the cost-benefit to taking Ireland will see it as a beneficial strategy - in most cases, that is.
It’s not even remotely an exception. It is too easy for Russia to do and pays off too much. The pay-off doesn’t make much sense anyway. It’s extremely gamey but is too worth it for Russia to overlook as an “exceptional” thing.
Hardly. Russia will get +3 for the rest of the game for Ireland, but realistically won’t attain any other bonus for the rest of the game. That has no relationship with the amount that UK has been nerfed. Balance doesn’t work like that.
The removal of those airbases serves only to be an entirely arbitrary change in an attempt to “balance” a pro-Allies set-up.You can’t see it, but I’m giving you two thumbs up. I’m on the same page as you. I like the spirit of the latest Russian NO, but I’d like to see it restricted to the Soviet satellites Stalin wanted as a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe. With Finland as a separate NO all together.
Suggested Topics
