That may pay some dividends no doubt. But I’m convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that that’s not the most efficient way to deal with the axis. Of course doing the same old efficient method every game might get a little boring after a while. That’s one reason that I much prefer to play the axis.
limitedwhole, are you not playing with bids or something? If so, what sort of bids? At least Maddogg, and I think SUD as well are both probably responding to you under the assumption that the Axis is bidding 22+ or at least 12+ for RR (I’m not too familiar with RR bid levels).
People can assert strategies all they want but if they’re not operating under the same assumptions then it’s useless. If Japan bids 2 inf MAN 1 inf FIC, as I will sometimes do, then India and China will fall on J1 and Sink on J2 guaranteed, barring horrible dice in ADS for Japan, but that’s one reason I don’t play ADS - any strategy, however bad, can work some of the time in ADS with the right dice of course. And if Japan didn’t bid that much there, then the bid probably went to Germany and with the US and UK focusing via ICs on Japan, Russia is dead before the combined production from those ICs (5 units per turn, which cannot match Japan’s inf production with fighter support) is able to do much good. Of course this relies on the previously mentioned bid levels and if you’re not bidding or bidding much lower, then sure your ideas would work - in fact a lot of strategies would work as Allies.
No we play no bids.
We use the following rules.
It’s worth noting that the British TP can be used to block an assault on India. The Russians really do not need to send FIGs down. They are far too important in Europe. What the IC in India and Sinkiang do is allow the Allies and Japan to trade back and forth Burma and China. The Japanese cannot attack India without a fleet then. Sinkiang is difficult to attack only form China as that means seeding Burma. If Sinkiang is taken it can be liberated from India. A U.S. fleet keeps the Japanese fleet at home. They really can’t afford to send ships beyond Burma.
In the Pacific I prefer to invest early to stunt the Japanese while keeping the GErmans out of Afirca. Then take France or reinforce through Findland depending on teh state of Russian plight.
In the PAcific, the U.S. should have lost the FIG and AC but retreated the SUB depending. So they either have a BB and TP and maybe a SUb. The T1 Sub build and T2 AC build is all the allies should ever need in teh PAcific to completely hem in Japan. I normally build maybe one more sub dpeending on the board state. The Idea is for teh U.S. to puch in a fleet into Japanese territories. If the Japanese attack they will either lose all their TP cpacity or a large amount of capital ship or plains. Any ofthese losses is incredibly detrimental to Japan. If the Japan player isn’t carefull you can take the Japan SZ which is essentially game over as the transport supply is halted and their IC in Kwangtung should fall.
No we play no bids.Â
We use the following rules.
- all IC limited to production value.
- Russian disrepair- Russia cannot attack with planes and ships on T1 although they may move during the move phase.
- Germany starts with techs 1-3 and Japan starts with supersubs.
It’s worth noting that the British TP can be used to block an assault on India. The Russians really do not need to send FIGs down. They are far too important in Europe. What the IC in India and Sinkiang do is allow the Allies and Japan to trade back and forth Burma and China. The Japanese cannot attack India without a fleet then. Sinkiang is difficult to attack only form China as that means seeding Burma. If Sinkiang is taken it can be liberated from India. A U.S. fleet keeps the Japanese fleet at home. They really can’t afford to send ships beyond Burma.
In the Pacific I prefer to invest early to stunt the Japanese while keeping the GErmans out of Afirca. Then take France or reinforce through Findland depending on teh state of Russian plight.
In the PAcific, the U.S. should have lost the FIG and AC but retreated the SUB depending. So they either have a BB and TP and maybe a SUb. The T1 Sub build and T2 AC build is all the allies should ever need in teh PAcific to completely hem in Japan. I normally build maybe one more sub dpeending on the board state. The Idea is for teh U.S. to puch in a fleet into Japanese territories. If the Japanese attack they will either lose all their TP cpacity or a large amount of capital ship or plains. Any ofthese losses is incredibly detrimental to Japan. If the Japan player isn’t carefull you can take the Japan SZ which is essentially game over as the transport supply is halted and their IC in Kwangtung should fall.
Three questions:
1. One move when facing a UK IC in India and no significant reinforcement from Russia is to hit Sinkiang along with China on J1….completely eliminating the US from Asia. How would you respond?
2. ICs are already limited to production values, except starting ICs. Are you meaning that starting ICs are also limited? And if so, what are you doing to protect Karelia?
3. Why do you believe that Japan must build an IC on Kwang?
SUD
Let’s assume I have answered 3 already. The Japanese are forced to buy an IC in Kwangtung. The Russians have Manchuria. If the Japanese use all their forces against the U.S., they are taking a major gamble that if fails will result in disaster. To do so will require vacating Indo-china, and Kwangtung. This means Japan had only four infantry to do this move and risks losing all of the mainland. Set it up and look at it form Japans persepctive. Do you really want to take this gamble knowing the British can take Sinkiang back next turn? That being said many a game has been won by good dice on a poor descision.
Russia keeps taking EE to block German tanks form pouring in. If the Germans want to go all in with a 55% chance of winning while putting their entire airforce at risk to AA and allowing the British fleet to survive so be it. It only takes one set of good Russian dice to end this game immediately. The Germans invest all their air and tanks to possibly lose the territory on the next turn to counterattack. Not to mention ignoring the British navy means that the Brits can start landing troops into KArelia right away too.
Von Chirnin sucks because it doesn’t analyse the problem correctly. It has Russia wasting its money to buy an IC and the Uk commiting to two IC. This still leaves one IC for the Japanese to buy, which they will. My version has the Russians not wasting their money. B1, buy IC for India. On J1, the Japanese have to look at it this way. The U.S. can buy IC for Sinkiang. The Brits will then get another turn before the Japanese and can afford to buy the remaining IC’s. If the Japanese do not buy an IC on turn 1 they risk losing the game outright. With two aalied AC in Asia, they really need ARM to make any headway. They must buy an IC and typically it will be in Kwangtung because Russia will have taken Manchuria.
Who decided that the japs must have an IC ?? How about transporting a bunch of troops into the action?? What a novel idea!! I just came up with that idea folks. You heard it here first!!! :evil:
Who decided that the japs must have an IC ?? How about transporting a bunch of troops into the action?? What a novel idea!! I just came up with that idea folks. You heard it here first!!! :evil:
IC+ TP equal ARM+INF. TP= INF. Touchee!
limitedwhole, if all your strategic discussions are based off a no-bid game where starting ICs are limited to their production, with a moderately restricted Russia (but not totally), then everything that everyone is saying here is going to be completely invalid to you, and everything you are saying is going to be completely invalid to them. (I don’t consider the tech advantages you mentioned that important).
It’s like you’re playing two different games here. If I was playing chess against you while you were playing checkers against me, what sort of chaos would result?
Probably most of the people here are used to bid games, on the level I described before. At the very least you need to stick to out of the box rules: if you’re discussing strats based on some wacky rules your own play group uses, you need to be posting in the House Rules forum, not here.
Japan can easily afford to vacate FIC and Kwa, if they move in force to Man then Mongolia (or Yak), they can force the Allies to abandon SE without a fight or they end up losing Novo to Japan.
To Avin’s point,
it is a bit hard since everyone is probably comparing apples to oranges.
It is pretty much accepted that the Allies can employ any strat and basically win in most games (without a bid). I could probably win by buying US IC’s in both Brazil and Ala on rd 1 but I don’t think it would be feasible to do so in a real game.
I believe equalizing factors are something like (at least to be competitive)
For RR: 12 bid
No RR: 21+ bid
Anything strat talk that doesn’t take into account anything close to those levels probably isn’t that reliable.
It is just hard to weigh tech or production chages, b/c the Allies can still wreck havok on rd 1. Ukr will still fall on R1 (or be strafed) and KwangBang is also still an option. That will basically end the game right there no matter what the Allies decide to do.
limitedwhole, if all your strategic discussions are based off a no-bid game where starting ICs are limited to their production, with a moderately restricted Russia (but not totally), then everything that everyone is saying here is going to be completely invalid to you, and everything you are saying is going to be completely invalid to them. (I don’t consider the tech advantages you mentioned that important).
It’s like you’re playing two different games here. If I was playing chess against you while you were playing checkers against me, what sort of chaos would result?
Probably most of the people here are used to bid games, on the level I described before. At the very least you need to stick to out of the box rules: if you’re discussing strats based on some wacky rules your own play group uses, you need to be posting in the House Rules forum, not here.
I doubt evrything I say is invalid and everything you say is invalid because of differnet rules. Also Bids are house rules…duh. Also I note that you relate bid games to chess while IC limit is relegated to checkers. Bid games are lame. they lead to swingyness. Bid. Put crap somewhere. Go nuts. Duh. The rules I use simply make it so Russia can’t polp huge stacks at Karelia everyturn and make the game swingy.
Anyhow, I would still play most of the strategy I suggest even in a standard game WITHOUT BIDS.
you guys must some shit axis players if all you do is throw TP’s at Germany. You would get killed aorund here with that crap.
Limited is right,
Bids, limited production, RR, etc. are all limiting factors and not house rules.
Lets remember to keep this civil.
I hope my posts didn’t come across as attacking you. That was not my intent.
It is just harder to quantify how much the limited production or tech may help/hurt one side.
Whereas a bid of 15, is what it is, 5 extra inf.
Nope, I’m just a feist guy. But I do maintain the following. If all you do is load TP every other turn, a good German player attacks Russia on the turn you can’t attack him and slaughters you on the beaches the other turn. That strategy is too predictable. What do you do when I have 4 INF, 3ARM, and 3 FIG in WE on the turn you wanted to come with 2 ARm 6 INF, 1 FIG and 1 BOMB? Finland stinks unless the GErmans already have a bead on KArelia, that is you are already going to lose. Putting that many troops into Africa is silly. Do you have your own capital ship or are you using a Brit ship? Do they really want to put their forces in Africa and wait a turn? If not what stops me from sinking 6 TP at the cost of 2 FIGs and replacing one FIG and stranding your guys in Africa? Throwing everything at the Germans beaches is like hoping you don’t have one bad set of dice.
You’ve been playing double A ball. This is the major league. What works at double A might not work at all here. For example, in double A, I used to swarm my opponents with massive amounts of jap arm. I tried that against Avin and he was swatting them like they were pesky little flies.If you don’t believe me, then play me and let me be the allies. By the time it’s over, you will be rethinking all of your axis strategy.
You’re clearly not playing the same game we are. Your post where you said some strategies will be the same is correct: and clearly, you don’t know those strategies. I look forward to seeing you play Maddogg if indeed you want to learn about it.
LimitidHole-
There are a couple of things I think you are overlooking which should apply to any ruleset even your house rules. First, in A+A defense is much stronger than offense so for this reason an offensive campaign has a much higher level to reach to be feasible. Secondly, the game as is was not unbalanced because of some minor rule or procedural incontigruities but because of a severe material shortcoming for the Axis in terms of force on the ground at the start of the game. The Allies can too easily remove too much too early so that no matter what rule changes you want to affect it isn’t going to solve this. Thirdly, transporting troops is effective because it is possible for the Allies to use Russian space that is put their troops into Karelia to help defend there. Some house rules don’t allow this but even so this doesn’t deter a “shucking” strategy of men from the US and Uk to Europe. Instead the focus will shift from Karelia to WEuro, a little less ideal but certainly still workable. Ultimately, the Axis as the protagonist cannot afford to spend many ipcs on innanimate objects like transports or factories, both do nothing but produce real units so unless there is a dire need for this as in the case of Japan it is best to avoid doing so as is the case for Germany.
