@ArtofWar1947 41983-GER-1.tsvg
Scramble to 114, 113, and/or N-B?
2015 League General Discussion Thread
-
Tacs are terrible
First of all, they don’t always attack on a 4
If you want 4 attack power, buy a bomber. Bombers are superior to tacs in every way except of course they defend on a 1 instead of a 3 and can’t land on carriers.
If you want defense and carrier units, fighters are better. For scrambling, fighters are vastly superior (you have a limit of 3 units). Fighters can intercept and escort, but tacs can’t. Tacs can escort only if there is a base, and the tacs are subject to AA fire. The only really solid use for tacs in my opinion is for their ability to surprise the opponent by disabling a key base when they’re not expecting it, but the tacs you start the game with are sufficient.
-
I buy tacs sometimes the last round for Germany before the battle of Moscow to give them a bump.
Otherwise, I would only buy them maybe for the US in the Pac or for the USSR if they are doing well and advancing.
Otherwise, the Axis start with plenty and the Allies can’t afford them since they need as many ftrs for defense.
-
I know Allweneed also like to build tacs in Novgorod for a punch on Moscow, but why not spring for the extra +1 and get REAL offense? Bombers with much more range
Problem with tacs is they are expensive and yet don’t do the best at anything. Bombers attack better with way more range and way more SBR damage. Fighters defend much better.
-
That’s not how I look at it, but you’re right, Karl.
In some cases, buying AAA is the most efficient for defense. In my game vs. bmnielsen, sometimes he only had 1-2 fighters that could reach Moscow, and maybe 10-14 bombers. Here, were an added AAA exposes 3 more bombers, you will get better defense with 5 IPC’s for an AAA than buying the equivalent in infantry, especially if your money is not divisible by 3.
This is not the only situation where buying AAA makes sense. And as I said, an AAA piece could draw your opponent in to take over a territory on a hit and run where he didn’t want to win, and could be huge for you as you can counter-attack.
Granted, at 5 IPC’s AAA is STILL over-priced. 4 would probably be about right.
Oh yes, if you got Dark Skies coming at you, then AA can be even more powerful…. Bombers down at the start totally make it worth it.
Gamer is correct that the value of AA’s is that they go right at the air first instead of the conventional way of chewing through the fodder.
Do you have link to an OP about Dark Skies? I’ve been reading about this name lately and would like to learn more about it. Seems intriguing.
-
It’s just Germany buying mostly bombers from the beginning of the game
Maybe somebody will give you a link
Watch bmnielsen’s games as Axis to see how it’s done -
It’s just Germany buying mostly bombers from the beginning of the game
Maybe somebody will give you a link
Watch bmnielsen’s games as Axis to see how it’s doneMaybe I should try Dark Skies and apply it with my other favourite strategy…
-
This came up in my game tonight, and I wanted to share it with everybody.
Since Triple A does nothing to identify pro-neutrals that have already been attacked (so can be flown over and into), I realized there is a great way to force it to identify them.
If it is a pro-Allied territory, change control of it to Dutch. Infantry stays neutral, but it is easy to see that it is an Allied territory now. Since the Dutch can never possibly have money or income, it works.
I don’t have a great idea for pro-Axis yet, but somebody will think of something -
Or, don’t, and pull a nasty (cheap?) move on your opponent as the neutral that is no longer neutral looks like a neutral still, even though it’s not. I know that’s hard to understand, but it sounds cool so I’m leaving it :lol:
-
Oh, and don’t wait. Use edit mode to change a pro-Allied neutral to Dutch right now. Interesting color :-D
-
I learn so much from this thread. :-D
-
I am sooo happy :-D
-
Once again, I ask if the USSR moves into US occupied Korea but the USSR is still neutral w/Japan but at war with Germany, then Japan cannot attack Korea with out DOW vs Russia? Right? And the fact that Japan can attack the US but not Soviet troops in triple a is a bug?
Thanks
-
Once again, I ask if the USSR moves into US occupied Korea but the USSR is still neutral w/Japan but at war with Germany, then Japan cannot attack Korea with out DOW vs Russia? Right? And the fact that Japan can attack the US but not Soviet troops in triple a is a bug?
Thanks
Yes, Japan must declare war on the USSR because you always have to be at war with all land powers you are attacking - territory controller and unit owners
You can NEVER attack only some units on a land territory according to the rules - Triple A screws that up, yes
-
With league growing, maybe we should talk about the league rules.
I’d suggest changing the language in Rule 5 from a 72 hour turn time to a 96 hour turn time. I might resent it if I was bumped after 72 hours but probably less after 96 hours. 5 days (120) might also be worth discussing.
Thorny issue. 72 hours is plenty for a France/Anzac turn but inadequate for a USA/China/UK turn.
-
With league growing, maybe we should talk about the league rules.
I’d suggest changing the language in Rule 5 from a 72 hour turn time to a 96 hour turn time. I might resent it if I was bumped after 72 hours but probably less after 96 hours. 5 days (120) might also be worth discussing.
Thorny issue. 72 hours is plenty for a France/Anzac turn but inadequate for a USA/China/UK turn.
Obvious answer is different times for different powers.
-
Maybe 72 hours for Russia/Italy/Franceanzac. 120 hours for Germany, Japan, USA/China/UK.
-
Problem with that is sometimes Russia and Italy turns require long-term planning. So I might want 96 hours on those too.
-
Good suggestion, Zhukov, and we will re-consider every line of the league rules at the end of the league year.
I am not aware of any complaints from anyone who’s been bumped to a loss. In my observations, when people give 72 hour bumps they are usually warranted. Most players even after recording a win due to bumps will voluntarily continue playing the game and change the official result if they end up losing.But that said, I think the official limits deserve another look. Myself, I’m not sure about the 9 day rule. 4 bumps takes 12 days. I think the single absence bump should be like 14 days. Anybody else have thoughts on the subject?
-
Most players even after recording a win due to bumps will voluntarily continue playing the game and change the official result if they end up losing.
That is, in the event their bumped opponent returns and wishes to continue playing.
No one likes to be bumped, or bumped to a loss, if they wanted to play and just weren’t able or whatever, so we are very sensitive to this issue and would listen to protests. On the other hand, of course, the bump rule is there to protect us all against abuses.
No one ever claims a win due to a single 9 day absence anyway. Many players wait about 3-4 weeks of absence before claiming a win.
-
A question about the rules, it isn’t allowed not to place your purchased units when you can right?
Suggested Topics
