Generally pacific builds consists of a 2 to 1 ratio of subs-destroyer. Following turn is 5-6 bombers. This forces Japan to start building fleet instead of troops for India/China crush.
I just had to give som additional thumbs up fo9r this comment :D Buying other combat ships than subs, dds (Or CW + ftrs) is rarely correct. the 2 to 1 ratio shos that sean knows how fodder works and how it is the most important thing in these battles.
The only reason to stop buying the subs is if japan for some reason dont respond with fleetbuilding and only buys planes instead. But then you should win anyways :D
which is why i said that it didn’t work against a too planeheavy japan. on theory, the DDs + other surface ships ofc needs to be enough to stop all the planes of japan + 2 rounds of plane only builds of japan.
What would prevent japan from attacking your fleet of subs-destroyers with air and a few destroyers. With 20+ planes they can whipe out your whole fleet with minimal losses as subs cant even hit the planes.
I normaly go for a carrier heavy fleet followed by subs destroyers for attacking power. Ideally i want my carriers to bait an early attack from japan that i can crush in the counter and get his carriers and BB out of the way so anzac and UKP can clean up the rest.
??Did anyone even try Larry's new tank rule??
-
Has anyone tried out Larry’s new tank rule yet or just ignored it hoping it would go away.
If so what did you think of it? -
No. What a was of damn time.
It makes me sick that he think he can just throw out crappy ideas like that, and expect us to go eat it up like ducks being tossed bread at the park. Testing it for HIS personal gain.
What a #( guy.
-
and expect us to go eat it up like ducks being tossed bread at the park.
Very funny way of looking at it :-D
-
Nope.
Just hoped Larry would wish it away to the cornfield like in that old twilight zone episode.
I’m happy it was a non-starter.
-
I seldom buy the 6 ipc tanks as it is… although from what people have been saying, major IC romania with 10 tanks round 2 is a pretty beast rush.
-
What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile. Do some of you need a time out? Or do I have to get the belt out? :-D
As far as the “rule” goes, I like the current 3-3-2-6. Only for the defense factor. But when I play the original, it’s 3-2-2-5. So I don’t rely on tanks for defense as much as I do a stack of Infantry.
-
Its not a rule, it was thrown in the garbage can. if you think a 3-2-2-6 unit is just fine, then lets shoot for a 3-2-2-345 unit
-
What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile.
You wear Panties?? Wow> Do they make your dice rolls any luckier?
-
What’s w/ all the whining going on about the “new” tank rule? It’s not a new one either. 3-2-2-5 is the “old” rule since the game was marketed in the early '80s. It’s only a buck more now. Big deal. Simmer down folks and relize it’s only a game. Getting you panties all bunched up and calliing names is pretty lame and infantile. Do some of you need a time out? Or do I have to get the belt out? :-D
As far as the “rule” goes, I like the current 3-3-2-6. Only for the defense factor. But when I play the original, it’s 3-2-2-5. So I don’t rely on tanks for defense as much as I do a stack of Infantry.
Amazing! when tanks defend at three I use them for defense
when tanks defend at two I use infantry for defense
Suggested Topics
