Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory? The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States. You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.
I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.
Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable. Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.
It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency. If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue. Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.
Get the Brit Inf back in Egypt and a Russian Bomber for 2nd Edition
-
Thanks Wittman, just trying to summarize the trends- what has been happening since Final Alpha in March at least among a good portion of AA players here.
Also some more tidbits…
Here is a poll taken in late May- 3 months after Final Alpha. Notice that the Russian bomber and UK sub are the mostly popular changes. Today as you watch games online the UK sub in z98 is the most popular bid and the Russian bomber is the piece most wish the game had.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/ind … ic=27376.0
Here is a current poll and although 50% believe the game is balanced, the other 50% believe the game is slighted toward the Axis and that the Allies need a bid of $6 or more. This is after 6 months of play. BTW this INCLUDES the Brit inf on Egypt. Notice how many people think the Axis have the advantage- 0%
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/ind … ic=28609.0
-
italian bomber is gay
-
Well you’re welcome for it cow.
I proudly made the case to get that piece in the game!
Deal with it.
-
you said it not me.
-
I am not against the idea of the Russian bomber. Something needs to be done to beef up the allies a little bit, but this particular solution needs to be tried out to see what folks can make of it. It has a lot of potential.
For instance I see one scenario that I know I will do in any game I play as Russia if I have that bomber. It has become pretty common for Russia to send a mech to Turkmenistan and UK to activate East Persia on round 1. In the event that Germany attacks Russia on G2 the mech swoops in to activate Central Persia while 2 Soviet infantry walk in to North Persia from Caucasus. Often they bring a tank. The reason for the tank is that without it, they would only have the 2 infantry from North Persia, plus the 2 infantry and 1 mech from East Persia when they attack Iraq next turn for the big NO money. Five 1s versus three 2s has only a 66% chance of working but throw in the tank and it goes to 96% and with less losses. Another way is to park a fighter or tac in Caucasus. Either way Russia gets the big bonus but the cost is that a very valuable unit is put out of position, and they don’t have a lot of heavy hitter units to throw around. The tank in Iraq takes several turns to get back to the front, and even a fighter or tac will have to land in Caucasus and be useless for a turn at a time when its desperately needed elsewhere. But now suppose Russia starts out with a bomber that they deploy to Volgagrad so it can hit Iraq R3 and land back in Volgagrad, with 3 planes, both tanks and whatever artillery and infantry they have been building all stacked up menacingly in Bryansk. Pretty scarey for Germany - maybe enough to make them pause to gather reinforcements before plunging into Belarus/North Ukraine, and allow Russia another turn to build infantry…… So my beef with the Russian bomber is that it has so much range that Russia will be able to hit Iraq with it and then return it to the front ready for service the very next turn. They even get to avoid parking a tank or fighter/tac in Caucasus on R2. It gives a major bump to Russia’s counterattack threat potential for a few turns and they get Iraq kind of for free.
Then there are the gamey things a guy could do with that bomber that would make everything too flakey, like naval can openers in z94 or z16, bombing West Germany airbase to stop scramble and allow US/UK landing in Denmark/Berlin, stuff like that. Not to mention the mayhem it could cause in a sealion game if it goes to China with the Siberians. Anything we can abuse we will abuse.
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26960.0
@ younggrasshopper for my japan stuff. I don’t call J1 dow a gambit, it is a good opener (mixed criticism though), it is more entertaining according to the feedback. I see J1 DOW frequently on triple a, not so much on the forum… but I think it has to do with the nature of playing a live game in that you are trying to resolve a game in one sitting.
I would do J1 DOW on the forum, if I ever got to play Japan, unless I had a bunch of russians lined up for me in amur @_@.
-
Guys, I am retired USAF and I have never seen a gay Bomber Aircraft in my life. Typo error?
Where did that dumb phrase come from?
WARRIOR888 -
Guys, I am retired USAF and I have never seen a gay Bomber Aircraft in my life. Typo error?
Where did that dumb phrase come from?
WARRIOR888YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF THE ENOLA GAY?
lol…
-
Warrior - the dumb phrase is courtesy of Cow; he likes to shoot his mouth off. Don’t worry, though. He normally has what he believes to be a perfectly reasonable justification for using offensive terms. :roll: If you just sit tight, I’m sure this situation will be no exception.
-
Enola Gay is a Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber, named after Enola Gay Tibbets, mother of the pilot, then-Colonel (later Brigadier General) Paul Tibbets.[2] On 6 August 1945, during the final stages of World War II, it became the first aircraft to drop an atomic bomb as a weapon of war. The bomb, code-named “Little Boy”, was targeted at the city of Hiroshima, Japan, and caused unprecedented destruction.
WARRIOR888
-
So you acknowledge that there is a Gay Bomber after all? :P
-
So you acknowledge that there is a Gay Bomber after all?
Acknowledged but not in the 2012 way of thinking.
WARRIOR888
-
He showed you Garg!
Agree gay is not an appropriate term for a bomber.
Jolly maybe. -
I think cow was trying to say that the Italian bomber makes him feel happy and gay. He likes the bomber.
-
It is a gay bomber, it drops atom bombs made of cheese and LGBT rights. It is okay to be gay. I just want you to know that the Italian bomber is super gay.
-
If you want gay, go to Florence.
Am sure there is some form of “bombing” to be had too.
Am trying not to visualise it. -
LOL :-)
-
The Kalin K-7! Did this thing actually get off of the ground? It looks like it would crash on take off. :?
WARRIOR888
-
That picture is a Hoax Warrior.
The plane was real, but significantly different from the picture which is a computer generated fake.
-
I want to yell and say “STAY ON TOPIC” however I’m having too much fun being entertained by all the GAY BOMBER talk. LOL :lol: