Too Lazy To Play? Listen to us play!

I agree with a post that Mashmallow posted earlier, there is no guarantee that you are going to get that NO for a clear med, you should not even rely on that one. The Italians have so many uses, on the ground, with actual IPC earning territory’s that those planes can be used for, you need to weigh out their impact in the med versus potentially taking Egypt, steam rolling Greece, building an actually strong can-opener force in Russia, and even Protecting Rome.

The last few games that I have played, when I am the Axis, I get my Italian partner to seriously evaluate the Taranto raid force. If it is the max force possible, and the UK is totally on point, I say scrap the scramble, focus on more attainable objectives. As a German player, I sure as hell don’t want to burn the Luftwaffe on an air vs naval clean up battle G2, where I can lose guaranteed safe hits against Russian ground troops once Barbarossa commences. On the other hand, If the UK doesn’t bring the max force down, or they don’t make a move to middle east with SA and India navies / units, and Italy looks like they might have some time to maneuver for a few rounds, then scramble all the way. I have seen games were Italy won the Taranto raid, and from then on became unstoppable in the Med, which in turn leads to Germany being able to achieve their full potential, and results in an Axis victory.

Italy unfortunately has to play the game, or at least start the game, being completely on board to support the Germans in whichever direction they plan to strike. A strong Afrika campaign with Italian air power can lead to Italy generating sufficient IPCs to gain a bit more control over their destiny. A successful Italian campaign in the middle East, or as a can-opener can have the same impact. Italy with zero navy, and zero air force, means they might as well stockpile Rome and prepare to defend Europe, there will be no expeditionary force.

I play solo often. It helps in learning rules. It helps to develop a sense of possible strategies and gain some mastery of mechanics. Sometimes I play out limited scenarios in “what-if” mode. Yes, if I develop a strategy, my “opponent” is fully aware of what I’m attempting. When I switch sides, I look for the best possible response and thus can learn something about how my strategy can be countered. I have sometimes played out entire games like that, because it’s fun to see how different choices (and luck) work out. If a strategy turns out to be fatally flawed and disaster ensues, that becomes part of the narrative of the game. I’ve also made maps for small scale engagements, inspired by a wonderful game that imagined a British invasion of Heligoland-Bight (I am sorry I can’t recall the name). My current interest is a map of Ceylon imagining an invasion to take it as a stage for invasion of India.

I can also whimsical stuff just for the hell of it. Alternate histories and just weird stuff. A recent setup of 1942 became The Great Orc War when genetic mutants called Orcs because Orcs came swarming out of Mongolia in mid-1943 (dictated by die roll). Determining things by die roll can be a way of limiting bias. Die rolls determined when the Orcs appeared, how many of each type appeared in a turn, when they acquired certain capabilities and what those capabilities were, how nations responded to events, and so on. In addition to die rolls, it is helpful (as already suggested) to define objectives and any unique tendencies for each power. Sometimes those become principles that can make a decision, and sometimes they can be reasons to tilt the die roll. The response of the Japanese in the game was assigned to the “very unlikely” pile but the die just happened to go there.

In the unlikely event that anyone would be interested, the Orcs were defeated, the Soviet Union was destroyed, the Japanese were contained and cooperative, the UK was a shell of itself with colonial possessions lost, the Germans were defeated by the US and UK despite an alliance with the Orcs, and the US emerged as the only surviving great power with some interesting tech developments. This matters because I’m thinking of some new events in this alternate universe. :)

@Leatherneckinlv:

Would you play in Las Vegas? I am a huge fan of global 36 from HBG as well….some kinks in the game that need to be ironed out

Maybe

Yes, a Japanese destroyer in SZ 16.

You’ve got three responses available to the US that I am aware of:

1: Move your entire fleet into SZ 16 to kill the blocker. Units can also come directly from the US west coast to SZ 15, meaning everything can converge on SZ 6 in the following round (or to Wake/Hawaii if you somehow scare them away (or perhaps midway if they put a naval base there)). If nothing else, you know for sure they’re coming.

And:

2: Sending planes to kill it. 1/3 chance they lose a 10 IPC plane. Basically a 3/3 chance Japan loses an 8 IPC destroyer.

3: Actually sending a submarine or destroyer to kill it along with planes. (This is not a very smart play if America has enough planes for #2 alone to be viable, but some people don’t realize this.)

(4: Staging on Midway on a new naval base instead, but like I said, this is kinda silly for America and great for Japan unless they weren’t able to hit your destroyer block on the turn before for some reason.)

#'s 2 and 3 are very annoying, and not great for Japan, and are obviously not very sustainable, so this is why the destroyer block is something you should only do when necessary.

This is why I like to keep 1-3 fighters (usually 3) on Japan proper and build, or at least keep, one or two boats there per turn. If America does want to come swooping in to SZ 6, they are going to need enough to get through 1-2 boats and fighters. This means they must either over-invest (because you didn’t scramble), or they under-invest and then you kill them for (hopefully) a decent ratio when you do scramble. If they over-invest, kamikazes are an option (see edit), but maybe more importantly it means that whatever they sent to stand up to your boats/planes is now within range for a super nice counterattack with subs/planes.

Obvious times when the destroyer block is worth it:
-America has enough transports on Hawaii to make Japan worry about its capital, or potentially Korea.
-Japan built a lot of navy (more than one or two boats) on SZ 6 and wants to keep it alive.

Moreover, buying 1-2 boats a round off of Japan and keeping planes there means that if america tries to pre-block you in SZ 16 (moving in, say, some amount of destroyers to SZ 16 and SZ 25 while his fleet is coming from Panama/Sydney, to in effect block your attempts to block him with only a simple destroyer of your own), you have boats and planes available to you to destroy his block-blocker in SZ 16 and remain able to delay him for a round.

I keep 1-3 fighters there starting from J1, and begin building 1-2 boats there J3+ in most instances.

edit-
Last bit of advice: If you think there’s a good chance America is going to bring in a lot of navy on its noncom to SZ 6 after attacking it with a smaller force (or they telegraph this intention by bringing a lot of planes to the fight in SZ6), and Japan is sitting on FIC/Philipines with all of its navy/air in range to attack on the very next round, do not be stingy with your Kamikazes. If you can destroy even one more destroyer before the big navy clash, that can swing the probability by something like 5 (+/- 2)%. The entire Pacific depends on a massive fight such as this. 1% would be worth it, let alone more, and you might even hit multiple boats if you’re a lucky b��t��d. When it’s crunch time, smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Agree on a fair bid (9 is quite standard)
Roll dice for desiding countries.
Change countries with one another as you please.

Thanks!

@JimmyHat:

Darklands is the greatest RPG ever!

I don’t have the time for RPGs, to many A&A wars to wage.

@Fitzwalrus:

We’ve got enough people that each Power will probably have a separate player.

Just though I’d mention having France and China as their own power is pointless.