@The_Good_Captain Nice, I’ll stay tunned!
BM2 nerquen (Axis) vs Adam514 (Allies)
-
interesting, is Korea really so important? I thought US/Russian stack in Amur would be equally annoying. I hate fighting a multiple front war with Axis…. so I thought it is a great option to close that front now… and then be free to focus on Sydney/Hawaii… also… clearing your stack there would open Russian east… I already built 2 armors for Manchuria to start taking down Russian economy.
-
It’s not that important, but with a fac there I can buy dds and be quite annoying, and the air I built up always has access to sz6 which forces you to defend it if you want to buy tps.
Korea was primarily to exchange units and possibly get a lucky break.
-
I agree that Korea is pretty annoying in US hands, thats why I though clearing it is worth more than lost income from Java for a turn. also I thought I can win Korea by losing mostly land units… so I built plenty of those… in J6 then I planned to ship fresh 10 guys from Tokyo to China
-
Yeah, I might have conceded with an average or better result for that attack. Wasn’t much stopping you from ignoring China and going for Hawaii.
-
Few things I would like to ask:
-
why did you stack Novgorod R1…. then after Sea Lion your Russian stack was too far from the German border (I realized too late actually).
-
did you consider stacking Russians in Romania. I thought Euro-Axis did not have a good response if Russian stack went to Romania…
-
What weaknesses in my moves did you see? What shall I have prevented you from doing?
-
What is your feeling about that G2 decision to go for Sea Lion after after you bought 9 inf for London… in my calculations I had like 99% odds, was quite expensive but kind of worked. I thought taking London and Calcutta down early negates many BM national objectives, like all for UK and also US never collected any of BM national objectives, except in US2 for Guam.
-
I guess your failure to secure Gibraltar early had quite a dramatic effect in Europe. After London fell, I thought Germany was in pretty bad shape, both Russia and US going fully after it… but then to my surprise it was not actually getting worse but was slowly improving with turn by turn.
-
-
-
I already planned on buying 9 inf UK1 and doing a light Taranto, which would essentially almost max UK defense while not losing control of the Med, so I didn’t think you would Sealion. Hence, I positioned my Russians to rush Finland and Norway if you sent your German fleet into the Med.
-
I did consider, but the times I did it I didn’t like it as much. You lose Novgorod if you go to Romania. Maybe I should have done it here considering the fact that Italy didn’t have tps, so the Balkans could have been secured. However, I would probably have to retreat 1 turn earlier and buy even more expensive units instead of inf to reinforce without the reinforcements getting taken out by German fast (and Novgorod at the very least deadzoned).
-
What should* you have prevented me from doing?
You bought fast on G4 which was not necessary, but you corrected that quickly in the last 2 rounds. You could probably have afforded to put AAs in Poland and Romania 1 turn earlier too. Making sure you deadzone 91 is quite important too, I was quite close to stacking it.
As for Japan, you should leave a sub in 6 to deter Korean shenanigans, unless you want to invite it.
I was scrambling to recover after India and London fell, I think it was a good strategy. The J2 DOW especially surprised me.
4 and 5) Sealion is definitely viable if UK skimps out on the defense, but I think with 9 inf UK1 and US not failing in sz 91 Germany would have been compressed between Russia and US.
When US couldn’t get a foothold in Gib or Morocco, it allowed Germany to build up vs Russia and hold the line, and eventually push back. Russia had to buy fast while Germany could buy inf and art which are way more cost-efficient.Btw did you concede?
-
-
- I already planned on buying 9 inf UK1 and doing a light Taranto, which would essentially almost max UK defense while not losing control of the Med, so I didn’t think you would Sealion. Hence, I positioned my Russians to rush Finland and Norway if you sent your German fleet into the Med.
Yes you bought 9 inf, which made me thinking what to do now… but not continuing on any naval pressure felt like 30 IPC put nto water in G1 would be pretty wasted. With taranto fleet gone and failed G1 on S France my options in MED were minimal. London bought 9 inf, BUT 1 went to Eire, 1 went to S America and none were coming from Canada (normally TT goes to Canada in UK1 and can bring 2 to London)… so that is -4 inf that could be in London UK2, so your purchase of 9 was effectively only as if you only bought 5 and was giving me 99%
- I did consider, but the times I did it I didn’t like it as much. You lose Novgorod if you go to Romania. Maybe I should have done it here considering the fact that Italy didn’t have tps, so the Balkans could have been secured. However, I would probably have to retreat 1 turn earlier and buy even more expensive units instead of inf to reinforce without the reinforcements getting taken out by German fast (and Novgorod at the very least deadzoned).
Well, I could not really threaten Novgorod, at least not immediately. With German naval being in SZ110 or SZ92 I could not actually attack Novgorod via Baltic as per your sub. Landing via North sea I could only cover with 3 bombers which is quite risky against 3 scramblers. First I though I could possibly deadzone Romania by purchasing fast units, but I realized too fast that Germany is too poor for that so I gave up on deadzoning Romania and started building cheap units
- What should* you have prevented me from doing?
You bought fast on G4 which was not necessary, but you corrected that quickly in the last 2 rounds. You could probably have afforded to put AAs in Poland and Romania 1 turn earlier too. Making sure you deadzone 91 is quite important too, I was quite close to stacking it.
As for Japan, you should leave a sub in 6 to deter Korean shenanigans, unless you want to invite it.
I was scrambling to recover after India and London fell, I think it was a good strategy. The J2 DOW especially surprised me.
Thanks a lot for feedback. All look like valid points. As per J2, I did not plan for it, I thought that with SeaLion happening, J2 DoW is a no-no. So I even did not look what is going on in Pacific when doing I1/G2… then came to J2 and realized that your Allies are super aggresive, taking DEI’s and stacking Burma and if I did not DoW them they would DoW Japan in T2 anyways as London was about to fall in G3 so US was to enter war in T3 regardless of unprovoked DoW against Japan. And if I let that happen I think Japan would be struggling a lot, India super rich and safe for many turns to come… US would be free to play 100% for couple turns into Atlantic. Also US1 purchase did not really make it any dangerous for Germany if US were in war from T2 already.
4 and 5) Sealion is definitely viable if UK skimps out on the defense, but I think with 9 inf UK1 and US not failing in sz 91 Germany would have been compressed between Russia and US.
When US couldn’t get a foothold in Gib or Morocco, it allowed Germany to build up vs Russia and hold the line, and eventually push back. Russia had to buy fast while Germany could buy inf and art which are way more cost-efficient.I agree, still was interesting… London battle went pretty much average, was nice to have all armor surviving. But Germany lost quite a lot of land units in G1 in France/S France and Yugo. I guess normally German position on E. front after sea lion could be little better. But also if Russian stack was in Belarus R1, then it would be extra 12 IPC for Russia in R3 from Slovakia and Romania, I guess Russia could even stack Romania R3 then, which would be pretty nasty. Overall It was not clear to me how Germany shall play post Sea-Lion, shall it buy offensively or defensively. I thought they need to try to push Russians back from their +3 NO objectives… but felt pretty unrealistic with Russia making more than Germany… but then Italy was not poor and I tried to exchange Italian units with Russians as much as I could.
Btw did you concede?
I think so. The Korea result is a total disaster for Japan. Japan lost most of its airforce and as US can still hit SZ6 with 2 subs and 7 planes, so I had to retreat the fleet off Philis to SZ6. Still I am forced to leave in SZ35 units that moved there in non-combat so they would be an easy prey for US/ANZAC…. losing DEI’s for few turns also. Japan could not even re-attack Korea in J7 as US can simply build a DD. I guess Korea will be allied-held for rest of the game likely. Overall, USA will be free to continue 70+% against Germany for several turns, free Gibraltar and London and then return back to kill weak Japan. I guess it would require a major mistake from you or a major dicing for Axis to have any chance. Do you agree?
But, interesting to see the game to be decided in Korea, though, I think it has never happened to me before. As you said given about average result you would be likely to concede. So there was maybe 60+% chance one of us to concede the game after Korea battle. So in my shoes you would not attack Korea? Why so? Unnecessary risk? To me 5% was pretty acceptable there. I thought Japan did not have immediate better targets… Java was a minor concern, -9 IPC for a turn, max two. But having such a huge allied stack with a US factory right next to Tokyo was quite annoying for Japan… it opens so many options for Allies. With Korea gone… I though US would be forced to full Pacific and Germany/Italy shall be able to keep London/Gibraltar and eventually start pushing Russians home, especially if Japan would be able to take out Russian east economy.
I am not sure I agree that retreating to Amur would be a gameover for Allies. At least in Amur your stack would be safe, Japan would have to bring TTs and planes so much north to even threaten it. Also Japan will be not able to stack both Manchuria/Korea… so as soon as Japan moves planes/TT’s a bit more south you could return to Korea and you already got a factory prepared there. So I think Amur stack would still be pretty annoying. I think losing all the units in Korea (95% chance) would be much worse, even if Japan lost some airforce in the process
-
Alrighty good game. I’ll hit you up if you are still willing to test the BM3 prototype, perhaps in a few weeks.
I definitely agree that Korea changed the tide of the match. The game was slanted towards the Axis before that battle.
Yeah first time as well that a Korean battle decides the match. I probably wouldn’t attack Korea because Axis were decently in the lead, and Japan could do other things, like take back Java or even stack Carolines to threaten a push to Hawaii and NSW. Continuing to stack Manchuria might have lead to a greater tuv swing in the future, or force US to ignore Germany to keep Korea afloat.
By retreating to Amur, Russia would lose a valuable 3 PU NO, and all US could do would be to trade Korea, assuming Japan leaves Manchuria adequately stacked. Amur would be annoying sure, but not enough to warrant the retreat in that position.
-
only now I found a notification of your post in my spam folder.
sure, I will very likely be up for a test game. I enjoyed playing against your skill and fast pace a lot. Also I just saw that you are playing a game against axis-dominion with scrambling allowed into land territories. Is this something you are considering for BM3? What is the motivation for that change? Does not make it fighters even more powerful? They are one of the best in the game already.
-
I’ve been having trouble with notifications as well.
No it’s not being considered for BM3. The map isn’t really designed with that in mind, and for play by forum players it would significantly increase game length for little gain. We’re just testing to see if it’s a nice concept for future projects.
Suggested Topics
