Uk R1 Egyptian counterattack

I don’t much like playing Revised with tech… basically it means the game revolves around whether you get the techs early on.  Like say if you tech for rockets with UK and get them on Round 1 then Axis is pretty much screwed, but if UK techs for several rounds and doesn’t get them then they fall way behind.  Not to mention the fact that heavy bombers are very unbalanced, particuarly if USA gets them.

The game plays out beautifully w/o tech–why screw it up by making game outcomes exclusively determined by luck?

17 replys! i really started a good thread here…  :-D …

@TRakes:

What if the Russian player lends a fighter to the UK fleet on Rus1?

That makes the odds a lot stronger for UK.

Sure, makes the odds stronger for UK , but means that russian ftr is gone from the Russo-German front for AT LEAST two turns (R1+R2), possibly forever, without providing a single offensive diceroll (it cannot participate in any battle during R1, and also reach BEN).

It results in making trading more costly for the Ruskies, during R1+R2. Russia needs to expose 1 arm/turn , to get the same offensive power to trade land with the Germs. That is a cost of 5 ipc/turn, since that ARM will surely be killed. Furthermore, it might make it possible for Russia to only attack 1 area (WRU) during R1, instead of normal 2 (+BEL or +UKR).

The return is that Japan might loose extra naval units/ftrs, but the combined cost of exposing ARMs, plus the weakened attack power on R1, just doesn’t seem to be worth it. After all, even a combined SZ30 UK fleet, is something of a sideshow. The Russian-German border is the main theater of war.

@AxisOfEvil:

So whens the poll?  I guess it should be phrased like this, if you were playing a 1v1 game, and had the allies, would you choose to start the game with 1 less russian fighter, or 1 less UK bomber.

My vote, ditch the bomber

Poll is up already.

Question is, what is more valuable in the first eight rounds of the game.  A single Russian fighter or a single British bomber (and I chose a piece for Germany, Japan and America too.)

The caveat is you have to take into consideration not only what the piece can do, but also replacement cost, opportunity cost for losing it, function of the piece, what your allies can do to minimize the loss of the piece, etc.

It’s not as simple as 1 nation vs 1 nation.

BTW, that submarine does not become useless once the Germans lose the ability to win against the Allied navy/navies.

I like to send it to Southern Africa to ‘persuade’ Japan not to make a Brazil run, at least, force Japan to commit more to a Brazil run then what is normal and optimal.  It also keeps Japan honest by not leaving transports out there undefended.

And, finally, I’ve had a situation where Japan FORGOT the Russian submarine was down there by Madagascar and been able to attack his battleship and 3 transports with 3 fighters and a submarine. Odds are, he only gets one hit, you get 2, that’s a good trade!  Japanese transport which is useful for Russian submarine which is not so useful. (I actually got 3 hits to his 1 that time, but I was lucky.)

whoa ho ho - touche’

You would honestly be saving 1-2 turns by producing fleet out of India rather than SA. Good counter point Jen.

G1 Sea Lion is one of the major reasons why Larry Harris Tournament Rules are used rather than the box rules.

I don’t find any of the countries “boring”.  They each have their own unique role

US-“The arsenal for democracy”
UK-“The Wild Card”
Japan-“King of the Pacific”
Russia-“Commie Cannon Fodder”
Germany-What can you say…they’re Germans…always starting wars and generally stirring up trouble!

I’d be hard pressed to pick a favorite.