Uk R1 Egyptian counterattack

Fast answers?  Same day service isn’t fast enough?  I can’t stay on-line 24/7.  I do have a life, ya know!  :wink:

@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.

They’re all like that.  This is just a typo that was corrected in the FAQ.

I think the article said that the increased risk of STDs countered the cancer fighting benefits.

@Caleb3285:

A second German sub in the Atlantic does pose a problem to the Allied fleet, but I would rather let that German sub do its business against the US and UK, and keep the Russian fighter to trade territories with Germany, than to attack the German sub and lose a Russian fighter to the German counterattack.

sorry to interrupt this thread with a noob question, but I thought subs could only attack other sea vessels, are you saying that it gets a counterattack against an attacking fighter?

That was “counterattack”.  It’s probably in reference to USSR using its fighters against German navy on USSR1 before Germany can go, then having to land one of those fighters in Karelia.  Germany can crush Karelia on its first turn regardless of what the Allies do.  So the USSR doesn’t lose the fighter on the USSR turn; USSR loses the fighter on the German turn when the Germans take the terrritory that the USSR fighter landed in.

well with what I stated Below.

The US is making 40-44 a turn. Japan is making 34-38 a turn and already outnumbered. I don’t need anymore trns… The trns were there because Fleet A was suppose to WIN… but under favorable odds to win instead got crushed…

in this scenario Japan cannot fight ship to ship with the States. Especially If i just build lets say 5 subs a turn… mix some fgts eventually of course.

And Yeah UK is matching Germany unit for unit in the battle on the western-front.

My opponent did do quite some havoc and his AF never dropped below 10 once he reached this at UK4…
But, like Jetfan4hire already posted: Probably that won’t work against an axis player who knows what he is doing…

G was crippled heavily short after with only 3 territories remaining - value 22 IPC’s
I know, I messed up really bad that game :-)
So, G didn’t have the force to strike back at the figs…
And that’s the reason why things worked out for my opponent…

@trihero:

It is indeed moot because of LHTR, but it was precisely this move that inspired LHTR. It’s dumb for a game to be decided in less time it takes to set it up, and it’s also dumb to lose your capital before you even made a move.

Actually, this was the move that inspired Caspian Sub, and you’ve pretty much quoted their rules paper without crediting it.Â

Great shame upon you!!!

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/