The Power of Mongolia

First of all you are already behind with a 18 bid, I believe the bids for classic were around 24 for a PA bid. (2 inf man, 2 inf EEU and 4 inf Lib) Means you will take Egypt with around 4 inf and an arm. The Allies can bring 3 inf (2 ind, 1 syr) 1 bmb and 1 fig. This will end in mutual destruction in the worst case scenario (in LL) for the allies. => Allies can counter a PA bid very easy kicking back the germans to the continent really fast and destroy the Axis bid in almost one turn completely. Only thing is that the Allies leave gaps in Asia and then the race begins (which capital falls faster, Mos or Berlin).

You can take some more risks as the Axis to have a better shot at the Allies, bet 1 inf in Manch (1 inf extra to lib) and take Syr on G1 as well, so it will be almost impossible to retake AES on UK1. Risky moves wich can cost you the game if they don’t succeed.

I would add that one reason why I thought your move was not wise was b/c it left Yak open to attack which isn’t a bad idea.  IMO the only way to defend against a bid of 2unit Asian bid is to either give up Yakut, or to get 8units there.  I will ignore China if it comes to that, or even better is to have bid an armor into Kwan and move 1inf somewhere else.  Once you made your Russian move you were more or less committed to Yakut and therefore not placing your ftr there was an invitation to attack.

Yeah, my intention was to land the UK ftr there.  I thought you’d do Syr and possibly leave the w med bb.  Which ment I would have reinforced Yak with the UK ftr.

I’m actually glad you did that move (not because of the outcome or anything like that), because I don’t see that a lot and it is nice to know that I better take into account that move in the future and that good players may indeed bypass Chi.

I guess, That’s why you play the game.  :-D

So what is the problem for the allies with a tranny fleet off Spain?  In order for it to be much of a threat, Germany has to stage forces in Western, or bleed off forces in Norway.  Either way, it severely weakens their position against Russia.  It also weakens Germany’s position for moving troops into Africa.

So UK hits that fleet with 2 figs and a bmb.  They score 2 hits.  The subs can;t fire back, the BB hits one, the tranny’s may or may not hit one.  The bmb fires again and sinks a 3rd unit, and is lost on the counter.  Let’s say Germany took 2 of the 3 losses as subs, so they maintain air-defense.  Then the US flies over with 2 figs and a bmb, killing 2 hits on the first pass, taking 1 or 2 hits in response.  They hit 1 more on the 2nd round, and lose another one.  Let’s say that was the end of their planes.  So the total is 6 Allied hits on Germany, 6 Germany hits on the Allies.  No planes in UK or US, right?  And Germany has a navy of ONE Battleship, period.

Germany also would have lost 2-3 planes against the UK navy on G1, planes that Germany can;t afford to replace.

So at the end of Round 1…
Germany has no fleet, has lost half of its Air Force, has delivered either no forces to Africa, or stripped forces from Norway and Western to send forces to Algeria.  So either Russia is going to take a weakened Norway, or Germany will not have forces in Africa and will lose a LOT of IPC’s from an India counter-attack un Africa.  The US built aircraft, and probably a sub or 2, on US 1.  UK probably built a few INF as a precaution, and a couple of figs.

In G2, Germany is stranded in Europe, has either lost Norway, or is going to lose Africa in UK2, has a Navy that can;t do anything except move into the UK Sea Zone for a last-ditch battle against the new RAF; or suicide into 1 or 2 US subs (if it doesn’t die attacking the subs, it will die when those new US figs take off in US 2).  With the lack of extra IPC’s either from lack of gains in Africa and/or from the loss of Norway, Germany is now barely building at a rate above Russia.  And unless that Battleship somehow managed to HOLD the UK Sea Zone, UK has a fleet re-built in UK2, defended by US figs in US2, and does not have enough air-force left to combat it in G3.  Even if they saved their BB and moved it to Gibraltar in G2 to use with the AF for a G3 attack, 1 BB and 2-3 figs plus a bmb against a carrier, 2 figs, 1-2 subs, and 1-2 tranny’s is a suicide mission for the Germans.

A far better use for a 2-tranny bid-buy with Russia RR would be Souther Europe placement to be more flexible and allow for a significant air/land/amphib strike on Caucuses, or strikes in Africa and Middle East.  You can still take out the UK Navy using subs and air-power, consolidate for your Karelia push in G2, while potentially creating a significant second-strike prong in Caucuses that Russia has to consider/counter rather than simply “building in Karelia”.  If you take Caucuses in force, Russia has to sacrifice SOMETHING, and it will probably be Karelia (since they won;t want it to be Russia).

@aaFiendish:

Do you really go to syria with your battleship and transport? I’ve always liked the move, but never had the balls to actually do it.

I don;t play with bids (lacking the RAM on my PC to handle the Java based version of AA available online).  So I normally do the initial landing in Egypt.

However, on those occasions when I “change up” my strategy and send air support to Egypt instead, I will indeed attack Syria on G1 with tranny, using the BB to plow through the sub.  The odds are highly probable that the sub is going to go “glub”.  And if it happens to hit on the counter, I’ll lose the tranny, and the INF.  I will ONLY attack Syria in a no-bid game when I have bought a tranny for the med as part of G1’s buy; so I have a replacement just in case.  Obviously my version does not work against the mega-stacked Karelia strategy (since it pulls too many INF’s from Europe due to tranny buy and multiple troops to Africa).  But against anything less than the mega stack, it makes for an interesting game that is a bit off the “normal” game flow.

As far as losing some troops in the exchange… that is kind of part of the game, especially for the Axis… roll the dice and go for it.

Using the bid-strategy outlined in the preceeding posts, and likely counters, by the end of G2, Germany is going to have all of Africa (perhaps less SA, assuming UK moves that INF to Rhodesia to cut off the tank blitz) plus Syria.

And if you only single INF the West Africa territories (putting 3 INF of the 4 from the bid in Libya) you could also land in Madagascar in G2 (in addition to grabbing Congo, Italian East and Rhodesia) leaving yourself staged for Persia OR India in G3 AND getting your navy out of reach of those pesky UK fighters that are somewhere in Russian territory…

Unless of course those UK figs stage to Persia… then you don;t blitz Africa in G2, you send the tank from Egypt through Syria to hit Persia, combined with your INF that survived the Syria landing and 2 transported units, and your BB, and add any fighters from Ukraine or Eastern, and your bomber.  Say goodbye to the UK Airforce :-D  And if they pulled forces from India to Persia in UK 2, so much the better.  Now Japan has India free in addition to being able to follow-up in Persia in J2.

All in all, risking that sub to get your med fleet into the Indian Ocean in G2 is a damn fine idea; bid or no bid.

@Linkon:

The main cases to use SBR:

You have Heavies.

Do you build anything EXCEPT bombers if you have heavy’s???

Let’s be honest, Heavy Bombers are so powerful that it is an almost assured game victory for whichever side gets them.  And I have never seen a game last long enough after one side gets heavy’s for the other side to also get them.

@Linkon:

Your opponent has (1) low income, but a (2) ton of defensive units holed up in the capital, and (3) your seige forces are not sufficient to win the capital battle.

Combining SBR and the trading of territories next to your opponents capital will allow the build-up of your seige forces to gain the eventual edge.  By then, your income should be several times higher than the opponent you are about to kill off.

I still like using SBR’s to PREVENT my target from building up massive defensive forces.  That is why as Japan I bomb Russia every chance I get… each run means less INF in Moscow upon my force’s arrival.

Of course it could also be that I just HATE siege warfare.  I’ll press a battle against a strong oponent just to weaken those forces if I feel I can re-build faster than he can; rather than wait for me to build to overwhelm.  That way, if one of my allies gets to a position to ALSO be able to strike, they face a weaker target.  And if my allies don;t get a chance to strike, my nation that made the original suicide run will still be outbuilding the target and can move more forces in and take it anyway.  Now, I have to be able to last long enough to do SOME damage… I won;t attack with a fighter and 3 INF against 30 INF.  But give me 7 INF, a couple of tanks, and several fighters on 30 INF, and I’ll blast in, inflict damage, and retreat; then do it all again as more cannon fodder arrives at the front.

Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

Hbombers are far more powerful than any defensive naval unit you could add including loaded Carriers which are actually weak as they risk not just the navy but also a nations defensive airforce as well. 4-5 HBs can destroy just about any navy from my experience. It may cost a lot in terms of lost bombers, but these can be rebuilt lost bbs, Carriers, ftrs cannot.

I agree that the HB would severely restrict the movement of this Allied Navy, my only point being that it could be built without being sunk.

But how did the issue of HB come up? I guess you are assuming thats how the Allied (or Japanese) Navy is eliminated. HB (along with IT IMO) is almost always a sure win in the game for whichever nation has it.

Example: huge trade off in round 1 and 2 between Russians and Germans, both lose their arm. Spa landings are interesting once Ger hasnt got any arm.

Yup when Germany hasn’t got much or any armor they should not expect to hold both EEuro and WEuro for long. Conversely, if Russia doesn’t have much armor walk throughs in the Cauc should be expected.

Yeah, but you have to have the cash to buy HB.

Or have built up a nice stockpile of bombers prior to rolling tech. 3-4 can be enough to have a big impact on the game. For example, I love to sometime build a few British bombers just so when the Japs decide to lurch into Africa(after the Allies push Germany out). I get two rounds to roll for heavy bombers, and if I get a little bit luck those 4 bombers could kill 8 ships which should be enough to kill all or almost all of the Jap Fleet there including capital ships. Once that happens the game is usually over for Japan as their remaining fleet can be hunted down, or at least pushed out of position to be a factor.

Also depending on who you are, you can surround yourself with aa-guns, or just place them in all your countries. I just think HB are very defendable, provided of course you know your oppenent has them to start the game and you can prepare for it. Say you play a game where one side has HB and the other has IT.

No this is a red herring because all powers are susceptable to Heavies at some point and regardless of how strong you are you will have to figure you can’t prevent them. For example, if Britain or America gets HBs they can always bomb Germany without flying over 2 AA guns, true they can’t necessarily hit Japan, but with LRA they can. More importantly though with Heavy bombers the Allies can afford to give up Moscow if they need to as it opens Japan up to SBRs making them have to be able to win with what they have, if they don’t have enough to crack through the wall you’ll put in Karelia then they can’t take Moscow, and Russia gets the benefit of holding Moscow with no units! Because of this I think tech represents an enormous Allied advantage. However, should Japan get HBs they can SBR Britain as long as Germany survives without flying over two AA guns, and they should be able to do the same to Russia, if they position themselves right. The Americans too should be susceptable to SBRs unless they too get HBs before you can get to Hawaii with enough bombers.

Yeah, I totally agree with that! That’s one reason I don’t like tech, and you precisely laid out why. If you play someone who you know will tech later, then I say just get it out of the way and start teching early on, like you suggest, and your bound to get a tech. But if you tech, your opponents my tech earlier (or should), then it becomes a ‘luck’ race for tech and the first side which gets a meaningful tech or 2 then they are likely to win. Once and a while that’s okay, but I don’t want all my games to be like that.

But if you look at tech as a necessary investment you will not hate it as much. What I hate is when I spend 20ipcs a turn for several turns with an overall investment being 60-80ipcs without getting HBombers. Then once my opponent realizes I will get it eventually decides to roll 20-30ipcs of dice and gets it right away. That tech doesn’t require an equal investment for equal results IMO results in too much luck, but LowLuck/NoLuck variants attempt to rectify this.

Well if you would ever want to finish the stupid game and not quit it might have been different. :evil: