@Cmdr:
No one can tell you what would be valuable 6 rounds into the game because the game is completely different at that point anyway. If Moscow has fallen, those Russian fighters are probably pretty useless.
No, but I WILL tell you that I think sacrificing the Russian fighters at the expense of saving the UK bomber makes it more likely I will see Moscow fall by turn 6. So I guess in that sense you’re right in a self-fullfilling-prophecy sort of way. ;)
@Cmdr:
No one can tell you what would be valuable 6 rounds into the game because the game is completely different at that point anyway. If Moscow has fallen, those Russian fighters are probably pretty useless.
No, but I WILL tell you that I think sacrificing the Russian fighters at the expense of saving the UK bomber makes it more likely I will see Moscow fall by turn 6. So I guess in that sense you’re right in a self-fullfilling-prophecy sort of way. ;)
It depends on what I sacrificed the Russian fighter for. To be honest, I’d rather not lose the bomber OR the Russian fighters. In any event, I am talking about a single, SOLITARY piece. The two Russian fighters are two pieces, not one piece like the British bomber. If we want to start making examples like that, then I could say losing the two Japanese carriers and two Japanese battleships are worse than losing the British bomber. Hell, you add enough units to the stack you want to trade, eventually you’ll out value that solitary British bomber!
Odds are England will be the one doing the attack on Berlin before Russia. Odds are Russia will be defending against Japan while this attack is set up and executed.
Do Russian fighters defend any better than American fighters? No.
Does the British Bomber attack any better than American or Russian Fighters on England’s turn? Yes. Infinitely so. (Russian and American fighters cannot attack on England’s turn.)
Since England is attacking Germany, it stands to reason the bomber is more valuable to them than a (singular) Russian fighter is to defending Moscow (since America can, and probably does, have 3 or 4 fighters there to defend anyway.)
Top it off with the fact that Russia’s going to have plenty of opportunities to compliment their fighters with a 3rd or even 4th fighter while England will most likely complete the game without buying a second bomber - even to replace the original if it gets lost, and you can easily see how that bomber is more valuable than a single, solitary, Russian fighter.
@Cmdr:
I have not back peddled. I never once stated that Russian fighters are worthless. I only stated that I felt the British Bomber was worth more than the Russian Fighters and I laid out my rationale to support it.
No one can tell you what would be valuable 6 rounds into the game because the game is completely different at that point anyway. If Moscow has fallen, those Russian fighters are probably pretty useless. If Germany has fallen, what in the world are you going to do with that German submarine in SZ 5?
OK, call it what you want: You certainly did TOTALLY qualify some very specific instances of WHEN the UK bomber was ‘the most important piece’ in the game.
AND it was early and not for a very long time in the typical game that lasts 14+ rounds.
Your other argument about the value of pieces changing when a capital falls looks like you’re merely reaching for straws to throw back into the argument fray. I would say that ALMOST beneath you….
We can argue all day long, and you can back peddle or cover your tracks or further qualify your opinion (whatever you want to call it :roll:), maid of the “IMHO”, but I will put it to a vote and we’ll let the forum quarum decide. Expect a poll soon. :mrgreen:
Russia ftrs versus UK bomber.
No, I stipulated some examples of how I would use it.
SZ 5 someone said was an undue risk to the bomber. As I pointed out, there is no risk to the bomber in SZ 5 - you just retreat before the enemy even has a chance to hit it.
Egypt is not a risk to the bomber, if Germany does not have anything strong enough to hit it.
Perhaps you are attributing statements that other people have made to me?
Anyway, everyone knows that pieces change value based on position on the board, not just of that piece, but also of the country and it’s allies. It’s not my fault you want to lock everything into a pigeon hole.
Also, I never said the bomber was more important than BOTH FRAKKING RUSSIAN FIGHTERS. Stop attempting to say I did. I said it was more important than ONE RUSSIAN FIGHTER.
So you are telling me, that if I kill ONE OF YOUR RUSSIAN FIGHTERS, you will immediately capitulate and declare that I won the game? Zarky! (Hey, you’re basically making the same wild claims about what I said, let’s see how you deal with wild exaggerations for a while.)
@Cmdr:
Anyway, everyone knows that pieces change value based on position on the board, not just of that piece, but also of the country and it’s allies. It’s not my fault you want to lock everything into a pigeon hole.
Personally, All I ever posted was that the two russian ftrs are more important than the UK bomber. Nothing more, nothing less. Others made arguements for and against your postion versus mine. You were the one who starting to qualify / defend your position.
@Cmdr:
Also, I never said the bomber was more important than BOTH FRAKKING RUSSIAN FIGHTERS. Stop attempting to say I did. I said it was more important than ONE RUSSIAN FIGHTER.
I Never said you said anything. I said it.
@Cmdr:
So you are telling me, that if I kill ONE OF YOUR RUSSIAN FIGHTERS, you will immediately capitulate and declare that I won the game? Zarky! (Hey, you’re basically making the same wild claims about what I said, let’s see how you deal with wild exaggerations for a while.)
You are quite looney. I never made any wild claims. You were the one who continuously modified your general statement of the UK bomber being the most important piece to a qualified one (OK, the UK bomber is only the most important piece for the first four rounds, or when I can do SBRs or when I can counter AES….)
You know, YOU are the main reason I do not post on many threads anymore. You have to post your opinion post in every FRAKKEN thread.
No one likes a know-it all. Especially one as relentless as you can be.
And the “IMHO” in most of your recent posts doesn’t really change the above two observations.
So if someone kills the UK Bomber, the most valuable pieces on the board UK do not surrender?
No, but also, you don’t surrender only because you lost the soviet figs :-D
Elemntary, Funcioneta. Just joking.
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
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.
