US 1st Turn KGF

Island hopping is great, but its not critical.  Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great.  This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers.  They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults.  I will have no less than 2.  I then will support my fleet with destroyers.  I try to build 2 for every carrier.  If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment.  This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically.  Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower.  Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines.  If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics.  Your maximizing your money and strength.  Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry.  You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault.  the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition.  But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up.  Battle should be over without losing anything.  Your fighters land for fleet defense.  Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea.  Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.

@Bunnies:

@Cmdr:

Protecting the S. African complex is a synch, really.

The problem is defending South Africa AND Moscow.

Easier to do then not having units producing in S. Africa.

1)  Instead of driving units to Algeria to reclaim Africa, you can start off the bat dumping units into Arkhangelsk on UK 1.  That means at least 3 rounds more unit drops in Russia then otherwise.

2)  With America going through Africa, America has already saved 40 IPC on Transports AND saved on warships. (2 Destroyers, Battleship, 5 Transports is a pretty good deterant in and of itself, against the Luftwaffe.  The Kriegsmarine should be made short order of with the US Air Corps (3 Fighters, Bomber + I like to have two more bombers out of the saved 40 IPC, netting me 10 IPC.))

3)  2 Transports, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine in SZ 28 (British) + 2 Infantry/Artillery/Armor in S. Africa per round is plenty to stop Germany from even getting the land in the first place, saving cash for England.  And once you get 24-30 IPC in equipment in place down in Africa (I like Egypt, close enough to run south if Japan comes close, far enough to run to Caucasus in a hurry if needed) for England and Africa’s yours forever.  (Don’t forget, America’s landing 10 Ground Units a round into North Africa as well, it’s not JUST the 24-30 IPC worth of British units there.)

Almost never, except under rare circumstances, should UK ever build an IC in Eastern Canada.

However, USA offers flexibility.

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

@DarthMaximus:

I think a well rounded strat will allow you to do both relatively seemlessly while if you venture too much into a “reactive” strat it may not allow you to take adv of mistakes as quickly.

Don’t you mean “OVERreactive” strat?

If you make unsound purchases based on what you think your opponent’s going to do, that is overreacting.

If your opponent sees your mistake, and acts in the best possible manner to exploit your weakness, that is reacting.

Yes.

But also:
Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?
Maybe I’m nitpicking. :-)

You can think proactively (2-3 turns down the road) and force your opponent into difficult decisions or mistakes.

I’m of the school that assumes that their opponents will be worthy, hence that mistakes will not be made; hence that losses will be from bad luck or the aggregate result of suboptimal plays, rather than from a blatantly wrong move.

To clarify, you can NEVER “maneuver” your opponent into making a mistake.  Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

–

In other words, say I know you like alcohol, and that you don’t really care too much about money.  So I bring free drinks to our poker game, you get drunk, and I win lots of money.  Did you make a MISTAKE, or a CHOICE?  I think you made a CHOICE.

Now, if you were holding a straight, in five card draw no wilds, and you folded, you probably made a MISTAKE.  But that was your choice.

If you were drunk when you folded, I would say that you made a CHOICE to enter into a situation in which you would more readily make MISTAKES.  But still, folding on that straight would be YOUR MISTAKE.  Nobody forced you into folding.

I think we’re agreeing with each other.

(your mistake or not) Your betting pattern, poker face, demear at the table all provide the other player with information into the decision about their hand.
You come out betting strong, with a stone cold dead face, I read that as hell I can’t beat him I fold.  I made the choice, but you willfully provided informaton that helped me make a decision.  All be it a wrong decision but at the time I assed all available info and came to a conclusion, which in this case was wrong and a mistake.

The whole theory behind deadzoning is manuevering to get your opponent to (help them if you will) make a mistake (or bad choice).  Yes your opponent makes the choice to move in his whole army, but you set up the board.

I also play assuming your opponent is “worthy” and makes no mistakes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t set “traps” to test them.  B/c as we both know, no one is flawless and I’ve seen plenty of good players overlook the smallest things from time to time (including myself).

I think we are agreeing with each other here.
I think these statement are equivalent:

ME:

Did that persons previous moves put you in a position to make a mistake, or did you just flat out miss something and make a mistake on your own?

YOU:

Either your opponent blunders, and makes a mistake on his/her own, or you force your opponent to make a difficult decision.

Perharps I shouldn’t have used the word “mistake” in the first sentence, but they basically say the same thing.  Force a person into a “lesser of two evils” decision.

Actually Switch, 8 infantry would have made a world of difference over 2 fighters.  The W. Russia Stack would be infinitaly more defensable and Caucasus is really never under any real threat.  And even if it does fall, it’s not like Russia’s planning on making more then 8 units a round anyway for a few rounds.

This poll and post is even more difficult to answer than the combat poll.  This one not only depends on prior combat, but also on the outcome of those combats.  Your planned NCM can be obsolete and/or foolhardy by the time it’s time to make it.

Like Switch says, the best laid plans last only until contact with the enemy. (paraphrased) :-D

To get the maximum defense in the London on Round 2

1. The Russians should have landed their fighters in Moscow on their first turn. They can both land in London on Russia 2. The sub on Russia 2 can go block a med navy by going to SZ12
2. The UK can build 5 inf 3 arm (30 IPCs), which provides maximum ground fodder under the restriction of mobilization and cash, and also land the tank from W. Canada to UK
3. The US can land 2 inf 1 art 1 arm in London through SZ8 on their first go, plus the fighter/bomber from E. US

There is absolutely nothing the Germans can do to stop this massive build-up, except possibly bombing the UK for 6 IPCs.

In the best case scenario for the Germans, they build 5 transports on G1, send their Med fleet westwards, bomb UK for 6 IPCs, and have all aircraft in range of London. But the Med fleet cannot attack London because of the Russian sub in SZ12, so the maximum force they can bring against London is 6 inf 6 tanks 6 fighter 1 bomber (5 built transports + 1 original in Baltic).

The defending force is a composite of the following: 2 inf 1 art 1 arm 2 fig 1 bomb 1 aa originally in London, + 8 inf from build assuming only 24 to spend from a perfect bombing, +1 tank from W. Canada, + 2 fighters from Russia, + 1 fighter 1 bomber 2 inf 1 art 1 arm from US, for a total of 12 inf 2 art 3 tank 5 fighter 2 bomber 1 aa.

In that perfect scenario for the Germans with a perfect bombing, they have right about 1% chance of winning.

Alternately a naval build by the UK like 1 car + 1 dest can deter a German landing, but the UK navy will be destroyed and you’d better hope some transports didn’t get through because the UK doesn’t have the bulk of its land forces ready.

Combining the Jap fleets in SZ59 (Kwangtung) allows you to continue to shuttle troops to asia and be in a position to obliterate the US Solomon fleet if it moves to take one of the high IPC islands.  The US fleet would be gone before you had a chance to build an IC.