Posts made by 03321

I’m still unsure whether Steiner is just way over-the-top making fun of timerover’s many house rules dooming the Axis to defeat before the game even begins.  That was my initial reaction anyway.  If he is, he’s sure doing a good job of keeping the charade going.

Could just as easily move the newly built units from Germany to SEur on G2 as the EE tanks, though.

@Imperious:

Archangel:

2 inf from Finland
Baltic transport gets 1 tank 1 inf
3 fighters

against: 5 infantry, 1 art, 1 AA

15 vs. 12 ( 7 vs. 6)

fixed ;)

I think a very important discussion/consideration as far as whether or not G1 Egypt is worthwhile is how much long-term benefit there is to keep the German Med. trans and the bomber, as well as what drawbacks there are to waiting a turn to take it.  Without sacrificing the bomber in front of the tank for the purpose of taking egypt, there is a 60% chance of taking it on G1 with everything you can get there.  Good odds, certainly, but nothing to hang your hat on.  If you lose badly the fighter could remain to take out the German transport, or even if you kill everything in egypt but with only the bomber remaining, UK can send his India destroyer through the Suez.  Or he could crazily send his UK bomber down to sz 15 (depending on what other needs it can serve) and land in TJ, possibly shipping 1-2 units from India.  My point being that even if you take Egypt you can still lose your transport.  So, is the risk of losing your transport without even taking Egypt worth the payoff of either taking Egypt yourself on G1 or clearing it for Italy?  I dunno, but I’m tired and shouldn’t be thinking that hard right now.

switch, I understand your 1st and 4th prereq’s, but what do 2 and 3 have to do with whether the stack’s in EE or Karelia?

Granted, I also find Egypt and the Gib battleship virtual musts, but I don’t understand what they have to do with where your European ground stack is.

@Imperious:

That’s 70% victory for UK, at risk of his fleet, yes, but saves the Chinese fighter.

70%? Japan has 6 vs 3 ones and a 2=5. Id say its less than 50%.

If they won that, Id go 3 fighters on the allied fighter and infantry and leave out one attack on the other Chinese battle.

It’s actually 6 vs. 6 (art bringing one of the 1’s up to a 2).  And the UK has an extra casualty to take.  70%

3 1’s and a 2 vs. 3 2’s would be right at 50%, though.  Amazing the difference 1 die point can make, esp. in a small battle.

yeah, I just deleted my post because I realized that I left out the part where you move the cruiser up with the carriers : /.

But, I think we both also missed the fleet/troops at Caroline Islands.  Hard to pick out exactly what’s there but it looks like 2 transports and something else.  Seems you could take Philippines, Borneo, East Indies, and New Guinea or Solomons all on J1 depending what the Brits do.

As far as hitting the west coast, it depends on the exact rules I think.  If taking out the Destroyer automatically kills the transport also then I’d say yeah it’s worth it.  But if your fighter has to survive to carry out a round of combat against the transport for an auto-kill then I’m not so sure.  Guess it’d still be worth it.  50% to kill 15 IPC of units losing none, 25% to kill 8 IPC losing 10, 25% to kill 0 IPC losing 10.  Overall net of +5 IPC-worth in kills with the second version.  So, yeah, looks good.

@Imperious:

Much to the chagrin of others i purposely made what i think is the best Japanese move for the first turn.

It’s ok, I’m here to poke holes in your strat once again :P

@Imperious:

UK can send 3 infantry and art against your 3 infantry in Indo… and thats a bad move. They have no fighter and the DD has no SB. nothing to worry.

That’s 70% victory for UK, at risk of his fleet, yes, but saves the Chinese fighter.

@Imperious:

You got 2 carriers and 4 fighters north of Hawaii. Send 1 against the west coast USA fleet  ( 3 vs 2) and 3 fighters against the Battleship at Hawaii.  ( 9 vs 4) . The carriers goto SZ 52 and are supported with your cruiser from SZ #61

You basically land the fighters on the carriers. The USA player cant counter it, but you may lose a fighter on the BB attack.

It seems there’s actually a good chance you’ll lose 2, possibly even 3 fighters (bad luck) doing this.  ~50/50 on whether you’ll kill the BB in 1 round, if you don’t there’s plenty of chance that you’ll lose 2 fighters in that battle.  And losing your fighter vs. the Destroyer off WUS is 50/50.

And in sz 52 your (possibly) 1-2 fighters + 2 carriers can be hit by 3 fighters and 1 bomber.  Even a 1/4 chance that the Destroyer survives, adding that to the attack.  I personally don’t like dice so I’d prob go with a safer attack of 4 fighters vs. the battleship.  Maybe.

3 UK fighters could attack the battleship/trans (1 from Egypt), and Germany could use the sub to attack the UK trans off ECAN to keep UK from attacking WEur.  Battleship, 2 fighter, bomber take out the Gib. battleship.  And he did show that the 2inf/1art from SEur were going to WEur, by saying he had 4inf,1art,1tank there.

With no bid, if Russia takes WRus on R1 with at least 8inf/2art (neglecting tanks), and buys at least 1 tank on R1, they can reclaim karelia on R2 with decent odds, 2-3 tanks surviving on avg.  And obviously if Russia buys 2 tanks they only need 6-7 inf in Wrus, buying 3 tanks means they only need 5-6 inf (plus the 2art).

Edit to clarify sloppy writing

More Edit - As UK I would probably just land in Norway and buy 1-2 trans + ground, maybe a carrier for the future.  Send the UK air to sz 13 plus Egypt fighter and sz 15 destroyer.  You have nothing to counter his North Sea fleet with, since it’s all in EEur.

Japan starts the game in control of East Indies.

@timerover51:

Against good Axis players, I would say the Allies do not have much of a chance.

Or you could just leave the game balanced as is and split the good players between sides as intended. Your choice, of course, I know you want the game to be “balanced” so that even sides would produce an Ally victory every game, and then proclaim that it still isn’t balanced because your good Axis players beat your poor Allied players.

AAD - Axis & Allies Deluxe?

maybe confusable with d-day : /

or AAX - also captures the Deluxxxxxe….

just kind of spouting out possibilities that come to mind since some still seem to not understand the AA50, though I personally liked it.

@timerover51:

My comment with respect to Strategic Bombing was on using Italy as a base for bombers to attack Germany.  This was actually done during the war to split and avoid German air defenses.  I am assuming with the change in Strategic Bombing rules that the German player will place an AA gun in both Northern Europe and France to reduce the effects of bomber attack.  Attacking from Italy would avoid this.  However, if Italy can be persuaded to change sides, then an Allied attack on the Rumanian oil fields might be a viable option.

It’s still 3 moves from UK to Germany through the SZ 6 - SZ 5 - Germany route, so bombers wouldn’t care about AA in France and NW Eur.  If the Allies can attack Romania from Italy then USSR probably already controls it.

@timerover51:

Also unknown is if there are any limitations to the number of Axis troops in Libya.  The port capacity of Tripoli put a cap on the number of troops that could be supported, the number diminishing steadily the farther from Tripoli they were.  It does not appear that there is a separate area for Cyrenaica.

There are no other limitations for # of units anywhere in the game based on supply or any other factor (20 inf/planes on a tiny pacific island) so why would there be one for Axis in Libya?  I’m pretty sure we can say almost positively that there is no rule for limited Axis troops anywhere in Africa.

@Adlertag:

He is also close to +500 applauds

Wonder who gave him half of those :P

@Richter:

Best strategy was (and is) to kill off any transports built by UK each turn.

That was kinda impossible if the UK player was worth anything…and I assume it still will be.  Sure, you will be able to take out some transports, but taking out all transports every turn can’t be the best strategy because it simply isn’t feasible unless UK is terrible.

@Perry:

What happens with the Research token on Turn3 ? May you still roll for Tech turn3, without purchasing new research token(s)???

You lose all research tokens once you successfully research something.

Oooh, you meant Baltic States not Balkans. Should’ve realized that since massing Balkans doesn’t do much of anything.

It doesn’t seem to me that NOT attacking is an option for G1 in the 1941 scenario given the production discrepancy between Axis/Allies.

@Imperious:

3. Karelia: German Baltic transport pickup 1 inf in Germany and 1 tank (from west Poland) lands in Karelia w/ Baltic BB SB
   also bring in 2 inf from Finland and 2 infantry from Norway and 1 fighter

Opposition: 5 infantry, 1 artillery, AA gun

Norway is not adjacent to Karelia unless my eyes deceive me, making this move impossible.
@Imperious:

(the Italian fleet will destroy the UK CA and DD off Gibraltar.

Doesn’t UK go after Japan/before Italy.

Edit: Also, Egypt is only 60% chance to take, opening you up to losing your trans, though I won’t say that makes it an entirely bad move.

2 sorries when none were required. :P  “Pure Luck” is the option for default AA rules. And it seems the only link that was messed up unit-wise was the Karelia battle.  Disregard my habit for speaking bluntly.

It’s ok, he’s a teacher, he’s allowed to be “a nice guy”.

Edit: Lets be nice please