Posts made by AxisOfEvil

Sime, what an interesting looking game. its looks like the Japanese were deep into the atlantic, as they have WI, are they pulling abck out? Why would they? They should maintain atlantic dominance, and bombard London. And germany can get into the act soon by builing their own trannies. With a double attack on London, it will fall shortly. There lloks to be a stalemate in asia for the time being. But london will fall well before toyko is threatened!!! Clear advantage to axis here.

@Perry:

I find that people oftenly advocate that either US or UK should get Norway.
But I find it more advantageous if Russia can get Norway instead.

UK claims LEN on UK2 or UK3. Then on RUSSIA3 or RUSSIA4, Russia blitzes a tank WRU-LEN-NWY, and claims it.

Of course it only works if Germany empties NWY on G1-G2, but I find that they oftenly do so anyway.

I was actually just going to mention russia as a good alternative to own Norway. However, im not sure what your suggesting, as germany probably isnt swapping norway if their fleet is dead in sz 5, and Uk is landing in Karelia. But i guess if germans stack in karelia and/or you leave their baltic fleet alive, they can swap. But I like UK can opening karelia for russia to blitz a tank. Baltic fleet must be dead for that option.

As for a norway IC. For one, Is it useful pumping US tanks? I think id be building alot of infantry there as well. A stack of tanks can’t do a whole lot by itself, except increase the threat on dead zones. I like 2 Trans much better than an IC, anyway. As flexibility is the key to turtling germany. My prefered route with allies lately is a triple threat TWICE!! I secure sz5 for the British, and I like 5 tranports min. I can now threaten WE, GERMANY, and EE with 5 trans of units from the North. Now I have the USA having 8 -10 trans shuck in africa, with the tail end of the shuck in the med. Now I can threaten WE, SE, and BALKANS in the south the 4 -5 trans of US gear. When germany is facing that much pressure threatening 5 territoires in europe, due to the flexibilty of the allied shucking systems in both the north and the south, they are pretty much rendered ineffective in pushing toward moscow.

@Cmdr:

Actually, I am quite proud that I, and game play, have convinced about 25% of the voters

….

40 votes Russian Fighter
10 votes British Bomber

I really, really look for things to agree with you about jen. I like your enthusiasm in your analysis. But im confused. How can you incorrectly quote vote results that are posted at the top of this thread. How can anyone agree with you when your misrepresent obviously verifiable facts. Note the time and date of my post here. I am going to reproduce the numbers I see at the top:

ONE Russian Fighter  34 (79.1%)
ONE British Bomber  7 (16.3%)
ONE Japanese Fighter  1 (2.3%)
ONE American Bomber  0 (0%)
ONE German Fighter  1 (2.3%)
Remove Vote

Total Voters: 43

Look, they even include a handy % next to the number for us!! sweet. So 43 total votes. 7 for UK bomber. And logically, if 79.1% of the votes are for the russian fighter, it does not mean Jen can claim the other 20.8%. There are other options, created be Jen herself. Think of those as the Nadar vote, it doesnt count for your side Jen.

Again, why should we debate easily verifiable facts, especially ones posted at the top of the page!!!

@Crazy:

The post says neutral teritory. He can’t even answer his own post correctly, geez  :roll:
Anyway, I pick the Sahara desert, otherwise Germany would take Africa too easily and too quickly, and that much income that early would be a much tougher road for the allies to compete with.

I love that people take this thread seriously.  You got me buddy, i couldnt answer this one “correctly”.  :-D

I pick the area where you place newly purchased units myself

@LT04:

The last couple of games I have played I put an IC in India as Japan.  I don’t like it at all I would rather put one in FIC.  This way should for what ever reason the allies come for India I can send all my units to FIC leave the AA gun so they can’t blitz into FIC and have transports move from Japan to FIC to reinforce.

India is just to far away to protect if you have to from Japan.  Also I have to take India on J1 and waite until J2 to build my IC there.  I get more boots on the ground faster going the FIC route.

LT

If you have to fall back, and regroup to counter an allied advance into asia, you have more issues than where to put an ic

@axis_roll:

Right on queue “Posting Jen”.  Page 4… post #4!

Same sort of silly rhetoric too.

Your sarcastic list of things Russian ftr(s) MIGHT do is only more reasoning WHY a Russian ftr is more important because, guess what… I HAVE used Russian ftr(s) in EVERY SINGLE way that you say they MIGHT be someday used:

• defending allied carriers

• taking Berlin

• supporting Western

• supporting Southern

Oh yes, I have used Russian ftr(s) after Moscow has fallen too.

Soooo  ….  does this mean for a fact that Jen’s dead grandmother has grown testicles? post photos?

@ncscswitch:

I think the Russian FIGs have got to be tied for the most important piece, perhaps THE most important piece that ever gets to attack in the game.

Other “most important pieces” would include the USA FIG in China and the UK FIG in Egypt.  Neither of those units ever seem to live long enough to attack, because they are so dangerous that virtually ALL strategies for this game include the death of those units before they can be killed.
:mrgreen:

Along those lines, wouldnt the UK BB in the med be even more important then those fighters?

Yeah if the question is emant to be, given normal gameplay, where and who should have the most valuable IC. then my answer is Japan, India.

If the question is, if you had a free one to place before the game started. Id say UK-SA  or JAP-FIC.

@Cmdr:

The Russian fighters are only trading territories or cowering on the Russian capitol.

You might get more respect for your opinion if you didn’t use such inflammatory language. I mean, to use cowering for the self-admitted “second” most important piece in the game, you arent winning over any of the non-believers.

So when a moscow battle goes badly, you take a uk bomber before a russian fighter? interesting. No need to reply, i know a fighter defends at 4 while bomber defends at 1.

And you speak of “typical” games where russia is earning 30+. I recall a debate about this before on this forum. In a typical (IMO) game, japan takes bury pretty early, and SFE + yakut not far after. That 3 ipc. So for russia to earn even 30 ipc, they need to be trading EE, balkans, or norway pretty early. and to earn 30+ they need to trade 2 of 3 of these. If russia is trading 2 of 3 of these territories, i dont think u need the bomber or fighter!!!  :)  germany is toast.

As well as uk earning in the teens. I think the emphasis that most put on countering egypt is to prevent Uk from earning in the teens. If you kill those germans tanks UK1, they cant blitz thru africa, and drain UKs income, and in my “typical” game, US get to afirca pretty early to regain that lost Uk income. My “typical” game has UK and russia earning about the same.

@Cmdr:

However, the British Bomber is needed all the way until the end of the game unless the allies are conceding defeat.

So when the UK bomber is lost, the allies must concede defeat. Hmm. Wouldn’t 15 ipc to replace the bomber be doable if it meant preventing defeat?

I mean 15 ipc, thats (consulting NASA)  umm like 5 dudes. So in theory, a bad swing of die could easily cost you five dudes in the first 8 rounds. Does that swing of the die mean defeat? no it doesnt. So instead of 5 dudes, replace that bomber that it sure defeat, and save the free world!!!

hmm. so many stipulations and things we all need to keep in mind. I think Jen makes alot of assumptions about game positioning, which you really have to do to answer this question. But Couldn’t the UK use their forces to pressure EE and berlin? this is what I do with the British. So i dont have the UK forces in Moscow trading eastern territory with the japanese. My allied game always has at least 2 territoires Russia needs to trade. Especially in the early game.

Agreed, the defense with the fighter can be replaced by an extra US fighter. I also dont buy another russian fighter unless i have the German threat stood off, and I want more trading power. So I am curious, you speak as if 3-4 Russian fighters is both common and ideal strategy, however, you have pages of reasons why Russia can survive with one 1 fighter. If Rusia doesnt need to trade in your scenarios, and doesnt need the fighters for defense, as allied fighters take that role, why do you suggest buying 1-2 more of them? paper weights?

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

@Cmdr:

Tanks for the memories.

Seriously though, I like to have between 8 and 12 infantry for each tank.  Generally speaking, tanks are defensive units in Revised, rarely do you find them in forward positions where they can be readily killed, but often you’ll see them with large stacks of infantry (in a defensive support position.)

That’s not to say they are not valued in attack either!  Without them, capitols are rarely taken.  But generally speaking, most of your offensive thrust will be coming from infantry and fighters (bombers too.)

Wow. Maybe Im missing something. So if you were say germany, in the mid-game, you have around 20 tanks and 200 inf?  How do you possibly manage that?

This was the core of winning in the classic version, and although attempts were made to change this core truth, (or at least make tanks more attractive), infantry is still the core purcahse for an effective winning strategy.

Not only do you need to have enough infantry to absorb hits when attacking a territory, but you need enough to absorb any credible counter as well.

So the core principle of INFANTRY ARE GREAT! is really that you dont want to waste any high cost units. Planes and tanks for the most part. You need infantry to protect those, you cant afford to waste them. Thats not to say you never attack if there is a possibility a counter will kill tanks. Depends. I do not mind trading my German tanks for Russian ones 1 for 1. russia is hurt more by this trade than germany. Anything that weakens Russia is good for the Axis powers!

@U-505:

@AxisOfEvil:

Yeah, I just saw this. I dont know where I accumulated this negative karma from. Doesnt concern me much, unless it is a part of my background check for loans or something!!!  Its kind of useless caring about karma, unless someone lets you know they gave you a hit to your karma for a specific reason.

I know. But, since I play here regularly, it can be a barometer of how my opponents and the general public view me and can therefore be a factor in whether a prospective opponent wants to deal with my drama or not  :-D. For the discussion forums it’s pretty meaningless.

well then, your approval rating is quite good. I seem to ahve some george Bush numbers here   :-o

maybe i should stop posting, as it may hurt my chances of playing the game!!! I could be on a black list as we speak!! Damn you McCarthy!!!  Im no red!!

@U-505:

@Romulus:

U-505 and AxisOfEvil Karma +1 for both of you.

I agree qwith and, furthermore, your arguments are well presented than mine!

Right back at you. And I’m going to have to give AOE good karma just because after 49 posts he’s already accumulated -8. He’s rubbing somebody the wrong way.  :lol:

Yeah, I just saw this. I dont know where I accumulated this negative karma from. Doesnt concern me much, unless it is a part of my background check for loans or something!!!  Its kind of useless caring about karma, unless someone lets you know they gave you a hit to your karma for a specific reason.

@U-505:

The fact is, the UK bomber is extremely valuable in the first 2 to 4 rounds. However, once the UK infantry in Africa and Asia are gone, it’s value rapidly diminishes and it becomes nothing more than a poorly defending, long range fighter. On the other hand, the Russian fighters retain their high value throughout the entire game and I’d much rather let the UK bomber be destroyed than have to replace a destroyed Russian fighter.

TY U-505. this was a point i tried to make earlier. Its marginally debatable whether the UK bomber or russian fighter is more valuble EARLY ON, although I still claim its an easy nod to the russian figther. But as far as later rounds, when japan threatens Moscow as well as the germans, and the uk bomber is running out of useful missions, and usually is regulated to SBRs, there is no comparison to value!!!

Well i certainly know one thing, i would never dream of a SBR mission with the most VALUABLE piece in the game. But i do SBR with the uk bomber sometimes.

@Cmdr:

I dunno about it being a rarity.  Generally I only have the one fighter in Libya because my bid went to Libya and I kept the bomber for something else.

But yes, there is a good possibility of 1 fighter, 1 bomber in Libya or even 2 Fighters, Bomber in Libya.  In which case, the risk to the English bomber is significant and I would use the British bomber for another action. (Clearing SZ 5 maybe, or just flying it to Novosibirsk to attack Japan if the opportunity presented.)

Romulus makes a very good point about the value of the UK bomber. If it is so valuable, why expose it to so much risk. The sz 5 attack for example. There is a 1 in 4 chance the bomber is lost in that attack. 1 in 6 it is lost in a SBR. Would you attack sz5 or SBR berlin with the russian fighter? no way, wouldnt even conceive of it would you? That in itself suggest the russian fighter is more valuable.