Posts made by AxisOfEvil

@Cmdr:

No, I said I would not use the bomber to liberate Egypt if it was at risk of destruction on the subsequent turn.

If Germany had only one fighter in Libya that could reach it, then it is not at risk. (UK Fighter, UK Bomber defending against GER Fighter SHOULD result in the loss of both the attacking and defending fighter and the bomber remaining undamaged.  Should being the operative word here.)

I think we would both agree that one german fighter in Libya is a rarity,and should not be counted on. Usually, you have to deal with one fighter and one bomber. So this should not be reason 1a for how valuable the UK bomber is, since is is a rare case.

I personally would accept a german attack of one bomber and one fighter, vs my one UK bomber one UK fighter. I feel that the German AF is more valuable than the UK AF. That attack puts the german fighter and bomber at risk, 48% of the time they both are lost. 86% just the fighter is lost. Not to mention, unless germany purchased AF r1, they just used a 1/3 of their air power on that attack, which means they arent using it to trade eastern front terr, threaten allied shipping, or defend WE.

@Cmdr:

My opinion is that the British Bomber is the most important for a number of reasons.

1a) It can be used to liberate Egypt and secure Africa
1b) It can be used to SBR Germany limiting their production on round 2

Ok. Umm im seeing some circular logic here. We arrived at your proclaimation that the UK bomber was the most important piece in the game when discussing whether or not the UK should counter egypt with it. You said you wouldnt because of the risk to the bomber. And here, in your proof of how valuable the bomber is, your first reason is this counter that you are argueing against!   :?

Also, the very second reason for how valuable the bomber is, is a r1 SBR on germany? Do people do that with UK, a r1 SBR? I cant imagine a piece being very valuable when the BEST option on the first round to SBR. SBR is a marginal positive return at best. I think that the Russian fighter, which save russian infantry in trading territories, is so far more valuable than any conceivable SBR,. that its not even funny. But we all have are own opinions.

Also, i havent played a game yet where i saw 4 russian fighters, and less then the norm to see 3.

Also, I do agree the UK bomber is quite valuable in the early rounds, but i think the value of this piece diminishes in later rounds, where as the russian fighter may be just as valuable, if not more, than the uk bomber in early rounds, and INCREASES value in later rounds as the japanese approach, and there are more territories to swap.

Better than tripleA?

However, Italian East africa can be hit by the japanese. I like french Equatorail Africa if i bring the bomber.

@Adlertag:

@Crazy:

I usually land it together with the UK fighter in the horn of Africa, Italian East Africa.

Suppose Germany landet two figthers and a bomber in Libya, and purchased another bomber in Italy, you still want to land in that good spot ?

good odds of killing a german fighter, and you tied up alot of AF on G2.

@hyogoetophile:

As either Axis player, I’ll generally take Caucasus whenever I can get it, as long as I’m not sacrificing too much to do so. If it’s a pretty equal trade (German or Japanese stack for Russian stack), then go go go!

Yes. This must be a given. If you can get caucus without losing much heavy equipment, do it. It is what I meant by I dont trade caucus, unless it is poorly defended.

@Romulus:

Axis, thread title is “G1 input” and in it seems to me that in G1 also you go for Karelia.
Generally, also I prefer to go for Karelia, Belorussia and Ukraine, regrouping panzers and infantries in EE. When I go for Caucasus I try to take and hold it in order to buy units there.
However if in R1 Russia had bad dice and is possible to take Caucasus and start to trade it conveniently it could be a viable solution.
Personally I think that advancing in Russia without the Japanese support is premature and can be done only if Russia is weak and Allies are not supporting her closely.

Yes Romulus. Thank you for reminding me what the title of the thread was. My problem was that i got caught up in responding to the content of his post. It seemed to me he was referring to a long term route to moscow question. I mean, you can’t even hit Caucus G1 can you? Regardless of the thread title, the OP wanted to know if you should put pressure on moscow thru ARCH or CAUCUS. We might even being saying the same thing, where I like holding Karelia early as a defensive move. But wehn i want to put pressure on Moscow, i take Caucus usually.

@captainjack:

Personally, I like to go north.  When I play the allies, I almost always try to land in Norway/Karelia/Archangel from Britian; therefore as the axis, this is on the forefront of my mind.  Also I feel like it’s very difficult to take and hold the Caucusus long enough to build anything there b/c Russia is next door.  For me at least, Caucasus just gets traded back and forth.  However, for me, Karelia is fairly easy to take and hold, where you can then build up a number of troops and tanks and then move into Archangel.  But that’s just my 2 cents!  Thanks!

I disagree. karelia potentially receives much more pressure from allies than the southern route. You can be battling all three allies there, reducing your stack to ineffectiveness. I like staging in karelia in the early rounds to slow down uk in some games. But to stage there for the long haul, just too difficult. It also requires your entire tank stack to hold, which removes all of your armor out of range from Western Europe there is no way to hold both Karelia and Western europe for very long. If the allies can hold WE, germany is near the end.

However, if the axis can take Caucus and Hold, pressure mounts on Moscow. The japanese should be in position to help the germans hold Caucus. I dont usually trade caucus, unless it is poorly defended. When i invade, i plan to hold it. The extra income and IC is huge, making Caucus pivotal in the struggle on the eastern front.

“Always” means like everytime right?

Russia:   Ok, so where to start. Russia r1 ukraine attack. i am in favor of this. But i disagree with the always part. Belorussia/West Russia. Or simply stacking W. Russia are acceptable alternatives.

germany: Agreed u need egypt. I agree the battleship in the med must die. I dont think the dd in the med “always” has to die. If u placed bid units in africa to take egypt, and decided to move the med fleet west and take gilbralta, i dont like using only af on the dd.

UK: Do you counter egypt even with no chance to retake? say 3 tanks, 2 inf? Wouldnt it be better to gather forces to put up a better fight?

Japan: Pearl is a must? If russia stacks bury, Uk builds an IC in india, or the UK navy gives multi targets, i think there are very good reasons to avoid a pearl attack.

USA: Umm. so why must i buy 3 transports and 3 armor round 1 “ALWAYS”? What if germans have bought navy and our looking to unite? Shouldnt i get an AC? Can i buy inf instead of tanks? Why do i have to move the 2 inf to eastern usa “ALWAYS”? Can’t i move them to western canada in plans on shipping from eastern canada?

All in all, i dont think there are that many “ALWAYS” moves in this game. Always is a pretty absolute concept.

@mrsoccerchessman:

Is it worth trying the strategic bombing if the bomber(s) are not doing anything this turn?

I say no. 3 ipc damage per bomber on average. Bombers are 15 ipc, 1 in 6 chance they get shot down. Average of 15/6 -2.5 ipc lost. Now these are averages. So if you were allowed to run 1,000s of SBRs, you would average a marginal gain of .5 ipc a bomber/turn. However, whenever only doing a handleful of SBRS with one bomber, you may only run one mission, and get shot down on the first try. Not worth it. I will do SBRs if I am at the end game against moscow or berlin, to wear down the enemy.

@Corbeau:

For Russia, i been seen buying a bomber for Russia every now and then on 2nd turn depending on how Germany forces are looking.

You sure are brave to admit to buying a Russian Bomber on r2 in this forum. I am going to duck now, as you might take some abuse!!!

But in all honesty, i can and have bought a third russian fighter in say round 6-7. I buy it if russia is doing well in land piece count. At this point in the game, you will have germans staged to the west, and japanese staged to the east. You end up swapping novo, kazah, and western front territories with these forces. that can be 4 -6 territories you have to swap per turn. An extra fighter certainly helps at this time.  And it helps in the ultimate defense of Moscow.

Corb, we need to run the opening again, with you controling both axis powers. Then it will be less semi-proved or dis-proved.

@Corbeau:

Taking Ukraine on Russia1 leaves you exposed. I semi-proved my theory on a german tank blitz by taking caucasus on turn 4 ( i expected turn 3 but could not count on Japan) despite at least 4 allied planes reinforcment and opponent knowing the strategy.

Tsk. Tsk  Corbeau. If you are referring to our game has your “semi-proof”, then I an afraid you have gotten some details wrong. You have made it sound like you took a re-enforced Caucus with allied planes on round 4. But the fact of that game was, you exposed all german tanks to me in west russia round 3, so I conceded Caucus to you round 4, in order to destroy every tank the Germans had owned. You took caucus defending with 2 inf via your med fleet (1bb, 2 trans, 1 sub). I made the mistake of letting that med fleet live that long, if destroyed, you would have never taked caucus that game. :)  PS - i retook caucus round 5  and germany was very weak in unit strength.

OMG people!! Is there nothing left to discuss about this game? Let me try a feeble attempt at logic here. Everyone agrees that this fighter swap is illegal as outlined in LHTR 2.0 correct? the LHTR rule set is developed by the creator of the game, and is meant to better convey the intentions of the original rules, wording and all? So we know waht the intention is in regards to this specific rule, are we really spending so much effort into how one “COULD” or “SHOULD” intrepret the old vague wording? The intention of the rule was made clear by Larry himself, should we move on? I bet not one person in this arguement even uses OOB rules.  :)

@Cmdr:

And sometimes avoiding Egypt can work to your advantage too.  For one, if the English invade the med, they could get stuck and crushed and thus allow Japan more freedom.  Or not hitting Ukraine could conserve vital forces for Russia allowing them to be more bold later.  Or Japan not hitting Pearl could allow them the resources needed to hit India, China and Buryatia throwing the allies into a premature tail-spin or suckering an inexperienced America into attempting a KJF giving Germany a break.

Just playing devil’s advocate.

You like to play devils advocate quite often. I think Egypt is a bigger thing than pearl and ukraine. I see both sides to Ukraine, and I certainly know you dont like to hit it. I guess this means you dont hit Egypt as Germany. Or you do, and like you said, helping out the devil.

@pequod:

thanks for the ideas guys, have tried the consoldation thing, got a few new twists and will see how they work out

CaptJack is right, with GIB in German hands, UK fighters can not get at the BB.  It also presents many other problems for the allies in the later rounds, a sweet move, the only downside is that G can not attach Egypt in G1, but that move is so perdictable there are many counters for it

Sometimes, there are actually good reasons why a move becomes predictable. Not attacking egypt has many more problems for you, This costs you much income in the game, as well as posing some imediate threats from UK fighter, dd, and indian fleet. Go ahead, be brave, be predictable!!

Can someone please stop this Billy Joel song that is playing in my head??

@TimTheEnchanter:

Tanks are STRONG!!!

(and you can only get two of them from EI to asia each turn!)

C-SUB representing!  In da house!

Wow, it is certainly clear to me that I will never have enough passion for this game to make a post in this thread!!!  Wait, I just did. Can you imagine those two doofuses from the utube video reading this thread!!  :)

PS- so How many of you are lawyers?

@Bunnies:

@AxisOfEvil:

Yeah sorry Bunny. I ran out of energy, (and time at work), to read the second post.

My text wall gom jabbar claims another victim!   :lol:

Is this similiar to Mr. T’s Jibber Jabbering?