Posts made by BigBlocky

The last 5 posts should be in their own thread, and a good thread it would make.

The poll question is inflammatory no doubt about it and I dno’t see any humour in it. That being said it needn’t escalate.

BB

The rule as Oz said is that you can build (on a new or captured IC) only as many units as the IPC value of the territory the IC is on with a minimun being 1 for 1 and 0 IPC value territories.

BB

MIB, you said earlier in this thread the US fleet is usually dead by the end of round 2. I assumed you attacked with the US fleet to lose it……

So, as America, you’re faced with getting hit with Pearl II, since the Brit builds a carrier you fly the 2 US ftrs to the carrier, just wanna get that straight.’ I’m guessing you don’t counter attack the Japanese fleet off of Pearl. Have you tried using the US transport as a blocker and move the BB next to Panama? Can still be hit but only by 2 ftrs and no navy.

You mention threatening S. Europe with the US on turn 4. That we require putting the US fleet in a postion where they lose 1 round of trans-atlantic shipping, not usually a good bet but might be called for on occasion.

BB

Why should germany be ready to push into Moscow on turn 5? The allies are dropping of units into Karelia faster than the Germans can build up. Germany is lucky to hold out until round 6 never mind being the one to cause the russians to retreat to Moscow. Germany’s goal is to stay alive and threaten Russia as much as possible to limit what the allies can throw against Japan.

By turn 5 the allies have had 10 transports pumping units into Europe. 20 allied units plus airforce can hit W. Europe, Germany or E. Europe by navy alone, no way Germany takes Karelia and you can’t threaten Moscow as Germany without Karelia.

BB

You should assume that if it’s such a crippling blow for Japan to lose it’s airforce on round 1 then Japan probably ought not to do it.

It’s debatable how many units you can get there past 1 round in the future, the point is you only build 3 land units/round and the Japs with 4 transports at the start of round 2 can get 8 land units per round to bear. If you have to build ftrs in england and fly them to India for protection it’s a losing battle. Land units win land battles.

I don’t doubt you can be a thorn in the side of Japan but you may find that if you split up the Brit forces you end up with 2 forces neither of which can project enough power to do much.

Building land units in England, moving them to Norway gets them to India but a few turns later is all. No building a factory and AA so that’s 20 IPC of equipment you’re ahead.

BB

Fair enough RE: EU being young. I’m not sure it’s fair to use the age of the EU, after all it is an economic union and was never meant as a political or military union. France would never allow the US to have power to Veto their actions, that is why of ALL NATO members, France is considered the junior partner as it pulled out of the NATO planning commitee. France doesnt’ want to be constrained by NATO but then complains it can’t constrain NATO. Why is it always France that feels so special? We have a term for it, it’s called little-man syndrome. They just can’t stand it that they aren’t a world power anymore.

BB

I totally agree with DM. The Jap player should wait a bit longer then attack India as DM said. Your observation that it’s all you can do to defend the IC is true of ALL asian ICs in the early going. It’s an anchor to say the least. By having freedom to move your force you can choose the tempo so to speak. Apply pressure points to force the enemy to shift resources to counter said presure points. It’s debatable what to do with the brit forces in India but DM’s assertion that the idea is to fight a delaying action against Japan is bang on.

Japan wins by cranking up her income. She needs to capture the ring of territories around russia and sooner or later be able to occupy 1 of these in force in order to force Russia out of Karelia or risk losing Moscow.

Japan has an advantage in that if Russia has 1 INF on each territory, Japan could play to her air power strength. Attack the 3 territories Russia is likely to own to the east of Moscow with 2 INF each and 2 air units each. Japan takes all 3 territories perhaps losing a single INF. Since a smart Japan player builds transports and infantry she has infantry to carry this out. By the time Japan CAN do this the supply line is established, albietly it’s 3 builds long for the infantry attacking KAZ, NOV and EVE.

The result of this is that Russia must attack 3 territories, 2 of which have 2 INF. Russia only has 2 fighters and can’t retake these 3 territories unless commiting many more units which would just be crushed next turn anyways.

The solution to this is getting a little help from your friends. The allies by round 2 should have taken Norway with a brave brit or the US player. DM’s build/move suggestions are bang on for the allies. They are pumping in mass forces into Norway. At some point the fleet does a combined move to Algeria dropping off a multinational force. Going big or small has it’s advantages. Going big wastes forces for a few turns. But in a few turns you’ll need them in Syria/persia to hold Japan out of Africa. Going small allows more resources into Norway and they’re closer to Persia from Norway then Algeria.

The allies need lots of infantry in Karelia initially but don’t make the mistake of having all brit/us infantry in Karelia and devote the russians to Japan. You will of course need a stack of Brit/US inf in Karelia parked for a long time, however, having just a few Brit/US tanks with a few infantry moving with russia is important. In this way each ally can clear 1-2 Jap territories with lots of air power to gain the edge in attrition. If Japan is trading 8 units/round just to maintain their current income they can hardly build up faster than russia can.

I have often seen a stack of 5 US tanks wipe to Persia from karelia and knock out a few advance Jap units. Then some russian tanks and air (landing after attacking elsewhere). Then the brits move in with a few tanks and air units. Any Japanese factories are now threatened. Japan pulls back ready to crush the allies and the allies just move the pressure point over using a blocking territory to stymie any Japanese counter attack. It’s hard to rule the world when playing hide and seek in your own backyard.

BB

Yanny, why does NATO have to be europe to fight terrorism? I’m sure international law enforcement does a good job. You’re not implying that North America must keep troops in Europe to ensure that Europe does it’s part are you? How exactly does a base with lots of tanks and fighters planes fight terrorism in Berlin?

You say “The French, Germans, Italians, and British have all arrested scores of terrorists, and in some cases even put them on trial” as if this deserves some sort of special recognition. Do you think a gold star or pat on the head is enough?

Nato is not there to keep european countires together, if anything, it drives them apart. Nato was in europe to protect it against the soviet union, ergo it’s not needed anymore. Europe is too young to take care of itself? My god it’s over 500 years old, how old does one have to be to take care of oneself?

Yanny, once again you make wild allegations that Nato is required to fight terrorism and yet offer nothing to back this up. Lots of countries are fighting terrorism without being in Nato.

BB

The rules state 1 rocket attack only.

BB

You should count on Japan building 2 transports on turn 1. It allows the maximum # of units/round into asia and if the US tries to play games in the Pafic it’s also the best move. The US moves the fleet to Alaska and it’s sunk without effort.

If the Jap player plays conservative on R1, counter-intuitive perhaps, then Manchuria is so stacked the russians have to retreat. You say as Japan you take India and china but lose Manchuria? By no losing manchuria you gain access to 4 IPC worth of territories from the russians.

Having the entire pacific fleet move into the atlantic to get 2 infantry and 1 battleship shot is not the best use of resources in my opinion. What if the only option to get units in is via norway, the BB never gets used. It’s a trade off but I can manage fine in the Atlantic without the Pacific fleet moving over so I don’t move it over.

The allies should never enter into a fair fight if by not fighting they lose little and if the next round the battle is slightly more in your favour. Time is usually on the side of the allies.

BB

MIB, if you send 3 tanks against 1 infantry then your 3 tanks are left undefended against a russian counter attack or better yet, the allies coming in with a few infantry and ftrs to attrition out your Jap tanks. Moreover, you just used 15 IPC to kill a 3 IPC unit and get 2 IPC territory, you’re down 10 IPC. Even if the 3 tanks take out 2 infantry defending you’re losing the attrition war. If you’re using 3 tanks to get 1 territory you’re not going to re-take the 4 territories the allies will be retaking per round against the Japs.

The allies will always have lots of air power on Karelia doing nothing basically. It is so easy for the US to send 2 infantry and 4 air units against 3 Jap tanks, then the Brits send 2 infantry and 4 air units against another stack of 2-3 Jap land units. Then the russians take a single territory with their 2 ftrs. You’re losing units faster then 2 factories can build. If you’re spending 30 IPC on tanks how much do you have left over for infantry?

The threat to your factories would be apparent I think if the allies were playing a bit more aggresively.

You do pearl harbour II, knock out China and India? Pretty good, I guess you leave manchuria wide open? The russians should only send 1 infantry in, a safe trade off for turn 1.

You spend 30 IPC in 2 rounds on factories and can still defend them? I think the allies are drunk…… :-) But if it works stick with it!

BB

I would think if you had 3 bomber stacks you could still build additional bombers. The rule is “pieces on the board” and I don’t think the build circle counts. Now, you’d have to have a bomber stack on the factory or lose a stack in battle. I would think if you have 3 bomber stackes on the board and none on the factory, the newly built bomber would be lost.

BB

OK RE: ftrs on brit carrier. You were talking about taking the US fleet on a pacific adventure with 2 ftrs, it seems you have your cake and get to eat it too! :-)

BB

I don’t use winXP, but what about right clicking on the desktop, selecting properties to access resolution settings, not sure if that still works but…

BB

If you build a carrier and ftr, the ftr is not on the carrier so why build it? If Brit builds a carrier and transport and has the one from Canada and the US still has hers then the fleet is stil thin, 3 transports and a carrier. You need the 2 US ftrs to make this work. Why doesn’t germany sink your brit fleet then? Why would the americans suicide run their transports to africa knowing they will be sunk? I can see why you win as the axis :-) Waiting to build the brit navy until R2 can be a safe bet if R1 is too risky. I think I’ve built a carrier on R1 about 100 times and R2 about 40 times and R3 only once.

BB

MIB, how often do you capture Moscow with the Japs on turn 4? If the russians leave 1 infantry on each of the territories next to Moscow, do you exchange tanks to get the territory? How do you defend your factories, with tanks only? It takes 3 turns for infantry built on Japan to get next to Moscow. With 2 factories you must defend 2 spots AND the territory next to russian to plan to attack from. You can only build 6 units per round with 2 factories, you should plan to lose 4/round just retaking territories the allies retook…

BB

Axis not aggressive enough? Rely on dice rolls? Why not flip a coin to see who wins then?

I won’t do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. I would not use a ftr to knock out an infantry in S. Africa to gain 1 turn, I’d move up an infantry and attack next round, there is little risk benefit in that.

The reason the axis only wins 90% of the time is we don’t use bids and the games is slanted against the allies. I’ll take the allies against you any day and we’ll see where your luck gets you :-) Of course if the allies are not co-operating it makes it easier, don’t count on that and luck to win a game however.

As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven’t read all the pertinent threads on it. If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn’t help much at all in a faced paced game.

If you move it up to Wake island more than likely you will face from Japan 5 ftrs, 1 bomber, 2 BBs, a sub, carrier (30 offense) and up to 4 transports for fodder. On average the US would have a single piece after the first round and the Japs would still have transports for fodder. Moreover, the Brits need a hand to get going quick. I think that’s why most people don’t go after the Japs as the US.

BB

I disagree. It’s like chess, there are a whack of opening moves and strategies. This for a game that is trivial when comparing the number of possible moves. There is no perfect move, rather you collect a repertoire of moves and directions you can go.

You’re dead if you pick a strategy and stick to it at all costs. After the dice start to dictate the game your plans MUST change. It’s the player who is the most flexible who will have the best winning percentage. Usually that player has a big tool box. Pick a tool and slightly modify it for the task at hand. Be the river the seeks the path of least resistance grasshopper… :-)

BB

I’d agree with DM. 6 IPC and rockets is a bit better then jet power for the germans and super subs for the Japanese. At least you know with rockets you’re gonna use it every round. If the allies are attacking your stack of jet fighters you gotta think the Germans are in trouble…

BB

I think it’s possible to point out issues in what others say without inflamming the situation. It’s easy to see perhaps a minor irritant and have it turn into something really negative and nasty.

Personally, I think Saddam is so twisted that he will go down fighting thinking somehow history will remember him fondly….

BB