Posts made by BigBlocky

Darth Maximus is doing just that, taking the German fleet to madagascar then to australia and new zeland…. The cunning bast*rd!! :-) It sounds so good I just may use it on CC, mmmmwwwwwhhhaaaaahhhHH!!!

BB

OK, I didn’t get the pun RE: Real numbers and Unimaginary and over-reacted. My bad.

BB

AZ… Arizona? Ummmm, getting into the US of A is not possible, I was a bit wild in my youth. A pity since my sister has lived in various states for 20 years or so.

Is there a version of dicey for AAP? I’d love to play via email!

As for my massed fleet, don’t get me wrong, I will use subs and transports if required as blockers or as bait. I go for VPs but do provide a credible, but not all out threat against both australia and India to keep you honest and force purchases of land units. The key is to keep the Yanks parked at Pearl Harbour for as long as possible. The Jap has the advantage because they can use 15 fighters and 2 bombers on offense, have lots of transports and BBs to soak up hits and an ever increasing number of cheap subs. The yanks must put carriers under their fighters on defense, for 15 fighters that is lots of carriers to build!

BB

A agree 100%, as Theodore said, talk softly but carry a big stick. NK’s ‘mission statement’ is in effect ‘forced re-unification under NK rule’. If the other guys religion is to crush and rule you then you are a fool to do anything to help him towards this goal.

IF NK makes a bold move the plan is regime change also a bold and correct move in response. However, with 10, 000 long range artillery pieces all in range of hitting Soeul it would be a blood bath for everyone. Some plans call for 750, 000 troops to invade the North.

BB

North Korea has nerve gas and the ability to deliver it to Soeul. Estimates range in the neighbourhood of 37% of the 12 million citizens could be dead in 24 hours.

NK can fire about one half to one million rounds per hour into sourth korea…… The US can’t make the choice to go to war alone on this one.

BB

Shiny, about my comment about W. Europe (WEU) on Round 1. I’m assuming that the brits and US have 1 transport each that can hit on round #1. Only the US bomber can hit and of course the brits have 2 ftrs and a bomber along with 2 INF that can hit. I think you left 2 INF in WEU in your scenario right? It’s such a slight change it’s probably not even worth typing about it but…. Yes, you will have to build up WEU as the allies increase their fleet size, but on R1 you can take the risk to go light with land units and heavy with air.

My thinking is that if you have a mix of armour and infantry you get the required defence but the armour can move and threaten Karelia the next round where infantry can’t. The drawback is the armour on WEU cannot threaten Karelia this round. Perhaps on R1 it’s not even worth thinking about but later on as you plan an attack on Karelia you might think about moving INF off WEU and replace them with armour so as to get more units to bear later on.

Again, it has such little impact on round 1 I probably ought not to have even mentioned it!

BB

A violation) Iraq fired missles that exceeded the range limitations, radar telemetry exists to prove this.

A violation) Weapons inspectors did find about a dozen shells that could be used for WMD and should have been destroyed.

A violation) Inspectors had minders that violated ‘unfetered access’ by monitoring their actions and forewarning possible target inspection sites.

Any one of those should be grounds for regime change. He was on probation and we should have zero tolerance for ‘convicted criminals’. Argue the miniscule nuainces of semantics but he was the leader of a country who invaded a neighbour country and ultimately lost the war. He was on probation and failed several tests.

He was a little guilty like young mothers were a little pregnant awhile ago. Guilty is as guilty does.

BB

The flaw may lay in bids if and how used. My preference as Germany is to go heavy in Africa, as much as I can get in Libya. This allows me to attack egypt and with the german navy move in loaded against the brit sub.

57% you sink the sub with no losses
29% you both hit, sub is gone, take off the BB and land the troops
15% the BB misses and the sub hits, transport retreats and lands troops.

Bring a tank over as you have extra infantry already and you need a wall of infantry in europe. If you lose the fleet, oh well. You have enough forces to milk lots of IPCs, fly air power in for added defence if you need it.

If your boldness pays off, bonus, take more troops in as long as you can or want.

Drawing forces off from Germany is innovative for sure. The measure of success will be if you can gain in attrition more than you lose in IPC for lost control of territories.

BB

It’s a fairly balanced scenario. I’m a real numbers guy and I hope you enjoy the following 2 cents.

1 fighter against 1 transport:
Win: 72%
Lose: 14%
Mutual destruction: 14%

1 Bomber against 1 transport
Win: 77%
Lose: 8%
Mutual destruction: 14%

So it is wise to use the fighter rather than the bomber, for 5% more offense you risk losing 100% of your bombers.

The bomber should land on W. Europe, this prevents the US player from building a transport per round. The US player wants to do this because for every transport he build there must be 2 ‘loads’ built, one to go and one to move up for next round. The US player is already building for existing transports so the most effective way to avoid hiccups is to build a transport every round or 2 every 3 rounds. That lone bomber in western europe makes that rather tough.

I might have 1 ARM and 1 INF in W europe rather than 2 INF. With 3-4 ftrs, bmr and AA, 2 land units is lots to defend against a single transport with 1-2 air units on round 1. The infantry is slower to move up against the russians so move the infantry first. Of course you lose the attack power of the armour against karelia so its really a coin toss.

I don’t like leaving the tank in Congo exposed to Brit attack, is it really that important to get 1 IPC and risk losing the armour? That 1 armour with 1 ftr and bomber would give two land units a good go:

36% likely to knock out 2 units with no losses.
45% knock out 2 units and lose the tank
15% knock out 2 units lose a ftr and a tank, sucks but oh well.

Other than that I like it.

2 hit BBs I think hurts germany more than it helps Japan.

Since all the allies (except china) defend on a 1 it is very tempting to over commit. First, you could have sent 2 more fighters against Pearl from the Island (map not handy) and 2 of the fighters from the carrier after attacking land back at the island. Remember that! Often you can use twice as many fighters as you have carrier landing spots by doing this island to carrier and carrier to island routine.

I would only attack Pearl and not the lone carrier, 2 subs and 6 ftrs means you ought not to lose any fighters here. I would then keep most of Jap navy together and lots of extra air to prevent the Yanks from moving up to quick. The Yanks may find that even on Round 3 they may not be able to move up against the Jap fleet as it could crush it. I spend 80% of my Jap money on subs, do a strategic pull back in the Pacific when the US navy is able to defeat the Jap navy. Use subs to block the way but watch out for the Brit then US double move, the brit clears the sub, the Yank moves through to the next sea zone. As the Jap pulls back it’s navy gets move concentrated and closer to the new builds, the opposite is true for the allies. I’ve played 4 times as Japan using this, not only did I never lose I never had a chance to use my Kamis! It wasn’t even close…… 26 victory points is a minimum for Japan to make it fair.

BB

BB

You should do a search on this site and across the internet, there are lots of well written essays etc.

All agree on all infantry builds unless you have 2 ipc left over, then build 1 tank rather than an infantry. Pick you battles carefully, don’t launch a major attack only to lose all the pieces on a counter attack. If you see territories with 1 or 2 infantry then attack it with 1 more infantry than the defender has and use 1 fighter, unless there is only 1 attack then use both.

Co-operation is the key, if you allies have a few extra land units with air then they can help by clearing out 1 or 2 lightly held territories. You will most likely need help in defending.

Most importantly, just play and have fun!

BB

I don’t see why you couldn’t nor can I see why you would but you could although if you should you’d be nailed to the hood.

BB

If 2 DDs are better then 1 BB then 3 Subs are better than 2 DDs. Of course you lose the amphib bombardment and the ability of DDs to allow air units to attack subs.

You did mention in small battles BBs are better, I agree. But why would you use your combined fleet to attack a 1 or 2 unit enemy navy? If you don’t use your entire navy to attack a small enemy navy then you do split up your fleet. So what is it, no fleet split and waste your entire fleet on a small battle or do you do multiple attacks and split your navy, which one is it?

As the Jap player I’d love you to waste your time doing that. In fact as the Jap player I spend 80% or so of my IPCs in building subs.

Anybody who actually builds a battleship is crazy. The point of this thread is to show that 24 IPC is much better spent elsewhere then purchasing a BB. The only person who can afford to build a BB is the US. Since the US is building 70 IPC/turn of equipment it doesn’t seem to make sense to plan your builds in such a way as to save 8 or 12 IPC on a meaningless small fleet engagement.

In large battles that go a few rounds a battleship actually hurts. Sure, they absorb 1 hit but at the cost of lost firepower. 2 destroyers do 50% more damage then 1 BB.

You’re band on about Japan A) needing to go for Victory points because a good allied player can fend off the India attack and B) not having to decide until turn 2-3. That means the allies might have to split the convoy money 50/50 and splitting their forces up.

Phoenix is right that the allies must use subs to wreak havoc with the convoy routes and the odd destroyer to allow allied air to attack subs.

BB

Congrats indeed! (I’ll catch up to you yet Ralph Philips!). Your posts are always well thought out, unless you’re contradicting me that is…. tongue in cheek.

BB

Indeed congrats.

If you were a nazi you’re damn right I’d be the wrong person to have in your platoon.

BB

Why do you expect you opponent to just let you engage in small little battles where your battleship ‘soaks up that 1 hit’? The US goal is to create such a huge navy that they can steam up to the Grand Imperial fleet and withstand their best shot. The Japanese player will win the game on turn 6 or 7 via victory points. The allies don’t have time to engage in lots of little battles with battleships so they can come out ahead by 1 navel unit here and there.

If the US player does split up the fleet into lots of little battles then the small elements will be crushed with overwhelming firepower. Divide and conqour is the goal, you play right into that.

BB

I’d think there would have to be more games being played to create some type of formal ranking system.

BB

F_alk, didn’t I read that when you served in the German conscript army there were several people in your unit that you how did you describe them as, ah yes, nazis. Of course you said you secretly loathed them but of course didn’t rock the boat and speak out against them, how brave of you. That is the difference between you and me. I don’t silently endure nazis. My mouth has gotten me into situations that were not pleasant, but at least I always felt I had done the morally right thing and damn those who don’t want me to rock the boat. It explains why you think the rest of the world should do nothing against the Saddams of the world. You would cloak you inability to stand up to tyranny in words like “There is no legal precidence for standing up to brutality in a unilateral fashion”.

I have no need to debate anybody on morality who admits to forming a tight bond with nazi-like people to the point of defending them to the death. I lament the fact I had to say this, I was trying not to read your crap, but like a motorist who just must gawk at an accident I looked and didn’t like what I was reading.

I will refrain from making any more personal comments about you, you should do the same to me. This forum is not about you and me.

BB

Yep, the only rule for a Cap is that the fighter has not moved, you can’t fly out 4 spaces then Cap for instance.

If you Cap from an island and there are navy units in the sea zone then they all defend together, a nice way to protect transports and have fighters on a new carrier effectively.

BB