Posts made by bugoo

Perhaps you could share some of your allied strats with us.  Do you focus on pacific, balanced, etc?  Are any of your games on a forum you could point us too?

Not to be rude i’m just wondering what i’m doing wrong!

true, but the 50-50 is great for the 1 round strafe =) (please note i’m not advocating it)

The other nice possibility for the IC is SAF is i’ve noticed alot of players leave the UK SZ12 fleet live.  That fleet can head down to the SAF IC to link up with more boats built on turn 2, which is about the only way and probably best way to get boats into the pacific for the UK (the aussie boats can even get there too, just leave US planes in range to sink the jap carrier if it decides to hit it).

This could give you a navy on turn 2 there of 2 destroyers, 1 cruisier, 1 AC (your planes flown down turn 1 or US planes from Australia), 1 trans, +1 more boat.  More than Japan’s typical AC and/or cruiser floating in that area.

Now it wouldn’t be until turn 4 that they could take anything, but can anyone think of ideas to go along with this?

I think the problem lies with the objectives themselves and there difficulty.  Getting all objectives as axis should be done by the end of turn 2, yet allied ones are much more difficult.  This is compounded by axis owning enough areas that even without NOs they are almost at the same income as the allies, combined with the ease for the axis to get units to the locations that matter compared to the allies and the increased firepower of bombers due to the cost.  Why is it that axis NOs are so easy to get, and the allied ones are so difficult?  I do not understand that, at all.  Instead of a bid why not just change the NOs a little.

Germany: They should need both Karelia and Caucasus for there NO.
Japan: They should need 2 of the 3 with India, Australia, and Hawaii.
Russia: 2 of the territories instead of all 3 for the 10 IPC NO, reduce the NO to 5 IPC as well.

I think that alone would fix the problem instead of a bid.  The big problem I see with a bid is with how crazy turn 1 is to begin with, how much different is the game if the US puts a sub somewhere in the pacific, or UK puts more units in Africa, or a sub in the Atlantic.

The other thing I wonder is if LL is to blame.  With dice one would expect at least one axis attack on round 1 to go terribly wrong allowing for the allies to exploit that with the small margins they have.  Like the attack on the UK BB, or Egypt, or the Russian front, or Pearl Harbor, etc.  I don’t like that idea though because of the randomness f it.  Or perhaps tech is supposed to be the answer as the allies can buy tech turn 1 if they choose where as the axis are hard pressed to afford it.  That would not be good either though, esp as the axis can seriously outspend the allies starting as early as turn 2 or 3.

Has anyone noticed a difference with Tech on or using Dice aside from random freak things in later rounds in key battles?

I dont really see it as a problem, if you really wanted to use subs as germany just only build 1 per round and make sure you have a strong air force.  You dont have much room to dance your fleet, but that sub is powerful in tipping the scales when striking at navy with air power, just look at G1.  Would you trade the 2 subs in SZ 7 for 1 bomber?  I know I wouldn’t.

Actually if your going to split the US into 2 powers, you should just combine the US/UK together, but as one atlantic and one pacific.

I agree that SBR is not broken in the slightest, heavy bombers, dont know I dont like tech.  The up front cost of the bombers combined with the minor IPC gain by using them in this manner really offset the effect.  Now bombers overall as a broken unit?  No, I don’t think they are.  Useful yes, but not overly so, especially considering that every bomber Germany builds is 4 fewer inf in the fight against russia, for the UK one less cruiser bombarding and escorting your fleet, etc, etc.

Honestly, it is not that simple in a fleet showdown in the pacific.  The US has to decide between killing the japan fleet and being able to survive the Japan fleet’s attack.  In the first case, it is difficult, in the latter, it is actually pretty easy.  Even if we assume Japan has all 3 carriers with planes, the cruiser and the battleship in the fight, 2 loaded carriers and 5 destroyers create a 50% battle.  The crazy thing, with the starting US cash and the 2 extra fighters plus the 2 destroyers already in the pacific, that can happen at the end of US1.  And the best thing, look at the IPC difference.  Carriers are terrible on the attack, absolutely horrible, other than the 3 square range for the fighters.  Hell, cruisers are better on the attack, that’s just sad.

Also, it is true that you shouldn’t ignore Japan if you go KGF.  The best way to do this in my opinion is on turn 1 buy a bomber, do NOT send the AC/DD to the atlantic, and keep all bombers in LA.  Starting on US2 begin buying destroyers and continue buying bombers, you can send them to algeria this turn for some Italian smashing.  Why boats?  If Japan comes at you, the destroyers are great fodder and help protect LA, and pulling back the bombers forces Japan to build defensive navel units to cover an assault on the US.  Just be sure to wait no longer than US4 to start dropping major navy into the pacific.

See I think Italy does best to shore up Germany’s weakness.  France needs taken or defended? On it.  Russia needs threatened with can opener to keep her in check?  On it.  Southern Europe needs traded with Russia?  On it.  Allies need slowed down in Africa?  On it.  Allied fleet in SZ 12 needs thinned out for the German planes to sink?  On it.  Now granted I cant do it all, but whatever Germany is struggling with, I can be that little bit that tips the odds in Germany’s favor.  It really depends on the individual game.

The problem with that is

1. there is no way russia cannot counter attack baltic on R1, they have 7 inf, 1 art, and 1 arm that can reach, you would have to weaken your other attacks immensely to do so.  Now yes you have units in Finland, and I got UK trannies in range, usually enough to take Finland, Norway, and Karelia if I want on UK/US turn 2 if I desire.  Then you best hope russia doesn’t push real hard in the south and take a 3rd for the 10 IPC NO.

2. if the UK player cannot figure out a way to build a transport and fleet protection with 43! IPCs on turn 1, then they are not a good player, esp when you have 2 figs laying around and usually atleast 2 destroyers.  Unless of course Germany goes heavy air, which then negates the effect of units fighting Russia.  Just spending 14 IPCs on 1 carrier gives the allied fleet 22244, add in destroyers or cruisers as you choose (cruisers if germany went light on air, destroyers if they went heavy).

Please note, I am not saying that a German Baltic fleet is a good idea, but if your going to do it, this is how I would pursue it and the reasons why.

G1: Purchase BB, DD, and 1 inf
Now why no carrier? Simple, the fleet i bought would give me another shore shot at 4, would survive the UK turn 1 air force, and would be good fodder against the UK fleet.  A carrier grants very little extra offensive capability in any way shape or form, and is easily destroyed by subs, or subs +air, and limits my G1 attacks on the UK fleet as my planes have to land on it.  I would also shuttle the 1 inf, 1 art to Finland on G1.  This forces Russia to pull back on R1 and grant me my 3rd NO even if they do take Baltic States (which with 7 inf, 1 art, and 1 arm you should attack there R1 almost every game.)

G2: Choose.
If the UK went air heavy, purchase however many destroyers it would take to ensure they loose most of there air power, or an AC.
-This buys you more time against the UK building a fleet, and usually gives you enough time to have enough airpower to keep there fleet at the bottom of the ocean.  Remember, UKs income goes down as the game goes on, yours goes up.  They have 1-2 turns to get something going, then they no longer matter typically.
If the UK went fleet heavy, purchase a destroyer a round and possibly extra transports.
-This allows you to hold Finland, Norway, and Karelia for most of the game as you are shuttling up infantry while sending in tanks to reinforce. It helps you maintain good trades with Russia for most of the game as you use inf+air deep in there territory. Meanwhile, Italy has some breathing room and can help hold the Russians back in the south.  Also, that fleet can latter be sacrificed with your air to sink the UK fleet when it becomes advantageous to do so.

The big thing is not to get caught into a ‘race to the larger fleet’ with the UK and to make sure Italy uses the extra time wisely.  Now yes this opens you up even more to a KGF from the allies, but thats why japan goes hulk smash.

I almost always buy a bomber a round for Germany starting turn 2.  They are great for threatening Moscow, even when in Germany, threatening allied fleets, and if they got nothing else to do I do enjoy bombing Brittan.

Its the allies I hate buying them for, even though they are still incredibly useful, every bomber UK buys is one less cruiser or transport.  You must be very careful not to ‘overbuy’ bombers as the allies.

Nah, axis-roll’s idea of 3 trans, 1 AC, 1 inf, 1 arm is better and what i’m  using now.

Title:  Atlantic Fleets collide
Date:  3/15/09
Special Rules:  1941 NO Tech YES Nos
Victor:  Axis Victory
Game Length:  8? full rounds
Bias: Slight Allied advantage in skill
Description:
Allies: Went after Europe hard, landing a large quantity of forces into africa
Axis: Germany fleet held in the baltic, Italian fleet with Japanesse backup held in the med.  Germany pounded Russia hard early, then pulled back to protect the coast with Japan harrasing the US and pushing hard toward the middle east.

Deciding Point: Was when the allies lost way to many boats taking down the axis fleets, and were then mopped up by axis air.

Yeah, giving the axis a bid would not be a good idea if playing with NOs on.

Actually with the AC and you starting destroyer it would take 4 figs and 1 bomber to have odds on sinking your boats, a very common event I would think.

No, it is not quicker at all, in any sense, unless you need to build more than 6 units.  Just as if Germany could only afford 10 inf, it would be pointless to put an IC in Poland to get troops to the front faster, now if you have an IC in Poland and one in Germany, yeah you would build inf in Poland and armor in Germany, but they wouldn’t get to the front any faster than if you built them in Germany the round you built the IC.

yea if you think about it you could build an IC in the Balkans and then 5 inf there next turn, or build 5 inf and move them to the Balkans next turn, either way you have 5 inf in the Balkans.

Jenn:

Your not understanding, on turn 2, russia turn 2, before japan 2, russia sends in the troops if you decide to go for an india IC.  This is why on russia 1 you place 2 inf in persia, and build armor in cauc, or planes.  By the time a J3 hit is ready you have all those russian units, US fighters (up to 3), transjordan inf, and whatever you built there.  Obviously there are conditions that would prevent this, like a 6 armor buy for germany that goes without saying.

One other neat thing, UK fighters in French West Africa can land on a carrier built in India.

I’d probably go for a surge into china while holding the line against Germany.  Never seen this before though so I don’t know for sure, usually Russia just gets beat on while US/UK try to get something going.  My usual Russian strat is kill as many German and Japanese units as possible.