Posts made by Butcher

Just out of curiosity, how early did the Med fleet die? It is vital to claiming Allied IPC’s and posing a threat to the southern part of Russia. You should try to keep it alive as long as possible.

If you’re looking to go the route of an IC, you could build in South Africa. India is, IMO, too easily captured by Japan early. S. Afr can’t be hit early in the game by Japan, can contest Africa, and can punish Japan if they don’t send enough forces to the Indian Ocean and Southern Asia.

A large part of the game depends on who the Allies decide to attack. They can decide between KGF (kill Germany first) or KJF (kill Japan first).

For people who are new to the game, I think a KGF would be easier to pull off. All the Allied capitals are near(er) to Berlin, so the logistics are easier. Also, Germany can threaten Moscow quicker than Japan if not threatened.

However, a KJF can work against players who are used to playing against KGF. It is usually best to go this route if Japan has a bad first turn, although I have won games where I had a KJF in mind before the game started. In this strat, your goal is to reduce Japan down to Tokyo and maybe a couple other territories, and to wipe out their navy. In this way, only a minimal Allied force is needed to contain them, and all attention can shift to Germany.

Note that I don’t mean to ignore the other axis power that you aren’t focused on. This is usually only a problem in KGF, and Japan can reach Moscow quickly if left unchecked. Usually the U.S. will deal with Japan a bit in KGF, and Russia will hold off Germany with a little U.K. support in a KJF.

As the Axis, you must identify if your oppenent is playing a KGF or KJF. The nation that is the focus of the Allied attacks must play defensively while the other nation kills Russia.

For the U.S., the one starting battleship is enough. My favorite way to play the Pacific is to have the U.K. hit the SZ59 tp with the dd, and attack Borneo with 2 inf and 1 fig. Also, attack the SZ46 sub with your sub. This opening means that Japan may send fewer units to PHII in an effort to kill the fleet in SZ48. Then you can counter PHII, replace the tp, and build a couple of carriers. IMO, the best way to play the U.S. in the Pacific is to take advantage of openings the U.K. creates.

My last game of '42 was a 2 v. 2 among my FTF group, and I was one of the Allied players. The U.S. captured Japan on the third turn…  :roll:

Germany doesn’t really need to take a lot of Russian territory in 1941 if the Allies seem to be playing a KGF. Japan can handle that well enough. All Germany has to do is trade 3 Russian territories for a NO, and prevent the capture of valuable territories by the Western Allies.

@ Corbeau Blanc

I’m wondering if you are still interested in some test games. I sent you a PM a few days ago with a about it, so read that before you reply.

So you think that I should make 3 attacks R1 even though I will probably lose 2-3 of my tanks? I have seen this thread before, but was wondering if making one less attack would put Russia in a worse spot than exposing at least half her armor to a G1 counter. I guess I am just averse to losing tanks early, seeing as Russia needs to build a fairly high number of infantry early.

In my only two games of 1942, I played the Allies and attacked Bel, Euk, and Ukr on R1. However, this caused me to lose 2 tanks on G1. I’m considering skipping the Ukr attack to conserve my starting tanks, and I would like to know if anyone has tried this out in a game or has any thoughts on it.

@Gargantua:

Load the art in AUS, go to NZE or SOL, or sz41, find holes in jap defense to take CAR or whatever. to get NO, and force japan to take one of thier own islands back,  cover this island off with American air power.  so even if they take it back, you attavk thier ships the following turn

That’s almost exactly what I did in a forum game recently, and it will be helpful in terms of making Japan have to pull some units away from mainland Asia. Works well if you also have U.S. able to hit the SZ around the Caroline Islands.

To find the average, you add the lowest value to the highest value, and divide by 2.

Don’t forget that the bombers you build can be stationed in Germany to trade territories with Russia. Trading German infantry for Russian infantry (and some offensive units if they don’t have their own aircraft) can thin out Russia’s defenses for Japan, and will help you conserve tanks.

And no chimp would put a U.K. battleship of the coast of South Africa.

Yeah, I think that the U.S. is better served by trying to get it’s units into battle asap. Building an IC doesn’t seem to help that objective as much as bulding a carrier or other ships.

@SgtBlitz

I only send German air against Allied navies if I know I can win with at least a few aircraft left, or if I’m desparate. Normally, I use fighters to defend France, and move them if needed, and I use bombers to trade territory with Russia. By building aircraft, you are building a multipurpose unit to force the Allies to build a specialized unit.

However, I have won with a Bulgaria IC before, so I have nothing against building an IC. I just don’t think it is necessary.

53 IPC’s can be achieved on G2 or G3 fairly often. It’s just a matter of using the income for a factory to turtle or buying air. Some of the best Axis games I have had are where Germany builds 1 aircraft when their income is in the 40’s and 2 when it is in the 50’s. This will force the Allies to build more warships and less transports, delaying a large landing. After aircraft, the build is a mix of infantry and tanks.

The only reason I suggested weeding out battles was based on their value to you. Not weeding them out will still find the odds of all the battles succeeding.

It isn’t as detailed a method as any of us would like, but it isn’t useless.

And I never figured out the odds of meaningless battle in this thread. I’ve only looked at the ones that pertain to taking and holding Karelia.

Just out of curiousity, do you notice how you are almost alone in advocating a G1 Karelia attack right now?

Math isn’t some magical way to figure out everything you want to know, it is a tool. And like any other tool, you need to know how to use it correctly. So far, this is just a basics guide. We haven’t really gone in depth at all.

I can’t personally attest to TripleA, since I have never used it.

@Pin

If you wish to keep the relevant info in this thread easily accesible, I suggest a new thread or making an article. Like I said before, you can use any of my posts here.

@Corbeau Blanc

So leave out the battles that are irrelevant to the overall game, and you can find the odds of your important battles succeeding.

And starting around August 7 or 8, I would love to play a forum game to test this strat as well.

Don’t try to use low luck to figure out strats for games with dice. And PLEASE stop trying to say we are wrong by comparing low luck odds to dice odds. It’s like we are counting apples and then you say we are wrong because there are a different number of oranges.  :wink:

If there is a battle with little importance, than don’t bother including it when you multiply. I thought that was pretty clear in the thread.

And low luck isn’t just a possibility, it completely changes the game.

You would take the very same battles and do them over 2 turns and thoses odds would go magicallly up.

I explained this in the thread. I thought it was pretty clear.

As I said earlier, a Bomber, fighter and one sub is at 93% odds to win if we go by theses ‘‘statistics’’ when in fact it’s 100% win Low luck.

Those “statistics” are known as dice.