Posts made by Corbeau Blanc

@squirecam:

This is where you lost me. You WANT USSR to attack UKR, but then you place an AA gun there, which should assure you that USSR does not attack UKR.

Now, if you placed an INF there, you have better odds of USSR doing what you want them to, and you still have an art left over for lybia.

Therefore, aren’t you better served with an inf placement rather than your AA ?

Quoting myself… Here we want Russian to either not do the Ukraine opening OR to commit 3 tanks to do it instead of it’s 2 fighters + 1 tank.

So no, infantry bid won’t ensure Russia commit 3 tanks if they still do it since they can use fighters without risks. Of course i’d rather keep Ukraine but i plan for the worst case scenario also, which infantry don’t allow me to do. I’m also using that AA gun to protect my 10 units stack G1 once i retake it. It have no value for Russia since i don’t need air units to do so.

I remind you AA is for a 7ipc bid. You also totally miss the point of placing an AA gun there. The only question you need to answer is: Playing Russia, would you send red fighters on Ukraine R1 with an AA gun there.

First of all, an Ukraine opening is a bad move for Russia. Let’s clear that out. On my last 11 games that saw that opening, i won 8 with an agressive tank push. Thoses I lost were because Russian player did keep his tank force in reserve.

Here we want Russian to either not do the Ukraine opening OR to commit 3 tanks to do it instead of it’s 2 fighters + 1 tank.

Commiting thoses 3 tanks makes a bad opening an even worst opening. As German, It’s what i want, to kill thoses tanks G1, stack everything i have in Ukraine and be in a great position to set up a Tank push to crush whatever is left after a hazardous R2 counter ( with 3 tanks less and Aa gun still facing it’s fighters, casualties will be high even if russia commit everything).

Debatable.

USA had still options after the attack and it’s best units still at sea. There was still hope.

I’m not convinced the will of vengeance would have been enough to overcome the despair of having no means to fight. Rebuilding from scratch rather than from the backbone of their full carrier force would have been a really different story.

I would not have seen the Japaneses hold back in thoses conditions, the very US west coast would have been endangered. It took everything and lots of luck to win midway. I say luck causes it was sheer luck to take out 2 carriers minutes before their fully loaded planes launched, not morale like in Guadalcanal.

From my very first comment.

I always reffered to 2-3 infantry R1 to persia and R2 to TJ. Weither or not you send extra tanks R2 is your choice. But i guess we understand each other.

well, for a 8bid, i think transport naval bid is most popular indpendantly of where it is placed.

But for a bid of 7 and less, I was toying with the idea of an AA gun in ukraine and giving the 1-2 ipc to Japan for 2 transport/1 IC as J1 build.

This bid deals with the fear of risking Russian fighters so they are not commited in Ukraine opening. The AA gun should not really prevent Germany from swapping and recapturing it, so you don’t really lose that unit if Ukraine is taken anyways R1.

It can leads to stupid Russian moves like sending 3 tanks in Ukraine instead R1. Even after that, it could be a constant hasard for Russian fighters when trading that territory and conduct them to bleed more ground troops while the German med fleet can still BB shore there and use it’s own artillery.

Many Russian players will think VERY hard when facing this. Especially if you played them and you know they value their fighters, it’s like in poker, sometimes you better of playing the player than the cards.

Well, UK2 did retake AE in this case. German AE units are dead.

What German units can they send to TJ outside of bringing in some more with transport(s)?I say transport with (s) since I don’t see Germans able to retake TJ without additonal transports in Med.

2 ground unit with 2 fighters and 1 bomber will not punch easily trough 2-3 infantry, 1 tank, UK fighter and bomber. Certainly not without heavy losses and at any rate, it’s easy for Russia to figure out what is needed to stop a retake of TJ. They play first, send 1 more tank and even one fighter R2 from caucasus at worst case, Red fighter will still be in range to swap Ukraine.

I was about to mention same thing Adlertag said. I normally end up landing 2 fighters and 1 bomber in lybia as the Germans.

If i get my 8 bid, 2 med transports, i take TJ and AE  G1.

But let’s say TJ is not taken, it’s still the best place to land if you moved some Russian infantry in Persia R1. Granted, you need to plan ahead but by G2, UK fighter and bomber could have 2-3 russian infantry backing them since R2 get to move Persia to TJ before G2.

I would answer none of the 2 choices.

Japan lost at Pearl Harbor when they failed to sink the USA carriers. They lost from the start.

That failure haunted them later at Midway and Guadalcanal was more of a desesperate last stand in an already lost war.

Had Japan sunk the carriers, they would have occupied midway and probably Hawai too, being able to come to terms as they planned.

Well, Western Europe is only empty after G2, it then get swapped and  they will lose something from that point since any swap normally involves at least 2 infantry (6ipc)m back and forth. I just value too much my initial infantry to lose any there the second turn for a +3. I also see a widely open WE as a bait effect to get the allies begin that swap game. Combined arms is about 30 ipc to shore bombard 1-2 infantry there, i don’t see it as a outsmarting move, no offense meant.

Many players can be get to play the way you want them to, even if reading this seems unlikely. Fact is I want them to swap trade WE with me every turn. That’s 2 production slot on 8 for UK i can keep monopolised there every turn vs 2 on 16 slots for Germany. So I guess it’s your choice or not to leave a guy there on G2. Does’nt make a big difference but my experience is it’s easier to lure allies in that game with an initial open St-Tropez beach with a free “pina coladas”.

As long you don’t forget the main goal here is to not have a huge stack of infantry tied in Western Europe and mostly vulnerable to try to prevent a possible landing you can’t stop anyways. Remember that eastern europe tanks, aviation and infantry production in Germany/SE are all in range to counter. Freeing that infantry enable you to push more infantry toward Russia while keeping the deadzone on Western Europe every turn by merely placing your newly built infantry. Just keep in mind how many ennemy troops can land and be sure to have what you need to repel it.

8 Bid transport in med
G1 AC + infantry.
G2 extra transport if needed + infantry
etc…

It’s a pretty common opening.
From G2, you spend everything in infantry per turn , except about 10 ipc for tanks OR a fighter OR a boat. Exception, maybe G4 OR G5 where you might buy a new AC for Baltic if allies took the bait and are building up to try sink that fleet, as i explained above.

IF Russia went conservative, I almost always do what you said with Germany which is being conservative myself.

That’s a classic german turtle, mass forces in Eastern Europe, swap the 3 territories.

I also tend to only defend Western Europe and Norway G1-G2 depending on allies possible landings. After that i invite them on the beach by removing all troops and AA guns, poising my troops for a decisive counter that does not make it worthwhile for them to land.

The idea is to offer minimum troops to the ennemy while creating  dead zones. For this to be efficient, you mainly build infantry backed by your aviation. Build stack after stack of infantry with the occasional fighter or 2 tanks.

You also need to invest one AC in baltic and possibly one more transport in med, you can even invest a second AC if UK is building up to sink it. Once you reach the conclusion allies will be able to sink it, remove the 4 fighters and be contempt they invested past 80ipc for your 32ipc.

And yea, go heavy in Africa. I never found adding transports in Med was a bad move, for that and the fact you get more and more pression on caucasus doing so.

By the time allies crack a well made German Turtle, a turtle that keeps it’s head in the shell, Japan should be in Moscow.

So Yes CaptainJack, it’s a good strategy if you discipline yourself buying mainly infantry, offering no easy opportunity and holding your ground for Japan. This is in the context of a KGF and if Russia did not take Ukraine ( if they did bleed their troops doing so, i always roll over them )

Hyogo, if you go with a sub bid it’s for fleet unification.
Fleet unification means you don’t land in Africa.

You take Gibraltar which will prevent UK from scrambling fighters, as well as your sea lion threatening UK end of G1.
German BB takes the UK BB hit, so no, you don’t lose another fighter there.
You sink the UK fleet, covering Norway is NOT hard for remaining planes, you already have 3 infantry there.

Summary is, If you buy a sub bid and try to land in africa, you are doing something very wrong.

Am I a fan of fleet unification? NO , but if you do it, do it right. I would not even attempt it without the sub bid.

As far as a transport bid goes and landing in Africa, I add that transport to the German Fleet in the Med instead. I take BOTH AE and TJ G1.
That has many effects like:

• Forcing UK to lose it’s bomber if it tries to retake AE with one less infantry. They can’t land it in TJ anymore and that Infantry is gone.
• opening the canal G1, which means UK either concede it or retake TJ, which weakens India.
• Forcing Russia to commit a minimum of forces in Caucasus to prevent amphibious assault.

I do like that Japan transport bid idea too but myself would prolly place it in range of India/Australia for a J1 take.

I would not play axis and even less attempt Fleet Unification under 8 ipcs bid. :-P

If people wants to apply restrictions and feel they are needed, i feel free to let them play axis under such for an easy kill  :evil: One things for sure, preventing Fleet Unification under such is an easy and sure thing.

Standard game nowadays are 8 ipc bid for axis and I don’t mean offense by saying my exemple is a pretty common bid.

Well, your faster than i edited :P

I thought sea zone next to own territory was ok, anyways, if worst comes to worst, can still send both subs against USA destroyer and 2 transports. Probably will knock out the 2 transports and mess allies a bit.

Well, if only to see Russia try to take Norway, i’ll buy that sub and kill that Russian Karelia landed plane fast :P

But thanks, this points me the need to not group the 2 subs together in my bid but rather place the sub bid next to Western Europe ( if placing it next to own territory is allowed, i think so at least) still in range. At worst if Russia succeed in Norway, you send the initial sub against lone UK transport and bring back the sub bid to Baltic to reinforce it.

At that point i would only buy one more transport for baltic and start pounding Russia hard begining with Karelia fighter, swapping territories after that would cost them an arm and a leg and i prolly still have Ukraine which please me very much.

But eh, i grant you that you did prevent fleet unification if you were playing me ;) It’s just that the price you pay for it is kinda heavy.

You all describe Fleet Unification as if the only thing Germany would build is 16 ipc of ships on the first round. I find that utopic at most.

If you are gonna do fleet unification you make it worthwile. I’m repeating this, you sink UK BB, transport and red sub G1 with a sub bid…

You also buy 40 ipc of boats in Baltic fleet : + 1AC + 3 transport

Once you meet fleet G2, thats 1AC+2fgt, 1 BB, 5 transports, 2 subs, 1 destroyer. And thats one of the many combination of ships possible.

Under thoses conditions, fleet unification is worthwhile and since the only thing UK1 have left is a lone transport off the shore of eastern canada, i find it ill advised for UK to spend in boats or fighters/bombers while facing an imminent 5 transport drop right from turn 1 ( ya, the med transport is also in range when UK start turn 1).

I’d be really please to see UK build boats, fighters or bombers in thoses conditions. At that point as allies, you don’t ask yourself how i will counter that fleet but rather how i’ll prevent canadian shield while saving UK from amphibious invasion…

When i want to perform a German Fleet Unification, i use my bid for an extra sub in atlantic and sink the UK BB, transport and red sub right from the start ( 2 subs + Norway fighter+ bomber ).

You should consider that in your response, you’ll see it gets rapidly hectic for the allies without that battlegroup.

Low luck is great for the battle resolution itself but it leads to a major flaw on the main tactical map.

It’s way too easy to commit the minimum forces with about 0 risk. The game becomes mainly an IPC production contest in favor of the allies.

To make it worthwile, the system should leave the choice of dice system used in combat for each round for each opponent.

Agressive - dices
Defensive - low luck

This way, an attacker may want to conduct an low luck attack while the defender choose to go for dices. If the battle goes a second round, again each sides choose the mode in which he ‘‘rolls’’ the dices.

The result would be that you might be sure in low luck as an attacker to take out thoses 3 infantry but at least you won’t be sure on how many casualties you will take, thus forced to commit more troops than the ‘‘sure thing’’ one casualty, the defender obviously going with dices to try inflict more losses.

Until then, dices games are still more dynamic than the all too previsible low luck and NO risk.

If the fighter(s) is not taken out, the obvious choice is to land it in sinkiang to back up the usa IC. It can even allow for some swapping of china which can really stall the japan advance. You still can bring in the bomber for that but every bit helps.

Happened to me a couple of time when i was forcing Japan hand by landing a UK and Russian fighter in China while keeping a strong india with UK aviation in moscow and having Russia mass in Buratya, making sure to sink the japan transport on UK turn ( destroyer + fighter).

Sure japan can jump on the ocassion to kill 2 extra fighters but it means a lot of casualties and going in very heavy, leaving both manchuria and French indonesia wide open and maybe even not doing pearl habor. In all games i did that, even losing china and the fighters, it spelled a very weak Japan fighting to retake it’s coastland. Most of the time, Japan will not attack and will consolidate instead for round 2.

UK destroyer sinking your whole german mediteranee fleet, Battleship and 2 transport bid with africa corps onboard.  Also killing a fighter in support on top of it.