Posts made by Cornwallis

@crockett36 What you are trying to point out is that you try to achieve victory in the Pacific by not losing.
You keep the IJN busy in the area around Wake en Sz6 so they can’t boost their income and thus in the long run the Allies in the pacific will outproduce them.
Correct me if i’m wrong.

@crockett36 Haha cheers:p I have never used it though. Did you and with what succes?

@crockett36 Hi, I was thinking about the same thing:

36 IPC: ONE carrier + TWO fighters in offense: 2 dices on a 3 with the possibility to take a hit on the carrier (in the case you have a place for fighters to land

36 IPC: THREE cruisers in offense: 3 dices on 3.

==> on offense the cruisers fare better

On defense of course the carrier and fighters fare better but you have to be on your guard for landing space when the carriers take a hit.

And off course the cruisers provide the bombards as well.

Bottom line is i think there is potential for cruiser use.

@marshmallowofwar
Marsh, what do you do then on UK1 if i may ask?
And what do you buy?

@luftwaffles41
Hi! When you attack Russia G2 and go to Moscow via the southern route (Ukrain), the time you get to Moscow the flow of UK troops hasn’t really started yet i would think. And maybe a fall of India will divert UK’s attention to defending the Middle East?

@squirecam Losing a fighter to the BB has less far reaching consequences than losing your UK fleet and thus the Med.
Yes off course going for Taranto can be the best choice, but you have to be prepared for a failure. And in the case of 10% diced battle (loss) the game is practicly over before it even begun.

@squirecam My friends and i play OOB, so without the bid. it’s 85% i think but that means in 15% you’ll get diced which is not a whole lot and it should probably be done, but if possible battles like these should be avoided.

@taamvan

That is exactly what i mean. First priority is defending. An early and easy victory is very rare and can backfire easily.
That’s why on UK1 i built all in London, except 01 Mec in SA and “occupy” Persia. A factory on UK2 (depending of course on what Ger and Japan do) and slow/fast movers combo from SA. I keep my Indian fighters in India and built all inf with India, trying to buy as much time as i can. The role of UK is not to defeat Axis but delaying the defeat of Moscow/India so US can become large.

@taamvan The longer i play this game, the more i’m convinced that the allies have the most chance of winning when they’re not defeated.
Explaination: when allies try to make a push or get diced in an attack at sea or air , they are doomed. When they lose a key city like Egypt, Moscow or India too cheap, they are doomed.
Taranto is a 80 or 90% win for allies but when you get diced things will look grimm. That’s why as Allies you must avoid those kind of battles and force the Axis player to take those risky moves on you.
In that perspective UK should primarily focus on defense of those key locations, especcially in the early game.

@taamvan The problem with Gibastion is that sooner or later you still need to attack or deal with the italian fleet, in a kind of Taranto 2.0, and in the mean time you can’t focus on helping Russia bc you have to check and balance the Italian navy. There really is no good answer bc every strategy has its pro’s and con’s.
One thing is certain: UK1 built 95% -100% on London. Anything else is asking for troubles.

@marshmallowofwar Yes it is low, but that was a bare minimum.

@arthur-bomber-harris Yes i agree 100%.
I just wanted to verify that when you commit to Dark Sky, a capture of Moscow on G6 -G7 against a good Russian player is near impossible. Dark Skies favor a long game or even an aggressive Japan while Germany blocks of the Allies in every direction.

@arthur-bomber-harris When buying the bombers for Dark Sky, do you have enough money left to buy enough (offensive) units for the Eastern front? A turtling Russia can easily gather 50+ infantry.

@arthur-bomber-harris
Just for my own culture; when you’re talking about thé scripted axis play for Germany, then you’re talking about the big march into Russia? (when UK prevents a sea lion offcourse).

@taamvan So basically there is no perfect solution. Every option has advantages and downsides so it seems. imo the utmost priority is protecting london and so if Gibastion achieves that then that is the best short term option, even though this can have negative consequences for Egypt.

@wizmark i agree with you and very often aply that tactic. But almost every time i do this i have to do Taranto 2.0 sooner or later and have to overinvest in the Med with UK. Italy with two tpt can be unpredictable,especially with a german fleet buy or luftwaffe support.

@taamvan Yes it’s the least bad of two options so you have to do it. I have tried all other options and sooner or later i find myself confronted with a Taranto 2.0

@djensen hey! I’m still here. :-)

Our German player always goes for the UK cruiser in SZ91 so attacking the italian TT around Malta and going taranto really empties London. That is why i was looking for an alternative to Taranto but i find myself facing a taranto 2.0 in UK2 or UK3.

ttaxjinh taamvan said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@crockett36 Because I got shamefully sealioned as I’ve sealioned myself so many times before;

Germany buy 2 SB save 6
Kill SZ 91 CA first strking
Take Yugo outright no strafe
(play read; Stratbombing then SL)

1. Buy UK 1 8 inf 1 mech (mech went to SA)
   Do Taranto all in, Gib fighter to kill DD
   DD kills fighter Italy keeps 2 trans
   TT goes to africa with tank in anticipation of heading to Africa
   TT goes S empty
   Scotland fighter helps DD kill sub that lived in SZ 91 and is stuck in FWA

2. Germany gets ready to annhilate me and bombs me out without reply I repair 15 and buy 4 inf 1 fighter my chance of survivng the first round is like 10% and he has another wave ready as always…

G3 me = noob after so many games following a canned plan made by another noob

UK 3 noob = loses

UK has to do pat buys, it cannot do anything flexible, and it probably shouldnt send everything to Taranto, risking a backfire as the gentleman here was speaking about just this week as I was preparing.

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Australia first? Kind of?:

I get around a 94% odds in the Taranto battle if you go all-in. Usually the Axis chooses not to scramble and either takes out the UK fleet with the Italians on I1 or the Germans on G2. The biggest question will be how many Axis planes are lost in the battles, with outcomes ranging from 0 to 5.

If half of the German air force is lost in the first couple of rounds, the game shifts dramatically with Moscow not being in danger for a much longer time and the Allies able to land forces in W Europe way earlier. In the OOB rules in PBEM games, the Allies are at such a massive disadvantage that they need to pray for an early turn dicing to have any chance of winning. Avoiding major conflicts just ensures that Moscow will fall around G6, followed by an inevitable economic victory for the Axis if they choose one of the long-term strategies like Dark Skies.

Get in big battles early if you are playing Allies and don’t wait until you have overwhelming odds, since that will never come against a strong opponent. Sometimes you have to opt for battles with only a 25% chance of a favorable Allied outcome since that can be as good as it gets.

True, if you send everything it’s is 94%. Our Ger player usually attacks the cruiser in SZ91 so doing taranto and attacking the It transport and destroyer next to malta demands units that normally go to taranto, and thus it’s not 94% anymore. When UK goes all in that means London is vulnerable, even with the UK1 buy of 6Inf and a fighter. Do you then play to keep london or retake after sea lion?