Posts made by Cornwallis

@taamvan said in Australia first? Kind of?:

Did you bring all the pieces we listed? In my experience, if you are getting completely diced out its because some things didn’t come (occasionally this has been because of a bad setup missing units hurrying).

Either way, quitting from the results of one battle seems extreme. And like I said before, you can taranto AND save the CV but it requires more luck and order-of-casualties and so it just adds to the risk of a dice out.

With respect, I would never do the buy you describe. BB isn’t going to do much in the geometry of that area. Wasting UKPAC money on ships is suicide. The Japanese have so many planes its not going to matter what kind of fleet you have if his intention is to demolish India.

Yes even when you bring in two fighters from london. I’m talking about when Italy scrambles then you have 1 in 10 of losing the battle . In those scenario’s we also have been continuing the game, but it’s very clear that the allies have to make a huge effort to recover from that (nearly impossible). I am talking about games without a bid.

The idea of buying a BB is only an idea bc i’ve never tried it myself. But i saw Siredblood’s film on youtube and he proclames why not buying a carrier UK1 in Pacific. But never tried it before because of the reason you describe.

@taamvan said in Australia first? Kind of?:

The consensus here is that UK should either buy 6 infantry or 1 fighter, or 2 fighters and 1-2 men/arty. That’s still not enough stuff to stop Germany esp later on the the game so that’s just the obligatory 1st turn UK buy.

My friends would get pretty mad at me if I forfeited the game on turn 1. I can’t say I’ve never whined about getting diced or making a bad move, but I’d play out at least 4 turns just to make it fair to them. Think about good you feel when you get amazing luck and get to stomp on the competition–you should let them do that too even when the stomp-ee is you.

Once all their stuff is together and they have 2 transports, they have a variety of things they can do. Yes, that fleet is still vulnerable but now UK has to spend turns 2-4 being wary of Egypt and the MIddle East/Middle Earth zone being threatened. You can’t build in peace and consolidate your position. Really, the kicker is what I said originally–Italy is a gigantic liability to Germany if its weak and Germany has to divert planes and soliders to protect rome rather than having Rome as a helper. The US can easily take Rome with a 4-turn-build fleet and the German player would divert mobility units to SItaly (infantry are too slow to get there and Northern Italy’s stack is weak as well cutting off the lines of communication).

Once America is in SZ 91, the writing is on the wall for the Italian Fleet and Capital anyways, unless Germany does something about that. Its more about buying time with Italy, and getting that can opener ready so that Russia falls before Italy does.

It is precisely because of that (have to forfait a game that is screwed from UK1 up) that i was looking for alternatives for taranto. But the experience shows that either on UK2 or UK3 you still end up with a big (sea) battle against italian air and navy in a kind of taranto2.0. off course the rest of the board also looks a bit diffrent. Once again yes in 90% of the games taranto will work out, but in the 10% it doesn’t (dices can be cruel) it is almost a game over.

An argument pro Gibastion is the fact that sea lion becomes nearly impssible for germany (on the condition you keep your UK fleet and fighters intact until UK2.

An other plan i have ben playing with is to save the UK carrier in the red sea, and built a BB in south africa on UK2 and a carrier in india on UK1 (when no j1 DOW). Thus combining those two fleets you are almost equal in size as the japanese navy (2 BB and 2 carriers versus 2BB and 3 carriers).

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Beating J1:

I have seen an increasing number of top players focused on KGF with ANZAC turtling for much of the game. It truly is hard for Japan to capture Australia or Hawaii with just a little bit of USA assistance. Fighters are such a great unit since they provide so much protection on defense, can threaten fleets with a few sacrificial subs, and can strafe ground units. Never underestimate the strafe against Japan as ground units are so precious. Often I will sacrifice USA planes for Japan infantry. A 1:2 exchange can still be a strategic victory for the United States.

I think, when japan consolidates his navy and transports around Carolines on J1 (no DOW) then buying a tpt with anzac is not a good idea. Even when japan DOW on J2 or J3 while slowly building up around carolines, anzac might fall easier than you think. I always thought anzac was very to take in the early game, but buying to much fleet in the beginnin with japan around carolines opens the door to an early invasion.

@taamvan said in Australia first? Kind of?:

Not to quibble, but i think its 88%, and that assumes that they scramble, which is such a costly move I haven’t seen anyone do it in the last 5 or so games. I dont use calcs so thats just from memory about what ppl said here.

You only need 3 hits from 1 CV 1 CA 1 DD 3 FIG 1 SB 1 TB in that case. It does leave UK home vulnerable. Lots of people dont see that you can bring both fighters from London. Its especially bad when the germans dont sink the 91 cruiser cause that can go to the other dd battle

I’ve tried a bunch of other moves including the gib stack, and grouping up in the Red Sea, but at least in my xp I end up with a raging Rome no matter how I set that up.

True, if it works out in 88% (you are right its 88%) then yes, but that means you can forfait the game in 1 in 10 times. And doesn’t it open the doors for a sea lion, so what do you buy with UK the UK1?
Yes italy can rage but if they spread themselves to thin the first turn then you can beat them UK2 (experiences italian players are not that easy to bait and will stay hoovering around italy IT1).

@taamvan said in Australia first? Kind of?:

@Cornwallis After years of waffling, Taranto is a must do in the alignment of the OOB game. Italy is crippled 90% of the time you do it, which turns them into a liability for the Germans. When you dont do it, they RAGE. Dave suggested splitting the Adriatic into two sea zones to mix up the convoy/movement such that the bomber and the extra fighters cant come.

But, when you do that, the Allies just attack the other Italian navy and kill that instead.

So, to keep the CV, you have to dramatically increase the chance and costs of failing by not bringing it into the battle, though it would be committed to come if any 0 move planes survive, which makes the order of casualties much more fraught.

Probably a better approach is to hope that some of the planes survive to land on Crete, or Syria, then rebuild the carrier later. (As I mentioned, the BBR rules add Shipyards such that you can’t build CV or BB. This is a fun choice but it limits what you can do in this regard for both Johannesburg and Sydney). The UK cant really determine whether they live or not–but part of the Taranto Gambit is to force Italy to sack most of the rest of its forces in the counterattack.

So, to create the British Pacific Fleet Strategy we can onlyrely on having 2 DD, 1 CA, and 1-2 Fig 1 Tac to start. It only needs 1 CV–it cant stand up against an IJN force. What it really needs are transports, because the USA will have to defeat the IJN, the BPF fleet is mostly to keep Japan honest, augment the US effort, and shred the Japanese money/keep the Indian Ocean Rim safe.

If you do taranto UK has 80% chance of winning is it not? If they get diced (20% of the times) it’s game over. So yes i look for other alternatives like Siredblood has one or the Gibastion. Experience with that?

@taamvan said in Australia first? Kind of?:

Yep. In a KJF I buy them an extra US carrier or 2 to land on. Because of the Kamikaze Gambit (if you disable US carriers with the kamis the US planes may end up with nowhere to land) its always pretty good to have extra carrier capacity. Solid U1 move is to buy 3 carriers.

If Japan does not J1, and the BB survives, that often heads to Queensland 37 as well, though it can also join whatever ships are left over in the Red Sea, and/or you can buy a CV to round out that new fleet in South Africa (not in BBR though)

Dave has a really interesting strategy where he has the USA (all), the UK (1-2 planes, 1-2 ships) then ANZAC (couple subs, 1 CA 1 DD, planes, etc) all attack one after another. Since Japan goes early in the turn, even when the Japanese Fleet partially survives, the small allies swarm what’s left and finish it off. There are also plenty of ways to have the USA clear the way and the smaller allies pick off all the land territories. Or, you can have the small allies take a key zone like Java and build an airbase there for whoever to use (or vice versa)

I suppose the best plan though is to get the Z fighters to Java, then India, then Moscow…its not impossible for the allies to have 6-8 extra planes waiting to guard moscow until it loses archangel early on the game.

Yes i have been playing with the idea of expanding the UK pacific fleet with an extra carrier and save the one from the Medd (so no taranto).

@taamvan said in Australia first? Kind of?:

@Cornwallis my grammar may have been a bit confusing; we agree. The fighters depart, ANZAC is vulnerable, Japan steps up.

I usually leave at least a few USA units to lurk down there, along with at least 1 boat of USA troops. Actually taking Sydney requires the Japan fleet to move several turns out of position so its not a wise move when Japan is under pressure. Once Japan gets some serious money, they may be able to divert those ships and transports. And, its a 1 shot–they can’t usually shuttle more stuff in for a second round. That’s why its usually an attempt by Japan to end the game by attaining VC on the Pacific Board–Sydney battle is win or lose

So what do you usually do with Anzac. Our allied players turtle when US is going KGF, and when it’s a KJF then he starts annoying japan with a more offensive buy.

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Beating J1:

I have seen some ANZAC players focusing mainly on preventing capture of Sydney, freeing up USA to execute a KGF strategy. In an OOB game, the Allies will usually get completely overwhelmed in on-line games where players have more time to consider each move. However, you might have more of a chance in face-to-face games where simple blunders can mean losing a capitol far earlier than it should normally happen.

Do you think Anzac should turtle the first turns? If Japan gathers its navy and some transports around carolines the first turn, spreading out with anzacs is sending an invitation for an invasion.

@taamvan said in Australia first? Kind of?:

The main deal is to watch what he does. A typical ANZAC buy is TT and a inf, or a fighter. The best time to rush ANZAC is when the planes fly away, or he pulls his men over to SA or the Islands. If the USA is looking elsewhere and hasn’t stationed substantial units in Queensland (or counterstrike SZ 26), its not hard to overwhelm him.

A more cadgy ANZAC strategy saves money or builds a deeper stack for the long game. I’ve beaten dave before by slowly turtling Sydney and after he struck me with everything Japan could bring, he gave up because all or almost all of his land units were dead.

Its also a good reason to strike (axis) or hold (allies) malaya because that plays into an NO and its an LZ for fighters too.

If you send the Anzac Fighters to India, don’t you expose Anzac to a Japanese invasion? Yes turtling in the first turns as anzac is a must do, especially when japan pulls his fleet together around Carolines with some transports.

@Stough said in Australia first? Kind of?:

Assuming it’s J3 or J4, the money islands are secure, Malaysia is done, you’ve got the Chinese handled, or will in the next move. You’ve got IC’s in FIC and about to place in Malaysia. India is on their heels and in full turtle.

What happens if folks take, or start trying to take, Australia at this point? Pause on India and go for Australia.

Does anyone have experience with this?
(I read some posts from 2010, but it seems that no one ever really tried to do it)

Also, if your goal is to get the US out of the Atlantic this would seem to be the way to do it. They have no choice but to g all in to stop it.

First India (kicking a player out and it’s a NO). After that yes make your way to Sydney. From india to the West coast of Australia and so on to sydney. Depending on how well Anzac has been turtling this could take a while but with US occupied in Europe, you don’t have a major threat because your way out of range of Hawaii

@crockett36 said in old fashion classic strategy, could it be useful in G40?:

I was thinking of a simplified strategy for the US for noobs. First turn purchase: two transports and two tanks so that three tanks on 3 transports can hit Morocco asap. They are ready to roll through N Africa and into the ME. The shuck is simplicity itself. Three there, three back. Assuming a J1 DOW, one could penetrate into the ME and start rocking and rolling, turn 7? You could work your way up to four tanks, no infantry in no time. This would be a solid contribution to the Allied cause and leave plenty of room for the Pacific war. It obviously could be disrupted to send tanks of opportunity to all the usual spots at a moment’s notice at the cost of 39 ipc one way. You could send transports to scoop units on the way, threatening Italy. It might make a new player happy to be moving pieces and eventually contributing to important fights in the mid to late game.

On the other side, warships would be built up for three turns, watching the IPN go toward India. At that point, turn 3 or 4, begin shucking three tanks SFE. build six that turn so that that the back and forth can begin (SFE to Alaska to SFE again). Seems very straight forward. Fun.

Have you ever tried it chucking units by the SFE? And does it have succes or not?

@Luftwaffles41 Yes or by email? Where are you from btw?

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

Either 1 of 2 things will happen. America captures Berlin or the Soviets capture it.

turn 15 ?:p

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

I usually start with 4 lanes. 5 if I’m experiencing heavy resistance from the Germans and Italians.

do the games you win then end in a stalemate or do you capture berlin?

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

By Turn 2 I’ll build 2 transports and some more ships for the Atlantic and maybe 2 subs for the Pacific. And then turn 3 I buy 1 transport for the Atlantic and by turn 4 I’m ready to take 8 guys into Morocco and/or Gibraltar.

You upgrade that to a 5 transport chuck?

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

KGF. I’m not too concerned about Japan considering the idea that they are pretty much in the boxing ring beating the living s*** outta ANZAC and India and China. But the thing is they can’t leave that ring. Germany however is a wolf in a flock of sheep. Germany has the ability to win the game without fighting the Americans. 8 victory cities. Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, Cairo, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow. And they will do it at the cost of not even worrying about attacking London or Washington D.C.

Check. So the first 2-3 turns you buy 100% Atlantic?
And from what turn do you start building in Pacific?

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

You’re not wrong, with the U.S always for the most part gaining 70+ IPC’s it wouldn’t be a bad thing to lose it, however there’s always a catch to these sorts of things. If the U.S had unlimited time then hell build all the bombers you want and send em to Europe or the Med, but the Americans dont have a lot of time, and it especially doesn’t make it any better if they lollygag about when setting up the Floating Bridge. 6 turns it takes to get guys into France and set it all up, if they aren’t they by the latest of turn 8 then the Axis have won the game.

That’s true, it is a race against time. We thought sending the bombers asap will allow you to damage very early in the game, hopefully slowing the axis down.
You prefer KGF or KJF?

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

No, 60+ at the bottom of the Med is not something the Americans can afford to lose. If they lose it then its something they won’t be able to rebuild in time to stop the Axis powers

Throwing it away is not a good thing but if they can take a full loaded carrier or the italian navy with it, then why not. It’s like you said, Allies have the lead in IPC so losing more than you kill is not that bad.

Plus, the threat bombers pose is volatile:
in europe they can attack a fleet, or strat bomb. They can move very quickly to pacific to attack a portion of the japanse fleet or strat bomb the factories.
It also hides the intentions of going for germany or japan.
I must say i have never tried it, but my friends and i have been debating the pro’s and con’s of it.

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

@Cornwallis

I’ve found that the U.S tends to lose the majority of those bombers, especially when the Germans and italians are capable of scrambling. Very inefficient in my opinion.

they can for exemple kill the German fleet after a Sealion (as GHG states in his london calling). Or eventually attack a new italian fleet (after a taranto). if they buy 4 then US has 5 bombers, that can pack a well chosen punch. And if you lose them but wreck some damage then it’s is worth it i think. But they are indeed vulnerable to bad dice.

@Luftwaffles41 said in UK Strategy -"Middle Earth":

I mean, if that was the case Italy could still take Gibraltar so you could cross the Straight without the pentalty

yep that’s a good combo of both nations. If Ger and Italy focus on the Med it’s very hard for the UK without US help to hold out.

What is your experience with US buying for exemple 3 or 4 bombers US1 to a) use in Pacific or b) fly to england to destroy a small fleet or strat bomb?