Posts made by dondoolee

@Funcioneta:

@dondoolee:

Where are all your trannies at on T1?  Plus, If Japan wants to send a crap load of troops/material at Australia, great.  I should get a big enough look to where I can just pull the Americans out, as well as a couple British (with the Tranny).  The japanese player will have a lot of resources in an awkward area with a factory of marginal use to them.

At least 2, probably 3 (eind, bor, phi if not blocked by aussie trannie), plus tons of fighters. Any land units surviving the conquest of Australia can ferry to India or Africa, and the figs can go anywhere

I don’t like it. If I buy a IC is for using it a lot of turns. SAF is the only safe and usable place in early stages (unless you research improved idustry, but that’s another history), one of the signals of 1941 scenario being broken  :|

The way I am looking at this scenario:
If you attack the Phil the UK destroyer and transport off India survive the opening round, correct me if I am wrong there
Japan can send a max of 6 inf, 1 art, 2 fig, 1 BB bombard and 1 Cru bombard for a T2 attack on the Aussies.  I think that is the best realistic set up for Japan to Aus correct?

If that is the case:

1. that is why I said it may be better to try an IC as a T2 move, If Australia is that heavily gaurded with no IC is japan going to send the kitchen sink at it with only a 63%  (2 UK inf from India) chance of victory and possibly a decent America counter attack (2 inf/bomb/fig).

Even if it is a T1 IC I don’t know if it is worth it.  Keep in mind The UK could link the remaining troops in Jordan/India together and may have the UK bomber and maybe the EGY fig if it survived, leaving Japan weak down by India.  Even if you send 6 fig (one of will probably be shot down by AA) you have a very low chance of having more than 2 units left on Australia to defend, leaving America to take it back while Japan will lack a  decent counter to this.  All the while the mainland is sorley lacking any good ground pipeline as Japan is now low on resources.  Don’t get me wrong, Japan can recover because it’s Japan but still, it is not a good start for her.

2)The Aussie IC isn’t going stag.  It has support from other parts:

A) Some re enforcments of US Navy/Air (however much you wish to build).  This is the backbone of the Aussie defense, it can also open up a second theater later in the game and stretch Japan out even more.
B)A T1 7 Inf Russian Bury Stack.  They will probably retreat T2, but move them to Bury T1 to constrict Japans moves a little.
C) 2-4 Russian Inf in China T1 with maybe somewhat of a 1 inf per turn Russian pipeline comming in.  This can make China turn into a hemmorage if Japan goes weak on it
D) The linking up of Jordan troops with Indian Troops UK1 probably with the UK bomber and depending how lucky you are the EGY fig and armour.  This means if Japan wants to hold India T3 he has to really commit.

What the Allies do to Japan is relativly inexpesive and somewhat flexible.  The plan can still support a KGF strat while giving Japan a pretty darn good speed bump for a cheap cost.

@Emperor:

@dondoolee:

@Emperor:

Excellent posts gentlemen, prehaps there is some use for UK subs after all, I still remain skeptical.  I’m still curious, what is the UK doing elsewhere while plopping these subs in the water?  Have they abandoned Africa and the Far East?

Bourgeoisie Capitalist fighters on the soil of Mother Russia?!  Stalin would have a fit, not to mention it would cost them their NO. :-D

I still think a G1 naval build is a viable strategy.  The alternative is to lose the batltic fleet UK1 with no real cost to the allies.

I am enjoying this debate as well.
I usually try to avoid UK troops on USSR land (if NO’s are on).  Off the top of my head, I could just build 2/3 subs and sit on the rest of the money (or build a few ground troops) and prepare for a T3 attack on Europe/Afr, which is usually about the time the UK does anything for me anyway.  A factory build may also be an option.  Another radical option (I have no idea how well it would work) would be an Allied T1 all bomber build.  That may be enough bombers to wipe out both fleets and have some bombers left over to do dmg elsewhere.

But as far as more conservative play, I would try to find ways to just ignore the navy (I can still land in Afr/ W. Eur/ Nor) and make sure I had a navy that couldn’t be sunk.  If you built a navy, I could still get a navy started T1 by icceland w/o worrying about getting sunk.  Russia is going to get about two turns to really shore up her forces on Germany, which as an allied player I would find a good thing.

Here is really what is driving me wild though, I have seen people advocate A german carrier, a german tranny with an Italian carrier/fig build, and even some say an extra Italian tranny and an extra German destroyer.  I don’t think the UK has to worry too much about anything with a build like that as Russia can just mop the floor with both Italy and Germany simultaneously with an opening build like that, they may even have enough troops to speed bump Japan a little too.

Look at the map after G1, UK has only a TP, and DD left off the Coast of E. Canada.  There can be up to 3 Geman SS left in the atlantic.  Germany has just built a fleet in SZ5 (make up undetermined…as I have only advocated a G1 naval purchase, not a G1 CV purchase).  UK has two options, Kill the fleet UK2 or Ignore it.  Killing it means a huge investment for that purpose at the expense of all other options, or ignore it, which means it can be added to or not at Germany’s discretion.  In either case the allies have to react, and Germany’s baltic fleet isn’t going to davy jones locker UK1.

@ Mollinari: To be honest, in over 50% of the games before UK1 I lose every naval piece on the map other than the AUS Navy.  If the UK has any ship left other than that it is considerd a great luxury, and will turn into a giant pain in the butt for Germany (and on 1 occasion my destroyer in India survived and took out 2 fig for japan, that was an awsome day for the allies).  I am used to getting the worst set up in the world with the UK (I still struggle when germany takes Egy and has 2 tanks left over AND blows up all my navy).

Regardless, the allies always have to react to the Axis on the early turns.  I don’t see that neccasarily as a disadvantage.  What is worse is when the Axis do something and FORCE you to make a move.  For Example, If Italy and Germany forgoe a navy, Italy focuses on Tank production and creating a decent tank force, around T3 Russia is going to be Forced into only defending 2 out of 3 critical areas much of the time in fear of a double hit.  Also, it wont be able to leave any 1 man Inf guarding a critical area, as Italy can take it out, and Germany can storm in and hit the Critical territory.  That’s a great way to get Karelia (and if you’re really lucky the Cauc)

@Funcioneta:

It can work in Revised or 1942 scenario, but not in 1941 because japs start with 5 trannies, so it’s a no brainer stealing the aussie IC, even sending some USA’s figs to defense  :|

Where are all your trannies at on T1?  Plus, If Japan wants to send a crap load of troops/material at Australia, great.  I should get a big enough look to where I can just pull the Americans out, as well as a couple British (with the Tranny).  The japanese player will have a lot of resources in an awkward area with a factory of marginal use to them.

@DarthMaximus:

UK 1 - The set-up
Buy normal for the Atlantic, maybe some planes, but stack a fleet in Sz 30 with 1 inf/1 rt from Aus

From here, if Japan attacks the Sz 30 fleet, they are weakend for the US to go after them, if they let the fleet live in Sz 30 you can reinforce anyhwere from Afr to Ind and have a nice sized fleet or if US goes Pac then you can swing back around the south of Aus and meet up with the US at Sol almost instantly doubling your Pac fleet to make it a super fleet that is incredibly difficult to sink.

As for AA50, the UK starts out a little weaker (no AC) in the Pac but I’m still looking for good ways to set up my moves so I don’t have to commit to KGF or KJF until US 1 or even  UK 2 since the US can still do some pretty basic moves on US 1 that won’t give anything away (ie heavy air buy or split placement between Pac and Atl).

Darth Maximus: If you are trying to do strong opening moves and waiting to commit here is what I do T1:
R1 send 2-4 inf in china, for T1 ONLY stack 8 inf in Bury (pull them back after this)
UK1: move fleet from Australia to NZ, maybe start flying bomber down there.  Pull out of India, link troops up with troops from Jordan
US1: Link US navy up with UK navy in NZ, the destroyer/ tranny are 1 space away (assuming they survived), fly airplanes to AUS that can reach, maybe send 1 bomb.

R2:  maybe establish a 1 inf per turn pipeline to china, start bringing the Bury stack back.
UK/US T2 Move fleet to SZ 47 (where the US navy will follow) This threatens Indonesia, Japan will probably have to move her fleet there to defend it.  If you really want (as long as you plan on sending more US navy over) you can build an Aussie factory that will mostly be building inf/art and maybe the occasional sub/tranny/des, it may not build anything at all.  The UK can now threaten multiple theaters and still focus almost all of her time and money on Europe if it wants.  Even without the Factory and some US ships you have given Japan a little bit of a stall.

This is a great cheap way to have a start in both theaters without commiting IMO.

@Emperor:

Excellent posts gentlemen, prehaps there is some use for UK subs after all, I still remain skeptical.  I’m still curious, what is the UK doing elsewhere while plopping these subs in the water?  Have they abandoned Africa and the Far East?

Bourgeoisie Capitalist fighters on the soil of Mother Russia?!  Stalin would have a fit, not to mention it would cost them their NO. :-D

I still think a G1 naval build is a viable strategy.  The alternative is to lose the batltic fleet UK1 with no real cost to the allies.

I am enjoying this debate as well.
I usually try to avoid UK troops on USSR land (if NO’s are on).  Off the top of my head, I could just build 2/3 subs and sit on the rest of the money (or build a few ground troops) and prepare for a T3 attack on Europe/Afr, which is usually about the time the UK does anything for me anyway.  A factory build may also be an option.  Another radical option (I have no idea how well it would work) would be an Allied T1 all bomber build.  That may be enough bombers to wipe out both fleets and have some bombers left over to do dmg elsewhere.

But as far as more conservative play, I would try to find ways to just ignore the navy (I can still land in Afr/ W. Eur/ Nor) and make sure I had a navy that couldn’t be sunk.  If you built a navy, I could still get a navy started T1 by icceland w/o worrying about getting sunk.  Russia is going to get about two turns to really shore up her forces on Germany, which as an allied player I would find a good thing.

Here is really what is driving me wild though, I have seen people advocate A german carrier, a german tranny with an Italian carrier/fig build, and even some say an extra Italian tranny and an extra German destroyer.  I don’t think the UK has to worry too much about anything with a build like that as Russia can just mop the floor with both Italy and Germany simultaneously with an opening build like that, they may even have enough troops to speed bump Japan a little too.

2 submarines (12IPC’s) have a 52% chance of beating 2 trannies, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, and 2 airplanes.  That is 40IPC’s  that have an over 50% chance on being sunk (not counting fig, obviously) T2 for a 12 IPC purchase.  Even if UK builds a 3rd sub, no way would that build be a net gain for Germany.  I can’t see that as something I would welcome.

Besides, after that, the surviving subs can still be used as part of an attack against the Italian navy, or sent to the pacific or both.  While it may not be a great build for the UK the cost isn’t completley sunk after the initial use of the subs, it’s not like the western axis are going to have any destroyers roaming about (unless you want to build a carrier a tranny and a destroyer, which would be suicidal.)

I am not saying a submarine build is the worlds greatest build, it is only one way to deal with a German navy in an effective manner. Certainly underming Germany’s build (by building just 2/3 cheap subs)  and giving the allies an advantage off such a build is a welcome thing for the Allies in the early part of the game.  Besides, the mere fact that the UK can put a submarine to use is a very funny/ tempting notion.

So you could get the rootinist tootinist country that side of the miss’ip?

@Cmdr:

If you are lucky and Japan is not primed to take India round 2, an Indian IC can be a godsend.

If Germany did not hit Egypt, than an Egyptian IC is even better! (Italy has no chance, not with 4 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter, Bomber in Egypt at the end of England 1.)

I like one in Philippines as well, FIC isn’t half bad either.

France works well for the Allies too.

If your building in France, Phil, Man, or FIC doesn’t that mean the game is well in progress and your at stages you can’t really plan for at the begining of a game?  And if the UK happened to take France it is so darn close to it I would hesitate to build an IC there (unless making massive amounts of cash).

A Brazil factory seems pointless/ a liabilaty, A Norway factory for the UK seems redundant (unless they are making massive amts of cash) but may be OK for the US player.  Canada seems silly.

I have never been in a position to be able to consider an early IC build in Egy or India.  If one insists on an early factory build I would say SAF is easily the most defendable option, but the better option if it can be done would be a T2 Aussie buy

Maybe as a joke move, if you get an Italian player who insits on waiting a turn then buying a carrier (which I consider a waste of time) on UK1 you could just do an all sub purchass, then send them towards the Italians.  If you can sink the Italian fleet all you have to do is leave a sub or 2 in it’s waters and it can never build navy again.  I don’t know if that is the best thing one can do, but it’s kind of funny.

Just curious for all you SAF fans, on the rare occasion if I build the factory T1 for UK, I usually sit on the rest of my money, so on UK 2 I can put up a navy that will survive (assuming germany didn’t build a navy) anyone else do this?

Another note on the T2 aussie factory, you at max are only going to be spending 8 ipc’s a turn (for the very if at all built destroyer) but usually only 3 - 7 IPC’s a turn (Inf, Art, and maybe the rare sub or tranny) and there are some turns in which you may be able to completley forgo a build there at all, which is a good thing.

latley I have found the 10 inf build a viable option (maybe not optimal).  If Russia sends a significant portion of her units for Eastern theater speed bumps (China, Persia, Bury, etc) than a 10 inf build against Germany seems like one of the more sound options on the table, in order to make up for lost manpower sent towards Japan.  Though this option can put Russia on the defensive pretty quickly, which may not inherently be an awful thing.

@bugoo:

Actually as the UK my typical buys to sink german boats are fighters, subs, and destroyers in that order.  Also, i followup with a heavy russian offensive (easy to do since G reinforcements will be so far away).

The problem is if you buy a german AC it does nothing but defend your boats from aircraft.  A simple UK purchase of 1-3 subs forces you to buy destroyers to protect your expensive fleet or watch it get toasted.  Even if you buy more boats on G2 the UK air+boats can usually smash it on turn 2.

If you buy normal boats (dds/bbs) then you dont get the defensive boost from your fighters and it is even more expensive.

My prefered Uk buy on turn 1 vs german boats is 2 subs + 3 figs.  Giving me a total punch of 23 and 8 hits against your fleet and I can still drop a nice navy on turn 2 with carriers.  Or i could go typical and grab 3 bombs and a tranny allowing me to smash italy’s fleet on UK2 if you reinforce your german fleet. (sending 2 inf into persia on R1 to ensure I can grab Trans-Jordan on R2 for an LZ.)

I hate to say it but germany doesn’t have the money or time on G1 to play around.  You need reinforcements against russia.

Now one thing I have played around with for german boats is an IC in france then seeding Italy’s fleet.  Often this allows me to place a carrier and some DDs in SZ 7 rallying with Italy’s fleet around turn 4 to protect france and then empty it of fighting men to push back the russians.  Not saying its a good idea (i need to experiment with it more) but it did seem to work well the couple of times i tried it.

hell, if germany purchased 1 fully loaded carrier, all you would need is 3 subs why put planes at risk?  that is britain spending 18 of 43 ipc’s to great rid of a very mild 26 IPC (46 if you count the airplanes that would do nothing) threat.  Just one more reason not to go navy on early german turns.  Great post bugoo.

@Lynxes:

/kevlar56

Of the strategic principles you wrote about the classical one has some real advantages for A&A, due to the element of chance. If you play a conservative strategy you will be able to outweigh the element of chance more and you will be less surprised by bad rolls. Some examples:

1. Always build a few more low-cost units for losses than you might need for an optimum attack (land: infantry+artillery, naval: destroyers+subs). Then you can afford a bad roll here and there, and not be forced to sacrifice expensive units.
2. If you’re not sure about your opponent strategies, play in order to implement a strategy that will hurt your opponent no matter what he will do. As the axis, a steady, heavy advance towards Moscow, as the allies, a twopronged invasion shuck at France by UK from Britain and by US from East Canada. Just like in chess, if you control the center of the board (in AA50 France or Caucasus) you will control the events of the board.
3. Try to defend in a way that you’re not forced into a purely defensive stance, so that if your enemy changes his attack you will be able to counter-attack. For example, if you defend the West coast as US, if you only do it with land units you won’t be near as flexible as if you had a naval force for defence. As Russia, those few art’s and arm’s mixed in with your inf will be really good to have in order to make a counterattack here and there and deny your opponent the chance to do a simple calculation of when to make the decisive attack.

this is very close to how I usually try to play, except I am usually tempted into buying 1 to 2 fighters for Russia in order to save on losses of higher cost attacking units, and flexability for russian counter atacks

I think all the units, and particularly naval units have been handled very well in AA50.  I don’t think they can add anymore units or do much better with design for this type of game.

For me it is more about economical purchases and the flexability of a purchass.  For example, as you are part of the G1 naval build discussion a fighter for a 10 prodution a turn germany is a sound purchas due to the flexability of the unit.  Somewhat conservative and flexible buys.  In AAR a transport was an AWSOME unit because it supplied troop movement plus defense allowing for a flexible strat on a G1 naval build.  Also knowing that ultimatly things boil down to ground units due to the nature of the game, that can never be lost sight of I think. That is the stuff I look for, as a very basic, top of my head sum up.  I prefer knowing game concepts and economics over set in stone first moves, I do think though there are uneconomical moves that can be made and those are what I seek to eliminate from my flawed gameplay.  I’ll add more to the discussion later, but I’m in a bit of a rush

@kevlar56:

Thanks all for the karma, I feel kinda like I’ve come home!  :-D  Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear on my second point, which is enticing the UK into desperately spending money to smash a German naval build.  The UK economy is based on territories spread all over the map and unless they want to see their IPC income shrink by 1/2 (or more!) they have to have both money to spend and troops in the right places to defend those territories.  To MY thinking (and this is just IMHO), if the UK spends enough to eliminate a Ger. Baltic Fleet it won’t have enough money to build and defend an IC in Ind. or SA and I believe at least one of those is a necessity unless the UK player is willing to be reduced to a minor power by turn 4 or 5. The corollary to that is that Japan (and possibly Italy) will be pulling in big bucks and able to dominate the eastern hemisphere/africa so much that they will dictate the strategic events of the endgame.  A Ger. CV build increases the strategic threat the UK has to face.  The opening for the Allies is a tightrope and the more decisions you force them to make, the greater the decision tree and the greater likelihood that errors will be made. 
Sorry for being so long-winded, but after reading so many threads about KGF’s and ‘unbeatable’ strategies, I’m just trying to bring things down to earth and present pragmatic ideas as to why a Ger. CV build, while perhaps not an “optimal” choice, is still a viable one and worthy of consideration as a strategic option for the German player.
Best regards,
Kevin

I see the point clearly now, and while I still disagree I am going to play test it a few times Sunday it seems interesting in theory.  At least it is a strat that defends germany, pressures russia (due to the primary purpose being transport protection/shuttling 4 troops to a valuable front), and can make the UK think twice about a strat. 
Question though, is there such a thing as a UK “over commiting” to defend her seas?  I mean they can build too many capital ships which is bad, but other than that I don’t think there is such a thing as over commiting in that specific aspect of the war.  If the UK is absolutly forced into one theater, that’s going to be it right there.

@Emperor:

What the navy can do that air support can’t is protect transports in SZ5 so you can easliy ship units, especially infantry\artillery from Germany to Karelia in 1 move.  That’s the point Kevlar was making, and why I like a G1 naval build.  +1 Kevlar.

I see what he is saying, and it is the best defense I have heard so far.  I still don’t think it is an optimal build though.  22 IPC’s on non aggressive units on T1 that I am guessing could be dead by T2, if the Allies find it neccasary to destroy and Italy can still be destroyed by T3 If the allies want.  So you shuttle out 2 extra units with a transport and lose a navy T2, while delaying the UK for 1 turn, and maybe the US for 1 turn on ship builds.  Is that worth it?

Another question to ask yourself, can the UK just ignore this navy?  All the UK needs is a fleet you can’t sink.  It can still kind of ignore an admittidly annoying navy while still funneling troops to Scandinavia and Western Europe, if it has a navy you can’t sink.  Is that money really best spent to funnel 2 extra units to russia?

Also, you could have built 2 fighters or a bomber and a fighter to help minimize the casualties when attacking karelia, and then land them there for defense, if you can hold it for a turn.

There may very well be opportunities later in the game to build a navy, but T1 just seems like a gambit and a half

@Emperor:

No doubt the SAF IC is the most viable, but I’ve had some success with an Egyptian IC if Germany doesn’t attack Egypt G1.  It has the advantage of keeping UK’s NO a little longer (it requires the loss of Australia to permantely deprive UK of the NO), it deprives Italy of their NO or at least makes it dicey, and blocks Italy from gaining Africa IPC and preserving them for UK.

Obviously Monty’s 8th Army can’t hold it alone against a determined German\Italian\Japanese assault, but that assault diverts forces from elsewhere, and the few rounds it can hold on gives the US time to mount Operation Torch.

To this date, I have yet to have the opportunity to even hold egypt by UK2.  You’re right Monty can’t go alone in Africa.  THat is part of the reason why of all options that a T2 Aussie factory is so tempting.  It is combined with the American navy/ air force plus it threatens pacific Islands/India/Japanese mainland/ sort of Japan/ and even Africa.  All this at a small expense to the UK as it will be mostly be building Inf or Art I am guessing (it may be a good idea to fly the UK bomber down there for a little extra offense) as Americaq is going to be supplying the bulk of the defense.  It also puts the UK in a good NO position helping the UK/US while potentially (though not likely) hurting Japan).  All this can go on while the UK uses the vast majority of her resources on the Western axis, good stuff I think.

@HannibalSW:

A German fleet could alleviate pressure from the Italian fleet.  If you are the allies which fleet do you want to sink first?  The Germans fleet because it cost them units on the ground? Or the Italian fleet because they can not readily replace lost boats as fast?  If the U.S. feels pressured to help the U.K. then Japan might feel free to help itself to the entire Pacific.

Could someone give Kevlar +1 karma for me, I’d like to thank him for helping to keep me awake at work with all this thinking!

But the fleet fails to do it anywhere near as effectivly as air support or if you insist, the occasional well built sub.  This compounds itself even more if we are talking about a G1 build.  Air gives you much better flexibility/ better economical purchasing than anything a navy can accomplish for Germany.  If you want to spend your time threatining the UK with boats and maybe even over commit to Africa, while Russia has a field day with you go right ahead.

On top that, Japan can spare a carrier to the Med by T3 if you really want it there, AND send a fighter/bomber pipeline to the West if you really want to.

The UK has nothing better to do than defend it’s waters, that is its primary objective, never forget that.  The game is built so the UK can and must defend its waters with success (meaning the UK can always successfully defend her waters and that will be a net benefit for the allies, not a waste of money/time/resources), so why plan on building a navy?  If the UK was built to be neuterd by Germany while Germany could succefully hold off/kill Russia what the hell is the point of having the UK in the game for, massive bomber builds?  It is almost the equivlant of a plan for the Allies to allow Russia to go toe to toe with Germany with the hopes of winning.  I guess it could happen with poor axis play, but it just isn’t that great a plan.

I don’t know if a UK IC is the way to go for a standard strat but I have had moderate success with a T1 SAF factory, and even better success w/ a T2 Aussie factory.  I think those are really the only two viable places to put an IC.  The SAF factory seems self evident as to why that would go there so I won’t go into detail.

The T2 Aussie factory though I usually do something along these lines.  On R1 move russian inf into china, move an 8 inf stack in bury (usually only for 1 turn), UK1: buy fleet to protect the antlantic.  Move aussie navy to NZ.  US T1 move american fleet to NZ, move planes towrd carriers or on Aus.  This can only work if the US is building at least something in the pacific occasionally.

The point of the factory is to build inf units to ship to Afr/India/the pacific Islands.  It has to follow the American fleet.  The factory can occasionally build a sub/tranny/dest, but it’s focus is inf.  This allows the US to build only capital ships/fighters in the pacific.  It allows the UK to contest a wide area, while still focusing almost exclusivly on Germany/It, alows the us a few transport builds for Afr/Europe, and gives Japan at least something to worry about.  The good thing is if Japan takes it, the IC is of marginal use to them.

Like I said, I am skeptical of UK IC’s but those are the only two useful builds I have been able to find.