Posts made by dondoolee

@Lynxes:

I can’t see a quick strike at France succeeding if Axis plays well, builds an extra IC as Germany and then uses both Italian and German inf to make landing very expensive indeed. If UK looses Africa they will be down to the low 20s in IPCs and won’t be very threatening. The SAF IC can be used against Japan in the later game, channelling tanks through the Middle East and relieving pressure on Caucasus.

As for invasions of northern Europe, they are important and that’s why I think USA should take the main responsibility for destroying the Italian fleet. Typically you land in Norway on UK2 and then somewhere on the continent on UK3, and that pretty much is what you can do early on. After the first US buy oriented towards Africa, they can start building up for the ECA/FRA shuck and maybe some Pacific builds. Those bombers in Africa of course transfer back to Europe after doing their job! It’s not an all-out anti-African campaign that I’m advocating, it’s just that in a long game IPC-balance is vital and Africa tips the scales.

The UK owning France= All of UK Africa + being in an already relevent position.  There is also a good chance you will own Norway/Finland.  Plus there is a good chance of being able to trade Poland and/or NW Europe.  These territories put the UK at around 25-28 IPC’s per Turn, that’s not bad.  Plus you are in a much more relevant position.

I would think Germany building an IC on France T1 would cost it dearly.  Now the UK/US would have free SBRs and could potentially do  32 IPC worth of bombing damage (counting Germany/Franc.  44 with Italy).  More importantly Germany moves before UK, if Germany builds a T1 IC the UK can always adjust its strat at this point.  Also Germany just spent 1/2 of her income on a non attacking/non defending piece in the far reaches of the Western Front.  I would think Russia could make Germany pay dearly for this.  If Italy is planning on buying a navy, that would mean that Germany/Italy probably only bought, at most, 24 IPC worth of ground units on Europe T1 which is less than what Russia alone is going to put on the board.

Also I don’t say abandon Africa completley, once in awhile send the US down there with an occasional transport to keep Italy occupied and MAYBE even a few Russians via Persia/the Caucauss.

I just see the UK factory hurting the UK on building a decent Navy on time from the Germans. To me an unsinkable Allied fleet is priority #1, without it the Allies are worthless. Many times the UK won’t be in a position to make a drop in Europe untill UK3, why should I make that more difficult on myself by putting an IC in SAF.  \I say this assuming the UK has to spend all of UK1 buying capital ships just not to get sunk/be a non worthless player, and AT MOST will have only 1 Transport (though may not have any transports at all by the end of UK1, because all IPC’s had to be invested in capital ships)

By the way, is it just me, or on TripleA do the Italian AA’s seem hit on an extrodinarily high ratio when the Allies are SBRing Italy?

That seems like it would seriously hamper the allies in Europe, I fear Russia would be in too much trouble.  The other problem I would see is the potential to have Japan start hitting Africa fairly hard if the Axis player became familiar with that strat.  Use a delay w/ Italy, then follow up with Japan.  Also of note the Japanese Carrier can get re enforce Italy T3 and maybe even a few surviving German subs.

Clearing the Med seems to be a living logistical Hell for the Allies.  Latley, I have been more concerned with just a US fleet that Italy can’t sink/ is resticted a little (due to US bomber pressure).  Getting money and pressure on Europe seems far more profitable than worrying about wasting valuable turns/time in Africa sometimes. If the Axis want they can make the Med a living nightmare, on top of that taking Italy itself can sometimes be of no use as it is too difficult to trade most of the time due to the location.

I think the Allies should just worry about France 1st and foremost (easier to hit and hold PLUS you get an NO for US and UK), have America send in a very few “suicide trannies” w/armour into Africa to disrupt the Italians a bit.  But for the most part threaten France w/ a united fleet, be in a position to double hit Germany to keep German supply lines to Russia severly ltd, and hit Poland/NW Europe/Karelia at will. Another benefit to this is if the Italians usually build a fleet (particularly a defensive carrier) they have essentially just wasted money and time.

This game is still about relieving Russia as quickly as possible and trying to prevent Japan from getting uncontrolably big.  A large Allied commitment to Africa does not seem like the way to acomplish this goal.

@Cmdr:

I think super submarines is the most stupid technology, not the most useless.  I mean common, 5 IPC units that attack as good as a 12 IPC cruiser? (Imp Ships + Super Subs.)  If that wasn’t good enough for you, they also get to sneak shot!  No, that’s a bit too powerful.

I usually recommend swapping Super Submarines out for Super Destroyers.  Your destroyers may now attack at 3 and may shore bombard (if you have the technology) at 3.  That’s a bit more realistic.  Now you have an 8 IPC unit attacking like a 12 IPC unit, not a 5/6 IPC unit attacking as well as a 12 IPC unit and sinking the enemy before they can return fire.

I don’t see how that’s stupid.  In a way that is one of the few techs that may really end up paying off.  Even so, they are submarines, which means they are not really acting like a better cruiser.  They have no bombard, defend at 1, and can’t hit airplanes.  I don’t know if I would value a super sub at 12IPC’s.  Or at the very least, they are still a gimmicky unit that can’t be built as arbitrarily as a cruiser.

Rockets/heavy bombers/paratroopers/increased factory production all yield a better IPC output than supersubs ever will.  Add to the fact that they aren’t as gimmicky makes their value to tech ratio far superior to the super sub.  If you are saying the super sub is stupid because it is underpriced, I don’t think the math adds up vs the techs I mentioned, even assuming super subs are worth 12.

@ksmckay:

@dondoolee:

I don’t get the hate for Adv Artillary…

With advanced artillery it allows you to save ~1 ipc out of every 21 you spend on arty and inf.  For numbers sake lets say w/o you attacked with 15 arty and 15 inf which would cost you 105 ipc  with advanced arty now you need 10 arty and 20 ipc for a measly savings of 5 bucks.  Considering you most likely spent more than 5 bucks to get it and you didnt get one of the other techs it really sucks.

Yeah, I don’t know where my head was at, it would most likely take too much to make that tech pay off.  I will still defend adv art for UK/US as better than mech inf, assuming you are more concerned with landing troops than sending troops over large areas of land, on top of that it is going to force you to spend 24 IPC’s for 3 tranny loads with mech inf vs 20 IPC’s for 3 tranny loads with adv art.  The only time I see mech if of marginal use for UK/US is in Africa, and that is only if you can’t clear out the Italian fleet (otherwise the transports move at the same speed as the mech inf anyway).

Got to love IP.

I don’t get the hate for Adv Artillary.  For the US/UK it is a wonderful money saver and probably more useful than mech inf in the long haul being that the majority of your land forces are just being used for amphibious assaults.  For Russia it is probably more useful than long range airplanes It is good for any allied power, but kind of worthless for any Axis power.

I would also say that Germany could probably use super subs liberaly to put decent pressure on allied shipping.  You have something that attacks way better than a fighter and ignores enemy airplanes so it can get to the transport ships quickly all while being 4 IPC’s cheaper.  I’m not saying it’s a game breaking tech for Germany, but still I can see the use.  Really I would rather have super subs with Germany or Italy than Japan.

Also the UK starts off with 3 AA’s, that alone makes radar not worthless for the UK.  2 US fighters on Australia, and a stiff defense in Persia and all the sudden you may stall Japan for an extra turn or two  more than you would have normally.  Also, I am used to the German bomber(s) being on france to put pressure on allied shipping, when they aren’t being used for an attack I am used to seeing the UK get bombed; radar would end that. Once again, not game breaking, but hardly worthless for the UK.

As for warbonds, i don’t see how extra cash to spend could ever be considerd a bad thing.  This is the most flexible tech out there.  That being said if you spent 30+ IPC’s to get it, I could see how it wouldn’t pay off.

Also whoever said paratroopers were underated: anyone who finds it a useless tech/ non game changing concept ought to re evaluate this tech.  Paratroopers can make everywhere in the world (except europe) your personal playground, this can change the entire landscape and strat of everyone once this tech is recieved by any power.  I do think it benefits Russia the least, simply for the fact that Russia would have to buy a bomber it may not be able to afford.

This is all situational, and certainly varies on avg from country to country.

On Avg (for 41 w/ NO’s):

Ger: Improved shipyards. Unless you get Improved shipyards on T1 I see little value for it.

USSR:  Supersubs/improved shipyards.  If I had to chose the better tech, improved shipyards at least gives you a little more flexability

Japan: Adv Art/Rockets/Radar.  They are in too remote a location for any of these techs to be amazing.

UK: Supersubs/Mech Inf.  The only techs the UK can’t utilize that will be a major boon in most of my games.  If I had to pick though Supersubs is worse on avg, particularly if I have a factory in SAF for the UK.

Italy:  Adv Art.  Italy’s 1 transport ship kind of hurts this tech, but still a fairly nifty tech for the Italians.

US: Rockets, Inc Fact Prod, Mech Inf, Radar:  All of these techs can be of marginal use to the US due to the location and nature of the US.  The worst though would probably have to be radar though.

On avg  I am of the opinion that the overall worst tech would probably be supersubs:  they have no use for Russia, little use for the UK, and mediocre use for US, Ger, Japan.  Italy however could have some fun with them.

@Pin:

thing is you will never win a game vs a decent opponent with a India IC in AA40 unless there was wacky dices somewhere. Its just not possible in this game. Ofc there is several instances where dices will make it profitable and maybe optimal to place an IC there, but thats not the issue if Germany not attack Egypt T1(they still have to shuffle units to africa though). A horrible failed Egypt T1 attack by germany might be a situation where it will be profitable, or even more so if japanese fails z35 turn1.

Thats whats so dynamic about this game, there is no standard response that will allways work for the allies, they have to adopt to where the dices was whacky turn one by the axis attacks, or respond to a conservative T1 by the axis.

I agree completly, I thought we were talking about a completly botched attempt at Egypt though (which while uncommon is still a big enough probablity to consider and adjust for).  Things that I think are very clear to recognize about an Indian IC/ or attacking India in general regardless: 1) Japan can take India T2, no matter what (disregarding preposterous game breaking luck) 2)Japan can quickly run into a supply/re-enforcment problem with India if the British can make a decent counter attack on it.  Japan has to be very cautious with India if Britain has grouped all it’s units in Persia (with maybe a little USSR help and the UK bomber) and Japan can’t wipe the British out T2.  To me this is a very key, and somewhat luck driven (due to what happens in Egypt/maybe how lucky the USSR was in T1) part of the game.

Yes if you build an IC in India T1-T3 for the UK in 90% of the games it is a game breakingly bad move; but there is certainly a time and place to consider one that people should note that ,while uncommon, isn’t so crazy rare that it is a virtual impossability.

@Pin:

@Lynxes:

/Pin

Not attacking EGY G1 is an Indian IC waiting to happen. UK gets at least 1 arm+1fig to India, and if the Russians send 4 inf and UK transfers 2 figs from Europe you could end up with as much as 7 inf, 1 art, 4 arm, 3 figs in India turn 3… Most assumptions on an Indian IC not being viable are based on a German attack on Egypt and I certainly think it looks different otherwise.

"Edit, you wont get the armor to India, it will only get to Persia round 1, so for a Round 2 attack by japan setup correctly you will have:

4inf (2from sum 2from brn), 2inf 1art (what remains from Burma attack, if you loose 1inf in the attack thats 1inf 1art), 3fgters from FIC, 2fgters from z37 (those 2 attacked dd in z35 so 1 might be dead)

this leaves us with an attakcking force on India with at least: 5inf 1art 4fgters, with good possiblitiy for another inf and fgter.

This is up against 7inf 1art 1fgter unless Russia reinforce MORE then 4inf.

Again, the Burma attack i will only do if Russia moves those infs and “fake” and IC build. This cost me the attack on Fuk and Kwa, but makes Hupeh more likely to succeed. Alternativly i will still do Kwa and just attack burma with 1inf 1art and hope thats enough."

–-----

If i see 4 russian inf move towards india T1, i setup a IC in FIC turn 1, and also make my moves so i have enough firepower to take India turn 2 if needed, turn 3 latest, without anyway for UK or russia to prevent it unless russia sends armors there turn 2 aswell. If they do that GG, Germany will win the war for the axis. The UK IC means less money spent to land units in Europe, and even though japan doesnt take it, it only means UK will keep building units every turn in India to make sure he holds it, will never be able to utilize those troops.

Unless you go a risky opening turn 1 with both Ger and Jap and fails an UK IC anywhere (might be a  slight exception with Saf) is a total failure and will most likely cost the allies the game if they use resources to keep it. As this means not enough pressure on Germany from the west, and germany can use all its force to crush Russia (russia can never withstand Germany all alone, she needs at least a decent threath on the other front to make her hold her ground)

Right an India IC is kind of a T3 buy for me if I decide on it with the UK.  It really hurts Japan though as It can not take and hold India T1 or 2 if the armor and fighter survive (especially compounded if the UK has a bomber down there).  It becomes very difficult to get enough pressure down there quickly.  Japan has to be careful with India.  You can risk buying it on T1, but you ought to know it will not come into use untill T3, as Japan can take it at will on T2.

@Octopus:

Ah, and the India IC means Japanese IC’s on East Indies and Borneo.  Which also means Japan doesn’t have to spend for one on India.

Which also means for England to support the India IC, Germany gets a free ride all the way to Moscow.

I personally welcome the India IC, but that is just me.

I would imagine somewhat of a US pacific naval presence mixed with the UK bomber and maybe an American bomber could make this a non optimal position for Japan.  In theory the UK should be making an adequate amount for a 2 front war, meaning they are putting up a worthwhile delay of Japan (otherwise the IC is worthless) as well as the US being able to hold 2 fronts.

Even if this isn’t the case I feel the attack on Egypt is a must.  If you can clear it, there is a great chance Japan can clear all the UK units in central Asia T2, no matter what the UK does (unless Russia makes a heavy commitment in Persia), this can put a thorn in the allies that is extremly difficult to recover from most times.

@Veqryn:

@bugoo:

Actually the odds are better than 58, that is without the bomber at egypt.

Kar - G: 3 inf, 1 art, 3 fig, 1 cruiser bombard vs R: 5 inf, 1 art, 1 AA gun = 78% odds typically 3 units left
Egypt - G: 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm vs B: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig = 90% odds typically 3 units left
SZ 2 - G: 2 sub, 1 fig vs B: 1 BB = 83% odds typically 1 unit left
Baltic - G: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm vs R: 3 inf = 95% typically 3 units left
Poland - G: 2 inf, 4 arm vs R: 2 inf = 98% odds typically 5 units left
Ukraine - G: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm vs R: 2 inf = 98% odds typically 3 units left

Now those are pretty good odds, but with the small number of units anything can happen.  Baltic/Poland/Ukraine if you loose you were gonna loose anyway, and it still sets up the can opener for G2.  Provided you do not get diced hard in any of the fights, you should win, esp when your collecting 50+ IPC to spend on G2.  And of course, J1 can get dicey too, I’ve seen the pearl fight go south before, or the DD at india destroy 2 figs, etc.  Typically if J looses 2 figs on J1 and the DD at pearl your alright as allies, if they loose no figs, or keep the DD, it can get ugly real fast.  Same with the 3 inf vs 1 inf fights if they take that route in china.  Playing with dice though, I see no reason not to play to win on turn 1 with axis, the odds are in your favor.  Also, even when the dice do bite you, many allied players get too aggressive in there counter attacks on turn 1 making it hard for them to hit in force in the mid game.

Actually the odds are worse.  Although each of your 5 battles has very good odds individually, the odds of you winning ALL 5 of those battles is just 53% (multiply all your odds together as decimals).  And i do not know how you got those odd for Egypt, because 5 germany units vs 5 uk units = 41% win, not 90%

For a few other kinds of openings:

My Heavy without Karelia:
Seazone 2 (1sub,1bomb,1ftr): 95%
Seazone 6 (1sub, 1ftr): 92%
Seazone 12 (1sub, 2ftr): 86%
Baltic States (1bombard, 5inf, 2art, 1tank): 100%
East Poland (1inf, 3tank): 98%
Ukraine (2inf, 1art, 2tank): 99%
Egypt (2inf, 1art, 2tank): 34% win + 7% no uk left = 41% (this attack is optional)
Chance of winning all without doing Egypt: 72% (<- a strong opening without NOs)
Chance of winning all with Egypt: 30%

My Risky with Egypt, without Karelia:
Seazone 2 (2sub,1ftr): 83%
Seazone 6 (1sub, 1ftr): 92%
Seazone 12 (2ftr): 50% win + 15% no enemy left = 65% (optional attack)
Baltic States (1bombard, 5inf, 2art, 1tank): 100%
East Poland (1inf, 3tank): 98%
Ukraine (2inf, 1art, 2tank): 99%
Egypt (2inf, 1art, 2tank, 1bomber): 75% win + 5% no uk left = 80%
Chance of winning all without doing sz12: 59% (<- a strong opening with NOs)
Chance of winning all with sz12: 38%

Super Risky with Egypt and Karelia:
Seazone 2 (2sub,1ftr): 83%
Seazone 6 (1sub): 40% win + 20% no units left = 60%
Karelia (1bombard, 3inf, 1art, 3ftrs) = 78% chance (50% chance you will lose 1 ftr, 5.56% chance you will lose 2, 0.5% chance you will lose 3.  [55.1% chance you will lose at least 1 ftr], if you lose zero you have 89% chance winning, lose 1 ftr you have 68% chance winning, lose 2 ftr you have 35% chance)
Baltic States (4inf, 1art, 1tank): 98%
East Poland (1inf, 4tank): 99%
Ukraine (2inf, 1art, 1tank): 97%
Egypt (2inf, 1art, 2tank, 1bomber): 75% win + 5% no uk left = 80%
Chance of winning all without doing sz6: 49%
Chance of winning all with sz6: 29%

IL’s Not Risky without Karelia and Abandon Africa:
Seazone 2 (1sub,1bomb,1ftr): 95%
Seazone 6 (1sub, 1ftr): 92%
Seazone 12 (1sub, 2ftr): 86%
Baltic States (1bombard, 5inf, 2art, 1tank): 100%
East Poland (1inf, 4tank): 99%
Ukraine (pulling 1inf and 1tank from africa: 3inf, 1art, 2tank): 100%
Chance of winning all: 74% (<- Strong opening with or without NOs, though Italy will never get its NOs)

I believe that is pretty much all 4 different openings with Germany that people use, subject to slight modifications and subject to what you decide to buy as germany.

great post.  While those are certainly some of my common opening moves, I have a couple high risk ones that throw a solo bomber in SZ 9.
Example:
SZ6: 1 fig 1 sub (92%)
SZ2: 2 sub 1 fig (83%)
SZ9: 1 bomb (75%)
SZ12: 2 fig (50%)
Egy: 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm (34% win + 7% no uk left = 41%)
Baltic States: 4 inf, 2 art, 1 crusier bomb (99%)
East Poland: 2 inf, 3 Arm (99%)
Ukraine: 3 Inf, Arm, 1 Art (99%)

A 56% chance not counting SZ 12 or Egy, a 28% chance of complete success not counting Egypt, 10% chance with taking Egypt, and a 12% chance of clearing all Egy units.

@Pin:

what about up the prices to 20 for Heavy bombers, the price increase when you get it. Also existing bombers needs to be outfittet with the new tech for lets say 5ipc a piece.

I agree.  If one insists on using a house rule due to percieving something as a bit too strong/weak, I think “paying for how much it is worth” is the smartest, most logical, and easiest option. It may take a few experiments to figure out a “just price”, but I certainly think altering price should be seen as the ideal.

Balanced? Hard to say.  I can say this, after many games I still feel as though I am no expert on the game, due to it being so diverse.  The other AA games would have started to get a little tedious or boring by now, not this game though.  As always the axis are more easy and direct to play, you will probably see them win much more often in your first 20 games.  After that though it becomes a lot more murky.  I would have to agree w/ previous posters, this is by far the greatest AA game and one of the greatest boardgames of all time, in my opinion.

I would think Risk, the newer versions have army figures I think.

@bugoo:

A note on the poland drop, it will NOT slow down the armor.

I retake it with a few inf and planes, then on my non combat move the armor moves to where it needs to be.  Yes you can do it.

the OP said he built “nothing but tanks”, so in the case refering to his post it can’t be done.  Even so, instead of just dropping in 1 inf, the Brits can go anywhere between 1-8 usually.

@TimTheEnchanter:

@Funcioneta:

The siberian units (all east of Evenki) are VIU for USSR. They are the only defense soviets have against Japan (don’t count with China and India japanese puppets) until Pacific fleet does something

Do they really provide much of a defense against Japanese advances?  If japan brings any airpower at all, they are vulnerable.

To the contrary, if you are using DM’s definition, I would put them in the category of VIUs for the opposite reason.  As japan I love the opportunity to kill them early before they can gain force multiplication by joining the central Russian defenses.  I have found them much less costly to kill out on their own early on if japanese air can be leveraged.

1. If used correctly I find them amzaing to “force” Japanese moves on T1 or T2, even if they sometimes inevitably sacrifice themselves.  To know that the Japanes player has to move on them can be extrodinarily valuable sometimes, particularly when you know it slows down their supply line/ factory build.

2. Another thing about starting UK forces, it can be very hard to tell what will live or die the first round somtimes, this can be very dramatically change not just the UK strat but the overal basic allied strat.  Many times for me, the Allies action kind of hinges on what the UK looks like after J1.

While leaving alone SZ 9 and attacking Egy is probably my “safe conservative strat”, I really love going for the entire UK navy and softening (or in about 1/3 games, taking) egypt for italy is suprisingly effective as long as things don’t go too badly(and they can).  A complete Russian blitz can be nice to (going for Karelia, and maybe sending my tranny to the caucaus), but for me this usually means I will be trading France barring a litte luck.

whoops

For the UK I cherish any and ever piece that exists, as the UK’s forces and territories are very vulnerable and always have to be played with much flexability, prudence, and caution.  More so than any other nation  I think.