Posts made by dondoolee

@Subotai:

It’s an interesting concept. Other alliances would be tempting to play in revised, if not AA50 was released.

We did that in classic, I don’t remember if Germany + Russia worked for a good game, but Germany + US was pretty even, almost like the original teams.

US and Japan in AA50 is much too weak.
Also, NOs can’t be used when changing alliances, b/c the NOs are specifically built around the original alliances, while any territory with an ipc value can be captured, NOs are different.
I’ve already been thinking about other setups in AA50, I haven’t tried any other than the original teams yet, but Germany and Italy + Russia would probably work fine. I don’t think any other teams can work, except if Italy is an enemy of Germany, Germany will then capture Italy rnd1, this will slow down Germany, but Germany will then be stronger from rnd2 than if Italy is on the same team as Germany.
Maybe Germany and US could work in AA50, also original teams could work with the exception of Italy is teamed up with allies.
A team change that is interesting to try out is: Germany owns all of Italy and Italian units, not only to play different setups, but also to determine if it is an advantage for axis to “split” Germany, I think axis are stronger if Germany got the possessions of Italy including the Italian units. I also think if we just removed all of Italy and Germany had to capture Italy and eventually build in the Mediterranean, Germany would be stronger than in the original AA50.

I have been tempted to experiment to see if Italy is advantageous as its own seperate entity.  I am inclined to agree with you that an “uber Germany” is probably preferable for the Axis.  The only reason why I have any doubt though, is the nasty nasty potential for a double hit on Russia (and sometimes even a triple hit).  It really does seem that if Italy has a decent presence in the Russian theater, Russia can only defend against two fronts after about t2 and can no longer leave a 1 man inf defense.  That alone can tip the favour to the Axis.

1. The allies ALWAYS building an IC in France is a false statement.  If the UK takes over France (and secures it) it is only preferable to build an IC if there are major production problems, if not it can just ferry 8 units per turn into France with ease.

2. The point I was trying to make, is if you build the French IC, you have to assume you will be building at least 15 units per turn (or to really stretch it 14 units) or there is no point in trying it out, other than maybe some type of naval strat or you are used to super heavy bombardments by the allies.

3. IF the differences between building an IC in France and Poland is negligible, why not play optimisically and build it in France and hope for a few extra units?

4. For whatever reason if you want to go “Africa crazy” or “Fleet crazy” (due to the Italian fleet) France is your spot

5. As far as a march towards Russia, you must play NOT to lose any tanks (you will be building a few ARM/ART, just not in bulk) or air.  Remember, due to the stronger defense in France, your air units can now focus a lot more on the Russian theater, giving Germany a great offensive edge no matter what Russia buys.  If Russia buys 6 tanks, it will soon find out it is trading Russian Tanks for German inf.

6. This probably works best when Japan is going very heavy on the land instead of the Pacific.  More specifically heavy towards India.

4)This is just a strat for those who insist on an IC for Germany (which I seldom find a good idea)

@Zhukov44:

@dondoolee:

@Zhukov44:

Maybe I haven’t played enough to fully understand the discussion….  But doesn’t Italy have a pre-existing factory?  Shouldn’t capturing it be a priority?

For me it just has to do with the logistics and flexability of the whole thing, Italy can turn into a logistical nightmare.  On top of that it is too remote to be a prime target for me.  On top of that, it is fairly easy to neuter w/o much effort.

Yes, I’m starting to realize that if Germany has a lot of planes it will be tough to get an offensive going.  But….if USA can take and hold the Italy factory (and Germany can’t really liberate it unless they have a stack on France)…then isn’t Germany doomed?

If the Allies can take and hold France I think that signals the death knell for Germany as well.  The thing is, France is a lot easier to take usually.

The 1st thing you should think about is wheather ignoring it is an option.  This may not always be the case, but if you can work around the Italian fleet headache you may as well.

After that ask yourself how big of a priority it is.  If you find it your #1 priority you can kill the fleet by T2.

Once again, I usually don’t agree with an IC strat for Germany.  My fear with a polish IC is that it will be much easier for the allies to nab for a turn as you would have to be defending poland, w europe, and germany all at the same time.  This in turn would probably slow down any advance.  The point of the French IC is for a slow advance and can only be done if you expect to be pumping out 15 or 16 units per turn (otherwise what’s the point).  If the AA is a concern it can be taken care of T1 by moving the german AA over and purchasing an AA for germany.  But I think this IC would almost have to be built with a turtle in mind.  You would gain punch by not sacrificing any armour T1 as well as utilizing your fighters to be able to be much more active on russia.

Another advantage it has over poland (in very rare cases, most likely) is what a wonderful spot it is in to build naval units (subs could threaten any ungaurded trannys instantly, plus it could show a heavy push for africa maybe)

@Commando:

I think it all depends on what the US does. If they go for KGF, then I don’t like the IC in France. If they don’t, then maybe. I haven’t seen a good place to put a German IC that makes sense. Why put a German IC in France or Poland, when Germany is only 1 hex away? Why waste the 15 IPC’s and wait a turn to build? In my opinion, Germany has to take out Russia as quick as possible for the Axis to have a chance to win. They have to squeeze Russia along with Japan.

For the most part I agree with you.  I honestly don’t think a France IC (or any for that matter) is optimal, as far as I can see, but it can be viable.

The point of the French IC though is to do a turtle.  Germany will be building 16 inf per turn (at least thats the goal), other than maybe building 1 AA and MAYBE the odd sub or artillary here or there.  What this does is provide a great supply line, a well fortified Germany, as well as freeing up fighters for the Eastern Front, as France willbe able to defend and send inf towards russia (at least for a little bit).  Remember without an IC Germany is only ltd to 10 units, this can maximize Germany’s production in a fairly safe way.  Like I said, as of now I don’t think it is optimal, but it can yeild interesting results and is fun to try for a few games.

Latley, just for kicks I have done a French IC, which seems to be viable if one wantsto try a turtle w/ Germany. You probably won’t be buying anything other than inf and MAYBE an odd sub if you want to get crazy but it seems like an idea with some potential.

@Emperor:

@axis_roll:

@Emperor:

The alternative to not making a G1 naval purchase is the allies will sink the baltic fleet UK1 at little or no cost and UK is free to spend it’s 43 ducets causing mischief in Africa and Asia.

Is that such a big loss to Germany?  Moving into Karelia via the ground is much cheaper safer and easier to accomplish.

If Germany is marching quickly on Russia, newly added UK units in far flung SAF won’t do much to stop that.

I’ve always maintained that the fleet will eventually be sunk, the point is to make the allies commit significant resources to do so, those are resources not spent elsewhere which is to Italy\Japan’s advantage.  The loss of the fleet is only a minor set back to Germany but it get’s Karelia in force G2 and helps Italy and Japan expand their IPC base.  If the allies don’t move to immediately sink that fleet, even better.

I’ve never claimed that it is a better strategy than any other, only that it’s viable and has advantages.

The German fleet is definatly viable, and could be a lot of fun.  I am at a stage right now though where I am looking for optimal since I have played this game for less than 6 months.

While NO’s weigh in my decisions somewhat to doing things they do not control my actions.  I still prefer going for more strategic locations than ways to get me more money.  That being said, the US in many games HAS to do at least something in the Pacific just to stay alive or maybe even prevent Japan from becoming uncoquerable, even in a 3 V 1 scenario.

With NO’s it seems the Axis have somewhat of an advantage to me.  Though, my jury is still out.  The UK seems to be the biggest key to the puzzle for me.

So far, I still can’t quite pull the trigger on taking Australia T3 or T4 with Japan (even with 6 fighters and really threatining and holding back the US/UK Navy).  That being said in the 3 games I played, I have been able to really try Japan up in spectacular fashion, but it becomes irrelevant as it still swells up into the great Satan somewhere between turn 6-9.  All the while the allies look like they do good on Germany, but not quite good enough to kill it by the time Japan turns into the unstopable juggernaut.  It is starting to look like the Allies can not afford to give Japan this much attention, though I am still curious about this IC and more importantly the moves done w/o the IC to tie up Japan.  Also I am starting to wonder, why not just use America and have Australia as “home base” for them, the Brits could build an IC late in the game if the opportunity presents itself.  This is only 3 games though.  It is almost as if the axis recoverd 3 times from the brink of disaster and still win.

Italy is to remote and too much of a hassel to put it in ones head to KIF.  On top of which a staging ground up north threatens France, Germany, and other valuable land, while also being able to re enforce Russia if they are in a picke.  All this can be done without really moving your fleet and being able to re enforce quicker.  After you take France, which is much easier to hold and re enforce, you simultaneously threaten both Italy and Germany.

On top of that, Italy can put up a suprisingly stiff resistance if you gun straight for it, not good when re enforcing troops there is difficult (as opposed to re enforcing the UK for a French attack).

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Even w/o it’s fleet, Italy can still cover France.  It can also support Germany vs Moscow.  9 IPCs still equals 3 inf each turn to sent to Ukraine.  I wouldn’t call that “neutering”, per say (if u must use that term).

Then bomb it.

@Zhukov44:

Maybe I haven’t played enough to fully understand the discussion….  But doesn’t Italy have a pre-existing factory?  Shouldn’t capturing it be a priority?

For me it just has to do with the logistics and flexability of the whole thing, Italy can turn into a logistical nightmare.  On top of that it is too remote to be a prime target for me.  On top of that, it is fairly easy to neuter w/o much effort.

@bugoo:

Not saying I would do it but, here is a possibility against that open.

UK blocks with DD and builds IC in aussie.  Retreats all but burma inf to persia + sends down bomber as well (optional).

US sends 2 figs, 1 bomb to aussie.  Possibly sends AC + DD to SZ, builds another AC, bombers, whatever.  Possibly sends 2nd bomber to Sol Islands.

Now yes, japan can take india, but then bad thing happens.  UK retakes on there turn and US sinks Jap boats (min 2 figs 1 bomb vs 1 loaded AC, max 3 figs, 2 bombs).  This can be further compounded with russians in persia.

Its not great, but it will hurt japan’s options.  More UK troops can be left in India as well to draw more Japan trannies if Russia is willing to reinforce Persia.  Works much better though when Egypt holds as you get an armor and a fig to use with this.

Now as far as norway, in most of my games UK doesnt have the funds to build 11 troops a turn and keep there fleet afloat, i prefer it for a US factory to dump boats directly into SZ 5/6 to backup the UK fleet.  Also, as far as the UK in Karelia, sometimes it is worth it to shuck UK troops to hold Kar while russia holds in the south against the Axis, as depriving G of 7 IPCs is worth costing the russians 5, not to mention saving russian troops is always a plus.  I enjoy using Karelia as a posion pill where russia stacks up 10+ units to get killed by germany and the UK sweeps in from SZ 2 to crush what is left of the german stack, as well as grabbing up Finland and letting the US get Norway on turn 2.

I still haven’t yet play tested Mollari’s opening moves, but troops meeting up in Persia is my usuall whenever I use the aussie IC (along with the bomber and whatever survives EGY).  It can cause a decent bother to Japan.  And I don’t know if I consider the aussie IC an excllent strat, but so far the most viable UK IC strat other than MAYBE SAF.

maybe a better way to look at it, is by saying what opening move attacks would be to risky for you?  Example: would you consider the odds good enough to send 2 fig vs the Destroyer off the Western US as well as 1 des and 2 fig vs the BB on Haw as Japan, or is that move too risky?

1)Why isn’t the US des/car/fig in SZ 44 listed?  Is that the only miss?
2)How did you clear Egy w/ Germany while sening the Tran to the black sea, and from the looks of it w/o the bomber?

Thanks a lot, I’ll take a look at it

Mollari: For some reason I can’t see the file. How much would Japan have to send at it? But If you had an 8 inf stack on bury/ an army from India/Jordan/ whatever is left in Egy and some Russians in China/ and maybe some US ships/planes comming from the pacific How pressed would Japan be?

@Pin:

Youre pretext is completely wrong, the z35 tran + dd almost never survives 2fgt z61 kills them.

For Jap T2 you will allways have 2inf Sum and 2inf Brn to hit it + whatever survived on Phi (3inf 1arm attacking) usually at least 1inf 1arm, often more, + 1cru 1 bb shot, 2fgt(if both survived vs z35). And in my openings i also hit Burma with 1inf 1art, so whatever survived there gets to hit.

Realistic you have a punch on Aus turn 2: 5inf 1art 1arm (assuming 1inf died in Bur, 2inf Phi) 2fgt z35 and cru, BB shot. Nothing in the world that UK and US can do turn 1 will be alive on Aus after Jap turn 2. I use this turn one setup to make sure both a India and a Aus IC is totally out of the question. (not assuming sick sick dices, 2fgts z35 dies to the dd etc, if that happens ofc there might be room for a IC somewhere other then SAF).

Wait, what are these opening moves on the Phil.  I usually consider a T1 Jap attack on the Phil a mistake, so I am not that familiar with the attack.  How open are you kepping the mainland?  If this is the case, how long is India kept alive? What Chinese pieces are left alive?