If it succeeds marginally, then the game might last, if it succeeds overwhelming, then the allies lose and you waisted time.
Umm…did you just suggest one should avoid winning the game after “only” four hours? How many hours do you have to play before losing to feel like you haven’t wasted your time?
My point is that it was most likely by accident.
Erm, so does that apply to all the improvements in A2, or just the fact that Sea Lion isn’t such a gimme any more?
Are you thinking they just rolled dice to determine the new setup, or what?
Surely, you can’t be talking about His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Last King of Scotland?
Nobody with a name like that could ever not be taken seriously, amirite?
Most of the time, for me at least, it’s a combination of the two approaches, depending on the makeup of the advancing Japanese. Gotta keep tanks from blitzing usually, stacking deep is often useful (especially, I’ve found, in the north of China, where you can stage to attack Manchuria, etc.), and small stacks of two or three can force the Japanese to limit the number of places they attack or advance.
Basically, what I’m sayin’ is it’s all situational.
Yeah, most times, if they’re on the front line.
Why would you want your opponent to go on a more conventional mission, if the unconventional one is doomed to failure, as you seem to believe? Wouldn’t it be better to “sucker” the Axis into a (in your opinion) hopeless American ground war?
@Idi:
Your just riding along on keplar galvin’s coatails trying to steal his thunder……
Weird. I don’t see “Hey, that’s not a bad idea! Let’s explore it further!” as thunder-theft. I would think that would apply more to statements like, “What a worthless strat! That will only word on nooBs!”
@mantlefan:
Lol if USA upgrades USA1 I say mission accopmplished and laugh at their waste of 20 IPCs and pursue a more conventional strat.
Heck yeah.
@mantlefan:
Is it illegal for the Italians to move to 91 for some reason?
Not once they take Gibraltar. Seems like getting the Italian navy to 91 by the end of I2 (in place to attack I3) would be pretty tough, though, and even if you did get it there, it would be more likely to telegraph the attack on the U.S.
the beauty in it that i found is that it’s never been done before (at least in my group), in any incarnation of axis and allies, the us proper is NEVER attacked. i thought it would be interesting to see if it could be done and it could ONCE.
Agreed. It probably wouldn’t work more than once, but it might cause the U.S. to up defensive production in later games, which can be a boon in itself. As was mentioned, the U.S. could upgrade factories early, but, hey, twenty less bucks to spend. I’d be happy to fake the 'Murikans into tossing that cash.
Depends on what exactly you mean by “complete”. To play to actual victory conditions is rarely done, at least in our playgroup. It can be pretty clear in five hours that Japan won’t win in the Pacific, but actually taking their capital might not happen for….I don’t even know…that times three or four? Europe alone seems to run a little longer than Pacific alone, maybe six or seven hours before there’s a clear probably victor. Global, I’d plan for ten to twelve. Probably still won’t finish per rulebook, but we’ve almost always found we were comfortable calling a victor at that point.
Dude. Are you attempting to accomplish something in this thread, Idi? Hoping that, if you simply denigrate the strat enough times, we’ll recognize you as a brilliant strategist and start calling the OP (who’s been here considerably longer than you) a fool for having the audacity, nay, the hubris, to suggest a somewhat novel surprise-attack strategy? That by tearing other people down, you’ll elevate yourself in the opinions of others?
It’s not working. You’ve lost (at least) my respect in this thread. One would assume that means nothing to you, but, given that you like to post on the board, it seems you attach at least some weight to your opinion and appear to be attempting to convince people you are “right”. That’s a lot harder to do when much of your audience thinks you’re a douchecanoe.
Talk game here. Save the (poor attempt at) trolling for S.A. or FARK Politics.
@Idi:
except OOB rookies which are the only opponents you play
That…doesn’t really make sense. Also known as “wat is this i dont even”.
You can go all out though, and be really safe about it. -Normal Way-
G1 Build: 1 Destroyer, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Transports, 1 Bomber Bank 8
Germany only starts with 30 ipcs in my version of the game.
Hmm, shoulda read through this before I played A+2 Europe last night.
We went with a mix of different N.O., giving Italy the North Africa and Oil N.O., putting 2 inf in Novosibirsk instead of 9 extra IPCs, and giving America the full bonus 30. Seemed pretty close to balanced, but we’ll try it with the recommended changes next time.
My Germans went Barbarossa round one, so no comment on Sea Lion.
Italian roundels and jap tacs.
Once, in twelve or fifteen games.
Played a game of Europe last night, with modified A+2 rules. Built six tanks G1, 9 tanks 2 mech G2. Only killed about half of the Brit fleet first round (left both groups off of England), but ended up taking Russia after only a few Allied forays into Holland, Denmark, and Normandy. Was able to kick the Allies back off each time. It was a bit of a pain, though.
Ended up taking Moscow because the Russkies missed an Italian can opener in Samara. Might have stalled out if they’d blocked that one, but it’s tough to say. I think we still would have gotten it, but it would have taken a few more rounds, which MIGHT have been enough for the Americans to get Rome. Don’t think so, though…Italy was starting to turtle, and I think they could have held out, especially with German help.
Yeah, Operation: Open House was my first pick, too.