Posts made by eumaies

Yeah I totally agree buying techs early is not something I would ever do in a serious game as a matter of form for the reasons you described.  And that late techs have some redeeming quality because they can be a) something you set up intentionally as a backup option; and b) a chance at a last ditch shot at winning or surviving when you know you’re beat.  To that end, they’re not bad.

@eumaies:

except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken… (edit:  pathetic yes, broken no)

Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.

Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing.  If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.

If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds.  They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory.  So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.

I wouldn’t think of Operation Sealion being your whole strategy.  There’s no way to take UK for sure if the UK and US choose to defend it hard enough.

However, there are good ways to put pressure on UK and threaten this so as to damage your opponent…  The following is an approach I posted on another site that I find effective:

First off, some general thoughts regarding naval builds on turn 1:

1. Building an extra ship (like a destroyer) in the northern baltic fleet is not a bad idea, as it makes it much tougher for the uk to take it out on turn 1 or until they build up a mass of UK or US fighters
2. I’m not a big fan of building a carrier. They cost more, and they require fighters to land on them, which reduces the number of fighters you can land on your own territories to keep them safe. It’s like having to defend an extra territory, in certain respects.
3. Transport builds can be powerful, but since you have a limited number of targets, there’s not good reason to ever have too many in the baltic.

My preferred “SeaLion” opening moves & builds:

1. Battleship + sub + transport + at least 4 planes take out gibalter battleship and land 1 infantry on gibralter. You want overwhelming force here.
2. Build 4 tanks (to keep russia honest), and 1 destroyer and 1 transport in baltic (the fleet stays there).
3. attack russia in an appropriately threatening manner (I like to transport and mass troops in karelia, for example.
4. leave norway empty (if uk is silly he will take it, exposing his ships to attack).
5. Mass all african troops in libya ready for next turn
6. mass all fighters and the bomber in western europe with about 3 ground forces. send the rest to the front.

This is a costly move. You spend $20 and you don’t take egypt and you don’t kill the british fighter in egypt. However, you get lots in return too:

1. you threaten england potentially with 3 transports and 1 battleship and 6-7 planes, so he has to react. They can block the southern fleet, but it then makes them leave ships out vulnerable to your planes. He can’t block the northern fleet except by sacrificing his fleet, so he has to build ground forces or risk US transports to land more in england.
2. You make your baltic fleet totally invulnerable on turn 1. 6 ships is nothing to mess with, so while it cost you $20, you save all the money you might have lost when that fleet eventually got pounded in an unfair fight.
3. Your over-the-top fleet battle at gibralter should kill the uk battleship without losing you your sub, so you save an $8 ship that way.
4. your taking gibralter and building up in the baltic leaves the UK planes nothing to attack on turn 1, which is convenient.
5. You threaten to be able to combine your fleets into 1 super fleet (9 ships will last a LONG time with air support and keep your coast safe) and to stop you they have to throw ships in your way to die. If this is ever possible, do it.
6. You can now, with your strong navy, afford to leave fewer troops on your west coast and keep the opponents at bay much longer in the atlantic if you proceed carefully. This leaves you a free hand to beat on russia.
7. You can threaten brazil with the southern navy, or return focus to africa just 1 turn delayed.

Of course, this leaves the UK able to move in to the mediterranean. But in most cases this is not a bad thing. The easier time japan has, the faster they’ll come to the rescue. And your atlantic navy should keep you safe for several turns which is all you really need. All for $20.

@eumaies:

except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken…

Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.

Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing.  If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.

If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds.  They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory.  So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.

except, squirecam, i’ve never seen it tried successfully against me in the online gaming environment like gametableonline, so I’m not convinced it’s broken…

Jen, I see what you’re driving at, certainty vs average result.

Black Elk, with regards to the london attack on turn 1 with germany, i agree it’s kind of lame but the important thing is that it usually is not worth doing.  If it was, there really would have to be a slight fix to the game or inferior players would try it every time in the hopes for a 51% chance at beating a a more skilled opponent.

If you actually do the math of expected values and all possible outcomes, including IPC’s lost in the battle on both sides, money stolen by germany, tech chance of success, and likelihood that UK takes it back on their turn (with canadian forces), it’s actually a net loss for germany, in many cases even if it succeeds.  They can take UK’s capital and still lose so much tech-money and planes doing it that it’s not even a victory.  So overall i think it’s a silly but not overpowered approach.

lots of interesting arguments here…

Jennifer, with regards to bombers and aa guns, the heavy bomber does an average of 5.83 when counting the 1 aa shot, the 2 regular bombers do a total of 5.93, on average.  So it’s basically a wash on damage caused, and the expected “rebuild cost” to the single heavy bomber run is -2.5, while the rebuild cost of dual bomber run is -4.6 to aa fire.  But good point on the other 2-shot uses of heavy bombers to make them somewhat useful.

Most importantly, I think Japan can absolutely threaten russia before turn 5 if left relatively unnopposed, and 3 turns of full german production are all they need to punish russia and keep then keep their front lines from collapsing.  An efficient Japan should be threatening moscow and/or killing russian troops adjacent to moscow by turn 4.  This drains resources from any russian effort to completely pwn germany a reap the rewards.

Black Elk, I totally agree with the sentiment that building a “strategy” that relies totally for success on a highly random tech research is kind of bad form - at least that’s why I avoid it.  But I think as 03321 points out if you could make the argument that some cookie cutter bomber strategy gives you a >50% chance of winning the game, that would be an “overpowered” thing to be concerned with.  As I’ve tried to argue, I don’t see the over-powered argument carrying much weight.

I do think building some bombers with the US is not a bad idea at all, though.  NOT for bombing raids, which are risky, but for strategic coordination with land troops all over the land and sea.  It’s great to have 6-movement air support to supplement a limited # of US troops, especially for out-of-sequence attacks that screw germany when russia can take advantage of holes the us creates in their lines.

good questions.

1. America can’t bomb on turn 1, you can’t reach germany.  On turn 2, only 1 bomber reaches, on US turn 3, your first “new” batch of bombers has arrived.

2. I wouldn’t waste money on tech that early, but that was the original poster’s idea.  I would perhaps build an extra bomber on US turn 2, and then spend less on bombers and more on tech later if I were attempting this.  Similar overall dynamics, though.

3. I basically agree, hence my post.  But for the record heavy bombers is worthwhile… you double your damage without doubling the number of AA guns fired at you, I just don’t think it’s broken.

4. Your argument is somewhat weak here – obviously Russia and UK have to consider japan, whether sooner or later.  And also, germany is really going to be making more than 40 for the first few turns, which makes my estimates conservative.

By USA 2, in your scenario, the allies would have bombed with 3uk bombers and 1 us bomber on that turn.  On USA3, that would increase.  in any case, no one is particularly concerned that regular bombers are “unbeatable” – i personally would never waste UK resources exclusively on bombers when they are actually in much closer range to attack germany directly.

More to the point, the general case for heavy bombers is overstated by many because they fail to consider the opportunity cost.  If i shell out $90 on 4 bombers + tech, I could instead have, in a simple example, 9 US fighters.  These fighters would cause significant damage on each turn in conjunction with land attacks.  They could easily do more than 20 damage per turn in killing german armor and infantry.

So I just don’t agree with the overall “unbeatable” storyline.

OK, separate from the question of whether bombing hits max out at 10 damage for a square worth 10, let me take another shot at this math:

US builds 2 bombers and 2 rolls a turn (I wouldn’t necessarily do it this way, but it’s a good example)

Assume success in the technology at the start of US3.

Assume germany makes 40 per turn - bombing (a conservatise assumption since you are leaving germany alone)

A non-heavy bomber does 2.9 damage per shot (counting AA;'s), a heavy bomber does 5.8 damage per shot.

Bomb # hitting Germ Damage Germany Spends
Normal US0 0 0 40
Normal US1 0 0 40
Normal US2 1 2.9 37.1
HEAVY US3 2.83 16.43 23.57
HEAVY US4 4.36 25.29 14.71
HEAVY US5 5.63 32.68 7.32
HEAVY US6 6.7 38.83 1.17

So germany gets 3 full builds, and is not receiving as much pressure from the US so can afford to send the bulk of them at Russia.

I don’t know, that’s plenty of builds for me to put enough pressure on russia to allow them to be weakened when japan breaks through.  and meanwhile africa is more vulnerable to conquest by germany or japan as well.  I’m just not convinced that the 24 + 15 cash germany uses to turtle after its first three builds is really insufficient to defend itself.  while it’s first 3 builds focused primarily on russia can get the job done in terms of exhausting her resources.

Doesn’t strike me as unbeatable at all.