Best posts made by farmboy

@trulpen I think if your plan is to dump the British units in range in (air included) and to put the placement there as well, it is probably worth it. There is some risk to you as well if he decides to go for it (if the dice are poor) but on average he is trading half his air force for a couple of British air and Chinese ground units). The TUV exchange favours you significantly. And you would have a 2-5% chance of winning outright. I don’t think that is a risk that will usually pay off for Japan. It makes more sense for him to wait until more ground units can reach. There may be an issue of how badly you need those UK air to go to Egypt, but on the face of it I think it is worth it.

@Pinch1 I don’t think @Arthur-Bomber-Harris was quite right to say the carrier buy is a guaranteed L for the axis, but the problem he points to is a real one. If Germany is buying significant naval early, it is not buying land units. And if it’s air is in 110 or 112, it can’t threaten Bryansk or even Belarus. It makes it very easy for the allies to block them in Bryansk and prevent them from getting their objectives in the USSR. They can try to make up for it later but they will be doing so with less income than they otherwise would have and against a soviet union that has more income than it otherwise would have. It will typically be easier and safer to drop carriers in 112 when you are making 80 ipcs than doing so early and trying to keep up with UK/US naval spending on one side and Soviet spending on the other.

@oysteilo sorry for the delay. I’ve looked at it a few times but never have quite enough time to go through with a turn. I hope in the next couple of days.

For the US to attack effectively in the Atlantic, they will need some fleet, otherwise German subs will deny them landings. This would probably be the turn to build a carrier and destroyer for the Atlantic for that reason. I don’t like the idea of not spending in the Pacific but you might want to consider dropping a transport or two in the East so you can build a sub or two in the Pacific. Normally, my Pacific builds are going to be 1 transport + at least one carrier + subs and air and I don’t like to get behind the Japanese in Carrier builds. But Europe may require it and your strength in China can help contain Japan for a turn.

Another option (to get Gibraltar quickly) is to move the two carriers and a destroyer built in 10 to 89, land hte Hawaii fighters on them and then build a bunch of transports. You can build more navy and air for the pacific side too but threaten Gibraltar with 5 air and 8-12 land units. Building another bomber or two might be an option too. He probably can hold it, but he would have to leave most of the German air there. And the Italian fleet would then be exposed if it moved with a transport to strengthen Gibraltar as British subs and air could reach. At the very least this forces the Germans to focus on their West and may give the Soviets more room to maneuver and Egypt more time. And you might get Gibraltar back out of it next turn. The danger is what it does in the Pacific, but given that you are holding Yunnan, and that much of his fleet is too far away to stack caroline Islands, it may be worth it. The more I think about it, the more likely that this would be my choice, but I would want to think carefully about what happens in the Pacific and make sure I’m not setting up to lose Hawaii. I wouldn’t do Caroline Islands if I did this.

The British build I think is likely a factory in Persia and a carrier if possible along with inf in Cairo. And you can pull the fleet back to the Suez and bring as much air in range as possible. This might mean the UK air in China would go to the Caucasus even if it costs the bonus for a turn.

@Pinch1 one thing you could do is try this in a league game and see how it plays. There is a range of skill levels there, it is easy to join, and fun. And the best way to assess how well a strategy works is to play it of course. Games are typically played with a significant allied bid which is meant to balance against the innate axis advantage in the OOB game.

I’ll just say that in my experience, the strategic choices the axis make have trade offs and a way the allies win is by recognizing what the costs of different axis choices are and exploiting them. If, for example, Japan focuses on Russia, it becomes harder for it to take/hold India and the money islands. Or if it can do that too, it means that the US is focusing on Germany which will make the German naval builds harder to defend. And if Germany is not putting sufficient pressure on the Soviets to get into caucasus and volgograd, it both impacts their income (making it harder to match US/UK spending in the atlantic), and makes it easier for the Soviets to deal with pressure from Japan too (which at this point in the game is going to be a small fraction of what the Germans and Soviets have). The Soviets don’t need to break through Germany early, they just need to keep them contained before they get in reach of Volgograd and Caucasus.

@oysteilo I was too busy to play for two weeks. I find it harder to get back into the game sometimes after a long delay since I’m more removed from how I was thinking when I last played. This game is complex but I was thinking the long delay doesn’t help either.

I just did a practice turn to see what the end result would look like. There would be a number of things that I would still want to think about here. These would include the distribution of units between Yunnan and India and whether the fleets in 54 and 109 are safe. 63 and 106 are also options there. I didn’t stack Malta as I had initially planned as I thought that was too risky. And I decided that because the Japan fleet is in the South I could afford to not build the naval base, but still a point to consider. I also assumed the inf on the transport off Hawaii was there in error and edited it on to Hawaii. But it might be too late to do that or not an error. And sorry if this is annoying. I just had some time and no other turns to play and enjoyed the procrastination. allied turns tutor game.tsvg

@dazedwit my point is that if you can’t win 110, you can’t win sea lion. If Britain wants to stop sea lion they are much better off scrambling in G1 rather than conserving air for the land invasion. Typically in the game german air are more valuable than UK air. I would always scramble in that situation because its very likely that I am trading 1-2 planes against 6.

If Germany uses 9 transports and loses those 6 planes and the British lose 2, the UK doesn’t need to build more than 6 inf before G3 to have a better than 50% chance of denying sea lion. I’m assuming here no J1 or J2 which would make stopping sea lion easier. And I’m calculating with British going with a 92 stack (which would add 2 figs, a tac, an inf and a AA) although I’m sure that won’t strictly be necessary. Obviously even with the bombing and convoying, they should manage more than 6 inf. And they may not need land units at all since they might be able to stop it at sea.

Axis have a significant advantage in the OOB game (absent a bid) and it looks to me that in taking risky combats that you will likely lose, you are trading that away. Of course, the dice can help you out here, but usually they won’t.

But the best way to test strategies will always be against actual competition. At some point I’m sure you will get a chance to test this against other opponents.

@farmboy but I think I can play more frequently going forward

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

I skipped ahead to Japan turn and he can get 5 tacs + 5 fighters + 2 bombers to the Sea Zone. That gives him a 75% chance of winning but messes up his plans for Asia. I would be happy if he did that battle since India would live a long life.

1. have the fighter in Queensland. You will be thrilled if he decided to attack there. He is not doing an amphibious attack in Southern Territories on J2.

2. choose a mech instead of the infantry. It gives you so much more flexibility to repel amphibious attacks later in the game. worth the extra 1 PU

3. don’t worry about him sending a big force to Sydney just to kill one destroyer. no problem about this build but you are being too afraid in this match.

I agree with that. I wouldn’t gamble on 75% odds when my situation is not desperate and it seems like my route to victory is elsewhere. But I also would think carefully about what might happen in a circumstance where your opponent would go for it. I expect that they would quickly get bogged down in the pacific. They should be able to grab Sydney but not Honolulu and Calcutta would then be safe for a while. And China would soon be in a position to deny Japan a VC on the mainland. But given where the rest of the US fleet is, there is some danger that the right build, a decisive defeat in 33 (which is also reasonably possible), a landing in Western Australia, and carrier movement to 46 might put Japan on track to grab 2 more VCs before the US can respond effectively. If the Axis were desperate in Europe, than I would seriously be thinking about this. I doubt Andrew would since I think he has a safer route to victory in Europe, but some players like to gamble.

@oysteilo This has definitely been a lucky round for me between that and the AA

@trulpen I assume the plan with the Atlantic allies is to stack Gib and 91. I suspect a turtling Russia and that is probably the right move. But it is worth considering if the Atlantic allies have any different options and if that changes what Moscow can do. Hypothetically, the British air in London can reach Vyborg and Karelia. Does this give you an option of committing more Soviet land units to taking Vyborg and Karelia and then holding them for a turn . US transports off Iceland could also threaten Norway (they can from Gib too but he just needs to build a destroyer to block it). He would have a hard time holding both Norway (from the US) and Finland (from the Soviets) and you have just created a route to getting the 6 air in London to Moscow in time.It may be a mistake to pull the UK air away from the N Atlantic but I think it would be something to consider.

I already posted but it doesn’t look like the edits would effect my turn so feel free to add them back in on the ANZAC turn.

@trulpen I would probably let him have Leningrad. and conserve the forces. The main thing is to get air to Moscow and you’ve accomplished that.

nice try with that transport in 74 :) I almost missed it.

@AndrewAAGamer His situation is already difficult since he lost Gib in Round 1 and he urgently needs to maximize the Moscow defence for G6. So he has to take some gambles. What he has lost for a G6 Moscow battle is 3 inf, 2 tanks and a mech. He had 3 more inf in Leningrad that were going to be stranded anyway. With better dice, he would have only lost 1 inf that wasn’t already stranded. He gained 6 air which adds to the defence more than 3 inf, 2 tanks and a mech and which makes any strat bombing of Moscow risky (although less so in OOB than BM). This also makes it easier for the US and UK to get a foothold in Norway and while the fighters can reach Moscow for G5 to block the bombing, they can also reach 110 if it appears after G4 that Moscow has more time.

Denying you Leningrad for a turn also means you lose $7 and a G6 attack is $3 more expensive since you have to buy bombers and not tacs. I still probably would have only done Karelia and not tried to hold Leningrad, but the exchange may end up being closer. He just has to hope his blockers roll better.

If it is not too late, I’ll move the Italy Bomber to W Germany. Can edit on the Germany turn.

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris If you stack India, you are counting on beating the average roll in order to be able to take out several of his air. Odds are he loses no more than 1-2 air even if you keep the fighters there. After that, he has a base to support a Japanese attack on the ME or can pull the full fleet and air back to contest the Pacific (or both). He also gets a mIC for free. If you hold Burma, than you are stretching his forces. He needs to commit a certain amount of Navy to protect the transports both in 39 and 36 (and possibly 37) which limits there ability to move elsewhere without reducing his threat to India. He needs to produce land units in his factories to replace the ones that he has committed (which means he can’t as easily buy naval or new transports in FIC). And a Caroline Islands US navy makes naval builds in Japan more difficult. And he has to secure the money islands with fewer units to directly counter the Americans and ANZAC. And this doesn’t have to go on for perpetuity. But I think it is a better move this turn as Trulpen is beginning to reinforce the Pacific.

Japan is in great shape in this game so this is not necessarily going to stop them. But stacking India likely means you kill 6-8 land units and 1-2 air and that is not going to stop them either.

@Adam514 Lol I think balance is probably part of it but the higher income makes the games more complex too which can lengthen it (and lengthen the time it takes for some of us to decide on our move). And I suspect I’ve been the other opponent in 2 of the longest games of the year (including the one with Oysteilo) so it might just be that I’m ruining things. :)

@trulpen looks good.

I would have suggested waiting on Somaliland to put more pressure on Japan with that fleet. But I can see why that was worth it. And the pressure can come later if you want.

My only practical suggestion is for the UK bomber to go to the USSR now so that it can land in the middle East next turn. From there it can threaten both Japan and the Mediterranean.