Posts made by frood

Here’s another angle: Not all of Greenland shows on the map. Therefore, it cannot be said that All of Greenland is contained within the Sea Zone. That’s the angle of thinking of the real Greenland.

The other angle, viewing Greenland as it is indicated in the fictitious world of the A&A board, would say that the only part that matters is the A&A version of Greenland, which only borders 1 seazone.

Here the standard rules become relevant: a sea zone does not include the land territory within it - they are two different zones. The Seazone does not continue along the map edge behind Greenland. Thus, the sea zone around Greenland touches the map edge at two points, one on either side of Greenland, like a horseshoe.

A horseshoe is not a closed shape. Therefore, the sea zone does not enclose Greenland.

Also, I think it’s the size of Greenland more than the fact that it is not in the Pacific that speaks against it. I realize the rule says nothing about size, but it fits the backstory of bases on small islands.

But it’s still a dumb rule. Planes can land on any island. Therefore, each island must be assumed to have an airbase from the beginning. It doesn’t take a move to move from in the air in a sea zone to landing on an AC in the same sea zone.  And it makes no sense that it takes the same # of moves to fly through a seazone and land on an AC in the next seazone as it does to stop and land 1 seazone earlier.

I may havemisunderstood. I thought it was maybe Jennifer who said she lost everytime she went heavy into Africa. Not sure though.

It’s funny though, I see some posters here saying that the Allies should just leave Africa be. I’d definitely do some things differently in a new game - it’s my first game in a while and the first since I really started thinking about the strategy and reading on this site.

I’d really like to do a team game I think, when this is done. And I’d like to play with TripleA, I think that would really simplify and speed up turns.

At least I wiped out a Russian tank, which are mighty precious… Except due to my blunder in G1 I had no Inf around so I had to throw in 1 Inf 2 Art. I guess I could have risked just using 1 Inf 1 Art - live and learn…

Darth, I hope you won’t be offended if for the next few weeks I take your strategic advice with a grain of salt ;) - this scenario sounds very familiar from a certain PBEM game I am playing right now…

@newpaintbrush:

I commit 2 infantry worth 6 IPC to the attack.  Both of those infantry will die, to the enemy counterattack if nothing else.  (net loss 6 IPC for this step)

I agree, if you retake with two they will both be killed. My point though is that when you retake with two, the other side will have to commit minimum 3 Inf to guarantee a retake. (9 IPCs, which YOU will have the option of wiping out next, with one likely already sacrificed in re-taking) - if they only send 2, you’re even and if they send one inf they risk losing a fighter.

But IPCs aside, my main point is that the effect of this is to reduce the size of the opponents main stack by 3 Inf. Thus you have used 2 inf to effectively remove 3 of their inf from their main stack, which is a lot more good than 2 Inf will accomplish actually attacking those units.

Of course this only works if the opponent has no other Inf nearby and is forced to split some off from their main stack (or from joining it). You might then have enough remaining strength to attack their main stack, or you may have the option of wiping out their 2 or 3 inf with force.

My argument is tactical, not economic.

Back on topic - I just re-read CSub’s paper on SBRs that was posted here like a year ago - still can’t beat the math or the logic. Unless you can think of nothing else to do at present or on future turns with a unit that attacks on a 4 and has a range of 6, throwing it in front of AA guns for average 3.5 IPCs damage is just not worth it. And I repeat my point that money in the bank is less valuable than units in the field. Kill units.

I just looked up the poem - kind of spooky, but parts of it seemed kind of funny too…

“Gently raping”? - oh my.

Yeah. Isn’t Greenland way bigger than England (and with far fewer airstrips to boot?) Island bases make sense for the pacific, but not Greenland. Although this NA makes no sense to begin with - what are the fighters landing on when you don’t have island bases?

This is way off topic by now but I don’t mind because I started this thread. Consider this scenario:

Germany and Russia keep retaking Ukr and leaving 1 inf to occupy. Each turn, both countries earn 3 IPCs, and each loses 3 IPCs when their Inf is killed. Neither gains an advantage.

If one side stops the swapping, then neither side loses the 3 IPC from the lost Inf. However, the one country stops earning the 3 IPCs. So I guess both sides are forced to keep doing it. It’s a deadlock that neither can leave without giving the other an advantage.

I wonder if retaking with 2 Inf is smart. With 1 Inf, the other side can get away with retaking with just one Inf. But with 2 Inf, you force them to dedicate more than 2 Inf to guarantee a re-take, thus weakening the main force more than yours was weakened.

The other issue is which side is hurt more by having their fighter(s) tied up in supporting the attacking Inf, and who has a harder time replacing Inf at the front. On my last German turn, I had almost no Inf at the front, leaving my armor stack without fodder. Not a good tactical situation.

The one advantage to falling back is that the pursuer is fighting “upstream” - their Inf cannot keep up with the front, while you continuously meet reinforcements coming toward you.

My experience is just very limited. I’ve played maybe 5 FTF games where the Allies build units or transports they can’t use, and leave their TRN in rang of my fighters unescorted, then build more units that they don’t have transpors to ship - Darth knows how to play, so shen Allies land in Norwqay in 2nd round I get scared. Of course, I left it open - duh.

Ah I see. That’s what I’ll have to be doing I think with Darth. My game was a little rusty and by US2 he will own Norway with little chance of me taking it back. The Japanese on the other hand have not yet lost a unit and are producing 40 IPCs, and the US has abandoned the Pacific.

Hope it doesn’t backfire, cuz it’s my only option - the allies own africa and are going KGF whole hog.

So SBRs are good against turtling because you can do damage without having to fight through stacks of defending Inf, I get it.

What is turtling anyway - building lots of Inf?

It’s a PHP script. In the other thread it’s been explained to me that TripleA sends an HTTP request, so I can make it work - it would be just like requesting a web page.

I’d keep it a little simpler, just instead of numdice and numsides (numsides seems redundant), send a string like: “13-4-2-1-0”

The dicey would parse this into : 13 dice at 1, 4 dice at 2, 2 dice at 3, 1 dice at 4, 0 dice at 5"
It would then return to tripleA the same format as now, just with the actual dice rolled and TripleA figuring out what hit what, but for the e-mail sent out it could indicate separately the dice rolled for each number and highlight the ones that hit.

But your way would work too, just sounds like it would take a lot more adjustment at the TripleA side, and a little more work for me.

BTW, I am now PBEMing with Mapview. It’s not bad, but everything is manual - it takes me a lot longer to post a turn than I would like, just because I have to do everything, make sure everythings legal, and recorded on the map and in the forum post, and I have to visualize a lot of the move in my head because I can’t just make moves and undo them or the units would get all mixed up.

It’s taking me 2 hours to post a move. That’s a lot of time every day. I hope with TripleA that could be cut by 75%. Maybe I’ll get faster with practice though.

I guess what I’m saying is that IPC income is only part of the picture, and perhaps less important a part than people commonly think. The other part is battle losses, which is much more volatile. Suppose you are generating 40 IPCs/turn, but you lose a lone battleship to a couple of subs, and 1 Inf and 1 Arm that you blitzed into empty territories (your only combat move, adding 4 to income) are wiped out. Your real gain in strength that round is only 12 IPCs: $44 cash at end of round minus $32 in lost units.

Income only helps because it helps put units in the field. If you lose those units foolishly, you may as well not have had the income in the first place. At the end of the game it’s the player with the most forces that wins the final critical battle.

I’m not saying I don’t believe in taking territory, just that you have  to consider the full cost. Ie. I will need a ton of infantry to push for Moscow, and it takes me 4 turns to get them there. Do I really want to throw a few Inf into the fire every turn after having waited so long to get them to the front?

This is especially so because the other side still gets the income if they recapture. It might be different if you could effectively deprive the other side of income with cheap little land grabs.

@ncscswitch:

The extra forces from Africa and teh lack of further drain to Africa should offset the income loss… but the Allies are going to be a bit stronger, so it comes down to how you use what is left of your forces… and how Japan is doing :-)

Japan is doing quite nicely. Not a single Jap unit lost on J1 - Pearl Harbor, the Aussie TRN, China and India all fell, and Bury was a walk-in.

For J2, Sinkiang is deserted, Sov. Far East is empty, and Persia has 1 sole Inf. I have 5 Inf in China and 5 Fig in FIC, and 3 TRN and an IC in Manchuria mean I will adding 9 more units to the mainland on J2 (mostly Inf/Art)

So at end of J2 Jap production should be at 40.

My take though is that units are more important than production. An Inf at your front is worth a lot more than a 3 IPC territory, because those IPCs will only turn into an Inf back at your IC at the end of your next turn - a long way from being of actual use. You accomplish a lot more by strafing the enemy, knocking out perhaps 12 IPCs of active units, and letting them hold the territory, than taking it and then having your own 20 IPCs of units wiped out in the counter. Those are far more important.

Which is why I think it helps me a lot more that no Inf were lost in taking China (and  that 5 Inf are now one territory closer to Moscow) than the taking of China itself helps me.

2 extra Inf in China on J1 are worth way more than 2 IPCs that mean 1/2 an Art in Japan on J2. Of course, you still have to keep up and increase production, but what you need to accomplish that is active units on your front.

Just saying it’s not a total write-off.

I think I like the 1 IC 2 TRN build (or just 1 TRN if the SZ 59 TRN lived). The IC provides quick support to existing land forces (you have 1 less turn you have to look ahead to guess what you’ll need, because units end up on land the end of the turn they’re built, not the turn after. Armor built there will be in Sinkiang the next round while armor built in Japan will still be fresh off the boat in Kwangtung the next turn. A lot can happen in 2 rounds, and suddenly you realize you are stuck with the units you built 2 rounds ago. The IC just allows for more flexible reaction. And you still have the flexibility of a few TRN kicking around to scoot down to FIC or whatever if needed.

Japan’s navy could help in the Mediterranean though, so that sub could still be of use.