Posts made by Hobbes

… I can’t really tell what to do with the Allies at this point  :-D

I just tried instead of Karelia to push directly with the Germans for a G4 Caucasus capture, as Cow suggested on another thread, and it’s a pain to stop.

R1 fighter to Egypt is solid but at the expense of Germans taking Caucasus on G1 or spend nearly all your tanks on Ukraine. But if you have a strong German push you risk being overstretched with the Soviets because you’ll have 4 attacks to make R2 and 3 of those will be countered (Karelia, Ukraine, Belorussia) and the units destroyed.

One possible option for UK/US is to perform the SZ37 UK attack and invade Solomon Islands with the US forces but buy everything for the Atlantic on US1. If the SZ37 attack is successful then the Allies briefly reach naval parity with Japan but that will change quickly. But this way you’ll have two fleets, both capable of having some effect.

@Cow:

I’ll entertain you with a low luck triplea revised game. Hop on the lobby. I haven’t played one of those since aa50 came out. You can probably tell that by my last revised game with functioneta, lol. I still remember all the different openers though.

No thanks. After Spring 1942 1st Ed. came out I stopped playing Revised, the same way I retired from Classic when Revised came out. I rather play something new than going back to the old maps and strategies :)

@UrJohn:

My knee-jerk reaction is that the Finland attack sucks, but I admit that I’m fallible and I could be mistaken. I’d love to hear exactly what the opening move you suggest is, and I’ll be happy to analyze it and/or try it a couple times to see how it plays out.

The only real weakness with the move I see is it lets the German player basically ignore Karelia and head South, doing some combination of the following: attack West Russia, attack Caucasus, and/or stack Ukraine.

Check the table above on my previous post. If the Soviets attack Finland and West Russia on R1, then they don’t have enough units leftover on West Russia to defend against a German counterattack on G1, even if they move everything to West Russia, assuming average losses. Germany then simply attacks WR, takes Finland, Karelia and stacks Ukraine. Then Caucasus falls on G3-4.
But if you attack Belorussia instead then you kill the same amount of infantry and earn 2 IPC instead of 1 (on Finland). So why would anyone want to attack Finland with Russia on G1?

@Cow:

I also share this idea, that Allied victories take longer than Axis ones. I felt it already on 1st Ed., where the Allies  win by securing Africa and earning more than Axis while preventing Russia from falling.

omg I get it now, you always played the income game in revised.

Look most games are not played the way you play it.

Russians charge full steam. buys 4 armor and arty or 3 inf 3 armor. kill ukraine and west russia with every available unit. bring everything toward russia/caucasus from the pacific side. If germany stacks karelia, russians all in, same for ukraine or belorussia. From west russia you skirmish karelia/belo/ukraine. meanwhile the brits are either A) dropping norway round 1 B) dropping algeria round 1 with usa and germany has like 50/50 odds as killin the fleet or algeria. UK could shove 2 fighter 1 bomber at 2 sub 1 tran and 1 dd or use the bomber to take back egypt or fly all the air in range of sinking the germany transport/battleship in africa. carrier/dd should always attack the lone transport japan has. the australia transport either takes new guinea or brings new zealand to australia and threatens borneo. Sometimes uk will attack FIC or borneo same turn if egypt defended itself.

Japan will eventually churn out armor and go to take russia, usually the allies rush berlin out of the game before japan falls, hence the 7-9 bid the axis get in revised… which either A) goes toward holding karelia G1 or B) gets placed in africa to blitz

Now, if you play the turtle game. there is a huge problem. 1) the turtle game usually involves usa shuffling units to africa and those units marching toward caucasus/india while the uk shuffles archangel to russia. - It is not hard for germany to stack karelia and strafe your archangel drops.  - germany can rush caucasus alternatively - japan has 2 battleships so usa will have it hard trying to march its way in time.

Plus germany doesn’t have to keep units at west europe. He can make a good push to hold west russia and if germany holds west russia, caucasus is done, and when germany has caucasus, that is not good, because then the income starts to even out. Sure you could say usa will have 6 bombers 1 germany, but japan can do the same thing to america from alaska.

none the less the income game was always boring. I am disappointed that you play that way, when the allies can just rush berlin no problem and win outright. Now maybe if the axis started turtling right off the bat, would I go, you know what… how about I just make more money and win that way. Usually that is not the case.
~

Anyway that was a rough analogy of how revised was played. Usually players rushed. I understand the forum games are much more conservative, but it is not representative of live games people play in real life. No one does that, because there is this popular game called monopoly that is based on income. The triplea lobb is half n half, which is cool, because there is a good mix of play styles. As well as a good mix of dice and low luck games.

Aggressive strategies do work in both dice and low luck for revised. You can ask Bayder, if he ever comes back lol.

I play as I like to play and as it makes me win :)
I’ve actually played bayder several times on TripleA (never won him though) and he was a master of Revised. But he would switch between both aggressive and passive - he would also be trying new stuff all the time- and if your opponent is playing for income and his strategy is winning then you adjust your own strategy and vice-versa. It’s all a matter of the right conditions and also to force your opponent to play in a style that he’s not used to. Bayder also controlled that by almost only playing Low Luck but he would respond to your moves.
This is why critiques such as above: "I’m disappointed that you play the income game’ are meaningless to me. Actually, I’d be glad to disappoint you during a game - because it means I don’t play like you expect me to play, where you are confident of your abilities, which can give me an advantage. So, I’m already starting to defeat you even before I roll the dice :)
And from my experience on A&A (including TripleA and GTO), if you play the long-term game you have a better chance of winning, because you know the long-term effects of certain actions and how to use them to your advantage. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase: “amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics”? That pretty much sums it up for me.

@Der:

Wonder how history would have unfolded if Hitler had been accepted into art school as a young man as was his original dream.

Interesting discussion, but better to keep those speculations off this topic since they get political quite easily.

On the original version Hitler is ranting about his generals and calling them ‘traitors’ and declares that the war is lost so it’s much more darker than this version and at the end you see someone who keeps blaming the military for losing the war while at the same time still sees himself as a strategy genius who never made any mistake… kinda ironic and harder to sympathize there.
On this one is definitely easier to emphasize with him, I kinda noticed that when I was putting it together, but it’s natural since those are all questions that affect A&A players.

@Mallery29:

Hobbes, landing US2 in Algeria? � Doesn’t that open to you losing those sea units G3? � Seems wasteful.

If you buy a carrier and 1/2 destroyers it may be enough to defend a landing, depending on G2 moves and losses. And if the US has the opportunity it should take it.

@MEGAEINSTEIN:

If germany concentrates power in Berlin and leaves just one infantry in coastal territories this is the best defence.
Because shore bombardment is useless and next turn germany recovers agin easily that coastal territory.

Sometimes it maybe more worthwhile to fortify both France and Germany. That way you are denying 6 IPC to the Allies, and those can make a big difference to the UK, and you’re not spending units retaking it.

@ICinBrazil:

What are you guys doing with your CA in G1? Does it attack SZ7 with the 2 SS (and optional Bomber/FTR )?� If the CA does and survives it seems like that sets back UK sending fighters in route to India or help killing the German BB if it killed the UK CA SZ14 (off Gib). I’d want to send a FTR, Bomber and maybe the surviving DD from ECanada to clean out SZ7.

With me, just like that.

The Altantic seems totally owned by the Axis now and it seems you have to plan your US/UK3 drop to perfection in order to even have a meaningful shot at invasion.

My first landing spot has been Algeria on US2. A drop on UK3 is possible but so far unlikely, depends on the naval situation.
The rest is to set up a chain using 2 or 3 US transport fleets, depends on where you want to land. 2 transport fleets and you can set a shuck from Eastern Canada to either Morocco, NW Europe/France or Norway/Finland. With 3 fleets the shuck goes from there to the UK and then the units can be dropped in Germany itself.

@AxisBrutality:

Yes, I’ll try it out this weekend. Fleet to Med is good suggestion and with IC on Egypt, that will give Germany some nightmare scenarios. It’s a good build-up suggestion too. I was thinking of 5 tanks - 2 on Egypt and 3 on India on UK2, but I can try also what you suggested. FTRs can always fly to India to protect India before J2, so I can’t see Japan taking India on J2 anyway. By UK3, all Germans in Northern Africa will be dead unless Germany wants to fight there and that means less pressure on Russia.  The faster I can clear Northern Africa of Germany, the faster can India be re-inforced with units from Egypt. Those 2 FTR from London could also land on India or Egypt on UK2, and I could move 2-3 FTR from Egypt to India, so they kind of trade off. There is an alternative route 2 UK FTR can fly, if not Archangel then West Africa.

I would love to put pressure with the U.S. on Japan in this scenario since Japan is more “free” since we are focusing on Med-strategy here. Then Alaska IC seems tempting, only 2 spaces from Japan. I would not need Alaska IC if we go our regular “take out E-Indies and build tanks on India strategy” which is great strategy, but if we go Med-strategy, then I think Alaska pressure on Japan would be good, since Japan can not take India on J2, and at the same time, Japan would have to worry about 2 battleships or something being placed on Alaska on US2, which makes Japan think very hard on what they can do on J3, because USA will have some sick fleet on US3 to strike with from Alaska.

This strategy looks crazy enough to work actually. However… the Axis counter would be to consolidate all German units on Algeria on G2 and place the Japanese transports off on J2 FIC to threaten an amphibious landing  on either India or Egypt. Interesting… let us know if it worked.

@Cow:

If I bought naval for germany it would be for africa, rather than coin flipping for egypt. I shuffle guys there. Oh wait, Europe is worth more money, so I am buying ground and pound for russia… thanks for helping me make that decision easy larry harris.

You will win or lose this game at either caucasus or india. How egypt turns out determines who is winning or losing the game. Obviously if uk totally misses, germany gets africa and THANKS FOR PLAYING. or if the other result happens and germany totally misses, BYE GERMAN NAVAL AND HELLO TO IRON MOUNTAIN INDIA.

Real talk, this game is bad.

Exactly. Deciding how much to send exactly to conquer or liberate Africa is one of the key decisions for both the Axis and the Allied player. Send too much and you’ll be overspending for the income you get back.
With the R1 move of the Moscow fighter going to Egypt it pretty much solves this issue of a risky G1 attack on Egypt. At the same time Germany can attack the cruiser on SZ14 with a sub and the Battleship… or place a destroyer on SZ15 to block the UK destroyer… plenty of options.

It’s a matter of choices for both sides. If Germany sends too much to Africa then it will take it longer to secure Karelia and go for Caucasus, while the same time the UK either defends Africa or holds Japan on the Indian Ocean. Japan, on the other hand, either goes for India or, if it’s too well guarded, bypasses India and goes after Russia by sending all of its starting units through Kwangtung-Szechwan-Kazakh. Or tries to hold out the Americans on the Pacific. And the UK/US need to decide whether to go KGF or KJF…

Lots of different choices here. Much better than Revised/Spring 42 where you basically had to defend/conquer Russia and that was it.

@Slackaveli:

“! It should be called 42 Stalin edition!”
:-D

It even comes with the Gulag pieces  8-)

Just uploaded the final version, a few changes to the script on the feedback (mech inf got dropped, few people get the joke). Thanks :)

@Vance:

I’ll take white and give you 2 pawns.

Deal. I place the black pawns on d3 and e3. You may start the game.

@Gargantua:

You know, I played chess a few (3 times) and white won every game.

Clearly it’s imbalanced, and black needs an extra pawn on the board.

Very true. I’ve had that experience with chess myself.

I bid a Queen for black.

@Petebu:

What was the common factor why the Allies won in your games?

How and when to prevent India from falling to Japan, either if you are going for KGF or KJF.

If you are playing Allies, for the first five rounds your goal is to stop the Axis from raising their combined income from more than 80 IPCs. Achieve it and you’ll be on your way to victory.

@knp7765:

The Allied victory took much longer than the Axis victories, something like 12-13 rounds. The Axis victories took roughly 5-7 rounds each

I also share this idea, that Allied victories take longer than Axis ones. I felt it already on 1st Ed., where the Allies  win by securing Africa and earning more than Axis while preventing Russia from falling.

The game flow of 2nd Edition further enhances this. The Axis can achieve a VC victory easier than the Allies (the Allies need to conquer 3 VCs and retain all of their starting ones) and during the first rounds the Axis’ objective is basically to use their advantage on starting units to increase their income.
The Allies need to stop the Axis from reaching parity income levels and Japan has a lot more difficulty to increase its income here. If they are successful during the 1-5 game rounds in doing so afterwards the game balance switches since eventually it becomes impossible for defeat the Allies superior numbers.

@Slackaveli:

Allies are 3-1 in our games. play smarter

I second that. Played 5 as Allies, lost one.

@wittmann:

Not the film, I own that. I meant who made up the A&A script.
Wife an I loved it.

I just updated the link to an new version, to better edit the subtitles and with a few script differences. Tell me which one you prefer :)

@Cow:

The best part was the paper ic / aa gun rant. I hate paper units too, it looks ridiculous next to all that plastic.

Opps. I replaced that part on the new version (link above)… please tell if you prefer the first version.

@Imperious:

Ukraine attack is no good.

You lose them for nothing when you could have taken Finland and probably protected those army’s from demise on g1. Finland attack kills the same number of Germans.

Of course the German player can invade Finland devoting naval units, but the idea is to do anything to tempt the German player to not killing UK naval on G1.

If Soviets go after Finland then they’ll most likely lose West Russia on G1 (just check the odds) and Germany can still sink SZ7 and SZ14, without needing any of its planes.