Posts made by Hobbes

@AxisBrutality:

quote]

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.

Hi, I am back for a while. Did test this, it was very interesting, I tested it for 3 rounds, and Egypt did survive.

Basically I started of with adjusting the strategy a little bit. After Russian FTR landing on Egypt, as always, then I decided to attack East Indies fleet instead of putting it outside Syria. I won and had 1 UK FTR left.

What I did was to land 1 UK FTR from the sunk Carrier to Egypt. I had 2 INF, 1 Art, 1 Tank, 1 Russian FTR from earlier on. Now I move 1 Syrian INF to Egypt, and take another 2 INF from India with the transport to Egypt.

Now I have 5 INF, 2 FTR(1 Russian, 1 UK), 1 Tank and 1 Art. Total of 9 units on Egypt.

India = I loved Burma INF to India, and Iran INF to India, so I still had 3 INF the as in the start of the game. I built 2 Tank, 1 Art on India. IC on Egypt = Total of 31.

UK Bomber to Caucasus and 2 UK FTR from London to West Africa.

Japan suffered some heavy losses due to the fact that they lost East Indies fleet. Now India was not under that much pressure, but I moved both Japanese Transports to FIC and dumped in 4 Units, 2 INF, 1 Art, 1 Tank. And I put the rest of the fleet there too with 2 FTR on the Carrier. Japan has only 4 FTR in total right now.

I bought 2 Transports, 2 Destroyers. Now, the Japanese don’t know what U.S. is going to do next, so I sent everything towards Alaska and built IC there. U.S. Bomber went to Alaska too. U.S. Cruiser on Panama, to West U.S. Now I still had 27 IPC to spend. I bought another Battleship and Transport, placed it outside West U.S.
Already now, USA had sicker fleet than Japan, and on top of it, IC on Alaska for US2 turn. I moved 1 INF from Central U.S to West U.S. and 1 Tank from Eastern to West so that it can be transported to Alaska on US2 turn.

Now what can Germany do on G2? I followed your instruction, but G was no threat standing on Algeria, but Germany doesn’t have any other choice I think than to do so. Germany could have put all the forces available on Libya to try to attack 5 INF, 2 FTR, 1 Tank, 1 Art but it is very risky for the Germany to do so, the point is, German player can not know what UK will do after the German turn, and another fun for the allies is, Japanese player doesn’t know if U.S. is gonna build IC on Alaska, so a Japanese player usually will move as you said, all they can to FIC to pressure India or maybe Egypt.

So Germany went into Libya on G2 turn, so Germany had 6 land units there are 2 FTRs. Now the UK starts building, so I boght AAA-gun and 1 FTR on Egypt. I flew over 2 FTR from West Africa so now Egypt had AAA-gun AND 3 FTR in total. Two of the FTRs on Egypt, the UK FTR and Russian went to India, so kind of trade off, 2 goes to India while 2 from West Africa goes to Egypt.

I bought 1 FTR, 1 INF, 1 Art on India, so 15 + 17 = 32 IPC.
UK bomber landed on Egypt also.

Now India had 4 INF, 2 Tank, 3 FTR, 2 Art + AAA-gun.
Now, Japan has a huge dilemma on J2 turn, they can’t touch Egypt, because moving that fleet so far away which U.S. standing on Alaska is just not duable. Japan could attack India with 4 INF, 2 Art, 1 Tank, 4 FTR, 1 Bomber,1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser but he chances of Japan winning are 53,6% only.

yeah, but at the same time with the Axis I’d probably make a spoiling attack on Egypt on J2 to kill some of those units there and then hit it again on G3 before the Allies could reinforce it. I don’t know the math but after Egypt falls then Germany focus on Africa and Russia and on J2 starts stacking on airpower and subs.

Japan has to build forces now on Japan, mostly naval forces, so I bought 3 subs, 1 carrier. That is the maximum that Japan can buy, and then there are no land units or anything left to buy. I had to withdraw the fleet back to Japan, there is no other thing Japan can do, you will know why now.

U.S. will buy 2 Battleships on Alaska, and move 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport, 1 INF, 1 Tank from West to Alaska. Now you can imagine, USA has 4 Battleships, Japan has 1. USA have 2 Destroyers, 1 Sub, 1 Cruiser, 2 Transports with 3 INF + 1 Tank, 1 Carrier with 2 FTR on it, 1 Bomber on Alaska, and another 2 FTRs also there on land. Now that’s cool :)

So I played the 3rd round also, but as you can see Japan has some serious issues to think about from J2 and J3. Not fun when US2 and US3 starts. I waited with the US2, but I could have dumped in forces into Russia already and I could have attacked Japanese INF on Anwhei with 2 U.S INF, 1 FTR from Sinkiang(I moved them there on US1 +1 Russian INF following them on R2) + 1 Bomber from Alaska while dumping into Russia 2 U.S. INF to support Russian INF there. But I didn’t wanted to split the fleet so I was waiting with all this for US3 turn. Needless to Japan, a Japanese player should get some diarhea problems by US3 turn :)

Germany had problems in North Africa, so a German player has to choose to fight Egypt or to lose North Africa and concentrate on Russia. The fun part for Allies is that whether or not IC on Egypt should be built does depend on how many German FTRs are placed on G1, and where, I mean where those 5 FTR are. The less of them are on Italy, the better for UK to build IC on Egypt. And the opposite, the more German FTRs are on Italy, well, bigger chance for UK to build a fleet right away.

Now I will also test this weekend, what happens if I build a UK IC on Western Canada, then UK can drop a fleet already on UK2 turn, maybe good if we go for KGF. Have to test that out.

ICs on Alaska are a waste. You can’t threaten Phillipines/Borneo/East Indies to reduce Japan’s income, otherwise both countries will be almost matched at income production after Japan takes China (-4 for US, +4 for Japan, total of +8 for Axis)

Some random thoughts about KGF:

• It only takes 2 fleets for the US to land in Europe on both editions, the only difference being that you need 3 fleets if you want to threaten Germany on 2nd Edition.
• On Africa the US transports get sunk on G1 (preventing a US1 landing on Africa) but with the Russian fighter Egypt doesn’t fall on G1.
• India is actually a plus, since the presence of the IC delays its capture due to the UK units being produced and denies to Japan a lot of needed income that it could otherwise get from J2 onwards on 1st Edition. The downside is Japan to have the IC but if the UK gets 3 or 4 rounds of production on India then both sides should place about the same number of units during a game. (and the UK units can pull back to defend Caucasus/Russia).
• The Buryatia/Yakut route has 1 space more (delaying Japanese advance) - plus the Japanese should focus rather on India or Yunnan-Schzwan.
• Japan cannot anymore easily pick 2 inf on Okinawa/Iwo Jima using transports on SZ60 like it did on 1st Edition.
• Indochina and Kwangtung are worth less, making less useful to put ICs on those territories. Placing an IC on  Manchuria is less efficient than using transports until the IC on Japan is maxed out in production.
• The US can land in Africa on US2 or on US3 in Finland/Norway/France/NW Europe - takes 1 turn more than on 1st Edition but so is the Japanese advance (and income) delayed on Asia for at least 1 more turn.

@wittmann:

Does it matter?(And would you want to be able to follow all of Garg’s mental connections?)

Good point ;) But at the same time his connections can be interesting/funny to follow :)

@wittmann:

If we married we would have to have our own space(wing maybe) in the house and he could never visit my bedchamber. Then yes.

If Gargantua was a female, marrying him would be impossible - you can’t marry your own mother-in-law

@Gargantua:

well there are no female Axis and Allies Sculpts…

And I don’t think that’s going to change.

I must be dumb because I fail to see the connection between women in the Navy and female Axis and Allies sculpts… ;)

I played again as Axis last night and my belief is that Germany is served better by placing itself to occupy Karelia on G2, otherwise it’s easy to stop the German advance by flying all the UK/US fighters to Caucasus on round 3. On G1 you buy 3 inf, 2 art, 4 arm and move everything to reach Karelia on G2.
Unless Russia goes completely for tanks on R1/2 it’s nearly impossible to defeat Germany’s 8 inf and 15 arm on Karelia on R3. Then on G2 Germany spends all its money on infantry (to reach Caucasus/WR on G5) and G3/4 mostly armor.
With a G2 German stack on Karelia, the Allies are forced to fortify West Russia against a G3 attack (by flying all fighters from India/UK) or to abandon it. And when the G2 infantry purchase arrives at Ukraine or joins the Karelia stack then Russia is essentially doomed.

@Slackaveli:

our bids have been 0, 0, 6, 10, 12, 13, 13. i bet it will settle in @ 9-12.
we play all bid $$ must be placed in 1 country, not inf all over the place, for example.

Well, the disadvantage of that method is that if Russian puts 2 inf and 1 tank in Buryatia, for instance, then it can attack Manchuria on R1, which can really then unbalance the game. The ladder rule for Revised was that you could only place 1 unit per territory/SZ, on spaces where you already had units present.

@Gargantua:

The Argument I overheard as to “why not” was that:

• they tend to be sluey on average…
• that they are constantly surrounded by dudes who want to get in their pants all day long,
• that they are less feminine/lady like
• have mouths like a sailor
• are as dirty as the sailors they sail with
• are disloyal and dishonest
• and are gone for ridiculously long extended periods of time.
• are born with an awkward disposition or family, which is why they joined the navy in the first place

To me this just reflects prejudice and misogyny towards women occupying occupations that were traditionally reserved to men. Sound exactly like the same type of arguments on why women shouldn’t occupy front line roles in the military.

@Imperious:

ok done. But know we got two threads like this…

Thanks IL. I think the other one was in a specific game subforum it wasn’t easy to find but Yavid’s seems more complete. Maybe we could just compile all info on one of them.

@Yavid:

@Hobbes:

Maybe could a moderator please put this thread as sticky? Thank you

Hope i did it right

I’ll report the one you just wrote if no one notices. ;)

@Yavid:

Yeah IL moved a bunch of stuff and it got moved down alot. Even I had a problem finding it and it’s my post.

I just added a post to that thread requesting it. Just report my post to a moderator.

Maybe could a moderator please put this thread as sticky? Thank you

@Yavid:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27430.0

Here’s another one.

I was looking for that one… should be stickied

@Yavid:

If you don’t believe me try the new transport rules on the Classic map. Hell play '42.2 rules and all on a classic map. You’ll see shuck wins the day and they Alllies aren’t gimpy.

Well Axis bids on Classic map go up to 24 IPCs so that game is clearly considered unbalanced towards Allies. :)

@Canuck12:

Anyway, the bottom line is that Japan doesn’t conquer the world like in Revised, 42.1 and Anniversary. They have to really fight for their gains AND the Axis can win without taking Moscow!

Completely agree. The real question for Axis involves which of the 4 cities (Leningrad, Moscow, Calcutta and Honolulu) they should aim for, either on a 9 or 13 VC. On a 13th VC that involves Leningrad, Moscow and Calcutta to knock out Russia out of the fight. But at the same time they are dependent on the possible Allied strats:

• Leningrad (Germany) - easy to take and retain if the Allies are going on KJF, hard on KGF (Germany)
• Honolulu (Japan) - hard to take and retain if the Allies are going KJF, easy on KGF
• Calcutta (Japan) - hard to take and retain if the Allies are going KJF, medium/hard on KGF
• Moscow (Germany)- hard to take and retain if the Allies are going KGF, medium/hard on KJF

List of abbreviations

@stebobibo:

Can you buy and deploy units on the first turn? Because in the rules it says you collect income at the end of each turn, therefore you would have no IPCs to spend on your first turn. If you do start with IPCs and can buy on the first turn, how many IPCs do you start with? Is it the number printed on the set-up cards? Or would it depend on the territories you have under your control at the start of your first turn? Example, USSR on his turn has taken some German territories worth 4 IPCs in total. Would Germany therefore start with 40-4=36 IPCs?

Germany (and the others) start with the money printed on the setup charts. At the end of its turn (after it places the units it purchased with its starting money) it receives income based on the number of territories it controls and their value. So, if G has 36 worth of territories, it will receive 36 IPC that can be used on beginning of its next turn to buy more units.

@Rorschach:

Your sub can choose to EITHER surprise strike OR submerge (if no enemy destroyers are present) but not both in the same round of combat. This happens each and every combat turn.

However, once the sub submerges it is out of the combat for good.

This may help:

Combat Sequence
#1 Attacking Subs Submerge/Surprise Strike (only if there’s no enemy destroyers present, otherwise they fire on #5)
#2 Defender Chooses Casualties (if there isn’t an defending destroyer(s) present, those units are removed immediately and don’t fire back, unless subs are chosen as casualties)
#3 Defending Subs Submerge/Surprise Strike (only if there’s no enemy destroyers present, otherwise they fire on #7)
#4 Attacker Chooses Casualties (if there isn’t an attacking destroyer(s) present, those units are removed immediately and don’t fire back, unless subs are chosen as casualties)
#5 Remaining Attacking Units Fire
#6 Defender Chooses Casualties
#7 Remaining Defending Units Fire
#8 Attacker Chooses Casualties
#9 Remove Casualties
#10 If there are still attacking and defending units remaining the attacker chooses to either press the attack or retreat. If the attack continues repeat #1, otherwise combat ends.

@axis_roll:

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/18-types-of-internet-trolls

interesting site

maybe Garg fits into one of these 18 troll types…

More than one. I’d say Rabid Flamer, Never-Give-Up, Never-Surrender, Self-Feeding and the Expert

Wait. I think I kinda can also fall into all of those categories…  :-D

@Gargantua:

Below are some “Anonymous” comments and observations I have be graced with via PM recently.

Apparently this person speaks for everyone?  And as the commentary has essentially been condoned, it’s only reasonable that I must consider them validated - and that I must give these thoughts the oppurtunity for public review that they deserve.

Obviously, if these notes are correct, I need to make some cultural adjustments to the nature of my existence on aa.org, and post less etc, but I would like to hear what the fans of the site think?

• you are a real idiot self-hating internet troll…you call this “villain” but everybody calls this asshat.

• you are a troll decide to cause problems.

• you are a moron.

• you obviously had a bad day so go back to the punching bag in your back yard.

• looking at your posts it appears you ran out of ideas on how to keep your post count up since that is great concern for you.

• 90% of your posts are just stupid gibberish random “comedy jokes” that people get tired of because they don’t add to conversation. If you got nothing to say why even post? Just look at all your posts…nonsense and inane drivel.
  (This one is particularily important to hear from you guys on. :) ~ Garg)

• You might want to take your own medicine now.

• YOU ARE FULL OF ���� ( AS USUAL)

• YOU ONLY DO THIS BULLSHIT BECAUSE YOUR PISSED OFF AT ME BECAUSE YOU ARE A LOSER

• YOU ARE A POST COUNT b����, BASICALLY YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY SO YOU POST 30 TIMES WITH STUPID GIBBERISH ‘FUNNY’S’ POSTS    THAT NOBODY REALLY NEEDS TO WASTE THEIR TIME READING.

As you guys all know, I’m always open to criticism and harsh words, so the gloves are off, please provide your own commentary. :D

Gargantua,

I think the above words would describe my general feeling when I started reading your posts. Your comments can be rude, off topic, useless and borderline trolling.
But I realized that you’re just playing the role of the joker, which by its own nature has that affect on some people and I just took you more lightly and realized that there was actually an intelligent and creative person instead of a complete moron.
But yeah, with that kind of attitude you step on some toes. So yes, I think it’s true: you can be like that to people on a first sight. :)