Posts made by I like Ike

On G1 if they go infantry, then on R1, I’m going 6 armor.

@F6FHellcat:

No.  Is Final Countdown.  USS Nimitz enter time storm.  Commander of Nimitz recall F-14 Tomcat fighter just before they attack Japan force go to Pearl Harbor when Time Storm reappear.  Is strange movie.

Crap, yeah that’s right it was Final Countdown, thanks for the correction Hellcat.  Kirk Douglas, Martin Sheen……

I did get it confused with the Philadelphia Experiment though.  That movie had the guy from Eddie and the Cruisers in it.  It was about the government experimenting with electro magnetic fields on a destroyer to send back to WWII.

@Woodstock:

This one movie, which I forgot the name of, of an modern AC that thanks to some storm travels back in time, and finds himself right before Pearl Harbor. Now he has the choice, unleash his mighty force of F14’s and F18’s against the pitiful Japanese zero’s and change history, or……
Terrible plot, but pretty cool nontheless.

Ah yes, that was, The Philadelphia Experiment.

WOW can’t believe nobody mentioned an obvious choice….

@P@nther:

Well, WWII began in 1939.

So take the start of the 1941 and/or 1942 -games as scenarios in which Japan has already captured those two Chinese territories.

hth :-)

If 1939 is to be considered the starting point of the war than IMO Japan should be considered the original controller of Manchuria since they took it from China in 1931.

Something I just noticed today.

According to the FAQ Manchuria and Kiangsu are originally controlled by China.

Now taking into consideration that Japanese units are in Manchuria and Kiangsu at the start of the game (both scenarios), how can China be considered the original owner of these territories?

This rule doesn’t make sense…

@Cmdr:

Figure it like this, when it is not the submarine’s turn, they are busy refueling, resupplying, recharging batteries and/or cycling fresh air into their submarines and the transports are gliding through unopposed.

This makes sense to me, good analogy Jen.

I understand your cost effectiveness point as well.  I was just thinking that a similar AA gun rule could be implemented for this one situation.

My rule would be that if a unescorted transport (transport only) passes through a sub zone the sub would get one shot at sinking the transport by rolling a 1 (just like the AA gun rule) except the dice would be limited to the number of subs on the board (not the number of transports passing through).  For example, if 4 transports would pass through a sub zone containing 2 subs.  The subs would roll 2 dice with a chance at sinking 2 transports if you roll snake eyes.

But I’m obviously in the minority here so the rule is good as it is.  With all that said I still love the way the game is laid out.   :-D

I really like the new rules with this one exception.

That an unescorted transport can pass through a sea zone with a sub in it unimpeded.  I think there should be a rule (like the AA guns) that if an unescorted transport moves through a sea zone with a sub in it, the sub gets one crack at sinking the transport.  Unescorted ships in the Atlantic were prime targets for German U-boats.  144 unescorted ships were sunk by U-boats in the Atlantic during the war.

IMO, I just don’t think this is a good strategy for Japan and I think there are a couple of flaws in your reasoning.

1. You began starting out by saying if the US player concentrates their IPC on buying a pacific fleet. OK, if they do that there’s probably a good chance that your not going to have all the units you state you’ll have when you attack the WUS.

2. You’re assuming that the US player will just ignore the massive invasion fleet your massing and not make preparations for the incoming invasion by at least placing some units on the west coast.

3. If Japan goes KUSF and leaves the UK alone in the pacific, the UK will be too strong economically which will enable the UK to seriously threaten Germany with an invasion while giving Russia the aid it needs in defending Moscow.

But that’s just my opionion.  That said, it does sound fun to play out to see what would really happen.

@alwayswin:

I actually enjoy it when the UK throws an IC in India. Not only will I be able to take it with Japan in T3 or T4 (with the help of an E. Indies IC, of course) but it also forces the UK player to build 3 units there for as long as they have it. Those 10-15 IPC’s spent their each turn take too much away from the Atlantic. Let the US focus on Japan and the UK can deal with Germany.

Japan cannot just simply match US naval units in the Pacific. After the third US turn I usually have 1 battleship, 2 loaded carriers, 2 destroyers and 2-3 subs off the coast of Alaska, with 3 bombers in Alaska and another 3 maybe 4 subs that I just built in WUS. If Japan kept all their navy at home then sure they can attack my fleet but at what cost, I’m rolling 5 at 4 or less with at least 6 fodder. Plus my bombers and subs will counterattack what’s left (likely no destroyers). The first 4 turns the US player must go all out in the Pacific to even come close to slowing down Japan. The last 4 games I’ve played with the allies this plan has worked.

Actually I’ve play tested the IC in India several times and if Japan is played right the IC will fall on J2.  An IC in India is nothing more than a free gift for Japan.

@a44bigdog:

The way I play J1 I will have up to 6 fighters to hit Australia with and at an absolute minimum 3 infantry from Borneo and E. Indies. I also should have a cruiser and battleship bombardment as well. I like when the US gets cocky like that and thinks it can protect Australia. That is 20 IPCs worth of US fighters eliminated early.

As far as Alaska, It can not do much to hurt me and I can start trading Alaska on my terms with units out of Japan after I have my mainland ICs up and running. In other words in Round 3 if I so desire. Short of very funky dice China will not be producing infantry after J2 anyhow.

Oh OK I see, so what your saying is that my theory of an Alaskan/Austalian IC combo taking Japanese units away from Asia is flawed because if Japan wishes to do so they can just drop an IC on the mainland to get units there……OK.

But I am still curious to see if you or anyone else ran across someone tying this.  Or is it so flawed that no one will probably try it?

@a44bigdog:

If I was Japan I would be giddy at getting a free IC in Australia on turn 2.

I do not like an Alaskan IC by the US or Japan. Although I could possibly change my mind about the latter in AA50. In Every AAR or AA50 game I have played whomever has built the Alaskan IC has eventually lost it. That is 100% of the time and covers several years of playing revised. It only produces 2 units, although with the factory tech and ability to produce 4 units that may skew things. I still do not see a true need for either power to purchase an Alaskan IC.

I was thinking that the Australian IC could be held longer than that by reinforcing it with the addition of the American fighters from SZ44 and the Hawaiian Island.  Fly the WUS and EUS fighters to the Carrier left in SZ44 to aid in defending the IC if it doesn’t fall on J2.  If it doesn’t you could have 4 US and 2 UK fighters on Australia by the end of round 2.   Also if the Japanese player got sloppy on J1 and left any transports naked or defended by only a DD in SZ’s 48 or 51 they would be in range of the WUS Bomber and could be sunk on US1 while landing it safely in Australia.

With regards to the Alaska IC…I actually want Japan to come after it.  If Japan is putting resources into taking the Australian and Alaskan IC that less units being shipped over to Asia, giving China and Russia much need time to defend itself.  IMO if Japan takes the Alaskan IC it can be taken back relatively easily as Japan wouldn’t be able to produce or transport enough units to hold the Alaskan IC.

Has anyone tried or seen the Allies employ a strategy of buying a IC’s for Alaska & Australia on US and UK1?

Just curious to see how Japan responded to this if it’s been played out.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH GASP BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

What happened to YOUR Grand German Naval strategy that you’ve been touting for the last week around here???  :roll:

@Mr:

Ideal Turn Sequence

UK
UK
UK
US
US
US
Rus
Rus
Rus
Rus
Germ
Jap
Italy
UK
US
Rus

Start over.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA  :-D

@tin_snips:

little easier, a lot easier - it doesn’t matter how you say it. both sides can win, but axis seems to win more often  8-)

True….Fair enough.

@axis_roll:

@I:

Just wondering if anyone has tried to tweak the turn sequence by letting Russia go first?  I’m thinking this simple solution may make the '41 scenario more balanced.  Thoughts?

Sounds like you think the allies need help.

How many games have you played, with what optional rules (N.O.'s, tech)?

I am just trying to gauge how you have come to the conclusion that the 1941 scenario is not balanced.

Basically from the games I’ve played and from other posts here.  Just for numbers sake, a couple people here have numerous games and the ratio is 3-1 in favor of the Axis.  I myself have only played 4 games (always with NO and Tech) with the Axis winning all 4 but the Allies made a very strong run in one game.  The only problem with that is that had very favorable rolls.

@Unknown:

The Axis SHOULD be winning more than the Allies right now imo. Axis playout is much more linear (relative to the Allies), and requires much less coordination. The best Allied strats simply take longer to “figure out” than the Axis ones. In time, the Allies will no doubt look stronger. I’d be worried about play balance if the Allies were already winning 50% of matches.

Huh…interesting take US.

@a44bigdog:

So I suppose the Russians do nothing and just let you have Karelia?

By projecting your turn 2 assault on Karelia Russia can be well prepared to liberate it. They can have plenty of infantry staged in Archangel and 6 tanks purchased in round 1 ready to rip out of Russia.

What happens to the Kriegsmarine when the US shows up with a nice stack of bombers out of England on turn 4 or so?

That’s exactly what I said to him in his Subs are awesome thread bigdog.  When he said he’d buy 6 subs on G1, I told him on R1 I would load up on armor for the counter attack and stock pile UK and US bombers while bomb the crap our of Germany and Italy.

Just wondering if anyone has tried to tweak the turn sequence by letting Russia go first?  I’m thinking this simple solution may make the '41 scenario more balanced.  Thoughts?