Posts made by jemo81

Hit it ASAP with 3 british planes

other people probably have more experience and insight into this than i, but one thing that imideately caught my attention in your approach is the IC in norway. I would assume that when britain wants this, they take it, and othervise it seems a lot of ressources to me to secure scandinavia.

Have you considered gradually expanding the luftwaffe with a plane or two pr round in order to be a serious threath to the uk nawy?

Regarding japan, my experiences are that it is good the keep the nawy close and avoid to many ships gone astray as they are often too weak against 1 or 2 bombers plus perhaps a sub. IF you have a strong united japaneese fleet in close priximity to the us (within striking range = 2 spaces), then you would be more able to dictate what the americans buy (landforces to prevent a japaneese invasion into western us.

my comments are of course just some of the possibilities, but are gathered from app. 30 games and generally seem to work very well in my playgroup.

@Funcioneta:

You could do the same as Japan. They will have more income than USA pretty early

agreed, BUT as Japan I feel I need a navy much more to control my many islands when comparing to the USA.

In any case, going for HB and LRA seem to be the best options so far. I hope to be able to come up with other alternatives in my coming games however as the game otherwise seems too dull with an overpowered US airforce

First the question:
Though the heading is specific regarding navy, the thoughts might apply more general.

Background for my question:
The situation is that in many of the games my group plays, USA will very often if not always research for minimum 15 pr round until they get Heawy bombers and long range aircrafts. If they don’t get a research on the chart for the 15, they use another 5 the following round to get 4 dices. In any case, as Japan who starts with a lot of navy it seems always (in our games) impossible to defend the navy, as a heavy bomber at the price of 12 has a good chance of killing a battleship at the price of 20. when one compares 2 heavy bombers to a fully loaded carrier the math gets even more crazy in favour of the heavy bombers. As for the long range aircraft, having 3 bombers or more in london and a similar amount in western USA, will actually enable them to strike an extremely large area with 6+ bombers.

I like 41  best, because 42 reminds too much about revised, which many people have played to death and beyond (at least that is my take on it)

besides, who doesn’t loke throwing 2 battleships in the water in britain round 1 :)  or moving the mighty japaneese fleet on to new adventures or rusia with 30+ income ;)

being a big fan og italian fleet myself i thought i wanted to share an experience from my last game. The US was so fortunate to avhieve heavy bombers (and long range aircraft two rounds later), but from an italian perspective heavy bombers is bad…VERY bad. I you play against US and they get heavy bombers, I would not recomend buying more fleet - not even carriers as they benefit for allies is too big if you can kill the italian movement by destroying their fleet.

@wodan46:

@Subotai:

Let’s say Japan builds 2 CV and one fighter during turn 1-3, and consolidates in Japan sz. How big navy/air force are you gonna use to kill the Japanese fleet?

I’ve developed a new KJF plan.  2 CV and a Fighter are not even close to enough.  By the end of Turn 3, the Allies have a large fleet in Indonesia, 10 Bombers on standby in various locales, and have dropped Japan’s economy by somewhere between 16-25 while giving the Allies a needed infusion.  On Turn 4, the Japanese Fleet will be gone, and Japan  possibly SBRed.  At this point, Japan is pretty much a non-player, and while capturing Japan may be hard, at this point you hardly need to.  While Germany might take Russia and Italy might take Africa/Middle East, they can’t even match the Allies in income, let alone hope to keep what they have and somehow grab VCs in the Pacific.

come on. what planet are you living on? japan start with a huge fleet. If US have 10 bombers in turn 3, they have used the vast majority of all their IPC up until this point om bombers, leaving little for fleet and not nearly close enough to be a serious treath to a japan player unless he is a monkey. Backup your far out comments with just a small amount of arguements on how to achieve this or keep em to yourself until you can.

to prevent it you would probably need some russions infantery and a tank or two + preferably an epyptian fighter and the us going all in on japan. whether it is worth the effort and many ipcs is a whole different matter all together. At matter in which i’m personally leaning towards a negative response to at the moment when looking at japans potential 2nd round strik capability against india.

@wodan46:

@Fighter:

stockpile infantery and move an aa gun around with all major axis forces and then lets see how long your planes can handle trading a least 10 ipc/unit with 3-5 for axis units. strategy flawed and failed imho unless modified to include fodder units.

Which it already has.  Also, if Germany builds AAs, Russia simply captures them if they are guarding a small stack of units, and on a large stack of units, the AA really isn’t all too important given that its probably a suicide mission anyways.  Not to mention that every AA Germany builds is one less Tank or pair of Infantry for it to throw at Russia.

Also, why are you spouting this nonsense about trading at least 10 ipc a unit with 3-5 for Axis units?  First off, Britain is doing this in addition to ground attacks by Russia and invasions by America, a combined attack that Germany/Italy can ill afford.  Second, a German Infantry in Belorussia is significantly less replaceable than a British Fighter, due to the cost in momentum.  Third, given that Britain would otherwise have to build a large navy and transport fleet, they are going to be forced to be trading 10 IPCs for every 3-5 IPCs they destroy anyways, if not more.

example: assume a reasonable large german force in inland europe away from shore landings (not at all unlikely). who is going to go first against such an army?
if it is russia who makes the first punch, the they would be getting the most resistance compared to the UK and perhaps the US if the german army survives. in any case the UK would attack the remainding german stack with fighters, and i they have e.g. 6 units left, then you risk loosing ca. 3 if you are just a but unlucky and perhaps more with AA gun in the territory (not gonna mention radar here). further more you cant reinfroce the territory if russia didn’t conquered it on theirturn.

as a “bonus”, if your are unlucky (please note that i call it luck), then the germans get the rader tech, and then you could be really f……

long rane aircraft combined with heavy mombers is “tha bomb” jetfighters is a first runner up.

@wodan46:

You take Norway turn 2.  Axis has no feasible way to recapture it.  If Norway is held, you don’t need to be producing additional air units at all.  If you can’t take Norway, then you fall back to SBR instead.  Also, it is likely that America will regain control of Africa just as Britain loses it, then dominate the Mediterranean, Southern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, where it blocks Japan from advancing further.

To Reiterate
Britain: Use Middle Eastern Forces in conjunction with Fighters in the Eastern Front, take Norway and drop an IC if possible, SBR Italy if one or both of the prior falls through.
America: Crush Italy, and liberate everything that Italy goes for.
Russia: Standard Russian stuff.

stockpile infantery and move an aa gun around with all major axis forces and then lets see how long your planes can handle trading a least 10 ipc/unit with 3-5 for axis units. strategy flawed and failed imho unless modified to include fodder units. Only japan would come close to doing this, and that is after round 2-3 and under the assumption that us pretends as thouhg japan never existed

this is a “what if” post. You pick ONE tech and explain with which nation of the six that you would use it and how. The “goal” is to come up with the coolest and yet viable strategy/approach.

of course i’ll jump first ;)

Tech: Paratrooper

Nation: US

Target: Italy via marocco algeria

The tech in it self is loveable, but can be difficult to setup for proper usage imo.

I start by establishing a solid base of units by transporting inf to marocco algeria, which can be done in 1 turn which is very important for speed and momentum. Secondly i would start pushing out bombers while at the same time pumping out infantery to force italy to stack up in rome, which also helps the UK better getting a hole in the france altantic fortress.

@atarihuana:

…luftwaffe essential :)

If UK get too bold with their fleetbuild (to many transports compared to their fleet defence) i would dedicate an entire german rounds build to fighters and/or bombers (what ever works best with cash and current techs) and bomb the shit out of the UK fleet and all their transports so that all their progress on naval would be lost, and because of their likely decrease in IPC to mid-20s they will have very difficult rebuilding the navy compared to how fast germany could smash it all againg. For germany to be in front with this idea, I would recomend to build at least 1 plane each round and at least two if germany has more than 50 ipc a round. mix up the types of planes so you can use some fighters for good defence in france and bombers for long range action. Besides heavy bombers, long range aircraft would be the best tech you could get in this situation (and very likely also in most ofther situations)

@tarkonis:

I havent played enough to confirm either but all i know is that I am SO GLAD I got this game!!  Even when you lose it just so amazing to fight the war!

you should come join my playgroup then ;)

joke aside, I know what you mean. I really great to play a game that have been upgraded in so many areas; especially with NO’s and a much better research system than in revised.

@Imperious:

how do those Japanese Subs attack the American Subs without a Destroyer present?

subs cant attack subs w/o a DD?

I thought that was just for surface ships and planes attacking subs with no DD.

only destroyers can spot subs. nothing else. hence, subs can’t attack subs UNLESS the defender allows you to attack with your 2’s against his 1’s, which I guess won’t happen that often :)

in relation to the original idea –>

the idea is dead. short and simple in my eyes:

japan will become a monster quickly without US opposition and should US after 2-3 round decide to go after japan anyway they will laugh their pants of and throw 50+ IPC worth og asskicking their way each round and muster up for an invasion probably.

Germany may focus all forces against russia and totally ingoring the west coast and/or they could build up an invasion fleet to take UK + SBR (they are probably buying the bombers anyway as they would need to hit through alot of 4’s at some time)

germany could go for researching radar

without land units, the allies cannot conquer new territories and defend the existing.

If still wanting to go with this idea, I would seriously recomend spending some ipc a round on techs trying to achieve long range aircraft and jet fighters. But still you need the grunts as fodder…but hey, I’d be happy to be proven wrong :)

The short answer is no.

whatever fleet you build as UK, you are free to place in the seazone around UK. Then on the german players turn. he have 2 options. to stay and fight against whatever fleet you might have build, or to run away. However, if you only build subs(+ perhaps a transporter) with the UK i actually believe (not 100% certain on this one, but pretty sure) that you can just remain there.

as UK i would recomend including a destroyer in their naval purchases to avoid the subs first strike capability

by not going after africa with primarily the italians there is a risk of the following:

less income to the italians and thus potentially less forces to help reinforce france and boosting the italian navy as a way to put preasure on the UK. Secondly you allow the UK to keep more income which they can use to build fleet (likely including a lot of shorebombardments) and landing forces to send to scandinavia, poland and france as the 3 primary targets probably.

if UK build a factory in south africa, then use your fleet and transporter (you should always have more than 1 so you can fully exploit your shorebombardments) and launch an attack with a couple of transporters, 3 shores and a fighter. Actually a factory in south africa can be a benefit for germany as this means less ipc used in smashing their atlantic wall (france and denmark).

@Krieghund:

@TimTheEnchanter:

What if it wanted to unload into friendly Territory Y which is also adjacent to the same sea zone?

Only Classic allows unloading into multiple territories, but that’s a moot point in this example.

just a small addition. You could offload to two territories in Revised with one of japans national advantages as the only way. Tokyo-express I believe it was called.

@Cmdr:

Better question:

Japan is about to Amphibiously Assault W. USA.

Russia has their submarine in SZ 56.

Technically, the Battleships and Transports can ignore the submarine and may conduct off shore bombardments as if the submarine was not present.

However, if Japan sent in destroyers, that cannot do the bombardment of W. USA, they should be able to attack the enemy submarine.

regarding your last section cmdr jen, is it then not possible at all for Japan just to say that they “chose” not to detect the sub? i.e. in this case “forfitting” their sub spotting technology to their own advantage. Logically one should be able to chose to ignore a sub regardless of whether one could see it or not