Posts made by Jennifer

There’s way too many things to ponder when evaluating a scramble.

Primarily

• did Germany screw up the attack and scrambling will give you an edge in one or more engagements somewhere?
• What is your plan with England?  Are you going to build up the middle east and hold with a hope of neutering Japan and sending reinforcements up the Caucasus mountains?  Or are you going more traditional invasion of Europe/Scandinavia with British naval assets?  If the former, the planes are nice, but less important - if the later then the planes are extremely important!

Secondary

• What did Germany buy?  Fleet?  Ground Troops?  If Germany bought fleet, you may want to keep those planes for defense, scramble, counter attacks.  If they bought ground troops, odds are good they plan on hitting Russia and you may decide some planes are more expendable (if they can knock down Luftwaffe and buy Russia some extra time).
• What did Japan do?  If Japan went to war right off the bat, it implies that a massive push on England is coming, you may want to withhold your fighters for later when money is tight.  If Japan consolidated, a slower game might be ahead.

I am sure there’s a lot more, but I have only had 33% of a cup of coffee and I can’t be expected to function on so little caffeine. :P

For the record, I do not claim special knowledge or ability, those are just ideas that run through my head as I play.  Then again, I don’t like playing England.  :lol:  I prefer Russia.

Italy needs a transport to take Malta, true.  However, you should have 1 or 2 transports left anyway, more than enough.  So you don’t hit N. Africa that round…you pull 5 IPC away from England for virtually the entire game and make the entire sea safer for your fleet (no LZ in Malta for British/American aircraft.)

The opportunity cost is worth it, in my opinion.  Survivors from there can be offloaded into Africa round 2 anyway.  (odds are good you only have 1 transport Round 1 anyway, right?  So INF + ARM + Bombard should win in Malta)

Don’t forget, you cost the British a transport to retake it, and they have to be able to get a transport in there (in which case, again, I humbly suggest Italy is no longer a threat at that point anyway!)

Note:  Having Italy take Malta also pretty much ends the British chances of getting that NO in the Atlantic.  If they do manage to get it back, the game’s probably lost for the Axis anyway, IMHO.

Always try for Malta with Italy in my games.  Lightly defended, easy to take, really hard to get back (and if England does, they are using a turn for it instead of using troops elsewhere.)

Essentially, one must only have a unit that is eligible to support the other to enact the combined arms bonus.  You don’t literally have to say this tactical bomber is supported/supporting that tank.  Just have a tank and the TB or a TB and a FIG, or an Inf and an Art.  Etcetera.

I’m still doing the Russian wall, not sending them home.  Personally. Just pull the units back one territory away from Japan, leave a single picket infantry there.  Pulls the infantry away from the coast so you aren’t at risk of being bombarded to death, also should pull you out of aircraft range (but I doubt someone’s attacking that stack with just aircraft anyway).  Still able to push forward and cause issues, invites Japan to make Mongolia yours (more infantry)  etcetera.

Also, with the income increase, Russia should be able to send a few tanks over to assist.  Seen some deadly Russian invasions into China early in the game!  Really makes it a nightmare for Japan.

Keeping in mind, my idea of KJF is just making sure Japan doesn’t get big.  Keeping them in China is very effective in neutralizing them, and with pressure off America in the Pacific (not completely off, but reduced?) then American can use those ungodly sums of money to pound Germany.

Again, the above are just my opinions, if you don’t agree that’s fine.  What makes this game fun is that you don’t have to do it a certain way!

Eh, I’ll watch all Trek, even bad Trek!  Never was a Star Wars fan.  (The Starfighter battles sure, but, really, space wizards with flaming swords?  Not my cuppa tea)

We also have this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4JUxQe4P4g  proving once and for all that Trek science is better than Star Wars science!  Puny lasers!  :evil:

IL - wasn’t the Enterprise B from ST:TNG a heavy cruiser?  The 1701 and 1701-A were Constitution Classes.  (haven’t looked at the images for the show yet, I want to be surprised.)

26 would be enough, you have 3 fighters.  Assuming 2 of them are deployed somewhere but the 3rd one is in decent range, you could just get 1 carrier, 1 fighter.  Unless you’re aiming for 5 fighters total for the ANZAC.

Can we talk about the fact it’s an hour long video?

@oztea:

The Brazillian

Turn 1 send a transport with 1 arty to SZ 66 on the europe board, leaving a fighter on New Zeland
Turn 2 Annex Brazil, and land a fighter there, you now have 3 Inf, 1 Art, 1 FGT
Turn 3 Land at Gibraltar, or Morocco
Turn 4 Be helping the allies in the Atlantic

Seen this a few times.

What I like about it is that Brazil is virtually permanent cash for ANZAC.  And, as mentioned above, it does bring more troops to Africa for the fight.

What I don’t like about it, you’re short a transport now for the Pacific.  Then again, that begs the question of if you want Australia to take some/all of the DEI or leave them for India?

I, personally, like t get at least one carrier for the Australians at some point of time.  Failing that, keeping three fighters in the Pacific is nice because the US can take an island, ANZAC can land fighters there for Cover Air Patrol (scrambling).

It’s always nice to have another method of getting troops to Russia for their defense and to provide for a follow up punch.  I, personally, have found that complexes end up costing more to defend then they give in benefits in many instances.

Therefore, my opinion is thus:

If you own the North Atlantic, you may be better off with a transport train to Norway.  (in all versions of Axis and Allies)

If you do not own the North Atlantic, a complex may be wise, it depends on if you can hold it.  (in all versions of Axis and Allies)

The Tokyo Express also really comes in handy in the Pacific.  It’s annoying enough to go out island collecting, if you can send a cruiser with a marine on it instead of a cruiser and a transport it helps speed game play up a bit as well.  (Thinking Marshals, Jonah, Guam, Midway, Formosa, etcetera…islands you may want to collect but don’t want to dedicate a fleet to getting and are probably un, or under, defended)

@Gamerman01:

@Cmdr:

Now now now, we all know that bad dice beat good tactics all the time, but it is rather bad form to complain about the dice gods! :P

My point is, anecdotal evidence is very weak evidence.  And a single game is as anecdotal as it gets

I was trying to be funny :P  I’ve oft complained about the evil dice gods (except in navy battles, somehow I always have unbelievably good luck in naval battles!  If there were some victory cities in the water I’d OWN this game!!!)  hehe

Now now now, we all know that bad dice beat good tactics all the time, but it is rather bad form to complain about the dice gods! :P

Only been playing BM versus the AI atm, but I kind of like the China thing…  Seems to slow the Japanese down a bit, pulling some pressure off of India.  Also like that Russia is getting some serious coin.  So tired of Russia getting the short end of the stick financially in each iteration of the game (in my opinion).

Seems to me, that a major aspect is establishing superiority in the Atlantic quickly…unlike before when you could ignore the Atlantic and rely on your air power to keep the Allies at bay while you took out Russia.  Could be wrong, again, only paying the AI (or against myself) to try some things…just my first impressions

Yea, I always wished that ABs added 2 to fighters/TBmbs and 4 to Strat Bombs…but that isn’t how it is, so my wishes be danged. lol

I agree, the Tactical Bomber makes more sense, and this adds functionality to a unit that, in my personal opinion, is under utilized in naval operations.

It would also spur the purchase of airbases in the South Pacific because you might need that extra range.  It might not…but it might.

http://www.navairdevcen.org/PDF/THE EVOLUTION OF THE SONOBUOY.pdf

See also ADC082812. U.S. Navy Journal of Underwater Acoustics. Volume 62, Issue 2, April 2012 Airborne Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)

They were being used in World War II for anti-submarine warfare.  However, I could see that the bombers were probably loaded to bear with nothing but these buoys and had to probably carpet the entire area where a suspected submarine was, which is why I said that it might be realistic to remove the attack ability of the bomber(s) being used on ASW.

Could amend it that the bombers are dropping buoys, not bombs and thus, do not have an attack value in this type of engagement.

So, I was thinking.

We all know that submarines cannot be hit if there are no enemy destroyers present.

We also know from history, that bombers could drop sonar buoys to locate enemy submarines.

Since submarines cannot hit aircraft, we can’t just assume a strat. bomber can offer unlimited shots by enemy fighters on submarines - it would break the game, IMHO.  So what if….

Attackers can attack defending submarines, even without a destroyer, if (and only if) the attacker has at least one naval ship with a combat rating greater than or equal to a value of 1, AND, an attacking strategic bomber.

Note, this would not help on defense against submarines, because strategic bombers cannot be scrambled or stationed over sea zones anyway.

It’s just a thought.  Could be especially helpful in the pacific and southern atlantic because of the range of bombers and the distance from industrial complexes to get new ships out.