Posts made by justus

I vote Anglo-Egypt or India, but we’d have to play to see which is more feasible.

Just switch out UK and Germany so it’s: Russia, UK, Germany, Japan, USA (they go last right?) The two-power team will nead this initial push in order to have any chance against the other three. AgentO, why would you put US first? Germany and Russia will need all the help they can get–

Soo, everyone…what have we learned? Oh right. It seems to me this is no debate but just one big pissing contest. IDers, Creationists, and Empiricists will get no where unless you stop slinging mud at each other and decide to find some common ground. I think this is what you were going for CC. How about this: you’re all wrong. The real answers you all seek lie in compromise, corroboration, and honestly listening to each other, not by staunchly holding onto your views just to spite the other person, however deeply held they may be, and regardless of whether they were learned in lecture or Sunday school. No one seems to be willing to actually have any kind of dialectic discussion here. We’re all too concerned to prove who is smarter and do each other one better. Until your egos go out the door, this conversation is about as productive as banging your head on the wall. But, alas, maybe I’m being too harsh. Maybe you guys are getting something out of this. As for me, I’ve got nothing to prove, and I wish you guys the best of luck in finding whatever it is you’re searching for. Remember, it’s not about you, it’s about us.

No offense to anyone, and all due respect to your collective ethos’. I won’t post on this topic again, but go ahead and knock yourselves out (the whole wall thing); hope you get something out of it (besides a headache that is). Adios–and I’m out

The Key to the German side of fall of Moscow involves Archangel

My advice, and AgentO would probably agree with me: stay away from Archangel and Karelia. The Brits will squash any surviving units you power into these zones. You may take them, but will leave yourself vunerable to British Amphibious counter-attack. And hel, they’re only worth 4 IPC’s collectively. Caucasus is the Key for ultimate German victory; everything else you said seems right on though!

No, I agree with ImpLeader on this one; you should always buy more INF than any other unit, especially as Russia and Germany, otherwise you will die, quickly. You want to vary the types of units you buy in order to maintain a good balance, but there should be more INF on the mobilization box on every turn than any other unit. I still think they’re an uber-boring unit though :P.

Oh Whatever,

You can get numbers to say anything, and you’re still only using # of units with equal IPC values. I would never attack 20 INF with 6 FTR’s. You’re going to need at least half that in INF (10 would probably do it), along with at least five ARM, and maybe some FTR’s and BMR’s. You still might win, and would force me to retreat with my higher value units intact, but I’d bet I’ll take more of your INF than you would of mine.

In a GERM/Russia vs. everyone game, the combined Navies of US/UK/Japan is too much for Germany, who will fall first. Russia will hold out only because Moscow is the only victory city not accessible by water. Of course, you have to give them a new ally if you want to keep the game going, which will be either UK or Japan. America is too far away to help them, and UK/Japan can easily take Asia all by themselves (assuming it’s not just them vs. everyone).

US/Germ is a great team, and the UK will fall first, making them almost impossible to defeat. Therefore, you must split the deadly alliance to make it a fair game. We played this setup once, and I was Germany. US took London on turn 4 (I believe), and I picked up Japan as my ally vs. USA/USSR. Russia was able to hold me off however, and I owned all of Africa, but Japan was able to get to Moscow before I did (can you believe it)? At that point, it became a three player free-for-all, which was bad for me, because the other two teams had two capitals. Plus, USA and Japan were ignoring the Pacific. Basically, I was boxed in the whole game, and eventually Berlin fell :cry:.

Trust me though–if you try these you’ll like the results, and it might not happen exactly like I’ve laid out because dice will be dice. That’s why I love this game. It’s never the same. Check out our thread though–I’m serious

Maybe you should pose the question this way: Which unit is your favorite? INF are the best value, and the backbone of any land army, but c’mom, boorrinng. We can all agree the war is won on land, and INF play the major role in land combat, but what’s you favorite unit?Certainly not INF. They’re not spectacular in any way (attack at one?), and you can’t get too attached to them because they have such a high casualty rate :lol:. Didn’t you ever have that one Battleship you had since the beginning of the game, and had survived so many battles that you actually named it? Those are the kinds of units that stick with you–not INF. For my vote, I say fighters. They are very mobile, have good attack and defense values, and always seem to come out smelling like roses. Plus, they’re two IPC’s cheaper now, and can be utilized on a sea-based platform: Carriers (I still think that’s way cool). Very versatile–just like yours truly :D.

ImpLeader: Once you’ve tried alternate setups, you’ll never go back :wink:. If you’d like to know, ask away. I’ve got some great stories, and some good advice on what allies work and which ones don’t.

Real is a relative term. I agree with you about the biblical creation stories though. I don’t think any rational mind would take those stories as what actually happened.

It’s all about the “scientific method” with you isn’t it Falk. You keep looking at it through you’re scientific lense, and until you can crawl out of the empirical box you’ve made for yourself, you’ll never understand the concept of the creator. How many time must I say it: it’s not about proof, it’s about as Janus puts it, “a leap of faith.” That’s the wonder of the belief in a creator. When all the evidence seems to point you away from the existence of God, you still say “I believe”, which is a notion completely foreign, fallacious, and unsupportable to most hardcore science types, but is still a very powerful notion, and one that cannot be duplicated within the scientific worldview.

Oh, and to all, please don’t use what I’ve said here to stereotype or characterize me into any box. That really annoys the hel out of me. I like to retain my personal anonimity. Thanx :)

Has to be Japan or Germany. Cm’on, it’s three on two!

The great thing about this game is it’s never the same. It always plays out differently (dice). However, my crew likes to mix it up further by switching up the allies and adding a few nominal house rules. Check out our thread, alternate or traditional?

Most are voting for the heavy bombers, for quite obvious reasons. I like the Wolf packs/super subs though. If you have at least three subs (right?) you’re attacking at a four or less. You could destroy any Navy at will, and at only 8 IPC’s a pop, you could also afford to. Of course, subs do have their drawbacks (can’t defend against air units, and only @ a two or less), but if your two NA’s were U-boat and Wolf packs along with super subs, you could do serious damage with an 8 IPC piece. It’s very economically attractive, and you could turn the game in your favor with a few little submarines.

Oh, and by the way, you said InterDick :lol:.

Yea,

All (land) units must stop in the first territory where they encounter enemy units, even an AA or an IC. Since my units were already on Western Europe when it became a hostile territory, they weren’t allowed to move. They obviously claimed right away because they were no British forces, but no movement was possible. I had to take Berlin from the Brits with only the units I had mobilized in Southern Europe on the previous turn (3 INF, 2 ARM, 1 ARTY) against their 2 ARM and 2 INF. Took it with 1 ARM standing! 8) Got crushed in the New World though. It was all Britain after they took Washington, except for those pesky Japs in Alaska and Western Canada :wink:. Brazil will be mine.

When we say alternate, we mean starting the game with different allies:

Most recently we tried Germany and Russia vs. USA/Japan/UK. I got Russia and AgentO got Japan, so we started out as enemies. The trifecta owned the seas, and it was real ugly for Germany; they couldn’t leave the Med in fear of being crushed. It sucked for me as well, because AgentO got Bonzais for one of his NA’s, and I got non-aggression treaty, so I couldn’t (wouldn’t) attack him because I actually wanted to use my advantage, which was no advantage, really. Not a one of my free INF actually hit :roll:. We were strong in the Middle east, and were able to power our way into India on the ground, but they owned the high seas. Plus, AgentO just started stacking INF in Manchuria and China, which scared the living crap out of me. Needless to say, Germany went out first, seeing as almost all of their empire is accessible by water (barring West Russia and Belarus). Britain rushed in thru the Baltic and took Berlin, Germany took it back, and Britain took it for good (with two rounds of Nazi IPC’s in their hand). After this, I was in flagrant defiance of the remaining players, vowing that they would never take Moscow, and spewing all kinds of nasty things. By myself, I would have easily been crushed in 2 or 3 turns (if that), so I petitioned the group for a new ally in order to perpetuate the game and keep me in it. We took a vote and decided that the UK would join my side against Japan and Russia. There were several factors that went into this: does each side have an approximately equal IPC capacity? What techs does each side have? How about just pure military power already on the board? We try to balance these things out and make it as even as possible. The primary motivating factor for us was the fact that AgentO and I were in huge standoff in the east. We had just been stacking units along our borders trying to scare the other side into packing up and going home (non-aggression treaty was still in full effect). Together, we had more units in the east than anyone else anywhere on the board. The group decided we shouldn’t be allied because our combined military might was just too great. We (I) also knew Russia would never stand up to a Japan/UK duo, so we settled on the UK and Russia vs. USA/Japan. We also ran into a problem because there were still German Naval and Air units on the board. We use a house rule to rectify these kinds of problems:

If a power is defeated (capital’s taken), and there are units remaining on the board belonging to the vanquished power, then those units are to be conscripted by that power’s former ally(ies).

Also,

Allies may be changed only immediately after a capital/power has fallen (for good).

In the case of the above mentioned game, I as Russia was now equipped with a sizeable Air Force, and a decently sized Navy. Yes, folks, I have in fact seen a Russian Battleship (with a Navy to boot!), and believe you me it was a beautiful sight :wink:! Much thanks to the Nazi high command 8).

You may also run into some other problems, but first I must tell you of what conspired in the East between AgentO and I, and let me relish in my ultimate victory over Japanese aggression. Don’t hate me, O, because I’m beautiful :lol:.

AgentO sent everything he had at me in the east. In Buratytia (spelling?), he sent his 12 Bonzai INF at my 5 INF, 3 ARM, and 1 FTR defending. Seriously, I thought it was all over. But after about probably 10 rounds of combat, there was no one left standing, and my boys had successfully defended their homeland. I think my FTR hit everytime. AgentO didn’t do so well in China either, and after that turn, Japan was no longer a threat on land in Asia. Effectively defeated on the mainland, he resigned to building a massive Navy to protect the island. Who’s the man? 8)

UK and I eventually took Washington. We effectively split up the German empire, and I started running attacks on the US out of the Southern European IC and the Med while Britain took Berlin and France. I was really in no position to take Washington, though my brilliant (and successful) attack on Western Canada was the beginning of the end for the US. Britain took Washington, US took it back, and UK took it for good. As you can probably tell by now, the UK did all the dirty work in this game. Sensing the growing power of the Britons, and realizing he had more techs than either Japan or myself, as well as a hoarde of IPC’s (two capitals–twice!), I took the opportunity offered by the downfall of America, and turned on the UK. AgentO (who had just watched his ally be destroyed) was, of course, quite amenable to the idea, and we formed a deadly alliance. Problem was, I had a tank in Africa sitting on British land. So how many spaces could I blitz? One or two (see “need some input” thread)? We decided:

If allies change, and there are now hostile (formerly friendly) units on formerly allied land, one move point is used in taking the territory.

So this means INF would use their move claiming the land they were already on (meaning they can’t move that turn), and tanks could only blitz one additional space. There were also territories where both British and Russian units had been in together. This initiates “instant combat” on the next combat cycle, unless the power whose turn it is decides to pull out of said zone into a friendly territory. This is an adaptation of the similar rule already in the rulebook which states the attacking power has the option to pull out on his combat move and avoid confrontation. It says this usually only applies to sea units, but it seems quite logical to apply it in these sorts of instances as well. After all, that is the meaning of the word “usually”.

We also ran into another problem: Can an allied Navy run an Amphibious Assault with friendly units? Your first gut reaction is no, because allies can’t attack together, but the rule actually means allies can’t roll attack dice together on the same combat cycle. They can only roll together when they defend together. Allies can attack the same territory on their own turn right? So, taken to its logical end, it would work like this:

Friendly ground units load up on their turn (combat cycle). Allied navy (on their own turn) moves and then conducts shore bombardment. On friendlies’ next turn, land units unload and conduct land combat.

This would all happen over a couple rounds, but it’s completely legal if you think about it. The allies are rolling attack dice on their own turn . No one is attacking together. There are land units in those transports, so the shore bombard is allowed, assuming there’s no defending sea units. Still, this means those land units are exposed to attack in their transports because they have to wait until their own turn to offload, and enemy powers will have their own chance to attack said fleet when it’s their turn.

All in all, alternate setups make you a better player because:

You must learn every aspect of the game, and are forced to read into the rules where they don’t reach.

The map is your friend. You must constanly stay on top of territories changing hands and altering IPC earnings. (There are 166 total IPC’s available on the map, which is something you might not have known before, but we do.)

You have to think outside the box. You need new strategies to achieve different kinds of results with different kinds of allies. There are all kinds of strategies to play traditional A&AR, and you can read all about them in all sorts of threads slathered all over this forum. But do you have the right kind of strategy to defeat America with a combined Russian/British force? I think not. And you won’t find it anywhere on this site, all due respect to the Mods for the opportunity to talk nerd :D.

Finally, if you can play alternate, then you can play traditional, but not necessarily vice versa. I consider myself a student of the game, not just a player.

But, alas, I must finish now because a whole portion of my waking life has just gone down the tubes, and I’m kind of starting to regret babbling on for so long. Hopefully, you guys can see where I’m coming from, and maybe I’ve even won over a few people. Fight on, brave souls!! (That’s nerd talk for: your not losing, you just had some bad rolls :wink:.) :)

Like the topic brother; you already know how I voted. Most of the votes have been for traditional, however. Not to toot our own horn, but most of the players on this forum could never hang with our skills. They’re used to playing the same setup over and over, and wouldn’t know how to operate outside the historical WW2 box. Oh well, more power to us. Because we play outside the box we have a strategic and technical advantage over most other players. We can play any side, any allies, and any part of the map two ways from Tuesday. Fduck it!! Here’s a toot to our superior gaming style!! 8)

No offense to any of the other players on this forum, and yes, in the end, it all comes down to who has the better rolls in the crucial battles. :evil:
–and I’m out

Russia is what wrought the end of Germany –- without that harbringer sucking supplies, engineering, and manpower Germany could easily steamroll all other opponents in Europe/Africa. If anyone thinks otherwise you are really not thinking hard enough on it (or just lack the knowledge thereof).

Agreed!! But don’t forget that nasty Russian winter!!

I agree with Kyrial. It’s primarily Japan’s job to take out Moscow. The Russians can match anything Germany can muster on the Eastern front, plus the Nazis also have to hold their own against ensuing Allied landings (ya know, the whole surrounded on all sides thing). Consequently, a good Asian Wall strategy will buy the Rusky’s some time, so it’s worth it to expend some resources on IC’s and the like. Look, there are only three ways into Russia from the east: the frozen north (Soviet Far East, Buraytia, Yakut), China, the Caucasus and Kazak SSR (through India, Persia and Trans-Jordan). Putting roadblocks in these three areas will only help the Allies. Considering the fact that the Axis’ only viable strategy is to KUSSRF (which is again Japan’s job), stopping Japan is a good idea.

Pot is a gateway drug because it introduces you to the drug world. However, we are sentient beings, and we make our own decisions. At a very young age, I made a vow I would never try any hard drugs, and I never have. Pot isn’t and will never be a gateway drug for me. The “Gateway” phenomena is a function of free will; there’s nothing inherent in Cannibus that makes it a gateway drug.