Posts made by KGrimB

@Marshmallow:

Neither battleships nor cruisers can force your subs to do battle and thereby save the UK’s income!

So Germany’s battleship is forfeit though?

So all the votes are currently for Egypt. Given recent topics posted and posts made in this thread attacking Eygpt after securing the Middle Easr and moscow just makes sense. It’s where your units are and building a sea lion fleet late game is off the table. Landing in London against a skilled opponent at any point in the game seems to actively harm efforts in the East and makes your units more vulnerable to US counterattack.

Therefore I would say that sea lion is a purely opportunistic move.

I actually often ignore the Italians in Ethiopia I’m favor of taking Persia and Iraq. They cannot join up in Sudan until I2 and normally they can be “herded” by the 2 infantry in South Africa and the French Infantry in the west until I have units that can address them without jeopardizing the Egypt stack.

Stop the US player from tipping the scales. They are oceans away from you and have to carefully determine a plan of attack. You can react to what they purchase so that you can hold important victory cities. Japan is essential to this because they can more directly demand a response from the Americans.

Although I wouldn’t recommend them early, Aircraft Carriers for Japan are very helpful because you often don’t need to buy the planes for them. Don’t take any 50/50 fights with the US navy and make sure of there is a big fleet battle that you are the one attacking so that your strat bombers can assist

If you kill the destroyers and strafe 111, doesn’t that mean UK will still have 2 BB and a cruiser. Your fighters would land in Belgium and can’t protect your battleship. Wouldn’t it be more valuable to destroy both main home fleets and protect the channel with airpoeer so you can focus Russia. The missing 6 ipc would matter if UK doesn’t scramble and starts sending planes to Moscow

Recently I have seen a couple people recommending that players buy 1 submarine on G1 in addition to their other buys whether it is fleet or bombers or artillery or mobile units. Most games I buy infantry in this sort of situation. What I’m really curious about is what is the point of buying this submarine?

What specifically is it supposed to accomplish by turn 4?

Russia cannot defend itself alone against a deliberate coordinated attack from all 3 axis powers. Having around 30 income facing over 100 combined you’ll lose the war. You need to get the other allied forces involved. British fighter planes can help defend Moscow and pick off stray units. America can make landings in Europe or the Med.

What Russia can do is make the war costly for the Axis. The isolated tanks and aircraft are worth attacking because they cost more to replace than your infantry.

Considering your opponent has 5 strat bombers it’s a safe bet they will use them against Moscow given the opportunity. Therefore you should consider getting fighter planes in Moscow to protect your factory and maybe even 1 aa gun which will defend better against than only infantry.

@JDOW:

@ShadowHAwk:

Even if a normal Paris attack
7 inf 3 art 4 mech 6 tanks results in mutual annihilation for germany and france it will be a pretty uphill battle…

The odds for this battle are 99,916%, that is good enogh. In fact, I once lost that battle against Karl. However, these are the 1 in 1000 games you just lose in G1 due to the dice. Nothing you can do about it.

However, I can only recommend to not dilute the France attack and always bring at least 20 units. Otherwise the chance is too high that Germany loses many mechanized units which is also very bad.

I think 7inf 3art 6tanks is enough to attack Paris. ~97% victory and I disagree that you always need to bring 20 units into Paris. The benefits of taking Normandy or Southern France G1 should not be ignored. The consensus of this thread is that if you lose a battle with French victory below 10% it is a result of luck because the units brought were more likely to score hits. The income gained from taking Paris G1 is what let’s Germany get aggressive and make buys countries hovering at 35 income could not. If you lose Paris playing it out changes the dynamics of the game too much because G2 buy is probably the most important purchase in the game.

I would let an Axis player start over a game where they were favored to win Paris >80% because at the end of the day I’m playing the game to have fun.

One thing that can be easy to miss on the turn you DoW is to put a naval unit in SZ 125 which denies the Soviet player 5 ipcs. You can retreat from Yuogslavia if you are doing a T2 or take it for a T3. It is important that your air force attacks UK boats in the North and in the Med until you start fighting the Soviets. If you are going North with japan normally I put a factory in Manchuria.

Do you grab Brazil as US before turn 4 with this strategy? The land units could help protect Gibraltar and take the territory instead of only killing units on it. No real cost either since starting transport can grab half the force.

What did Russia do with Amur?

Do any of you ever build a destroyer on turn 1 to hit the starting Russian submarines? Is it worth it to stop Norway convoy and deny an objective? Or are those 8 ipcs better spent on mech and artillery?

Can USA land planes and ground units in Russian territories on the pacific map when Russia is not at war with Japan? Does Russia need to declare war on Japan if I want American bombers to land in Siberia after hitting Japan?

In short when achieving a victory on the European map taking all 3 Russian cities is normally a given. However that leaves one non-mainland city left. In your experience are you normally capturing Egypt or London to achieve victory?

Does this reflect the merits of sea lion / helping Italy?

Are one of these spots too difficult to take around T7-8?

Even though Battleships are expensive I find that I almost always buy at least 1 for the US. Just gives additional firepower for landings or in an offensive naval conflict with Japan. Cruisers on the other hand are largely a waste of money.

On R1 he bought a minor factory in W.Ukraine and Rostov. Thanks for the factories bro

Doubt. This seems like horrendous reaction from the US player. At war on turn 1 the US easily would have built more than enough units to hold just on the basis of putting them in transports to send out. How did Hawaii possibly fall J1 without any bombard? Did USA scramble fighters to defend the fleet instead of to defend the land from the invasion? There are so many wrong things going on here that I’m just left in confusion.

As you mentioned Japan has a lot to do in order to win. J1 lets Japan use its inherent initiative adavantage from the turn order to attack pieces the allies would not risk given the choice. The game is set piece and so with the exception of the Russian territories you can figure out what you need to send to win battles with the dice all the time. The board will be very different ok turn two and therefore you can’t be as certain.

J1 puts the Japanese in a position to knock out the Chinese fighter, take the DEI, build two good factories on the mainland, project air superiority in a larger area, and generally have free reign as the allies have to spend early turns rebuilding and regrouping. The J1 attack when executed correctly gives the Japanese the greatest number of options as for what to do next. Normally in any kind of game if you are the player that gets more free will and has access to more resources you will win. J1 is very aggressive and Axis and Allies units favor the attacker.

Holding Yunnan prevents the war in China from being an endless whack-a-mole situation. Capturing Yunan also allows you to send fighter escort when strategic bombing the factory in India.

The design of the map makes Yunnan a territory that is easy to reach from many allied areas, the problem for the allies being that Japan has the initiative to prevent China from fortifying. Japan typically loses Yunan t1 but has the opportunity as already mentioned to take out the Chinese fighter and main stack the following turn

I think that because the US has the potential to build a naval base in Morocco and the sz is always 1 turn away from 2 major complexes the proposal to turn off the naval base there indefinitely is impossible to sustain. Even if the base is bombed the US can still land in southern France and pass through to enter the med. if you conquer the territory you cannot hold it against determined American effort.

If the US is completely focused on the pacific than the bombing is still inconsequential. What bombing Gibraltar really does is divert planes from the critical path to Moscow. Their absence will cost additional units on the eastern front that are needed in that fight.

Not to mention that if a single aa gun hits you lose money because the base caps at 6 damage. Attacking the Gibraltar base is an interesting idea but is ultimately a vain effort.