Posts made by kyrial

I guess what I’m not getting here is how Germany has managed to keep a navy that rivals/ surpasses the US/ UK fleets. Are you buying navy for Germany on a regular basis? If so how much, and if you’re spending that much on navy what is Russia buying that he’s not able to overwhelm you on the land? I’m not saying it to be sarcastic, I’m just not exactly getting how this particular game bore out. As the USA/ UK I would love it if Germany went heavy navy; there are those on the boards who have pointed out that it’s not a bad idea to go with a CV on G1 to support the baltic fleet but the last thing Germany wants to get into is a naval build arms race with the allies.

Thus, you have a composite chance of 54% to take the UK. That’s not 30% like the guy a few posts up was saying, nor is it an “incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed.” In fact, if I could win 54% of the games with the Axis without a bid I’d be really happy.

I dunno, Tri, I guess my take on what’s risky and not is different… I’ll give you that with the tech it’s a bit easier but I’m looking at things overall. If it fails, it’s a catastrophic defeat for Germany. If it succeeds, it’s a tremendous blow to the UK but not the end of the world. Maybe I was being too harsh with the “almost a nil chance to succeed” part (baring the tech it is, I believe, somewhere in the 5.7 % range). But I will agree with you 100% that it’s dumb for a game to be diecided in less time than it takes to set it up, and also the England should at least get to go before losing their capital.

Crit, just out of curiosity what were the UK1 and US1 buys? And what did they do on their first two rounds?

If you don’t remember exact numbers/ moves it’s ok I am just trying to see how the Allies played your building a German fleet and merging it in the Atlantic… oh, and how did Japan go to Russia? Northern, central, southern prong or combo?

So can we just all agree that, baring a person playing without LHTR and without a bid for Germany, this is an incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed and will most likely (though, since dice are involved, nothing is final) result in a speedy defeat for Germany?

Hey, far be it from me to tell anyone how to play the game. I do some things that are aggressive and I do like mixing the game up so it doesn’t take the usual format we’ve all grown to love (if you’re the Allies since, usually, you win) but it seems all of the pertinent arguments for this one have been made. I DO hope my opponent in my next game tries this as Germany…

I suppose the battleship will always get a shot to fire back.  Only under the most unusual conditions will multiple submarines be able to encounter a battleship sans destroyer escort.

It does not matter if the subs have a destroyer escort or not; as Trihero pointed out there are the different firing stages that make the difference. If you attack a BB with 2 subs and they BOTH score hits, the BB is sunk without any return fire. It does not matter if you take 4 CVs and 8 destroyers with you into battle, because the subs fire on their own schedule and before anything else. It’s like an amphib assault: the opening BB shot comes before anything else fires and either hits or misses and after that everyone gets to fire and return fire.

Agreed that the US can keep the Germans out of the south atlantic by virtue of their current naval power plus the remnants of the pacific fleet. But you can equally keep the Germans at bay in Africa with a traditional attack via East USA PLUS in any case Germany has to pump additional troops into Africa past G2 in order to keep a concerted effort by the Allies from their hegemony of Africa developing. I’ve messed around with sending additional troops in there. It can work if the Allies are only half-hartedly going after Africa (focusing, say, on either a KJF or troops into Russia via the northern front).

It takes a few turns to really develop (getting the IC, placing units, the additional transports) and all this time Germany will have control over Africa plus be a threat to the North Atlantic especially if UK has not gone heavy navy to keep that baltic fleet at bay.

It could work if the Americans focus on establishing the north atlantic first as their playground and then decides to pump to Africa… especially if Japan has moved into East Africa, but this is later on. Then again, I’ve usually found the KGF strat to be my fav so I might be biased here… I just think it’s more plausible.

Still, I think trying to throw some different tactics into the mix makes for more interesting games!

I’ll admit, the US IC in Brazil on US1 is an interesting concept. Certainly Germany cannot counter it (with the Navy, unless you’re going to bring the sub down from North Atlantic coupled with the Battleship from the Med, and that’s without the US intercepting it with destroyers from East USA, Panama, the remnant of the Pacific fleet and the new destroyer that would be placed off Brazil).

I’d have to do a study to see how this affects US ability to get a shuck going into Europe… sometimes I feel the problem with those of us who have played the game so long (classic and then revised as well) is that we tend to fall into predictable patterns: R1 is West Russian stack, Uk1 is fleet, take troops from India to retake Egypt, US1… R2… etc) but the game is not static and it’s always interesting to see how a move like this might play out. And of course, to see what potential German/ Japanese counters it might garner.

As for the UK IC in Australia, I don’t like it… again it’s something that can pretty easily be countered by Japan at a minimal delay to the push on Russia. Now it WILL delay them slightly, but I also feel that as Japan I usually don’t go for Australia/ NZ until I am well into Asia (to try and bang out a few more IPCs) but with an IC there, I WOULD go there ASAP to stop the British from developing a moderate fleet to harass my transports. Thus the UK would lose the IC (15ipcs) plus the IPCs themselves from the islands and that would be gone every turn. It’s too risky for them, IMHO.

Oh, and I usually don’t play with NAs so the colonial garrison isn’t really an option… you make some good points though if you are playing with it.

I have to agree with NCS here on the point of putting the ICs in India/ Sinkiang… Japan is too strong to hold off with those ICs baring a string of bad dice rolls.

Japan can take BOTH of those IC’s, even with the US and UK pouring all they can into them.

India + USA can only pour 5 units worth per turn wheras Japan (especially if they go IC on J1 in FIC) can probably manage by J2 or J3 to have a 2/ 3-1 advantage in units. Plus, the extra units spent on Japan in this manner (including the 30 allied IPCs just getting the ICs up and running) will sap from the ability to protect Russia.

As Germany, by G2 I would be licking my chops because I would know the US/ UK are not going to be able to mount a serious offensive against WEu for a few turns, thus giving me the ability to throw everything I can against Russia. And, as was stated before, I will own Africa and if the UK doesn’t bring the India troops over to counter, I would even consider pumping some more troops into Africa every turn in order to ensure that it stays German against any US counter.

An unfettered Germany free from Allied assaults = BIG problem for Russia by G3/ G4.

Actually, out of 4 games we played, 3 were Allied win, 1 was Axis win.

Sounds just about right  :-)

Octopus, I’d be interested to see your strategy. I’m sure some of the people here will have plenty to comment on and at the least you’ll get some real feedback one way or another.

I would be interested in knowing how, in classic, Russia was taken out so easily… I know this is a revised forum, so we’ll stick to that, but if your build was anything similar in classic I’d really be interested in seeing how it would work. Looking forward to it!

After many games, I believe the opposite remains true - the Allies have the advantage without any bids or lucky dice, though not nearly as badly as what I’ve read of Classic.

And how! Nowadays it is totally impractical to play a game of classic without an Axis bid, and usually a decent one at that, plus playing Russia Restricted (no Russian attacks allowed on R1).

I would agree with Trihero in that the Allies have an advantage; is it impossible to win as the Axis? No, even against a decent player. The dice are always a factor but you can set yourself up to take advantage of scenerios that develop during the game. I don’t believe this game is all about the dice/ luck. I think the Axis were given a much needed shot in the arm for Revised, especially with the added IPCs for Germany and Japan (and especially the latter). I do feel that Japan is the key to the game for the Axis and that playing them very aggressively is the only way to really bring pressure against Russia, hence my belief that Germany has to do all it can to keep the Russians very busy so they (the Russians) cannot transfer ANY troops to the east. If Russia can begin to shift troops to Novo et al, Japan will be slowed down more than enough for the Allies to trounce Germany.

Yeah, this kind of attack is somewhat more feasible with Japan beacuase they face no immediate threats (unless UK throws an IC in India on UK1 which will force Japan to deal with that and is more of a speed bump and free IC, but can take away from the speed getting to Moscow in any case).

With Germany, you had better have a very conservative Allied player or a beginner (taking into account Hoss1193 you did say your group was green) because otherwise UK/ US are going to be in Europe VERY soon, quite sooner than they were in your game, and with force.  It sounds like a fun strategy and who knows, with some good dice rolling you might be able to pull it off. But the odds can’t be that great to begin with and the potential downside is essentially that Germany is out of the game within a few turns. I’d pass in favour of an aggressive but more traditional approach with Germany, though I do find the 2 ICs on J1 an interesting move. BTW, the UK not whacking the Kwan transport on UK1 is a BAD move…

The Russian steamroller would have ground Germany to pieces by 1946 at the latest. Having said that, if the Germans had unleashed the Panzers it may have been a different story in Normandy… the key is that the political pressures of the day (Stalin REALLY wanted that second front opened and not just against Italy) dictated the policy. Allied air supremacy towards the end of the war was just too much for Germany.

Ideally you want to keep WEu supplied with INF + tanks (and some air force for the shipping pickoffs)… but if you don’t keep the pressure on the East you allow the Russians to start moving forces to deal with Japan plus allowing them to throw in a few tank buys in order to develop a much nicer strafing force against both (if Japan goes through Sinkiang).

Round 1 the Baltic fleet is gone to 2 fighters + 1 bomber, and the UK purchase is 2 tran 3 inf 1 tank.

If the UK wants to gamble a bit on that one… I don’t have my statistics chart out for the battle but there’s a chance if the rolls don’t go well for the UK that it’s a significant loss that early for the cost of taking out what is essentially a fodder fleet (if Germany does not bulk it up on any G1) and as the UK I’d rather wait until I’ve got a carrier there for planes as this makes it easier for them to get to Russia. I don’t deny that it could be wiped out on G1 but that’s a chance one has to take.

That means 4 inf + 3 tank + 1 art + battleship + remaining airforce can attack Western Europe on Round 2, and a UK purchase in Round 2 could instantly reinforce the navy with say a carrier or something if the German airforce looks problematic.

Point taken but again if Germany sees a UK build on UK1 of the transports plus INF/ tank then it’s a matter of putting some more INF there and moving some of the tanks purchased during G1 in (along with airforce which, most likely, there is a presence anyways) and again I don’t have my board with me but it’s not something that cannot be dealt with by the Germans. It’s a fluid issue: the G2 buy depends on how UK1 goes and how things are in the east. But I stand by the idea that getting a lot of tanks on the board early with Germany helps them because it gives them the offensive power to strafe Russia and crack them eventually.

Africa does not need a tremendous amount of work (to take) and in any case it’s only to be held for a turn or two for the added IPCs and to slow down the UK builds. They will get it back (that’s a fact) and unless you start landing Japanese troops there you cannot contest it without, as you said, pouring resources into it… resources needed on the Eastern Front.

As for my tank builds… 5/5 (inf/tanks) is more like it… (for G1 and maybe G2 anyways)… maybe we’ve been arguing over confusion on heavy tank build  :-). I would consider light tank builds for Germany somewhere around 3. You can always turtle as Germany and go heavy INF if you need but later in the game it’s not as easy to get the offensive weapons out on the board as it is earlier, thus my preference for the offensive firepower right away.

Keep the Russians focused on Germany… don’t let them shift to an Eastern front because if Japan cannot get near Moscow/ Caucuses quickly it’s lights out for the Axis.

The Baltic fleet is not the primary concern… it’s almost an afterthought. Heavy tank builds do not preclude going with INF for defense and in any case you can keep West Europe safe for a few rounds before UK/ USA can make a significant landing there. How early are we talking about a UK landing in West Europe? If Japan goes with a J1 IC in FIC she can pour INF + fighters/ tanks and be at the gates of the Caucuses/ Novosibersk in a few turns.

Germany can take Africa and hold it if she is willing to committ some of the air power there, even with the Indian replenishment. Plus air in Africa can help to take out a minor US fleet that might try for an early strike on Africa to disrupt German plans. As for the Alaska landing… admittedly, that’s the furthest stretch of strategy, but if the US player on US1 goes heavy navy then it’s a feasible thing to draw a little attention off. I’m not talking about slowing down the US for 3 turns or anything; just a little delay that can make the difference between Germany cracking Russia or not. As for the stopping of pressure on Russia, I believe Japan can keep both up especially with a heavy transport build.

So, would it be a good tactic to do strafing runs on a certain territory, so that you keep pounding down on the other guy’s army?  Because if you did that, then that would mean he would have to keep reinforcing that area or have to build more of one thing than another and affect his strategy.

Yes and no; yes because if you notice that, for example, Germany seems to be building in one territory to make a big push, strafe in order to stall him. One example of this could be some major German INF moving to the front and tanks just a space behind, setting it up perfectly: the tanks are safe from attack while the INF are there for the fodder in the coming move. Strafing the INF (esp if they have no defensive units with them such as tanks/ fighters) can make it that much more costly for Germany to try and attack the next turn since they won’t have nearly enough INF to cover potential losses and you can whack quite a few tanks.

No because you want to keep your units safe as well, relatively safe that is; every now and then you get the old 5 attacking units 5 misses and he hits 4 times. Considering that you are probably strafing to forestall an attack, it could be disasterous for you to lose a bunch of units with no real losses to him. The strafe can be your friend but be smart with it; don’t over-use it.

I personally don’t think so. I think that if any nation falls before Round 6-7, then it’s bad dice or bad strategy. The Allies aren’t in control of their navy and their system if they aren’t dropping stuff in Europe by Round 3 at the latest, and they should have been doing things in Africa as well as threatening Western Europe so Russia shouldn’t be in dire straits.

Well, I guess the games I’ve played have been a bit more aggressive on the part of the Axis. Interrupting the US shuck with a small landing in Alaska plus taking out Africa (thus depriving UK for a few rounds) will keep the Allies at bay and, quite frankly, and especially if you are going with a pretty heavy tank build as Germany, you can chip at Russia for a few rounds and finally have them ready to get cracked. The key is never letting them get where they can purchase offensive weapons (tanks in this case) and make them stick to INF/ RTL combos, weakening that ability every turn due to IPC loss. I do appreciate what you’re saying, however; just presenting another view.

I would advise a combination of both INF and tanks. As I learned in revised early on, unlike in classic, the new territories in the east simply make the classical IPM a difficult sell because instead of being to the front in a turn or two it’s more like three. Plus with tanks new defense, you can leave a few of them in a zone with some INF fodder and it’s not a bad defensive setup. I think you can plan on the WEu defense just enough so that it will be a struggle to take it and BE SURE if you’re going to trade it back and forth (if you have to) that you don’t let the UK take it otherwise it can be reinforced by USA before Germany gets the chance to re-take. To me, though, I try and let Russia have no time to breathe beacuse if they get into a static game with Germany it lets them shift some forces to slow down Japan and all they really need is to delay Japan a turn or two extra and by that time you’re dealing with some pretty powerful Allied forces.

Played properly, I do believe Germany can blast Russia into submission within a few rounds (barring really bad roles) or at least have them on the ropes. They can usually do this before either side is ready to land in WEu, unless the Allies are VERY aggressive.