Posts made by larrymarx

Because the repair isn’t a new purchase, but the upgrade is. New purchases have to be deployed at the end of the turn.

@taamvan:

A J1 is awesome.   But it spreads you thin as Japan and brings down the wrath of the US at the expense of UK PAC.   The USA can move pretty freely across the pacific b/c of the bases, and bombers have an immense range so the USA can be all over japan in a KJF, fast.

If the US player is going to KJF, he is free to build and position units in the Pacific regardless of what Japan does. Sure he’s limited to 3 ships a turn, but I’m not convinced that it makes much difference to Japan’s calculations.

I don’t think the old ideas about “keeping the U.S. out of the war” hold any merit anymore. As you say, KGF doesn’t work, so U.S. always goes KJF. However, Germany always does a Sealion feint, so the U.S. is distracted for a turn anyways. They also start with so little and are so far away that they are essentially “out of the war” even if they’re at war.

@taamvan:

But less splitting is necessary during a KJF,  if the UK brings a fleet together then the US can have minimal forces in the Atlantic (1 bomber, 1 transport, 1 destroyer gives you options) and still be irritating.

How about 5 bombers and the starting transport and cruiser along with the Brazilians + 2 units from the mainland U.S.?

America sends the bombers over early to hedge against Sealion, then focuses on Japan. The bombers can have fun for a few rounds, then fly over to Moscow when things start getting desperate over there.

Here is the theory I am testing now:

If the U.S. sends fleet groups hurtling towards the money islands supported by ANZAC air, the pressure is removed from Calcutta. If Russia sends a large force (larger even than you propose) to lock down Africa for the Allies, the pressure is removed from there as well. This allows Britain to focus the majority of its resources on defending Moscow (assuming standard Barbarossa play). They can send mech infantry in addition to fighters to replace what the Russians have given up.

Although the Russian expeditionary force does begin the game as a sideshow, it is powerful in the long game. It’s a deep play that looks 10+ turns ahead, anticipating the tipping point when the Axis can no longer continue to match greater Allied production.

To this strategy I would like to add another proposal for a deep play: the Canadian island hop. The purpose of this strategy is to increase Calcutta’s production along the same time frame that the Russian expeditionary force increases Russia’s.

The following timeline assumes Germany has destroyed the transport in seazone 106.

A1:

• Build 4 bombers for deployment in Europe to hedge against Sealion and annoy Axis operations
  B1:
• Move 1 bomber and 1 destroyer to clear subs in seazone 106 (the remaining air and navy is still enough to execute the Taranto raid)
• Move 1 transport to seazone 106
• Move 1 infantry 1 artillery to Central United States

A2+

• The Americans will build fleet and 1-2 transports each turn to send to the Southeast Asia / money island area.
  B2:
• Transport 1 infantry 1 tank to seazone 64
• Move 1 infantry 1 artillery to Western United States

B3:

• Transport 1 infantry 1 tank to seazone 50
• Load 1 infantry 1 artillery onto American transport, seazone 10

B4+
The Canadians continue their foray into the Pacific protected by American fleet. They will be the ones to retake the money islands from Japan. The first wave can reach the islands on turn 5, and the second (loaded on the American transport) can reach on turn 6.

As soon as Calcutta no longer faces an existential threat, they begin to support the European U.K. forces in Russia. If they have all starting territories + 3 money islands, they are making 33 IPC’s per turn. I assume Russia has lost 21 IPC’s of production, but they can replace this with 19 IPC’s from Africa for a production of 35 per turn. UK Europe should also be making 35 per turn. Using this combination of strategies, the Allies can begin to match the Axis with 103 IPC’s / turn in the European theater from around the 8th round. This is of course the same time frame when Germany is looking for Moscow to fall, so early support of Moscow is critical for this to work.

The endgame is for the massive American fleet to begin to slip into the Mediterranean and open up a front in Italy and the Balkans. We are hoping to put the Axis into a defensive posture on both sides of the board from around the 12th round: this is the tipping point.

In general, I agree with what you are saying. My theory is that it’s better to take two equal but losing positions on separate areas of the board than to take one position of strength. The problem in this case is that the northern Russian stack and British-held oilfields, although in separate areas of the board, aren’t equal positions - Britian is much easier to take down and the reward is much higher. Therefore, in this case there is no alternative but to take one position of strength.

The assumption behind my first comment was that if the Russians link up with the British, the combined stack would actually be enough to create such a position and keep the Germans at bay. In a game where it cannot, what have the Allies been doing for 8+ rounds?

The two scenarios I can think of where the Allies still have a chance after Moscow falls, but the British are weak in the Middle East are 1) Japan does something like an India crush that targets Britain or 2) Britain and America have been making landings in Western Europe. In either of those scenarios, if Russia is to retreat, I agree they should not go down south.

If neither scenario applies, and the British have been attempting to build strength in the Middle East, yet it isn’t enough to stop Germany even with the entire Russian stack, the appropriate move is to concede.

As Germany I would leave a defensive force in Moscow to dissuade the Russians from coming back and send enough to the middle east to crush it and become an economic beast. If the Russians move to the top of the map they have put themselves out of position.

I’d like to point out that increased randomness in both directions is not beneficial from most players’ points of view because players tend to send enough force to ensure good results. An attack is considered good if it has 80% chance or more of success. With D6+2, players should send 4 bombers to achieve this 80% threshold for maximum damage on a major industrial complex. With D10, players would still need to send 4 bombers, so the chance for additional damage in the upper probability band doesn’t matter because you are already expecting to deal maximum damage, but the chance for less damage in the lower probability band does matter because there is no minimum bound on damage. So when you speak in actual game terms, I think the odds of dealing less damage have gone up.

From a statistical point of view, the bombers have a greater chance of dealing damage that is farther from the expected average if you go with D10 instead of D6+2.

These tables illustrate the chances of achieving a certain rate of damage per bomber rolling a given amount of dice. As you can see, the D6+2 method causes the chances to converge on a 5.5 average sooner than the D10 method. This is because you are allowing new possible ranges of outcomes for average damage: 1 through 3 and 8 through 10. Neither of those ranges are possible in D6+2, so of course some of the probability is going to get “diverted” and allocated to those new ranges.

The average damage is still the same, the odds of dealing more damage have gone up, and the odds of dealing less damage have also gone up.

D6+2
–--------------------------------------------
DMG   x1   x2   x3
3.0-3.5 16.67% 8.33%  1.85%
3.5-4.5 16.67% 19.44% 12.50%
4.5-5.5 16.67% 22.22% 35.65%
5.5-6.5 16.67% 22.22% 35.65%
6.5-7.5 16.67% 19.44% 12.50%
7.5-8.0 16.67% 8.33%  1.85%

D10

DMG   x1   x2   x3
1.0-1.5 10.00% 2.00%  0.40%
1.5-2.5 10.00% 6.00%  3.10%
2.5-3.5 10.00% 10.00% 8.50%
3.5-4.5 10.00% 14.00% 16.30%
4.5-5.5 10.00% 18.00% 21.70%
5.5-6.5 10.00% 18.00% 21.70%
6.5-7.5 10.00% 14.00% 16.30%
7.5-8.5 10.00% 10.00% 8.50%
8.5-9.5 10.00% 6.00%  3.10%
9.5-10 10.00% 2.00%  0.40%

The Argentine Tango

A3: Divert one transport from seazone 10 to take Chile. Continue building fleet and moving it to Hawaii to threaten Japan and force them to defend.

A4: Build a naval base and minor IC in Chile. Take Argentina. Keep massing fleet in the north. Make sure you’ve got at least two transports.

A5: Build three transports into seazone 66 and another minor IC in Argentina. Move your fleet down to Queensland including the original transport from A3.

A6: Build two transports, four ground units out of South America. Start seizing money islands. The three transports from A5 move to Queensland and your fleet, which should be stronger than the IJN, moves forward.

A7+: Make sure America takes back the Philippines before Japan can slip in a victory by taking Hawaii. Send over ground or naval units from South America as needed. Land in undefended coastal territories. Start sending transports back to South America to get a shuck going.

Calcutta has fallen but the Americans have developed a stronger supply chain to shuck ground units over to Asia. The Axis have established their dominance of mainland Asia, but they will not win in the Pacific due to America’s strong naval presence and Japan’s reduced income.

In Europe, Germany has probably refocused on Russia. The game starts to look normal again, except the Axis has very little momentum in Europe and the Americans are doing the tango in the Pacific.

I have no doubt of that. I just wanted to know how necessary it is to cover your flanks, if at all, when you’re doing that and I figure he’s the one to ask.

He said the only place he defends is Berlin, and I wasn’t sure if that meant he also doesn’t attack anything else (like British fleets). I figure you’ve got to push them at least a little bit but if he says you don’t then I’ll take another look at it.

For a G6 all in on Moscow, how much do you divert your resources to fight the British, such as on the first turn, in the Mediterranean to counter Taranto, or pushing them back if they land two dudes in France, for example? I imagine there is a balance to achieve since if you ignore them completely you end up losing territories worth IPC’s that you could have spent on Moscow, but if you fight them too much you lose units you could have had in Moscow.

@simon33:

Well the sneaky move I’m aware of is USA landing on Korea and being reinforced by USSR. Mongolian rule remains active. This move seems to peter out unless UK Pacific are doing well.

I think the Allies need to have all of these moves in their arsenal - the sneaky Karl, the heavenly kingdom, the Korean slide, and anything else we can come up with. They need to employ them aggressively and proficiently but only when it is to their advantage to do so, slipping in and catching the Japanese off guard as soon as they can in order to save Calcutta so that they can refocus their attention on the advancing German hordes in time to save the world from the encroaching darkness.

GeneralHandGrenade, go back and read what I wrote. It’s a surprise move that uses the Americans to give the Chinese their territory to pop up on.

I’m going to call this one the “heavenly kingdom”.

If the player is new or not paying attention, it will surprise them, maybe catastrophically. If the player knows what’s coming, they will want to spread their assets out but keep reserve troops and air in range so that when the Chinese storm down from the heavens they can be stopped. This will hamper their mobility and keep them worried and in a more defensive state.

With this plan you are giving up income from Chinese territories to the Japanese earlier, so you have to justify it by coordinating it so that when the Chinese descend there are other stacks around the map stepping it up at the same time and Japan can’t deal with everything at once.

As to why this play isn’t standard, I have found that the Chinese can actually do some good in the early stages of the game, especially against a J1. You just throw everything at Yunnan, move the Brits in there too. Sure the Japanese can smash you but they lose all their ground and a bunch of air. Mission accomplished. You can’t do anything else with the Chinese so you may as well use them as the breaker to the Japanese wave. You bring the Russians in too and if they decide to crush both stacks they’ve got nothing left for Calcutta.

My response as Japan would probably be to let the Russians have northern China in this scenario, at least for a few turns, and this is likely a better result than just holding everything back until America shows up. Maybe China can start saving up 3-8 IPC’s per turn once this has occurred instead of replacing their Yunnan stack and then come back with a vengeance mid-game.

Have China save up their money each turn. The Americans can grab some small coastal territory and then a Chinese stack pops up out of nowhere, ideally right next to a minor IC.

Exactly. I would also build a factory in Malaya. You’re not going to take all the territories you want and also match the Americans if they’re building in the Pacific, so air power is the solution. You pick the part of the board that you want to hold on to, kill everything there, and stack it with planes so the Americans have to have a monster fleet if they want to enter your killzone. If they go for it then they’re leaving Europe alone.

As the Allies facing an Axis assault, you need to hold out by working together and making sure key areas don’t fall.
As an Axis power facing an Allied assault, you need to hold out by making it cost so much and take so long to contain you that they lose on the other board. You aren’t actually going to try to hold on to all of your gains.

As a rule of thumb, if you have a stack of aircraft that is double the size of a stack of ground units, you can kill the ground units in a battle with a TUV swing hovering around 0. For example, take 3 infantry vs. 3 fighters, 3 tacs. All three infantry will likely die on the first round, and they are likely to take one fighter with them. That’s -1. The strategic consequences of leaving the ground stack alive, however, mean that it’s actually a positive TUV swing.

Air power is the key to this game, and you need to use it as Japan.

Actually I think he’s saying he wasn’t trying to argue that Russia could get the bonus, just that Mongolia could go Axis under a certain set of circumstances. That part is correct.

Be prepared for the German player to completely ignore you and throw everything at Moscow. They will no longer need their fleet or their German factories after a few turns.

Yes, Mongolia could go pro-Axis under those circumstances. That still wouldn’t make it an ORIGINAL pro-Axis neutral.

What if this actually worked? Then, every game Russia would attack Japan on R1, then have the Allies DOW on the true neutrals, then start gobbling up Mongolia for a total of +18 IPC’s. Now that’s broken.