Posts made by MarshmallowofWar

On the other hand, if you drop fleet into sea zone six (two carriers, with four fighters from southern carriers on top of them, and maybe a battleship too) , if he does bring in the bombers you can kill a lot of them with your six fighter scramble. It’ll cost a lot, but cheaper than losing the game by conceding the skies to him. You’ll still need to build a lot of replacement planes.

If you go this route, you’ll need to keep that blocker in sea zone 16 to keep his ships from coming in. You’ll want to kill as many planes as you can at once. If you go this way, you definitely have to consolidate your fleet in two turns if he doesn’t hit sea zone 6 on his next turn.

If he goes for Iwo, then your combined fleet can kill his fleet or target his bombers.

No matter what you do, you have to kill most of those bombers. It’s gonna be expensive.

If he’s going for Japan proper with it all, then consolidating your fleet is still necessary because you can’t let him land anything with that bomber stack backing it up. That being said, I would still pump some more ground forces into Japan too.

Have fun.

Marsh

@FranceNeedsMorePower said in Japan Tricky Situation:

@MarshmallowofWar WOW! Thank you for all your help! I guess I mis-understood the threat, it really was not that large.

Also the U.S. has 4 transports fully loaded 2 Cruisers 3 Carries fully loaded a battleship and three subs. Plus 11 Bombers.

I’m just worried about all of the bombers.

I was only looking at the fleet. That is a lot of bombers.

The good thing is they can’t hit Japan. The bad thing is they can hit sea zone six. The naval build probably isn’t the best build there.

The good thing about your enemy having 11 bombers – once you kill them, he’s toast. The bad thing: you have to lose fighters to kill them. He’s coming for your main factory with 11 bombers, and once he shuts it down you’re toast. You won’t be able to build in sea zone six. He’ll take Iwo Jima or Korea (either works, and if it’s Iwo you won’t be able to attack the bombers on land without risking your carriers) and you’re hosed on that unless you can kill those bombers. If you can’t attack where they are, you will need to kill them with interceptors. Better start building fighters in Japan so you can intercept them.

Marsh

@barnee So it will.

That’s a tiny US fleet. I stand by my assessment.

Marsh

Without being able to enlarge the photo to see the actual size of the US fleet, it’s hard to say. My initial assessment is that Japan is in a winning position here. The US fleet looks awfully weak and I don’t see any follow-on forces coming.

It looks like Japan still has a sizable air force. It also looks like Japan has three fully loaded carriers, including at least one that has planes that can reach sea zone 6 on Japan’s next move. This is a sizable fleet, although it is badly distributed and separated in violation of Mahan’s principles.

First, Japan has a blocker in sea zone 16, which means that the US can’t actually attack Korea on its next move. That means Japan has time to gather its fleet in or around the Philippines and regroup it’s air force for a joint strike on sea zone six. Regrouping the fleet is a good idea no matter what.

Japan’s next build should include at least a destroyer for sea zone six, to ensure that the US has to do combat in the sea zone and providing the option to scramble if the US fleet is as weak as it looks. That in itself might deter the US from moving into sea zone 6. At the very least, it would prevent the US from moving into the sea zone with a non-combat move without risking its valuable planes to clear the sea zone in combat movement (the blocker in sea zone 16 prevents the US from using ships).

If I’m reading the situation correctly, I would actually build a carrier and two destroyers into sea zone 6 this round, landing two fighters on the newly built carrier and leave the air cover from Korea and Japan in place. I would build enough infantry that the US can’t actually take Japan (should it miraculously clear the sea zone). I would move the transports back within range of Japan so that they can pick up infantry built this round (I would build more next round along with some fighters to fill the carriers I temporarily emptied).

That combination of builds and movements stops the US from threatening Japan, forces the US to risk it’s air force to clear sea zone 6 even to move into the sea zone in non-combat, positions Japan’s fleet to regroup, positions Japan’s fleet and air force to destroy the US forces should it be dumb enough to actually move into sea zone 6, and sets you up to provide critical ground troops that you can transport south as reinforcements.

(EDIT: If the US realizes the futility of threatening sea zone 6, the carriers positioned off the Philippines can move west to tackle India with the new reinforcements coming from Japan.)

Again, this is all assuming I’ve read the very small photo correctly.

Marsh

@shadowhawk said in In how many hours can you complete a G40 game:

4 color dice. So each combat round can be rolled in 1 go.

I have never seen this actually speed up any game. Usually the person doing it is a proponent of the method, trying to convert others, and wastes an enormous amount of time trying to perform conversions.

Also, they take a lot of time counting out the appropriate dice of each color.

Finally, they insist on sorting them in the box after the roll is complete.

Yeah, never seen this actually make a difference.

Marsh

In my experience, the most common loss/victory is through surrender, typically following a bad defeat. For example, if the US or Japanese fleet were caught in a death trap and annihilated due to careless play, the corresponding player would probably give up. I’ve seen this many times.

Only once I have actually achieved victory conditions (and I did it in six rounds). Even then, my opponent surrendered rather than play the rest of the 6th turn because he had no realistic hope of freeing a victory city.

@dazedwit said in Red Skies:

Yeah, his last post to me was that I was playing against a two year old. Yeah, that’s not a pa.

Apologies, I missed that and shame on him. That doesn’t mean that you should resort to the same thing.

Marsh

@dazedwit said in Red Skies:

I’m sorry, why are you ignoring his PA’s on me. He’s been a complete dick to me in multiple threads. I’ve ignored him up until now. I’m just trying to have fun convos about the game we all love.

I would be shocked if @AndrewAAGamer had actually made a personal attack against you. You, on the other hand, have shown a deep immaturity and lack of experience in the game.

Disagreeing with your ideas is not disrespect. If he is disagreeing with your ideas, it’s because of the depth of his experience has taught him that your ideas are probably based on what works against inexperienced players.

And don’t worry, since he didn’t accept my challenge to a game and acted like a dick again (and why I finally hit him back) I finally blocked him. He and one other guy seem to be following me around and acting like dicks for no reason. I’ve ignored them both until today. I’m surprised the other guy hasn’t shown up yet.

I have no idea why he would accept your challenge. Inevitably he would defeat you and then you would almost certainly insist that you got “diced”. However, so far the only person I’ve seen acting disrespectably is you.

If you want to play a top tier player, improve your play. A good start to that would be listening to their opinions.

Marsh

@dazedwit said in Red Skies:

@AndrewAAGamer

are you dumb? 37 is not 42

3 bombers = $36

1 bomber, 10 inf = $42

1 bomber, 10 inf = $42

1 bomber, 9 inf = $39

Yeah, magical mystical sub can to to SZ125

I spent every Germany dollar on tanks and SB’s, and nothing else until G5 (which some inf thrown in with any extra dollars). Buying a sub to send up there takes one tank off of Eastern Front. I played Germany as ferocious offensive juggernaut to see if Red Skies could hold them off. And I went cobra kai so ignored Baltic/East Poland.

Luckily I was able to destroy the 2 year old I was playing against. He was way better at the game than you.

@dazedwit Your ad-hominem attacks are not appreciated. I know @AndrewAAGamer and he’s an amazing player, probably one of the best in the world. Before you get moderated before these personal attacks, I just wanted to warn you against them.

Marsh

Who doesn’t love a Russian strat bomber or two?

Spending the equivalent of 20 infantry on five strat bombers is insanity if you want Russia to live until turn 10 or so. Every single infantry matters.

I do see advantage to Russia having a strat bomber – combined with a fighter, it could actually slow down Germany’s approach to and assault on Moscow by using strategic bombing against German-held ICs in Leningrad and Ukraine, forcing Germany to spend extra money to build units there that can be pumped into the offensive against Moscow.

If Germany tries to thwart this strategy by positioning fighters to protect those ICs, Germany then has to spend money building those fighters so as not to deplete the air cover for Western Europe. (Wait, you say, Russia has fighters – true, but if Russia loses them they can’t afford to replace them.)

There are two problems with this idea that I see:

• The US and UK are far more able to afford a spare strat bomber or two to be based in Russia. The UK is also probably sending fighters to bolster the Russian defenses, so those fighters could actually allow this
• Germany is probably going to build those extra fighters anyway to bolster the eventual attack on Russia.

Personally, I would stick with the infantry. A UK bomber can be escorted by UK fighters that have a meaningful chance of either forcing the German player to just accept strat bombing damage or to potentially trade German fighters for UK fighters (always a good deal for Russia).

The UK can’t reliably get infantry and other ground forces to Moscow. They CAN reliably send fighters and strat bombers. Infantry are better produced locally, and by buying strat bombers you’re weakening the very core of your Russian defense.

Marsh

@TheDesertFox said in Sahara express:

@shadowhawk

Precisely. As for Norway though, I always make it a goal as the U.K to take that and Finland to strip Germany of ten whole IPC’s.

Fully agree with depriving Germany of Norway, though typically I would let the US invade Norway and possibly Finland, as the US typically has more funds and can if necessary product an airbase and MIC on Norway if there’s enough leeway after producing what’s necessary in the Pacific. This can relieve some of the stress on Moscow if it’s still holding by forcing Germany to spend more defending Germany proper and Denmark but also might spur Germany to produce and expend forces to try to recapture those ten IPCs.

Marsh

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:

@MarshmallowofWar

Ha! Funny that in this game time is with the Axis. Ah, Axis and Allies historical inaccuracies, am I right?

Very true.

@MrRoboto said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:

This whole idea is based on the assumption that Germany MUST recapture Normandy to deny the factory building for the Allies.

Why?

So that instead of focusing more on Western Europe, more of those funds instead continue to be used to crush Russia.

By the time the Allies land in Normandy, Germany should have Russia contained and be getting ready for the kill. If the Allies are able to produce units locally, they are absolved of the cost of transporting those units and the costs of providing protection for those transports. The resources that were used for the landing (fleet and transports) are thereafter free to perform other tasks after a brief delay while the Allies build at the IC.

If instead the Allies cannot build in Normandy, then the Allies are forced to maintain fleet protection for transports that must continue to come in to keep pace with Germany’s ability to outproduce Allies.

Giving the US the IC gives the US the option to dictate Germany’s actions, instead of the other way around. The US could build there AND continue landing forces, which forces Germany to spend even more wealth not conquering Russia.

I have landed lots of times in Normandy with the Allies, sometimes amassing huge forces there - with even bigger forces in Western Germany denying any advances. I could not move my stack of 40+ ground troops to France because they would be annhiliated there without the US planes defending. Same with Holland.

<removed>

What I’m trying to say is: Giving the Normandy factory to USA is not an automatic loss, far from it (and even less for UK).

True, but it it does relieve pressure to keep bringing reinforcements in via transport. Those transports are freed up for other tasks, and once the IC has been used for building sufficient ground forces the fleet that would protect those transports also gets freed up to perform other tasks.

@shadowhawk said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:

Its based off ideas from older versions of the game where you could not transport tanks + inf at the same time.

Absolutely not true. It’s based off the idea that giving the Allies a free IC allows them to establish beachhead and then build reinforcements on site rather than continue to the pay increased costs of bringing in reinforcements. It frees the US player to use that naval force elsewhere more quickly.

It’s based off my observations in many games as both the Allies when I was able to exploit the Normandy IC to put extreme pressure on Germany and as Germany when I was forced to react to the Allies using the Normandy IC.

@shadowhawk said in Germany and Italy should not take Normandy until after Moscow falls:

Since the bulk of your forces will come via transport anyway the 3 production doesnt make a huge difference at all.
And its a lot easier to defend against all beachheads if the allies cannot land planes there the initial attack will lack some big defenders so its easier to push back into the sea.

If the Allies land in unconquered Normandy and the US chooses to land planes there, then the US has to either build extra planes or take planes from fleet coverage.

If the US player chooses to build extra planes, it takes longer for him to land in Europe. If he leaves his fleet uncovered, that provides an opportunity for Germany to destroy his fleet. If he lands a weak force with planes, he must then land more forces before he can take those planes away.

Either way, that’s planes not bound for the Pacific. Those planes have to come from somewhere – if he builds them, he’s not building something else. If he pulls them from somewhere else, it creates opportunities for you there.

As you say, he still needs more troops in via transport. That means he has to be able to protect those transports that are bringing in those troops.

Finally, there’s this:

• When you make the turn more complicated for your opponent, you increase the chance that your opponent will make errors that are to your advantage.
• Everything you do that causes your opponent to spend extra time to achieve his objectives is to your advantage. A gain of even one turn is to your advantage as the Axis.

Happy gaming all, and Merry Christmas!

Marsh

@YUMYAM said in Need help defending as UK until USSR joins:

@MarshmallowofWar Also, Germany currently has 3 battleships. The silver marker in the Baltic is a fresh battleship, and there two side by side in the English channel.

Uh, wow.

So, at this point Russia should consolidating forces to ATTACK Germany. Russia starts ahead of Germany on infantry and with Germany having spent 40 IPCs on battleships is not going catch up anytime soon. Have Russia press the attack on Germany as quickly as possible.

If you can muster five or more planes, kill the stack of two battleships before it becomes three battleships. You’re going to lose planes in this battle, so you need to build at least one replacement.

Start building ground forces in South Africa on your next turn. Since Italy has no factory, you’ll need to force him to either build one or keep building transports to keep expanding in the Med.

If Italy does not take Egypt this round, consider a retreat from Egypt so that you can prepare a proper counterattack there. I would go East to secure Trans-Jordan.

Consider activating Persia using your transport and on your next turn build a minor IC there. Between it and the South Africa factory, you’ll be outproducing Italy 2 to 1 in the immediate area and force Italy to spend its income defending Egypt instead of expanding into Africa and the Middle East.

In the Pacific, go totally defensive, reinforcing ANZAC and Hawaii so that Japan can’t win. Push hard against Japan with China. Build up your US Pacific fleet so that Japan can’t annihilate it. With the little spare funds you have, keep Italy from obtaining it’s NOs in Africa and keep Gibraltar from falling.

Marsh

@philip1989 said in Houston, TX:

@MarshmallowofWar thanks for the interest! I’ll try to find a location in the Woodlands. I know there are some public gaming venues near the galleria, but that’s probably too far for you!

Sure, but I can make Galleria too. Main thing is I’m working during the week.

Marsh

@YUMYAM I am unclear if Italy is about to move or has not yet moved but based on your message and the position of the units it looks like UK1 is complete but I1 is not yet complete. If that’s correct, you’ll have to wait until Italy and Germany have completed their turns for you to plan your next moves.

Your fleet in the Suez is safe because you control the canal, but if Italy marshals all available forces Egypt is lost.

Have a great game!

Marsh

I think maybe he’s confused over the cruiser. It looks to me like there’s a German battleship and cruiser in sea zone 110, but it’s hard to tell if that second unit is a cruiser or a battleship.

Marsh

I’m not in Houston, but I’ll be visiting family in Conroe for the bulk of November if you want a game. You’ll need to host though.

Marsh

@shadowhawk Well, you could always just tell them that it’s in the rules.

Marsh