Posts made by mateooo

In regards to the WEU IC, I think it is an inefficient way to maintain the German navy, when all you need to do is keep it nice and safe tucked away in the Baltic, and then slowly build it up just enough to make it very inefficient for the allies to kill it.

The advantage of this is allowing Germany to keep exchanging Nor and only have to protect WEU.
My usual strat is
Turn 1: TRN to baltic
(why? because it makes the UK attack of the baltic fleet very risky, that 8 Dollars gives you a very good chance of killing those 2 FTR and bomber, and even after a strafe, you can still take back NOR with the surviving 1-2 TRN. If UK decides not to attack, they have to deal with a nice little Operation Sealion possibility
If UK builds lots of Fighters or a fleet within range that can attack the Baltic fleet, I will

Turn 2: 1 AC and maybe a fighter to Baltic.
Odds are, this AC (for 16) plus 2 fighter landing on it, will make any UK attack costly or suicidal. The AC also gives Germany a LOT of flexibility threatening the Allies fleets, exchanging Norway, and using the fighters on the Eastern front.
All remaining fleet builds will be just enough to prevent a profitable UK or US attack… whether its a SS, another AC, or even a Battleship, if I have the inclination and extra cash from a successful Africa trip. The US and UK combined might have a pretty nice sized fleet, but they only get to attack separately, against a very strong defensive Baltic fleet.

The advantage of this play is that it really eases up Germany’s need for a strong defense, basically just sending 1-2 INF a turn to WEU, with fighters landing there. It keeps the allies from getting a foothold in Norway, and if they decided to take out the Baltic fleet, odds are they are leaving Africa along. It also speeds up the INF train from GER to LEN to ARC… if you so desire.
Ild rather have UK building SS, DD, AC and BB than INF that are going right to NOR, LEN or Algeria. And once they decide to take the fleet out, they get to absorb hits from 2-4 fighters on the Acs, 2 SS DD 2 TRN and whatever else might be there, costing lots of TRN and Fighters.

Its a little costly, but with the protected NOR income, the easier defense of Germany and Eastern Europe, the excess UK and US naval and airforce expenses, and the flexibilty of an airforce based in the baltic, I think spending an average of 8-10 IPC a turn is worth it, and if things go badly after turn one, just stop with the turn 1 TRN build and dont bother with the AC etc…
Nothing is funnier than watching 2 UK Fighter and BOM attack the deceptively strong baltic fleet turn 1 of 2 TRN 2 SS DD and getting toasted in exchange for a sub or 2 that dont have a purpose otherwise. OR seeing a German Baltic fleet with 2 AC and 1-2 BB by turn 8-10, with the UK income dwindling to 20ish, and no hope of ever clearing the fleet.

This strategy is helped if the UKR fighter survives (it usually does because I bid 1 INF to there most games) and if Africa goes well (which is also usually the case because UK and US are having to spend so much keeping the allied fleets safe from the German navy and airforce, and JApan is dropping troops in EGY by turn 3-4.

So this is what happened at Flames of Europe.
I told the moderator about what happened
his suggestion- Remove the said units, and let the players work it out.

Well, this didnt work for me, since the units have been placed slowly over the last 5 turns, and have since then been involved in attacks and defenses.
And personally, I wouldnt want to continue any such game, unless it was concievable that it was a mistake, which is not the case when it happens repeatedly in a secretive manner over 5 turns of gaming.
So I emailed the culprit and posted the email on the game log, stating I had caught these errors and believed that they were purposeful cheating and that I believed he should forfeit or we could discuss the situation with the moderators.

Before I could also submit the email into the game log for a permanent public record, the server crashes and this error comes up…

Network Error (tcp_error)

A communication error occurred: “” 
The Web Server may be down, too busy, or experiencing other problems preventing it from responding to requests. You may wish to try again at a later time.

Coincidence?
Probably… but a funny coincidence suggesting a conspiracy involving mysterious powerful forces…

Mateo

BTW, it was Gamer… He also pushes old women into ponds and stole all of the Russian Battleships from my Axis and allies board game.

actually, the ID is Lucius_Cardoc

it is on Flames of Europe. If you really want to know who, just see what games I am involved in, and have stopped playing.

I am currently involved in a game of AAR (not on this site) where the player I am playing against is cheating. How do I know this? Well, at least three times extra INF have popped up in Russia, twice hidden in big Russian stacks during Russias turn, and once during UKs turn… it is only turn 5, and 3 of the 5 turns an INF has “appeared”. I did not notice it right away, but on turn 5, I started wondering why the hell Russia had such a massive army, and I went back and checked the math. Now this has not yet happened during any games here, but what is the policy for this?

replying to some posts from earlier in the thread

UK fighters in WRU cant hit the german BB and TRN in z15, where it should be German round 2, reinforcing EGY or taking TRJ.

When I hit EGy, I hit with 3 ARM 2 INF 1 FTR 1 BOM, and that means there are 2-3 ARM and 1 BOM hitting KEN… you dont even need to clear it out, its fun watching a player having to decide whether to choose an INF or BOM has as a casualty.

and if UK is dropping the FTR in z33, then the UK fleet is vulnerable.
If UK leaves the 59 TRN alone… good for Japan, Russia is gonna be in trouble, and IND might fall first turn.
If UK kills the TRN with the DD, then that leaves the rest of the IO UK fleet consisting of an AC 2 TRN and 1 SS.
if UK wants to drop troops in KEN, they either sacrifice one of those TRN, or they leave 1 AC 1 TRN vulnerable to JAPANS 2 FTR, while the other TRN and SS flee the pacific.

quick question, probably an obvious answer

SS attacks AC 2 FTR
sub hits in the first strike round, and kills the AC
do the fighters get to strike back?
Im sure the answer is yes, but I would think it makes more sense to say no

that sub attacks before anyone knows its there. those fighters dont get a chance to take off… in real life.
of course it does take a little while for a carrier to sink…

well, it helps to know my mentality to understand my opinion on this.

I seriously expect bad outcomes with every battle I roll. Not like average results, or below average results. I expect and prepare for that worst 15% or less outcome you see waaaay on the bottom of the frood estimates. So I never fight battles that I dont have a 80+% chance of winning. In fact, most of my battles are probably >95% chance to win. Its why I get SOOO pissed off when I lose a battle, because I when I do lose, its a <5% chance of happening.
Ive even given up 70% chances to take UK, because I know if I go for it, I will roll that 30% chance to lose. Seriously… go ask Gamer! he knows how bad my luck is. thats why he is such a good partner. He rolls like a leprecaun on crack.

So the reason why I would never go for the BB and TRN with 1 FTR and 1 BOM, is because I would lose with 2 FTR and 1 BOM, or 3 FTR… so I could NEVER win with 1 FTR and 1 BOM.

i personally think it is SUCH a good move that any opponents I play should TOTALLY do it!

I would say your weakness is that you fight battles that you are statistically supposed to lose badly
am I remembering right… you attack Switch’s BB and tRN with 1 FTR 1 Bomber?
your strength is that you win those battles more than I would. In fact, you win those battles more than I win battles I should win 90% of the time.
am I remembering right… you won that battle?

another strength is that you always mix it up and try new and daring things. You also dont get discouraged at all and keep fighting to the end. And you are always fair and respectful, and a great sport.

um… im bored waiting for my opponents to go, so I thought id add my 2 cents.

As the allies, I would rather have 16 guys in EEU, WEU, LEN, or NOR than 0 guys and 6-8 dead Germans.

that is all,

i have won several games with 2 AC. I actually really like it… at times.
I find it very advantageous, for all the reasons you mention, to keep the fleet just a little too strong for the UK to take out well. I time the AC purchases carefully, only when I need them.
For those who argue that those fighters are needed elsewhere for protection… I say this
Sure they are needed for protection… when you have to protect WEU, GER AND EEU, but when you only have to protect WEU, you are set.
Also, those planes in the baltic have much better access to the Eastern front then fighters staged in WEU or GER.

You spent up to 32 dollars on fleet… and laugh when UK starts buying subs and AC to protect against your fleet, and then loses more than 32 dollars clearing the baltic, and many times retreating so that your fighters can land in Germany after the boats get killed. and when you have ACs in the baltic, your fighters can have deceptively long range…

Sure the allied together can have a huge fleet and outproduce Germany, but they allies cant attack together, so you can quickly build up 2 SS 1-2 TRN DD 2 AC 4 FTR, which is more than UK or US can deal with alone for a long time.

Granted, there are different ways to play, and not building fleets works too. Its all a balance, and you have to see how the game leads you.
, and what opportunities your opponents leave you.

Im sure this has been discussed and resolved a million times over, and as far as I know it is true, but I would like a clarification for a game I am in.
In order to use the suez canal, you must have control of both sides (EGY and TRJ) at the beginning of your turn.
Is this true?
Thanks
Mateo

how do you counter it?

this issue sorta came up. OOB rules states that AA belong to a nation, but can be captured. If liberated, they are supposed to return to the control of the original owner. Now I have heard several other interpretations, one being that they are owned by whatever country owns the territory they are in (i think this is incorrect, as it would allow bizarre situations where AA guns continually shift ownership, allowing them to move multiple times.
Also, I dont think AA should transfer control to other allies if they are liberated, as this could encourage bizarre situations with Rockets, where one side allows their guns to be captured, in order to give them to the other ally with the tech. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the OOB rules, which states they remain under the control of the initial owner. Not sure what the LHTR are, and Im too lazy to look them up. Anyone know what the official interpretation is?
Mateooo

in fact, I’ve had fights with multiple girlfriends because my interest in AA sometimes is > my interest in them.

I have never known a female to have any interest what so ever in Axis and Allies, and I will believe it when I see it.

Dealing with an in game situation
UK has a FTR in LIB
during noncombat, he moves that FTR to GBR
during the placement phase, he places his AC on z3 with the FTR on it.
The FTR has now moved 5 spaces… is this legal?
Mateooo <- too lazy to find the latest LHTR

its a shame you didnt post the BM files, so the rest of us could follow that crazy game.
:(

diplomacy is cool, as long as there are no “preset” alliances among friends, and people play it straight, and don’t give up once things start to go down hill. Really screws up the balance of the game. But watch out. You may lose friendships. Personally, for a less luck and more skill base game on a similar note, I recommend the game of thrones, which can actually be completed in a night, and is WAY cooler thematically.

Never trust a Lannister…

I think everyone acknowledges that sometimes bad players get lucky and sometimes good players get unlucky. It is possible to loose a game because you made a good move and got that <1% chance of catastrophe in a crucial battle that you skillfully set up over multiple turns. In that situation, a good player can lose to a bad player.
So obviously this game is not 100% luck, or 100% skill. not sure that there is any way to resolve the issue, but arguing is always fun i guess.
Luck does, however, make every game unique, and give every player a chance a to win, however small. I believe that is a good thing. And if you want a game that is entirely skill based, than by all means play Crossbows and Catapults, and leave Axis and Allies for the gamblin types.