Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. mjkusn01
    3. Posts
    M
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 13
    • Posts 56
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by mjkusn01

    • RE: Axis SBR Campaign

      This thread is interesting, but I’m not convinced that this is the optimal strategy for the Axis (granted, there can be ONLY one optimal way to play). However, it’s solid and people here seem to have some success with it.

      I have a few problems in strategies bombing Russia:

      1. The Axis player’s expected earnings is by bombing Stalingrad is 0. You’ll get shot down 1/6 of the time and 5/6 of the time you’ll bomb on average 3 IPCs a turn (not 3.5, because of the 4 IPC limit of Stalingrad)
      2. The Axis player’s bombing of Moscow with two Bombers also does less than 3.5 IPC’s per die because of the 8 IPC limit.

      basically, The Axis are at an economical disadvantage. This strategy does have a positive return on investment, but so does every Axis strategy because of their superior tactical starting position. The Axis have to close the economic gap fast, and this method isn’t as fast as other methods. However, it is always fun to find new ways to win. This is a solid strategy. I will give it a shot against some of my lesser foes.

      Have any of the top players tried this strategy? I haven’t been on here in awhile, so I don’t know who is the best player anymore: it seemed like this thread was mainly a debate between two or three players. I would be curious to know what the premier players thought of this strategy…

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Free For All Game Strategy Recommendations

      my experience in FFA games (only tried it twice) is that they never end

      people always play “balance of power”. whenever somebody “starts winning” all the countries team up until the balance is restored

      its fun for beginners to learn how all the units work but not a viable strategy game

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Axis National Advantages (LHTR 2.0)

      I have only played one game with NA’s and the Germand U-Boat interdiction was nice.

      I would imagine that The Luftwaffe Dive Bomber would be pretty sweet.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Impossible for Allies to Win

      Im sorry if I sounded like I was accusing you of “name-calling”.

      I am however bitter at the fact that I spent 40 bucks on a game that I can’t figure out how to beat as Allies.

      I’m not really into modifying games at all… but I am seriously considering modifying the game so that the Germans have little chance of winning but instead must survive a certain number of turns (similar to how Battle of the Bulge and D-Day). That way, things have a better chance of matching historical events.

      posted in Axis & Allies Europe
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Impossible for Allies to Win

      @Antholin:

      If their is one player for each Allied nation and they coordinate an effective offensive, I think Germany would be hard pressed to win the game. Obviously Germany has to be very aggressive in the early game, or they will be worn quickly away and I have seen one player do this. However, if the Allies quickly respond to Russia’s need with fighters, transporting troops, while France & Africa are getting attacked, then Germany will have to rethink ther strategy on all fronts. Basically, as long as the Allied players form a strong network to oppose Germany and act together quickly, Germany will be reeling from their combined might.

      Sending planes and troops to Russia is easier said than done. (actually, planes are easy to send)

      However, if you try newly built planes to Russia, you won’t be able to land troops in Europe because the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine will still have enought punch to wipe out small Allied fleets. After the G1, Germany will more than likely have 5 fighters and a bomber stationed on the Atlantic coast with at least one sub touching England. The English Atlantic fleet will only consist of the Canadian transport and destoyer. The Brits only have 25 IPCs to spend. If they use some of it on planes to send to Russia, their fleet will not be able to defend itself. Even if you do spend all your money on a fleet, Germany can still do damage to it.

      Meanwhile, every unit in Europe heads to Moscow.

      Like I said, we’ve played at least 10 games … even when Germany rolls way below average, they are still winning. Nothing can beat the tank dash.

      We are competent players. The game is NOT balanced.

      posted in Axis & Allies Europe
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Allied National Advantages (LHTR 2.0)

      I wonder if anyone will check Salvage as one of the best…

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Impossible for Allies to Win

      when I say passive … i mean there aren’t any major offensives

      two territories are usually attacked for the first few turns. russia has a bomber and fighter to use the first turn and usually two more fighters to use on the third turn (lend leased)

      however, Ive found that if you try attacking the Germans with too many forces, the Germans will easily decimate the Russian units on their counterattack

      Im playing a game right now where England saves their 1st round income in order to build a larger fleet on the second turn so that the germans dont wipe out a weaker fleet on g2. i dont know whether or not it will work

      posted in Axis & Allies Europe
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Impossible for Allies to Win

      russia is typically passive, anytime there is german artillery that is relatively unprotected, the russians will take it out

      the key is to leave very little russian units exposed to the inevitable german counterattack

      the us is slow of course… usually builds two trns and destroyer on turn one while clearing the atlantic of subs on a1 and landing in africa

      what are good purchases for e1 and a1 in your opinion?

      posted in Axis & Allies Europe
      M
      mjkusn01
    • Impossible for Allies to Win

      Ive played about 10 times… Germany always wins.

      Here’s what purchases are
      g1: 12inf, art
      g2: 8tanks
      g3: 9tanks

      basically, the english navy is destroyed on g1 (except for canada’s navy and the egyptian navy)… all troops in eastern france, belgium, denmark go to Germany on g1 and mass together with the first build

      england is unable to make a landing in west europe until e3. russia always falls on g5 ALWAYS

      does anyone have a good strategy to defeat germany?

      posted in Axis & Allies Europe
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Rule Question

      thank you

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      M
      mjkusn01
    • Rule Question

      In response to the Caspain Sub #18 thread, I would like to ask a question (because I dont think it was adequately answered).

      Can attacking sea/air units retreat before defending submarines submerge? I know that the TripleA programming doesn’t allow it, but if you are playing TripleA and this case ever presents itself, would you just use the unit editor?

      Thank you.

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Countering Operation Sea Lion

      I just got a massive headache reading through all of this…

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: House rules for added realism

      i’ve seen alot of house rules dealing with air supremacy and i think i liked this one the most

      posted in House Rules
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Russia's fight against Japan

      agreed, all those options slow Japan. but then again, these options also tie up resources needed to defend against germany … i guess I was wondering where everyone thought the optimal balance was

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      M
      mjkusn01
    • Russia's fight against Japan

      What type of effort should the Russian’s make to slow the Japanese in the begining?

      6inf?
      8inf?

      should you send fighters to help trade territories?

      i typically play Axis at home and havent yet completed my first game online (im playing two, both as Axis). When playing as the Japs, I know I like to expand as fast as I can… which is why I hate seeing the Russians send reinforcements. On the other hand, when im Japan im also Germany, and Im able to push into Russia when too much is sent.

      So, what are your thoughts?

      posted in Axis & Allies Revised Edition
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Nazi Germany VS The Soviet Union

      In my opinion, Germany actually had a chance to win the war (against all Allies) had they not made some crucial mistakes. Of course, the Allies made even more mistakes than the Germans, so you could look at this both ways.

      First off, Germany’s first BIG mistake was allowing the Allies to retreat from Dunkirk. The French were already beat. If the Germans would have used their ground forces to cut off the English and French troops at Dunkirk instead of just using the Luftwaffe, moral would have been completely wiped away. Instead, the Allies saw this evacuation as a victory and that gave their people hope. To compound the problem, the same soldier who evacuated at Dunkirk ended up forcing the Germans to allocate more resources to Africa and eventually those same soldiers invaded Normandy. Furthermore, I don’t think it’s completely unreasonable to think England may have surrendured had they suffered a catastrophe at Dunkirk.

      Second, the Germans had no business helping Italy in the Balkans or in Africa. Those resources should have been directed towards Russia.

      Third, if Barborossa had been launched earlier as planned, Russia would have collapsed. The Red Army crumbled when Germany advanved. The only problem was that the Germans couldn’t capitalize on their efforts because of the bad weather. With the extra weeks available from an earlier invasion date, the Germans could have continued encircling massive pockets of Russians. Moscow would have been reached. Once the capital was captured and Stalin fleed, Russia would have collapsed just as it did in WW1. In this case, no Stalingrad, no Kursk.

      Of course, if things did go bad (as they did in history), Hitler should have never intervened in the operations of the war. Erich von Manstien and other brilliant planners were more than capable of conducting the war.

      So…?

      Lastly, I wanted to note the Nazi ideology. Many people on here think had they “liberated” Russia instead of “conquered” Russia, more Ukrainians and Soviets would have helped. Well, the German war machine was made possible by de-humanizing their enemies. The German army was the best trained in the world and they thought they were figthing to save their master race. The believed this so much, that they were also the most motivated soldier in the army.

      I don’t want to sound like Im supporting their ideology, but it surely helped their military (and doomed their country).

      By the way… when playing Axis and Allies, am I the only one that likes to pretend they are actually conducting the real war?  :-D

      One game with my roommate, I baited him to send his armor into Caucus because it was lightly defended. He took it but my counterattack was vicious and he lost all his armor and I told him, “dont worry, that happened to Paulus too!”

      posted in World War II History
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)

      @balungaloaf:

      jen, you would take a loss of iraq, and give victory to al-qaeda.  those murderers of ALL people, young old, black white, doesnt matter they will kill you people.

      Just a quick comment … I need this “explained” to me. How is leaving Iraq giving al-qaeda a victory? There were no al-qaeda when we invaded, but there is now. I wonder if our presence there is enraging their citizens enough to join the movement against us.

      I read through some more of this thread and I do agree with some things said: Huckabee will be McCain’s running mate … and they will beat Hillary if she is the nominee but they would lose to Obama if he is nominated. Just an opinion, obiously (but shared by others here)

      Another comment… I disagree (as do others) with saying Obama is more conservative than McCain. McCain (even though I think he is a bloodthirsty wargomer maniac  :-D) is fiscally conservative. I accept his explanation of voting against the tax cuts. “You can’t give money away if you don’t have the money to give away.” HOWEVER, if absolutely forced to choose between McCain and Obama, I would choose Obama (and I do consider myself conservative). Here’s why: I believe Obama can change our foreign policy (IMO, for the better) by withdrawing from Iraq. Yes, I hate the idea of social healthcare, but the president isn’t the sole decision maker on the issue. Congress has to get it through … and I dont see that happening with a Republican senate.

      But anyways … I wont be voting for either of those (insert bad word here)s. I will be voting Libertarian.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Ron Paul

      It depends on what good you think a vote can do … if you think a vote is only good if it’s the vote that breaks a tie, then more than likely, your vote will never be any good!

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Ron Paul

      @Jermofoot:

      As for Ron Paul…I like him due to his outlook on certain issues (ending war on drugs, fiscal responsibility/cut in spending, civil liberties), but others turn me off (dumping issues to the states - good, but could cause quite a bit of chaos - nonintervention policy, scrapping many federal offices).

      How else could you cut spending without scrapping many federal offices? How else could you cut spending if you don’t change foreign policy?

      You are right … there is a trade off. Less spending means less programs.

      The way I look at it, there’s only so much a president can do: change foreign policy, veto bills, ect. Even though he wants to eliminate income taxes and cut federal spending, he cant do it himself. In fact, with a Democratic congress, he probably wont get anything done except change foreign policy. But I guarentee you this, spending will never increase!

      Anyways, I love Paul.

      posted in General Discussion
      M
      mjkusn01
    • RE: Online: searching opponent for AAR

      Ill start a thread in the play boardgames board

      Do you have TripleA or are we going to be playing soley on the forum ?

      posted in Player Locator
      M
      mjkusn01
    • 1 / 1