Posts made by newpaintbrush

1.  There is a house rules forum.
2.  Why do you feel your proposed changes should be made?

Make sure when you use superglue both surfaces are clean.  Superglue should do the trick.

Drill 2 small holes partway through a fighter, and 2 small holes through the magnetic tape. Put the magnetic tape on the fighter, aligning the holes, then put 2 small bits of wire in each hole and clip the wires off.  Remove the tape and cut the wires a bit shorter so they won’t stick out of the tape.  Now reassemble and use superglue.

This is called “pinning”, and is something that hobbyists use a lot.  For the drill, use a Dremel or pin vice (hand drill)

Re:  Japan invasion of US

Early on, you concentrate on infrastructure (i.e. transport escorts and transports) for Atlantic.

If Japan drops to Alaska, they’re screwing with their early progress in Asia, so you react then.

Around R3, you can overbuild on infantry a bit and do as follows:

Post a few infantry in West Canada.  Build infantry at East US.  Build tanks at West US.  Keep a couple extra infantry in East Canada.

Now the West Canada infantry stay where they are, say 2-3.  Infantry at East US move to East Canada for Algeria drop.  West US tanks move to East Canada for Algeria drop.  If Japan drops to Alaska, West Canada infantry and West US tanks move to Alaska to reclaim, and use the extra East Canada infantry for the Algeria drop and/or to replace the West Canada infantry.

If Japan moves in in force, that’s great.  They totally screwed their progress in Asia, and you can see the thing coming a mile away, so you can easily prepare for it.

I don’t like the idea of India/Sinkiang ICs in Revised without a US Pacific fleet either, even if UK unifies its fleet off Australia.

Back to Spring 1942 -

First, you can screw with the US1 counter to the Japan Pearl fleet either by grabbing Hawaii and/or the J1 sub/fighter attack vs US battleship.  (Hawaii’s not good odds, and the sub/fighter attack is risky)  But doing Pearl Harbor with Japan capital ships screws with Japanese progress in Asia, which is reason enough not to do it.  In my opinion of course, but . . . judge for yourself.

Generally I do “Pearl Light” (i.e. sub/cruiser/Caroline Islands fighter/bomber), because it frees up my heavier ships for escort or attack duty.  Controlling the sea zone east of Japan and/or the sea zone at French Indochina at the end of J1 can mean a real nasty accelerated start to Japan progress in Asia.

What to do with the Jap fleet?  Depends on what the Allies did.  Generally the Allies lock up the Suez Canal, then Japan might as well keep its fleet at home.  If Japan sends units around Africa or South America, it takes a long time to reach Atlantic, Allies can ignore it for a long time, then either build a few Pacific fleet units to screw with Japan’s transports and/or just build a few extra subs and keep Jap away in the Atlantic.  But we’re talking serious harassment here in Pacific already with just UK and US subs; if you move the Jap escorts away, you’re looking at early multiple destroyers for Japan, and keeping fighters nearby, which pulls them away from mainland Asia.

As far as whether US should counter Jap or not at Pearl - depends on how well the Jap player played.  If the Jap player did things like leaving unescorted aircraft carriers in range of the UK sub, left another battleship unescorted for UK air to kill, dropped escorts at Pearl making for an easy US counter - then with 2-3 capital ships in Pacific down, US can think about going KJF, in which case of course US will want to kill of Jap fleet as soon as possible.

If US isn’t going to try to kill Japan, though, why screw with countering Pearl?  You can use that US battleship and transport at Europe and Africa; if you’re screwing around with Japan, that’s just more time before you can unify your forces to attack.

@arkey81:

we weren’t doing anything crazy

Sinkiang/India ICs without a US Pacific fleet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8of00uEVRRA&NR=1

You have a cruiser shot at French Indochina too for the UK1 attack.  But I would almost never hit French Indochina with UK.

If Germany has 2+ units at Anglo-Egypt, I would hit with India infantry plus India fighter, at least.  So the French Indochina attack is out.

Let’s say Germany has 1 unit at Anglo-Egypt.  You could hit with 1 inf 1 bomber freeing up your India units for something else.  But where do you land your bomber?  The UK bomber has to land in Trans-Jordan or Belgian Congo (Jap fighters have range to Italian East Africa), but Belgian Congo is often not an option due to German air at Libya.  So you’re limited to Trans-Jordan, but that leaves 1 inf 1 bomber on Trans-Jordan, which Germany can easily whack out with its Mediterranean forces.  So you’re back to using the India fighter for Africa in most cases.

Maybe Germany has no air at Libya.  Or maybe you’re willing to commit Russian forces to helping hold Trans-Jordan (which is what you would have to do since you can’t control the German player turn).  But I would still not hit French Indochina with UK.  I would hit Borneo.

Don’t worry, Bunnies is here to save you with some solid advice! . . . don’t laugh.  :x

1.  If Japan doesn’t have capital ships in the Pacific, use the UK and US subs to harass the Jap fleet.  Usually it’ll have to at least build a destroyer and keep a fighter or two back to deal with the subs; that will free up pressure against Russia.  Just a couple subs can really wreck Japan’s day.  If Japan has no ACs, an AC and fighters can force Jap sub, AC, or mass destroyer build, all of which slow Jap progress a lot.

2.  If you ARE going KJF (Kill Japan First), Sinkiang/India ICs may not be futile if you build a US Pacific fleet.  But it sounds like you are going KGF (Kill Germany First).  If you’re going KGF, Sinkiang/India ICs are a total waste in my opinion.  Forget them.  No wonder you can’t get a good Atlantic fleet going in time if you’re blowing off 30 IPC on UK1/US1 for ICs, bleeding off more IPCs every turn to reinforce those locations, and probably bleeding strength away from the Russian-German front as well as Russia tries to shore up those locations!!!

3.  The Jap fleet is taken out of circulation for a good 3-4 rounds.  You can easily use that time to establish your Allied fleet vs Germany.  Once that’s done, you can ramp down on the production with US and maintain 6 ground units a turn while still building US subs to fend the Japs off.

4.  Even in a KJF plan, UK should usually concentrate on aiding Russia through the London-Karelia/Archangel transport route while US focuses on the East Canada-Algeria transport route.

5.  You won’t hold Japan “in check” with India/Sinkiang ICs.  It’s like sticking your finger in a hole in a dike.  (noting what I wrote earlier about a big American Pacific fleet) Yeah, it’s a great plan - until you run out of fingers, which you will as Japan just increases the pressure in Asia.  How?  Japs put tanks at French Indochina, plus a bit of air, and some infantry at French Indochina and at China.  Now what?  Can you defend Sinkiang AND India against a fat Jap tank stack?  No.  So you retreat.  If you run from India, Japan gets a functional IC quickly, and pressures Caucasus, which is awful.  If you run from Sinkiang, Japan gets a functional IC almost on Moscow’s doorstep, which is just as bad.

6.  Best post some sample moves and builds from your games if you want some more help.  If you’re doing stuff like building 2 bombers on R1, or 2 cruisers 2 infantry on UK1, that would explain a lot right there.  Not saying you would do that sort of thing.  :wink:

The rulebook for Spring 1942 is pretty awfully written.  Some veterans have even discussed putting together a new rulebook that’s better written, so new players can understand the rules better.

I would participate, but for some reason my idea that there need to be pictures of strippers from each of the five powers on at least every other page hasn’t gone over very well.  :roll:

@Zhukov44:

@Hobbes:

The key is difference between both sides in income (the amount owned by each side at the end of the turn) and the size of armies. If they are balanced and the casualties taken are balanced (which depends on the skill/luck of both players) then games can go for a long time.

I agree, neither side is necessarily favored in the long game.  The side that is earning more IPCs will be the one that is favored.  Control of Africa and the Pacific islands can be decisive, as well as control of Eurasia.

My point in the post I just put up was that I think Allies are able to maintain economic advantage in the long game.  I think they should be able to control Africa, normally.

Hobbes’ answer is more accurate, in that it doesn’t assume one thing or another. I assume the Allies keep their fleets, and that Africa is controlled by the Allies, because that’s what I expect to see.
But my reply does not account for things like, say, 1 German sub/2 fighters/1 bomber attacking a US fleet of 3 destroyers 1 carrier 1 cruiser 2 fighters 4 transports and destroying the whole thing, while Germany maintains control of Africa.  In such a case - yes, the game would go on longer, yes, the Allies would be in bad position, yes, the Axis would have a better chance to win over the next 4-5 turns, and you could say such a game was a long one as Germany turned its economic advantage to good use against Moscow and defense of Berlin.

I’m going to assume veterans are the ones reading this.  So I won’t go into mind-numbing detail.

Let’s assume a KGF plan of UK dumping to Karelia/Archangel, and US to Algeria through the East Canada.  Japan builds an early IC at French Indochina, Russia did a R1 ground build, preventing Germany from holding Karelia for any length of time, UK prevented Germany from gaining a foothold in Africa and prevented Japan from moving into the Mediterranean through the Suez.  UK or US killed the German BB/transport on UK2/US2, or Germany built carrier with Libya dump with accompanying weakness vs Russia on later turns (regardless of the logistic advantage of S Eur to Balkans/Ukr dump, which is not too awful if Russia’s maintained control of WR, which it did b/c of early Allied fighters.  Allied subs in Pacific harass Japan to either force destroyer build for sub hunting, or battleship escorts (both acceptable).

Pretty average game.  UK builds minimal fleet protection, US builds minimal fleet protection, Japan grabs territory, Germany grabs territory.  Russia drops SFE, Buryatia, Yakut, US drops China and Sinkiang, UK drops India and let’s say Australia.  Germany drops Norway, Algeria, Libya, and West Russia.  That’s Allies dropping 12 IPC, and Axis dropping 7 IPC.  The Allies start with 96 IPC worth of territories, Axis 70.  With the change in territories, that’s still 91 Allies 75 Axis.  The Allies have better long term income in the midgame after control of Africa is established.  You could claim New Guinea and French Madagascar for Axis, but it’s still not great for Axis.

But the Allies also have a logistic advantage in Africa.  US East Canada-Algeria drops requires 2 turns after production (produced East US, march East Canada, drop to Algeria).  Furthermore, it only requires 1 US transport to keep this route.  Japan will have 7 units a turn at French Indochina, with an IC and 2 transports from Japan, but that already requires 2 transports.  Let’s say the transports are a sunk cost; French Indochina still requires 2 dedicated transports a turn to drop to Africa; it’s only at India that you can use a single transport to drop.  But India is a forward location near Caucasus, and Japan will have to do the heavy lifting in the attack against Russia.  Can Japan REALLY bleed off units to Africa, with 6 US units following 6 US units every turn there, and diverting early pressure from Russia?  But US is not similarly hampered.  The constant chain through Africa presses on Japan’s southern reinforcement line, relieving pressure on Caucasus.  That is, Japan is bleeding away from its main attack to hit Africa; US goes through Africa anyways.
So much for midgame.  Allies maintain economic advantage.

How about late game?  Japan pressures Kazakh/Novosibirsk, and Russia collapses at Caucasus, Belorussia, and West Russia.  That’s 12 IPCs more to Axis, say 13 with Evenki.  But just what are the Allies doing all this time? Either UK should have started rolling Germany up from Karelia, or US and UK should be hitting W Europe with 11 / 8 units (8 ground plus 3 air from London, 6 ground plus 3 air from East Canada, with 3 US transports at East Canada and 3 US transports at Western Europe maintaining a steady reinforcement stream) - becoming 11/11 pretty quickly.  Or maybe US is just ramming 10 units a turn in through Persia, or US is grabbing Pacific islands.  Anyways, the outcome is still contestable.

How about endgame?  Moscow can fall, so long as Berlin follows.  With Russia and Germany both fallen, Allies typically have the advantage.  Japan will have a lot of units, but can only produce 12 units a turn at Moscow and Caucasus.  UK/US can produce at Berlin and Southern Europe for 16, and use transports for another 16.  Even then, Allies have a huge logistic advantage in Atlantic with ability to drop infantry almost anywhere on coast, which Japan cannot do.  Japan will really need a huge unit advantage to overwhelm Berlin or Southern Europe before the Allies can stop it - but it should not be able to do this, since the Allies should have at least 3-4 turns to build reinforcements (assuming Allied blocking of Jap forces); with the logistic setup from Allies, 3 turns means 48 Allied units just from transports alone, let alone production at Berlin and Southern Europe.

So put it all together.  Allies have economic advantage early game.  Allies have economic advantage midgame.  Late game, Allies might not have economic advantage, but they may, and they will definitely have a logistic advantage.  Plus, they can afford to lose Moscow, while the Axis can probably not afford to lose Berlin.  So it comes down to, how much earlier will Moscow fall than Berlin?  If Moscow falls a lot earlier, Japan can race in to save the day.  If not, it can’t.

But regardless, the longer the game goes on, the better the chances the Allies have.

@mbennett2603:

House rule, we allow kamikaze’s . . .
I’ve seen no other strategies mention (G1 attack on London) the first turn, and it just seemed too easy for axis. Something must be amiss.

It’s hard to take you seriously when you write stuff like that.  I’m going to announce my suspicion that you’re a troll.  A well spoken and knowledgeable troll, perhaps.  But a troll nonetheless.

On the off chance that you are honestly confused -

That house rule you’re using is so ridiculously and obviously different, you MUST realize when you’re in a forum of people NOT using that house rule, of COURSE they are not going to use strats that rely on that house rule mechanic.

Your G1 attack without kamikaze fighters is 1 bomber 2 fighters 1 infantry 1 tank vs 3 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank 1 bomber 2 fighters 1 AA gun.  You have almost no chance in h*** of success.

Your G1 attack with kamikaze fighters is 1 bomber 5-6 fighters 1 infantry 1 tank.  That’s a gigantic difference.  There’s an AA gun, but the German attack is also high dice attackers at 3, while most UK defenders are low at 2.

The lesson?  If you want to play house rules, don’t think it’s strange and surprising that strategies that require your house rule to be viable are not widely discussed.  Honestly.  It’s like asking why your muffins don’t taste good when you use sawdust instead of flour.

–

Revised vets already know a bunch of responses and pre-emptive preventative measures against a G1 London attack.

1.  Russia fighter(s) to London.
2.  Russia hitting Ukraine or Norway to kill a fighter.
3.  Russia using air force to sink Baltic fleet.  (This was a really crappy idea in Revised, but viable under current A&A rules.)
4.  UK E Can retake.  I notice you said something about E Can transport being whacked.  Under Spring 1942 rules, you can pick up the East Canada tank with your transport as if the German sub was not there, then do a tank / support shot attack against London.
5.  US retake.
6.  If Germany does capture UK, it’s not great for the Allies, but it’s hardly the end.  Germany will had to have dropped a lot of attacks to be able to take London, and will be crippled to trade vs Russia on G2.

Germany can do a G1 transport build to recapture London, but if it does, UK can hold off on retaking London (to avoid getting income), then US1 recapture, then G2 recapture, then US2 recapture with US1 fleet/ground build.  US and Germany can slug it out while Russia gets super fat.  It is really not a strategy Germany should be able to pursue for very long, unless Germany went 5 transports or something like that.  But if you’re allowing kamikaze fighters in the first place, a G1 build of 5 transports should be whacked out by Russian fighters anyways - assuming that Russia didn’t take any preventative measures in the first place.

BTW, I am myself a troll-ish sort of writer.  :lol:

@Nomarclegs:

Tell me what you think…

I say India/Sinkiang ICs as you mentioned them fail.  With IPCs going towards ICs, not units, plus additional IPCs drained to support those ICs, Germany has a easier time holding territory in Africa and Europe.  Japan puts infantry to China and French Indochina, then stocks tanks at French Indochina.  Jap tanks at French Indochina threaten both Allied ICs.  One IC falls, then the other, then the Allies have nothing.

You can maybe pull something interesting off if Japan is stupid and loses a couple of carriers and/or battleships, but a UK1 IC predicting a stupid Japan move is not solid strategy.  Japan should see the IC build at India plus all the Sinkiang reinforcement, and play appropriately.

You could also try heavy US fleet to pull Japan away from hitting the ICs, but I did not see mention of heavy US fleet in your post.

BTW, your abbreviations made your post a lot harder to read.  Really, I didn’t bother trying to read into the d*** thing too much.

@axis_roll:

what if no one cared about hypothetical polls?
:?

What if no one cared about the hypothetical answer to that hypothetical question?  :wink:

When I’m running short on time, I usually do some flashy 20-30% success attacks that will break the game one way or another, or resign regardless of whether I think I’m winning or losing.

1.  Long games favor the Allies b/c of fleet situation (regardless of KGF/KJF) and difficulty of Axis in retaining control of Africa.
2.  The Axis can win long games if the Allies are unlucky or make mistakes.
3.  On the rare occasion I do play a long game, it’s usually because I consider the game too interesting to dismiss casually.  So I take a few extra minutes each turn to think things out

As far as long game patterns - I’d imagine usually the US sets up a transport chain from East Canada to Algeria, Japan shouldn’t screw around with multiple ICs (just buy one), and Japan maintains transport chains at Buryatia and French Indochina, switching to Buryatia dumps / infantry/sub builds when the US starts to apply pressure.  Once you stop bleeding Germany, it normally builds up enough power to pressure Russia again, but if UK maintains drops at Norway/Karelia/Archangel, it shouldn’t be a game ending problem for Allies.

If you do 100% UK air, until UK4-5 you’ll do better than if you had started with a UK1 fleet build.

What I anticipate should happen after that?  History of game as I anticipate it - Germany controls Africa, you kill the German Med fleet, Germany builds subs at Med to protect Africa from US landing, maintaining control of Norway (which is usually lost very early on).  Japan presses forward with transports/ICs.  UK/Russia hold up at West Russia pretty well, but once Japan hits Novosibirsk/Kazakh around J4-5, Russia’s forced to bleed off strength east to keep the Japs at bay, which means Allies have to retreat from West Russia; losing control of Africa and Norway is not good, but not fatal - being forced to huddle at Moscow with only UK fighters to reinforce, though, should be the beginning of the end for Russia.  Germany or Japan grabs Caucasus; Russia may be able to reclaim at heavy cost, but with nothing to stop the steady flow of Axis reinforcements, Caucasus falls, then Russia.

US can divert to Brazil before hitting Africa, but that means diverting transport escorts and transports for additional turns, which Russia may not have with all the Axis pressure.

You could definitely do UK fighters/Russian infantry to stave off Germany for a long time, but Japan, Africa, and Norway are what make the real difference.  If US goes against Japan, Japan is slowed in Asia, but Germany producing cost effective ground units powered with additional Norway and Africa income, combined with just a BIT of pressure from Japan is enough to make things very difficult for Russia.  If US goes in the Atlantic and helps Africa, Japan runs free in Pacific and pressures Moscow directly.

UK1 defensive fleet, UK2 transport and ground build, UK3 drops 6 units to Karelia/Archangel.  (Could be 4 units if Germany chanced sub vs E Can transport and fighter/bomber vs UK battleship).  Contrast with UK1 fighters, UK2 fighters, UK3 fighters.

UK Air:  UK2 3 fighters in Europe, UK3 5 fighters in Europe, UK4 8 fighters in Europe, UK5 11 fighters in Europe.
UK Navy:  UK2 nothing, UK3 6 ground units in Europe, UK4 12-14 ground units in Europe, UK5 20 ground in Europe.

If the game lasts 5+ turns, you’ll want to have built UK navy as soon as possible.

–

20 IPC of fighters attacks 18 IPC of infantry.  Expected result of 1 round of combat:  2 dead fighters and 1 dead infantry.  That’s 20 IPCs the attacker loses and 3 IPCs the defender loses.  Admittedly, it isn’t quite so simple in the actual game, but going pure air is not a sustainable long-term strategy.

You don’t need to control the Atlantic with UK to the extent of destroying any German Baltic navy.  Just make enough to handle what Germany can throw at you (with a safety margin of course).  If you overbuild too heavily on UK navy, you delay landing in Europe.

Usually Germany will do whatever it can to force UK to confront the Baltic navy, while minimizing the cost to Germany in air power.  Good placement and movement by UK usually cuts down the German options a lot, especially if Germany didn’t drop IPCs into Baltic fleet.

Building early fighters with UK to fly to Russia doesn’t work well.  A fighter is 10 IPCs and defends at 4; you pay 2.5 IPC per dice pip.  Infantry is 3 IPC and defends at 2; you pay 1.5 IPC per dice pip.  Considering you pay 166% per dice pip for fighters -  best go inf/tank even at the cost of building a fleet.

As usual, I think Hobbes is quite correct.  To elaborate, I think you would usually send Norway fighter to UK battleship, German bomber to UK battleship, Norway fighter, Western Europe fighter, and Eastern Europe fighters to UK cruiser, and Balkans fighter to Anglo-Egypt.  The Ukraine fighter is often dead at end of R1.  There’s good chance of Germany losing 1-2 fighters, between the UK cruiser and battleship.

Re: Zhukov’s post - German fighter/bomber vs UK battleship has 61% win, 20% mutual destruct (leaving the UK transport).  So you may see the UK battleship and transport northwest of London, and the UK transport at East Canada both wiped.

Re:  Early wipe of Allied fleet - with only a single UK transport to claim as a “bonus kill”, Germany may be well advised to leave a moderately well defended Allied fleet alone.

Re:  Building “more” UK fleet - It’s not that advanced play requires more UK fleet.  It’s just a question of the Allies responding to the German plays.  If, say,Germany builds all ground and tries to crack Russia, you probably won’t need much more than 2 DD/AC.  But if Germany builds air to stall out Allied fleets (maybe even just 1 fighter or bomber a turn), the Allies will need heavier fleet.

@ragnarok628:

you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet.  does that sound right?

What is “more”?  Like, what’s your typical UK1 build/move?