Posts made by newpaintbrush

IRS!  :lol:

@ragnarok628:

i can understand that the allies don’t have to kill the baltic fleet but they have to remain ABLE to kill the fleet, which i guess is what i mean. because besides the logistic advantage you mention a strong baltic navy can force the UK/US players to build up stronger navies to make any kind of landing.  right?  maybe i’m not right.

The Baltic carrier gives German fighters better effective range, which makes the Allies have to build slightly stronger defensive fleets.

If the German fleet wanders out of the Baltic, UK can usually smash it easily with the fodder destroyers they built to protect vs German air attack, plus UK air.  UK can then reinforce their fleet with their build, leaving it difficult for Germany to attack.

@ragnarok628:

if UK (hits Borneo and New Guinea) aren’t they just going to lose it all?  i mean, they’ll gain income from borneo for a few turns but they are sacrificing a transport, cruiser, AC and 2(?) fighters.   is it worth it, if you could move into the med instead?  . . .  like, you mentioned setting up a 6 dice attack east of japan?  how does that work?  by which i mean, under what circumstance would japan actually allow that to happen?

so, if i’m US doing KGF and if japan does leave itself exposed and has lost 2-3 capital ships, does building/staying in the pacific mean i should transition into a strategy where i split my attentions between J and G, or do you just say that i should build once/keep forces there only in order to keep pressure on but still focus 99% on G?

1.  First, on UK1, UK must make sure there are no surviving German tanks on Anglo-Egypt at end of turn.  That given, why hit Borneo and New Guinea even with a KGF plan?  Because the India transport, cruiser, and AC won’t be able to reach the main UK fleet for at least 3 turns, more likely 4-5 turns minimum.  You don’t want to delay UK 3-5 turns while you wait for the wandering UK India fleet to join up.

If you take Borneo, Japan is not FORCED to reclaim it, but almost certainly should - it’s worth a lot.  Borneo’s off the main French Indochina/Japan drop route, and more significantly, off the India route.  Normally, Japan wants to drop as much at French Indochina ASAP, to secure India.

This doesn’t mean taking Borneo and New Guinea is “right”.  You could leave 3 infantry on Australia to make Japan think twice about diverting 2 transports to take it; you could use additional infantry in the Persia/India/Africa region to stall Japan and Germany out with air/infantry trades.  (I think stalling Germany in Africa with extra infantry is better; Japan’s power grows too fast in Asia for UK to stall them out).

2.  Yes, Japan can smash the 6 dice attack.  But doing so often costs UK little (the cruiser and UK won’t reach the Atlantic in time to help anyways).  Japan will often be left in poor position for J2, or will have to spend IPCs on a destroyer or two to help protect their fleet.  Even such a small thing as encouraging Japan to build a destroyer instead of a transport significantly slows their progress.

3.  If Japan lost a lot of capital ships, it’s probably because the Japan player isn’t very skilled.  The condition I use to determine what to do with US is looking at the German situation.  How’s Germany’s hold on Africa?  (Specifically, does it look like Germany can successfully be kept out of Africa?)  How’s Germany’s fleet/airforce compared to UK?  (Specifically, does it look like UK will be able to drop units to Karelia/Archangel?)  If the answer to both of these are yes, then I go vs Japan 100% (again, given that Japan dropped 2-3 capital ships).  If the answer to either is no, I go Atlantic 100%.

@frimmel:

There is also a remove and modify button for after you’ve posted poor syntax.  :wink:

#1.

@Gargantua:

A man of few equals…

Until the Clone Wars resume, anyways.

Hobbes is pretty solid.  Granada’s good too.

Re:  G1 Baltic AC buy:

Allies never have to destroy Baltic fleet.  As long as it lives, Germany maintains a logistic advantage for the W Eur-Germany-Karelia-Norway circle, and an invasion threat to London.  But if the Allies are so minded, UK can build northwest of UK on UK2 after a minimal ground buy protecting London from a G2 invasion.  From there, the fleet drops straight to Karelia.  If German navy pokes its head out of the Baltic, the UK fleet plus air smashes it.  The AC is a continuing problem because it disrupts UK fleet reinforcements (UK will have to retreat its navy for an entire turn to sea zone northwest of London), but that’s not too awful, considering that Germany can only drop 2 units in the Baltic circle, while UK can drop 8 to Karelia/Archangel.

As far as using the G1 Baltic AC to buy time - it DOES work, of course - but by “work”, I don’t mean I think it a superior or better strategy  I only mean that the AC does effectively stall the Allies a bit in the Atlantic to some degree.  Whether those IPCs would be better spent elsewhere is another matter.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that a Baltic AC is a dead end to a UK1 2-3 fighter build, and that if Germany does build navy, it should be subs in the Mediterranean, and then only when Germany’s already achieved dominance in Africa, and US looks like it may be thinking about landing at Algeria.  A German Med AC is not horribly impractical, but I would prefer to use Japanese units if at all possible.  (it often is NOT against veteran players).

Some Japan players protect their battleships (BBs) and aircraft carriers (ACs).  In such cases, if you are doing KGF, you might as well withdraw from Pacific.  But if you can put Japan in a position in which it’s lost 2-3 capital ships (BBs or ACs) early, you will probably want to keep some units or even build in the Pacific to take advantage.

With Germany, you almost always want to hit Anglo-Egypt on G1.  If you don’t, UK is free to use those forces to screw around with the Axis big-time.  They can set up a 6-dice attack on the sea zone east of Japan (sub/AC/cruiser/2 fighters/bomber), take Borneo with 80%+ chance, usually attacking New Guinea too.  Even if UK doesn’t kick Japan’s ass, they can withdraw into Africa to shut the Germans down.  Imagine India transport bringing units to Africa.  You’ll then have 3 inf 1 tank 2 fighter fending you off, with a second wave of 1 inf, and additional fighters from London and bomber from London joining in.  That is NOT going to be easy to crack, and you will have to bleed out of Europe like mad if you want to gain ground in Africa.  Since you’re probably going to lose the German battleship and transport pretty soon anyways, that means you’re NEVER going to get going in Africa, because you will never have enough ground units to make it happen.

You should not lose your Med transport by G2 unless you’re looking at R1 sub buys.  Are you?

My opinion is that the Mediterranean can be a REALLY GOOD SPOT for German naval builds, under the right conditions.

A few German subs in the Mediterranean combined with German control of Africa can make a big difference in the Allied fleet action.  Either they land at Algeria, and get blown up, or they route south and lose the use of escorts plus transports for 4 turns  (one turn to brazil, second to drop, third to return to brazil, fourth to drop) or they let Germany keep Africa.  Granted, this isn’t going to happen in a lot of games against strong players, but when it does come up, German subs can be super useful.

–

I am of mixed mind regarding a Baltic AC build.  Germany cannot keep it if the Allies want to destroy it, but the logistic advantage of Germany/West Europe to Karelia, messing with UK1 fleet build, and added control to Norway are good compensation for the early game.

For TripleA, you just show up in the lobby and look for a v4 game.  (v4 is Spring 1942; v3 is 50th edition).

Maps like New World Order and v3 1941 and 1942 scenarios are far more popular right now on the TripleA lobby than v4 (Spring 1942).

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Out of curiosity, where do most of your games occur, on this site, triple a or in person?  It doesn’t seem like many '42 games are played here which is unfortunate.  I like to review the games here and viewing the maps provided is key.  Its a great learning opportunity to see how people handle dice and adapt to new situations.  Saying “I did this in Round 4” doesn’t mean much without the context of the game-state and how it came to be like that.

I play on TripleA.  Your comment on context is dead on.  I would have commented more, only people tend to fall asleep when I go on.  And on.  And on.  :roll:

The dice beat Hobbes.  I was just there for the ride.

In the game previous, Hobbes beat me, and not with luck.

So honestly, I can’t say I’m at all on the same level as Hobbes yet.

In related news, Zhukov beat me with a sub/fighter/infantry/tank R1 build.  I think I can get him, though.  I don’t break out into a cold sweat nights thinking about his game, anyways.

–

Blow by blow recap of bunnies vs hobbes:

R1 buy 5 inf 1 art 1 tank.  Combat was WR/UKR attack with 2 tanks 1 fighter to Ukraine, 2 tanks 1 fighter to WR (purpose was destruction of German units at Ukraine, not necessarily capture, and more strength at WR to preserve Russian infantry)  Combat results left 7 infantry plus asst. at WR, 1 inf plus asst. at Ukraine. Rather a blowout in dice.  Noncombat, moved units west, left 3 infantry at Yakut, 1 at Buryatia to pressure Japs.

G2 captured Anglo-Egypt with 1 tank remaining.  Other than that, lost fighter in sub/fighter/bomber attack vs UK battleship.  Lost another fighter vs cruiser at W Europe.  Destroyer moved northwest of Norway to stop UK landing, subs split between north and northwest of Western Europe.  Ended with 1 inf at Karelia, 1 inf at Belorussia, 3 tanks at Ukraine.  Slightly bad dice with fighter losses, and with 1 unit left at Anglo-Egypt.

UK1 killed German Baltic transport with bomber, destroyer with fighters.  Send infantry/fighter to Anglo-Egypt, and cruiser, transport, and infantry to Borneo.  AC used vs Kwangtung transport. Used Australia transport against New Guinea.    Failed at New Guinea.  No losses in other places.  Note:  I forgot to unload my Borneo transport, but Hobbes (polite opponent that he is) allowed the turns to cycle and IPCs to be adjusted so we could play as if I had not committed that serious blunder.  Turned out I captured Borneo with both UK infantry surviving.  Landed bomber in Asia, fighters at Moscow; India fighter landed at Persia with consolidated 2 infantry and AA gun, UK sub ended at Solomons.  (This threatens 1 sub 2 fighters 1 bomber 1 AC 1 cruiser to sea zone east of Japan on UK2.  Japan can dodge a lot of this by moving fleet west of Japan, but that slows Japan’s development)

J1 bought 3 transports 1 destroyer, did Pearl Light (sub/cruiser/fighter/bomber), with Jap BB vs UK AC, Jap BB+AC vs UK cruiser, and inf/tank/2 fighter vs 2 infantry at Borneo.  5 inf + 2 fighter vs China.  Japan retook Borneo at the cost of 1 inf 2 fighters.  (kept tank, as tank is 5 IPC unit, Borneo 4 IPC territory, plus logistic advantage of nearby transport).  Lost fighter and cruiser at Pearl.  Destroyed US forces at China, but lost 5 infantry, and did not capture territory.  Sea zone east of Japan had 1 destroyer, 1 AC, and 2 fighters.

US1 bought AC, DD, transport, 2 tanks, 1 infantry.  Attacked Japan fleet with sub/fighter.  Got 1 destroyer 1 fighter out of the deal.  Purpose of this attack to weaken the fleet for the UK followup.  Flew US bomber to Archangel, US fighters to UK carrier northwest of London.

R2 sent 2 inf 1 fighter vs 1 German inf at Karelia, inf/artillery vs 1 German inf at Belorussia, 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter vs 3 German tanks at Ukraine, 1 inf vs 1 Jap infantry at Manchuria.  Failed at Manchuria.  Took Karelia with 1 inf, Belorussia with 1 artillery, and Ukraine with no casualties.

G2 performed various territory trades and capture of Anglo-Egypt with inf/tank.

UK2 attacked Trans-Jordan with 2 infantry 3 fighter to give US fighters a place to land after anticipated US2 attack (2 fighter 1 bomber) on German Med fleet.  Before trying that attack, though, I attacked sea zone east of Japan with sub and bomber.  Killed carrier, lost UK bomber.  Japanese fighter couldn’t hit UK sub, so Jap fleet lost.

Game called.

@SilverBullet:

lol, thats what i said!  ;)

If you reread both posts, keeping in mind that sourmash probably has little to no experience with Spring 1942 rules (if not A&A in general), I think you’ll agree that Krieghund’s reply was more specific, detailed, and informative.  :-)

Or not?    :lol:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Winston Churchill to Lady Astor “Sir, you’re drunk!” “Yes, Madam, I am. But in the morning, I will be sober and you will still be ugly.” …

He would NEVER be elected in todays political environment, pity…

Lol.  You mean Lady Astor to Winston Churchill, of course, but it’s funnier this way.

Monopoly

so I could hide an escape kit in the pieces.

Something I’ve seen in a few games is US sending a transport to Algeria on US1.  Usually Germany’s pulled back to Libya with its infantry/artillery, so US lands unopposed.

Why does US do this?

J2 invasion of India, lost 4 of 5 fighters and 1 bomber to AA gun.  Real dice.

lol’d

I just don’t care for his voice.  He’s got nice packaging, but the voice is what makes a singer.

Probably he’ll develop it over time, though, if he continues singing.

. . . it’s not crap, you just need to wait for them to process your $2000 bank clearing fee.

Then all the money they promise will be yours.  :roll:

I did hear a funny story about one of these Nigerian emails falling into the hands of another con artist, though.  Apparently that con artist turned the tables on the Nigerian (or Nigerian claimant anyways) and swindled him right back.  Good times.

Re:  Trading Russian fighter for UK battleship

Initially, I thought it a good idea too; swapping 10 IPCs for 27.  But leaving Germany with infantry at Belorussia and Ukraine, allows a lot of strong German plays.  Even if Germany’s not beating down West Russia on G1, things like G1 consolidation to Ukraine, or even pulling back and forcing Russia to trade Caucasus, Ukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia are all trickier without that Russian fighter.

Besides, what have you really saved?  Say the UK battleship is destroyed; UK will typically build 1 AC 2 destroyers on UK1, and not drop to Europe for fear of subs/air.  If the German player hit both the W Canada transport and the London battleship/transport, UK2 has more fleet build including transports, then it’s UK3 drops to Europe.  A BB is insufficient protection for a UK fleet; you still need 1 AC 1 DD on UK1 (AC for defensive power and DD for fodder and for hunting subs), allowing a minimal UK drop on UK2 to Norway, with the 4 transport drop happening on UK3.  (if you don’t buy a DD on UK1, you’ll be threatened by 3 subs 4-5 fighters 1-2 bombers if you try to drop on UK2.  A DD buy chases German subs out of the Atlantic.)

Thinking about it this way, I typically only do Norway with 1 fighter, if at all.  My new pet is the UKR 3 tank-2 fighter/WR attack with 2 sub, 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank buy.  There are a lot of weak points to it - I think Zhukov uses sub/fighter build; I’ll have to run some calculations to decide if I’ll end up using that.  (Zhukov, if you’re reading this, is it sub/fighter/2 artillery that you do, or sub/fighter/infantry/tank?  I’m betting inf/tank.)

Re:  West Russia/Norway attack, using Russian blocker at Karelia to prevent German E Europe tank from blitz to Archangel

The Karelia block is a good idea, esp. as it stops Russia from having to trade 4 territories on R2.  But I would use lame duck fighter or 1 inf at most.  Germany can typically smash Karelia to bits, and with Russia dropping a fighter, Russia’s even harder up to trade territories.  A decent German hardpoint at Karelia can be smashed with Russian tanks, but a G1 build of decent numbers of tanks means dead Russian tanks after the Russian recapture.  Germany should be able to use its Belorussia infantry to fuel the G2 trades, then after that the G1 infantry buy will be in place  (G1 production at Berlin, G2 march to E Europe, G3 Karelia trade.)  All I feel Russia really does by sending 3 infantry to join its fighter is losing more infantry.

Personally, I use 1 fighter when I do a Norway attack.  If I have decent luck, the UK battleship is saved.  If I fail, well, it was worth a shot.

Re:  Germany whacking WR after Norway/WR attack

Depends on what you have left in WR and your buy.  Germany can pull off a powerful strafe and retreat to Belorussia, leaving it out of attack range (unless you built a good number of tanks), or may chance breaking WR if it’s relatively weak, and particularly if Russia didn’t build some good attack units.  Although I agree WR is generally not in a lot of danger.

Re:  Germany hitting Caucasus

Either Germany hits light or heavy.  If light -

Leaving 1 infantry there makes it likely Germany attacks with 2 units, which draws Germany’s forward reserves in.  But I find it more appealing to pull everything out of Caucasus, AA gun included.  If Germany moves in 1 infantry, I can use UK bomber and UK Persia infantry to recapture, allowing Russia to build there on R2 (or at least probably march in 1 infantry unopposed, if UK killed the German infantry but lost UK infantry in the process).

If heavy -

Smashing Germany in Caucasus on R2 after a G1 capture may not be at all easy.  Best German force there consists of 9 units (5 Ukraine, EE/Balkans tanks, plus units from Southern Europe.  Plan A for Germany breaks West Russia with Belorussia infantry plus mass air, pulling units out of Africa.  Plan B (if Russia bled off strength to Persia and Sinkiang or other things like that) sends 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighter 1 bomber to Anglo-Egypt to clear the units there and clears the cruiser at Gibraltar with remaining air.  Japan flies in 4 fighters to reinforce.

In either event, it’s up to 13 Axis units on Caucasus at the beginning of R2, many of them high-dice, not an easy attack for Russia by any means, especially with Russia’s West Russia attack power broken.  This is another reason why I don’t use 2 fighters at Norway, and why I think seriously about even leaving 1 infantry at Karelia to block.  It could be that I will need every dice available for making WR harder to take, and to retake Caucasus in case WR is attacked.  G2 starting with Caucasus is so horrible for the Allies, esp. when the G1 build was 8 tanks anticipating precisely this scenario.