Posts made by newpaintbrush

@Col.Stauffenberg:

Attacking a moderately defended West Russia or Caucus is risky. In most cases, I don’t think the odds would be favourable. A likely scenario is that Germany burns all their inf and doesn’t take anything, leaving Russia to walk all over them (possibly giving them Norway). It’s not worth the risk on round 1. Egypt attack, and sinking UK boats are more important on rd 1. Plus it puts planes out of range since a lot of them won’t be able to land in France to threat Atlantic waters- something I know you like to do Hobbes.

The only reason why Germany attacks West Russia or Caucasus early is to break it or strafe it.  If broken, Russia should not have enough left to counter Germany.  If strafed, Germany pulls back before destroying the enemy.

The question is not whether attacking WR/Cauc early is normally a good idea.  The question is what happens when WR/Cauc IS a good idea.

In such cases, the loss of fighters for control of the Atlantic is normally anticipated.  Germany can act proactively with a Mediterranean sub and/or bomber buy, but lots of tanks is probably more the norm.  If Russia’s attack power has been broken, German tanks can often rush in to exploit the weakness, at least securing Caucasus out of the deal.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

You’re only forcing them to buy stuff they’re going to use anyway, be it inf, tanks, boats, planes. They eventually need it all. You only change the order in which they buy things.
BTW, I should’ve worded things better. I meant if Germany attacks Egypt and fails, it’s game over. I have won games in the past where I took Gib round one, sunk the uk navy and bought a Baltic Navy adn I’m sure there’s other strats out there that don’t call for an Egypt attack.

The order that you buy things is important.  If you buy infantry early, you can march those infantry to the front to be useful later on.  If you buy tanks early, you may be able to grab territory quickly.  If you buy transports early, you can use them a turn sooner; if you buy them later, you may have to interrupt your transport drops to keep your convoy fleet in position to protect your new purchases.

As far as attacking Egypt and failing - it’s bad, but I don’t think I’d resign on those grounds alone.  If you usually stop playing after a certain attack fails, you’ll never see what could have happened.

Re:  using 2 tanks vs 3 tanks at Ukraine / Ukraine attack

@Col.Stauffenberg:

Yeah but then they just wipe out three of your tanks no problem and with two tanks on WR, it also helps Russia win faster in WR and helps protect against the counter. Besides, it’s a risk for Germany since there’s so many missions for those german fighters. Either way is good. I think that division comes down to personal preference.

Take a R1 sub buy.  You want to land your Russian fighters at Caucasus to threaten the German battleship unless it sails west and takes Gibraltar with transport (to prevent UK air from whacking the battleship and transport) or spends IPCs on a defensive navy and stays at Southern Europe.
Failure to take Ukraine means an additional 2 German tanks that can hit Caucasus.  If Caucasus is hit, Russian fighters will be lost, and the threat to the German battleship eliminated. Russia can safety and abandon Caucasus, but then the Germans whack Anglo Egypt and grab Caucasus with 1 inf (or whatever minimal forces), making the R1 sub buy fairly useless.

Assuming UK recaptures Caucasus on UK1, Russia can land fighters on Caucasus on R2, to threaten the German fleet for R3, but on J2, a Japanese BB and AC can join the German Mediterranean fleet, and/or Germany can take countermeasures. True, Japan might not be in a position to reinforce, but if that were the case, US2 would be able to threaten the un-reinforced German battleship with 2 fighters 1 bomber anyways.  (UK1 aircraft carrier/2 destroyer buy; US1 flies 2 fighters to UK carrier, US bomber to Archangel, R2 reinforces US bomber with 3 infantry, UK2 moves carrier to Algeria, US2 moves fleet to Algeria; US fighters on UK carrier in range of Mediterranean, joined by US bomber).  This hits the entire Mediterranean.

(Hobbes mentioned in another thread the UK2 attack - UK bomber into position, UK fighter to French West Africa, UK1 India carrier southwest plus fighter for 2-3 fighter plus bomber, but contingent on Japan and German moves.)

So the strong point of the R1 sub buy (threatening German battleship before G2) is undermined if Ukraine is not taken, esp. considering the possibility of J2 reinforcements.

As far as risk - of course it’s all risky; an early German attack on a 6-7 unit Caucasus is risky, dropping the G1 Anglo Egypt attack is risky, if the German attack on Caucasus succeeds, the UK counter is risky, if the UK counter is not taken, the weakening of Japan’s J1 attacks is risky, if Russia attempts to recapture Caucasus, that will also be risky, and if Russia does not attempt to recapture, that will be riskiest of all!

There are dangerous behind every dice pip.   :-o

“Remember what Bilbo used to say: It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to."

I don’t even know what these Marines rules are.  Would you please elaborate?

But I think I would say “no” to your question anyways.

I think Japanese infantry defending on a “3” on islands should make near to no difference in Spring 1942 unless the Japanese player or American player do something extremely wrong.

So giving the Americans a measurable advantage of any sort while giving Japan lousy compensation is not going to work too well.

@ragnarok628:

i actually ran out of ICs last game, using AA42, so there’s a thought.

Where were those ICs placed?  Inquiring minds want to know!

@Hobbes:

Germany controlling Caucasus at the beginning of G2?

To be clear, this involves a massive Russian screwup, either a failed triple, or a triple not involving UKR, combined with leaving valuable attack units like fighters at Caucasus.

If Russia royally screwed up, Germany can both take Anglo-Egypt and take and hold Caucasus.

Germany may forgo Anglo-Egypt (sacrificing Africa, even pulling units out on G1 for transport) to hit Caucasus harder. This drops the Med fleet on UK1, but the idea is that with Caucasus in German hands at beginning of G1, and 8+ tanks incoming (Japan doing heavy tank builds as well), Moscow should fall before UK/US can get their transport system in place.

(edit) - oh, yes, and quite correct about taking the Russian sub as a casualty.  I should have mentioned that.  :lol:

Russian moves to start game:

Твои глаза поразили меня   :wink:

Yeah baby yeah!  It’s like a Russian Austin Powers!

Generally, move sub to UK battleship; in case of German sub/fighter/bomber attack, do not submerge the Russian sub until the German sub is dead.  Either put 6 inf at Buryatia, or move all Asia infantry west, except leave 1 infantry at Buryatia to pressure Manchuria.  You will usually want to put the AA gun on West Russia.

3 inf 1 tank 1 fighter to Norway, remainder to West Russia:  60% to take Norway, killing German fighter and saving the UK battleship.  You can do 3 inf 1 tank 2 fighter to up the odds to 85% or so, but you lose a Russian fighter as it has to land on Karelia, so this is not recommended.

3 inf 2 fighter to Belorussia, remainder to West Russia; this depletes German’s forward infantry (always nice when you can do it), so reduces the chance of Germany smashing WR next turn.

2 inf 2 fighter to Belorussia, remainder to West Russia, (edit . . . nm!)

Everything that can hit Ukraine EXCEPT one fighter to Ukraine; remainder to West Russia:  The idea is that when you send a Russian fighter to West Russia, you kill Germans faster, so preserve your infantry - usually means a difference of an infantry or so.  Some people send 2 fighters 2 tanks to Ukraine (instead of the 3 tanks 1 fighter recommended here), but imagine you have Russian tank/fighter attacking German fighter.  If you had 2 Russian fighters, you would retreat; you can’t risk the Russian fighters. If you had fighter/tank, though, you press on, and if you win, you can claim the 3 IPC territory (which a fighter can’t do.  Some skip all that and just do 3 tanks 2 fighters at Ukraine for the “lock”, at the expense of 1-2 Russian infantry at WR.

I notice the sub buy was already mentioned; this is used to try to whack the German battleship on R2.  This is NOT my preference, I prefer to get ground or air with Russia, nothing else.  Even on R2, Russia will probably want its air to trade territory with Germany.  There are a bunch of ways to whack the German battleship/transport by UK2/US2, which often does quite nicely.

–
One more option is the Russian triple; it’s 3 inf 1 tank 1 fighter to Norway, 2 tanks 1 fighter and assorted inf/art to Ukraine, and everything else to West Russia.  Failure means German Turbo Tank Dash.

–

Oh yeah - what IS German Turbo Tank Dash?  It’s when Germany controls Caucasus at beginning of G2, and built on G1 with that expectation.  All Germany does is build infantry at Caucasus and tanks at Berlin, it forgets about Africa and everything else, and drives hard on Moscow, while Japan builds tanks in the east and presses like crazy.  The plan is to whack Moscow before UK/US can get a transport chain going to reinforce Russia.

Good poll options.  I picked “submerge if get 2 or more hits average”.  The US sub is very useful for harassing the valuable sea zone east of Japan.  With a UK sub at New Guinea to threaten French Indochina, Japan’s forced to either keep its fleet at home, or build a destroyer and go hunting.

I think it may be frustrating for new players that begin to understand the depth of the game.  Once you start breaking down detailed strategies (round 5-6 timing, etc), things rapidly slide into a morass of explanation of mechanics, timing, capacities, cooperation, etc. etc.

It’s enough for them to begin to understand simply the rules of the game.  What does it mean, a unit attacks at one value, defends at another?  What is all this sub surprise attack business?  Destroyers?  Industrial bombing damage?  AA gun shots?  Naval bombardment?  So many rules, so many things to remember.  Telling them more than that will confuse them, and confused people become angry.  And you wouldn’t like them when they’re angry.

To that end, I think it would be best NOT to go into specific strategies such as Norway offloading, navy benefits for the Germans, and so forth.  Yes, have some mock combats, yes, give some vague ideas as to what units are best to build for each power, yes have a mock game for two turns then restart (if they want to!).  But NO to anything more than the ABSOLUTE minimum.

The idea is not to convert them overnight into A&A powerhouses.  The idea is for everyone involved to have fun, and allowing them to mostly do their own thing, with a very minimal bit of guidance, will be the way for them to do that.  They will take their own initiative, and have fun even if they do make awful horrible mistakes like a Russian battleship at the Caucasus.

If this were a training camp, I’d say yes, indoctrinate them from day 1 on what it really takes to kick ass.  Fill their minds with rage at their opponents and fear of failure, drum lessons into them by the hour, and whip them when they fail!  yes . . . whip them . . .

Anyways!

It’s not a training camp, so let them stumble on their own.  Like any proud parent, you might find it difficult to watch them crash into the furniture as they learn to walk, but they have to learn to WALK before they learn to RUN.  Trying to train a year-old toddler to run a full marathon is ultimately futile.

BTW, one fun thing you can do for very little expense is have a trophy made.  Ribbons, trophies . . . people like things like that.  Obviously because you can club the losers to death with them, or shine reflected sunlight in your opponents’ eyes . . .

I did forget destroyers!  Edited poll.

Best keep it as simple as possible so they don’t get lost.  The out-of-the-box rules are not written in a way that is easy for new players to the game to understand, so perhaps put something together that’s more organized and concise, with examples.  Then give some broad strategic tips:

General:  Control territory to gain income.

Russia:  Protect Moscow.  Infantry are the best defense.  You will want to hit back as well, so get a few artillery and tanks.  Be sure not to risk your valuable fighters.

Germany:  Beat up Russia, take control of Africa if you can, prevent the Allies from taking Africa back and/or landing in Europe to help Russia.  Air units can help against naval or ground targets, infantry are cheap fodder for the attack and good for defense, and tanks are cheap mobile units that attack hard.  Subs are useful against naval targets, especially if the Allies didn’t build destroyers.

UK:  (for advanced player):  Use UK military assets throughout the world to limit early Axis expansion as best you can.  Later, get units to the ground in Europe.  Fleet should be carriers and destroyers, and transports to move cost-effective ground units to Europe and/or Africa.  May produce an industrial complex to help problem areas.

Japan:  Beat up Russia, prevent US from destroying your fleet, land units in Asia and push to Moscow as much as you can.  You start with a powerful fleet, but need transports to move units to Asia.  You may consider building an industrial complex in Asia to help produce more units.

US:  Either help UK in the Atlantic, or concentrate on destroying Japan’s fleet in the Pacific and controlling the islands.  Carriers are destroyers are important in the Atlantic, subs may be important in the Pacific.  You’ll likely want 3 to 8 transports for the Atlantic, or at least 2 in the Pacific, depending on whether you choose to help in the Atlantic or Pacific.

I’d say play UK.  It’s a bit overwhelming to new players to consider all of UK’s assets all over the world.

Subs are conditional to a naval attack/counterattack strategy, but I think them extremely useful.  Admittedly, I don’t build them in a lot of games, but in the games I do build them in - woha.

Techno/electronica not an option, Christian rock first option.

hm.  (grubs around for a rock, and not the Christian kind either)

@Fishmoto37:

@Wargaming_nut:

Thanks for the welcome, guys.

I don’t have either of those variants, SP - the last one I got was Guadalcanal. In total, I have Original, Revised, Europe, Pacific, D-Day, Bulge, and Guadalcanal. Part of the reason for my return is my interest in Spring '42 and Pacific/Europe '40, as I don’t know anything about either of them. How do they compare to Revised and the original Europe and Pacific?

I would advise you to not waste time on Spring 1942 although it is the lowest priced of them all. Go right to the 1940 games and if the global is too long a game for you then just play the Europe or Pacific versions.

I like Spring 1942 the most.

So clearly, opinions differ.

@Zhukov44:

My answer could be battleships or cruisers, since I’ve never bought either.

I’m surprised to see aa guns because sometimes Japan needs to buy one if Allies have bombers at their disposal.

I usually ferry an AA gun over from Japan to protect a new IC if enemy bombers are threatening my zones and there aren’t many other targets to hit.  But I don’t always build an AA gun to replace it - if Japan’s pushed enough in Asia, Allied bombers won’t have any safe landing zones.

J1 IC/2 transport builds, though . . . yes, I can definitely see AA guns needing to be built in that case on J2.

@Col.:

I think if you’re going to have AA guns that you should add ICs to the list. The only time I’ve ever bought one is to protect a built IC.

Other than that I don’t buy many cruisers, or artillery. I know I shlould probably invest a little more in art, but I’d rather just spend the extra IPCs and get a battleship with the US or maybe Japan than buy a cruiser.

I hadn’t thought of that, but good point.  I eliminated AA guns from the list; although AA guns are technically a production unit, they’re very much like ICs; very situation-based and conditional.

Let’s say US has contained Japan.  Japan has a pile of air and ground on Japan.

Now what?

I’d think US leaves a pack of subs to control Japan’s waters, but then I don’t know what you’d do with the rest of the fleet.  I’d guess you’d try to push west, control the Suez, then go into the Mediterranean.  But the question is how to get boots on the ground (i.e. infantry) to Moscow.  Naval builds at Atlantic to join UK fleet there?  Factories on Asian coast?  Shuttle through Alaska to Soviet Far East?  All are slow.

Granted, tank builds on the Asian coast are good. I think that’s best.  But looking for extra tricks to play.

Seems to me that you really want is to play Russia, Germany, or Japan against unskilled opponents that don’t much care whether they win or lose, with partner(s) that are very skilled, want to win, and won’t bother you with recommendations on what you should be doing.
So what you’re really looking for is not a COUNTRY, but a certain set of players and play styles.

Japan isn’t “easy” to play. If the Allies go KGF, you may not be punished by having your units destroyed, but if you muck around ineffectively, the Axis will lose as surely because of your lack of pressure at Moscow as if you had been Germany and lost all your tanks and air by Germany’s second turn.  Skilled players at the table will know it too.

I build AA guns the least.  Usually I build 1 IC in Asia tops, and ferry the Japan AA gun over if there are Allied bombers in Russia.

(edit) a poster pointed out ICs should be on the list, or ICs/AAs eliminated; I think that was a well made point, so I cut AA guns from the list.  The unit I buy least is cruisers.  I’ve actually never bought a cruiser, evar.

“wat, nevar evar?”

nevar!

What unit do YOU build the least, and why?