Posts made by newpaintbrush

@Jennifer:

I didn’t jack it, the scenario changed.  Now we’re talking about the viability of attacking Trans-Jordan in lieu of conquering Egypt.  In that scenario you do not have forces available to attack Sea Zone 2.  You also do not have forces available for a SZ 7 unification.

But that IS jacking the thread lolz.

I can see the point of not using the Med transport for Africa first turn, but Trans-Jordan means that you committed your Med transport east.  As long as you are headed east, you should kill Anglo-Egypt without a doubt.  That infantry, tank, and fighter can cause huge headaches for both Germany and Japan early game.

Even if the Ukraine fighter is dead, you can still send 2 inf 2 tank 1 bomber to Anglo-Egypt on G1, or if you are leery of losses on UK1, 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber.  That will be quite sufficient in most cases to clear Anglo-Egypt.  (I assume Balkan fighter is used for safety for the German Med fleet vs UK destroyer)

@Jennifer:

No, the attack on the Suez would be:

Fighter from Ukraine, Infantry, Artillery vs 1 Infantry in Trans-Jordan
Fighter from Balkans, Bomber from Germany, Infantry, Armor from Libya vs Inf, Arm, Fig

This leaves you 3 fighters and a submarine for the BB in Sea Zone 13 still.

(I’m assuming the fighter in Ukraine is alive because you put 2 infantry there to make it even harder for Russia to take it.  If it’s dead you can do it the same without the fighter in T-J and maybe have your bid in Libya instead.)

“As Germany, if Russia does not reinforce the Battleship/Transport in Sea Zone 2, would you attack with Fighter, Bomber, Submarine?  You have about an 80% chance to kill the Battleship and Transport there, at the expense of 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 submarine (good chance the bomber would survive too, but it has to land in Finland/Norway.)”

tee heez, it’s like you jacked your own thread.  I lol’d.

I think fighter/infantry/artillery against infantry at TransJordan is OK for G1, but inf tank fighter bomber vs inf armor fighter is risky, as is sub 3 fighter vs battleship.  UK can counter from India to retake Anglo-Egypt next turn to slow Germany’s progress in Africa, and Germany can’t do much with one unit at TransJordan, or even two, that early - although in that scenario, there are two extra infantry in the Ukraine allowing extra pressure on the Caucasus, so it might work out, although I think that the likely Allied landing in Africa on the first two rounds will put a crimp in Germany’s plans and that dual landing at Trans-Jordan and Anglo-Egypt will therefore be minimally rewarding to Germany.  The REAL concern, though, is German fighters - the last two attacks risk bad rolls and early loss of hard-to-replace German air, which is something that I generally try to avoid.

@nooob:

Hey NP,
          I was talking about the taking of Norway by Russia on R1 if there is a second sub in the atlantic.  Having Norway that eliminates the possibility of the UK battleship, transport, and Russian sub from being sunk.(no runway for bomber/figher).  The economics are much better.   
CONS;  Germany can easily take out the tank/fighter(tank in Norway, fighter in Karelia)15ipcs

PROS;  UK’s fleet is floating, 32ipc’s + the Russian Sub can still block later on in the game.
          Another huge pro is that the bid is pretty much wasted. The sub now has to perform          a  secondary  function.  The intended target(UK battleship) is safe.

The big con, I think, is the fact that now USSR has to use 1 inf 1 art to trade territories held by 1 German infantry, since 3 inf, or 2 inf 1 art are just not cost-effective.  But 1 inf 1 art has a considerable chance of failure.  2 inf 1 fighter requires less commitment of resources and has a better chance of success; even 1 inf 1 art 1 fighter is far better.

Each Russian fighter lets Russia trade with Germany in one territory for almost certainly 3 turns (it takes that long for Germany to move in serious infantry reserves from Germany).  It adds up.

Helping preserve the Allied fleet does help the Allies to get to Europe and/or Africa faster, but I think I might rather just let Germany attack the Allied fleet and risk losing air in the process.  Even if the German air does survive, Germany must fortify Norway against 1 inf 1 tank 2 fighters 1 bomber.  If Germany doesn’t keep units in Norway, the UK will attack, taking out the fightre and bomber; UK loses its transport to the German counter on G2, but it’s well worth it. (+25 IPC for German air, probable +3 IPC from territory, -8 IPC transport, -3 IPC infantry, -3 to 5 IPC second transported unit).  If Germany does keep units in Norway, that slows any attack against USSR.

@cyan:

regular risk is ok, but i think risk 2210AD is much better. it gives you allot more options and connects Australia and South America to the rest of the world. if you ever have bad luck during placement you can always shoot for the moon.

Ha ha!

Moon shot.

Shoot for the moon.

It works on so many levels!

I wept with joy.

@Nukchebi0:

@Janus1:

evil is the root of evil. evil is self-propagating. power, money, etc are not evil, but the lust for them is. evil inspires the lust for money and the lust for power.

Yeah. If you can handle something honestly, including the means to get it, it is not evil. But if you are driven to get it illegally, or improperly use it, it has become an evil.

Edit: On topic, nerve gasses come to mind, along with the entire Hollywood culture. They have no redeeming value. Nerve gasses are a horrible way to die, and Hollywood is filled with a bunch of rich people who think the world whould bow down to them because they are pretty, and also that whatever they say is right, even if it is completely unsupported, unproven, or proven wrong. It is a leech to our nation’s intellect.

Rap would have to come in third, becuase of the immorality it promotes.

Fourth would be politics in general, where normally smart people lose all intelligence, morality and normal thought to win an election, and then spend their time arguing over issues that their party supports, even if they don’t.

1.  Nerve gas is a tool.  If someone shoots you, do you blame the gun?

2.  The culture of Hollywood arises from the people of the United States of America and the world.  Who made them rich?  Who made them famous?  Why are they subject to paparazzi, and stalking, and unpleasant and critical commentaries?  The people.

Also, you may not approve of Hollywood stars being political activists, but at least they are devoting their personal time and energy to causes they believe in.  I’d like to point out that EVERYONE usually thinks what they say is right; Hollywood stars are no exception - the exception is the fact that Hollywood stars are attacked for expressing personal beliefs.

3.  You can’t really blame rap for promoting immorality.  It is easy for a politician to blame rap, it is easy for the media to condemn rap.  But the fact of the matter is, the only reason why rap can promote “immorality” is because there is a ready audience for it.  Watch any violent movie or TV show; some Afro-Americans or Hispanics, or sometimes Caucasians go on screen and do violent things as rap music plays.  But is it rap that is causing the TV show or movie to be violent?  Is it rap that causes people to watch those TV shows or movies?  I say no.  People are being primed to accept immoral behavior; rap is simply a small and disproportionately discriminated-against portion of the cause of the problem.

4.  Politicians are often dedicated people that got into politics to try to improve the state of the world.  Regrettably, the media concentrates on focusing on the controversial things a small minority of politicians say and do, and on “issues” rather than things that could change the lives of the American people.  (Although I don’t blame the media entirely for this; they do have to sell their stories to stay in business).  To say that politicians are all immoral is hardly true.  The fact of the matter is, politics by its nature involves people, and when you have a multitude of people, you must have a multitude of concessions to attain any progress.

Is it fair for someone to ask for concessions all the time, but be absolutely unwilling to make any concessions in return?  Is it possible for a group of people that pursue no common goal to make progress?  If you say “no” to those questions, you understand what a politician must do.  A politician must sometimes support positions that he or she does not personally believe in, because a politician must be willing to MAKE concessions as well as ask for them.  Because concessions are made, politicians can work together to make progress.

If anything, politicians should be even MORE willing to argue for issues they do not personally believe in.

–

I like money, I like power, I like women.  Is that really so wrong?

@nooob:

What if Germany puts a sub in the Atlantic with a bid of 8?

In that case I think the second Russian fighter is worth it…

I can’t agree with that.  When playing with Russia, I try to conserve my forces at all expense, having UK and US bleed Germany out while I save up units with Russia to counter Japan’s attack.

A second German sub in the Atlantic does pose a problem to the Allied fleet, but I would rather let that German sub do its business against the US and UK, and keep the Russian fighter to trade territories with Germany, than to attack the German sub and lose a Russian fighter to the German counterattack.

2 inf 1 fighter attacking a territory held by 1 infantry is far better than 1 inf 1 artillery  or 2 inf 1 artillery attacking that territory.  If you only send 1 inf 1 artillery, your overall chance of a hit is less, and if you miss and your opponent hits, you’re down to even odds (but a fighter and 2 infantry would still have a good shot).  If you send in 2 inf 1 artillery, you are using 10 IPC of mobilized units to attack 3 IPC of mobilized units and possibly gain 2-3 IPC from the territory taken, and 2-3 IPC when the opponent counterattacks - even at best, 10 for 9 isn’t a good trade.

“You STILL attack Egypt, you just do it with FIG, BOM, and the Libya forces (you aim to kill Egypt, but probably will not take it).”

I was under the impression that the bomber was being used against the UK battleship and transport in the sea zone adjacent to London.

“Oh … well I just don’t see the point of using your Southern Europe forces to attack T-J when you are expecting to wipe out Egypt without losing you AF when you could just take Egypt since you say 87% chance of clearing so with the extra ground pieces you could take it.”

No, it’s an 87% chance to clear, and a 50/50 of losing the German airforce, or that’s the claim.  It’s not an 87% chance to take with no German air lost and a German ground unit surviving.

–

I believe that attacking Trans-Jordan would be very bad, for the reasons already given for splitting the Med fleet, and for moving the Med fleet east in this scenario.  It is also bad because that move allows UK to keep that infantry, tank, and fighter at Anglo-Egypt; those units can REALLY cause a problem for Japan at India, or Germany at Africa (depending on if those units are moved to India, or Indian units moved to Africa).  Allowing the UK to keep that Anglo-Egyptian fighter quickly becomes extremely costly because it allows the UK navy at the Indian to become a real threat very quickly.

sure, I’d play ya IRL.  But I’m in NYC and you’re around Chicago, I think, yes?

OH wellz, what can ya do?

@Jennifer:

As Germany, if Russia does not reinforce the Battleship/Transport in Sea Zone 2, would you attack with Fighter, Bomber, Submarine?  You have about an 80% chance to kill the Battleship and Transport there, at the expense of 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 submarine (good chance the bomber would survive too, but it has to land in Finland/Norway.)

In a game without a bid, I would never try it.  In a game with a German African bid, I might.

By destroying the UK battleship and transport, the UK will be significantly slowed in any attack on Europe and/or Africa.  Killing the UK battleship also helps cut down on UK battleship bombardments.  But I still think the loss of submarine, fighter, and very possibly bomber is too much.  The loss of either bomber or submarine are very significant.

First - what if you have no bid?  You must send the German Med fleet east or west.  Sending it east means taking Anglo-Egypt, but then, without the Atlantic sub or German bomber, destroying the UK battleship at Gibraltar becomes a very expensive proposition.  Sending the German Med fleet west and taking Gibraltar means loss of air at Anglo-Egypt (assuming Germany still attacks it) and risky but very possible UK attack of 1 destroyer and 1 bomber against the German battleship and transport; if Germany loses its Med fleet early, it will be a horrible disaster.  (Even the loss of the German transport means that Germany will almost certainly not be able to do anything in Africa.)

If you have a bid, even then still probably not.  You could use an African bid to take Anglo-Egypt AND move the German Med fleet west, (so you don’t run into the problem of losing valuable air against the UK battleship at Gibraltar) but then you run into another problem.  If you use the Atlantic sub to help attack the UK battleship at Gibraltar, the UK counter of 1 destroyer 1 bomber is not favorable against 1 transport, 1 sub, 1 battleship.  But if you use the Atlantic sub to attack the UK battleship, you open yourself to the counter of 1 destroyer 1 bomber vs 1 transport 1 battleship again - risky considering how much Germany has to lose.

Apart from the possible disastrous UK counterattack on the Med fleet, and the possible disastrous loss of the sub/fighter/bomber vs transport/battleship, it’s fine.  You will have to keep infantry at Norway and fly fighters there to help protect the bomber against the UK counter of 1 inf 1 tank 2 fig 1 bom, but those fighters can be used to attack any UK navy in the northwest zone, which is often where UK builds its navy.  The W. Europe fighter threat will necessarily be weakened, but with the loss of the UK battleship and transport, and the German Med fleet at Gibraltar, an Alllied landing at Algeria is probably a bad idea for the Allies for the early game.  The US will be forced to build 1+ carriers on its turn (I think probable 1 carrier 2 transports), which will in turn mean a further delay in any African invasion.  Combine with the fact that the German Baltic and Mediterranean transports plus German air threaten London, so the UK will probably be forced to do a defensive build; the Allies will be significantly slowed.

Of course - that UK counterattack IS a very real risk and the German attack is a bit chancy, so I think I would have to think a lot before attempting it.  I have never seen the USSR player not move the sub to join the UK fleet, though, so I’ve never had to worry about it.  :lol:

I use subs for two reasons.

1.  Battle fodder.  They cost 8 IPC and attack at 2.  “Infantry o’ the Sea”

2.  Blocker.  It’s the cheapest naval unit you can buy except for transport, and if you use a transport, you can’t submerge after an air attack.  If you use a sub, they have to commit a battleship to soak up a hit, or risk losing a naval unit - and if they send NO naval units, the more air they send, the less air they send against other targets; the less air they send, the more likely that the sub survives.

I don’t quite see how getting bombers is better.  Fighters are usually easier to use with carriers, and destroyers are not as cheap as subs.  Destroyers can defend against air, but I figure that’s what carriers are for.

I use TripleA.

No problems.

EXCEPT those guys that insist on beating me.  Gr.  I just need some better Axis strats.

@Jennifer:

Okay, but when you start deciding battles where you have less then 90% odds arn’t worth it because you’ll be wiped out start occurring in your regular strategy sessions, maybe it’s time to play LL for a while.  Eh?

I think that way sometimes too, but when it comes right down to it, there are a lot of reasons to play with dice.

1.  You can sing “Luck be a ladyyy toniight!”

2.  You can always blame the dice for a loss.  ALWAYS.

3.  Quite frankly, I usually “feel lucky tonight”

4.  I like taking risks in games.  It’s fun.  Often disastrous, but fun.

5.  Chicks dig dice.

@General_D.Fox:

I thought you could only put one man/military hardware piece in one area and that was it?  Have the bid rules changed or what’s the deal?

TripleA ladder bid rules limit one unit per territory or sea zone, with additional stricture that additional piece placed must be in territory or sea zone that already contains allied units (so you could theoretically put a German unit in Japan, I think).

I believe LHTR bids are different, allowing you to place as much as you like wherever you like that you already control.

Some tournament bids let you place only half your bid.

Basically - it depends on what bid rules you’re using.

(I’m so helpful!  I lol’d)

@frimmel:

I was in no way advocating any sort of US naval build in the Pacific. I simply advocate that building units you can’t move to Europe yet but will be able to down the road in the WUS puts you in position to counter any moves without a hiccup to your logistics. You are including a counter Canada Shield contingency plan in your logistics.

Ah.  Well, I did mention that I played those US moves with the German Med fleet NOT moving west; I suppose a Canada Shield contingency plan could work quite well if the Germans DID move west.  Or would I build fighters instead?

Can’t argue with Khan Noonian Singh!

THE MAN!

The earlier the TRN network starts, the earlier Africa is retaken, the earlier Persia can be reinforced against attack from India, the sooner W. Europe and S. Europe can be threatened and exchanged with Germany, bleeding off units from the eastern front.

Running infantry from EUS to ECA is a necessary evil because you don’t want to be stuck with three transports per two transported ground units.  But running infantry from WUS to WCA to ECA means that whatever’s in WCA are units that could have been at Germany one turn sooner.

If Germany doesn’t send the Med fleet west, I often unite UK battleship, 2 UK transports, 1 US destroyer, 2 US transports west of Algeria, with total UK forces 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank, US forces 2 infantry 1 artillery 1 tank 1 fighter at Algeria.  My build on US1 of 3 transports, 3 tanks, and 1 infantry lets me hit again next turn.  US2 I build 1 transport plus 8-10 ground (if Germany has run through Africa, I get tanks), and send the 2 empty transports from Algeria back to E. US, and send full transports to Algeria.  US3 I send 3 full transports back, run 4 ground units to ECA, and put 3 empties back on EUS, build 8-10 more ground.  US4 I use 2 empty Algeria transports to grab units from ECA and send 3 full transports from EUS to Algeria, so now there’s 10 units in Algeria threatening WEU and SEU with UK help - and more on the way from a feed from EUS-ECA.  There is NO TIME TO SPARE; the US landing on US1 allows progression US1 Algeria, US2 Libya, US3 Anglo-Egypt, US4 Trans-Jordan.  If the US does not press hard and fast through Africa, Japan secures Persia to threaten the Caucasus, almost impossible for the Allies to crack an infantry wall there, because the Allies must ATTACK to take that crucial territory.  But if the Allies manage to unite at Persia on US5, Japan is probably NOT going to be able to push ground through the Caucasus; it will have to take on units from three different countries; US, UK, and USSR - not much from each, but the combined strength is very great.

That is why I don’t think I would ever run infantry through WUS.  I would let Japan hit me, early or late.  Early, and that’s less early pressure against Russia (good).  Late, and I can deal with it.  (good).  (Note that I didn’t say that late, it’s less pressure on Russia - because late game, infantry transported to Soviet Far East - Yakut - Novosibirsk would take TOO LONG to get to Russia.  It is far more effective for Japan to just open a can of whoop-ass with eight transports and start slugging Alaska and Canada.  Problem is, by that time, UK should have its transport fleet set against Germany, and the US can use its already mobilized units near Europe, so it’s UK/USSR/US (in order of strength) hitting Germany, USSR vs Japan, and US playing a back seat role in keeping Japan from reinforcing its Asia position.

The longer US is delayed the better.  1 round can definitely make the difference between taking the Caucasus and being forced to defend Western and/or Southern Europe.

congrats on promotion to heavy bomber.

@Jennifer:

Well, I was replying directly to Switch’s plan of using the Transport for Egypt and I assumed the defending battleship got at least one hit.  Forgot the German one could sustain a hit before sinking.  So we’re situated closer to 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber vs 1 Submarine, 1 Battleship.

Anyway, PaintBrush, you keep assuming the German fleet will unify.  I don’t see that happening.  I don’t think that med fleet has a chance at all of making it to the med fleet, with the possible exception of forgoing extra forces to Egypt and possibly loosing Egypt, thereby allowing the British fleet to move into the Med to chase you and make a joint US/UK/UK/Russian Sub fleet and that’s just a nightmare Germany doesn’t want to deal with.

OH YEAH, ok ok my bad.  I just like to jack threads you know.  Okay, lemme clarify my position on this whole AC/IC thing.

1.  I think the AC/IC fails.  Whether it fails before Japan smashes Moscow, I don’t know.  I think so, but I’m not positively sure.

2.  I am going to categorically state that the Germans cannot afford to send the Med transport to Anglo-Egypt.  It must be 1 sub 1 transport 1 btl plus 1+ air to Gibraltar, to TAKE Gibraltar and prevent the UK counter of 1 destroyer 2 fighter 1 bomber.

3.  Because the Germans cannot afford to send the Med transport to Anglo-Egypt, you MUST have a German bid in Africa, because frankly, you just can’t afford NOT to kill the UK units in Anglo-Egypt.  I could even go as far as to say you can’t afford not to TAKE Anglo-Egypt to prevent the UK India fleet from coming through to apply pressure.  (But you MIGHT be able to deal with an early UK Med fleet if you unified off W. Europe G2; you could use that fleet to smash the UK fleet on G3.  Maybe.)

4.  The Allies can stop the German Med and Baltic fleets from uniting on G2 by putting stuff in the sea zone west of Algeria.  But if it’s light, fighters clear it and the German fleets unite during noncombat.  If it’s medium, German uses transport and/or sub fodder and fighters.  If it’s heavy, Germany just sacrifices as much of the fleet as necessary.  Either way, the Allies pay a heavy price.