Posts made by newpaintbrush

@Jennifer:

Not only loose, but HORRIBLY loose.

i lol’d at typo.  hawt.

Yeah, it happens, mostly with AA guns.  5 of 6 fighters lost over India, yuk.  BUT, you have to be able to work with it.

That’s why I typically send 1 trns 1 fig 1 btl to Anglo-Egypt.  The destroyer mostly gets killed without inflicting any casualties if you just send 1 trns 1 btl, BUT if it kills something, you lose a loaded transport or a battleship.  SO you send a fighter too.  It’s not enough that you have a huge chance of winning, you have to figure in the COST of losing, and play accordingly.

“I agree and America in my opinion can kill the navy vrey early assuming Germany attacks UKs navy which i thought was the main point in the first place”

I completely disagree with that assumption.  I am almost certain that it is designed as a defensive move against a KGF.

To go KGF or to reinforce USSR, the Allies have to deal with the German fleet.

If they try to avoid the German fleet by going north or south, Germany can move to cut the Allied fleet off.  The German fleet will constantly be reinforced while the Allied fleet is split.

If the German fleet is attacked, the attack will be expensive because it is a DEFENSIVE German fleet, and if you fail, fodder subs hit the water.

“Great, so you have 1 DD, 2 AC, 4 Fig, 1 Trn, 2 SS.  Yay!  Meanwhile, Russia has all of eastern europe and is directly threatening both Germany and Southern Europe because you have nothing to send after them to stop them.”

It’s 2 Trn 2 SS 1 DD 2 AC 4 Fig 1 Btl with unification with the Med fleet.  It is only 1 Trn 1 SS 1 DD 2 AC 4 Fig if most or all of the Allied fleet was killed on G2.  Either way, Germany has a strong defensive navy.

Germany doesn’t have much, it’s true.  But W. Europe no longer needs a stack of defensive troops because the German navy is doing the work of defending W. Eur.  German fighters can still hit Karelia.  Japan should grow in strength.

–

Although I disagree with some of the assessments I’ve read of how the scenario will play out, I still think that USSR will expand early and take IPCs, and that the Allies will kill the German navy and use mass fighters to attack ground territories after the W. Europe fleet is killed, resulting in an Allied win.  Still worth a few playthroughs to see if Japan can possibly crack Moscow before Germany collapses.

@frimmel:

I would suggest that the Canada Shield can be prevented before the incursion of the counter cost. I would also suggest that the proper logistics would prevent the gumming up of the works. Proper being moving your US units from WUS to WCA to ECA then on to Europe and Africa. A turn one US defensive Naval build to cover your transports will put you in an effective position to counter at little cost or stop it from being tried at all.

Both the WUS-WCA-ECA and a US Pacific naval build are a counter cost.  You just pay before the attack instead of after.  Problem is since it’s preventative medicine, you may not be hit with the disease.

If you run infantry from W US to WCA to ECA, that’s an entire turn’s worth of production tied up.  Similarly, if you build a carrier and a couple of subs in the Pacific, that’s another entire turn’s worth of production tied up.    Both builds also take time, which slows any attack on Germany.  The builds are also quite visible - Japan can simply choose to NOT do any move towards Alaska or WCan, or may chase the US fleet down or force the US to build up.  True, you could just start a E. US to ECA, but then WCA and Alaska would again be open to attack.  Or you could do a Pac buildup, but then Japan could do defensive fighters, or you could run to the Atlantic, but then you would have wasted time.

It’s true that both builds let you do things you couldn’t before; the WCA lets you defend Alaska, and the Pacfleet lets you threaten a move towards Japan’s islands.  And it isn’t QUITE cut and dried as I presented.  But either way, if you choose to build defensively, you are still paying a counter cost.  You may not have to pay as much directly, but you give up speed, which is costly in its own way.

But you’re assuming the Germans won’t buy EVEN MORE navy at W. Europe, which is, IMHO, the point of the Western IC.

Gets awful expensive for Germany, though.  Still, constant reinforcement from W. Europe, the usual Allied air raid doesn’t work anymore.  (Usually if the German fleet stays at W. Europe, it can’t stay there because the Allied fleet is building up.  But the German fleet also can’t be reinforced because any new Baltic navy can be hit by US and UK fighters from London.  So the W. Europe fleet has to retreat to the Baltic or Mediterranean to add to their fleet.)

–

In a Russian fighters at Moscow game, 2 Baltic transports cost 1 IPC more, make the Mediterranean fleet more difficult to attack from air, and move 4 units into Ukraine from S. Europe each turn.  In a Russian fighters at Caucasus game, MAYBE a German IC at Ukraine

I don’t think tournament players are necessarily a whole lot better than nontournament players.  Going to a tournament shows that you want to have a fun time at an event where you can meet new players, and meet old buddies from other regions.  Not going to tournaments means, well, that you just don’t go to tournaments.  Maybe you don’t like flying, or maybe your location and job mean you can’t really make it out there.

I actually think people like A&A because it is a predictable grind.  People that like a strong element of chance and variability play Magic: The Gathering, or Warhammer.

Really, think about it - the board position is ALWAYS set up the same (for Magic and Warhammer, people bring different decks or armies).

The board geography and territory value and unit value and rulesets are such that only certain strategies are going to work, and those are the strategies you’re going to see in tournaments.  In GENERAL, I will go ahead and say that you will see lots of repeated moves like US and UK uniting off Algeria depending on the German Med fleet move, or Germany trading territories with USSR near West Russia; whenever you have a game with good players on both sides that have good communication, I think the game will come down to variations on a theme.  Basically - I’d say the game is predictable, not filled with endless variety.

But I will also say that although the game is predictable, dice results can quickly force or allow a player to change from one variation to another variation, or even switch themes altogether.  I will also say that on-the-fly risk calculation is a huge part of the game.  Probably the biggest trick is balancing Germany effectively.  If you are too aggressive with infantry,Russia can counterattack and smash you; if you are not aggressive enough, Russia gets more IPC from territories and can smash you anyways; if you commit fighters to land battles, that’s less that defends against the Allied navy; if you commit too much air, USSR can press without fear of reprisal; if you build too much ground and not enough air, the Allied fleet can invade, if you build too much air and not enough ground, the USSR can press; it’s a very delicate balance that shifts very quickly.

“Sure it CAN happen, but usually the point of a move like Canadian Shield is not to take over the US; it is to gum up your opponent’s logistics.  Just becaues you CAN counter a move doesn’t mean that the counter doesn’t have a high cost.  That’s the real benefit of a good sucker punch: if you don’t score a killer blow, make your opponent incur the counter cost.”

Ya srsly.  I think it’s pretty extreme to say Canadian Shield doesn’t work - there are lots of conditions that have to be met, and Candian Shield is still a fine diversionary attack in almost any KGF game.

@Jennifer:

I agree.  If I plan to hide like a school girl cowering from an overly menacing mcdonald’s double cheeseburger with my fleet . . .

Traumatic personal experience?

Oh well, if you ended up looking like that in a bikini, I’m not complainin.

@Jennifer:

Here’s what I see happening:

G1 Aircraft Carrier, move BB to SZ 13
UK1: 3 Fighters, 2 Fighters, 1 bomber attack SZ 13 (most probably case BB gets to hits and is sunk), BB returns to England
USA1: 2 DD, 4 TRN in SZ 10 (2 tran purchased)

G2: SZ 5 fleet moves to SZ 7 or 6, build IC in W. Europe
UK2: BB, 2 TRN, 3 FIG, 1 BMB attack Germany Fleet, worst most likely case England left with a damanged Battleship, German fleet sunk
USA2: Move to Sea Zone 8, unload in England 4 full transports, build 1 transport, and move BB/Trn from Panema up to E. USA

If you do that, you might have a chance of a unification in SZ 7, but you’re still going to get slammed by 5 Fighters, 1 Bomber, 1 Battleship, 2 Transports on UK 2 which is a 58% chance of reducing you to a damaged Battleship.  Add a second strike by America with a fighter and a bomber and you loose that battleship before you can build more fleet.

As I mentioned, I really, REALLY don’t see you pulling this off.  Sure, if you can manage to decieve the allies and get your fleet unified in SZ 7 with an IC in W. Europe you can start putting a sub +/- a transport or a destroyer in the water every so often to annoy them.  Maybe even a second carrier and 2 more fighters.  But don’t try it against me, your fleet will be rusting before you even get the paint dry.

Yeah, if it was pulled off like that,.  But -

1.  I think it was actually a G1 IC allowing immediate reinforcement of the W. Europe fleet on G2.  As far as I could tell, that was the whole point of a W. Europe IC.

2.  It isn’t UK bomber 2 fighters vs lone battleship.  Every time, it should be German sub from Atlantic, German battleship and transport from Med at Gibraltar.  Germany attacks with a few fighters, and kills the UK battleship with no losses in most cases.  But notice that a German bid is essential because you can’t really leave Anglo-Egypt alone without paying a heavy price.  So this pretty much ASSUMES a German African bid that lets Germany hit; should be at least 2 units placed to hit Anglo G1.  So you have 3 inf 1 tank 1-2 fig 1 bom vs Anglo, you take Gibraltar with probably no losses, and ignore the UK destroyer, so it’s battleship, transport, sub against UK destroyer and bomber.

Everything else depends on those initial assumptions.  Change them, and you change the analysis.

@Jennifer:

Actually, even if you bid 10 as the Axis, I’d still kill ya.  We’re still talking about maybe 2 Infantry Libya, 1 Infantry Manchuria and 1 IPC to Japan.  Not a vast difference in game play.

I think the point of an African bid is freeing the German Med fleet to move west while still allowing Germany to take Anglo-Egypt on with good chances.  The Med move preserves the Atlantic sub, threatens any Allied navy west of Algeria in conjunction with W. Eur. fighters, and threatens unification with the Baltic fleet on G2 unless the Allies do some expensive countering.  Rather a different game from the usual German btl/trns/fig vs UK destroyer.  If the Germans unify by G2, the Allies can only stop them by paying through the nose; otherwise, the Allies have an easy time of cutting the German fleets in half.

“After combat, i always put both ussr fighters into India on go 1, then move any UK there that can reach as to secure India for the UK factory i put there at the end of G1.”

“UK1”, not “G1”, of course.  I personally don’t like that move, because it really messes with USSR’s ability to trade territory with Germany for those first couple of turns, but that’s purely personal preference.  I thought about doing that in a KJF combined with either a unified UK Indian fleet, or with a UK fighter joining 6 USSR infantry in Burytia, and I think 1-2 Russian fighters to India could be a sound KJF or 8 VC game strat.  If you’re reading this, Shadowhawk, I’m probably going to try some variation of that as the Allies, if I end up playing with them in our 8 VC game.

@Nukchebi0:

3AC    48
4FGT  40
2DD    24
2BB      48

150 on the nose.

Subs suck because they don’t hit well, don’t defend well, and can’t hope to live an air assault.

Destroyers are much nicer, and having three loaded carriers will pawn anything which tries to attack.

The two battleships with soak up hits, amphibious invasion support, and destroy anything.

Fighters also have more versatile uses than subs.

I take it that infantry also suck because they don’t hit well and don’t defend well?

@Jennifer:

Yea.  I guess what we really need is a way to shave off those results which exceed 3 standard deviations while not allowing for auto wins just because you have 3 infantry attacking 1 infantry.

So no longer would you have 1 guy fending off the entire Russian army complete with the Russian airforce and armored divisions because he’s got unlimited bullets, found the one position no one can hit him at and figured out the entire Red armed services received no training and ahave no common sense to get out of the range of fire….But you’d still allow for 5 infantry to take out 10 infantry, 3 tanks with good dice.

Wonder how we can do that?

Something like add up all the hit value and divide by 5 instead of 6, then roll the appropriate dice to count casualties.

Like - in LowLuck if you have 33 attack value, that’s 5 auto hits and 1/2 chance of a sixth.
For this, you divide by 5, so you roll six dice and get a hit on a 1-5 on each of those.  You’d roll a seventh dice and get a hit on 1-3.

TripleA much?  Why not see how it works out, is what I say.

I have 2 fighters and 4 transports, plus 150 IPC.

4 transports (free)
1 destroyer
2 carriers
3 fighters (5 total)
9 subs

Attack value of 38 vs sea (5th fighter uses an island for landing), defense of 29 against air (handles up to 9-10 fighters), defense of 48 against navy/air.

@DarthMaximus:

I agree, that was an option, but she would have conceded some of the following to the Allies:  WE, Nor, Kar, Belo, and Ukr as the UK or Rus held all of those prior to Germany’s turn.

Meaning if she commited all her planes and fleet to take out my trns she would have had to expose her tanks to retake Belo, Kar, and Ukr or of course concede them all to Russia for another turn.

Either way Germany was going to lose something.

And UK only loses 1 turn (the purchase of new trns) for drop off, since the UK’s next turn I used the trns as fodder anyway to take out the Germans.  Meaning I didn’t unload new units that turn anyway.

So either way UK only loses one drop off.

Ultimately, I think she did the right thing by using her ftrs elsewhere on the mainland, the real problem was leaving the 2 ftrs on the AC, but again, if you are going to pull those ftrs, I really don’t see the worth in buying the AC to begin with.

Well, if Germany REALLY had such a poor position, the game was already lost regardless, don’t you think?  So it should really be a question about Germany’s responses to other earlier Allied moves, instead of a single question about what should have been done with fighters at that point.  I have to admit I’m not sure how the Allies got to take W. Europe and Norway that early if the Baltic fleet still existed.

(edit) woops hit the “notify” instead of “modify” button.  Then confirmed.  Ohhh well, reported me own post.

To be more specific, if UK takes Norway, that MUST leave UK transports in range of the Baltic fleet.  If the Baltic fleet is blocked, the Germans can use air to clear out a weak block, or the Baltic fleet and fighters to clear a strong block.  Or the Baltic fleet can just be used to retake Norway with W. Eur fighters and infantry from Germany; regardless, the Baltic fleet’s existence gives Germany some options in the Atlantic.

But for Germany to have lost Norway AND Western Europe, AND not be in position to make a rather nasty German naval/air counterattack; it’s just unclear to me how that could have happened.

I don’t think it’s a matter of having to trade fighters for transports.  If he had taken transports as casualties, you probably run away after killing the transports unless you can kill some expensive ships at a good fighter price, which is still good for Germany.  If he had taken strong defenders (destroyer, battleship) as initial casualties, of course you stick around, because at that point your air force will be mighty against a lot of puny transports.

Later on, if you don’t have a German navy, and you only have air, and say he has two transports escorted by a carrier, THEN, it’s trading fighters for transports.  But in that particular situation, you still had German naval units to take as casualties; I don’t think you really had to trade fighters.

Anyways, I don’t know what the board position was, oh wellz. (/edit)

Mmm . . . well, it really isn’t a topic that can be covered in one or two short posts, although I did mention how I thought the mechanics would work out (I’ve tried it myself, but without the W. Eur IC).

I would think, though, that the Allies should be able to force Germany to commit either to the Mediterranean or the Baltic (the German fleet doesn’t actually have to be IN the Med or the Baltic, but the German player will play differently depending on if Africa or a push through Archangel is the focus.

If Germany concentrates on Africa with a unified fleet, it gets Africa and security for Western Europe, but trades off most of the eastern front and allows the Allies to attack Norway/Karelia/E. Europe or fortify into Archangel.

If Germany goes into the Mediterranean to help attack Caucasus, Western Europe is put at risk.

If Germany concentrates on the Baltic, it gets security for Western Europe, but is vulnerable to a major landing at Algeria that threatens S. Europe the next turn.

Both scenarios are vulnerable to Allied air/naval buildup.

Germany’s threat of 5 transports at Western Europe on G2 is pretty good, but the Allies SHOULD be able to defend; it’s an attack that can be seen coming after the G1 naval moves and IC build.

The Germans have a strong fleet to start with, and a better air force.  They do NOT have to spend as much as the Allies to maintain superiority.  It is easier and cheaper to build a defensive fleet than an offensive one, but the German fighters give the German navy an added punch.

On the other hand, if Germany spends any sort of serious resoruces on ships and/or an industrial complex, Russia is going to be very strong, and Germany has to race BOTH the Allies.  Add to that the fact that if the Allies position their navy correctly, the German navy will have to commit to attacking the Allied fleet before it can reach full power, but the weakened German navy will then be far more vulnerable to an air attack.

Let’s say you had an African bid (German fleet unificaiton is very costly otherwise because of Anglo-Egypt).  German takes Anglo-Egypt and Gibraltar, and attacks the UK Gibraltar battleship with battleship, sub, and transport (for Gibraltar), possibly a fighter or two.  The UK destroyer at the Med is now stranded, and UK fighters from London cannot hit the Mediterranean fleet because of a lack of landing space.  If the Germans built a Baltic carrier for protection (which I do not necessarily say is a good idea), and put only four fighters land in Western Europe, the Allies cannot stop fleet unification except at a heavy price.  If the Allies put a USSR sub west of Algeria, it’s just cleared by the W. Europe airforce.  If the Allies put the entire Allied fleet of 4 trns, 1 sub, 1 btl west of Algeria, this is crushed by Germany’s 1 trns, 1 sub, 1 btl, 5-6 fighter and bomber.

So assume the Allies run away, and the Germans can unite their fleet at West Europe, which will now be 2 trns, 3 sub, 1 destr, 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 1 battleship.  Now what?  If the German fleet stays west of W. Europe, US can build an air force and fleet, unite with UK elements.  Germany can smash that first fleet as soon as it comes within 2 spaces, but then Germany’s fleet is far away from reinforcements and also vulnerable to a massive US air attack.  If Germany doesn’t smash that first fleet, the Allies just build it up until the Allies can smash the German fleet.  (What else do the US and UK have to spend on?)

US already starts with 2 destroyers and two transports, as well as probably three fighters (Hawaii, W. US, E. US) and bomber (E. US).  The UK starts with a battleship and 1-2 transports (but if the Germans attacked a UK transport, it will lose a sub to UK air).  USSR has a sub.  So you already have a defensive fleet of 4 trns 1 sub 2 destr 1 btl without the Allies spending a single IPC.  Two subs and a carrier make the Allied fleet STRONGER on defense than the German fleet’s defense, and just a few subs and carriers or battleships or fighters allow the Allies to even attack (a multinational force is lousy for attacking, but good on defense; in this case, though, US can ramp up production very quickly and become a real threat).

All this could possibly be countered by Germany, but factor in the USSR bashing down the door in the east, and the fact that Germany can’t seriously threaten anything with the German fleet, and the fact that the UK and US really have to worry about building anything but navy/air (because Germany should not be able to invade London against a good Allied player, so the US and UK can produce almost nothing but ground and air).

You could say that Japan might attack the US, but that means less pressure on Russia, and the US can easily counter, even while maintaining a defensive fleet in the Atlantic.

If you play a game of rock, paper, scissors, and you know ahead of time what your opponent is going to play,what will happen?

Same thing about a fleet.  A carrier heavy fleet is good against for defense against air attack, but is vulnerable to a mostly sub fleet with a few carriers for air defense.  A battleship heavy fleet is good for hitting and running, but isn’t good for defense.  You almost never need a fleet for “general purpose” because you can see the opposing forces in the area ahead of time, figure on what reinforcements they will build, and plan accordingly.  This whole thing about “free” transports is rather unnerving . . .

You should have at least 1 destroyer in the force in case of an enemy sub attack, or the possibility the enemy will bring subs.  If you don’t have any destroyers, and are far from reinforcement, the only thing you can do against a massive sub build is going to be to run.  You should ONLY have one destroyer per fleet; only build two destroyers if you are planning on splitting your fleet.

(edit) WHY only 1 destroyer?  Because 12 IPC gets you 3 attack or defense; you pay 4 IPC per.  If you spend only 8 IPC, you get 2 attack or defense, still 4 IPC per, but now you only have to pay 8 IPC per casualty instead of 12.  Destroyers are useful to bulk up against air attack, but then, that’s what carriers are for. (/edit)

You should have at least 1 carrier in the force in case of an enemy air buildup.  You should also have 3-4 fighters per carrier nearby, so you can replace killed fighters.  You can possibly dispense with this and get destroyers instead if the enemy is low on resources and out of air; destroyers can have Combined Bombardment researched and be used for attacks on coastal territories.

You should have at least 1 transport to increase the possibilities of your fleet’s attack.

You should have at least 1 sub for battle fodder.  (It is the cheapest naval unit with an attack).

After that, the composition of your fleet will be highly dependent on what you want to do with it.  If you want to attack an enemy navy quickly, you need lots of subs, if you want to pose a serious threat on land territories, you need 2-8+ transports, if you want to do some light harassment and hit and runs, you need battleships.

@DarthMaximus:

@newpaintbrush:

she should probably have tried to hit your Allied fleet first with all Baltic navy plus fighters and bomber, unless you had a couple of US carriers there.

I don’t know if she camps fighters in range though.

She could have done that and basically traded fleet for fleet.  All allies combined I had 6 trns, 1 sub, 1 dd, 1 bb, but that would have ment conceding some of the following to UK/Russia (WE/Kar/Belo/Ukr) since I believe I held all four, or risk German armor to take them back.

Ultimaely I think the G attack would have ment conceding Ukr to the Allies permanently, which is why I put the fleet in range to be attacked.  :-)
She didn’t bite, and we ended up with the UK attack on G fleet.

6 trns, 1 sub, 1 dd, 1 bb; 15 hit, 10 count
1 trns, 1 ac, 2 sub, 1 dd, 5 fighters, 1 bomber; 27 hit, 11 count.

It’s not as simple as trading fleets.  What she did was let you hit her navy with fodder navy and air, which left your transports free to move cost-effective ground units in that same turn.  If she had instead hit your navy, she would have lost her whole navy, but all your transports would certainly die, which would mean a two turn delay; nothing transported that turn, have to buy transports on second turn, and able to move units in on the third turn.  Plus she would have kept much of her airforce to deal with any new Allied units, so you’d have to rebuild escorts for your transports as well.

You can hit and run, leaving your air force intact, but still killing those transports.

@cdassak:

Ncscswitch, your strategy proposal is very innovative. I gave it some thought and discussed about possible Allied counters with a friend. We did not have a board to try anything out, so we kept it theoretical.
We both thought KJF, instinctively.
We also thought SA complex to secure African $ if you decide not to challenge the German fleet with UK.
The KGF path is very interesting, too. We will get to it ASAP.
I suggest that you start a topic about the WEur factory.

With a carrier AND complex on G1, I’m thinking KGF.

The German fleet can’t just stay at Western Europe.  As soon as the Allies have any kind of fleet, the German fleet must go to the Baltic to stop the UK containing Germany with Norway/Karelia/E.Europe units, or reinforcing Archangel.  Or the German fleet must go to the Baltic to stop the Allies from taking W. and/or S. Europe.  The easiest part to figure on is a SUPER strong USSR.  It’s almost like when Germany spends 30 IPC on tech dice on G1; the USSR just doesn’t have anything to worry about.

The Allies will pull a different game, and force the Germans either to attack a budding navy and leave their navy vulnerable to a secondary Allied fleet with massed Allied air (UK and US), or force the Germans to split up (so it plays like Germany had never unified the fleets), or force the Germans to commit their fleet to north or south.  If the German fleet stays south, it’s containment in Europe while the Allies build up air strength that can take on the mighty German Med fleet.  If the German fleet stays north, Germany does not hold Africa.

Basically, UK and US can race Germany for navy and air while USSR races Germany for territory.  It’s just very messy.  The big Allied threat in Western Europe is when the Allies get an IC built; I feel that Germany’s just building one for them.