If Germany has a starting bid in the Africa, never.
Even if not, you still shouldn’t. Germany can hit with 2 inf 2 arm 1 fig 1 bomber vs 1 inf 1 tank 2 fig and win easily.
The thing is, if you fly a fighter to Anglo, it becomes a more important target for Germany, because that Russian fighter can be a MAJOR pain.
Yep.
Skill’s required for backgammon too. You just have to be able to work with what you get.
–
I take exception to this comment:
"If you dont like LL and want to be dependant on the dice that is your choice but jenny and some others preferr to be dependant on strategy only and not on the dice. "
Dealing with bad dice and exploiting good dice is a PART of a good strategy. I don’t know where this whole mentality that low-luck is the only game for serious strategists arose, but it’s just not correct at all.
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.
Coulda sworn I amended that in later posts to not have a british invasion of North Africa on UK1 and a joining of the US/UK fleets in Sea Zone 8 instead. If not, I meant too. (Perhaps the filter kicked it out because of a perceived bad word?)
Anyway, a UK build of 3 fighters with a consolidation of US and UK fleets in Sea Zone 8 cripple Germany’s ability to do anything more then take some more of Africa and hope to hold out against Russia. On UK 3 you should be able to sink the Baltic Fleet and make life safe for Transports throughout the Atlantic Ocean. (5 Fighters, 1 Bomber, 1 Battleship, 2 Transports should take out 2 submarines, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, 1 carrier and 2 fighters.)
Oh, OK then. Well, if you united at London, then German invasion of London is out.
For the rest - not . . . quite. Because once an Axis player sees that the Allies have massed air, and have any kind of serious navy near the Baltic fleet, you have a couple options.
1. If there is NOT a serious navy near the Baltic fleet (say it’s just a lone battleship and 2 transports), you just send the German air force to kill everything. Lose a fighter or two. It hurts, but you can rebuild a fighter or two that turn.
2. If there IS a serious navy near the Baltic fleet (US/UK fleet), you can attack with German air and the Baltic fleet as fodder. The massed air is usually on London, where it can’t help defend. You take a huge chunk out of the Allied combined fleet, and usually lose maybe one or two fighters, if there wasn’t an Allied AC there. If there WAS an Allied AC there, you could then think about building more navy (probably not recommended in most games anyways, but ACs aren’t all that great on attack, so at least the Allies spent 32 IPC on 2 units with a combined attack value of 2).
But even after 2., there is usually some Allied fleet wandering around the Pacific that’s enough to deter attacks from the German air force. So the transports are safe anyways; it’s just that the Allies lost a bit more navy.
@ncscswitch:
And 4 fewer ships to even SUGGEST a threat to the Allied TRN fleets.
When UK responds to a G1 carrier purchase with 3 fighters, you know that Baltic fleet is going to die. Or will you buy another carrier? Then the US can buy 4 fighters on ITS turn. Sure, if the UK and US just buy fighters, that slows down the Allied attack on Africa. But after those fighters kill the German fleet, they will end up at Moscow, or end up messing around in India.
You DO have an initial 36 IPC of ships in the Baltic, and those ships can be VERY useful in killing any Allied fleet in range. But I think that the Allies can just work around the Baltic fleet - if the Baltic fleet ventures out, they’ll be in range of Allied navy and air; if they stay where they are, one fleet can reinforce USSR at Archange / threaten Western Europe, while the other fleet goes south to reinforce Africa / threaten Western and Southern Europe.
We’re talking Sea Lion in Round 2 now?
England has 1 Bomber, 5 Fighters, 2 Infantry, 2 Armor, 1 Artillery and 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, 2 Infantry, 1 Armor and 1 Artillery from America vs what, 6 infantry, 6 tanks, 6 fighters, and a bomber you said? (I know you did, I copy pasted it.) . . .
So the question is, do you want to loose your entire Airforce and not take the land, or do you want to allow England to hit you with 5 fighters and a bomber next round?
Er, who are you talking to? I wrote that G2 SeaLion WON’T work. “No, a G1 buy of 5 transports does not guarantee taking of London.” Even later, I mentioned “That’s an offensive punch of 46 against an AA gun and a defensive punch of 54.”, I hope you don’t think I would think those were good odds!
The only SeaLion I advocate is a 1-2 tech dice for Long Range Aircraft with OOB (and possibly FAQs), to allow Germany the 16-30% chance to attack on G1 with 1 infantry, 1 tank, 6 fighters, and bomber, against London’s existing forces, as well as leaving Germany the IPCs to buy transports to secure London on G2 or G3; and even then I only advocate it if Russia did not fly its fighters in, and if OOB/FAQ rules are being used (because, of course, LHTR delays tech from going into effect, so you couldn’t get all those fighters to hit London).
The response I’m looking for is how to counter that threat other than flying Russian fighters to London, and ncsswitch has responded with a proposal of a Russian fighter attack on the Baltic, and a Russian attack on the Ukraine, combined with a sub move to block the German attack. I think that is too risky because it commits three Russian tanks and Russia must win the Ukraine battle to kill that German fighter, and because both Russian fighters will probably die attacking the Baltic, in which case Germany could opt not to go G1 Sea Lion at all, but build mass ground units (POSSIBLY eight tanks, although I normally think of that as insanely reckless for Germany), and try to smash Russia instead. But that’s not to say that I think ncsswitch’s proposal is bad, because preventing a G1 Sea Lion with 2 tech dice is pretty difficult anyways; if Russian fighters just fly to London (which was what I proposed), Germany is quite strong with the Belorussian and Ukraine forces intact. Maybe if USSR did a hit and run on Ukraine, and hit West Russia . . .
“As for the detriment to Russia in that scenario… (Russia attacks the Baltic fleet with 2 fighters)
With the Baltic Fleet toast, UK starts landing in Karelia/EE/Germany via the baltic in UK2 with 6 divisions plus air and BB shot. That immediate reingforcement of Russia is a heck of a boos,t and mor ethan counters the lost FIGs.”
First, if Russia was attacking the Baltic fleet - and all combat moves are made “simultaneously”, so I would also see the commitment in the Ukraine, and see that Russia was going to try to prevent G1 Sealion - I would probably kill the transport before the destroyer, because I just wouldn’t need the transport; I’d be planning a quick attack against Moscow at that point. Second, in such a case, I do not see it as clear that Russia will kill the Baltic fleet, even if both Russian fighters die. Third, even if the Baltic fleet was cleared, and UK built AC, transport, and 2 infantry, that fleet could not threaten E. Europe or Germany that early - there are just too many ground units being built in Germany and being pushed through E. Europe. (If UK didn’t build an AC on UK1, and tried moving units into Karelia or E. Europe on UK2, Germany just uses W. Europe fighters and the bomber at Libya to clear, which is why I assume UK WILL build an AC, and not two transports, three infantry, and a tank.) Fourth, if UK does stay in the Baltic, the US push on Africa and the Mediterranean will be postponed, and every turn that Africa is delayed is costly to the Allies. Fifth - do you normally attack the Baltic fleet with Russian fighters on Russ1; if you do, how does that go?
–
I actually think the UK unification is the second best scenario for Germany, because it allows 6 transports, 2 subs, destroyer, 4-5 fighters, and bomber to attack a combined fleet of 2 transports, sub, aircraft carrier, 2 fighters, and battleship. In such a case, I wouldn’t try invading London at all. Let me clear, though, and state that I am firmly against 5 G1 transports; you can’t count on UK to unite that fleet, and even if it does, USSR’s push is just too strong.
@ncscswitch:
Darth,
The UK attack on Baltic Fleet is nearly even odds of 1 or 2 dead FIGs.
UK can also land in Karelia and/or Norway, while still maintianing a threat on Western, Germany and Eastern. That is 5 territories for Germany to defend. if you mass that heavy in Eastern, you WILL be weak in one (or more) of those 5, and UK can hit it, unrestricted. That is the point of the Baltic AC, to reduce Germany;s front line to a smaller area.
Very true, but now you have 5 more infantry to defend.
I know there must have been posts in the past explaining why OOB is broken, and I agree to some extent. Assuming that NAs are not used, though, why is it that OOB / FAQ is “hopelessly” broken?
It’s not a question of the initial attack, it’s also a question of holding London.
I think using 2 tech dice is much less of a “crap shoot” as a calculated risk. A “crap shoot” is dropping 8 German dice on tech, hoping that the Germans will get really lucky and take London while ALSO not losing more than two or three fighters. Dropping 2 German dice on tech lets you try to get a lock on London and win the game straightaway; even if you fail, all it’s cost you is a single fighter, a couple tanks, or two infantry and an artillery (in light of the fact that you can still drop 10 infantry, I feel that it’s a reasonable investment.
If you attack the Baltic fleet with 2 Russian fighters, and attack the Ukraine, that means that you must land at least one Russian fighter in Karelia, and use three tanks against Ukraine (for favorable odds). So now Germany can choose not to try the G1 Sea Lion at all, kill the USSR fighter, and kill the Russian armor in Ukraine with relatively few losses.
What I’m saying, or what I meant to say, is that I feel that with OOB rules, 2 Russian fighters to London is the least risky way of defending against G1 Sea Lion. You will not lose those fighters unless Germany decides to take rather a big chance on London. If you choose to attack the Baltic fleet and take Ukraine, I feel that Germany can choose to do something else besides G1 Sea Lion (since Germany goes AFTER USSR, and can respond accordingly).
BTW, I think it’s 72% that Germany takes at least one casualty on six fighters and a bomber from an AA gun, and even then, I don’t think it’s 51% to take UK with infantry, tank, six fighters, and bomber (using the 28% probability that no German air was shot down) against bomber, two infantry, artillery, tank, and four fighters. Germany loses attack power very quickly after the first casualty, but the bulk of the London defense is in fighters, so it loses only the weak bomber, then the moderately effective infantry and artillery, and only finally, the most effective fighters. Even then, Germany has the problem of actually having to have a ground unit to take London, so cannot take the German tank as a casualty before taking the German bomber as a casualty.
Say a particular outcome is likely to occur 50% of the time in the first round of combat.
Then say in the second round of combat, there is another outcome that is likely to occur 50% of the time.
Then say in the third round of combat, there is another outcome that is likely to occur 50% of the time.
So overall, you’d have only 1/8 (50% of 50% of 50%) a chance of having that particular outcome, and 7/8 chance of having something else. Before, I mentioned only a first round trial with 50% of the results ignored. Now it’s 86.7% of the results that are being ignored.
“Remember that everyone has the advantages and disadvantages of these rules.”
Oh yeah, no question. It’s the “These rules should make for a dice free game that should not change the game dramatically.” that I question.
No. I do not expect to be able to destroy at least one sub even with rolling. I realize that there is a 25% probability that I will have simply used the fighters to no effect, and I look for alternative fighter targets. Only if there are no better targets of opportunity would I attack the subs, and that is because of the very real chance of both fighters missing.
The outcome that happens 100% under your system only happens 50% of the time with average dice rolls. Can you REALLY say that a clinical trial that selectively ignores 50% of its results is objective, or that the reported results of that clinical trial will not have been changed dramatically?
The UK took Algeria on UK1 in the scenario listed. To reinforce London with 2 US transports on US1 stops G2 invasion, but then you have two different Allied fleets in the Atlantic; one fleet of UK battleship and 2 transports west of Algeria that’s very vulnerable if the German Med fleet moved west (can’t remember if it did or not), and one fleet of US destroyer and 2 transports (or maybe just 2 transports if you wanted to just reinforce London) in the sea zone southwest of London, that’s vulnerable to attack from W. Europe fighters (assume 4) and German bomber from Libya.
So really, I’d lose maybe a fighter to kill two transports, or 1-2 fighters for two transports and a destroyer or two fighters for UK battleship and 2 transports, something like that. Not bad.
Note to ncsswitch: ASSUMING that OOB (even with FAQs) are used, can you think of a better way than flying 2 Russian fighters to London to stop a 1-2 tech dice for Long Range aircraft and transport buy by Germany to get a lock on London? I know it leaves the USSR horribly weak.
Note to ajgundam5: No, a G1 buy of 5 transports does not guarantee taking of London. (if you buy THAT many transports, it probably won’t matter if UK sends its airforce at the Baltic fleet, because the air will die without killing ANY transports (if a destroyer is taken as a casualty instead of a transport).
UK has 1 bom 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 2 fig. It purchases 5 inf 3 armor, and shuttles the E. Canada tank in. US transports in two inf, art, tank, fightter, bomber. Assume the German Mediterranean fleet moved west to threaten 7 transports to London, and that the USSR player countered on USSR2 with sub to the sea zone west of Algeria (blocking the German med fleet). Also assume that the USSR player can NOT reinforce London with Russian fighters (say the Russian fighters landed in the Caucasus, and that the German player attempted a G2 Sea Lion because he/she knew the Russian fighters could not reach London).
Now Germany has 6 infantry, 6 tanks, 6 fighters, and a bomber (assume no fighters were killed), against 2 bombers, 9 infantry, 2 artillery, 6 tanks, 3 fighters, and AA gun. That’s an offensive punch of 46 against an AA gun and a defensive punch of 54. Germany can kill the US transports that reinforced London with a good chance of sustaining no losses, but any German attack on London is now somewhat unlikely to succeed (even 1 Russian fighter would make it near impossible). Germany holds Africa for a long time, but USSR pushes from the west like crazy, and those 40 IPC of transports don’t do much good against a good Allied player.
A carrier in the Mediterranean does not, I think, significantly aid in Africa’s defense. The Allies can simply push masses of infantry east (at least 4-6 a turn); anywhere Germany attacks will be subject to counterattack by massed infantry and air. It’s what I do with the Allies. Of course, a German carrier in the Mediterranean would help protect against Allied attack, but I find that the Allies do not push there until at least a few turns have passed, as the threat of the German air force is quite strong.
I’ve been seriously thinking about buying 10 infantry and a fighter as a standard opening, and switching to Mediterranean transports on G2 to G4. Or perhaps more dangerous, 2-3 tech dice on Rockets.
“These rules should make for a dice free game that should not change the game dramatically.”
Let me ask you a question.
If two fighters attack two subs under your version, or even under LowLuck, what is the outcome?
1 dead sub.
If two fighters attack two subs in a REAL game, what is the outcome?
25% 2 dead subs, 25% no dead subs, 50% 1 dead sub.
If you flip a coin, and know it’s always going to come up heads, isn’t that abnormal? Wouldn’t that be a dramatic change if you could somehow ignore 50% of the results of a coin flip?
I think that perhaps your reference to “should not change the game dramatically” was meant in a different sense than the conventional sense.
@Guerrilla:
And even though I don’t think your post exactly suggests genocide, it does alienate a class of people for said action; And I would think that you will find those same people on this board, so I would watch what you say…
GG
Well, I hope that most posters would know that it was tongue-in-cheek. You know, the thing about munching bread and TV and all that.
Anyways, any time you express an opinion, you risk offending some people. Perhaps you would disagree with that statement?
re: Mechanized Warfare: As a rabid hobo, I am horribly offended by your spork comment.
Or you just shoot down the baltic fleet with your fighters on USSR1 and get rid of the problem all together :D
Ok ukraine you might have to forgo in that situation but it is not impossible to counter at all. Although 2 figs VS 2 subs 1 tranny 1 dest might not be in your favor but you only need 3 hits to make his invasion near impossible ( put a sub between his fleet and london he has to take it out and if you hit -> end invasion :D)No trannies -> No invasion.
Also invading UK on turn 1 makes the game a lot like gambling imo, gambling on tech dice and then gambling on a pretty hard fight.
Using the Russian fighters on the Baltic fleet still faces ncsswitch’s problem of leaving the Russian fighters out of any fight. And I also think that a Russian fighter attack on the Baltic navy is risky, although the additional sub move could be decisive. Still, the whole Russian operation described is risky (After all, Germany is not locked into having to invade London, and the proposed USSR attacks do mean some pain for the USSR).
The game is like gambling? Of course! It’s got dice! The whole thing is about calculated risk. With a 2 dice investiture, you can get a lock on London, and likely the game, with a 30% chance; even if you fail, you’re only out 10 IPCs . . . 10 very valuable IPCs to be sure, but I’d rather go for that 30% chance plus a stall game in case of failure than for the regular Axis game, which I think is too vulnerable to coordinated Allied attack.
I don’t see how Germany can take London on G2 . . .
Well, in her scenario, UK1 had ground units moving from London and E. Canada to Algeria, and UK fighters flying to, I think it was West Russia. The only units in London were a leftover artillery, the bomber that flew back, plus two newly purchased infantry, one newly purchased artillery, and two newly purchased fighters.
I presumed that on US1, the Atlantic fleet would move to further reinforce Algeria to prevent mass air attack on the UK battleship and two transports off Algeria; this also prevents Germany from easily retaking Algeria with W. Europe fighters, infantry/artillery moved to Libya, and the German battleship/transport in the med.
Does it suck? Erm . . .
The first time i played it, I was like “wow, Australia is teh bomb! also South America is quite smexy”
And I won sixteen straight before I started a game with three other players that said “kill him, he always wins” on the very first turn. :lol:
Risk is kinda limited. But even Axis and Allies is kinda limited too.