Posts made by newpaintbrush

@Infantry:

I think Sea Lion is a slightly bigger problem with the OOB rules.
78% * 83% = 64% chance to get long range air tech  and then take London on G1 makes for a not very fun game.
LHTR solves such problems.

I must disagree to some extent.  I believe that the REAL reason that a six-eight tech dice G1 Sea Lion is discouraged with OOB rules is that it can neutralize the UK player for a few turns, so in a five player tournament game, the skill of the UK player becomes less relevant.  Even if a German player only runs one-two tech dice, I think G1 Sea Lion is easily defeatable.

If you know that Sea Lion is allowed (i.e. say that OOB rules with FAQ are used); then you can fly two Russian fighters to London.

1.  Attacker must first invest in long range aircraft research.  If a lot of IPC are spent, USSR can expand early.  If few IPC are spent, there is a greater chance that the tech dice simply go to waste.  (I think I would prefer going for fewer tech dice).

2.  With Russian fighters in London, attackers have 1 infantry, 1 tank, 6 fighters, and 1 bomber going against 1 bomber, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 4 fighters, and an AA gun, not good odds considering the “skew”, as Caspian Sub would put it (Caspian Sub Yahoo group).  Basically, the Germans lose 3 attack power with every casualty after the initial infantry, while the Allies lose only 2 defense power for the initial casualties after the initial bomber loss, plus throw in the fact that the Allied AA gun can shoot some German air down, and the attack is horribly risky.

3.  The German airforce usually gets smashed even without Russian fighters in London.  This allows the Allies to build a nasty transport fleet faster (since the transports won’t require as much expensive escorts).  Germany can rebuild its air force with its 78-82 IPC paycheck, and will have the advantage of long range, allowing fighters to trade territory with USSR and fly back to W. Europe to defend, but having to rebuild the air force is quite expensive.

4.  With Germany spending IPC on tech, USSR can push early; Germany has a harder time dislodging USSR from those valuable 2-3 IPC territories.

Basically, with no airforce and no ground units produced first turn, the loss of London by no means signifies the end of the game.  UK can retake from E. Canada with battleship bombard and a tank (usually all that’s left in London is a single German tank).  US then reinforces with 2 inf, art, tank, fighter, and bomber.  If the UK attack is successful (odds are it will be if all that’s left is a German tank), then UK gets a paycheck of 30 IPC that it can spend on the next turn.  Even if the UK attack is not successful, the US attack almost certainly will be, and even 2 inf, art, tank, and AA gun are likely to be enough defense against a German counterattack of infantry, tank, and bomber (all that’s left of the German airforce).

On the other hand, if Germany bought 2 transports, some infantry, and only rolled one or two tech dice, Germany could be in a very good counterattacking position.  BUT, this assumes that the initial London invasion was successful, which I do not think would be the case if there were 2 additional Russian fighters present.  Of course, if the initial London invasion WAS successful (against the odds), then the Germans would have a won game, particularly with the Russian fighters out of the picture and a lock on London . . .

–

What of the argument that flying USSR fighters to London weakens the USSR initial turns?  That’s very true.  But those fighters can be used to attack Karelia from West Russia next turn (I forget the map; maybe Archangel instead).  Germany could prevent this by bulking up at Karelia, but then USSR could push on the Ukraine with a fairly standard 3 inf 3 tank build, or with a 2 inf 2 art 2 tank build.  Of course, there’s the counterargument that then Germany could forgo the attack on London to attack a weakened Caucasus (since if USSR fighters are in London, they weren’t used to attack Ukraine, and cannot land in Caucasus), but I think that attacking Caucasus early with Germany can very well be horribly costly to a West Russia/Moscow counterattack.

Well, ncsswitch, the assumption is that LHTR is NOT being used, nor any of the other common tournament rules, because with delayed tech, a G1 attack on London is just silly.

I really don’t feel it’s a matter of “game over” for the Allies at all, if Germany spent 25+ IPC on tech.  Even if Germany spent only 5 on tech, if both players know that a G1 attack on London is possible, you run into the possibliity of 2 USSR fighters in London, which is, I admit, horribly costly for the USSR, but also horribly costly for Germany.

You have infantry, tank, six fighters, and a bomber, going against a bomber, two infantry, artillery, tank, two fighters, and a very important AA gun.  Of course, with additional Russian fighters, it looks rather worse for the Germans; I don’t think it should even be attempted in that event.

Depending on the AA gun, and a few bad rolls, and whether or not USSR fighters are in London, most or all of the German air force will be destroyed, and the Germans will hold London with 1 tank.

Now, if the Germans spent all their IPC on tech, they can attack London next turn, at best, with one infantry, one tank, and one bomber.  Even if the German Med fleet moved west, it can be blocked from helping in the attack on London by a USSR sub block.  Given that the UK can possibly retake on its turn with battleship bombardment and tank from E. Canada, and US can move in to reinforce with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fighter, and 1 bomber, a repeat of Germany taking London will almost certainly not happen.  Either Germany will take Anglo-Egypt with preplaced bid units or not; if it doesn’t, India will be quite strong, if it does not, the UK will very likely be able to retake Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry and fighter.  Germany WILL have 78-82 IPC, but will have next to no air force (if any), which means that the Allied fleet buildup will threaten Germany quite fast.  Germany can build a new airforce, but that will be quite expensive, and because Germany spent no IPCs on ground units, USSR can push early (even if it has to retreat later).  Germany will also have to commit more forces to trading territories with USSR in the east.

Basically, I think a G1 attack on London is very risky; the initial attack has a decent chance of success, but the Allied counter can easily rock Germany back.

BUT, if Germany only spent 5 IPC on tech, and bought more transports, or some ground units or air force to counter USSR, I think the Germans would have a signficiant advantage.

1.  You bought almost no units with Germany, and didn’t get Rocket tech.  Against any competent USSR player, you should have been horribly owned by massive USSR infantry and tanks, plus UK/US pressure.  (If Germany does that sort of thing, KJF is just silly, Germany is horribly weak)

2.  I can’t imagine what the other Allies were doing this whole game.  Probably stalled out in some KJF variation.

3.  You can leave Southern Europe with nothing in it and not get blitzed, because an AA gun or an industrial complex prevent blitzing through that territory.  (And of course, S. Europe will always have an industrial complex)

Although I see a lot of people posting that resources should be committed to attacking or containing Japan, I completely disagree.  I believe the best thing to do is go after Germany 100%.  The exception is some tournament games, in which particular cities give more points towards a victory (this is not the victory city system, but something else).  In those games, a KJF strategy is used because the cities that give more points are all around Japan, not Germany.

If I were playing Out of the Box rules (I REALLY recommend using FAQs, or Germany should beat the g-d he** out of everyone every game), I would go KGF.

(How does Germany beat the g-d he** out of everyone?  Unlimited Rocket attacks, you just sink everything into rockets and AA guns.  The FAQ fixes this.)

With the FAQs in effect, I do this:

1.  KGF.  With a KJF, you need a massive US fleet buildup to counter the gigantic Japanese navy.  Look around, what else can the Japanese navy be used for?  You can lose Hawaii, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as New Guinea later on.  That’s 5-6 IPC.  If you manage to take Japan’s isolated islands, once you start, Japan can’t stop you, but you need a TRULY gigantic fleet, probably two carriers, battleship, destroyer, three subs, two transports, six fighters minimum before you start really messing with Japan.  On the other hand, all you need to build in Eastern US is three transports, infantry, and three tanks, and you’re in Algeria with three infantry three tanks on US2.

Why else KGF?  You stand to lose 5+ IPC in the Pacific, but you take Africa back earlier (worth 10 or so IPC), plus Norway (3 IPC), plus probably Karelia (2 IPC).  If you run through Africa, Germany is forced to keep units in S. Europe and W. Europe, which slows down the attack on USSR.  So - KGF.

2.  How do you do a KGF?  Kill the Baltic and Med fleets.  If the German player doesn’t build anything in the Baltic, you can kill the Baltic fleet with the UK air force.  Once the Baltic fleet is gone, the UK battleship and a carrier, combined with UK transports is VERY costly for the German air force to attack.  (You will lose 8 IPC transports for 10 IPC fighters, and you can just rebuild next turn).  Once the Med fleet is gone, you threaten S. Europe, which is a major pain for Germany.

3.  Depending on the amount of Japanese pressure, you can either use the UK forces to take Norway and keep trading Karelia and/or W. Europe and Belorussia with the Germans, or you can just shuttle UK infantry into Archangel to reinforce against the Japanese attack.

By the way, I wouldn’t recommend six infantry in Burytia.  If I saw that as Japan, I might forgo Pearl Harbor to smash Burytia.  Your two tanks could counterattack supported by USSR air, but you would lose those tanks for sure on the next turn, then USSR would be wide open.  (If the tanks retreated, USSR would be wide open anyways).  The only time six infantry in Burytia is good, IMHO, is if there’s also a UK fighter there (from the Indian Ocean) - but then, UK probably wouldn’t be able to take back Africa from the Germans unless it was willing to lose its bomber.

Best game as Germany was in the old version.  The Allies were kicking my ass (there wasn’t any bid used), and they were pressing in on Germany.  So I went for tech (there really wasn’t much choice; I needed 2 IPC infantry or heavy bombers), and I got heavy bombers.  W00t.

I still lost, but it was a lot of fun.

Leaving Pearl Harbor alone is a pretty bad idea.  I WOULD do it, though, if I had an even better target; those usually involve either an isolated stack of USSR infantry in Burytia (kill them at the loss of only two-three Jap infantry, and the Soviet Far East is wide open), or if India had an IC and just required a few extra fighters to take.  In both cases, the Japanese transports must be protected at any cost, of course, and assume a good German position.

Basically, the US can mount a powerful attack in the Pacific very quickly, but it doesn’t matter because Moscow is going to fall to massed Japanese units pushing from the east and Germans pushing from the west.  It is horribly difficult to overcome the loss of an India with an industrial complex built by UK during its turn, or the loss of six USSR infantry that have no support.

I think that it would be nice if you would go into more detail about the projected USSR and UK moves.  I’d rather not post a lengthy reply, then suddenly find that there were 6 infantry and a fighter in Burytia (the UK fighter from the Indian Ocean) when I assumed there would be nothing, or find out that there was an Indian IC, or something similarly important.

Faced with an Indian IC and a unified fleet southwest of Australia - well, assuming no other unusual factors, and given that I don’t have a board in front of me, I can’t say for sure.  But I’d probably do something like build three transports off the east coast of Japan, or perhaps two transports and a fighter, leaving the Jap battleship at the east coast of Japan there as an escort, and unifying Jap carriers and the second Jap battleship at the Solomons off Hawaii, and sending sub, destroyer, fighters and bomber to Pearl.  I lose the sub, and possibly destroyer and fighter as well.  However, Japan will NOT lose any more fighters in the forseeable future, unless the US decides to attack Solomons, which is probably a bad move.  On J2, the Japanese navy moves west, or southwest from Solomons.

Basically - you sink 15 IPC into an industrial complex which must be protected; this relieves pressure on Germany.  Also, you unify the UK fleet in the Indian Ocean.  This is supposed to put pressure on the Japanese, and it does.  It also puts pressure on the Germans in Africa.  But now you have to protect London and Calcutta, and the only expansion point from India is French Indochina, which is only one transport trip away from Japan.  So now what?  The Soviet Far East collapses (no big deal), but more importantly, the Allied attack on Germany slows to an crawl, and Japan starts running a gigantic tank force into China, from where it can unite at Novosibirsk with infantry coming in from the Soviet Far East (and they cannot be dislodged unless the USSR has a gigantic force in Moscow, which is improbable given the fact that the Germans will have less pressure applied to them by the Allies).  The tanks in China can also hit India with any French Indochina infantry.  Japan can even just let French Indochina be taken, since it can take right back with six-eight infantry from Japan, tanks from China, and air force.  This is even easier because I presume that the Japanese transport off Kwangtung survives in your scenario, which means four additional units in Asia by the end of J2.

I’m not saying that unifying the UK fleet southwest of Australia combined with an Indian IC is a BAD move, but I think I would certainly change some things in your proposal, like two USSR fighters in India, among other things.  The general picture I get from the description is a UK strongpoint in India and better UK control of Africa for the first couple of turns, but a horribly weakened USSR-German front (the USSR fighters cannot afford to stay in India), as well as a considerably weakened UK/US vs. Germany attack.  The unified UK fleet can’t do much on offense because UK fighters from London can’t reach for a couple of turns (by which time Japan can bring the entire power of its navy and air force to bear), and the added punch of a bomber just isn’t enough against a battleship, two loaded carriers, and transport fodder, which is what you’ll face as early as J2.

Note that you probably won’t be able to unite the UK fleet with a US Pac fleet, because the order is UK-Japan-US.  So if the UK fleet moves within Japan’s striking distance, Japan will probably just kill it.  The order must be the US moves in, then UK reinforces, then Japan is faced with a unified navy - but that’s very difficult to do unless the UK fleet sneaks south of Australia, which means that it can’t slow the invasion of India or lend support to Africa at all.  As for forcing the Japanese to commit their fleet to attacking the UK fleet, and having the US counterattack the weakened forces, I don’t see it happening, given the map.

If you roll 1 or 2 tech dice, it’s a worthy endeavor.

Japan can see it coming a mile away, because the US builds naval units in the Pacific.  Assume Pearl went off, and Japan lost a sub, destroyer, and fighter.  You still have 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5 fighters, and a bomber.  You have 1 battleship, 1 transport, 3 fighters, and 1 bomber.  Hardly auspicious.

Now, if you build two carriers and a fighter, those must be placed at Western U.S.  Japan will almost certainly have purchased 2-3 transports and/or an IC.  What happens next is either you advance, in which case Japan hits and retreats (those free hits on those battleships add up a lot, and it has superior attacking power because of the sheer numbers of air).  Or you stay back and build up, in which case Japan keeps its navy around Japan, shuttles infantry off the isolated islands, and reinforces Asia like mad.  Just before you get into serious attacking range, Japan builds all subs for a round, and you have to retreat again.

Why would Germany buy a navy?  One carrier and perhaps one or two transports is it.

Air force - Germany can’t afford to buy two or three fighters a turn, but it won’t need to if it can just bleed the Allied fleet out.  56 IPC for 20 is a great trade.  Against a KGF, Germany should just buy a fighter, or perhaps two, per turn, depending on the Allied navy strength.  The Allies have to pour more IPC into defensive fleet units, and Japan goes wild in Asia.  Germany tanks in, and Japan expands.

Fighters parked in W. Europe can still be used against Karelia and move back to W. Europe.

UK isn’t going to be landing 8 units a turn immediately.  In the proposed move, UK has three transports, and two infantry in London on the second turn.  Transporting eight units a turn isn’t going to happen until UK gets builds some infantry, and builds a fourth transport.  Of course, I know that you already know this, ncsswitch, I’m just clarifying.

Finally, UK either attacks the Baltic, or doesn’t.  If UK attacks and retreats, it can deplete the Baltic fleet, but will probably be killed by the Baltic survivors and German air.  If UK attacks to try to take the Baltic, the German air should be able to handle the survivors.  If UK doesn’t attack the Baltic fleet, Germany can suicide at any time supported by massed air.  Considering that UK’s attack power consists of a battleship, two fighters, and a bomber (with a weak carrier), any attack on the Baltic will be inefficient.  This last point ASSUMES A GERMAN BUILD OF A FIGHTER A TURN.  Germany MUST switch mentalities from trying to gain ground in Asia to trading territories with USSR and defending against the Allied fleet.  It is far simpler to control the Allied invasion with fighters that cost 10 and attack at 3, while the Allies are building transports that cost 8 and defend at 1, while Germany has a superior air force.

Sub and 2 fighters means you could lose sub and fighter to the battleship.  You easily risk losing TWO fighters.

Sub and 4 fighters minimizes the loss to one sub, or perhaps, one sub and one fighter.  You COULD get hammered on luck and lose more, but it’s unlikely.

Basically, I think Amon Sul’s point is a pretty damn good one.

"Move existing fleet (inlcuding ECan) to SZ3 and attack Norway with 1 ARM, 1 ART, 2 INF, 2 FIG (and a BOM if Germany has force there, otherwise SBR or stragler naval attack).

Place new Navy in SZ3 and land FIGs on AC.  2 INF to UK."

So let’s say the Germans landed 4 fighters in W. Europe, bomber and fighter in Libya.  Now Germany threatens 2 inf 1 tank AA gun (remember the UK fighters are on the UK carrier) with 1 inf, 1 tank, 4 fighters, and a bomber.  I know Amon Sul said he landed two fighters there, but I’m not Amon Sul.

So the US sends destr two transports to UK?  Lands fighter and bomber?  Fine, Germany hoses the US fleet and trades 1 fighter for a destroyer and two transports.  German fighters are valuable, but 10 IPC for 28 is pretty good, especially since with a KGF, US MUST rebuild the transports.

CrazyStraw, you know I am illiterate.

No, I guess I just skipped over a lot of the paper, my bad.  But am I alone in thinking the paper is generally down on tech?

1.  Download TripleA onto your computer.
2.  Play TripleA by email.

That’s right, by email.

The program uses an online dice server to get dice results.  After you finish your noncombat movement, you save the file and send it as an attachment to your opponent.

It’s the TripleA ladder.

Although I don’t expect you to read this.

I still disagree with Policy Paper #16 in regards to rockets.

Other posters must remember that Policy Paper #16 is based on CaspianSub rules (LHTR rules for tech similar in regards to delay factor).

–

OOB, going tech is a valid strategy.  I’m going to pull my old Rocket tech strat out for Germany.

To wit -

I think Policy Paper 16 was released prematurely.  It is written for LHTR and CaspianSub rules, and makes no mention of OOB with/without FAQs.  It assumes a chunk of 30 IPC spent at one time on tech.  Although the paper does not specifically say so, I think it likely that it was even more specifically aimed at tournament play (short games).

It should be rewritten, I think.