Posts made by newpaintbrush

yeah whatever.

Dealing with dice results is something you have to factor into strategy.  That’s why a USSR attack on three German territories doesn’t work.  It’s just too damn chancy.  Even West Russia and Ukraine is horribly risky if you bring just two tanks to the Ukraine battle.

If you want to play Low Luck, that’s not a matter of wanting to minimize dice factors.  It’s another game entirely.

Don’t blame luck.  Blame your use of three 60% attacks.

“AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!”, whatever.  Go play Low Luck, you’ll be a lot happier.

I disagree with six inf in Burytia.  If Japan commits to killing them, USSR is defenseless.  Moving more infantry east simply means a weaker western front.  USSR solves Japan’s logistical problem of getting infantry to the front.

Just hit Hawaii with fodder sub (if survived), destroyer, lots of air.  Most of rest of Jap fleet parks at Solomons.

You can lose a fighter or two in exchange for not committing the Jap fleet to a counterattack by US battleship, transport, two fighters, and bomber.

Usually you drop the bomber in . . . I forget, one of the zones southwest or south of Anglo-Egypt Sudan.  If you leave it in Trans-Jordan, Germany will DEFINITELY smash the bomber with its Med transport.

You don’t stop Germany from getting a free bomber kill.

That’s the point, using a bomber on Africa almost certainly means a dead bomber.

Sounds good but two things.

1.  If US does not go to Algeria first turn, Germany runs free in Africa.  If US commits to Norway second turn, that seals the deal.  You could theoretically put three tanks and three infantry into Algeria on the same turn that you put two infantry, artillery, tank into Moscow, but then one of the fleets is going to be underprotected.  Both of the sea zones you’re unloading from will be vulnerable to W. Europe fighters, and either the Baltic and/or Med fleet.

2.  A US Norway is worth taking back, because it is so cost-efficient.  Think; US takes.  USSR will not reinforce (it has to get through Karelia, which is usually a deathtrap).  Then Germany retakes on its turn from Karelia and/or German transports.  The mechanism is usually UK takes, US reinforces.

Combine those factors, and what do you have?  Very unlikely that the US will hold Norway until late game.  If US does hold Norway, it is because Japan was left almost completely alone.  In that case, Germany builds infantry-fighters, and Japan goes crazy in the east.

yeah, of COURSE us gets it if possible
usually not workable though

uk is usually better placed to take it initially, and shutting that 3 IPC off for Germany is good to do early.
Late game Germany usually won’t divert units from the attack on Moscow to retake Norway.

Sometimes USSR takes it early, same thing.

Rarely do you get to hold it with the US.

A test game will not reveal the optimal strategies for both sides unless both players do the right moves.

I strongly advise that Germany ignore everything else, and use fighters to smash USSR’s offense immediately, using infantry and transport and fighter production (transport in Med), or tank and fighter production.  Caucasus should be smashed by the third turn with Japan fighter reinforcements, Allied fleet fended off by the additional German fighters.

Using the UK bomber against Anglo is possible but risky.  Germany will often have a fighter at Libya that can be used to hit an isolated bomber.

my god, mistaken for ncsswitch

my life is over

:-o

No.

The FAQs neutered German rockets, greatly limiting the number of attacks you can makes, and limiting the economic damage.  Check the website.

It used to be that German rocket research was an excellent and successful strategy; you’d build five or six AA guns and cripple Moscow and London.  No longer.

As far as house rules, I recommend posting in the “House Rules” forum.

Such a strategy will unquestionably lead to the, for lack of a better term, “turbo death of Moscow”.

1.  You have lost just about all of USSR’s hitting power.  Now the Germans can attack with total impunity without fear of a USSR counterattack.  It is like a blessing from God.  Or a miracle, maybe.

2.  Loss of fighter means no trading territories.  Two infantry and one fighter attacking a territory worth 2 IPC held by one infantry is a good idea.  Two infantry and a tank, or even one infantry and a tank, attacking a territory worth 2 IPC held by one infantry is a bad idea.  (In the first case, you gain 2 IPC from the territory and kill 3 IPC of units immediately, have 1/3 chance of losing a 3 IPC unit for immediate net gain of around 4 IPC; the surviving 1-2 infantry can kill 3 IPC units with 1/3 chance, giving 2 more IPC worth.  Two infantry are lost, making the trade supposedly even, but USSR has a positional advantage in that its infantry don’t have to move as far, and Germany has to commit forward placed infantry to retake the territory.  Change the equation to a tank and an infantry, and the cost efficiencies are changed.  Not good.

3.  Japan cracks Burytia with fighters and Japanese transport.  Soviet Far East is now wide open.

@ncscswitch:

I really want to teach you a lesson on US naval fleets Jen.  Sign up for the Tournament!  :mrgreen:

And you REALLY should look at the game Ezto and I played.  Ezto when full-bore in the Pacific.  And Japan countered easilly.

Them’s fightin’ words!

OOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Why not get TripleA, both you guys . . . it’s freeware . . .

"Sub vs Sub in Solomons
Tran + 2 Inf vs 1 Inf in New Guinee
2 Inf, 1 Tran, 1 DD, 1 CV, 1 FTR from India to Kwangtung vs 3 Inf, 1 Tran (Fighter hits land, not sea)

Work better?

You could land your fighter in China to aid in it’s defense.  Move the AA from India out.  Rebuild and move back into Asia with Brition later.  Meanwhile the Japanese now have diminished troops in Asia and have to move some navy into western waters instead of towards America for a round."

–

I wouldn’t.

1.  The New Guinea attack is risky.  A.  You could lose.  B.  Your isolated transport would become useless (out of position to reach UK in time, vulnerable to Japan).  C.  You cannot retake Africa, so Germany will probably have two tanks to rip through Africa.

2.  The attack into French Indochina is also risky.  A.  You could lose.  B.  Your fleet would be counterattacked by Japan; it would use a “build transports west of Japan” strategy.

3.  Bolstering China with the Indian fighter is not much good; there are only two infantry helping protect it.  Assume that you deplete Japan’s Kwangtung infantry, you still face a considerable attack

4.  Where are you going to “move back into Asia” from?  If you build an IC in South Africa or Egypt, you WILL lose it without a doubt around the third or fourth turn.  Unless the Japan player is really bad.

Altogether, you have some very high-risk attacks that could end up as disasters, which only inconvenience Japan for a short time.  You are correct in stating that the Japanese will have to divert attention from the US, but I think that the quick deterioration of Asia and Africa will hurt the Allies far more than the distraction of Japan will help the Allies.

2 inf 2 art 2 tank is the classic buy for the Ukraine/West Russia attack.

You hit West Russia and the Ukraine.  You will lose the Ukraine to the German counterattack for sure, but if you put 2 inf 2 art in Caucasus and 2 tanks in Moscow, you can counterattack Ukraine with the West Russia stack, the Caucasus units, and the Moscow tanks.  Now - if Germany attacks Ukraine lightly, you can retake the Ukraine with a few infantry and a fighter.  if Germany attacks Ukraine heavy, you can smash the Ukraine.

Germany can re-counter with a pure tank build, but that is not sound long-term strategy.

Germany can also counter by attacking heavily into Karelia - at which point the Ukraine stack hits and runs Eastern Europe and Balkans with infantry and fighters, and the Ukraine stack moves to West Russia (reinforced by units from Moscow), at which point the game transposes to the usual West Russia / Eastern Europe game.

I would never try a KJF in Revised.  Japan’s navy is just too big.

If KJF strategy is used, Japan can see it coming a mile away, and it switches to infantry/artillery/fighter production instead of infantry/tanks.

If the US attacks early, the US has to overcome 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5 transports, 7 fighters, and 1 bomber (possibly a destroyer too).  The ONLY thing Japan has to worry about is the location of the US transport.  Until the transport starts threatening (which won’t be for a couple of turns at least), Japan can focus on Asia.

if the US attacks late, the US has to overcome 2 battleships, 2 carriers, 5-6 transports, 1-2 destroyers, 1-4 subs, 10-12 fighters, and 1 bomber.  And this assumes most of the US is directed at Japan.  If the US even tries to divert to Africa, Japan will be just about impossible to take down.

"But you forget about the British fleet in India/Australia.  With conservative movements, you can use those to assist the American navy until they get up to production.

And lets remember, while “turtling” is a very effective method of defense, it sucks for offense.  Without offense you will eventually loose."

Are you saying that KJF is a good strategy?

@jsp4563:

I’ve been toying with a strategy I may try sometime.  Combine the Indian/Aussie fleets in sz30 plus an IC in S. Africa on UK1.  The combined fleet is only within range of the Jap East Indies fleet, simulations give them only 15% chance of destroying the combined fleet, what’s left can limp over to S. Africa for reinforcement.  With half the Jap fleet gone & a restored UK fleet/IC in the S. Indian Ocean I think this could create some real problems for Japan & Germany in Africa.  Feel free to rip my strategy to shreds!  :mrgreen:

You maintain control of S. Africa at what cost?

A 15 IPC factory, and further diversion of IPCs to reinforce S. Africa.  Progress against Europe slows to a crawl.  Your air spends time simply getting to Africa.  Germany dominates north Africa, and late game Germany can abandon Africa safely, or Japan can come in and blow up the Indian fleet.

Never.  Never build an IC with Germany.

Two transports cost 1 IPC more.  They can shuttle four units into Ukraine a turn, or can hit Egypt.  Transports make the Allies require more time to hit the German med fleet with pure air, and if the Allies draw within two spaces of the Med fleet, the Med fleet can suicide along with German air to kill the Allied fleet.

Early game, you don’t need an IC, transports are better.  Late game, you can’t afford one.

SuperClifford, I don’t see your thread anywhere.

Build so you have five to six transports total ASAP.  You use one to two of them to empty the islands.  The rest move units from Japan.  My usual is to use four transports to move eight units to French Indochina, to put pressure on India, on the next turn, the transports move to Japan to unload from Japan to Burytia.  If I have a Japan bid of at least 1, I build an industrial complex in French Indochina, and two transports (but you DO need 31 IPC for this).

You should probably only use ONE transport to attack Australia, Hawaii, and New Zealand.  With battleship support shots and a couple of fighters, one transport is plenty, considering you pull infantry from the local islands so you have a “supply depot” of infantry.

The rest of the transports MUST concentrate on Asia.  If you don’t have three transports in the region of Japan, the UK can counterattack with Indian infantry and fighters / bomber from the UK; the USSR can attack with infantry, tanks, and fighters.  If you don’t constantly run infantry and tanks into Asia, you will be overpowered.  Also, EVERY infantry that you can move into Asia in the early game is another infantry that will be used to hit Moscow.

Japanese fighters have a special role.  You should try to be in position to reinforce a German held territory.  Imagine that Germany hits Ukraine, and has eight infantry and five tanks.  Now say USSR can counter with ten infantry, two artillery, four tanks, and two fighters.  Germany will get seriously damaged.  BUT, if you fly five Jap fighters in, the Ukraine attack is completely different.

Late game, you need even more transports.  You want more transports to move infantry from Japan to French Indochina, then from French Indochina to Persia in one turn.  You will also want to help out with Africa, which was probably reclaimed by that point by the Allies (but left empty).  PLUS, when it’s really late in the game, you move from the sea zone east of Japan to beat the crap out of W. Canada.  That forces the US to spend a turn to build up in W. Europe instead of diverting

I use TripleA.

But TripleA doesn’t support LHTR yet.