1. The Allies should decide what strategy they are going to use BEFORE the game.
2. As the USSR player, you are really responsible for the USSR. You should not dictate to the US player how to play the US.
If the US is going after Japan, then the US should move the Atlantic fleet to the Pacific, build subs, carriers, fighters, transports, and infantry. UK should build massive air to kill the German Baltic fleet, then transports and infantry.
If UK and US are idiots, and the Germans and Japs geniuses, the Allies will lose.
If you attack a country with ground forces, whatever ground forces you attack with are committed.
For this reason, I like to have three USSR fighters and some artillery.
Tanks are a must-have; if Germany does massive infantry push, the tanks can rush back east to mess with Japan.
Basically, I usually build a fighter, LOTS of infantry, and a couple of artillery every so often.
If you’re an economics major, you’ll know what I mean when I talk about “opportunity cost”.
If you use bombers against USSR, they will smack down a little better than 1 infantry a turn average, and risk being shot down.
If you use bombers against other targets, the bomber will probably not get shot down (you’ll have other cheaper units attacking), and you can send expensive naval units to h***.
Here’s the kicker.
Suppose you do NOT use a bomber against USSR for strat bombing for three turns.
Now let’s say that you make a massive attack into USSR that will probably last four-five turns.
That bomber WILL kill a chunk of infantry if it is not shot down, the AA gun only had one chance at it instead of three.
Usually the Baltic Sea Lion (building transports on Germany’s first turn) is comboed with the German Med fleet moving west.
Otherwise, the Allies easily counter with USSR fighters (I typically land USSR fighters in Moscow first turn, not the Caucasus), US infantry, artillery, armor, fighter, bomber, UK build of five infantry three tanks. Germany’s chances are not bright.
If the Germans move their Med fleet west, then if the US reinforces UK, the US fleet can be destroyed.
Still, it is VERY DIFFICULT for Germany to take UK, even with an all out transport build.
I’d ignore it first turn, kill it second turn with German fighters and Med navy.
USSR building navy is a bad idea. I’d be happy to see a USSR naval build. Japan and Germany will march right on into USSR.
In your example, if Japan lost FIC to UK, the fighters would die.
If you declare multiple combats, and want to call one off, if it’s before any combats were actually rolled, you might be able to call it off (for etiquette reasons, you’d probably be OK).
But if you did one combat, then wanted to do something in another combat, your opponent could say that you wanting to retreat from the second combat was a result of the result of the first combat - so you probably would NOT be able to do it. In other words - no retreating before combat. Retreat after one round of combat as normal.
Whether or not you do Pearl depends on what USSR and UK did.
If USSR and UK are attempting to hold the Asian coast (buildup in India and Burytia), Japan should probably use its air to blow up Burytia and land in position to hit India or a US fleet advance on Japan 2.
If the UK unified its fleet, that’s another thing to consider.
If there is an industrial complex in India and/or Ssinkiang, that’s something yet again.
etc. etc.
Plus, remember you can do Pearl with just fighters, bomber, and naval fodder, as well as the usual kitchen sink attack.
Correct.
You cannot send land units into a neutral territory, and you cannot even fly air units over neutral territories.
@ncscswitch:
Saying that it is not Avalon Hill sanctioned or Hasbro Sanctioned is not valid is like telling me that my 1st Edition AD&D books are all invalid and trash because they have E. Gary Gygax’s name and the TSR logo on them instead of Wizards of the Coast.
I see.
If I had known that I didn’t have the right to post my opinion, I wouldn’t have bothered.
@ncscswitch:
That last example alone… making the outcome of the game dependent upon the roll of 6 German tech dice for LRA, with automatic Axis win if the odds prevail and Germany rolls a 1… is more than ample reason to scrap the OM and use a superior rule set.
And while we admire the work being done elsewhere on these boards for a new and more realistic rule-set, in the interim we go with the best rule-set available, which also happens to be the rule-set used by almost everyone else playing online.
I don’t use LHTR, because it is not officially approved by Hasbro / Avalon Hill, even though it IS the standard for most tournaments.
How is a G1 attack on UK an automatic win for Axis? The German air is decimated, the US can recapture, USSR can attack, the game is far from over. Germany cannot hold UK, so must expand back east, but because of loss of fighters, Allies quickly build transport fleet to threaten W/S Eur or provide reinforcements to Archangel / E. Eur. etc depending on the situation.
In tournaments, Larry Harris Tournament rules are often used, which effectively neuters most research by having it come into effect at the END of a turn, rather than the beginning.
You cannot trade in infantry pieces for fighters, even for representational purposes. The original Axis and Allies, if I remember correctly, limited the number of divisions available to what plastic pieces you had - so if you had two plastic subs, you were limited to two groupings of subs (say one stack of five subs and another of three, but you could NOT get a third grouping of subs).
As far as I know, that limitation is not effective in Revised.
For Out of the Box rules, tech is very useful. Long Range Aircraft can give you the added punch to take an enemy territory (key are Western US and Russia), or to have the range to reach a friendly territory to help defend (usually Japan flies fighters to Caucasus). Turn 1 German Sea Lion uses long range aircraft tech to attack London with a transport, six fighters, and a bomber.
Late game, combined bombardment lets you decimate an isolated Japan or Germany.
If you use National Advantages, Heavy Bombers is a cheesy way to win with Allies (US buys bombers that can’t be shot down with Superfortresses NA, and researches Heavy Bomber tech to cripple Germany’s production down by turn 4).
I got mine at my local game store. The owner gives good deals.
What would I do as Japan?
Expand like crazy, as usual.
Borneo’s a mistake IMHO. It makes the Atlantic far safer for the Germans.
One variation you might try responding with: Massed air attacks Pearl Harbor with sub and destr fodder. Build three transports and a tank. Park naval units east of Japan.
Now the UK can’t hit your battleship very well (they’ll take out some cheap transports, but lose valuable units), nor can the US hit you hard.
Another trick is to hit Buryalia hard first turn, wipe out everything there. If you do that, you can’t do Pearl Harbor. Tradeoff, though, is that the East will be wide open; the 2 USSR infantry at Yakut can’t do anything.
In general, Germany’s game should be far easier without the US pressing, and with Allied IPCs spent on industrial complexes.
Disagree for reasons already stated in your other thread.
In essence, making naval units cheaper vastly favors the Allies. Particulars -
“However, an attacker that builds submarines will beat the best naval defense, a fully loaded aircraft carrier, on a IPC-for-IPC basis.”
Incorrect. You make no allowance for fodder units. You’re simply allowing four subs per loaded aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean, which should never happen unless the carrier controller is either incredibly inexperienced, or just used that carrier to do something really nasty (like giving fighters range to hit a vital target like an enemy capital).
You also make no account for the fact that submarines cannot hit air units. A fighter and carrier combo will almost certainly have carried out fighter attack runs on unescorted subs.
“Even if an attacker use landbased fighters to attack any formation of naval units (including carrier based figthers), the attacker need to spend less IPCs than the defender”
Also incorrect. The fact that the key naval powers have battleships in the beginning of the game makes a big difference. A battleship can soak up a free hit, making any attack prohibitive.
You also have not taken into account the fact that if a landbased attacker simply has a lot of fighters, the attacking navy will be filled with cheap transports. This means two things; the attacker that spent so much on fighters is going to be hard pressed because of lack of numbers, and any attack on the navy will suffer because cheap transports will be destroyed first.
“Any suggestions how to solve the problem?”
Play some games. Perhaps your understanding of ‘the problem’ will change.
First, set up a US fleet to kill the German Baltic then Mediterranean fleets. Get 6 transports; three to move troops from E. Canada to UK (you march infantry from E. US to E. Canada), and three more to move troops from UK to wherever (Norway, Karelia, Archangel).
On the way, you will probably drop some guys in Africa.
Then you take the remnants of the US fleet and go hunt Japan.
What happens if you just try to build against Japan? Germany gets Africa and uses those IPCs to beat the crap out of USSR. UK without Africa can’t produce a lot. UK cannot reclaim Africa because Germany can smash the UK fleet with the German Med fleet and fighters and bomber. Germany is rich, UK and USSR are poor, Japan still runs cheapo infantry into the mainland, but switches to fighters and infantry instead of infantry and tanks. It takes a long time for a US Pac fleet to get going; two battleships, two carriers, a destroyer, four transports, five fighters, and a bomber are no joke to face down, and that’s what US is up against.
Late game, Japan is an easier target than Germany, because Germany can defend its capital with mass infantry, but also use those massed infantry to attack. But Japan can’t attack anyone unless it has navy and/or air. Once US has control of the islands and Asia, Japan can build 8 IPC worth a turn, hopeless.
“I dont follow! I get the point that FTRs can retreat and never land in the territory just captured.
The cost of 6 IPCs for INFs are wrong, two INf per territory (2), that is 12 IPCs that will for sure be lost in a counter attack! Germany will loose at least two INFs that is 6 IPCs. The gain of 5 IPCs (2+3) for the terrotories just captured are just trading IPCs with Germany, since they will gain it back in a counterattack! I dont think that trading IPCs on one-for-one basis with a economical stronger enemy like Germany is wise for Russia! The on who think so will loos for sure! The tank thing you use in your scenario is very odd, I dont follow at all. USSR spend 11 IPCs on what? I thought two tanks cost 10 IPCs! No, I think you need to be more precis here! Fighters are not costeffective for 10 IPCs in a ground based combat. It all depends how much the movement is worth. As it is now it is worth some 4-5 IPCs for two additional movements for both land and sea! I hardly find that a good buy. But if the air supremacy rule would be included, then there would be a strong incentive to buy FTRs. Just deny an enemy air supremacy as well as giving an extra punch in an attack!”
No, there is also the IPC gained from the surviving USSR infantry killing attacking German invaders. In addition, USSR also gains a positional advantage by trading infantry produced two turns ago for infantry produced four turns ago. Also, if Germany takes too long to take Russia, the Allies will win. The alternative is NOT attacking German held territory, in which case the Germans simply gain 2-3 IPC per turn. Do you understand what I mean?
Two USSR infantry and a USSR fighter attack a territory worth 2 IPC held by one German infantry. If the USSR takes with one infantry and one fighter surviving, the USSR gained +3 IPC from killed German infantry, -3 IPC from lost USSR infantry, +2 IPC from the territory, and +1 IPC from the 1/3 probability of killing a German infantry when the German infantry invades next turn.
If Germany sends a TANK, that is BETTER; the expected payout becomes +5/3 instead of +1 IPC. If Germany cannot send anything to attack, that is good too; the territory is held at no cost.
" I dont think that trading IPCs on one-for-one basis with a economical stronger enemy like Germany is wise for Russia!"
So LOSING IPCs to the Germans is a better strategy than trading IPCs? Think about what you’re saying! Or are you saying that you have a strategy for Russia to consistently perform attacks against Germany that will GAIN IPCs?!! If you have something like that, you should really explain it. There’s the first turn attacks against West Russia and Ukraine or Belorussia, and that is it, unless the German player sucks or the USSR gets truly lucky.
–
USSR spends 11 IPC on two infantry and a tank. I thought it was clear in my earlier post. If USSR uses 2 infantry and a tank to attack a German territory held by 1 infantry, USSR will likely win, but the German counterattack will kill the USSR units. The attack then becomes too costly for USSR to make in the first place. On the other hand, if USSR attacks with two infantry and a fighter, the USSR has only commited 6 IPC worth of units.
Fighters are cost-effective for land combats for the reason previously given. You do not want to commit your forces. The fact that fighters are also used for naval attack and defense makes them a truly excellent unit even at the cost of 10 IPC.
Where to start.
First, fighters are used against ground targets so ground forces are not committed. This makes fighters VERY valuable against ground targets; decreasing the IPC cost to 8 is, I think, FAR too good.
Example: USSR has a stack on West Russia and two fighters in Russia. Germany holds the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Karelia with one infantry on each territory. USSR attacks Ukraine and Belorussia with two infantry and one fighter each. The most likely result is killing the German infantry worth 3 IPC and gaining a 2 or 3 IPC territory. USSR will lose the 6 IPCs of infantry to the German counterattack, but the USSR infantry can cause more casualties as they die. So the USSR will have a clear IPC advantage from the attack.
But if the USSR tries the same thing with two fighters and a tank each. Germany takes back. Now, instead of spending 6 IPC of units to gain 6-7 IPC of territory and German units (plus a positional advantage), USSR now spends 11 IPC, unacceptable.
That is why fighters really ARE worth 10 against ground targets.
–
There’s a lot of talk about chopping naval unit costs. I disagree. My belief is - ground units are cost effective, air units less cost effective against ground but more cost effective against navy, and naval units least cost effective.
The game mechanic is, the Allies have to build an expensive fleet to counter the German and Japanese fleets, then expensive transports to transport cost-effective ground units into Europe, or to take isolated Japanese islands. This is what gives the Axis time to take Russia. The Allies have to build a navy, and an air force to support that navy, and all that takes time.
If air and naval units are suddenly chopped in cost, the Allies will smash the Axis fleets much faster. The Axis will not have a chance in hell; the Allies will be rammed down their throats. Giving destroyers a support shot and cutting its price is icing on the cake; the Axis can’t afford to build much new naval or air forces so won’t benefit from the destroyers, and the Allies can now bombard the crap out of W. Europe, Karelia, Japan’s islands, and soon, the Asian coast and Japan itself.
The Axis navies represent a considerable portion of their starting IPCs; the attack on the UK battleship and likely destroyer, and on Pearl Harbor slows the Allies down considerably. Do the math. After one turn, if the Germans build a single carrier in the Baltic, the Germans will often have a loaded carrier, two subs, transport, and destroyer in the Baltic, plus a sub, battleship, and transport in the Mediterranean. The Japanese will have two battleships, a destroyer, four transports (after a three transport build), and two loaded carriers. That’s 116 German IPC and 144 Japanese IPCs the Allies have to overcome, totaling 260 IPCs. The Axis spent 40 IPC on navy, so figure the Axis basically had 220 IPC without building.
On contrast, the Allies will have a USSR sub, 2 UK transports and a battleship, another UK sub, destroyer, carrier with a fighter, and two transports in the Indian/Pacific where they are cut off from reinforcement, and a US battleship, three transports, and two destroyers. That’s 120 IPC on the front, and 62 IPCs that are VERY inconveniently placed, possibly dead, depending on the UK and Japanese move.
Effectively, the Allies have to overcome a 100 IPC difference in naval and air cost to start moving ground troops into Europe or the Japanese islands. And believe me when I say it is not difficult, even with naval and air units as “pricy” as they are.
I think it is no accident that the Allies have far less navy and air force to begin with. I think it is quite deliberate. And I think some of the proposed changes will be very unbalancing.
–
If the Germans have naval interdiction (subs have economic attacks), then I think things could be interesting. The Japan player would have to get something special too.
1. Battleship and AC is horrible. The Brits will retreat NW of UK, then to Eastern US. You cannot reach; the US will just build a gigantic sub / fighter attack force and blow you up. (Eastern US is too far for German fighters, but you need to get close to the Allied fleet - and when you do, Allied fighters from London and the Allied fleet smash you to bitty bits). You cannot try to match the combined output of the US and the UK in the water; you have 40, and they have 72, plus you have to worry about USSR bashing down your door.
2. Eight tanks is reckless. Possible if you have a really aggressive Japan player, but tremendously risky.
3. Two bombers and two fighters cost 50 IPC. Bombing runs are inefficient and risky. If you try to just use bombers, the USSR will hold more ground in the west; Germany just can’t afford to hold the territories without a good supply of troops. This could potentially work well, but almost certainly not if you intend to use the bombers for bombing runs.
The function of the Japanese navy is to protect Japanese transports. You buy some transports, then switch to ground units, and ferry units from Japan to the Asian coast. The battleships support with battleship bombards, the carriers extend range of fighters, and defend against air attack; the sub and destroyer if surviving, act as battle fodder.
After you expand a bit, you build an IC on one of the territories worth 3. It is not a problem to defend; usually the Allies will be desperately fighting off Japan’s attack.
You should build NO new navy except transports. The transports are used to pull the infantry off the islands, and to move forces from Japan to the Asian coast. Usually, you use the transports to help attack Africa later in the game, after the US has established a beachhead.
The plan is, after Pearl Harbor, you fly fighters back to the Asian coast, and pull the Japanese navy back. The Jap navy can do nothing when parked off Los Angeles. Fighters based on carriers there cannot help in the attack on the Asian coast. So you pull back.
Generally, you should not move the Jap fleet out of the Pacific. If the Jap fleet moves out of the Pacific, the US only needs to have two transports and a carrier to set up a powerful chain of attacks on the Pacific islands. The Japs can move as far as the Indian Ocean, but must always keep an eye on the US.
http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki
I use it a LOT to play PBEM games. Sooo convenient.