Posts made by Nightmare

Yes a plane can attack a sub, but the sub can´t attack the plane and if the sub survives it can submerge after the 1st round.

Real life situation modified so that it suits to your game:

Commander: “Ok guys we´ve already been attacking Berlin  5 times to bomb their industry with our 4 Bombers, which was very useful.
But from now on we´ll not attack them at all, because we know that they´ll kill everyone of us.
As I´ve seen the Germans have 4 fleets of 3 Trannys in the waters, let´s attack them. Every Bomber takes one fleet so that we know, whatever happenes that we will sink 12 of their transports without loosing something in that battles, but you can´t fly over enemy AAs, as we all know that the chances are 100% high that you´ll be shot down.”

I don´t think that many guys here playing with luck would consider this strategy, but in your version it is very advantegous.

No the Tranny doesn´t participate in the land-battle and can´t be taken as casualty.

It does participate in the naval battle before the amphibious assault (if there is one) and could be taken as casualty there, but all units it has loaded would be destroyed.

@ShadowHAwk:

It is stated that techs win the game but without LL you win the game by luck most of the time. UK keeping egypt first turn, Pearl fleet surviving that kind of lucky rolls just make the game.

I can´t agree with you at all.
As Germany or Japan it hasn´t happened to me yet that I´ve lost one of the battles you´ve taken as an example.
I win (or loose ) the big majority of my games because of my gaming qualities and not because of luck.
What makes out a good commander is the ability to react on situations which were totally unforeseen and when the chances are against you and still win a battle.

But this thread deals with the Csub policy paper 16 and not with Luck or no Luck.
If you want to discuss that you should look after one of the countless threads to that topic.

Yeah d20 would be fine, but I don´t like low luck because it´s too predictable and also much less realistic than normal luck.
A general could,t just say “OK I´ve got 10% more troops than the enemy, so its 100% sure that I´ll win.”.
Armies were influenced by experience, moral, supply, leadership,…. there are enough examples in history where a weaker army won a big battle agianst a stronger enemy.

@ncscswitch:

To be honest, I prefer surrender, whether I am the one surrendering, or the one winning.

Yeah I prefer that too, but I have a couple of games where the game really ended at fulfilled VC conditions.

There are just 2 possible reasons for this, you are either an excellent or a very bad player.  :wink:

The average number of my last 5 Triplea games is 11,2 , so more or less the same switch said

@Jennifer:

Also, defending infantry can dig in to avoid bombs from bombers. And Artillery can shower a more precise area.  Maybe bombers should be Att: 2, Def: 1, Cost 8 and Artillery should be Att: 4, Def: 2, Cost 12 (and have no bearing on infantry’s attack ability)

Yes but than a bomber would do less damage than a tank or a fighter and only less more than Infantry.
That doesn´t sound so realistic to me too.

It seems that you aren´t doing so well back in Europe.
In a KJF game Germany normally can take Egypt on G1 and then whole Africa and Tr.J. and Persia in the next 2 rounds without the use of big armies.
Meanwhile you can also threaten Caucasus and later on Moscow and don´t forget about London, because Uk sometimes forgets itself,
In many games you can also easily outbuild the UK navy if Uk isn´t putting much into Eu. waters and threaten London, Brazil or force the US to protect Eastern US with more soldiers, pulling pressure of Japan.

You could explain it by that way:
Subs fire in the opening fire the first round and because of this they can reload faster than the other ships and fire in the opening round ones more, alternatively subs are able to change their position and depth fastly and thus can surprise the enemy every round  :-D
If you could retreat as defender it would be more realistic, but people would also be defending much more and the balance would be hurt hard.
For example you plane to take out the German aircraft and attack EEu and Ukr. and WEu on R1, the enemy just pulls back and saves most of his units whereas Russia can fight against a more powerful Germany.

About the shore bombardement:  I wouldn´t criticise the shore bombardement, but the power of the amphibious assault units, which is simply to high.
If you would land with 5 Inf 5Art 5Arm in a region where theres an army of the same sice you would have no chance, because they would already blow away half of your army in the water or on the beach where there´s no defence for you. I would make a rule where the attacker has only attack strength 1 in 1st round of battle or smth. like that. Sure you would have to make the Allies stronger than.  8-)

There are several problems:
Without a little bit offensive strength you can´t even take back Caucasus and Germany has an IC right under Stalin´s nose.
The Uk needs some time to establish a functioning transport rute to Moscow whitch can´t be destroyed by Germany.
I´ve already seen many games where the Allies split their forces too much between Jap+Ger and don´t really make neither KGF nor KJF sufficently and loose pretty fast.
The Ruskys are destroying a mayor part of their (and also a big part of the German army) but the Germans can rebuild this army much faster.
Your tactic relys on too much luck in the whole, one big lost battle in the beginning is enough to blow it to pieces, it´s true that in each battle you have a chance above 50% to win, but I´ve lost even battles where my chances were much higher.

But after all I wouldn´t say that it´s nonsense and I think that it works against some enemies(, if it works at all).

That´s the problem about Russia.
It is able to do really much damage to Germany in R1-2, but if it really does it´s itself doomed in most games.

I´m also often building a 3rd fighter 1st turn, because you can threaten territories more easily then, combined with high defensive power.

Exactly the only option in your situation would be to let the territory be taken by Germany and then land there with US boys again.

You only can´t move Airplanes in there unless it´s a seazone with an empty AC that wasn´t participating in battle.

I wouldn´t build a complex in Africa, but liberate it with land forces, which is more effective.
It´s true that Japan will be threatening Moscow on rd 3-4 but so will UK,US threaten Berlin.
The Ruskys can hold of some more rounds (Japan can´t take Russia´s capital so early because they need many troops in Central Asia and need some rounds to get them there whereas Russia produces directly in Moscow and has many Units there.)
You just have to hold on until Ger has fallen or in a worse case trade Moscow against Berlin.
It doesn´t work every time but you win quite often.