Posts made by Nukchebi0

I love Battle of Britain, and yes, El Alamein is the best for ground attack, and the B-17 is a nice target.

How do you get the Coral Sea? I have patch 1.6, but only the Battle of Britain.

Anyways, I still play too, and am decently good at flying.

I don’t have any friend who own it, so we can’t fo that.

Do you have two friends that could play, with one, or you on my team?

Maybe, you could watch me play a game vs. the computer to see how good I actually am.

I didn’t see the board.

I was just thinking that 85% of submarine kills are by airplanes, so the sub really shouldn’t live.

Submarines shouldn’t survive a round of combat to retreat.

I do when I feel like an RTS, but I would love to play you. A warning, though. I haven’t played online before, so it may do me some good to be teamed.

P.S. I economy blitz to the Inormation Age super tech against the computer, because then you don’t have to think.

I made an European scenario that isn’t very balanced, but fun, against the computers modeling the early 20th century diplomatic situations (and, obviously, the wars.) I made everyone have essentially unlimited resources, because I figure that most problems with production in that game are speed bottlenecks, and bombing factories would do that.

It may be more balanced if I made the computers harder, but I hate invading Russia when they actually fight back…

P.S. You play as Germany, because Tiger tanks are very powerful, and they are a great civilization to play as anyway.

@CrazyStraw:

Hey Nukchebi0.

Couple thoughts:

1. Infantry are pretty good on offense.  How many infantry can 60 IPCs of tanks kill?  How many infantry can 60 IPCs of infantry kill?

2. If you build a lot of destroyers, you are telegraphing your move and you will be Rock-Paper-Scissored into submission.  Fighters beat destroyers easily.  Subs are great as fodder, so having plenty of them along with a carrier group or two is the way to go.  I think you have discounted them too much in your analysis.  In no instance would I have a destroyer-heavy navy for controling the water.

Peace

1. Yes, in numbers, but they can’t move two and can’t blitz. Tanks provide more reliable defense. Maybe I should start buying infantry, though.

2. I have everything in my navy, so there is no Rock-Paper-Scissors opportunity.

3. Jennifer is right, though. Never send in expensive units without meat shields. The BB’s take care of that for the navy, and other infantry would come in with the tanks.

@OLver:

@Nukchebi0:

3AC    48
4FGT  40
2DD    24
2BB      48

150 on the nose.

Subs suck because they don’t hit well, don’t defend well, and can’t hope to live an air assault.

Destroyers are much nicer, and having three loaded carriers will pawn anything which tries to attack.

The two battleships with soak up hits, amphibious invasion support, and destroy anything.

Fighters also have more versatile uses than subs.

What if ennemy has a large fleet of subs. Your toast. You don’t have enough fodder and those AC will probably die…

Just attack them with airplanes, to weaken them.

Math time:

Inf vs tanks: 10 inf for 6 tanks. 101/3=3.33 theorectical hits on defense. 61/2=3 hits on defense.

101/6=1.66 theorectical hits on offense. 61/2=3 hits on offense.

So yes, infantry suck for attacking. They are very good for defending though.

Now, subs vs destroyers:

3 subs for 2 destroyers.    31/3=1 theorectical hit on defense. The same for offense. 21/2=1 theorectical hits on defense, also the same for offense.

Now, for airplanes. 30/6=0 theorectical hits vs airplanes. Meanwhile 21/2=1 theorectical hits vs airplanes.

Considering 25% of the forces in a naval battle tend to be airplanes, we will take 75% of the anti-ship attacks and 25% of the anit-aircraft attacks and average them by dividing them by two.

1*.75=.75

.75+(0*.25)=.75

.75/2=.375

1*.75=.75

.75+(1*.25)=1

1/2=.5

Since .5 is 4/3 of .375, .375 is 3/4’s of .5.

Therefore, subs have only 75% of the effectiveness that destroyers do, making the destroyers a better buy.

3AC    48
4FGT  40
2DD    24
2BB      48

150 on the nose.

Subs suck because they don’t hit well, don’t defend well, and can’t hope to live an air assault.

Destroyers are much nicer, and having three loaded carriers will pawn anything which tries to attack.

The two battleships with soak up hits, amphibious invasion support, and destroy anything.

Fighters also have more versatile uses than subs.

I think that the second a navy unit is placed in a sea zone from construction while enemies are in the sea zone, the battle should occur.

I know that this is ancient, but I didn’t feel like making a new thread.

I thought bidding died with the new veresion.

I was buying tanks only to match my friend’s purchases. The British were going KJF, and so was America, except for Operation Torch.

I continued buying tanks later because the board was wide open and I wanted the blitzing capability (I forgot to mention that I blitzed behind his lines before the attack on Berlin to stave off monetary disaster). I figured an eye for an eye, especially because I needed troops on the front lines quickly. I usually, though, buy whatever my opponent buys (our games tend to be tanks, battleships and airplanes. Very rarely is infantry or carriers bought).

Yeah. The Soviets are worthless with them.

Good. I used to it to recover 100 IPCs that Germany had from the conquest of Moscow. I made sure that my fleet would win by sending those bombers in. I won easily anyways, and captured Berlin.

Thank you for the answer.

The British fleet attacks the German fleet, and then amphibiously assaults Germany.

The British bombers split up. Two of them assist the British fleet, and two of them attack the German land forces, flying over the sea zone where the battle happens, but not taking place in that. Is it legal to do that in one turn?

@Jennifer:

I have no problem adding in Cover Air Patrol to shoot down bombers, but it adds more rules to the game, not less.  I was aiming at less.

But we could say max damage of 50% of max production by a capital or 100% of max production of another territory not to exceed 25% of a nations total income per game round.  If that’s better then doing away with it entirely.

But it is strategy game. It needs to have many vague, complex rules. Just kidding, though I think it would enhance the game enough. I like the 25% idea, also.

@Jennifer:

And, I think, Switch just illistrated the fundamental flaw in the game.  How many times a year do YOU pay your income taxes?  Why should a nation get 100% of a year’s income off a territory by holding it for a month or two before it’s liberated by the other side?

I really think Mr. Harris needs to address this in Axis and Allies Revised 2nd Edition.  Once per cycle you should collect your income and it should come before any other actions.  Meanwhile, SBR’s would just push you negative until you collect income.  Though, I’m also for reducing the cost on bombers to 10 IPC and doing away with SBRs and dropping their defense to 0 or something.

Considering the income isn’t money, your point makes no sense.

Edit: Just play that the total number of destroyed IPC can’t exceed the amount of territory for all bombers, not just one. Also allow fighters to intecept the bombers. It is way more realistic, both historically and economically.

The Axis lost industry from the B-17’s, and a significant amount. But they were still able to produce 40,000 airplanes in 1944. Meanwhile, the U.S. lost 33% of all built B-17’s.

Most Axis and Allies playesr play with strategies that never would have been feasible during the real war.