Posts made by OutsideLime

I don’t mind losing, especially if it is to an innovative strategy or clever tactics.  Sure, it stings a bit, but losing just means that another game is about to start!

~Josh

Switch is correct about Cobert being correct.

~Josh

wow, then what is the real power of aircraft if a solders and tanks can take pop shots at them?

• Their range (4 for Fighters, 6 for Bombers) far exceeds that of any land or sea unit, which means that your enemy must be much more careful when postioning his defense forces.  This range allows you to use planes as support to your frontline attacks, so you can commit combined Infantry & aircraft forces without risking your more-expensive land-units.

• Their ability to fly over enemy-occupied areas greatly increases the flexibility of your attacking forces.

• They can fight in sea-zones as well as on land territories, which puts lone enemy ships at risk even when you don’t have a navy in the area.

•  They don’t occupy an area after they fight in it, but must fly to a safe landing-spot.  This means that they are usually not resting on the frontlines, vulnerable to enemy ground attacks.  Fewer of your planes killed = more of your IPCs to spend on adding forces instead of replacing them.

•  Fighter’s overall punch (offesne + defense) is 7, exceeded only by the Battleship.  They are tied for best defensive punch (4) on the board.  Bombers are tied for best offensive punch (4) on the board.

•  Air units have a number of dedicated Tech options that you can research to improve them.  Long-Range Aircraft gives you incredible reach.  Jet Fighters puts your Fighters up to an unmatched 5 defense.  Heavy Bombers deal out massive damage to enemy forces.

There are many more subtle aspects of the aircraft that make them incredibly valuable.  If you are worried about enemy land units picking off your air units, well, you should be.  Aircraft are expensive.  So, don’t put your planes in a position where an enemy can easily hit them.  Support your air units’ attacks with less-expensive land units (“fodder”) that you can use to absorb enemy hits.  Make smart decisions about when to retreat your attacking forces if a combat is going badly.  Make sure the risk/reward balance of your combats make sense.  Attacking, say, a lone Infantry with a lone Bomber is very risky, since you stand a 1-in-3 chance of losing the Bomber even if you hit the Infantry with your first shot.  Protect those planes, my friend!

~Josh

I think the “cargo” thing should not really be regarded as an “option” for the player.  It is actually more of an automatic reaction of the Fighters (they become cargo) if you move your Carrier without launching them first.  Cargo is a temporary “state” that the Fighters enter if you do so, and the state only exists as a preventative measure against players boosting the range of their Fighters.  There is no benefit in moving your Fighters as cargo, but if you are Noncaombat-Moving your Carrier and you want its load of Fighters to remain on it, then there is no harm in moving them as cargo.  It is the exact same thing as launching them and flying to the destination seazone, then landing on the Carrier again.

So, in effect, the cargo state exists (in regards to your own Fighters on your own Carriers) for the purposes of a) not being used or b) being used only when using it has absolutely zero effect, compared to not using it.

~Josh

That’s a good point too, which I should have made as well.  You might want to get a few games under your belts before you start in with the NAs… they create a lot of exceptions to the rules which can make things confusing.

~Josh

Destroyers do not take two hits to kill.  Battleships do.  In fact, from the context of your post, I see that you are actually referring to Battleships the entire time.

A Baltic battleship is a very expensive option for Germany in round 1 that will certainly create a different naval pressure-system in the Atlantic, but will also mean a pronounced lack of ground-units heading to the eastern front or ramping up defense on the west shore.  The basic problem with generating a navy for Germany is that the Allies build up a force to attack it, which means you will have to keep on adding ships or get destroyed quickly.  That means funds diverted from other fronts.

~Josh

I don’t think a bidding system is necessary if it’s everyone’s second game only.  Just play the sides you want to, for now.

The bidding system is in place to strengthen the Axis position, since it is perceived by experts to be the weaker side.  Each side bids the amount of extra IPCs they would be willing to accept in order to play Axis.  Multiple counter-bids are implemented until one side is not willing to go any lower. The team that eventually bids lowest gets the honour (and those IPCs, to convert into units and place on the board before the game starts, or to save as cash.)

In a game where everyone is new, that allies-advantage is not as relevant, so the bid is not really required IMO.  Also, the National Advantages do a tremendous job (especially if you play with all 6 for each nation, haven’t tried that yet) of unsettling the traditional balance of power, so the allies-advantage is not as readily assured.

~Josh

Russian’s hardiness in the face of the Russian Winter (and vodkas remarkable ability to stave off frostbite), as they are specifically more prepared than the Germans, or anyone else for that matter.

Yeah, you’re right.

~Josh

… of course, by the same logic you could say that defending Axis Inf in red territories get the same bonus, which certainly does not qualify as an advantage for Russia!   :-D

~Josh

Come to think of it, once Russian Winter is declared, shouldn’t all Allied Inf in red territories get the defense bonus?Â

It could make sense to say so.Â

You might argue that the NA only affects Russian units since it is a Russian NA, but doesn’t making all defenders in Russian territories stauncher qualify as an “advantage” for the nation of Russia?

After all, the NA is not supposed to represent a sudden improvement in the defensive capability of Infantry.  Rather, it is supposed to represent a decrease in the ability of the attackers to invade, due to environmental difficulty.

~Josh

Hi gang…. another National Advantage problem for ya.

(I know, I know… nobody plays with NAs.  … let’s pretend for a minute like they do, ok?  :-P)

The situation is that Joint Strike has been called.  This creates the totally unique situation that multinational forces (UK and US) can attack together.

Here’s the question:

Can one nation’s Artillery support the other nation’s Infantry?  For example, I attack German forces with a mixed-force consisting of only American Infantry and British Artillery… do the American Infantry get +1 attack from the artillery support?

~Josh

Quick question, probably obvious. The turn a country takes back their capital, they start collecting income again… right?

Yes.

Although since the taking-back of the capital happened after the Purchase New Units phase, the player must wait (and hold that capital!) until their next turn to purchase and mobilize new units.

Nothing hurts more than losing your capital and a stack of cash, taking back your capital, collecting income, and then getting recaptured again to lose the cash before you even have a chance to purchase new units.

~Josh

Friendly fighters belonging to other nations on your AC always “ride” the AC when you move it on your turn, and are treated as cargo, destroyed if the AC is sunk.

Your own fighters have the option of being treated like this as well.  As soon as the AC moves, any fighters on it become cargo and remain such for the remainder of your turn.  Technically your fighters are supposed to lift off the AC before it moves in order to have their own movement or combat-participation.  The format is in place to nullify improper fighter range-extension.  Making a habit of moving your fighters before touching your ACs makes the issue go away.

Mind you, every player I know is completely cool with the convention that if an AC is pushed into a combat, the same-nation fighters on it are “in the air and fighting”.  Nobody is picky about actually picking up the fighters individually and flying them to the SZ, then sailing the AC in.  Actually, quite the opposite.    :lol:

~Josh

An AC enters in combat with 2 ftr on board.
Another ftr comes from land and arrives here with its 4th movement, pretending to land on the carrier assuming that at least one fighter will be lost in the battle.
Is it a legal move?

No, it’s not legal.  You must be able to plan a landing-spot for every fighter during your Combat Movement phase, assuming that all fighters will survive their combats.

However, in the scenario you provide, you may have a way to get that 3rd fighter to the fray.

The fighters on board the AC actually did not arrive at the combat by “riding” the AC to it.  They took off from the AC at the start of Combat Movement and flew to the combat SZ using their own movement points.

Therefore, those fighters still have movement points left with which to fly to a safe landing spot after the combat. (At least 2, perhaps more).  If there is such a safe landing spot available for at least one of them, then you can legally bring that 3rd fighter to the fight, and land it on the AC.

~Josh

Sum total, yup.

1 in 12.

This math now occupies two threads.

~Josh

Ooh, NA Calculator….

(All my suggestions are LHTR)

Easy ones:

Russian Winter ® - Inf defend at 3
Fortress Europe (G) - Art Defend at 3
Radar (UK) - AA hits on 1 or 2
Most Powerful Battleships (J) - BB attack and defend at 5
Dug-in Defenders (J) - Inf defend at 3

Slightly more complicated are:

Atlantic Wall (G) - Inf defend at 3 for first round only,
Wolf Packs (G) - Attacking subs get +1 to their roll if there are at least 2 of them in the combat
Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber (G) - Fgrs attack at 5 for first round only
Banzai Attacks (J) - Inf Attack at 2, must be alone except for shore bombardment
Marines (US) - Inf attack at 2 in first round only
Superfortresses (US) - Bombers have only a 1/12 chance of being shot down by AA instead of the normal 1/6.

Difficult would be:

Joint Strike (UK) - UK and US units attack together, with each power’s units using only their own NAs
Kamikaze Attacks (J) - suicide fighters with specific targets.
Kaiten Torpedoes (J) - suicide subs with specific targets.

… and the rest of them are not really Combat NAs, so don’t merit inclusion here.  Multinational defending forces will screw up the numbers, since some units will get NAs while identical units from friendly nations will not.  Eg, American Inf defending a red territory with Russian Inf during Russian winter.

~Josh

In that case you never fully entered the territory since you did not conqure it.  You pulled up to the border and engaged the enemy forces from there.  Technically, you are still in the territory you attacked from.

OK, you could look at it like that.  But regardless of whether or not Germany’s tank “entered” Anglo-Egypt, it still ends up in Trans-Jordan, 3 spaces away from Algeria.

~Josh

@Jennifer:

We can see how artifically extended ranges have been prevented before.  You cannot move a carrier and then move the fighters 4 more spaces.  You cannot move a tank 2 spaces after deploying from a transport. (no blitz.)  Even in AAR they took out the withdraw option for defending submarines to remove the 3rd space artificial movement ability.

True, but even with those efforts, you can still artificially increase a unit’s range.  Retreating from combat in some situations can do it. 
Example: 
Germany rolls a tank 2 spaces from Algeria through German-controlled Libya to attack Anglo-Egypt, while at the same time attacking with a few Inf from Trans-Jordan.  After one round of combat, Germany retreats all surviving units including the tank into Trans-Jordan.  The tank has “artificially” moved 3 spaces.  Totally allowed by the rules.  Any land or sea unit can pull this sort of maneuver if the circumstances allow it.  The Panzerblitz 3-space range potential is therefore not a total anomaly in the game.

~Josh

I don’t accept that rules revision.

I said _near-_universal.

Clearly, you occupy the other side of the universe.  :-D

~Josh

Good for you.  I wonder why you found Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber to be useful; was the Allied player determined to go KJF, freeing Germany’s fighters up?  How is it that Fortress Europe was that good for you?  It is only a slight advantage against Allied strafes (for lightly held German territories), and the added cost makes it marginally useful against heavy Allied attacks.  The sub-based ones are not awful, if you take them both.  But really - the fact of the matter is, yes, each German NA is better than NOTHING, but I find the German NAs to be underpowered in comparison to the Allied NAs.

Well, generally I pick an NA (or NAs) and then try to alter my purchasing and combat decisions to best benefit from those NAs.  Pick Luftwaffe, buy fighters.  Pick Fortress Europe, buy artillery, and so on.  Then use them effectively.  Your tactics have to support your strategy.  Its a good idea to pick complementary NAs among your nations.  As Allies recently, I selected Trans-Siberian Railway, Colonial Garrison (India), and Chinese Divisions.  That let me add a significant amount of pressure to the war in southeast Asia, pulling Japan into serious mainland skirmishes and depleting their ability to counter naval action in the Pacific.

Luftwaffe is useful because the fighters attack on 5.  That speaks for itself, I think.  It’s a whole new ballgame when a half-dozen fighters practically guarantees 5 hits.  That means that your combats last fewer rounds, which means fewer hits against your fodder units, which means money freed up for spending on heavier units.

Fortress Europe allows you to build up a slightly cheaper defense in the west while freeing up your tanks to head east.  Stacks of German 88s here and there defending all on 3 makes Europe a much tougher nut to crack.

I think Germany has the best overall spread of NAs, actually.  That’s just me.

~Josh