Posts made by oysteilo

@ItIsILeClerc:

I hope you can find a way for Russia ;-). I think Germany cannot enter Bryansk without also moving all their bombers (or most of them) there too. At least for a while, but the longer this lasts, the longer the allies have.

Japan is having a hard time to prevent isolation. Much depends indeed on how fast the USA can bring any changes about. Preferrably before Moscow falls. But definately before Germany can start thinking about Cairo.

couple of comments: I guess the bombers sort of protect Gibraltar for the time beeing, but maybe it is worthwile sending out a sucide mission for US or UK to remove the italian NO? Italy now keeps their NO with no effort? I am also wondering why Germany gives Russia the NO. Why take out the destroyer? Wouldnt it be better to put the sub in sz 125?

I have no experience with this, but would like to try out. Play aaa fairly regularly. Mostly interested in global. Anyone interested in trying to start a forum game?

it is going to be really interesting to follow this game. I think UK was somewhat unlucky not to take out the german battleship and maybe italy was somewhat lucky to just loose a sub? I guess things tends to even out……Also I am curious as to what USA is doing, putting their stuff everywhere. It will be interesting to see. For France…why not take a 50% chance to kill the Italiens in Southern France?

Ok. Kind of besides the topic……  The hard AI is
1. waaaaay better than medium AI
2. Builds too much navy as germany
3. Does not build Chinese units, just collects money
4. Leaves transports and bombers unprotected
5. Often no war between soviet and Germany, leaving east germany / west soviet unprotected
6. Often no war between uk and Japan/ Japanese does not take DEI
7. AI attacks true neutrals waaaaay too often.

Good things. Does alot of unpredictable stuff. Not all of it is bad. Makes you reconsider the established truths

@pokemaniac:

The big issue is ANZAC effectively producing at Persia. In any game ANZAC is extremely vital in wearing down Japan. The US can can-open destroyers screens and allow ANZAC to get through to take islands or attack small Japanese navies, and ANZAC ships and air are also crucial to the defense of the US fleet. Even if the US goes 100% Pacific, if it gets virtually 0 support from ANZAC (which will be the case if ANZAC is building in Persia) it will be hard pressed to advance on Japan.

Even ignoring the value of ANZAC’s units against Japan, the biggest problem is that ANZAC just can’t build well at Persia. If ANZAC is going for a Persia factory, they are going to be making 12 IPCs a turn after Japan declares war since they won’t be trading islands. That is 3 ANZAC mech in Persia. ANZAC units can only help to defend UK stacks, as opposed to UK units which can be used offensively as well. ANZAC also can’t afford to build 3 fighters in Persia ever, unlike the UK. Those fighter builds are often crucial to holding Moscow, while also giving the UK a lot of flexibility in the Mid East.

The UK can just build a factory in Egypt, but planes there take 2 turns to get to Moscow which can really be a problem.

In short I just don’t see any benefit in taking away a prime factory location from the UK and giving it to ANZAC who can barely make 3 cheap units a turn there. This also of course essentially removes ANZAC from the Pacific theatre, where it is sorely needed.

Brazil is the same concept. ANZAC Brazilians can’t really be used offensively anywhere, unlike a US or UK controlled Brazil. Plus it is sending ANZAC transports a long way from the front that they are most effective on.

ANZAC planes in Europe could be helpful, but by the time they could get to Europe it is unlikely that they’d have much to can-open and they would be spending a useless 3 turns or so in transit as opposed to 3 turns being used against Japan in some fashion.

Nice ideas, but I find ANZAC to just be best used to pester Japan and defend Australia if needed.

I completely agree with this, although I have never tried ANZAC in Persia. To me it seems like a hassle.
1. you need to protect UK transport from beeing blown up by italy 1. Does this imply no taranto?
2. ANZAC can activate Persia end of R2, This means factory R3 and units deployed end of round 4.
3. I like to have a UK factory there and shuffle UK fighters to Moscow easily if need be. Basically ANZAC units are not doing anything useful before R5ANZAC. Does not seem worthwhile to me. It is a nice noval, idea though

This is a very good topic! I “always” buy two carriers and a destroyer for east coast US 1. I “almost always” buy 4 bombers round 2 for the US. I figure the carriers you are always gonna need and nice to have for a sudden sea lion. The bombers round two are flexible. I think this is typically true if no J1DOW. I find 5 bombers early on nice to have to hassle Italy. The bombers can also fairly easily join the pacific later on

Another rule question. Lets say 1 bomber attacks 1 destroyer and 3 submarines. The bomber score 1 hit and the destroyer miss. Can the defender choose not to submerge the subs and hence choose a sub as a causalty?

First of all, I dont claim to have any solutions here. I am just making some comments! It is pretty obvious that this is HIGH level gaming and wayyyyyy more advanced than I can come up with, at least while playing. But it is also highly educational to look at the file. The position of Japanese forces end of J3 is just beautiful. But the overall strategy is to contain Germany/Italy first, right? The first question I have is about Gibraltar. On UK pacific one you say Gibraltar and Egypt can not be lost. No one wants to loose egypt, I get that one. Maybe you can explain why it is so bad to loose Gibraltar for a couple of rounds? After all you are going Germany first with USA? Isnt this easily taken back by US? You even say UK pacific should help in protecting egypt, but at the end of the day you have nothing when Japan knocks on the India door? I think UK pacific and ANZAC should stall Japan as much as possible for this to work. UK pacific is not doing that. Have you considered UK2DOW on Japan? I assume the reason is, this does not fit in in the overall strategy. But again, I think the Gibraltar defense is very interesting as A LOT of resources are put in there, again why not have three planes and 15 dudes defend london? That would free up a lot of reasources for middle east? I am sure you have your reasons but again I dont understand why it is so critical to keep Gibraltar in round 2 and 3. This is probably pretty basic, but hey! But then, what becomes really interesting is the following. I have looked into a little bit on how USA spend its money. Very few units are deployed in central US, so basically it is east coast vs west coast spending. East coast IPC spending for USA is as following:
Round 1 48
Round 2 34
Round 3 34 + 14 IPC of units moved from west coast
Round 4 26
Round 5 22
Round 6 15
Round 7 6
Round 8 6
Round 9 8

In the 9 rounds we have data on US makes about 600 IPC and about 200 of them is placed in the east coast or Atlantic and 400 is placed in the pacific. Yes I see you make comments why spending is the way it is and that is fair enough, but I really dont see how this IPC spending is fitting the strategy plan? Did you consider moving pacific units to east coast early on (round 1-3) to get more power there? I dont think Germany first will succeed with this IPC spending for US combined with the UK pacific spending for saving egypt/gibraltar? To mee it seems like the allies are trying to do everthing, maybe they are better of sacrificing something and more Germany IPC spending in the Atlantic? Again, I dont claim to have any solutions because the dilemma is definately there! I am not sure if some planes placed in the pacific are moved to atlantic. Hard to keep track of everything.These are just some of my thoughts while looking at the very interesting file and by the way I am fairly new to this game so i am sure some of my comments you have very good answers to. In any case I do think it is worthwhile looking into the US IPC spending. It is becoming less and less on the european side where you are supposed to win the game. At the end of the day the IPC spending is more Japan first the Germany first?

Why should Russia stack/not stack Amur?
It is awfully quiet in here these days……so I figured I will contribute……or make people contribute  :-)
To me it is not obvious that Russia should not stack Amur on R1. I assume a R1 DOW on Japan. Yes those 18 dudes and 2 AA will die. I also assume Japan will have to do the usual attacks on Yunnan and Hunan with the maximum number of planes reaching there. This limits the number of planes going to Amur and the expected result is about 1 aircraft and 10 Japanese ground units lost and 6 Russian dudes popping up in Mongolia. I realize that most people think this is not a good idea as those Russian dudes are supposed to end up in Moscow. In most of my games, Moscow is toast on G6 and definitely on G7. What good do these guys do in the middle of nowhere when Moscow has fallen?
I think Japan has two options to take out Amur:

1. Just sending in all ground units from Korea and Manchuria and all available planes
2. In addition to 1, two loaded transports, 2 battleships and a cruiser to zc 9 to help the attack. In this case the loss might be limited to 7 or 8 Japanese ground units. Is a J2 DOW on the allies realistic with this? I think not. So it will be J3 or J4

If japan choses 1 to save transports for south Asia then there are 0,1 or 2 Japanese ground units in Amur and with the Mongolian troops, effective Japanese blitzing is not that easy. If Japan choses option 2 then there are limited reinforcements for the Yunnan campaign in J2, possibly allowing Yunnan to be stacked by the allies turn 2/turn 3. With a bunch of British and Chinese dudes in addition to 3 Anzac planes, maybe 2 UK planes and the armor/mech inf from Russia, it is impossible for Japan to clear this out.
Bottom line, why is any of this bad for the allies? Or what am I missing here (trying to improve my game!)

thanks! My bad for not reading the rules clearly

Where does this NO come from?

If you read the OOB rules it is the same for Europe 2nd edition and global 2nd edition, Russian NO are the + 5 for leningrad and the sz, the +2 for the axis territories and the +10 for Berlin (the most useless NO in the history of man kind)

Then yesterday I play triple A 1940 europe (1st time, although play global on a regular basis) and suddenly there is a +9 for novosibirsk when Russia is at war, but this is not in the global set-up

why?

Sounds good Mein Herr. But you need to say a few things about italy. They have role here too. They can potensielly do a lot to get the axis to cairo before round 10. But clearly you will neuter Japan with this

@AxisMan:

I didn’t think you could scramble more than 3 planes?

To sea zone 109 you can scramble 4 planes, 1 from scotland and 3 from united kingdom, but you are right, max 3 planes from 1 air base

@theROCmonster:

8 inf in Yunnan would be game over for axis… Would be really fun to play as allies in that game :).

I played it out with a bid of 8 inf for France as well. All Germany does is not attack 111, and hit France with 3 figs, 3 tacs, a bomber, and all her ground that can reach. You win with an average of 14.75 units left, so that bid doesn’t really do you much.

Another bid you could do with 25, that is legal, is fig for Scotland, sub in 110, sub in 98, and inf in Alexandria.

Well, kind of similar, but you can bid 12 for China and put a inf in each of Yunnan, Hunan, Kweichow and Szechwan then on China 1 you stack Yunnan. meanwhile on R1 you declared war on japan bought a fighter and moved novgorod plane to Russia and moved mech and armor to sikang. Then on Russia 2 you move four russian planes a mech and armor to Yunnan and stack with the expected 10 chinese dudes.

Japan will kill this on J2, but they WILL loose all their ground fource in the south east with a few planes. You can combine this with UK forces to china on UK2, thoughts?

@Black_Elk:

Well isn’t German bombers in Philippines what we’ve been talking about? Or even G bombers off a newly purchased coastal AirBase in Asia, like FIC or Kwangsi, where the bombers can still launch most places and still land on islands (eg Carolines.) Of course Japanese bombers can do the same, for the knock out blow. But it seems like the 3 German bombers to the Far East play is pretty potent, and the one up for consideration.

I can’t envision a perfect strategy in a dice game, but I suppose if one did exist, it would probably exploit the movement advantage of air, and the turn order advantage of having Japan follow Germany with only Russia in between. So I guess this seems like a reasonable candidate. I don’t know about perfection though hehe. Perfection is a pretty high standard  
:-D

please explain. You should consider 3 german bombers to help japan:
1. About what round are they going to arrive at philippines?
2. How are you going to fly them there to make sure they are not hit on the way over
3. Exactely what are they going to do over there?
Thanks!

@WILD:

IDK, I kinda like to preserve the few ships the UK has in the Pac (if still afloat after J1) instead of making them easy targets for Japan to hit (unless I can somehow counter attack and bring some pain which is kinda unlikely in the early going). Many games see the UK Med/Italian fleets go bottoms-up. That Brit BB comes in handy in later rounds back boning the allies fleet in the Med (or Pac). A carrier built off S Africa merged w/India fleet and presto Euro axis have something to worry about, and it takes some pressure of the USA.

I have heard of some wild allied strats to make the DEI (Java) a fortress early though, using all available units, building AB etc. Anyone have success with that? Might depend on when Japan attacks, or if they are slow-boating it giving the UK/Anz the time to set it up?

This is what I like about this game, I have never considered building a carrier off south africa after the med brit/italien clash. paired with the pacific boats and a transport or two,might be interesting

So assuming the UK battleship in sz 37 (Malaya) is not attacked J1, then the UK has a battleship, a cruiser and 2 destroyers in the Indian Ocean/of Africa (not bad). When I play the UK I always find it really hard to do something productive with this. I see Young Grasshopper has posted a transport shuck which I guess these ships can participate in. I dont see any point in sending these boats towards Japan or the med if you did taranto, will be put out by Germany. If you didnt do Taranto and try to merge with the med fleet then the med is usually blocked, at least in the early rounds if you want to re-enter. I guess you could send this fleet towards anzac and merge with anzac and eventually US. But not sure what comes out of that. Basically what are people doing with these boats?

@Shin:

I had a strategy of building a naval base on Midway and basing my fleet there for a while.  It has some advantages on paper - very difficult to block, Bombers launched from there can attack Tokyo factories or support a landing in Japan, plus all your planes on the carriers and such can support landings as well.

In practice, it’s never worked very well.  Japan tends to ignore the fleet and focus southward, or Germany takes advantage of the USA’s pacific focus to wreak havoc on Russia.

I have tried a similar tactic where I base my navy in sz 8 with airbase and navy base at aleution island. I have similar experinces, but the problem might be you start beeing agreesive too early with the USA

Interesting discussion people and the idea of rewarding Russia NO especially when at war looks good. First of all English is not my native language but let’s look at the German NO (when at war with The Soviet Union):

• 5 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Novgorod (Leningrad), Volgograd (Stalingrad), and/or Russia (Moscow).
Theme: High strategic and propaganda value.
• 5 IPCs if an Axis power controls Caucasus. Theme: Control of vital Soviet oil production.
This means Germany will receive 20 IPC if all 4 territories are controlled.

Now, let’s look at the wording for the Soviet Union:

5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet
Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.

IMHO I think this cannot mean anything else then all criteria must be fulfilled. However, if there is a need for a change that is a different story. The Soviet Union may achieve this NO, but usually not more than a round. If you change the rule and allow up to 20 IPC for The Soviet Union (the 15 above and 5 for “at war”) it forces Germany SZ 125 and Archangel. The Soviet Union will still typically have 10 IPC extra each round. It will be a big change to the game as I think it makes it much more interesting to free SZ 125 AND attempting to keep/fight Archangel. I anticipate a lot of the fighting will go on in North West Russia and keeping Moscow more or less safe at least for longer than round 6, maybe for the whole game? If you add this up for at least 6 rounds of war, that is a minimum of 60 IPCs extra, or 20 infs, or a good number of offensive units……. Too much, or is the axis advantage that big? Also dont forget that Germany will receive less NO IPC. So the difference is rather huge

@ShadowHAwk:

Try adding some chinese inf. If you can add only 1 unit add it to the burma road. It will take away at least 2 more ��� units.
Try adding extra units in UK in defence of the standard attacks that germany does, a fighter in schotland would be painfull, a destroyer near the cruiser off gibraltar.

How about a inf for china, 1 fighter in schotland and a sub in the med for a 19 bid.
The attacks germany can do against your fleet off schotland becomes pretty interesting that figher will take 1 or 2 airunits with him at least.

If you place a fighter in scotland I assume you are more or less “forced” to scramble all 5 planes (Scotland and United Kingdom) if Germany attacks both fleets?