Posts made by ragnarok628

i think operation almanac is more of a strategy than an operation, and operation holyfield is just naval tactics, not an operation.

still, that’s pretty clever  :-D

i think that would just take away options for japan– no more ‘pearl harbor lite’.  new units in SZ52 will just immediately die to japan again anyway.

well i don’t think it’s inherently a horrible thing to not take west russia on R1, but if you attack both norway and ukraine, the units you can bring to bear are basically the same as if you were doing a triple.  and that gives you less than favorable odds.  i guess what i’m saying is, by not attacking w. russia, you aren’t really increasing your odds of winning in norway and ukraine so then the only reason to do it is to possibly play it safer at the probably cost of sacrificing more of your income to germany. unless i miss something.  i think it’s still a high-risk move due to it being quite possible to fail in one or the other, and if you’re going to go high risk, you might as well just do the triple.

I did forget about losing canada.  but then, they can consolidate in E Canada, add 2 TRN of units + 2 fighters turn 1.  this would be a decent defense against what US can throw at that territory R1.

i don’t think the US would be able to constantly unload on UK because of the initial naval advantage.  UK and GER can consolidate fleets right on the US eastern seaboard and with only modest reinforcements could prevent the US from taking control for several rounds at least.

i think mr.biggg is right about UK in that they’ll have to worry about keeping up their income, though.  i guess the only expansion is russia.  i don’t think they stand a chance at making any progress further east, they’ll definitely lose their islands and india quickly.  japan doesn’t have as many expansion territories as in a normal game because of russia being an ally, so mostly they’ll just take islands and take the route through india to africa.  Germany will probably need to protect that route, and UK can make up for it by helping against russia.

I’m interested to try this.  i don’t think i’d switch turn order, though, because i think any switches will just make things worse for UK or Russia.

i think the most balanced way to change up the teams would be GER + UK vs RUS + JAP + US.  the german/british side i think would be stronger than the normal Axis, but not so much.  UK vs. JAP in the pacific and south asia would play out pretty much the same, but the UK BB would give the ‘new axis’ a good position in the atlantic.  UK would be able to quickly help germany pressure russia, but they would hang on to most of their income and japan can be of considerable help in propping up moscow.  US would have to focus on taking the atlantic, they’d have to go either africa or europe.

ANYWAY, it would be the same starting economies, except UK is a stronger power, due to not having to fight for africa initially and stronger in the atlantic.

seems like UK’s India fleet  + Japan’s pacific fleet could be leveraged to put quite a bit of pressure on US pretty quickly.  UK would have to stick with defensive buys but they would have some stuff to do still, like taking brazil, supporting jap invasion of US, etc.

@Mr.Biggg:

We actually had a player mistakenly start recording cash on the button pieces on the board instead of production, then the idea stuck. It’s actually a very convenient way to record cash, and there is zero reason to record production.

so how do you keep track of production?  just count it out every turn?

i find point 5 interesting.  i tried once to build several ICs as japan and it really didn’t work, but i just couldn’t figure out why.  i think you explained it.

well it doesn’t discourage conquest per se, it just changes the benefit from extra money to the conquerer into less income for the conquered.  which, i imagine, would depress the whole game economy.  but, since most of the ‘swing’ territories are germany’s, i think this would hurt them most, with russia a close second.  neither of these powers need a nerf, IMO.  i think it would totally screw the axis overall.  also, with the depressed economy, each unit represents a bigger proportional investment, so the dice will dictate the outcome of the game to a greater degree.

i think the purchasing/placing adjustment is at least interesting to think about though, do you think that change would work but still keep income collection last?

so, in general, is US to completely disregard the threat of japan assault on its mainland?  because they will still have time to defend it once it becomes clear that they are going to try?

actually there’s a lot amiss with that.  even with german kamikazes, taking UK isn’t a sure thing, only ~70% odds.  and if they do take it, they’d only have at best 1 tank to defend.  america could then easily take that back with at least 2 tanks 1 inf.  by then germany will have lost all their planes on the kamikaze attack, so they can only come back with either 4 planes or a bunch of transports.  ON TOP OF WHICH UK can take out the german transport with the battleship.  if they spent money either way, then russia should be able to put a serious hurting on germany very soon, because it would mean no defense.  if russia is putting 24 IPC’s against germany and germany is putting 0 IPCs against russia, russia will win and soon.

basically, even with kamikaze’s germany would be crazy to try it on G1 because it will deplete all its resources and they’ll never hold it.

well sure but wouldn’t you say one side or the other tends to have an easier time leading in IPCs?

definitely yes.

my thinking was germany can’t take back everything, they have to focus on one or two territories.  then UK can make whatever doesn’t get taken back impregnable.  i’m really just gonna have to try this and watch it fall apart to understand why it’s not as effective i think.

@Zhukov44:

If Japan is focusing on Africa, then it might be ignoring the Pacific islands, or they might be getting less boots from Japan onto the mainland.

well now that’s interesting.  i’ve literally never bothered with the pacific islands as japan, is this a bad thing?  especially hawaii.  always seemed like it wasn’t worth tying up the transports and troops for the 4 rounds or whatever it would take to get them all.  not that i wouldn’t mind the extra income, but i felt it was more urgent to pressure russia.

i’ll agree that UK fighters would be weaker than unopposed UK transports to the mainland, but the planes would enable russia to take and hold more territory, improving russia’s position and denying germany income, which could significantly marginalize the difference between what the transport can bring and what the planes add up to.

i’m envisioning the planes as a support role rather than attacking anything of germany’s.  with stacks of russian infantry backing them up i think they will make it very very hard for germany to gain ground against russia.

also if germany did build the navy, then he can destroy britain’s defensive fleet with halfway decent odds.  in that situation, seems like going air makes a lot of sense for UK.

all of this is theory on a beginner’s part, poised against much more experience so i do honestly believe you are most likely correct, but this is a thing i will have to learn through experience  :-)

i guess i was just thinking if you went fighters, they would be there and contributing 1 to 2 rounds sooner and you’re spared the cost of transports and a protective fleet.  plus they can adjust their role easily, if the german front is going OK they can help against japan or even africa.  but like i said, i don’t know if that would be a fun game for UK, not doing much but moving planes around and defending.

some of the discussion seems to be suggesting that Allied control of the northern atlantic is optional for britain’s strategy.  doesn’t UK pretty much HAVE to have a fleet?  regardless of how much G can threaten with fighters, bombers, AC, etc., UK will eventually need to be able to transport units to the mainland, which means being able to defend transports, which can only be done with a navy.  otherwise landing fighters in russia will be britain’s sole contribution to taking on germany.  which now that i think about it might not be a terrible strategy.  (probably makes for a boring game for the UK player.)

@Bunnies:

@ragnarok628:

you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet.  does that sound right?

What is “more”?  Like, what’s your typical UK1 build/move?

AC + 2 DD.  but then i’m usually done buying fleet for the rest of the game, other than TRN

ok so i’m hearing that you might as well do whatever damage you can with your india fleet, because it’ll either die regardless, or arrive to another theater too late to be of great effect.  sounds reasonable.  in one game i put the india fleet in the med because G didn’t take egypt, and from there i could threaten a (albeit small) landing in southern europe, balkans, or ukraine.  this forced him to keep 3-4 units at least in each of those territories and i found it to be a nice little advantage.  i’m guessing the protip there is that you can be MORE effective/annoying elsewhere with those ships though, huh?

thanks to bunnies for always answering my questions and hobbes for always providing strategical perspective  :-)