Posts made by Sankt Hallvard

@rjclayton:

@Sankt:

Great thought, but you just gave me an argument of the exact opposite idea.  :lol:

Again use my sz34 example only this time assume Japan has bombed a lone inf in persia so that they can blitz their india armor through persia and to german controlled cauc to reinforce it. This time uk can land their fig in persia before Japan NCMs making it a blitz blocker that can’t be taken out. Using this reasoning it’s more reason to go with jsp’s idea that the fig must land AFTER the attacker’s NCMs are completed.

This is a fallacious arguement.  If Japan bombs the inf in India, the territory is cleared, but not taken.  Thus the arm cannot blitz through it in non-combat (because it is still UK owned).  If Japan takes India with ground troops, then the defending fighter from sz34 couldn’t land in India after combat was over anyway (because it is now hostile) so it wouldn’t be a valid landing option for them.

True. Obviously I was a little ahead of myself.

@rjclayton:

My feeling is the subs don’t resurface until the end of non combat to allow the attacking player to move freely to/from that sea zone during non-combat movement.  To leave this defending fighter hovering in the seazone makes it a hostile territory (same as if the sub wasn’t submerged), so I’d argue that you would need to move the defending fighter to a friendly landing spot BEFORE non combat moves begin.

Great thought, but you just gave me an argument of the exact opposite idea.  :lol:

Again use my sz34 example only this time assume Japan has bombed a lone inf in persia so that they can blitz their india armor through persia and to german controlled cauc to reinforce it. This time uk can land their fig in persia before Japan NCMs making it a blitz blocker that can’t be taken out. Using this reasoning it’s more reason to go with jsp’s idea that the fig must land AFTER the attacker’s NCMs are completed.

@jsp4563:

attackers turn.  I can’t think of any scenario where the attacker’s non-combat moves could alter a potential landing zone for the defending fighter.

Scroll up. sz34. Japan lands their bomber in fic(unprotected). With that in mind UK wants to land their fig in persia so they can hit it the following turn. Otherwise they would rather land it in egypt. I know I’m being difficult now, but that’s the point.  :wink:

The other way around Japan would land their bomber on e.indies if uk lands in persia, otherwise in fic. (assume it originated from fic)

@ncscswitch:

The defender gets to decide where to land…
after ALL combat is completed.

What you’re saying is still mostly indisputable.  :-P

The BIG question is who lands first? Attacker or defender? If we assume this is sz34 instead(red sea sz) this can potentially be quite important since UK has quite a few areas to choose from and Japan needs to land a bomber but doesn’t want to leave it next to the british fig in fear of retaliation.

Both views can be argued, and I suppose it can also be argued that they land simultanteously. That raises some practical difficulties, though, especially in regards to online play.

@newpaintbrush:

West Russia is an important territory, as from that territory, West Russia can easily attack many German-held territories.  A concentrated attack deep into Russian territory (say into Ukraine) can be cut off by an attack into the Balkans from West Russia, after which all Russian units from West Russia and Caucasus could attack into Ukraine without fear of retribution, because all German reinforcements would be cut off (Russia would control the entire surrounding area).

[…]

Russia first turn buys:  8 infantry.  Fighter, tank, 3 infantry.  3 tank 3 infantry.  2 infantry 2 artillery 2 tank.

Cut off Ukraine by attacking the balkans from w.russia? I guess you mean cutting off cauc by attacking ukraine from w.rus?

And you should consider the 5 inf, 1 art, 1 arm purchase too. I think I like that one.

Btw, this is how I “rank” russian territories in terms of strategic importance: Russia, w.rus, cauc, novo, yakut, kazakh, bury, karelia, evenki, arch, sfe.

@Wazzup:

Logically, I would say after all combat has been resolved.  Once combat has been resolved, only the Nation’s turn can do noncombat movement.

The movement of the defending fighter is a combat related movement, as it deperately seeks friendly airstrips.

On the other hand you can picture it like this:

Fighter takes off from carrier to protect the fleet, the attacker retreats with this fighter left as the only survivor. Not logical that it is searching an airstrip before the attackers have moved away. Only after the attacker has retreated fully and NCM’d his planes away would it be logical to land. At which point it realises the ac has been sunk and is “desperately seeking a landing spot”.

Fight off enemy, secure the area THEN worry about landing.

@newpaintbrush:

Well, I think that although we can both agree that the Allies won’t take Berlin by a gigantic load, and that Japan may well take Moscow by quite a bit, we DISAGREE on the AMOUNT by which the Allies will take, and by which the Axis will take.

Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34. The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

@newpaintbrush:

Picture the board in your mind for a moment.  Basically, you have Japan’s starting 30 IPC, plus USSR’s 24 IPC.  The Allies will have UK’s 30, US’s 42, and Germany’s 40.  That’s 54 vs 112.

Short version:  All IMHO:  The Allies can’t be beat down quickly.  They have shorter supply chains.  They can sit back and get more IPCs than the Axis.  The key IPC-producing Allied territories are not easily vulnerable to attack.  On the other hand, the Axis have no key territories that they can attack, they have very long supply chains, and they cannot outproduce the Allies on the European front without blowing a big fat wad on industrial complexes.

The assumption was that Moscow was taken with a relatively large stack of armor, while Berlin was only taken lightly. Allow for some variances here, but naturally if Japan takes with 4 arm and Berlin is taken with 20 arm we’re looking at an entirely different situation.

Japan is at 81 the way I see it, pacific islands, eastern coast of africa and trading karelia/belo/ukraine. The allies are at 92 trading the same 3 territories. That’s a conservative measure. Most likely Japan will be able to stack either karelia or ukraine, trading norway and possibly e.eur or balkans as well. I disagree with you with regards to the battle for Africa, as a minimum Japan will hold s.afr, kenya, iea, egypt. They’re directly adjacent to the strategically important sz34.

To repeat what I said about logistics: the axis have much easier access to africa, sure the allies can ship lots of units to africa where Japan in response takes more land in europe. At any point that stack of arm can turn around through caucasus and push into africa. Now, are the allies going to ship even more units? If they don’t start shipping preemptively they will fall behind in the arms race and the units there will be stuck and cornered. If they ship en masse they are still stuck in africa and the Jap tanks can turn around and gain more ground in europe. 2 rounds is all you need to shift 80 armor from ukraine to egypt. The allies will need a pretty hefty fleet to match that.

I also disprove of the allies controlling the med, any fleet there is doing no good. They are better off shipping units from uk/e.us to algeria than shipping from s.eur/w.eur to libya. Japan can sit tight in sz16 and get their support shots at balkans, adding subs/bbs as necessary. The allies are forced to stack w.eur and s.eur to deter landings. Many places to defend, few to attack.

@newpaintbrush:

UK/US/Germany beats USSR/Japan.  There’s just no place for Japan to attack, and the Allies can advance without too much trouble in the Pacific.

You’re dead wrong mister.  :-)

USSR/Japan beats UK/US/Germany in most cases. Here’s why:

1. Multinationality. UK/US will largely share the ipcs, that is a drawback when it comes to advancing. An attacking force of 30 inf, 30 arm is better than a 2-punch with 15 inf, 15 arm. It’s favorable in terms of trading territory, but the important factor is taking and holding territory.

2. Logistics. Japan has direct access by land to Africa, that means the allies will either have to surrender Africa or engage in a massive campaign in Africa at the expense of the eastern front. Doing so also means Japan at any point can shift their front from Europe to Africa taking out any troops left behind in Africa. An allied extraction will take time unless they have a million transports available.

3. Fleet. Japan is better suited for naval warfare. The ipc islands are closer to Japan than they are to the US and with a larger income controlling the pacific should not prove difficult. In any battle for the med Japan is also favored, they build directly at caucasus bordering ukraine/balkans. Quite handy for adding support shots when trading. They also threaten s.eur and w.eur and any allied african troops.

@frimmel:

Marriage is a wonderful institution.

I’m not ready to institutionalized.

Not that I’m an expert at women but I think with that avatar of yours you’re running a low risk profile in regards of getting “hooked up” here on the forum.

I worry about the female percentage in the poll, it keeps falling as more people are submitting their votes. If this continues we may end up with 0% women here.  :-o

Sankt = Saint in norwegian

Sankt Hallvard, guardian angel/city protector of Oslo(Capital of Norway…)

Introduced in an online game a while back as I ran out of “cool” american nicknames and figured “fuck it, people don’t need to know what my nick means if english is all they know.”

Also featured in songs for the city’s main football club(soccer, that is - VÃ¥lerenga: www.vif.no / www.vpn.no)

I’ve submitted my vote. It’s starting to sink in that this is probably a bad place for me to find a new girlfriend. Judging from the poll results not impossible, but tough. Real tough. :-P

@jsp4563:

KGF probably has the best overall chance of victory, but it is by no means certain.  KJF can be just as equally successful.

Ok, everyone. Here’s a task: find a contradiction in the above sentence.

(Sorry, jsp. But since you’re currently the big man I gotta pick on you. And “just as equally” just nails your message to this board.)
:-P

@squirecam:

Is this a Bury with Inf only, or with a fighter for protection?

Assume 6 Inf + Fighter is there. You attack it?

Yes, inf only. With a fighter I’d probably skip it, unless the Kwang trn is still around. But a fig there means there was 1 fig less participating in combat elsewhere. I suppose no Egypt counter giving Germany early access to Africa and a possibility to take India or cut off russian supplies or simply take caucasus.

Don’t forget the bid, say 2 inf ukraine. Any units in cauc or w.russia can be taken out on G1, especially if units are on their way east.

@axis_roll:

KJF can be a very effective alied strategy, but to do it properly, IMHO you need to position yourself correctly with Russia on turn 1, and often this can show your hand to the axis player (Read Germany reacts properly), rendering this as a less optimal allied strategy.

I agree with KJF being a conditional strategy that can work. But the thing is that if you go for it you need to commit whole-heartedly, anything less is just assigning resources to a sub-optimal area. If you allow Germany to grow and notice that your KJF is failing by good counters or poor dice it’s irreversible. Usually poor Japan dice is a gift for the allies to succeed with the KGF, why risk the advantage for a KJF?

I’ve found I quite often attack a juicy Bury(1-6 inf with small/no chance to counter) rather than take out the pearl fleet. I’m still waiting for someone to exploit that with a KJF. Nix had a go recently but he went for the naval superiority as well. On the other hand CC sent the ships to the atlantic and that became a bigger problem for me than having them sail around in the pacific.

@jsp4563:

So now you advocate a third IC, that’s a lot of ducats on industrial capacity, where are your fighting forces?  In order for Japan to concentrate on a push towards Moscow, their rear areas must be secure, if they have to battle in the pacific they can’t concentrate their forces in Asia.  Remember, Japan MUST expand in Asia to grow their Income, they can’t if they’re bogged down in the Pacific.  The bulk of Russian income is far from the Japanese front lines, if Japan can’t pressure Russia early on Germany is doomed.

If faced with a KJF I certainly wouldn’t buy 3 ICs, what gave you that idea? I advocate 1 IC regardless and more eventually as income allows(which probably means never in a KJF).

I disagree with Germany being doomed if Japan doesn’t make an early push. In a KJF Germany will almost certainly control all of Africa and likely block allied landings in Europe. Japan can settle for holding their original territories and trading the adjacent ones. Most likely India will fall and the russian frontline will be at yakut. Trading sinkiang/china. That’s down 12 and up 8-10. Not counting the possibility to trade islands.

@squirecam:

What makes you think USSR is left alone?

UK still helps through Norway. UK can have an India complex, and USSR/UK can gain mainland manchuria/FIC income.

DEI, Borneo and Phils = 11 IPC
Mainland = 9

Japan cannot just easily afford to lose those islands and maintain an attack on Russia.

Squirecam

You’re doing something wrong if Japan is down 9 on mainland and 11 on islands. With an indian complex UK will not be sending troops through norway, landing there but not sending anything past. If you add russian forces to the assault then certainly Japan will have a tough time but so will Russia when Germany comes knocking.

How many have you actually been successful with a KJF strategy? Try not to count times against poorly skilled opponents or the times you got hot dice.

Yeah, yeah, KJF is very scary…  :roll:

Ok, so the US doesn’t have to build a fleet strong enough to take out the jap fleet. Then why would Japan bother to bolster their fleet? US takes some islands, so what? What stops Japan from taking the islands back as the US hops around? Ok, so they pop an IC. What now, 4 units a turn? Scary.

Meanwhile Germany should have cut off any allied supplies to Russia using the atlantic. Japan will be able to prevent any reinforcements through the pacific. That means Russia is left alone trading territories with Germany and Japan both while Germany gathers strength for the final blow.

Any great strat always come with a drawback.

It really depends on who are winning those games. If the guys who “always play allies” also “always win” it might be time to give the axis a boost to even out the advantage. Typically players bid for the axis, and the one with the lower bid gets to play them. (General consensus is that the Axis are underpowered)

There are different ways to bid, and I’m not the one to lecture on the different types. But say you guys go for an auction type of bidding and you and your friend say something like “we want to play allies this time, if we are to play axis yet again we want 6 ipcs in units”. For instance you place 1 inf in ukraine and 1 inf in manchuria. Your opponents can then go on and underbid you with 5 ipcs etc.

You can only place a unit in a territory that power already owns, meaning you can’t put a german guy in manchuria - he’ll have to be japanese. There are other versions too “half placement” meaning you only get to place half the bid as units on the board the rest as cash in hand, or “one unit per territory”.

Get the idea?

Mateoo, you should be careful voicing this “luck determines games” stuff. Else the “no luck - all skill” guys are gonna ruff you up for blasphemy.