Posts made by special forces

Although i’m inclined to prefer income at end of turn, I think all the presented options are workable. So i have no objections really.

@Vance:

Please God make it stop.

2

@JimmyHat:

haha!

erp, SAtlantic!

hmmmm, Perhaps Switzerland should join Iberian block?

Certainly they should! Maybe even join every block. As the knights of neutrality! (yea, that made no sense :) )

There is also an option to have US pay ipcs to violate neutrality, although I would rather not use that rule. US designs on Iberia is one of the things I am worried about, as well as all usage of Turkey.  I still think that by beefing up the defense we can make it hard for US.  Spain also had relatively modern weapons so increasing their force pool is historically accurate as well.

I’m not sure about how to fix it, but i do think 6 INF for Spain is not nearly enough, considering its crucial strategic position in the game.

@mantlefan:

I voted for A3 without the one in France.

Removing that AA gun only encourages Germany to send planes to France. If Germany is encouraged to send planes, to France, they will be discouraged from overextending their AF against the Brit navy. The less they overextend, the less risky and volatile the first turn is. Having more planes in france also makes that battle less volatile for Germany.

Overall, Germany is encouraged to have a safer 1st turn without the Paris AA gun. A safer first turn means less games are ruined off the bat.

So this could be positive for both sides, not bad.

Would you place an AA in normandy instead?

@JimmyHat:

good analysis.  I see you’re points about Liberia and Saf…

It would be just as easy though to add an art or perhaps tank to Mozambique/Angola to increase the cost of attack.  Also don’t forget that Iberia got defensively increased as well so it is not as easy for anyone to take.

yea, I didn’t take reinforcement changes into account (but that probably won’t stop USA, maybe delay it for a turn, or 2. they have the money to make it happen), but if only a few African countries are the price, Spain still looks mighty attractive to me from a US point of view. That’s why i think Spain needs to stay linked to Turkey (nasty if Axis have that shortcut + extra boost of troops) and Sweden.

You make a great point about FWA and the Liberian inf.  I think you broke it!:(

Sorry  :-D

It defeats the purpose to place the inf there if it ends up benefiting the allies in the long run.  Perhaps a significant increase to Mozambique/angola would do the trick instead?  That or adding 1 dd 1 sub to Liberia instead.  Now an attack on Spain would require neutralizing those SAtantic raiders as well.

satanic raiders? :)

Could work, will need some more beer to think about that, though …

@JimmyHat:

The allies wouldn’t attack spain unless they could keep Saf safe as well.  Also I added 1 inf to Liberia so that the allies have to worry about that as well.

Okay, 1 INF to Liberia may be counter productive for Axis, as taking FWA from France makes it a potential +1 IPC for USA to come grab.
And yes, Allies need to check S.AF, but that is what i meant with some planning and preparation, should be not that difficult to deal with. Surely worth dealing with if you can have Spain for it.

Even risking S.AF in return for Spain would be ok for some players, i think… (and 4 INF can’t do that much in attack…)

If Turkey seems like a weak spot, how about amending the force pools for the other neutrals in its block?  We can add 1 art 1 ftr to Arabia for instance.  Or perhaps a dd?  That seems much easier than having territories that can influence mutliple blocks. 
Also I agree with adding an aa gun to Turkey, I think I did that.

Well, the good part of the original neutral rules were that things happened out of your reach, so while i am certainly not against adding an AA to turkey (and yeah maybe you already added an AA, i just checked the texts on page 11, or 10), there should be longer-distance consequences to taking Turkey as well. Things too far for a side to control (that is why i’d let Turkey overlap the neutral venndiagrams)

It’s late and i’m sleepy and slightly drunk, so forvive me if i am insane, but with this block:

2. Iberia & Africa (SPA, POR, ANG, MOZ, RDO, PRG, SIE, LIB)

Why wouldn’t i attack this as Allies? Even if they turn in active Axis right away, i see only Allied benefits in attacking them. Big scale attack on Spain (and perhaps also Portugal), the African countries have either no units or are easy to deal with (2 INF Angola, 2 INF Mozamb), given abit of planning and preparation.

@JimmyHat:

It is cool thought that at least people are realizing that neutrals need additional units, especially if segregated into neutral blocks.  The only issue people had with my proposal was that it might be too tempting for the Axis to hit Turkey, if that is the case then negating the Caucusus NO would fix that, although I don’t think that will be necessary.  The additional forces added and the fact that the remaining territories in the block immediately join the other side will do the trick.

Since nobody can tell me why my proposal is bad I’m going to stick to it.  1C is great and all but the 10 ipcs the US has to pay is silly because its singling out 1 nation over the others.  Also it doesn’t include even rudimetnary force pool additions which I feel are going to be the simplest and also easiest way to balance the blocks.

Might have a Turkey fix for you…

I looked over the 1C, and, while not having read all pages in this topic (and still favoring the original non-block rules) i’d say:

1. Add Africa to the Arab block. (Makes Turkey a little bit more costly for Axis)

2. Join Spain, Sweden and Switzerland to 1 European block (Africa is not gonna stop USA from taking Spain), and add turkey to it too.

3. (is 1 + 2)
Add Turkey to the Arab block as well as to the Eureopean block.

Results:
Someone attacks Europe, the Europe block + Turkey turn against them.
Someone attacks an arab or african nation: arab/african block + Turkey turns against them.
Someone attacks Turkey: Both Europe + Arab/African blocks turn against them

(since Turkey is an important strategic place, having 2 blocks turned against would be fair)

Another general option could be to add 1 AA to EACH attacked neutral.

@Cow:

You are one of the few good global players I’ve noticed special forces. Pretty solid play overall. I opened up a few of your games.

Gah I am still waiting for beta to start playing live games or triplea devs to finish coding this + figuring out how to not infringe copy rights. you guys are crazy for playing this game over a forum. I thought PBEM chess was bad lol.

Thanks, though you might be mistaking me with someone else, as i haven’t posted that much detailed strategy stuff here, nor played on the forum (though i might some day) :)

And me too, i’m also waiting for the triple AA Global adaptation.

Degrasse, i know it’s just a detail, but may i ask why you chose to take Celebes (and not Sumatra or Java, which is 1 IPC more)?

@Cow:

How do you take india round 3? don’t they turtle? (like not give you an attack outside of india or china side burma road)

It’s fairly easy to identify japan going for india. What round do you bring USA into war? Axis acts first and how you set up r1 gives things away.

What is the overall strategy of the allies that you play against? do they race the europe half vs japan in the pacific half? do they do a containment strategy?

Allies are trickier to play. But yeah 21 air units in range of burma… it’s pretty obvious to leave nothing there. I feel. considering 3 inf = 1 fighter kill… -1 TUV for Japan, is totally not worth the cannon fodder factor for holding india.

Indeed, with the old AA rules i liked sending units + an AA to Burma, provoking the Jap airforce, but with the new AA rules i’m not getting out of India much anymore…

Edit: also, if i was in Burma, and i see Japanese fleet (with TRP’s) withing range of Calcutta, you can count on it i’ll be running back.

@Cmdr:

If it means I can save money!  If it means you don’t get penalyzed for playing the game the way it’s always been played.  If it means that the little guy will get a chance at technology.  You know, the three things we demanded when we started technology discussions?

But… but…saving is bad!

@Cmdr:

Jim:

No, the little guy gets NOTHING if you stop them from saving IPC to qualify for their one die.  That’s my biggest beef with the INCOME only rule.

If we go income only, then it should be based on what territories you control at the end of your round, use that to figure out what amount of free dice you get.  National Objectives, Saved Money and Captured Money are all “extra” income that should either all be counted, or none of it counted.

Can’t this be fixed by giving a tech token at the end of X’s turn (based on their income at that moment), to be used at the beginning of X’s next turn?
(this way also no one gets free tech from turn 1)

I guess after a turn or 10 everyone will have every tech in the game  :|

@JimmyHat:

Notice how some of these options are far more confusing, muddling, and too much like homework to be added into a table top game played by friends with beer and pretzels on hand?

I vote simple.

Simple is good!

Especially for something that should not be a primary strategy.

An alternative for Madagascar is Tanganika (safe from Italians in case they haven’t been attacked in turn 1, which i suppose is the reason to land in madagacar), abit closer to some places

@Clyde85:

@special:

NEVER give up!

I can appericate the sentiment! :-D However it all seems like a bit of a waste if the end result is the (roughly)30IPC UK income going to Germany anyway. I really wouldnt try to have UK India get involved as its better for them to focus on their own theater. If the Italian fleet gets destroyed(or severly mauled) by Taranto raid on UK1 I dont think their meger economy will ever really recover to threaten Egypt.

@special:

so unless you have USA to finish the job (or to at least consolidate the advantage), it feels like a wasted effort.

I think you may have just stated the linchpin of the whole strategy. You would need to use the US’s (somewhat) early entry into the war(caused by the fall of London) to reinforce yourself in the western Med, Gibraltar, blockading Italy and keeping them out of North Africa. You can achieve 2 of these 3 things by the end of round 3 (really by the end of the US’s first combat moves).

Well, if the effort can really limp Italy… aaargh, i just can’t do it! :D

Another thing about USA’s help against Italy that bugs me is… shouldn’t they be helping out UK instead of finishing the Italians?

One thing i’d consider, once it seems hopeless, is to evacuate the air force at the last moment (for as much that moment can be guessed). It’s something i once did with Moscow after barely surviving an attack, knowing the next attack is gonna kill all the rest without trouble. But that is kind of an exception…

NEVER give up!

@ reasons:

1. you might fight well and survive (it happens more then you might think)

2. like you said, giving it away is no / less casualties for the enemy. If they take your capitol, at least make them bleed and get weaker.

I understand your argument about focussing on hitting Italy and sacrificng London for that, but, UK forces will quickly run dry there (and you may weaken India because it will need to help out extra), so unless you have USA to finish the job (or to at least consolidate the advantage), it feels like a wasted effort.

ehhhm… you mean full bladder thinking?

@Fishmoto37:

@Fishmoto37:

@special:

Who would be the oldest member? (not me)

It is I!

OOPS, I thought the question was who is the oldest forum member. Sorry.

that was my question, yes. Then one thing leads to another and you got war-stories :D

Tall Paul, as far as i’m concerned: i’d love to hear more stories (and i’m sure i’m not the only one)

(and if other people have stories… shoot!)