Posts made by Squash

It’s worth noting that Churchill spent most of the 1940-1943 period screaming his head off for a Norwegian offensive. None of his joint chiefs really took it seriously and did their best to placate him. Italy distracted him, but then he focused all his attention on the Balkans, another eye-roller that Roosevelt/Truman pulled him away from.

I’m really thinking strategic bombing and naval targets exclusively.

That’s true, but my frustration with typical US kill KGF action is it costs 8IPCs to transport every 8IPCs worth of materiel (1 inf + 1 tank), more with escorts (though I tend to just send the east coast destroyer in round 1, panama destroyer in round 2, and pacific battleship in round 3 if you follow me). It seems so inefficient, whereas bombers come with the benefit of being their own transit.

I don’t suppose anyone would like a Triple A game to allow me to test this.

So you don’t think a strategic bombing campaign could be more effective than great troops?

For me it’s usually England that takes Germany 0_0

What is the validity of the US doing nothing but air buys? It would depends of course on the individual turns and how well Russia and the UK do in Europe, but every round the US purchases two bombers and a fighter as part of a KGF strategy.

Have you ever seen this in action? What are your thoughts, or experiences?

I had no idea, theoretically what happens if there’s a 1 or 2 dollar bid?

Uhm, thanks Jen, but what does that have to do with my questions?

Okay this’ll be fun. I’d like to know how you guys would bid given all the different possibilities. Let’s run it between 1 and 8. So for instance, here’s mine.

1 Bid: $1 to Japan
2 Bid: $1 to Japan, $1 to Germany
3 Bid: 1 Infantry in Libya.
4 Bid: 1 Infantry in Libya, $1 to Japan
5 Bid: 1 tank in Libya
6 Bid: 1 tank in Libya, $1 to Japan
7 Bid: 1 tank in Libya, $1 to Japan, $1 to Germany
8 Bid: 1 infantry in Libya, 1 artillery in Libya, $1 to Japan

Hey all, haven’t been on in a few years, glad I still have my account. Still undefeated with 30+ games under my belt, but still endeavoring to be better.

Germany’s easily my weakest power, so I’d like to get some expert opinions on a few things I’ve never been sure about. Assuming you don’t build any ships in G1, or move the Baltic fleet, and assuming the British hit that fleet with both fighters and a bomber, do you submerge the submarines or let them soak hits for the destroyer in hopes of shooting down planes?

How many soldiers do you think it’s responsible to leave in Western Europe assuming the SZ1 UK transport isn’t sunk? How about if it is sunk? What if you just absolutely don’t want to leave tanks in Western Europe?

Thanks for the feedback, it’s good to be back.

That’s a no. We tried it once, it turned into global hyper inflation. Eventually we put a $5 cap on it, but it seemed like everyone was always $5 over.

If it’s so risky, then why is the LHTR needed?

How many fighters can engage Britain without long range aircraft? Frankly, I’ve never heard of that before, and it seems scary.

I don’t think any build up in the Mediteranean is a good idea, while yes, you can theoretically strike any target, you’ll be putting your ships directly in the path of the US fleet, and that’s a quick way to lose a fleet. 90% of the time the US fleet goes for the Med, so I’d consider staging out of the Baltic fleet instead. With your already established subs and destroyer, you can just build a carrier or two and land fighters on it/them for a great defense, and the fighters can be used for your attack. Then in the next turn, build a ton of transports, it’ll be too late for a UK counter attack, odds are everything but US planes will be out of range, and the UK will only have one shot of outproducing your ground forces, and if you devote all of your airforce, I doubt he can hold on.

Hrm, I have trouble with how it would affect Asia and Africa.

It is however a more efficient method of delivering specifically armor to specifically the Eastern Front, if that’s your ambition.

Well put Jen. I play tomorrow, if I get the US, we’ll see how it goes.

Uhhh, somehow I don’t think it’d be fair if the Russians thought to invest in jet fighters before the winter…:s Also I don’t see why Russian aircraft should get any kind of bonus. And I put alot of thought into my timeline:s Did he say why it was set then?

Over here in Kansas it’s really bad soggy french fries. Gross huh? Very authentic.

Okay paintbrush, I absolutely see your point now. The value of Norway to the Allies makes it valuable to Germany. You’re sounding alot like an economic historian when it comes to market trends actually. But here’s the trick: Isn’t this another trap for Germany? If Germany invests heavily (and the only way to invest in trading/defending Norway would have to be heavily) in Norway, those are resources not going to Southern Europe (region not territory), which Russia could capitalize on. I see it as a valuable way for the US to establish a new front with Germany, and whenever the US trades troops with Germany the Allies win.