True that, and by no means are you wrong about america
Like Germany, the us has the ability to impose their will on any axis member, so youre strategy can absolutely work, it will simply prove fatal for you on the other side of the board
just my opinion tho
Then this for real is a saving grace to Germany and Italy
For Russia to use it’s Siberian units to attack Manchuria, the US to fully commit to the Pacific, and the UK Pacific turn it’s priorities toward protecting China and taking it to the Japanese instead of providing assistance to UK Europe means Germany has won.
Japan is a wolf amongst a flock of sheep. They are quite literally designed to fight every single playable Allied nation in the game, and have the ability to win over each and every one of them at that matter. Stacking Allied units in the Pacific doesn’t work anymore, the Allies, specifically America, are going to have to actually use battle tactics to win over against Japan. Because as japan, if I’m getting every bodies money on me than that’s great. Someone else like Germany though wouldn’t want that, because Germany doesn’t have the capability of such an impressive navy and airforce like Japan does, let alone the ability to fight a war on 2 fronts.
Ahh okay sorry my bad lol
Still though I tend to have a mindset that everybody can just sit down and play out test runs even though I know not everybody has time to do that.
I kinda do like a battle clock though. It doesn’t give your allies time to really tell you what you’re doing wrong and what you’re doing right, and you really have to commit to getting opening moves for playable nations implanted in the mind so that you’re ready to go.
Interesting, you’ve given me a much better understanding of bids.
From the way I interpreted it, most people treat bids as if they’re something that a player should have to get an age over someone else no matter what the circumstances, which obviously was in the aspect of the Allies since granted they are arguably a bit more complicated to play than the Axis and have a tougher time winning, but it absolutely does make sense that these individual pieces of say a fighter and sub act as insurance or that extra thing to remove in the fight in the event that battle takes place, it just cuts the UK’s losses and limits their attrition all the more since even a player of lower skill level to another doesn’t need an unrealistic bid to win over against an Axis player.
Also, sorry if I ever conveyed that all of us have the time to set up the board to test stuff out, I definitely do know that now especially in these circumstances that not everybody has that kind of time like other people such as General Hand Grenade or Young Grasshopper to sit down and just continually test out strategies and different bids, but I do still try to get in what time I can to revising my Axis strategies.
Other than that, a bid of 14-16 IPC’s feels like the sweet spot for the UK. Likely 14 since it still keeps them from killing both the Bismarck and doing the Taranto Raid without cutting their losses to sharply since even if the UK has loose ends, I don’t think they should be given a handicap just to get back on their feet to properly fighting Germany and Italy in Europe.
I’d be interested, granted I don’t usually prefer bids but I definitely can see why they’d be of need since the Axis definitely do have the game in their hands from the beginning
If you wanna post the longer version I’d read it since I do actually want a more typical understanding of fair bids to use
What bid would you normally use for the British?
I don’t even know what bid he uses at this point, all I know is 24 or 30, that’s still too much lol. But that’s just me
Then if denying factual evidence is your jam then I dont think there’s any point continuing this convo. You’ve been proven wrong dude, so take the new understanding you have, throw out the old understanding, and move on already instead of denying what’s already been proven factual because I to include alot of other people have told you countless times now that there is nothing America can do to prevent their navy from being destroyed whether it’s on Hawaii or San Francisco, this point has been made crystal clear from the start of this thread buddy.
As I said in my other thread, I don’t do bid games as neither of us are of the new player skill level so don’t waste your time flying out to the Pacific Coastline.
I guess we won’t be playing then because I don’t play with bids pal. Bids should only be used for people of different skill level and as far as I’m concerned you nor I played this game yesterday for the first time. (that could be questionable for you but I have no intent to inflict conjecture upon you)
I’m glad you’ve won many games buddy, that shows a sign of understanding and veteran style of playing from you, but that only proves your opponents to be pretty skimpy and weak at A&A 40’.
I’m not sure if you’re joking here or if you’re actually being legit in what you’re saying.
Who cares about 4 mech or 4 artillery not going to Russia? If you think that’s going to be the difference maker on the Eastern Front, then I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you’re sadly mistaken my friend. Because who cares about 4 mech and/or 4 artillery going to Russia when Im about to have 15+ tanks moving in for Moscow that all roll 3 for attack and defense?
Building a carrier and 2 transports for heaven’s sake wouldn’t even be taking away from your Barbarossa attack. Because quite literally everybody that first played Germany, spent their first 2 builds on nothing but ground units, sent them over to Russia, completely obliterated them and said “That was too easy, I could do that blindfolded and spend half as much money on units.” And they were correct. Because your turn 1 build you can pretty much build whatever you want to impose your will on the UK or the Soviet Union. But hey, that’s just what literally everybody else says.
Well that explains why it’s so easy to win then as the Allies for yourself. The British don’t need that high of a bid to beat the Germans, and even with the bid they’re still likely to lose both 110 and 111 with the scrambles.
I also don’t know if I need to mention this but the carrier cruiser and destroyer you previously did not use to take out the Italian fleet will be destroyed unless moved out of the Mediterranean which you did not mention whatsoever in your post, in turn these ships will be immediately destroyed by the Italian battleship, 2 cruisers, destroyer, sub, 2 fighters, and bomber.
To me it seems most of this UK strategy you’ve got going is just forced to happen, in other words you’re basically relying on Italy and Germany to do certain things in order for it to work.
Tobruk or Taranto have been incredibly controversial topics on whether one is better than the other and to me Taranto is because who cares about units on Tobruk? They’ll be replaced with new units on the spot and all those units you had previously sent in to Tobruk are now dead in the desert.
Like I previously stated, as far as Im concerned I dont think aircraft carriers or cruisers could grow 2 legs to walk straight for Berlin, so spamming out ships really isn’t going to get you anywhere as Italy will just continue to destroy these ships over and over again until you run out of airforce to put on carriers. And it doesn’t even matter if Italy loses that fleet at the end of the day, them having gotten you to waste money on ship after ship to get one over on them in the Pacific means they’ve already won. Ground forces, the British and the Americans NEED ground forces, you’re not getting yourself anywhere by investing in a huge navy only for it to sit in dry dock for the rest of the game pal.
Finally, if the UK is to put an industrial complex on Egypt turn 1, then Sealion all the way. I don’t care if Russia will get one over on me, I don’t care if America will try to liberate the British Isles, it’s Sealion all the way, and having poorly spent your turn 1 money on a complex in Egypt, you’re gonna lose London because 2 infantry and a fighter isn’t enough to protect it, it just isn’t, and with such little territorial gains made by the UK and such little forces being built up on Britain than I’ll have units left over from Sealion to either keep there for defense or turn them around to attack Russia.
I will do me, thank you very much for the concern. And like I said, for the 3rd time that there’s nothing the US can do to stop Japan from attacking their navy, dumb player or not dumb player, it’s not a dumb thing for the US to consolidate their navy on the Hawaiian Islands regardless, it doesn’t make you dumb for not seeing the attack, there are plenty of ways to hide an attack as Japan or Germany or frankly any playable country, not granted if the attack was plane as day that reads in big white font that “I’m going to attack you” then yah dumb is what the US player is. So no, this conversation with everybody here hasn’t been based on players doing dumb things for them to work, if that was the case nobody here would be wasting their time trying to explain why KJF doesn’t work. But if that’s what you think then I guess that’s what floats your boat.
You’re absolutely right, who would care about a Battleship sitting in Dry dock not doing squat? I wouldn’t.
What I would care about though and frankly what a lot of other players playing the UK would care about is if the Germans plan to utilize that alive battleship for a Sealion attack or an Afrikakorps attack, then the UK is gonna’ be caring. He’s gonna be caring a lot about the demise of that German Battleship if used properly by the Germans. That’s what this whole discussion is about, whether it’s better to destroy the German battleship or Italian fleet for what they can do against you in the long run if kept alive. Who would care about an Italian fleet that sits in dry dock and doesn’t do anything, who would care about a German battleship that participates in 1 fight then runs away back to dry dock? Nobody would. But people would care if either of these are properly and effectively used against them.
And again, one would think that turn 3 would be the sweet spot to remove the Italian navy you did not destroy earlier, and frankly their ain’t any better time to strike at it then that time, if Japan didn’t exist, but they do exist, and they’re comin’ for Calcutta hard and fast so don’t expect to be diverting any fighters to go take out what is already a decently sized Italian fleet.
Believe me when I say it, Germany and Italy really don’t have to spend much to keep these things alive, they genuinely just don’t. 16 IPC’s out of Germany’s turn 1 bank to build a carrier and maybe add a destroyer to that and you’ve already got a formable navy that won’t be easy to take down. Italy will already start with the battleship and cruiser that you didn’t destroy, to go along with another cruiser, sub and destroyer. With this navy, they’ll clear the Med out of Allied ships, the Axis will capture Gibraltar, Southern France and Greece, and conquer the entirety of North Africa from Morocco to Alexandria. What do all these things have in common? They all give Italy national objectives. 3 to be exact, coming out to a whopping 15 IPC’s to stack on top of Italy’s average 15+ IPC’s that they should be getting. (10 to start, 2 for Yugoslavia, 2 for Greece, and 1 for both Algeria and/or Tunisia.). Italy can be making 30 IPC’s every turn and the UK can’t even take this away that easily with all of Italy’s money in close proximity to the main capital of Rome and each of the National Objectives in same Axis hands, allowing Italy to pump out another Battleship or a carrier to put fighters on or whatever they need to increase the size of the navy, and if Britain is wasting their time screwin’ around playing patty cake with Italy’s navy than that’s valuable time and money lost.
The Allies are gonna have to do a bit more than just lift a finger to defeat the Axis on this one.
Like Squire said, blockers really aren’t a factor in this with Japan’s ability to control the diplomacy between them and the Allies, so blockers aren’t going to help you as America. More often than not players will consolidate their navy on the Hawaiian islands which in turn will have it destroyed, and if they dont move it there and leave it in San Francisco than I’m doing my job keeping you out of the Pacific and away from places like Sydney and the Money Islands. Japan won’t be taking Hawaii with ground forces early in the game. There’s absolutely no reason to do such a pointless action unless you were wanting to get that 5 IPC national objective for controlling Honolulu but other than that Japan doesn’t have to dedicate forces to keeping it, they only need to keep it in their sphere of influence.
@gen-manstein
Can you just decide which year the game starts in?
I really enjoyed playing aa50, to me the game isn’t too small yet not too big with just the right amount of units.
One would think that but you won’t be taking off Japanese planes with a little something they have access to called cannon fodder. When I do my pearl harbor strikes I bring in a strategic bomber, 3 fighters, 3 tac bombers, 4 destroys and 2 subs, and yes I’ve playtested these odds against the entire starting Pacific fleet of America and the US fleet always gets obliterated.
Yeah thats my only pet peave with grasshoppers version. I don’t mind the 2 combing together so much as I do that UK pacific goes before Japan on the turn system which I really disagree with since that doesn’t make for a balanced Pacific
The Carolines are the magic bullet to success in the Pacific.
Have u gone to to GH invitational?