Posts made by theduke

Russia could leave as many as 19 inf in Karelia if they leave Caucasus weakly defended. If Russia does this, what exactly will Germany do? What should they attack with into either/ both the Caucasus and Karelia on G1? When Germany attacks with these forces, what is the most likely outcome of the battle/s? What can the Allies counter-attack with?

Now let’s assume Russia leaves a modest 15 inf in Karelia and a few inf in Caucasus. For simplcity, let’s assume Russia didn’t attack anything on R1 so Ukraine still has their starting force. What exactly do you think Germany should do for an attack? What is the most likely outcome of the battle/s? What can the Allies counter-attack with?

I’ve run what I believe is every plausible scenario and I don’t see a lack of fighters in Karelia as a significant disadvantage for the Allies in the long run. At the end of turn 1 the Allies may look like they are in trouble since they may have lost Karelia and Egypt, but this is a facade. With this fighter movement, in order for Germany to take either or both of these countries on G1 they must have taken them so weakly that the respective German front will be brought down to a halt in a couple of turns.

I would like to add that the Luftwaffe is stretched thin as it is on G1 without this Russian fighter movement. This fighter movement makes it much worse. What should Germany do with 4 or 5 fighters and 1 bomber on G1 with this Russian fighter movement? Let’s assume 2 scenarios; playing either with 1 or 2 hit battleships. I don’t see the Luftwaffe striking hard enough at all the UK navy and Egypt and Karelia. Germany is likely to lose on at least one of those fronts or take all 3 so weakly that any Allied counter-attack will likely spell doom for the Germans.

Obviously there are pros’s and con’s to every move. Here are some to consider:

Con’s-

1. Russia will not have their fighter’s to defend their homeland on G1 and J1.

2. Fighter’s in Egypt are lightly defended with only 1 UK infantry and 1 UK armor. This makes the fighter’s more likely to be destroyed than if they were protected in any of the Russian territories which typically contain many more infantry.

3. If both fighter’s are sent to Egypt, then only the Karelian fighter may attack in R1, and this attack is limited to only E. Europe or Ukraine. This profoundly cuts down on R1 combat options.

Pro’s-

1. Russia doesn’t need much defense in the first turn since Germany hasn’t yet had the opportunity to build up ground troops. However, Egypt is typically attacked and taken on G1 and thus needs more defense. If the Russian player properly positions their infantry there should be still be more than enough defense of their territories.

2. It is true that Germany will be able to send more than enough fighters to the battle in Egypt to still take it and destroy both Russian fighters. However, if Germany does this, then they must not have taken out all of the UK Atlantic fleet. Since the UK navy is more important than 2 Russian fighters, the Allies still come out ahead even if Egypt is lost in the first turn. With 2 Russian fighters in Egypt, Germany cannot take Egypt and destroy both UK battleships.

3. Only 1 Russian fighter attacking E. Europe or Ukraine should still be enough to do any damage Russia wishes to do in R1.

4. It is much more difficult for Germany to take Africa. They might not be albe to take Egypt in G1. Also, if Egypt is not taken in G1, the UK has the oppurtunity to set up better defenses there, or even retreat from a possible overwelming G2 attack.

shouldn’t this subject be under ‘house rules’?

If you have to buy navy, what do you buy for an allround good buy attack and defense wise? I’m saying if you had to have some navy.

Do you mean attack/ defense in only SZ’s? If that’s the case then it’s definitely 3 subs. It’s not hard to figure this out mathematically, but you can also do it by just putting 3 subs against 24 IPCs worth or any other combination of SZ units and see who wins the battle more often. It doesn’t matter if you put the subs on offense of defense, 3 subs will win more often than any other units.

There is a reason why it is very uncommon for Japan to invade the US- it is almost impossible to accomplish and can easily be exploited by a good US player. I would even go so far to say that the only advantage of invading the US is the element of surprise, but this alone is never enough to succeed against a good US player.

This Japanese strategy implies that Germany has to deal with ‘only’ UK and Russia.

The US should and will still be able to spend the vast majority of their IPCs (at least in the long run) in the Atlantic if Japan decides to invade, so I don’t agree with this statement. Germany will still have to contend heavily with the US.

Since there are a couple of ways the Japanese may conduct their attempt in invading the US you can’t give a precise US counter strategy- Are the Japanese building any capital ships? Subs? Are they just building transports (how many)? How strong did they attack Hawaii and what was the outcome? Are you playing with 1 or 2 hit BBs? Barring any outcomes far from normal, the US should still go with their typical purchase of 3 Atlantic transports and 4 EUS infantry. If the Japanese took Hawaii extra hard, then you may decide to purchase a combination of sub/s, inf and transport/s for the Pacific as early as turn 1.

I try to avoid the latter purchase strategy for 2 reasons. US units in the Atlantic are worth more than the equivalent in the Pacific. Also, as the US I want Japan to try to invade North America. Until Japan actually invades the US, the Japanese may still pull out of the mission and redirect their landings for mainland Asia or Australia/ New Zealand; the Japanese are not yet heavily invested in a battle front that they won’t win. As the US, I want Japan to commit those forces to North America as opposed to those other locations.

As a side note, as the US I suggest always completely pulling out of Alaska on turn 1 to increase US counter-attack potential and to remove Japanese BB bombardment effctiveness. I mention this because there was a discussion previously on ‘protecting Alaska.’ Alaska should not be protected (at least by leaving units there).

If anyone believes that there is a viable Japanese strategy to attacking the US, even if it’s just to remove the US from the European front, please let me know of any specifics including purchases and unit movement. I am very interested in seeing if there is actually a viable Japanese strategy against the US.

if you want to go with realism then perhaps the rules should be changed as follows:

1. Attacking fighters fire and assign casualties (defending fighters must be assigned as casualties before any other units)
2. Defending fighters fire and assign casualties (attacking fighters must be assigned as casualties before any other units)
3. Remove all casualties
   4)All attacking ground troops fire and the defender assigns casualties
   5)All defending ground troops fire and the attacker assigns casualties
4. Remove all casualties

Reasoning: Attacking fighters and defending fighters should have the same initial fire advantage. Also, fighter vs. fighter dogfights should be allowed (and made mandatory) even when opposing ground troops are still in the battle.

If all you do is build infantry then you will never be able to advance. Their attack sucks, they’re not as flexible as planes/tanks.

taking a AA batttle simulator to determine the following numbers, here is what I got:

20 inf attacking at 1’s vs. 15 rtl attacking at 2’s => inf win only 35% of the time (i know in the game one side has to be on defense but for this experiment all i want is to compare attack strengths facotring in unit cost)

20 inf attacking at 1’s vs. 12 arm attacking at 3’s => inf win only 40% of the time

20 inf attacking at 1’s vs. 6 ftr attacking at 3’s => inf win only >99% of the time

infantry don’t have as good an attack strength as art or arm, but they have much (much much much much much much) better attack strength than planes. i invite anyone who still thinks infantry aren’t the best unit to run similar numbers for both types of units on defense against each other. can anyone tell me what those numbers are? anyone still say infantry aren’t the best?

A&A is all about who can buy the most infantry and win by attrition. infantry are definitely the best value. who voted for anything but infantry???

your question assumes that you should buy an IC. just transports are much better than ICs for reasons that have been explained many times before by many others in previous posts.

Please explain why you chose the one you did. Even though you only picked the primary factor in motivating your house rule selections, what other factors listed (or not listed) in the poll motivate your house rule selections (i.e. what are your second, third, etc… choices)?

The German Baltic navy is merely one big sinking ship (pardon the pun), and purchasing an AC is simply a futile attempt to save that sinking ship. True, investing more money into that ship (by the addition of an AC) keeps the ship afloat for a little while longer, but don’t confuse this delay with a possible denial of the ship’s inevitable fate on the bottom of the ocean’s floor.

I say buying an AC is a relative waste because of the following reasons:

-Numerical advantage: 2 vs. 1. UK and US are probably going to build up strong in the Atlantic and plow through to either Europe and/or Africa. Germany alone has to compete with both of these nations. 2 against 1 is not a fair fight even if 1 of the 2 nations (namely the UK) has far fewer IPCs than Germany. It’s nothing personal against Germany; you could say that a US navy in the Atlantic would be as hopeless if the UK and Germany were ganging up on the US instead.

-Positional advantage. UK and US can easily attack the German Atlantic navy with their navy AND air force. It is much harder for the Germans to include their air force in a attack against the Allies navy. The way the map is set up any fighter on the UK can reach almost every SZ within 2 spaces and thus make it back to the UK. The same can’t be said for Germany when the Allies and holding back and building up in SZ 2 and/or 10. The positional advantage the Allies possess in the Atlantic comes from this fact that the Allies can more easily dictate WHEN this battle for Atlantic naval superiority occurs.

It is better to strengthen your defenses where they are strong, not where they are weak. Germany is weaker in the waters than they are on the land. Germany starts the game with more armor than everyone else COMBINED. Use this to your advantage. An AC divides your forces between the waters and those already present on the land. Instead, play into Germany’s natural strength of land superiority and buy 5 infantry if defense is your goal. Supplement these infantry with armor and/or fighters if need be.

On the flip side, however, if offense is your goal, then go for long range air craft. Since the rules of AAR allow any nation to instantly use any tech they discover, but they have to wait 1 full turn to use any unit purchases, it seems that techs have a little advantage on units in that regard. Long-range air craft on G1 allows Germany to attack UK’s fleet before they get a chance to reinforce themselves. Long-range air craft effectively reduces this Allied positional advantage in the Atlantic.

Go for long-range air craft!

I always ask everyone else what they want, 1 or 2 hit. Most of the time we end up with 1 hit but I like 2 hit better so I said yes. If there was a third choice on the poll of ‘maybe’ or ‘depends’ I would have selected that instead of yes.

Answer is Germany and IMO it’s a no-brainer. They are the only nation that has to typically fight off the main attack of 3 other opponents. They have to protect their western front while advancing both east and south. They have to balance offense and defense. If they don’t go on the offensive in the east or south they will eventually lose. If they don’t go on the defensive enough in Western Europe they are also dead.

Another reason is that Germany is one of the few nations with a non-island capital. UK and Japan capitals are easy to defend since they are both islands. USA is basically an island since they are so far away from everyone else. Islands are much harder to capture, which is 1 reason why Germany and Russia are usually the first capitals to fall.