Posts made by theROCmonster

Does anyone attack the pearl fleet with Japan turn 1?

Your attacks would be:

2 inf from siam to French Indo
3 inf and art to Yunnan plus the fighter tac from Kiangsu
3 inf and art from Kiangsi to Hunan plus the fighter and tac in Manchuria
2 inf and art to chahar
6 inf, art, and mech to anhwe
2 transports from sea zones 6 and 19 to phillipines with 2 inf tank and art
Battleship, Cruiser, destroyer, sub, and a fighter to sea zone 35
Tac from SZ 33 to philippines
Battleship, cruiser, 2 carriers, 3 destroyers, 3 fighters, and a tac to SZ 26
Transport from SZ 20 pick up 2 inf from manchuria and go to Kwangtung
2 fighters and a tac from Okinawa and Manchuria to Kwangtung
fighter from formosa and 2 bombers to SZ 37

If US only gets 1 hit in pearl battle you should take a tac as a loss and put another fighter down on your fleet. You then put the carrier that is off carolines in SZ 35. You could also take the tac as a hit in Phillipines and put a 3rd carrier off Pearl to be super safe, but the battle calc for the battle off pearl on US’s counter attack is 0% in low luck with 4 units remaining. Granted that is not considering fighters being taken before carriers.

All in all you net 25 dollars more by going to pearl in a turn 1. US looses 35 dollars worth of stuff and the 1 IPC from convoy, and you loose a tac. This leaves US with only a carrier, BB, DD, 2 cruisers, 5 fighters, 1 tac, and a bomber vs Japans 19 planes, 3 carriers, 2 BB’s, 2 cruisers, 4 DD’s, and 2 subs. The real downside of this move is that your fleet is really out of position. All you have down in the south is a BB, cruiser, DD, sub, and carrier to take the Islands till turn 4.

Since the other T1 takes all the Islands T2 you only net, on average, 8 PU’s and your fleet is really out of position. So what do you guys think?

@variance:

You are right that GSG (i.e. Austria) should connect to Switzerland for geographical accuracy and gameplay (e.g. it would stop cheesy moves like Germany from plopping the whole luftwaffe on Italian-controlled Alexandria).

I also think z110 should be divided into two zones, with a line from Dover to where Normandy-Bordeaux borders Holland-Belgium.  That would stop all kinds of bomber cheesiness and the Gibraltar-Denmark-Berlin slingshot.

100% agree!

The biggest mistake, IMO, is that the territory “Greater Southern Germany” doesn’t extend all the way to Switzerland.

With making GSG extend to Switzerland lowers Germany’s ability to attack the med and defend Italy. Right now it takes 5 movement spaces to get to Egypt and Alexandria from Western Germany. This makes it impossible, without expending tons of money into ships, for the allies to put any pressure on Italy. Historically UK had a fleet off Alexandria. How is it that in this game it is really difficult for the allies to have a fleet in the med?

With making the additional moving space from Western Germany to Northern Italy would Put more pressure on Germany to decide how best to defend Italy and Western Germany.

What do you guys think?

I believe their is a new rule where if Japan attacks before turn 4 US gets 30 IPC’s immediately. This helps a ton to balance out the map.

Would make it a hell of a lot harder on allies that way… Allies have it rough in a 1v1 situation. When you start making it a 3v5 it gets even worse. You need all the micro you can get. lol

Italy doesn’t have to get into Africa. If you can’t take Egypt without a huge expenditure by Germany in the med, than it probably isn’t worth it. That is because Italy needs as many troops in Europe as possible to stop landings. Germany needs as much of his troops going East as possible. The way you end up getting Egypt as the axis is through Germany coming from the middle east after having taken out Moscow.

Splitting up UK seems weird to me because how do you manage your fleet or airplanes?

In Europe the only way to win as the allies is to land in Spain. The axis will know this and will position to take Sweden/turkey right away, but the ability to have a safe landing spot for your tranny shuck is too worth it. Also US should only take venezuela/brazil in South America. The tempo lost with taking Chile and Argentina isn’t worth it

How do you split UK? The key to UK Europe is holding Egypt. Build a factory there second turn, if you can.

I’m not sure it is worth it for Germany to build up a fleet in the med though. That is money that is not going to kill Russia, and those ships can be taken out by UK with all her planes.

Germany doesn’t need to hold Ukraine. The key for Germany is Lenningrad. Try to get that and hold it as fast as possible. Hope it works out for you :)

@Baron:

@amanntai:

@Baron:

Once this said, are you more a “defenseless TP” partisan or a “defensive combat value TP, such as in classic” type of guy?

Thanks for the welcome, Baron.

I am more in favor of Classic transports, but I definitely consider the “Collective defense@1 Transports” as a good alternative. In either case, I believe transports should be able to be chosen as casualties first, even if that won’t always be the case.

Another option to consider: In another thread, the idea of lowered navy costs was discussed, to encourage more investment in traditionally over-priced navies. Could lowering the costs of all naval units except transports balance an 8 IPC Classic transport?

I believe so.
That’s why I think, if someone wants to keep the vulnerability of transports but still giving them some defense value.
The opening post of the thread talk about a 10 IPCs Transport acting like Classic for defense @1.

I simply prefer to use Advanced Shipyard cost structure, or something similar which can also includes planes.
That way, you keep transport at 8 IPCs (around the OOB 7 IPCs) but is relative cost is higher.
Just below 9 IPCs Cruiser and above 7 IPCs Destroyer.
So, from OOB initial cost it means lower than 12 IPCs but higher than 8 IPCs.
If you have planes at reduced cost also, Fighter A3 D4 M4 is usually at 8 IPCs.
This means that Transport is put at the relative price of Fighter unit, which was 10 IPCs OOB.

I know from my combat calculations that the group defense 1 roll @1/round, 1 hit per transport and letting the owner choose the casualty order is near 10 IPCs OOB or 8 IPCs in an Advanced Shipyard cost structure.

So, there is for all taste.
1- Keeping OOB cost structure, put transport at 8 IPCs, with group defense but taken last.
2- Keeping OOB cost structure, put transport at 10 IPCs, with group defense but owner choose all casualty order.
3- Reducing warships cost (around Advanced Shipyard), put transport at 8 IPCs, with group defense but owner choose all casualty order.

You will definitely still feel the weakness of the transports without the loophole of infinite destruction with no risk on the attacker part, once all combat units are destroyed.

Why are you lowering the cost of planes? They are already overpowered as it is. I think the only thing that needs to be implemented is either your point 1 or point 2.

I’m not a huge fan of buying bombers before they are needed. The 2 bomber buy on the first turn isn’t a horrible, but not ideal. The bombers should really be purchased when your 2 move units can’t reach Moscow for the final attack, and then after taking Moscow continue to buy a couple bombers every round. You still need the ground forces for defensive purposes. By the time US has crippled Japan and decides to swing over to help the allies on the Europe side Germany has 10+ bombers and he has to have a massive fleet to defend these.

Two things, I think, need to be done to reduce the effectiveness of bombers.

1. Allow factories to be built on Islands. This will mean that US can build factories in the DEI’s and stage his fleet off of East Africa/Middle East after he has dealt with Japan.

2. Make bombers attack value 2 base and 3 if paired with fighter. This is really the important one. Bombers attack being at 4 just doesn’t make much sense from a realism standpoint, and it blows the balance out of the water.

I haven’t really played Global in a while. Once I realized how powerful German planes were it kind of killed my appetite for the game. :/

Thanks ColonelKurtz. Interesting that this version is the only one that has been different with the units you can carry in a transport since classic with either 2 infantry or 1 tank.

I personally think it’s a huge step up over spring 1942. As Black Elk said, spring 42 didn’t change the map from revised and only changed the unit values. 1942 2nd edition has a totally different flavor than revised that spring 1942 did over revised.

Some one stole my carrier idea that I put down months ago. hehe.

BTW whoever said they would still win axis when an 11 infantry bid in Yunan is crazy. Japan would be screwed!

@ShadowHAwk:

@barney:

So a solution to the KJF only allied way to win would be ?
Seems like Japan would have to be weakened and possibly the US as well?

Maby change the turn order so the game becomes more balanced.

How about.
Germany, USSR, Italy, UK, Anzac, US, Japan, China, France.

This makes a decent game in the med because Italy actualy keeps its fleet.
UK-pac gets 1 more turn buys effectively and a battleship.
Anzac fleet is grouped.
US fleet can group.

So less easy targets, India has 1 turn extra buys so harder to get from japan. Same for the anzac.

At least J1 will be less predictable, UK1 will be less predictable and it gives the allies the initiative in the pacific.

While this completely cripples Japan it makes the European Axis absolute monsters. Don’t see how the axis would ever loose. UK looses his fleet off Egypt right away and his forces in Alexandria. Italy takes Egypt T2 100% and then what do the allies do?

Ya, you are more able to invest money into Europe as US, but could you stop a monster Italy/Germany?

One big thing I’d like to note is that I really don’t like that Anzac can can open for US. This is way too powerful.

I recommend mainly infantry arty buys. Make sure, if you are the aggressor, to have more planes than your opponent. It is good to have 1 tank in each area on the board with each power. This is in case you want to move forward into a territory with your mass stack and he puts 1 guy there as defense.

So for Germany that would mean 2 tanks. One for the Russian side and 1 for the French side.
Russia probably shouldn’t build any tanks.
Austria should probably only build one for the Italy front.
Ottomans shouldn’t build any.
UK should only build them in India, and only 1 there as well.
France shouldn’t build any.
Italy shouldn’t build any.
US is the one that can build more than 1 tank if he wants to hit Spain on T5.

Why don’t you just land US troops in Portugal T4, and then on T5 attack Spain with tanks. That way you minimize the losses. I see what you guys are saying about the math of attacking Spain, but the problem with sending your 6-7 transports to Greece is that you have 4-5 transports that won’t be doing much of anything. That is because you can only build 1-2 transports and units a turn with US. It is kind of like tecking up attacking Spain as US. It will benefit you in the long run and wont put your transports horribly out of position.

The ideal amount of transports for US should be 9-10 if you going for Greece. 3 transports at home, 3 off Spain, and 3-4 off Greece. Having an extra transport off Greece would be nice to give you flexibility.

Quick question. I am used to the WW2 axis and allies games, and after reading the rule book I can’t tell if it says you are allowed to have 2 arty, 2 tanks, or 2 fighters in a transport. In every other version you can only have 1 arty or 1 tank in a transport with an infantry.