Regarding the battle calculator, if you don’t allow it people need to count up odds with a pen and paper going into likely second round outcomes in many cases. That just takes even more time. I guess there just needs to be some sort of reasonableness applied. Maybe you can use the battle calculator when it isn’t your turn?
Precisely our rule, use anything you want when it’s not your turn. On your turn it’s just you and your team’s brains.
@Young:
It takes too long to develop this move unless ANZAC has been assigned UK-P as in your house variant.� � � An extra factory isn’t going to make much difference since you will only be able to spend your limited ANZAC money in one area, its too little (20 when japan completely ignores you) to run 2 factories.� �
ANZAC cannot even defend itself from a single Japanese Fleet if it spends on anything but core units, and the carolines permits Japan to add/subtract threat from ANZAC at any time–if you run for Brazil or Persia and the long game spend you leave yourself open.
If ANZAC only built fighters, those could help so many other ways without adding risk.� � If it builds subs etc then Japan has to be mmore careful coming "around the corner’ of SZ 37
What about 1 INF, 1 ART, and 1 TRN?… Lots of options there for only 14 IPCs and the rest can defend Sydney with 100% American income support in the Pacific.
I have to agree with YG here, many options for running 2 factories in my opinion. However this is strictly a reactionary plan in my opinion, as is all allied plans. For instance this would work lovely if Germ is going SeaLion and the Japs are going china and Russia that leaves Anzac the ability to hold off the Italians in the med. Certainly not a plan I would set to use from start of game but I think it is a nice one to keep in the back pocket.
I have only watched the German video but enjoyed it very much, would be interesting to perhaps try this strategy in hand with a dark skies strategy. Ill try this strategy out though on my next axis game, only difference would be taking southern France on G1, great video though!
@Arthur:
If you want Allied fighters in Moscow, it is far easier to just build a factory in Persia and start flying 3 of them up beginning UK3. Alternatively they can be built in Egypt or South Africa and flown up there slightly more indirectly.
Trying to get the American fighters there via Siberia early in the game is generally wasteful. It can be a smart move mid-game if you can get an Allied foothold in Korea or Manchuria.
Certainly it is not the most effective route, however it is not easily foreseen such as a MIC in Persia and so there is an element of surprise and last minute muster of defense to it.
Well this isn’t exactly what I would call a safe Russian Strategy, however one way I found to defend it is through a live game I played this weekend. I played the allies with a 29 Bid that went to the Med in a stereotypical method. I purchased 3 AC R1 with US I pulled Hawaiian fleet back to San Fran and appeared to play passively allowing Japan to play aggressive towards the DEI and India, I was feigning a draw towards the Atlantic.
R2 I purchased fighters to fill the one empty AC, other 2 had been filled from mainland US and Hawaii, while staying in San Fran other cash just went to filler navy.
R3 I purchased 7 fighters and moved my fleet from San Fran to SZ4.
R4 I was able to fly all the aircraft from SZ4 to Yakuz in USSR and in R5 I had 7 US fighters and a tac in Moscow.
This might have been a one trick pony for my group, however it was very effective because keeping my navy in San Fran threatened the Germans as they thought I would swing around and let the Japanese be aggressive, however my move to SZ4 instead of moving to Hawaii or the Atlantic threw them off and effectively allowed the US to bolster Moscow with it’s airforce while at the same time UK was liberating Leningrad allowed the allies a decisive victory in Moscow and they surrendered afterwards seeing as the Japs had India but still needed Hawaii or Sydney and neither was feasible.
Hope that made sense, and works for others.
How experienced are you and your adversary? If both are inexperienced then a bid of 20 can suffice mainly going into Africa. If one of you is a very dominant Axis player then perhaps more like 30-40 with 20 or so in Africa along with a fighter in UK or maybe some Artillery in th Far East for Russia…
Posted by: Gen.Nehring
Insert Quote
� � Hi, yes that is a common question for new players. Actually the rule is that when an aircraft carrier is attacked by anything, the planes are considered to be in the air defending the aircraft carrief like real ‘CAP’ which means combat air patrol. So yes, if you take a hit on an aircraft carrier then their planes have one move to find a safe and legal landing spot or they are gone! The only time that a fighter stays onan aircraft carrier is when the carrier has another partner’s plane on it. Then it is not in the air defending and is considered ‘cargo’. I hope this helps sir? wink
Posted on: September 08, 2016, 07:06:34 pm Posted by: WoodyWanKenobiI am pretty sure that allied air craft are considered cargo only when attacking. Since the carriers get attacked in this scenario i would say that they fly up to defend just if they where your own.
Please correct me if i am wrong
You are wrong. Under the unit profiles, aircraft carriers, it says “Air units on a friendly power’s carrier are always treated as cargo on the carrier owners turn”. In addition, it goes on to say “A damaged carrier can’t conduct air operations, which means that no air units may take off or land on it. Any guest air units that were on board the carrier as cargo at the time of the when it was damaged are trapped onboard and can’t leave, attack, or defend until the carrier is repaired.” So no, air units on a friendly carrier cannot “fly up to defend”.
No he isnt, your quote tells that he is right.
Allied air units are only cargo when attacking, you are saying they are only cargo on the carriers owners turn. Which is saying exactly the same, the only time when a carrier can attack is in the combat phase of its owners turn. Any other time it is defending or there simply isnt any combat.
So
I am pretty sure that allied air craft are considered cargo only when attacking. Since the carriers get attacked in this scenario i would say that they fly up to defend just if they where your own.
This statement is true. Just worded different from the rulebook bit it is the same scenario.
The only way a friendly plane on a carrier couldn’t defend would be, if say there was a UK carrier that had US planes on it, and on the UK turn the said carrier conducted a naval battle and took a hit on the carrier, meaning it was damaged with US planes on it. Then on the following Italian turn, say the Italians attacked that carrier then the US planes couldn’t defend since it was damaged.
Seems quite a few of you share a distaste for retreats, or at least consider them a minor mechanic. Is that common?
We’ve often found Russia to be a far tougher nut to crack as Germany than many of you seem to. It’s a big part of my scepticism of any German naval builds (see G1 Carrier thread). My group, however, makes extensive use of attack and retreat as Russia to force the German’s to clump up and choose between Leningrad and Ukraine, or to inflict favourable casualties without exposing the Russians to counter attack. Is that abnormal?
Germans have so many starting Inf that if they do it correctly they can target both considering there airforce can reach either and so gives great threat projection.
I’m not a large fan of Heavy German Naval buys although a G1 buy of 8 Inf 1 Sub works well followed by a 10 Tank 1 Destroyer buy on G2.
I’m curious what people’s thoughts are on the matter. Wife is going outa town, which is usually a good chance to get a game in but all play other players are busy so I’m considering just setting up and going at it solo. Has anyone here attempted doing a solo game? I feel it could be a good chance to learn more strats…
That sounds like an excellent idea, but honestly will be hard to execute. I have tried doing this in risk many times, but Ive always found myself wanting to try one strategy out more than the other, and so I end up being bias and letting one side win easier than should be.
The only turn I allow Sydney to build less than 3 units is the first - 1TT 1inf.
Even if a full KJF is in effect, or specifically for a Spanish Beachhead?
If all 3 axis concentrate on Russia, the game is over. This is the problem with the Global scenario and the fact that geography leaves Russia surrounded, also it is the only goal that the Axis can all 3 easily concentrate upon.
Even if you save Moscow for a while with Allied intervention/planes, your income is shredded and you are eventually under siege with less than 10 IPCs. If the Axis also use strategic bombers (all 3; 2 Italian, 5 German, 2 Japanese) they are burning all Russia’s money too with no reply. Both Germany and Japan are difficult to defeat directly or quickly, so when the Allies win its usually because of a combination of attrition and concentration of force on one enemy as well.
Both G40 and G42 are biased against the Allies, primarily for these reasons. G40 probably cannot be won against strong players below +22. G42 needs at least +8.
It is certainly possible to win as the Allies without a bid, but probably not likely against top tier competition.
Well spoken taam, as always, for the allies to start getting consistent wins I would argue perhaps a 40 bid, although +22 definitely gives them a chance.
I agree about the bidding being insane.
I’m more inclined to remove the victory city rule and reduce allied bids.
You cannot reduce by much, often times even without VC, going for Total Vicroy, once Axis reach economic superiority they can just start playing safe and slowly out economize you.
@Cow:
Sure have. I am still a proud axis player and a proud Trump supporter.
Make America great again.
The problem with the bid going to USSR is that it’s not to powerful, if all of a sudden Russia can hold her own with a few fighters being flown to it, then USA can go full KJF and the Axis are screwed, so the problem Is finding a way to help Russia while still making it conquerable and defendable.
The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist
Have the bid rules changed? I thought that limitation only applied to sea units?
Well bidding is a house rule, but yes I’ve always known it to apply for land. I’m other wise with a bid of 21 why not 7 Inf in Paris? That would force Germans to send Some Luftwaffe there which would mean I could keep 110 or 111 alive. Or the Germans could simply attack it with no air and possibly lose, leaving it to the Italians (which the British air could have reinforced Paris by then).
The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist, so with 21 as I stated the Brits have put a land unit in every possible spot, but by putting a Trans down in the bid it is as if they got to put down 2 more Inf since there are 2 Inf starting in South Africa. Plus as you mentioned you sacrifice your transport by doing Tobruk, but you automatically have a replacement so as to Shuck 2 men up to Egypt every other turn, and 2 Tanks/Mech on the off turn so as to have a good shuck shuck to defend Egypt and yet still prepare an Invasion force.
What TransJordan inf? If Taranto failed you’d send the Tac somewhere like Malta or Alexandria to try to keep it alive? Interesting theory.
I can’t see what you’ve done with the Mec, but the best I can see is 2TTs two tanks and the Mec + the tac.
It’s possible that you can retake it if enough is left. Perhaps Italy would hit TransJordan instead and stage into Iraq or Egypt.
I can’t agree with hitting Persia from India. Not getting on Sumatra sacrifices India which I would count as more important.
excuse the Trans Jordan, I confused the G42 setup (where there is one) also what about the Strat Bomber that came down for Taranto and landed in Malta? Or if I saw that Egypt could fall I could send the Indian RAF to Brit Somaliand. But you are missing the whole point of this, it started with you questioning how in the world could taranto, tobruk, and ethiopa all be done in one turn with favorable odds. The way was presented to you so instead of critiquing why you wouldn’t do battles of 75% odds just understand that doing all 3 is possible. And also realize that in a game that is majorly against the allies, 75% odds are damn good for them and shouldn’t be snided at or considered doomed to fail. Prior to this thread I had never considered being able to do all 3 attacks on UK1, but I have now found a way and intend to use it.
@Young:
I’m gonna see this setup for the first time next week.
I love the 1942 setup, but for different reason than most. The reason being is that it makes me fall more in love with the 1940 setup. :-D
