Posts made by U-505

@General_D.Fox:

@U-505:

I would never give my opponent more than 6 IPC’s as a bid. My bids are exclusively 5 or 6. 2 inf or 1 unit and/or cash to Japan is more than enough to make the game even. Giving a good player more than 6 is asking for trouble.

How is giving a 6 bid or more asking for trouble?  You’re saying that 7-9 would give the Axis too big of an advantage? How?

Yes. 7 IPC’s to a good player is asking for trouble. It allows for at least 2 infantry for the Axis and 1 IPC to Japan to give them the flexibility to purchase 2 TP, 1 IC on J1. I won’t allow that. With a 6 bid, either they get the 2 inf OR only 1 ground unit and the money for Japan. Simple as that.

8 IPC’s allows for a TP to be placed immeditely. How could you not see the big advantage of that?

9 or more is Christmas come early for the Axis. 3 inf/ 1 TP, 1 IPC/ 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 IPC/2 art, 1 IPC/1 inf, 1 art, 2 IPC’s/1 arm, 1 art/etc… I’m a kid in a candy store with that kind of bid.

@General_D.Fox:

And yet U-505, your current opponent has a 7 bid. Doesn’t that go against what you were saying? 8-)

My opponent specifically asked for the Axis and 7 IPC’s to try out a new strategy and I was happy to oblige since new strategies typically don’t pan out on the first attempt, I needed some playing time as the Allies, and the game wasn’t rated at DAAK. He’s proven himself as a fine opponent and I doubt I will allow him another 7 bid again.

Tell you what, I’ve got some time before the singles tourney. Give me your median bid ( 8 ) and I won’t even buy a TP. I’ll take 1 inf Lib and 1 arm Kwang.  :-D

@4thmac:

OK, I guess I have to live with that in territories that were originally controlled by an enemy power.

Here’s part 2 of the question. As Japan, I’ve just rolled through and liberated a bunch of German countries that the Allies had previously captured. Berlin has not fallen yet. So does that mean that when Berlin falls, and all of my Jap units are hanging out in Eastern Europe, Belo, etc., that I cannot claim those territories as Japan income? Even though my units are sitting there?

That is correct. Germany is still considered “in the game”. Therefore, all of the territories that germany owns are still German and friendly to Japan but conquerable only to the Allies first.

If Germany was considered “out of the game” once Berlin fell and you were able to take those territories then the UK would get all of the German controlled UK African territory it currently holds and all German units on the board should be removed once Berlin falls. Trust me, I would have taken that outcome as well.

@4thmac:

If that’s true, then I just totally F’ed up on my last Japan move vs. U-505. That means that the Axis benefits by letting Germany fall into the hands of the Allies, and then they march across West Russia, Belo, etc. Looking back, I also should have played Germany totally differently and NOT liberated more German territory so the territories could ultimately go to Japan.

Not necessarily. for 3 reasons.

First, if you had hung back Japan and waited for Germany to fall then I would have a lot more US units in Europe once you got there.

Second, it cost me units to retake those territories Germany took and if you hadn’t traded them with me then I would have been able to concentrate more forces to attack Germany and you would have had less units to defend with because Germany’s income would have been less.

Lastly, I would have not sent a bunch of sacrificial Russian units to help contain Germany if you hadn’t tried to expand with them and Japan’s taking of Russia would have been significantly more costly.

@4thmac:

This may cost me the game, if not significantly delay a victory.

Absolutely. I’m actually surprised that you haven’t come across this situation before. I guess all of your wins have been decisive. In that case, I won’t be offering you a 7 bid in the future.

I would never give my opponent more than 6 IPC’s as a bid. My bids are exclusively 5 or 6. 2 inf or 1 unit and/or cash to Japan is more than enough to make the game even. Giving a good player more than 6 is asking for trouble.

As the Axis I’d buy 1 bmb for Germany and send 2 Japanese bmb’s to Germany and SBR the UK. Combined with a strong push into Africa the Axis can strangle the UK and force the US to split their forces to retake Africa and land in Europe because if they don’t then the UK will only be making about 5 IPC’s or so every turn which effectively eliminates the UK SBR campaign on Germany. Both Axis powers can spare the small investment and Germany can turtle and wait for Russia to fall to Japan.

I guess I should read the entire thread before posting. Long story short, I agree with Darth.  :oops:

Sometimes it becomes a free for all where each attacker succeeds in retaking with increasing amounts of units until one side gives up and goes home or the defender manages to hit above average and then the attacker is left with 1-2 infantry and the scrum starts all over again.

And Russia usually comes out on the losing end of the “fighters for trading” (kinda like dollies for froggies. Anybody?) battle because the Axis have more aircraft and the Russians have to also trade with japan as well as Germany. Although, the other Allies can offset the German side with trades of their own. Or Russia can completely abandon eastern Asia to avoid trading with Japan but that presents a problem all it’s own.

Germany can get squeezed for infantry in the middle rounds but once you get a decent sized stack of inf in W Eur all of your infantry builds(which should be your entire income’s worth) will be going east. You can always use some of your armor to help defend W Eur(which I hate because armor is for attacking, not defending) in the short term to keep up the infantry supply moving toward Russia.

@Jennifer:

Well, Japan’s going to be down to 4 Fighters, most likely, in any KJF scenario.

Japan after USA 1, in a situation where America should go KJF:

Battleship
Aircraft Carrier
4 Transports
4 Fighters
1 Bomber

USA:

2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Destroyers, 2 Transports, 4 Fighters

From here out it’s a race to see who can produce the most warships, in which case Japan looses.  America has 38 IPC, Japan has 34 IPC minus islands lost.

You don’t need to buy a single transport for this.  Well, not until round 6 or 7.  Why?  Because your transports are in the rear, well out of range of enemy fighters until you have submarines to support them and destroyers to defend them.

Everyone always discounts the destroyer…I’ve won many a game on KJF through the power of destroyers.

Wait a minute. I’ll give you the US battleship. Assuming the 2nd Japanese CV is out of range and the Japanese player doesn’t want to sacrifice a couple TP’s to sink it using the bomber. But, in most cases, even the US bomber goes down against 1 BB and a fully loaded CV in the sz52 counterattack. So your list should look more like this:

Japan: BB, CV, 4 fig, 1 bmb, 4 TP( should be 5. I build 4 TP+1 existing on J1 but we’ll go with 3+1 existing)

US: BB, 2 DD, fig, 2 TP +$42 to spend. And the DD, 2 TP in sz10 don’t even make it there until US 2. Unless the Allies gave a 20 bid to the US, you can’t build 2 CV, 3 fig in US 1.

And by J2, Japan’s income should most likely include Bury, SFE, Chi, Sink, Ind and sometimes even Yak and Per. That adds up to $39-$41 vs. the US $38.

Finally, I never discount the destroyer. They still cost 12 IPC’s.  :-D

@ncscswitch:

I think we need to revise the existing structure of units a bit to incorporate a few that were missing…

0-99           INF
100-250      ART
250-500      AA
500-1000    ARM
1000-1500  TRN
1500-2000  SUB
2000-3000  DST
3000-5000  AC
5000-10000 BB
10000+       HB

By adding in AA and TRN, and by tweeking the scales, we cover all the way to 10,000 posts

Switch, you forgot fighter in your list. And while we are on the subject. Heavy bomber is a tech. Since you are including techs, why not add rockets, super subs, and jet fighters? That could cover you to about 20k or 30k posts.

Well, the whole idea is that those units will get a defensive roll and, on average, take their due on their way back to the parts box. Usually it’s better to trade units and territories than to let your opponent keep territory for free unless it’s clear you will be losing much more than your opponent. Infantry defends better than attacks so you might as well force your opponent to let you get those defensive 2’s.

Turtling is when a country, usually Germany, builds only for defense and control of their core territories as opposed to expanding their holdings and tries to hold out until Japan can take Russia.

@Jennifer:

Actually, America is perfectly capable of killing of Japan almost unilaterally in MOST cases.

As I’ve said.  With average or better dice, you can lock Japan up with England and Russian units that normally do not move to the German front ANYWAY.  And, assuming Japan went heavily to Hawaii, you can drop their capital fleet shipping to almost 50% right off the bat. (assuming again, you got at least 2 or even 3 hits in SZ 52 with 2 fighters, 1 AC, 1 Submarine, that’s not too much to hope for.  13 punch on R1, 8-11 punch on R2.  vs Destroyer, submarine, battleship, AC, 2 fighters, more is usually not wise since you want SOME aircraft for Asia - normally, or to sink the British fleet scattered around the Pacific.)

So with Japan down 1 BB, 1 AC and 2+ Fighters on USA 1 and with America building a nice fleet in response, you can actually, land lock Japan.  That’s why they need to have ICs in a KJF.  Fleet is nice, but they’re going to be needing submarines, not transports.

Your first point is completely false. Japan can easily hold off the US without Allied help in Asia. Japan needs only to strafe the TP’s out from under the US and the US can’t hurt them.

Your second point is equally false. I just can’t see how the Allies can handcuff the japanese in Asia with just the units already there. With a 3 or 4 TP build on round 1, Japan can get the 4 inf from Oki, Wake, and Phil to the mainland and probably even the 3 from Bor and E Ind without exposing them to the enemy. Couple that with the 6 units already in japan and a 4-6 inf, 2 SS/1 CV build every turn and the Japanese will have ground superiority by J2. That doesn’t even include the airforce. Japan  can base their fighters on their CV’s in sz60 and the bomber along the coast and they can be used for dual duty in the Pacific and Asia. And against a sz52 fleet with the UK fighter added, why isn’t Japan bringing the bomber and the 3rd fighter? Who cares about having extra aircraft in Asia. Japan never has to make huge gains in the first round anyway. Their only objectives need to be take China, secure what they already own and destroy the units in sz52. 3 fighters to take China and help take out what’s left of the UK fleet is more than enough. Under threat of massive landings, the Allies in Asia will retreat without the Japanese having to roll a die.

And good luck landlocking the Japanese when they still have 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 bmb, 5 TP’s, and at least 3 fig with the US starting from scratch. Unless they do something crazy like building an IC on J1. Then maybe you can do it.

@Jermofoot:

That’s what I was going to suggest.  Like a new sub model - the Germans had many.

Actually, my avatar is the type XXI. It’s the most advanced model that saw combat. I have pictures of the actual U-505 both during capture and on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago but they are either too grainy or cluttered to even tell that it’s a sub in the picture so i didn’t use one.

A Japanese IC on round 1 forces you to spend at least 9 IPC’s worth of infantry to keep it running at maximum. And you’re still committed to buying more TP’s to maximize Japan’s production anyway. Somewhere along that line you will lag. Guns, guns and more guns are what Japan wants. And transports first. To move the guns you already have and future guns you build to where you want them. You can never go wrong with the 2 IPC’s to Japan in the bid and build 4 transports on Japan 1. Those TP’s will be useful to you throughout the whole game. Clear off all of those free guns off the islands as soon as possible. Then, IC’s later. To build more guns. Hmmm. I’m sensing a pattern in my Japanese strategy. Oh yeah, Baby! Transports and GUNS!!!  Tokyo Expressin’, Mt. Suribachi defendin’, MacArthur “We will return” sayin’, bonzai attackin’, Dr. Suess style GUNS! Big ones, little ones, tall ones, short ones, dog ones, cat ones and even some REALLY BIG FAT ONES! BANG! Heh heh. I love playing the Japanese.

@Jennifer:

in a KJF you want ICs.

I have seen Japan hold all their Round 1 income for Round 2 before.  That was interesting. (they had a 9 IPC bid for infantry in Asia.)

Actually, in a KJF you want transports because they preform multiple roles. The US can’t do KJF alone. They need help in Asia and the UK will tip the Allies hand for KJF. Heavy Russian forces in Asia doesn’t necessarily mean KJF, but if coupled with the UK fortifying India, with or without an IC(with is ideal), and avoids counterattacking Egypt, then a KJF is probable. If you plug an IC into that equation, then you not only are comitted to defending your fleet but also defending the IC. With Japan’s meagre starting income and every IPC in Asia being continually contested, one of them will crack under the pressure and then the other will crack right along with it. Japan just won’t have the cash to defend both reliably. Transports on the other hand, will allow you to land units from Japan and the islands early to secure your foothold in Asia and also provide defense for your fleet against the US.

If I made a feint at Japan in Rus1/UK1 and Japan plopped down 1 or 2(?!) IC’s, I would definitely consider KJF. Especially if the Japanese fleet in sz52 was weak and I had the opportunity to immediately trade half their navy for the US forces available.

@ncscswitch:

Nah, you will just be a sub masquerading as a FIG or AC.

You may look impressive, but still only a lowly sub at heart :-P

Maybe so, but my progeny will rule the seas and threaten the land. “Look honey, our son just fired his first ballistic missile. I’m so proud.”  :evil:

Heidi Klum IS the ultamit German strategi.

Damn! My opponent just added more infantry when I wasn’t looking. See. Heidi Klum really works.

Otherwise, I usually just build 1 CV/TP for the Med(luv dem Afrikin IPCZ) and the rest ground units while I wait nervously for the Japanese to take over the world.

I don’t know how much good a sub with wings would be, but a submersible aircraft carrier or battleship might have changed the war. Do I get to have one in the game, then?

Currently, I have about 975 posts. I am assuming that at 1000 posts I will be changing from an A&A.org submarine to something else.

U-505 the A&A.org destroyer seems antithetical.

So my question is: Is there any way for someone to fix it so that I stay an A&A.org sub permanently?

Well, nobody seems to have any problems with frood. If there are concerns about skewed results then maybe the singles tourney should make frood the default roller. I don’t mind using DAAK or the in-house roller. But, if other poeple do then maybe we should discuss it.

I disagree that the Allies always have the advantage. There are a lot of factors invloved.

First, and most importantly, is who controls the Med. Whoever controls the Med has a greater ability to control Africa and also is in position to threaten many key territories.

Second, the fact that the Allies have a 16 to 12 advantage in frontline production is not a factor because the Japanese already have their reinforcement system in place and are still constantly feeding units to the front from their IC’s and Japan.

Third, the 1-2 punch the Allies can make is as much of a disadvantage as it is an advantage. Japan can push the frontlines in Europe even if they are outnumbered because the Allies have to attack them separately and will likely take more casualties than Japan in doing so.

Fourth, in most situations, Japan owns at least half of Africa and there are also some German European territories that are Russian owned that the Allies will not be able to collect on so the income difference is usually closer than 102/64.

Lastly, it depends on which Ally controls which German IC and how much each Ally is making. Unless UK owns the bulk of Europe and Africa is Axis free, if they have Germany, they will have a hard time building 18 units to fill both Germany and the TP’s unloading from UK. And even if they do have enough income, those units are likely to consist of only infantry and few offensive units. Japan will be contesting Africa so UK is usually going to have about 40-50 or so IPC’s.

It’s situational. But if the quantity of units on the board is roughly equal then Japan isn’t necessarily doomed.

Well, if there is any validity to the DAAK AA myth then why not just use the in-house dice roller for SBR’s. I trust both dice rollers and you’ll be hard pressed to find an opponent who will demand using one or the other exclusively. If the myth is true, then you would be turning it to your advantage by avoiding the DAAK roller at the right time. Personally, I don’t see it, but if someone does, then more power to them.

I have won without a Baltic CV. Although, I do purchase a CV/TP for the Med. All it does is instantly limit Germany to defending the core European territories and gaining it’s IPC’s from Africa at the expense of the UK instead of Europe/western Asia at the expense of Russia.

The goal is for Germany to hold the lines in Europe and Egypt to force Russia into a head to head battle with Japan. It’s risky because Russia can get pretty big so your Japanese moves have to be ultra efficient. So far, I haven’t found a critical weakness that will make it completely obsolete but, it has it’s drawbacks.