Posts made by Uncle_Joe

The Final Countdown with Kirk Douglas and Martin Sheen. :)

And yeah, it was pretty bad. ;p

I believe it was even before the F-18 was in service. And it was the original F-14As with A-6’s and A-7’s for strike planes.

The movie had its moments, but…

We havent seen a problem with SBR or bombers yet (in dozens of games).

SBR can be effective at reducing enemy IPCs, but the opportunity cost is high. In general, I’d much rather invest IPCs in units that can not only deprive my enemy of IPCs but give them to me (ie, ground units and/or naval units to get my ground units in place).

For combat effectiveness, my gut instinct is that bombers are a bit too good, but I havent really seen that play out in actual games. Sure they hit hard, but they ARE 20% more costly than a Fighter. That adds up, I guess.

Again, I think a lot of it depends on how long (in turns) your games tend to last. If they stalemate and tend to drag on, then ya, SBR and bombers in general will start to look more and more attactive. In tight time constraint games (which is what most of ours seem to be), there just isnt time to build up enough of a bomber force to really have a dramatic impact…there are usually plenty of other items which are needed.

I usually stay out of the ‘tech’ arguments but honestly, planning for low-odds events does not make you a ‘good’ player. If you have 9 Inf and 1 Fighter in Germany and your Brit opponent can land with 2 Art, 3 Inf and 1 Fighter with a BB shelling his odds of taking Germany are LOW. So does a ‘good’ player reinforce Germany (at the cost of weakening his position in Russia) on the off-chance that he gets abysmally screwed by the dice?
I would think definately ‘no’. But if he makes that attack and you lose, you still lose the game to outright luck.

You have to play the odds or else you will lose in the long run. If you get screwed by bad dice, you get screwed by bad dice whether it be tech or battles or whatever. So that means you more or less have to plan for the odds and try your best to overcome the ones where you get zapped. If its a critical battle or a critical tech, you might lose the game right there. But in either case, its bad luck (or opponents’ good luck, I guess) which is the deciding factor, not some ‘failure to plan’ because you are a ‘bad player’.

If the Japanese want to waste time, troops, and transports retaking the Carolines on J2, I say let 'em. And they have to defend those transports which means they will be in range of US counter attack on US2. If the US built anything resembling a fleet, this will be quite hard on Japan assuming they dont pile their who fleet there (which in turns means no attack on India, a delayed or no attack on Australia and less moving inland into China. I’ll happily take that for the cost of 1 US TR + 1-2 Infantry.

No, IMO Japan cant really afford to retake the Carolines on J2 without major disruption of their other goals. Like I’ve said before, Japan can do anything, but Japan cannot do everything. And the more thorns you stick in their side the better.

IMO, 3 Fighters + DD vs the BB. If he only score one hit on defense, sack a plane and leave the DD. Send 1 plane after the TR/DD. If you lose, you lose, but in any case the DD in Hawaii prevents a US Turn 1 capture of the Carolines which gives the Brits their $5 bonus and just throws one more thing on the pile of things Japan has to do on the first few turns.

And Japanese bombers. They are the quickest way to make Japanese IPCs felt in Europe. Russia can be bombed into the Stone Age in relatively short order if Japan is left alone.

I dont know…IMO, the econs in this game are one big intertwined mess. If the Brits are investing in the Pacific then they are likely not losing money as quickly in Africa and Mid East (or even Pacific). Japan cant be strong enough to take a reinforced Australia as well as pressure Russia, maintain the drive on India/China AND fight the US in the Pacific. She simply doesnt have THAT kind of econ that early in the game.

Soooo, a ‘weaker’ Britain in Europe (but stronger in the Pacific) means less pressure on Russia from behind and more Brit money down the road to annoy Germany with. I dont think its as cut and dried as it seems on the surface.

That said, I’m still not big fan of an Aussie IC since I think the same basic effect can be gained with a South African IC without the potential vulnerability and with more ability to help preserve Africa.

I think an IC in SA is a heck of a lot more versatile AND less vulnerable than 2 TRs. IMO England pretty much needs to keep her fleet farther north most of the time to take Norway/Finland and to constantly harass France/Northern while still threatening Germany/Poland/Karelia (if lost).

Also, the IC can build minor navy to threaten the SoPac, alone making it worth the price of admission IMO. :)

I guess I just dont see a Germany/Italian econ advantage over UK/USSR IF the US and UK minor forces are preventing Japan from romping. Its not hard to deny Italy her bonus(es) and Russia outproduces Italy straight out most of the time. Germany DOES tend to outproduce UK at some point, but if the US is putting pressure on Japan, its not THAT hard to give Britain at least one of her bonuses as well.

If you go with a UK IC in South Africa, they can even make it very hard for the Axis to piddle in Africa. With Africa more or less intact, UK’s econ is usually OK. In any case, I dont tend to see some massive Axis advantage in econ UNLESS the US doesnt keep Japan pinned down.

I dont think KGF or KJF the ‘optimal’ paths. I believe a more balanced approach is necessary. Personally, I think England and Russia are enough match for Germany/Italy IF Japan isnt gutting the English income AND breathing down Russia’s neck as well.

Given that, the US’s job is to keep Japan from doing those two things. Usually if Britain or Russia can spare ANY help, Japan could struggle for a while.  I dont think the US really has the income to split her attention and I think her attention is better spent in the Pacific than in Europe.

I think people are looking for the quick ‘gimmick’ strat but it appears that this edition of A&A has done a REALLY good job of denying that. That might change in the future, but at the moment, I just dont see either ‘all out effort’ in a theatre to be as productive as fighting in both.

I like an IC in South Africa.

You can usually extricate your Australian fleet and send it to South Africa as well. From there, drop a CV and a plane or even just a few DDs/CAs and you are business peeing in Japan’s pool and threatening to take back the DEI. Its a fairly minimal investment, but it can cause Japan major headaches (assuming the US is playing in the Pacific, which I consider required of the Allies).

So, IMO, a factory in SA does the most important things for Britain.

1. It helps retain control of Africa (2 tanks a turn is enough to make it very hard for Italy to take Africa, especially with a minor US/Brit ‘Operation Torch’).

2. Helps retain or retake Brit possession in Asia. Japan simply cant split her fleet effectively enough to deal with the US and keep the Brits pinned (unless they forgo a KO on China and/or attacking Russia, both of which I think are bad ideas).

Currently I havent seen a GOOD answer to a Brit IC in SA. Three games out of three, the Allies have won with that strat. I have yet to have fight against it yet. Twice I was Britain using it, and once I was the US and the UK player and I made a mess out of Japan.

I highly recommend trying it in most ‘standard’ games. If the Germans try something silly and starting BB survives (or both the CA/DD in Gib), then I’d prolly go with a more ‘traditional’ Brit game. But barring that, drop the IC in SA and then start creating ‘harassment’ forces in England as well. Generally I’ve found that the income I save by not losing Africa and/or recapturing at least one of the DEI area is enough to pay for the units being produced at the factory so its not like it really slows you down in your efforts to land on the Continent.

Ignoring Japan vs a good Axis TEAM should result in an Axis win more often than not IME. It really doesnt come as a surprise that people are thinking the Axis have some sort of advantage if the Allies are still trying KGF…

They start with 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm, 1 Ftr in Egypt. If Germany doesnt attack, the Brits can move in 2 Inf from Trans-Jordan. The bomber, I assume, would be a survivor of the Brit attack on the Italian fleet (assuming the CA/DD off Gibraltar werent sunk and the Brits made that attack). Other than that, I dont know why you would want the bomber in there).

If, for whatever reason, the Japanese dont kill the TR/DD off India, then the Brits can reinforce from there (obviously at the cost of India). Personally as Britain, if the Germans attack and fail, I evacuate the Fighter to India (assuming its obvious I cant hold off Italy). If the Germans dont attack, then I reinforce from T-J only (I dont weaken India). If Egypt is not attacked by Germany, then I’ll tend to drop the IC in South Africa. If it does fall, then it depends on the rest of the global situation.

Uncle Joe-
  In both of your and our games, the situation appears to be about the same. I agree with your numbers in the broad sense (though I think Japan is slightly lower-65 rather than 70). Its what happens next that matters.

At roughly the end of turn 5, your numbers are approximately right.  Japan has taken India, China, Australia, all of the Pacific (more or less-maybe not quite all of China, maybe all of China but not yet Australia, but generally right).  US/UK have landed in Morocco (or have landed, and perhaps been kicked out of, western Europe).  Germany is on the defensive in the East (probably holding Poland, perhaps holding one or two of the border regions in Russia).  Russia is getting the strength to continue pushing west.  italy/Germany hold the top part of Africa (minus Morocco) and perhaps part of the interior of Africa (from blitzing German tank).

But now, US/UK threaten to either permanently hold western europe or conquer Italy (and take their money), and will be pouring 6-10 ground forces into Europe per turn.  Thus, Germany/Italy have to defend western Europe.  Which allows Russia to continue to press from the East (into Poland, into Rumania/Balkans, wherever Germany is weakest).  Germany/Italy lose their national objectives (US/UK in western Europe as well as Morocco-sometimes Gibraltar just to ruin the NO).  ON TURN 6:  Italy probably falls.  Poland possibly falls (and Germany proper is now threatened by all 3 allies).

Japan: to achieve 65 income, at the end of turn 5, they have: a fleet down in Australia.  A fleet in India.  Some (not alot) ground forces in Western/central China.  some (not alot) ground forces in India.  Factories in Japan and a few coastal areas-perhaps Manchuria, Vietnam, maybe even the islands in the Pacific worth 4.  Thus, ON TURN 6: Japan build a whole bunch of ground forces-in Japan, in Manchuria, in Vietnam (which are 3 turns from the front lines!!-they won’t be in the fight until turn 9!).  The fleet near India can threaten Madagascar or the east coast of Africa (worth maybe 2-3 income).  The fleet in Australia spends turns 6,7 and maybe 8 just getting somewhere useful.  The ground forces in China and India plod one space forward-to the space west of India, to the space west of western China-for another 2 dollars.

In short, I think your and our games are pretty similar at the end of turn 5.  But turn 6, Italy falls, Japan builds a bunch of stuff in Japan, and captures 4 dollars worth of irrelevance in central asia and east africa.  Japan may be a monster, but its an irrelevant monster.

It sounds like the German/Italy players werent playing with an eye on survival (ie, they were actually trying to make headway into Russia) and the Japanese player has been building for the immediate advantage rather than the long-term advantage.

The only time I’ve seen a KGF succeed was when we had a lesser experienced Japanese player and they failed to coordinate with Germany/Italy. Sure, they had an income out the wazoo (the 65+), but as you say, they werent ‘relevant’ to the rest of the game. The trick is to MAKE Japan relevant. And as I’ve said before, the easiest way to do that is ICs in Asia churning out tanks (about 6-8/turn) and especially bombers to support the tanks and remove Russia’s econ. At the very worst, I’d be prepared to trade Italy for Russia, but I dont think that even has to happen if Italy has been playing with an eye towards simple survival.

IMO, once the Allies commit to KGF, THEY are ‘on the clock’. With a monster Japan, its only a matter of time to Russia is GONE (much faster if Russia cant build units due to Japanese SBR). So with that in mind, Italy and Germany’s SOLE goal is to survive. Trading your whole air force for the Brit fleet is worth it if it costs them 2 turns to rebuild (at LEAST, since her econ is going to suck). Beyond that, infantry and planes while the econ holds, then infantry/tanks and finally just infantry. With even EQUAL econ, I really dont see the US and UK getting ahead at that point. They just have too much overhead and too much to protect from air power to be able to land into 10-12 infantry and a few planes.

Finally, since its all about TIME for the Axis, the Japanese can cost the US time by invading Alaska (which forces a defensive commitment and/or a counter-attack) and threatening Mexico/Panama etc from the Pacific. As was noted, there is nothing that says that Japan’s fleet has to stay in the Pacific either. Since they are likely to be taking Africa, its not much of a stretch to get some CV’s into the Med or South Atlantic. Which again, greatly adds to the US/UK headaches of protecting their fleet. Germany can hit any fleet with air, followed up by Japanese air (including bombers which can easily stage to Poland).

Personally, I think the Allies have a very good chance of winning the game, but not with KGF. A good Axis TEAM should be hold out until the Cavalry arrives.

Which is precisely why I, and many others, rejected all forms of bidding or other changes to help the allies out and why I (and I think many others) am rejecting all forms of bidding or other changes to help the axis out now.

As soon as you have 1000 games under your belt, THEN and only then, do I think you are qualified to say the game needs a balance adjustment.

Yep, I absolutely 100% agree. I just remember seeing those ‘How do we balance the 41 scenario since the Axis never lose’ threads and its amusing how the pendulum has swung. ;)

Its just going to be strategy and counter-strategy for a while. I cant imagine changing the game based on a few games worth of play. I’ve played prolly close to 20 game and I still see new things EVERY game (especially if you play with completely different people).

Yes. And it works great. If the US abandons the Pacific, IMO Japan absolutely should start massing bombers. They can get into action quickly, can easily change theatres if need be, and can wreck the econ or join the battles at will.

Yep, I agree that the Axis are very reliant on most if not all of their turn 1 attacks succeeding. If they pooch a few of them, they are going to have an uphill fight most of the game IMO. And yep, even if they are all 90%+ battles, odds are at least ONE of them is going to go poorly. I think in that sense, the Allies do have an advantage.

But if you play the odds and dont get totally zapped, I think it balances out very well on both sides. It is amusing that popular consensus around here back in December was that the Axis couldnt lose in 41….

If Japan is really pouring it on (which they should be if the US isnt fighting in the Pacific), I cant see how that is the case:

Germany 26 (-5 for Finland/Norway), +5 for 1st NO = 31 (minimum - this is with NOTHING in Russia)
Italy 10  - lets say they are being squashed in Africa and have nothing
Japan 70 - Japan should have ALL of Asia, Alaska, bits of Africa and the Mid-East + all 3 NOs

106

US 36-38+5 = 41 to 43 (-Phil, Alaska, Hawaii and with 1 NO)
UK ~25 to 28 They should have NOTHING in Asia, have no NOs and be missing bits and pieces of Africa
USSR ~20-25 + 5 = 25 to 30 tops. Again, assuming the German have NOTHING and that Japan has not made major inroads

94-100 or so

And that is assuming that Germany and Italy are really rolled back on their heels which wont always be the case. Its hard to keep them completely down if they are playing a defensive game (which they should be from turn 2 on once they know the US is not playing in the Pacific). If they continue with a ‘standard’ game plan once the US is commited, yes, they’ll likely lose before Japan can intervene.

Also, this is pretty far along in the game to reach this state. Germany and Italy should have enjoyed their bonuses a few times before being reduced to this. If the Allies are really pushing Africa, then yes, Brit money will be higher, but then again, Germany and Italy wont be being hit on the Continent as hard if Allied resources are going to Africa.

At any rate, if the Axis have never gone above the Allies, then that would lead me to believe that the Japanese player is just moving too slowly. They can really explode out of the gate if there is no opposition. And they can easily threaten the US West Coast (forcing a response there) as well as moving to Russia and pushing into Africa/Mid East. They make a LOT of money if unopposed, but they have to be extremely aggressive and not waste time.

I think y’all might be giving up before its truly over. The Axis still likely have the econ advantage at that point and Japan is probably just on the verge of making her weight felt. You should have 2-3 ICs in Asia by this point with Japan and Bombers coming from home. The Axis econ should be every bit as strong or stronger than the combined Allies. And 2 of the 3 Allies have to be shipping stuff in rather than building ‘on site’.

Unless Germany proper is about to fall, I think the game is not over if Japan is humming along at 65-70 IPCs a turn (not uncommon if the US abandons the Pacific.

Its not that hard to keep the Allies off the continent for a few turns. Sure, they can land in Africa and that can be a pain, but they cant do much to Europe for a few turns if you executed your first German turn ‘correctly’. Luck can play into it, of course, but by and large the Brits should have to spend the first few turns building the fleet and not invading. The US can get over there, but not till US3 or so at the earliest. And given that the 2 cant combine for an attack (and Italy can go between the two), it should be VERY hard for the Allies to do any serious damage.

As soon as the Axis know the US is coming for Europe, Germany/Italy should downshift to a more defensive game. Build planes and infantry. Push Russia only far enough to get your first bonus or so. Your income should hover around 40 or so (a bit less once Norway and Finland are gone). But that is still sufficient for 8-9 Infantry and a Fighter every turn. Every now and then you can throw in a Bomber to increase threat range and power. Doing that means England cant afford to ignore navy investment.

Also, while its true that Japan cant threaten MOSCOW for some time, they can still take income from Russia and more importantly they can still BOMB Russia into the ground. Bombers in Japan can hit Moscow 2 turns after production. If the US abandons the Pacific, an IC and Bombers on J2 are just fine. Its pretty easy to see the US commitment and if you cant, then its obvious that they arent pressuring Germany any time in the near future.

What are your German players building on their first few turns? What attacks are they doing on G1? What do you typical see from the Amis on turn 1? What does your Japanese player usually do?

All of that is extremely important IMO. I’ve played plenty of games on both sides and I just haven’t seen either side have an advantage that didnt come from luck or better play.