Posts made by Veqryn

Generally speaking, the allies only buy them if they are already winning, and so it becomes a “Win-More” kind of deal, and is not necessary to win in the first place.

Definitely interested, it would be something to do if the lobby is down on weekends

I’ve heard of USA players building 1 or 2 Factories up there.  Haven’t tried it yet, but either the US player needs transports in the baltic or they will be negating Russia’s NO, which I don’t like to do.

Well, you guys might be missing something here.  You do not need to agree that the game is imbalanced, or have a consensus on what bid is necessary to balance it, to have a consensus on what I am talking about.
Example: Person A may think the game is already balanced and that a bid is not necessary, Person B thinks an Allied bid of 6 ipcs is needed when you play with NOs, and Person C is nutty and thinks that 21 ipcs are needed for the allies with NOs.  But all of these three people may in fact agree that a bid of 2 infantry in europe would be equivalent to a bid of 2 naval warships off the coast of america.
Agreeing on what to do to balance the game is not a pre-requisite to agreeing on certain bids types being equivalent.

Or, to think about it in a different way, lets think of this as a Ratio.
I’m just going to throw this out there, but lets say you have a Bid of X.
If you use it on the “front line” in either Europe or Africa/MiddleEast, then all you get is X.
If you use it not on the front line in Europe/Africa/MiddleEast, or you use it on the front line in China, then you get X1.5
If you use it not on the front line in China, or you use it in the Atlantic on Navy, UK main island Air/Land, then you get X2
If you use it on Pacific navy, or American Continent Land/Air, then you get X*2.5.

Now, as you can see, if you think X should be zero, then they all end up as zero.  If you think X should be 6, then you could either get 2 europe/egypt inf, or 3 chinese inf, or a cruiser in the atlantic, or a DD + a sub in the pacific.  If you think X should be 10, etc, etc.

I would only be ok with your idea if all russian territories that had an AA also got an additional infantry too to make up for the new rule change.

Why exactly does WOTC not care about strategy board games?

@oztea:

Japanese factory in East Indies is game breaking. UK has to build a factory its first turn if it wants to help the US stall Japan.

Germany doesnt need another factory, they need to capture one of Russia’s

I’m against building Japanese factories on islands.  Half the point of building a factory as japan to me is that the units i build will already be on the mainland, thereby speeding up their deployment to russia, and at the same time, lessing my dependence on defenseless transports.  Japan may be able to threaten africa from the east indies, but I would rather threaten russia from india + burma + manchuria.  Fallen Russia, not africa, = game over.

I’d say the only countries worth building Factories are Japan in Manchuria, Burma, and India, and the UK in Egypt only after all german and italian fleet are dead and there is no more axis in africa, and then also sometimes UK/USA factory in France if they definitely can hold it and have money to fund it.

2 Countries need updating, plus you need to add the other 2 countries in too:

Italy
This nearly insignificant nation spends all game pissing off the UK and America. 
If you like being a pain in the ass, and want very short turns, consider Italy.

China
This joke of a nation only plays during the first 3 turns, and spends her turns retreating
what few forces she has.  If you have to go somewhere and can’t stay for the whole
game, consider playing as China.

Japan
Starts with the most powerful navy and airforce, but has a weak income from her starting
board position.  However, after only 3 turns Japan will be more powerful her ally Germany
and her enemy the United States.  If you like to play as an unstoppable and invincible clock
ticking til turn 6 for the death of Russia, consider Japan.

The United States
Starts with few units and is far from the action.  Has a larger economy than the UK, but
smaller than Germany and smaller than Japan after the first couple turns.  If you love
thinking through the logistics of transporting ground units across the atlantic, consider the USA.

@bugoo:

Depends on the situation on if bombing G is good or bad.  If they are going tank dash then if you can drop them around 40 ipc or less than bombing is good as it is fewer tanks headed to moscow, if they are going turtle and making 40 though then its less effective.

Against this it is best to land UK troops in Karelia, lots of 'em, 6-8 a turn starting turn 2, along with heavy US landings in africa to choke Italy’s income.  Also, be sure to hold Persia at all costs to keep the Japs from breaking threw, move the India forces back + TJ forces + 2-4 russians on R2.  Do not abandon Kar on R2, esp if G bought 6 tanks.  Build 2 inf there, stack everything in range there, and land the UK figs there if you must on turn 1.  Keeping G from getting all 3 NOs without loosing stacks of units is a huge mistake when going KGF.  On turn 2 let the british begin to stack it, along with taking norway/finland and/or SBRs, germany will never build 10 armor.  Forget about the 1st Russian NO, its better for russia to loose 5 than to give G 7.  Germany should only, if ever, get 3 NOs for 1 turn (2 or 3), and be down to 1 NO in mid game (4-5).

Then you want to either take Italy, or take and hold France or NWE.  Do not trade France with more than 2 units and don’t prioritize trading france for a turn over dumping 8 units into Karelia if you cannot hold it!  Do not take Italy if you cannot hold it.  Do not build more defensive boats than you must.  I see ally players get there fleets all out of wack by going for a quick Italy/France trade, or drop 6 units into france a turn to get destroyed a 2-4 G units and air, or build more boats than G has planes.  These actions will cost you the war!  At some point, around turn 4, you must make your move and do a large drop into France or NWE or Italy and hold the territory.  Remember, NWE is worth the same as Karelia to Germany.

Great stuff
The thing I get most wracked with myself during a game, is if I am playing as America I can have 6-8 transports bringing troops from America to North Africa, but the second I decide to use some transports to pick guys up from North Africa and drop them off in France/Norway/Italy I am screwed for one whole turn as my transport chain has to adjust.  Not only that, but if Germany has fighters in France, or a Bomber in Germany, I now have to defend 2 stacks of Transports within range.

So….

Yes… the Submarine gets to shoot at my transport during combat (and i should not have brought the transport along)
No… I may not land my troops after the surface warships are cleared, simply because there was a battle in the first place and the sub is still there
Yes… I may retreat my dumb transport and fighters

Ok, so I was playing a game where America owned the East Indies with 2 infantry, and in the surrounding sea zone had 1 transport, 1 submarine, 1 carrier, and 2 fighters.
Japan attacked that seazone with 6 fighters, and also brought a transport with 1 inf and 1 tank, to land them on the East Indies.

The Japanese Fighters won the combat, killing off his Carrier and his 2 fighters and his transport, with 3 japanese fighters left, Plus the surviving USA submarine.

Questions:
Does his submarine get to take shots at my transport DURING the combat with the Carriers and Fighters?
After his Surface Warships and fighters are killed, MAY I ignore his submarine and land troops on the East Indies? (the rules say i can land troops if only subs are left)
If he does get to use his Submarine to shoot at my transport during AND after combat, or his carriers or fighters survive, may I retreat my transport?

as long as germany is getting all 3 NOs, bombiner Italy is more effective

Strategic Bombing is not effective in the first 4 turns against Germany, if you have NOs on.
I prefer to bomb Italy if I bomb anyone in the first 4 turns.
As long as Germany is collecting her 3 NOs, your strategic bombing forces him from buying 10 tanks a turn into buying 5 tanks and 5 inf at worst.  However, Once you start to land troops in france or poland, or italy or the balkans, and russia has recovered and can defend both Karelia and the Caucasus, and Germany is not collecting 3 NOs anymore, only 1 or 2, THEN strat bombing germany begins to become very effective.

I never understood why people would cheat at anything that does not involve money.  Anyway, back to the topic.

I understand this idea of differing unit bids would be very subjective, however if enough people seriously think about it and respond, we would at least set the stage for its potential.

@bugoo:

You must be very careful though as to weakening Japan, as if you do it too much the Japan war machine can be gutted very quickly (IPC wise).  An India IC + US pacific builds + R1 bomber in caucaus and reinforcements into India can stop Japan’s income.  Granted Russia will be pressed but that happens, and just holding moscow for a few rounds is not difficult.

well, i was implying that if you added a cruiser and/or DD to western USA, that you would not need ANY other bids at all.

@DarthMaximus:

G1 with bomber for me.

Btw, I think you can still do Sz 2 with 2 subs, 1 ftr, and Sz 12 with 2 ftrs.  Sketchy battles, yes, but they can be done.

As for Egy, I think you gotta take down that Arm and Ftr, they can really cause problems, not to mention no attack or a failed attack gives the UK 5 extra IPCs for a NO, plus the 2 for holding Egy without having to risk a counter.  This means UK could be set for Capital ships and transports by the end of Rd 2.

You can still do SZ2 with 2 subs, 1 ftr, and you will lose 1 sub most of the time.  However, the SZ12 with just 2 fighters becomes very dangerous, with a very very good chance of you losing both your fighters.  If you do it with 1 sub, 2 fighters, 85% chance of win, you will lose the sub and have 1.73 fighters left on average.  If you do it without the sub, you have only a 49% chance of winning, most likely with less than half a fighter left on average.  (battle calc).

So basically, if you do G1 egypt with the bomber, you will lose 1-2 more fighters as Germany than if you waited til g2, or did g1 without the bomber.

Still, I’m not saying thats bad, it could be worth it.  But i generally do a bit more conservatively with my airforce

Ok, so basically, I think that if someone bids 3 ipcs and puts 1 inf in Egypt, and another person bids 20ipcs and puts 4 tanks in Brazil, that If I was the Axis I would rather play against the guy who put the tanks in Brazil.  Extreme example, but what I’m trying to say is that not all bids are equal, and the amount of money a person bids should not determine if their bid is accepted, instead it should be what they are bidding and where they are putting it.

What units and where they are going should determine what their bid is worth, not the other way around.

My goal for this thread is to reach some sort of consensus on what things are about equal, that way if the person who wins the bid wishes to pick something different BUT equivalent, they can do so.

So, to reach this lofty goal, perhaps the kind people of this forum can help me out in determining what would be the equivalence of certain bids.

Assuming NOs are in play, and the bid is limited to 1 unit per territory.
Lets say a basic bid of 6 IPCs for the Allies.  Generally this results in 1inf in Karelia and 1inf in Egypt.

What would be the equivalent of this bid?

Chinese infantry do not matter as much as Inf in karelia and egypt, so perhaps this bid of 6ipcs would be equivalent to a bid of 9 or 12 ipcs in just chinese infantry?
American naval ships matter even less than Chinese infantry, and naval ships are about 2 times more expensive than land units.  Ships on the west coast matter less than ships on the east coast, so perhaps this bid of 6ipcs would be equivalent to 14 or 18 ipcs in US naval ships off the West Coast (dd + sub, or cruiser + sub).
Perhaps this 6 ipcs bid would be equivalent to a 8ipc UK destroyer in Seazone 2, or 15ipcs for a UK destroyer + transport in the pacific off of australia (1942 has none off australia)
Perhaps it would be equal to 14 ipcs if used for 2inf + 2art in South Africa?

Assuming that NOs are NOT in play, and the unit bid is still limited to 1 unit per territory.
Lets say a basic bid of 6 IPCs for the Axis.  This might result in 1inf in Libya, and 1inf in Poland/East Poland.
What would be the equivalent of this bid?
The further away from the front, the less the bid is worth.  1inf in Poland/East Poland would be worth 2inf in Germany.  Maybe, maybe not, you guys are here to help me decide.
Perhaps this 6 ipc bid would be worth 8 ipcs in a destroyer in the Baltic?  or Maybe that is too powerful, and instead it could be worth a 7ipc transport?
Japanese land units matter even less, and Japanese naval units much much less.  Perhaps this simple bid of 6ipcs would be worth 9-12ipcs in japanese land units in mainland asia, or even 21 ipcs in land units in japan proper, or around 14-18ipcs in japanese naval units.

Lets discuss.  Lets fine tune it.
If you disagree with the whole idea, don’t bother posting.
And we are not to talk about what should be the bid, only about what bids are roughly equivalent.

If you were going to attack Egypt, When and with what do you attack Egypt?

Option# - Considerations
1 If you attack Egypt on G1 without your bomber, the UK will most likely be left with their fighter and possibly a tank too.  Uk will either retreat their remaining forces in Egypt and Transjordan, or Italy will be left with a small force to kill on Italy1.
2 If you attack Egypt on G1 with your bomber, then that means you do not have enough forces to kill both seazone 2 and seazone12
3 If you wait until G2, the UK has more forces for you to kill and you will need the 1inf+1tank from france on G1, plus pick up the 1inf+1tank you moved to Balkans/Bulgaria/Ukr on G1.  However you will lose fewer German forces in the attack, and will probably win with 1 or 2 tanks left.
4 If you use Italy turn 1 to attack with a few shore shots, you can reduce the UK forces by 3 units, at a cost of 4 italian land units, or you can reduce the UK forces by 2 units at a cost of 2 italian land units.  This means it will be very easy for Germany on Turn 2 to take Egypt, with or without a second batch of reinforcements from Balkans/Bulgaria/Ukraine.
5 If you use just G2, you can opt to have a fighter or bomber land within range on turn 1, this will limit your loses, but also limit what you are doing G1 somewhat.
6 If you opt not to go with German reinforcements on G2, you can knock UK down to just 1 fighter, 1 tank, 1 art, followed by finishing them off with Italy on Italy turn 2 (provided Italy’s fleet survives).
7 Or you wait til G3 or I3, which means that you had to have built some Italian fleet, or brought more units/air within range, otherwise either the Italian fleet will be dead, or you will have no reason to do it turn 3 instead of turn 2.

(there is no option for ‘not attacking egypt’, but i want those people who don’t attack egypt to consider what they would do if they DID attack egypt (or had to))

I would rather see a Pacific USA naval bid than a bid anywhere else.

I think a cruiser along side Western US or with the BB in Hawaii, along with a Submarine added to the Carrier force near South America.