Best posts made by weddingsinger

@AldoRaine said in We need an allied playbook.:

@Argothair So lets say you place your transports on sz112. As the allies I would now know sea lion is going to happen. This leaves me with a couple of options. I can either stack sz110 or sz109 with Royal Navy and invite the assault in the empty sz or I can split my forces and make you use air to win the navy battle. Both options have their perks but my personal choice is usually to stack sz 110 and invite the landing in sz109 on turn 3. With out a navy build by the Germans, whatever navy I have left in sz110 kills your transports and then you stranded a bunch of units lost a lot of unit value.

The most effective sea lions i have faced involve a carrier buy and landing in Scotland a turn prior. but this then requires an assault of sz 110.

Are you presuming UK ships left in either SZ110 or 111?

Looks like a UK stack in sz92 is sinkable by Italy alone. If it failed you’d maybe have 1-3 fighters left, or choose to save the carrier, I suppose, but… if there is a ship left Germany can still hit it with bombers (why my G1 buy of 2 bombers is so useful). Leaving UK with no blockers for sz112

The other end of my concern is that it leaves Italy with 2 transports, not 1, and the bulk of its own navy. So even if Italy doesn’t attack I1, UK can’t sink Italy’s ships on UK2. Don’t games with this move end up with a strong italy?

@Argothair One game was a Sea Lion feint where he then hit Novgorod with the transports (yeah, I don’t recommend that either), but he didn’t realize UK was setup for a REALLY strong defense until G3.

The 2nd game was pretty typical. I think his G1 was artillery, after that he shifted to fast movers. Maybe G2 was both inf and mechs for 20 units total.

Anyone up for some Triple A games to do some competitive testing?

@crockett36

I think I’ll try it. I’m thinking that once the Sea Lion threat is over, moving the UK fleet back to Cairo where the UK’s Indian Ocean ships (2 destroyers and a cruiser) can join up, too, and that French destroyer.

So, do you use a UK transport to take Greece UK1 if Italy doesn’t?

It occurs to me Italy’s fleet might be sinkable UK2 if they send some ships to sink the French ships… but that’s likely to be a destroyer, maybe the sub. So I’m liking the idea of a UK1 bomber along with the air base. Even without Greece as a landing spot, UK can sink Italy’s fleet with 3 fighter scrambles on UK2 IF they have 1 fighter, 1 tactical, 2 bombers, 1 carrier, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer.

@Argothair said in We need an allied playbook.:

@weddingsinger said in We need an allied playbook.:

Would you like to do 2 games at once, playing both sides? Otherwise, I wouldn’t mind starting as either side, but tend to default to Axis.

You know what, I’m sorry to get your hopes up, but I think the two games I’m currently playing have got me fully occupied – I forgot that Russia can declare war immediately after Germany takes London, so I suffered what was effectively a surprise attack on my forces in Poland (I would have stacked up differently if I’d realized I was being attacked that turn), so now I’m in two fierce Global games that could go either way. That’s enough for me for now. If you like we can play a casual game as soon as I’m done with one of my current games.

Sure thing.

A couple of threads down I’ve got notes on setting up Germany for a Sea Lion option that might help in the future, like stacking your Germans in Romania to force the Russians to stay North.

/I like an optional Sea Lion in case the Allied player does a good defense. No sense in wasting 70+ ipcs on transports and navy Germany doesn’t need.

@simon33 I’m with you, I think. J2 is supposed to get UK and US to buy for a Sea Lion defense, but J1 is sooo much stronger that I don’t think its worth it. If UK and US don’t buy for that on turn 1, even with US active, I’d still go for it as Germany anyway.

@M36 as I outline above, J1 vs J3 is a MASSIVE difference for Japan, too. Assuming you don’t take FiC early for your J3, Japan earns as much extra doing a J1 as the U.S. gets and UKPac will earn around 24 ipcs less.

@taamvan

I’m starting to think that for fighters, UK should put its planes on Scotland UK1, then if no Sea Lion they can reach Novgorod UK2. So useful against strategic bombing but also helping defend Russia’s stack(s) on infantry.

With limited play testing, I am liking mechanized Russia… it gives you actual options. An efficient German player won’t make mistakes that let Russia take down a German stack, but it will still slow them down a turn, making the higher expense moot, since you get an extra round of buys but also more time for Allied help to Moscow or time to force Germany to defend the Atlantic side.

@simon33 J5-J7. IF I’m in control as Japan, around J4/J5 I invade Russia, gobble up China. Maybe position to start bombing Moscow if it’ll be helpful. Stack the Japanese fleet and just keep gobbling up income. By J5 or J6 it should be in the 60s, maybe 70.

So if Calcutta turtled and it’ll cost me too much, I just don’t rush if it’ll leave things too open from the U.S. direction since its a 2 or 3 turn commitment (to Calcutta, 1 back to Malaya/Java… one more if you need to get back towards sz6). Because if I’m rolliing up IPCs in Russia and China still, I care more about protecting what I have and dropping 8 new destroyers into my navy on a turn than I do whether I get India on J5 or J7 when I can position myself to threaten ANZAC, too, and be patient.

@KGrimB If its a large naval battle then its OK to lose some carriers because you are almost certainly going to lose some planes, too.

So, to break a stalemate presumably you’ll be the attacker. If you already have a fair number of non-subs and planes, go ahead and buy stacks and stacks. Once they’re moving into position, bombers are a nice choice for their range, for instance, taking off from the Philipines to hit the coast of ANZAC and landing on Java… Or leaving W. Germany and hitting ships off Gibraltor or Cairo.

@The-Pripet-Martian Dont’ forget the extra planes carriers can bring to a fight…

Let’s say the U.S. takes the Caroline Islands. If Japan’s fleet is at the Philipines… the planes on your carriers can attack and still land on one of the little islands nearby while every other plane from Kwangsi or Japan, etc can reach and land on a carrier in the attack sea zone.

@simon33 Safer to take UK1… since no chance you’ll get diced.

@crockett36

I might consider scrambling against that but probably wouldn’t. The math shows up as each fighter scrambling gives you good odds to take out a UK fighter, but only 1. (there should also be a German fighter there to make it an even 3).

Also, your G1 makes it so UK can take W. Germany on their turn. Busting that into a mIC would be a nice win for the Allies.

London with zero fighters and a German navy afloat is worrying - even with the U.S. going hard to the Atlantic, I might consider Sea Lion, but mostly it means Japan will go hog wild in the Pacific.[link text]

Your Japan opener is a bit off. Japan needs to hit Yunnan J1 no matter what. I’ve attached a version where I also did the slightly riskier attack including Hunan, but the safer choice is to send that inf and planes to Kwangtung.
triplea_33316_jap1 (1).tsvg

Doing some play testing, mechanized Russia is mixed results. Against a disciplined, methodical German player, I think it might buy you 1 extra round before Moscow falls. Better results against a careless player, that’s for sure. I’ll be trying out some variations, like all artillery R1, then mechs/tanks after that so that your counter stack is available R4 from Belarus.

For the U.S., I’m thinking IF J1, buy only bombers for the Pacific. The goal is the U.S. fleet and planes at Hawaii US1, ANZAC US2 along with bombers bought US1, and hit any Japanese fleet at the money islands on US3. A bomber buy is the only thing that can reach in time to join the original ships. This leaves US2 buy for the Atlantic OR, if Japan is sending its entire navy south, keep buying for the Pacific on US2/3 to seize SZ6. Any fighters that survived and landed on Shan State, if they’re allive US4, can help keep Yunnan/Calcutta, or can be in Moscow in time for G6

Also means UKPac/China NEED to keep Shan State or Malaya as a landing spot for planes. As a bonus this potentially gets 8 fighters/tacticals up to help UKPac/China

If that’s the move, I’m thinking ANZAC just needs its most efficient attack navy possible, but I’m wondering if destroyers would be preferable to subs since the destroyers can help defend any remaining U.S. navy from Japanese air and help act as blockers to prevent Calcutta crush.

On the other side, that means the UK needs to do enough to keep London and Cairo, and everything else is fighters dumped on Russia. Planes from England can take off from Scotland and land in Novgorod or Archangel, then on to Moscow UK2 or 3 OR help defend an aggressive Russian player in Karaelia. More UK planes can arrive in 1 move via a factory in Persia built UK2, so 3 UK fighters arrive in Moscow a turn starting UK4.

@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:

What if, instead of the money islands, you went for the throat. 100 % PAC build. Original pieces plus 2 round of sub building, one round of bombers. Turn 1 huddle off o
San Fran, t2 Hawaii, t3 Midway or within 2 spaces, 4 Tokyo bay? Might accomplish same goals.

I’m trying a game with a harbor on Wake Island. Gives you almost unblockable access to sz6, can make Guam from there…Can still get back to Aleutians (but not Alaska) and, unlike Midway, can make it down to ANZAC in 1.

But I’m not sure it really accomplishes much beyond very aggressive posturing. Next stop is either wiping out sz6 or setting up a bomber haven on Iwo Jima

So clearly I have no issue with pummeling sz6. My main question always revolves around which way works best. The other idea is to hopefully sink a Japanese fleet group and some transports. Japan without transports is one you can block from a LOT of money…

@Argothair

Don’t lose a sub at Philippines, you should have 1-2 battleships to soak a hit. If UKPac sends its destroyer away your subs can convoy Malaya on J2 then India next turn.

For UKPac’s last few ipcs… if you take Yunnan you can use escort fighters with your bombers. Buying a 3rd bomber around turn 4-6 is worth while but by then you may be trying to take Calcutta anyway.

UK Middle East cranking out for India should mean little or no help for Russia…Japan can exasperate this by invading J4ish if things are going well (especially if U.S. if KGF)

And don’t get me wrong… I’ll lose Japanese planes IF I decide its really worth it. But losing 6+ fighters is a tough loss to get Yunnan a turn early or some such. But if it meant wiping out everything China and UKPac have, including planes? I’d probably go for it if the situation only gets worse the next turn.

I tend to think the balanced mod China guerrilla rule is a bit much (I originally thought it would be a limited number, like Japan’s Kamikaze tokens).

I’ve been in a couple of games with the UK sz 92 stack instead of Taranto raid and it hasn’t gone great for UK. 2 out of 3 times Italy was left with planes and even a wounded battleship, and the benefit of 2 transports instead of 1. Small sample size so far.

Another variation I thought would be reasonble for China is each territory is pacified after a set number of turns, like 4. With a little counter in the corner of the terrirtory.

As it is, it requires a minimum of 36 ipcs of inf to just sit in China.

Option #2 is to focus breaking Calcutta. Buys inf/art now, gather your transports, naval moves are the same as above. Still need a naval base for FiC. In 3/4 turns your buy on this turn arrives in Calcutta on 6 transports and whatever ground forces you built at your mainland factories.

All your buys after this turn focus on U.S. fleet are I still say 2 carriers then bombers (useful for Calcutta, too) and then subs/destroyers

@Aaron_the_Warmonger Even without the risk to London, as the Axis I’ve faced off against the UK stacking sz92 3 times now.

If UK doesn’t max the planes there (including a U.S. fighter) then Italy usually has assets survive (bomber and battleship or fighter).

So the BEST case scenario appears to be the UK has fighters, Italy still loses its navy but gets 2 transports instead of 1.

I think the net result is that it shifts some losses that often end up Germany’s on G2 (finishing off UK’s navy after Taranto) and pushes them onto Italy OR results in a stand off.

(might matter that as Germany I always take S. France on G1. Always)

@simon33 So you’re a strong advocate for UK scrambling against Germany G1 in both sea zones?

I kind of keep going back and forth on it, and am having a hard time deciding. I am inclined to think costing Germany planes, even if its an even exchange, is worth it. So I suppose I do think scrambling is (usually) worth it.