Posts made by wodan46

In short, if America lands Fighters on a British Carrier, what happens:
A. When the British Carrier moves.
B. When the British Carrier is attacked.

@ogrebait:

Second, money plowed into bombers is not being put into other units, particularly ground units that can take territory and, in the case of certain countries, naval units to get your ground units to the fight. Thus, I feel there is a natural cap on the number of bombers that anyone should be buying.

In the case of UK or USA, they don’t need any defenses as their Bombers can sink fleets.  I can easily see Britain hammering Germany/Italy with Bombers and nothing else, while still making a difference.

@ogrebait:

Finally, in general I do not believe that SBR’s are the best use of one’s bombers. As already pointed out, the expected net IPC gain is only 1 IPC per bmbr per IC (and that doesn’t count the impact of the damage cap on ICs). In any other battle where a bmbr is augmenting an attack, and thus relatively free from loss, the expected net IPC damage is at least two (hit on inf), but can go much higher.

You are completely wrong in that regard.  In particular, your calculations are all wrong.  You use net gain for bombers, but net damage for ground forces.  If you look at it from a net damage perspective, Bombers are expected to do roughly 3 damage per battle when using SBR, and taking 2.  In a normal battle, their damage is equal to Rounds*(2/3)*(average unit value), their damage taken is 2 normally plus extra if they run the risk of being destroyed by regular fire.  Assuming 2 rounds and Infantry, a Bomber deals an average of 4 damage, only a marginal increase.  They get better damage at Sea, but are more likely to be destroyed or have expensive units destroyed in their stead.

However, you also misses another key aspect.  In order for UK and USA to attack with Bombers conventionally, they must also have ground forces to take the hits, transports to carry them, and naval units to protect them.  Once you factor in those costs, the advantages of using Bombers conventionally vanishes.

@ogrebait:

That being said, the average expected gain/loss often goes out the window when a key objective must be taken, or a well-timed SBR can support one’s overall strategy. However, buying lots of bombers and relying on SBRs to carry the day strikes me as a less than optimal strategy.

I view Bombers as vital for finishing opponents, because SBR cripples their turtling capacity.  If Germany is down to 30 or so IPCs, then they are going to start dropping 10 Infantry a turn until Japan hulk smashes their enemies.  SBR them to the max, and they can only build 4.

The central concept is that Britain loads units onto American transports one turn, then the following turn lands troops using both the American and British transports, then on the same turn land the American troops brought over by the transports in the first place.  This allows a huge One-Two punch against Western Europe.

This is works mainly if Axis doesn’t sink the UK Battleship/Transport and West US Destroyer/Transport, if they do, a different plan may be advisable.

Before Turn X: Britain focuses on getting an intact fleet with maybe 3 transports.  America builds 3 transports, and pulls its Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic.
Turn X: American Transports reach Britain and land a bunch of American troops there.  Britain builds a bunch of Ground Units.  America builds Bombers
Turn X+1: British Ground Units board American transports.  Britain builds Ground Units.  America builds Bombers.
Turn X+2: Britain invades Western Europe using both American and British Transports.  America then drops all their Infantry and Bombers into Western Europe.  Britain builds ground units.
Turn X+3: Take Germany, by first suiciding the British forces, then hitting it with the American forces.

X is ideally turn 2.  If you wait till Turn 3, you get the Pacific fleet as well.  Doing so lets you use 5 American Transports and 3 British Transports, meaning that you land 16 troops, then 10 troops, with air support.  For naval defense, you have something like 3 Carrier groups, 3 Destroyers, and a Battleship.  US goes to SZ18(Brazil), then SZ7(English Channel).

KJF is something I must conclude as unfeasible.  The problem is that in order to significantly threaten Japan, you must concentrate all your forces and your whole build around it.  A plan that focused is easily countered, because an opponent can see it coming and exploit its vulnerabilities.  For a plan to be effective, it must be adaptable and flexible, to pose many threats at once.  For example, a plan that focuses on allied control of the Mediterranean grants the ability to attack Africa, France, Italy, Balkans/Bulgaria, and the Caucasus all at once, and the opponent, if not able to stop your fleet directly, must be able to deal with the consequences of each.  Similarly, an early Bomber build by Britain lets them SBR Germany or Italy, sink the Italian fleet, block Germany from building a fleet, and threaten an invasion at some later point.

Russia can simply take Finland, and either take Norway as well the following turn or let Britain have it.  Doing so means you can still counterattack next turn, but you’ve killed a couple Infantry, got some more IPCs, and are 2/3s of the way to Russia’s 10 IPC NO in no time.

I agree, Bombers are too omnipurpose now.  Their huge range, combined with their usefulness in both ground support, naval combat, SBR, and even transporting, allows them to do just about everything.  This wasn’t a problem when they weren’t especially cost effective.

Possible Corrections
1. Fighter Interception/Escort rules.
2. Cost back to 15
3. Move down to 4
4. Can’t attack Naval units.

How do you put those AAbattlemap attachments up?

Ok, think I got this dicefest down.  Atarihuana, lets rock

Game Plan:
1941 Setup
Wodan46 Plays Allies
Atarihuana Plays Axis
NOs are ON
Techs are OFF
Bidding is OFF

@atarihuana:

results
–----

discussion cleared, wodan kicked to PBF section

mobilize

1 troll shield

collect

applause

Rolls: 4@1 3@3; Total Hits: 24@1: (4, 6, 1, 4)3@3: (5, 1, 4)

Rolls: 4@1 3@3; Total Hits: 14@1: (6, 5, 4, 2)3@3: (2, 4, 6)

Input ErrorThere was an error in your dice throw: “1a1” is not correct syntax.

Rolls: 1@1; Total Hits: 01@1: (6)

@LuckyDay:

@wodan46:

@a44bigdog:

wodan46 you do good as far as thinking outside of the box. That can be a good thing. However without testing one can never know the value of ones ideas. And then when active players point out obvious flaws in your strategies you rarely adapt to them just offer up more unrealistic situations.

I analyzed the situation and see the nature of the attack.  Still think it involves good prediction of the actions of the Allies and involves sacrificing East Asia, if only temporarily.

run the numbers, you aren’t predicting well.  You even contradict yourself–above you are sacrificing E Asia, but below you apparently are advancing.

@wodan46:

True.  However, if Japan does that on J2, they WILL be losing Manchuria and Burma, whereupon they will rapidly lose their factories on the mainland.

There is no contradiction.  Japan is the one sacrificing, the Allies are the ones advancing.

@LuckyDay:

Wodan,
you’ve only been posting on the forum since Feb. 4, 2009 and you have 170+ posts and you are worried about excessive typing?

The Play by Post games involve a lot more typing, and under a time constraint.  I honestly shouldn’t be typing much at all, but its the least straining activity I can do that I actually enjoy.

I vote that the China Free Mod should be combined with the mod that gives Italy control of Italian East Africa, Germany control of Northwest Africa and Madagascar, and puts Infantry in all territories of Africa.  Just as the China Mod makes China into a legitimate front, the other mod makes Africa into one, rather than a simple Axis push through Egypt while Allies push in through Algeria.  As a result, you get to have 3 large ground battles going throughout the game instead of just 1.

Infantry+Tanks beats Infantry+Artillery in equally costed numbers both on offense and defense.

@d142:

this gives unit’s at most 4 non combat move’s a round,

in theory an aircraft could attack, land, attack, land, non combat move, attack, land,

Which is abusive, and completely changes the logic of the game.  For starters, British Bombers would SBR Italy and Germany, German Bombers would SBR Britain and Russia, while Japanese Fighters would get multiple attacks.  Air units would become tremendously overpowered.

@d142:

for using the 1 move per round, i would use combat marker’s and movement marker’s to identify what unit’s had attacked or moved that round, at the check for victory phase remove all the marker’s,

Which is a book-keeping mess.

Here’s my proposal for a variant that would allow Multi-National Attacks to work, but result in the least change to game logic to minimize the need to rebalance.

Given Nation’s Turn:
1. Defending Nation Collects Income
2. Defending Nation Buys Units
3. Defending Nation lands Air Units
4. Enemy Nations Attack
5. Defending Nation does Non-Combat Move
6. Defending Nation Places Units
Air units, upon completion of an attack, remain there and can’t be moved

While I like the idea, and think its quite innovative, no matter how you try, this is probably going to unbalance the game to the extent it has to be completely rebuilt.  Even in my simplified variant, you’ll have stuff like this happening:
Turn 1: Axis takes the Karelia, Caucasus, Baltic, Poland, Ukraine, and Soviet Far East with 3 Transports
Turn 2: Allies take Western Europe, Algeria, Libya, and sink the entire German Fleet while consolidating the British one, recapturing Caucasus and Ukraine.
Turn 3: Axis take Egypt, Trans Jordan, Burma, Kwantung, East Indies, Borneo, and West Canada with 3 Transports
Turn 4: Nothing
Turn 5: Axis sinks American fleet as normal, takes Philipines, West US, Central US, and god knows what else
Turn 6: Like it matters anymore.
Japan will be able to use a transport to launch an attack 3 times (Russia, UK, and China/US

Those stats reflect a critical misconception that battles consist of one unit type versus one unit type and that you should focus only on the optimal, and more importantly, the lack of focus on the multi-turn nature of the game.

For starters, when attacking, Infantry+Tanks is massively superior to either only Infantry or only Tanks.  In fact, the ideal setup is to ensure that every battle ends with only your Infantry dying, meaning that you only lost the cheap fodder while retaining the vast majority of your firepower.  It is for that reason that Infantry+Tanks is usually superior to Infantry+Artillery, because after taking 1 hit, Infantry+Tanks loses a 1/4 of their power but Infantry+Artillery loses 1/2 of theirs.

@a44bigdog:

I offered to play him a game here on the forums to test some of these so called strategies. Haven’t heard an answer back.

I told you that I am unwilling to play on the forums, it would require excessive typing.  I have had a strained arm limiting my ability to do things for about a month now, and am not willing to strain it even worse when I should be resting it.

I am willing to play it on TripleA, but do not know how to do PBEM with it.

@a44bigdog:

And what US fleet is going to sink At a minimum a loaded carrier a cruiser and a battleship in seazone 39 off of Australia on US 2. Although Normally I like to have 2 CVs there so it would take an even bigger fleet.

If the fleet is in sea zone 39, it can’t.  If in sea zone 37, it can be hit with 4 Fighters and 3 Bombers.  If America wished to, it could hit Sea Zone 39 with 1 Carrier, 1 Destroyer, 4 Fighters, and 2 Bombers, but doing so would be difficult, and would be suicide depending on where the Japanese Fleet is.

@a44bigdog:

Australia is best grabbed by Japan when they are out and about in the Pacific. It is hard for the Allies to liberate as well. An India IC is no REAL threat to Japan. Japan can produce 8 units, Manchuria 3, Kiangsu or FIC 2,  all that compared to India’s 3?

True.  However, if Japan does that on J2, they WILL be losing Manchuria and Burma, whereupon they will rapidly lose their factories on the mainland.  Things won’t go too well for them then, even if Manchuria is useless to the allies.

@a44bigdog:

wodan46 you do good as far as thinking outside of the box. That can be a good thing. However without testing one can never know the value of ones ideas. And then when active players point out obvious flaws in your strategies you rarely adapt to them just offer up more unrealistic situations.

I analyzed the situation and see the nature of the attack.  Still think it involves good prediction of the actions of the Allies and involves sacrificing East Asia, if only temporarily.

@Pvt.Patterson:

that woud make it a more even battle but you would also have the CCCP breathing down your nech with up to 9 inf. Thats bad for teh lighting war japan needs to out IPC the US.

That’s the point.  Without this mod, Japan out-IPCs the US while easily crushing East Asia, which is highly Unrealistic.  This makes China both a significant threat and a more valuable target

@Pvt.Patterson:

Looks good on paper. tweek it a bit more see if its possible to give china a fighting chance without tottaly bogging down the jappanesse.

In case you don’t remember, getting bogged down is exactly what happened to the Japanese, not Japan going Hulk Smash and conquering Eurasia by itself.

Japan needs no extra troops.  Capturing China is much harder, but doing so allows them to win even if the US is closing in.  Their best bet would be to not capture the Philipines, instead landing those 4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, and 1 Tank into East Asia, while producing 3 Tanks.  Following turn, they land 3 Infantry and 3 Tanks into East Asia while capturing the Philipines.  They focus on capturing Suiyan, Fukien, and Kwantung turn 1, then move those guys to Hupeh turn 2 and Sinkang turn 3.  Excluding losses, you will have 12 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 4 Tanks, and an indeterminate number of Air units to hit Sinkang.

So US could use the noncombat moves from Allies vs. Germany and Allies vs. Italy to send their fleet to Japan?  I think it would make more sense to limit Noncombat Moves to the Defending player only.  Also, units like Bombers that could easily attack two nations would be abused.

Unless units only get to move once regardless, in which case it becomes a book-keeping nightmare instead.

@LuckyDay:

Is this because 2 FIG from SZ 61 sunk the DD/TRN on J1 (99% win), as well as Borneo and E Indies falling.

That is a given.  I assume that the Axis sinks as much fleet as possible, which means that Egypt and Karelia can’t be taken first turn.

@LuckyDay:

Then on J2, Australia was lost as well as the 4 FIG in FIC sinking the CV/BB/TRN off India while not building any ground troops to protect the IC?

4 Fighters vs. CV/BB will end with all 4 Fighters dead, and the CV/BB still alive.  You have a spare Fighter in India anyways most likely.

In the mean time, the Australia attack will probably cost you another fighter or 2 (assuming you can pull it off at all), while putting your fleet in range of the US most likely, and even if it doesn’t, the US will be nicely positioned to counterattack.

Oh, and you lose 10 income because you ignored East Asia, and Burma/Manchuria both fall.

@a44bigdog:

I want to know when the Allies liberated Australia that fell on J2 to park those 10 bombers on.

If Japan goes for Australia, which would be odd given that there is an IC in India and a large Russian stack moving in, they run a good chance of getting sunk outright by the US fleet.  Even if they don’t expose themselves to that, they will lose their holdings in East Asia, and Allies don’t need Australia as a landing spot if the Japanese Fleet moved towards Australia anyways, they will just use Solomon Islands instead.

Or they might send the Fleet and Bombers to Wake, to sink the Japanese Reinforcements and make hell elsewhere.