Posts made by wodan46

Italy needs Algeria for one of its NOs and 2 of Egypt/Trans-Jordan/Gibraltar for the other.  Italy having 20-30 income a turn instead of 10 income a turn makes a pretty big difference, especially when Italy has the ability to rapidly move defensive forces to Western Europe, and launch fairly large invasions of the Caucasus.

@atarihuana:

just beacause its a new idea doesnt make it good. typical western thinking imho. its NEW! its GREAT! its BIG!. it MUST be good…

look up “inner line”,  look at the board setup. japan is the richest nation. it has a huge fleet. without trannies thats 3 full US turns of naval production + 3 replacement planes.

turn 2 35-40  income. turn 3 50 - 55.  there is NO WAY to kill japan against any decent player by turn 6 or even 8. or 10…

look, the 7 inf will either get crushed J1, or will be ignored and get crushed J2. russia has no option what soever going on offensive against japan.

Japan’s “huge” fleet can’t be everywhere at once.  Sure, they can do any of what you describe, they simply can’t do ALL of it.  And they will have large income for only a turn or two, before it starts rocketing down again.

The Japanese fleet can’t simultaneously menace East Asia, hold off the American Fleet, AND protect newly built Japanese ships.

I’m beginning to suspect that the last is critical.  If US has a big stack of Bombers on Alaska/Stc/Sui, it can simply decimate anything Japan builds.  Perhaps a Sub/Bomber fleet, even.

@Unknown:

Well, I don’t see how sending your fleet to the Carolines prevents an attack on India. With my J1 open I’ll have 6-7 ground units and 4-5 fighters ready to attack regardless of what my fleet is doing. And if I have to delay an attack on Australia, so be it. It’s not a priority as long as Germany/Italy took Egypt (which they should have by now).

That’s why moving 4 Russian Infantry to India on R2, is a good idea.  Toss in the Russian Tank and it becomes even better.

Even if you can beat that kind of force, Britain can recapture India on B2 with 3 Infantry, an Artillery, and potentially its entire starting Air Force in UK, if need be.

Or they can simply retreat from India on B1, then capture it with 2 Artillery, 6 Infantry, and the same potential air support, except this time the Japanese forces have no air support of their own, meaning that you wipe out the majority of the Japanese Infantry.  You can then have the Russian troops move back to the Caucasus, into Trans Jordan, or still go to India on R3.

@Kavik:

As a final note only slightly related to this post, something I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere that I read, I thought I would point out that a DD/CA cost the same as 1 BB.  There is absolutely no reason to buy a BB in AA50. DD/CA is better than 1 BB in every way.  I actually think that this is both tactically and historically accurate, and kind of cool.  But just something to keep in mind, any time you are considering buying a BB… don’t.  Get a DD and CA instead.

Ok, lets say I have 6 Battleships and you have 10 Cruisers (same cost, right?).  Then I attack your Cruiser fleet.
Round 1: You cause 5 Battleships to be damaged.  I sink 4 of your Cruisers
I retreat.  Battle is over.  Net losses for me: 0 IPCs.  Net losses for you: 48 IPCs
Wanna counterattack?  It’ll be fun!

Of course, 6 Battleships would beat 10 Cruisers even if they didn’t retreat:
Round 1: You cause 5 Battleships to be damaged.  I sink 4 of your Cruisers.
Round 2: You damage the last Battleship, then sink 2 of them.  I sink 4 of your Cruisers.
Round 3: You sink 1 more Battleship.  I sink your 2 remaining Cruisers
Battle is over.  Net losses for me: 60 IPCs.  Net losses for you: 120 IPCs

In a battle to the death of large, equally costed forces, Destroyers beat Battleships beat Cruisers.  This is reasonable, given that Destroyers lack anti-ground abilities, and their own ability gains little from having multiple present.

Granted, Destroyers will also be owned by Battleships doing 1 Round attacks:

6 Battleships vs. 15 Destroyers
Round 1: You cause 5 Battleships to be damaged.  I sink 4 of your Destroyers
I retreat.  If you counterattack:
Round 1: You cause 4 Battleships to be damaged.  I sink 4 of your Destroyers
Round 2: You damage the last 2 Battleships, then sink 1 of them.  I sink 4 of your Destroyers.
Round 3: You sink 1 Battleship.  I sink your remaining Destroyers.

In short, Battleships are most definitely the king of the sea.  They become even more effective when their hit soaking is used to shield other ships with better firepower per IPC.

Of course, they are only the kings of the surface sea…

G1: Build 10 Infantry
G2: Build 10 Tanks
G3: Build 10 Tanks
G4: Whistle
G5: Take Moscow with G1+G2+G3 builds.

@Nickwins89:

About your comment about the German fleet being sunk: the same thing could be said towards the British Fleet. It’s never that cut and dry.

My presumption is that the British fleet gets sunk on the first turn.

@Nickwins89:

Also, I would say the British empire is in trouble when Japan takes most of it over J1.

Which is why taking it back simultaneously kills Japan’s income while giving Britain the money needed to defend the UK on top of that.

@Nickwins89:

You seem to be confident that every aspect of this plan will work flawlessly.

Or maybe I didn’t feel like listing all the contingencies, especially since I’m not even sure what the best counter-moves are.

@Nickwins89:

What if say, the Germans prematurely break through into Moscow before your allotted few turns?

Several things.  They’ll still need to waste a turn in Persia before they can reach India, giving you time to respond.  Better yet, the British Bomber fleet is in range of Moscow, the Caucasus, and Persia.  Combined with a decent ground force, you should be able to counter the German advance, and maybe even restore Russia.

@Nickwins89:

What if Japan manages to hold onto it’s newly acquired colonies and fights off or decimates the US fleet?

That would be extremely difficult for Japan to do.  If America loses their navy, they can still use their air force to kill Japan’s while also SBRing them heavily.

Its possible that it might counter the Allied attack, but if Japan does this and fails, by the time they need to turtle, it will be too late.  Just as one wrong move can get the American fleet sunk, one wrong move can result in the Japanese fleet being sunk instead.

If America truly feels threatened, they can build more naval units on A2 instead of the Bomber fleet.  However, the Bomber fleet is powerful cause it threatens the Japanese fleet without being exposed itself.

@Nickwins89:

How will that work into your great strategy?

Why do you people keep acting like I assume that my strategies are be-all end-all autowins?  They are strategies.  They can lose due to bad die rolls, or they can lose due to proper countering.  Selecting the correct permutation of a strategy to ensure that you can prevent the enemy from countering you too much, and for minimizing the consequences of the occasional bad die roll, is the same for this strategy as it is for any other.

@atarihuana:

this is just ridicoulus. a “strat” killing the strongest nation on the board turn6. furthest away from all allied nations. it will simply fail if u really try it. by turn 2 latest axis know whats going on, and whoops, you die…

tokyo will never ever be even close to falling  before either moscow or london fall…

Russia falls between Turn 4 and Turn 6.  India is endangered between Turn 6 and Turn 8.  Britain is never in danger.  Any German Fleet will simply get sunk.

As for Japan, they will be strongest nation for about 1 turn, before their income plummets as fast as it went up.  The only question is which parts go first.

In the unlikely event that Japan turtles, the plan refocuses around Italy.  American Bombers focus on killing Italy by sinking their fleet, supporting a landing into Africa, and SBRing them into submission.  Britain uses their India IC to advance into Africa or Russia instead

The Axis should give up if Japan falls and Japan can’t recapture it.  If they can’t, neither Germany nor Italy is in a position to liberate it, meaning that they instead have to somehow capture 12-15 VCs by themselves, or capture London, which will be hard when they can’t build sea units without simply losing them.

@LuckyDay:

the conflict with your argument and your analogy is a problem, because you give examples of what good players do and base your strategy on weak players. You expect them to play poorly rather than well.

No, I expect them to play well.

@LuckyDay:

Experts do build their strategies around their opponents acting smart AND understand what to do when their opponent does something stupid.  An expert player thinks far beyond the move and accounts for permutations of each move.  the ability to see those permutations makes them strong players.  But you are apparently playing weak players who can’t see the next round.  And then you want to throw cheap scenarios out at someone to prove your idea?  Come on, the fact that I’m arguing this is enough for you to know that I can see the permutations.

And how does what you say prove anything.  Experts account for permutations of common strategies, not uncommon ones.  When the uncommon strategy they are unlikely to have thought about the permutations before actually playing, and as such, don’t have a memorized list of counters, and have to think it over as they go along.  That they have to think at all puts them at a disadvantage.

Its like going to a math test expecting problems spread out from chapters 4 through 6, only to have all the problems be chapter 6.  You studied for it, but you didn’t focus that hard on it, and as such, you will have to do much of the work the hard way.

@LuckyDay:

As for your revised example, gee, you start out right at the gates of Moscow, how unimaginable could it possibly be to take it by turn 3?  Assuming you were talking about taking it with Germany, despite using the term kamikaze.  On the other hand, should you have been talking about taking it with Japan (hence kamikaze) on turn three either you have proven that you are not playing ‘expert’ players after all or giving me another cheap example based on chance dice.  You did say it was foolhardy, not strategy, and extremely I believe.

I abandoned Africa, Norway, Western Europe, and Southern Europe.  I threw everything I got at Russia.

@LuckyDay:

and big whoop to the whole thing, I’ve taken UK on G2 against 20 year experienced players…

And this proves my point quite nicely.  Why didn’t those players see the possible permutation of an attack on UK, and sufficient ground troops to counter?  Because it was unexpected, and because the attack appears to be foolish.

@LuckyDay:

a strategy based on the your opponent not knowing what to do is hardly a strategy.  What, are you playing children or something?

Let’s test that.  Let’s say Japan sends all its transports to Iwo Jima loaded with forces and wipes out the West US units first turn.  They now have all 3 Carriers and 5 Transports within range of WUS.  What do you do?

Strategies are not as predictable as one might expect.  If the opponent fails to evaluate ALL the possible permutations your strategy could take, they can still get screwed.

@LuckyDay:

Strategy ought to be how to put yourself in position to best win the game, not take advantage of a new player and shank them.

Funny, when playing Revised (No Bid), I crushed an expert player by doing an extremely foolhardy kamikaze rush and taking Russia turn 3.

The reason why things like beginner’s luck exists is because experts build their strategies around their opponents acting smart, and they do not plan for their opponent doing something stupid.  Furthermore, experts probably can think of countless permutations of common strategies and easily think of the mathematically best response for them, but they are unfamiliar with more exotic strategies because they are almost never used.

@LuckyDay:

-so USSR falls on G3 or 4, Japan only has to hold for 1-2 more turns before Germany can hit India and US/UK have already had to reallocate to deal with a monster Germany/Italy and Japan can expand again “without” any Soviet reinforcements to hold them.  Not only have they not killed Japan, but they have lost USSR and given the Axis one front to fight on each instead of two…

No, my strategy is now built around USSR falling between turns 4 to 6, by which time Japan is dead or near death.  The Axis have to defend on two fronts (Germany and Russia) while attacking on two others (East Asia and the Pacific).  How exactly is Germany going to capture the Philipines or East Indies, while still holding onto all their conquests and all their home territories?

@LuckyDay:

what about turn 2 if UK spent all it’s money on IC’s… or turn 3 if they are trying to defend a J2 attack on India?  With US/UK merely building ground troops (well, really the UK building ground troops and the US ignoring Germany) in Atlantic a SA IC will not hold Italy and the UK navy will be sunk quickly and give Axis control of the water.

There is no longer a SA build, and the UK masses Bombers. The UK navy gets sunk first turn anyways, but the Bombers will SBR the Axis and kill any fleets they put out.

As for India, by R2, there should be 6-8 units in it, securing it, and by B2 there should be a sizeable fleet in front of it as well.

@LuckyDay:

you have to expect them to respond well and then beat that move.  Giving up USSR, not taking Japan and allowing Germany to pressure India/England, Italy to overrun Africa (even with your 2 IC SA factory and Japan to reemerge by J6 is not a good plan…

Japan is dead.  It doesn’t come back.

@Fighter:

I agree with DarthMaximus’ asertion that the only way a factory in India is to work is if Japan roles rubbish dices.

Or if Russia moves some Infantry into India on R2.  Russia will get a good return on that with a group of British Tanks able to hold the Japanese at bay and support the Caucasus.

@Grenadier:

I can see the merits of this strategy and how it will seriously hamper japanese expansion. I also appreciate that an unsuspecting japanese player will have to make some difficult decisions as a result of this strategy. That alone is a very powerful effect.

Most of my exotic strategies are based around the opponent not being sure of what’s best.  Sure, if they know exactly what you are going to do, and what permutations you are going to do, they have a better chance, but there is no assurance of that.

Though the key to any strategy is adaptability.  Every strategy has a counter, and if the opponent knows what your strategy is and you can’t change it, you are screwed.  Hence, you keep your options open.  If Japan is contained but not killed, Britain could simply start massing a fleet, which they can afford thanks to having their eastern assets liberated.  Or if Russia is still alive, you could just make a run for the VC condition with a quick capture of Western Europe and East Poland.

@Grenadier:

What remains to be seen is if japan would be dead g6 as you said. If the japanese player ‘turtles’ as germany usually does it would become costly and difficult to invade them. If for some reason japan is only contained and not destroyed you’ll have a very large and dangerous germany to worry about.

The key to stopping that is SBR.  If Japan lacks territories outside their capital, SBRs will near completely disable their production.

If Japan turtles early enough, use the UK air force to bombard Germany’s IC while the US bombards the Russian ones, which have probably been captured, then simply attack the Axis where-ever they are weak.  You should have 10 VCs assuming that Japan is not captured but Russia has been lost.  All you need to do is grab 2-5 to win.  Japan can be held in check by a fleet of 3 or 4 Bombers reducing its production to nothing.

@Grenadier:

I like your idea, its novel, but I’m not convinced that this would be as simple as advertised. The key, as stated already, is to create options for the allies to go either way. If Germany is entirely ignored you lose said options.

Hence, I’ve abandoned the more extreme version, instead, Russia sends 4 of its western infantry, 8 of its siberian infantry, and a R1 bomber to help the east, nothing more.

Once again, Bombers are vital to this strategy, both for their ability to prevent Germany from building a fleet, eliminating the Italian and Japanese fleets, SBRing Japan to the point that it can only make 2 Infantry every other turn as well as participating in the final capture, and SBRing Germany and Italy to reduce their sizeable incomes.

New Builds:
[R1: 3 Tank, 1 Infantry, 1 Bomber][R2: 4 Tanks, 3 Infantry][R3+: Tanks/Infantry]
[B1: 2 Bombers, 1 IC][B2: 1 Bomber, 1 Carrier, 2 Transports/Tanks/Infantry][B3+: 2 Bombers, 3 Tanks/Infantry]
[A1: 1 Carrier, 2 Transports, 2 Tanks][A2: 4 Bombers][A3+: 4ish Bombers]
Adapt builds as needed, of course.  On A4, Japan gets nailed by 4 SBRs, on A5, that goes up to 7 or 8, assuming that you don’t simply capture it A5.

Japan should get about 140 IPCs over the first 4 turns+their starting money.  That’s probably enough to convince them that they can actually fight back, not turtle.  If they turtle, they will end up with even less money and die anyways.

@Nickwins89:

But If I was Russia, I would want to keep my forces on the German Front the strongest. I would be very hesitant to send a huge handful of troops out west to face Japan.

Its only 4 Infantry, plus the guys already in Siberia, plus a Bomber which Germany would assume was meant for it.

@Nickwins89:

If I was Germany, and I saw the massive forces being sent towards Japan, I would be working my utmost with Italy to disrupt British operations whilst still pushing against the Russian Front.

How?  Britain will sink anything you build with their air force unless you build so much in the way of sea units that not even a weakened Russia has problems fighting you.

If Germany divides their forces between Britain and Russia like that, even as all 3 Allies target Japan, Japan will fall long before either Britain or Russia does.

@Nickwins89:

Wouldn’t it be best to build a UK IC on India, so it would be closer to the Action in the Japanese theater of war?

Did you not read any of my posts, or did you fail to miss the part where the entire reason any non-Siberian Russian forces are being moved East is to guard India from a J2 capture so that an IC can get going?

@atarihuana:

the big problem is that russia has no option what so ever going on offensive in far east. japan can ignore Bury, attack SUI with 6 men ,still kill BB , do its normal attacks ,buy 2 tran… and bring around 10 inf 2 art arm + planes + shore shots if Russia moves in Manchuria… or he can attack J1 right away. its way better move thoose inf west and seed china…

Japan has about 20 Infantry, 2 Artillery, and a Tank within transporting range.  10 Infantry, 2 Artillery, and 1 Armor represents over 50% of their ground forces and all non-Infantry ground forces.  It means that they have 10 Infantry and a limited portion of their Airforce to deal with China, Kwantung, Burma, India, East Indies, Borneo, and the Philipines.

Japan can easily defend against any given threat, but it can’t defend against all of them.  Between the American Fleet, an uncapturable British IC, and a large group of Russian forces, all coming from different directions, they are in trouble.

Subs have the following advantages when enemy Destroyers are NOT present:
1. They can’t be attacked by Air.
2. Their attack’s hits resolve before non-Sub units roll.
3. On Offense, they may submerge once they’ve completed their attack, before the other side can return fire
4. On Defense, they may submerge before being attacked at all.

Note that Subs also have the disadvantage that they do not block sea zones, you can have 1000 subs in a sea zone and the opponent can still move a transport through it.

On the other hand, without Destroyers, you can’t destroy Subs unless the owner chooses to let them participate in combat.

Oh, and ogrebait, Destroyers cost 2 more IPCs than a Sub, meaning that Destroyers cost 33% more than Subs, which adds up to the point that 3 Destroyers only beats 4 Subs 55% of the time when they are the ones attacking, meaning that the Subs are defending at a 1 with no special powers.

Overall Plan currently:

R1: Build 1 Infantry, 3 Tanks, 1 Bomber, get 4 Infantry in Persia, 7 in Buryatia, and 1 in Soviet Far East
B1: Build 1 IC in India, 2 Bombers, send Fighters to Northwest Africa or Gibraltar
A1: ??? (emphasis on either naval, transports, or bombers, dependent on whether or not Japan hits their fleet or Buryatia)

@bugoo:

Actually i think best way to play this would be the following.

Russia retreats ALL Siberian units back toward russia then into china, as well as 2 inf on turn 1.

Russia sends 2-4 inf into Persia, purchases 4 arm, 1 fig, placing armor in caucus and fig in Moscow.

IF that would be enough to hold India, UK does following, also depends on German moves as well.

UK buys 2 bombers and an IC for in India, lands 2 figs on Gibraltar with 2 inf as well (yes trannie is gonna die).  If possible strafe/take burma (you want to kill as many land units as possible).

US gears up to cover UK landings in africa, or prepares to do so itself as well as pressure japan and go after south pacific.  Also, us lands 2 figs in australia and moves the AC to z46.  This allows the US to drop 3 planes (depending on japan) on india turn 2 as well.  Make sure the US buys atleast 3 subs and 1 trannie.

This will allow you to destroy italy’s fleet, or start bombing Germany to aid Russia, and it allows you to break off if the Russian forces would not be enough to hold India, or allows Russia to follow a standard strategy against Germany -4 inf which can come back in 1 round.  Also, the Russian armor can come back very quickly if needed, or can push against Italy in Africa.  The key here is you have options, UK doesn’t have to go for it and Russia isn’t hurting that badly.  The other big thing to keep in mind is japan has no ‘second wave’ so to speak to hit India with in most openings.

Honestly though, if the UK wants to help in Asia, kick some German/Italian a** so the Russians can push back in china.

Workable, I suppose.  However, the presence of 7 Russian Infantry in Buryatia with a Bomber supporting means Japan has to choose between losing Manchuria, or ignoring the American fleet, both of which are very bad things.

@Nickwins89:

Hypothetically all these crazy strategies could work, but in actual testing, I don’t think they could work, because opponents are trying to stay alive. No offense Wodan, but those same strats with slight variants are the ones that work, so those are to be the ones that are the mainstay of strategic thinking. Major plans that I always use: Germany needs to butcher all those Russian troops and cause damage to the British navy, Russia Needs to hold onto it’s rear and to fend off and push back the germany advance. The Japanese need to obliterate China and The UK Empire and battle off the USA fleet. Italy needs to just… well… get some cash. and The United States needs to bomb the crap out of Germany and destory the Japanese Empire and support Africa or British incursions on the European mainland.

The problem is that doing those strategies makes your forces means you become a jack of all trades and master of none.  Which is better, coming mere inches from killing all 3 Axis players at once, or crushing 1 Axis player while allowing the others to expand?

@Nickwins89:

If the British were focusing thier power on destroying japan first I would be doing my utmost to destroy London. And about that stack you were talking about on London, why just support the invaders with a ton of heavy bombers or something similar, in order to destroy tons of infantry?

So you are saying that if Germany somehow gets, by a 1/6 chance, the most powerful tech in the game, in a chart that they aren’t likely to be researching anyways, then builds a fleet of Bombers while protecting a massive territory, then they might be able to take out Britain.  And you accuse me of hypotheticals.

Actually, I was presuming that Techs were off.  If techs are on, the Allies should abuse them.

Also, a more effective strat for UK in this strategy might be to build a bomber or turn, use them to sink any fleet Germany builds, and otherwise SBR them.  If need be, they start stacking Infantry as well.

Moderate Strategy:
Britain: Build IC in India only, get Bomber each turn to SBR Germany and keep their fleet in check.  May choose to retain Fighters in UK rather than send them to form a Carrier group in India.
Russia: Send only 4 Infantry to India and 8 to Manchuria with a Bomber supporting, otherwise focus on Germany
USA: Should probably still remain focused on Japan entirely, though they skip the Alaska IC.  Build up and SBR for the first few turns, while recapturing Borneo/East Indies if possible, then launch a large invasion of Japan.

Its hard to plot this strategy since much of it is dependent on Axis reactions.  Does Germany kill the British fleet or take Karelia G1?  Does Japan use their Pacific fleet to kill the American fleet of wipe out the Russians in Manchuria on J1?

@atarihuana:

yeah i would ignore the BB and simply kil 21 IPC of russias best unit.

To do so would still slow down their assault on Asia, and allow America to retain its fleet, which will allow them to take out Japan much earlier.

@atarihuana:

you try to hard reinventing the wheel dude…

and i feel temnpted to open a thread “ignore wodan strats” :D

Why not?  Its more interesting then talking about the same old strategies with tiny variants on them.

@atarihuana:

by G6 japan is dead??   id like to see this playtested :P

Japan is going to start losing its more valuable territories on turns 2 and 3, while getting SBRed by the US.  If the Russian force in Siberia is killed, then they will lose French Indochina anyways, costing them their NO and giving one to Britain.

@PelierBay:

I feel an operation sealion for germany :-D

If they feel like wading through 20+ Infantry, I suppose.

@atarihuana:

if russia stacks 7 inf in bury, jap will simply kill them.

On J1?  To do so, they’d have to either ignore the American fleet, or fail to capture anything else in East Asia.

@atarihuana:

most of the jap openings i have seen, can reach india j2.

By which time Russia has moved between 1-7 units into it.

@atarihuana:

if russia goes down turn 4, what stopping german sending planes to japan to help. or sealion?

UK should be massing Infantry often.  By Turn 4, they should have 20+ Infantry.

Germany shouldn’t be able to reach India until G6.  They shouldn’t be able to land Fighters in a Japanese territory until G6 as well, and that’s if they are careful.

By G6, Japan should be dead.

Also, a more moderate version of this strat has Russia only send the 8 Infantry in Siberia, 2-4 Infantry from the Caucasus, the Bomber to the east, and otherwise maintain a standard defense.  If they do this, they should still hold out until turn 4 at the very least and turn 6 at the very latest.