Posts made by wodan46

It is assumed that Techs are OFF, but NOs are ON.

I’m beginning to think that this strategy is better if you build the IC in India.  There is no way for Japan to take India if Russia moves a few of their units in, if they do, Japan won’t be able to take it before B2 occurs and India starts getting reinforced heavily.

An IC in Australia means that unless Japan diverts precious land units and transports to attack a well defended Australia, they will soon have Australian troops recapturing Indonesia.

An IC in Alaska means that unless Japan diverts resources towards defending Japan and Manchuria, the US can hit them with ease.

An IC in both means that Japan could rapidly prove to be overstretched, as they have to defend against a threat to their Capital and Manchuria, and a separate threat to Indonesia, on top of their usual difficulties.

This strategy would probably have to be turned into a KJF, because it requires a removal of focus on Germany and Italy.

On the subject of Tanks, since land units can now retreat at the end of a round, is there any reason why Russia can’t hit large German groups with their Tank stack, then retreating them after both Germany and Russia have lost their Infantry buffer?  Russians can afford to replace their Infantry buffer as their ICs are close to the front line, Germany… can’t.  Infantry built on G1 don’t show up in Moscow till G5.

However, in AA50, Researchers stay from turn to turn, choosing to buy 2 Researchers on the 1st turn will generate the same rough odds for obtaining a tech within the first 3 turns as buying 1 Researcher on 1st, 1 on 2nd, and 1 on 3rd.  However, the cost of obtaining it in the given period is cheaper, and is more likely to happen earlier:

2 Researchers, then stop (net Cost: 10 IPCs)
Turn 1. 2 Rolls (30% chance of obtaining tech by now)
Turn 2. 2 Rolls (51% chance of obtaining tech by now)
Turn 3. 2 Rolls (66% chance of obtaining tech by now)

1 Researcher per turn (net Cost: 15 IPCs)
Turn 1: 1 Roll (17% chance of obtaining tech by now)
Turn 2: 2 Roll (42% chance of obtaining tech by now)
Turn 3: 3 Roll (66% chance of obtaining tech by now)

How about you give the figures for buying 1, 2, or 3 Researchers on turn 1, then not buying any more until you get the tech.

What the title says.  Bombers should not be able to participate in naval battles.  This is good for 3 reasons:
1. It is realistic.  Bombers are clearly of the large, strategic variety, and thus being able to attack ships at sea is not within their domain.  Anti-Ship aircraft are clearly the domain of the Fighter piece, rather than having them be eclipsed by Bombers.
2. It is balancing.  Bombers are excessively strong currently, due to their ability to sink enemy fleets, at long range, without having a fleet oneself.  Their lowered cost makes their ground attack and SBR abilities quite solid, meaning that they no longer need anti-sea abilities, which are now overpowered.
3. Lastly, it weakens the effectiveness of what are arguably the 3 most powerful techs in the game, Long Range Aircraft, Heavy Bombers, and Paratroopers.  Bombers can’t abuse the first against Sea units, and their limited capabilities means that Paratroopers no longer makes them an omnipurpose unit (Anti-Land, Anti-Sea, SBR, and Transportation).

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, so perhaps I wasn’t clear.  Let me rewrite it to make it more clear:

ICs in regions with an income of 3 or more cost 15 to build, and receive +2 from Improved Manufacturing
ICs in regions with an income of 2 cost 12 to build, and receive +1 from Improved Manufacturing.  They may not build units costing more than 10
ICs in regions with an income of 1 cost 8 to build, and receive +1 from Improved Manufacturing.   They may not build units more than 6

Note that it is still significantly more inefficient to build 3 small ICs rather than 1 big one.  However, this makes building ICs in 1 or 2 territories as reasonable, if not ideal options.  Keep in mind that you mainly use those

@I:

What happened to YOUR Grand German Naval strategy that you’ve been touting for the last week around here???   :roll:

Strategy?  I have like 10 of them.  The more boring and practical ones got skipped over, while I posted the more daring and ambitious strategies.

German Strategies (NOs yes, Techs no):
1. Build an IC in Western Europe, uses it to threaten Britain, defend Western Europe, and capture Caucasus
2. Build a Carrier/2 Transports in the Baltic and uses it to threaten Britain while taking Karelia.
3. Build 6 Tanks, capture Karelia on G2, capture Caucasus on I2, send the 6 tanks to reinforce on G3, then SBR Russia to death via 6 Infantry 2 Tank 2 Bomber builds or 5 Infantry 3 Bomber builds.
4. Build 10 Infantry on G1, take Karelia on G1, build 10 Tanks G2 and G3, then slam whole force into Moscow on G5.
5. Build 4 Infantry, 4 Tanks, and 2 Fighters a turn, slowly capture Russia
6. Build solely Tanks, while relying on Italy to provide a defense against Britain with large Infantry stacks.

@Andy1984:

@wodan46:

@Bluestroke:

Fleet Action, strategic-subs no, but as raiders, ambushers, Oh yeah…
On the other hand, I have been caught with my pants down, so to speak,
by having a CV and 2 FTR, being caught by two subs- it was not pretty- good bye IPC’s.  Keep several DD handy at all times-LOL.

I see no reason why Japan’s fleet action can’t consist entirely of raiding subs.  Scatter 6-12 Subs, with no more than 1 Sub per sea zone within range of a Destroyer, and America will be forced to invest in a fleet of Destroyers, which even if it is successful, has no actual ability to attack Japan proper, who probably has 50-70 Income.

A minor US fleet, with two or three BB, one or two destroyers and a transport would be a pain to take out. Besides: I believe the Japanese aim is not to defend Japan, but to dominate the entire Pacific (with Japan herself not even threatened).

The subs would allow Japan to dominate the Pacific.  Japan should build 7 or so Subs J2, 6 Subs J3, and 5 Subs a turn thereafter as needed.  So long as Japan spreads them out to a density of 1 sub per sea zone, the US will probably have to spend 40 IPCs a turn on Destroyers in order to a punch a decent hole in the Subs, and even that will be slow and take time.  If they don’t mass Destroyers, the Subs simply obliterate the American fleet on the counterattack.  If they have Super Subs, it will be even worse.

The thing is that Japan doesn’t really need that many reinforcements to secure all the territories they wish, which means that they can afford to waste 30-50 IPCs a turn on Subs.  America, in the mean time, needs to organize an invasion force with Transports and either Carrier Groups providing air support or Cruisers/Battleships supplying bombardment, all of which must be purchased on 40-50 IPCs.

@Andy1984:

I fully support the German focus on ground forces. But you don’t have to train 10 inf on G1 to do so. How about sending half your German army (supported by Italian groundforces) to Ukrain and building a factory there as soon as possible?

Because at the price of 15 IPCs on G2, equivalent to 5 Infantry or 3 Tanks, you are able to build 2 Infantry/Tanks a turn from G3 onwards 2 spaces closer towards Russia.  That is of very limited worth, and if you go through all that trouble securing the area, why not just take the Caucasus instead?  I fail to see how it it better than the 10 Infantry build.  By the time you build your first pair of Infantry/Tanks in Ukraine, all 10 Infantry will have been able to reach that Ukraine if they wished anyways.

For each nation, number of starting Complexes within easily reached range:

Germany: 4 (Britain/Karelia/Moscow/Caucasus)
Britain: 2(Germany/Italy)
USA: 2(Germany/Italy)
Russia: 2(Germany/Italy)
Japan: 2(Moscow/Caucasus) (use Indian AA).

@Enigmatic_Decay:

I like adding an IC in France on the second turn and re-enforcing the hell out of it. I buy mainly men the first turn and help support a France defense by landing fighters (German and Italian) there to ward off any potential early allied invasion. I keep putting out 6 men a turn there so that by UK3/US3 or later when the allies could launch a fair sized invasion I have way too big a force that they can’t really take it over!

Wouldn’t the Allies respond by building all Bombers, then SBRing you to death while Russia kills you from behind?

The French complex does have the nifty effect of letting you build in the Mediterranean.  Bulgaria can as well.

@Cmdr:

1 IPC Submarine >> Transport
2 IPC can be spend upgrading a fighter to a bomber

Germany upgrades 3 Subs to Transports, than 1 Fighter to Bomber, then kills Britain first turn with 5 Infantry, 3 Tanks, 2 Fighters, and 2 Bombers.  Britain can… build a Tank.

@JWW:

@Cmdr:

Does winning without your technologies coming into play count?

Sure it does! I’m having trouble seeing how the axis have a real chance right now. Maybe I’m wrong?!?

The Axis are currently winning a large majority of the games, regardless of tech or NOs.  Its widely believed that this will even out or switch eventually.  Though its still unclear, I suspect that NOs help Axis, who need money desperately, while techs help Allies, who have money but need something to turn that into tactical or strategic leverage, something they are very short of.

The reasons why the axis have the advantage are the following:
1. The Axis go first, whereupon they sink well over half of the allied fleet, and easily demolish a dozen territories on the first turn before they have a chance to regroup.
2. Without a fleet, the Allies have to wait a turn or two before they can have a significant impact on Eurasia/Africa/Indonesia.  By that time, Axis will have conquered pretty much all of it except Russia and the fringe territories.
3. Upon the end of turn 2 or 3, the Axis has as much or more money than the Allies.  While they are now spread out and vulnerable like the Allies were on turn 1, the difference is that the Allies still have to expensively transport troops in to attack, while the Axis do not.

Keep in mind that if you are playing with NOs, by the end of Turn 1, Germany will have 50ish Income, Italy will have 20ish, and Japan will have 45ish.  By the end of Turn 2, that will go up to 55ish, 25ish, and 60ish.

What the title says.  Germany should always get out 10 units a turn, because between having to invade one major power and fend off two others from behind, they are going to constantly suffer attrition, and while getting more expensive units might allow for greater offensive pushes, it won’t matter if all of the sudden you run out of units.

I think this is true even on turn 1.  Germany should get 10 Infantry on G1, because they have no real chances of taking Moscow on G3 or G4 anyways, and those 10 Infantry will be able to reach Moscow themselves by G5.  Unless Axis seriously intends to capture Caucasus on I2/G3 and hold it till I3/G4, a 6 Tank build is going to be of limited use.  However, the earlier that Infantry are purchased, the more likely you are to get full use out of them.

As for G2 and beyond, you have several options, assuming that you have around 52 Income (Karelia/Baltic States/East Poland/Ukraine), for each 2 income less than that you can build an Infantry instead of a Tank:
10 Tanks: If you get this G2 and G3, you can hit Moscow on G5 with your builds from G1 through 3, for a net of 20 Tanks and 10 Infantry, excluding what you started with.  This should probably be enough to kill Russia, but it doesn’t leave much for Defense.
6 Infantry, 2 Tanks, 2 Bombers (Good SBR and defense)
5 Infantry, 3 Tanks, 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber (Balanced)
4 Infantry, 4 Tanks, 2 Fighters (Efficient offense)
7 Infantry, 3 Fighters (slow but very efficient both on offense and defense)

If all researchers fail, for each researcher that failed, mark a technology off the list (only 1, not 1 for each Chart).  If you succeed in research and roll that tech, reroll until you get a tech that hasn’t been marked off.  When you mark off the last tech of a Chart, you may instead give up all your Researchers and take that tech, then remove all marks from that Chart (the other Chart may still have marks).

In short, this ensures that the longer you have to wait for a tech, the better a tech it will probably be, and you WILL get a tech eventually.

This makes technology a safer but still unpredictable venture for all sides.

ICs in regions with an income of 3 or more cost 15 to build, and receive +2 from Improved Manufacturing
ICs in regions with an income of 2 cost 12 to build, and receive +1 from Improved Manufacturing.  They may not build units costing more than 10
ICs in regions with an income of 1 cost 8 to build, and receive +1 from Improved Manufacturing.  They may not build units costing more than 6

Special: Russian ICs cost 2 less.

This makes building ICs in low cost territories more viable, though still less efficient.  It also means you can’t just start plonking 1 Battleship a turn out of Madagascar.

@Unknown:

Yeah, the NO only counts surface warships. Subs don’t count, sorry.

Nevermind…

The best use for it is to move it to Sea Zone 13 or 14 by R3.  This will deny Italy one of its NOs, costing them 5 IPCs a turn until they build a Destroyer, which is itself 8 IPCs for something that Italy has minimal use for.

That is a fairly effective strategy, though I think it doesn’t matter whether or not it takes Karelia G1 or G2.  The point would be that while Germany focuses its initial force north at Karelia/Belorussia/Archangel, Italy grabs Caucasus on I2 using 2 transports, which should be easy if the forces there attempted to recapture Ukraine or moves up to Moscow.  Then on G3, the 6 Tanks built on G1 can move into either Karelia OR the Caucasus, securing them as needed, and Russia is proper screwed.