Posts made by wodan46

Seeing as Bombers can hit sea units, even though they are clearly supposed to be strategic Bombers, pretty much yeah.

@Yoshi:

@wodan46:

@Yoshi:

and why uk would not take it back ?

The simplest way to block UK is to use the Sub fleet to kill the Destroyer so that the Cruiser can move to block a British invasion.  This will mean that Britain is limited to strafing Karelia, which can be reinforced next turn anyway by units from Norway, Baltic States, those produced by Karelia, and the transport if its still alive.

but you have already use your cruiser for the attack in karelia. if you do not use that, you decrease your chance to take karelia (about 70% instead of 80%)

Then perhaps hitting the Battleship with 2 Subs is best, with the other Sub attacking the Destroyer.  I’m curious, could you resolve those battles before deciding whether or not the Cruiser bombards?’

Or you might just be stuck with the 70% win chance.

@Unknown:

So you’re hitting Philippines with 1 TP only??

You would use the Infantry/Artillery, and you’d support with either a Fighter or Cruiser (Battleship can handle Destroyer)

@OleOneEye:

True that it is never worthless.  However, since Japan is typically the wealthiest player in the game, a couple extra IPC a turn is less important for Japan than any other player.  The crippling factor is the opportunity cost of not getting some other technology.  Of course, what is Japan doing rolling on chart 1 in the first place?

As you said yourself, there really isn’t much of an opportunity cost cause chart 1 is weak for Japan anyways.  However, if Japan is not careful, a British IC in Australia combined with an aggressive USA could result in them having less money than you might think.

@OleOneEye:

Mechanized Infantry for USA is pretty much only good for re-conquering Africa for the Allies, and then, keep shuttling troops through the Middle East toward Japan.  The utility it gives in Africa makes it worth the money.

I suppose it would let them blitz into Russia/East Asia pretty fast, but shouldn’t America be targeting one of the Axis members directly with their forces rather than liberating their distant holdings?

@OleOneEye:

I don’t understand the way you play Russia.  It pretty much only purchases infantry and tanks in every version of Axis and Allies I have ever played (along with just enough aircraft to get the job done) – and AA50 is no exception.  Russia absolutely needs offensive ground units that can take a land and hold it, with the Russian tank force often rivaling Germany’s after several rounds.

I am very curious on what you spend Russian IPCs if not tanks and infantry.

Even if Russia intends to take territory and hold it, why would they need to transport Infantry to get there?  Also, I don’t really see any advantage to Russia building Tanks rather building solely Infantry.  Both of them are really just delay tactics until Germany gets reamed from behind by someone, anyways.  Germany won’t have enough forces to break into Moscow until turn 5 if Russia masses Infantry, and that requires them to be neglectful elsewhere.

@OleOneEye:

Multiple Rockets owned by the same player may not bombard the same Industrial Complex on the same turn.  Germany’s Industrial Complex could, however, be Rocketed by Russia, Britain, and USA once each.  Both USA and Japan have to invest quite a bit of effort to get a Rocket in position to attack.

Not really.  The Indian AA is already in range of Russia.  The Japanese AA can be moved into Alaska on the first turn, in theory, putting it in range of West US.

@OleOneEye:

Heavy artillery production has been a fool’s gambit.  Slow units that don’t attack any better than the defending infantry is a recipe for disaster.  Have you won many games against an equal opponent when focusing on artillery?

Fair enough.  Still think that Russia can get some use out of it though.  They have 30+ Infantry to start, getting a bunch of Artillery can allow them to push back Germany more cheaply than with the vulnerable Tanks.

@OleOneEye:

In any game that is not decided in the first 2-3 rounds, Russia needs to have purchased at least a fighter or two.  They must be able to trade territories on the eastern front.

Perhaps I’m just bad at estimating the long game.  I’ve played mainly Revised, and most games get decided by turn 3.  However, if Russia builds a fighter or two, then it makes it more likely that the game is decided in those first rounds, because if their front forces got demolished without any backups, gameover.

@OleOneEye:

@wodan46:

Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack.  That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.

If USA is in a position to strategically bomb Japan, the game is over and the Axis should forfeit.

If Japan has radar AND masses Subs, there is no feasible way for USA to threaten Japan period, regardless of how well or poorly the game goes for Japan.

@OleOneEye:

UK spends the majority of the game with its fleet positioned to attack the Baltic Sea.  It will crush subs as soon as Germany places them.  If necessary, it can afford a 1 destroyer screen to be left in SZ6 while the fleet does other things.

Destroyers have a move of 2, as do Subs.  If Germany builds a group of them on second turn and Britain does not already have a Destroyer nearby, they simply sink any Destroyer that comes into range (air support is nice), or for that matter any naval unit, and with luck can dominate the Atlantic.  If Britain wises up and places a Destroyer blocking the exit to the Sea AND another one behind it, then the Subs should kill the Destroyer, then spread out into 3 different Sea Zones.

Also, in countering my other posts, many people have suggested that Britain build mostly Bombers turn 1.  Airforces will do nothing against a Sub fleet.

@OleOneEye:

We clearly have a difference of opinion on the utility of submarines.  I do enjoy the humor of Russia’s Red Oktober who has spent many games leisurely sailing around the world, visiting different ports of call.

Subs are just hard to use, because they are the most different unit in the game.  However, they can potentially have incredible yield, completely denying access to whole oceans if you are fortunate.

@atarihuana:

id say best techs are improved factories / advanced art cuz every nation can make use of them, no matter what…

There is a difference between a tech which a country can use and a tech which is useful to a country.  Also, even a tech which is useful for every country may not be as objectively good as a tech which is game breakingly powerful for two or three countries.

There is also the question of ease of use, IE how long does it take before you can use the tech, and how early must you receive the tech to make it useful at all.  Also, some techs give you immediate short term gains that are good for rushing, whereas others will help you in the long game.

Improved Factories is one of the best techs in the game, but only if you get it 1st turn.  After that, it rapidly diminishes to good, then useful, then why bother?

Assuming you get it 1st turn for 2 Researchers:
Britain: Gamebreaking.  They can simply dump 1 or 2 Factories in the Middle East/Africa/Australia and start pumping out units like mad.
Germany: Gamebreaking.  Able to build up to 2 Factories near the front lines or simply take the Karelian/Caucasian ones, Russians are going to get their asses kicked.
Russia: Useful.  If Karelia isn’t captured first turn, it probably never will.  Doubtful you will actually get this tech though.
America: Useful.  Being able to build 4 units out of Alaska, or 3 units out of Hawaii, could be quite useful.  To say nothing of grabbing other islands in the pacific, or even getting a base down in Algeria or Norway.
Japan: Gamebreaking.  Who needs transports, you might as well send them all off to kill Canada or something.
Italy: Useful.  Plonking down 8 Infantry a turn.  Which is pretty damn useful if Germany is off blitzing Russia with their whole army.

Advanced Artillery on the other hand, is one of the weaker techs in the game.  Its not that its bad, it just doesn’t do enough.  It means that a 10 IPC group of 2 Infantry and 1 Artillery have 6 Attack instead of 5.  Unless you are someone like Russia, who has absolutely huge amounts of Infantry, and doesn’t have to move them much,  the number of times this will actually be useful is minimal.  Compare it to Jet Fighters, which gives a 10 IPC Fighter 4 Attack instead of 3.  The difference is that most countries have more Fighters than Artillery, and that giving a 33% firepower boost to one of the most flexible units in the game is better than a 20% firepower boost to a couple of slow moving cannon fodder.

@Umgar:

From my experience Germany can only do one of the following on G1 (it can attempt to do more of these, but typically will either outright fail or barely succeed; losing too many forces to actually hold newly acquired gains and then be back in the same boat on G2).

Germany’s choices are:

• Take and hold Karelia

• Obliterate the UK Atlantic fleet

• Take and hold Egypt

To do any of these 3 things well, the German bomber must be committed. Otherwise the attacks are very risky. The Egypt attack is dicey even with the bomber but will usually succeed with at least 1 tank left, and arguably that’s all you need to roll most of Africa.

In any case… my point is if you want to take and hold Karelia on G1 - yes it can be done. However, in order to achieve this you must leave the UK Atlantic fleet partially intact and/or forget about taking Egypt on G1 (you might be able to soften it enough for Italy to finish the job… but it’s very risky leaving that UK fighter alive in Egypt).

So ultimately it comes down to what you think is the lesser of 3 evils. You can only do one of the 3 things above well.

Your analysis is correct.

Germany’s options are the following:
1. Take Karelia(and hold it), and possibly eliminate the Destroyer and/or Battleship-Transport group
2. Take Karelia(but fail to hold) and Egypt
3. Take Karelia(but fail to hold) and eliminate the Destroyer and either the Battleship-Transport group or the Destroyer-Cruiser group
4. Take Egypt and eliminate the Destroyer/Transport, Destroyer/Cruiser, and Destroyer groups
5. Eliminate the Destroyer, Battleship-Transport, and Destroyer/Cruiser groups.

In all options, Germany has enough forces to capture the 3 Russian territories closest to it.

@Cmdr:

You can’t hit Belarus in round 1, not with ground forces.

But you can with your Bomber and a Fighter.  Strafe the Infantry to death and Russia has too little left to recapture Karelia.

@Cmdr:

Yes, you could block the British Battleship, but round 1 is your only chance to sink it basically for free. (You’ll lose a submarine or two, but you would lose those anyway.)

Which is why sending 2 Subs at it and the other at the Destroyer is risky but still doable.  So long as you sink one of them you are still fine.

@Cmdr:

It has been my experience thus far that it is easier to crack the Japanese nut than it is the German one.

The problem is that I suspect that if America is going all out to kill Japan, Germany/Italy will be able to crack Russia before either Japan falls or Britain becomes a serious threat.

As Darth says, Japan can expand, yes, but they can’t seriously threaten a capital for the first 6 turns.  Germany can threaten a capture of Moscow as early as Turn 3.

I think a kill Italy first might be a decent strategy.  Having Britain use build a Bomber fleet to torment the Axis and eliminate vital forces, while America sends its navy to capture Italy could work.  It also has the advantage of flexibility.  The American force can simply capture Western Europe, Balkans, and Bulgeria if Italy turtles too much.

@Enigmatic_Decay:

I agree with you Unknown. Would be fun to try but I think an experienced player could easily thwart it.

I firmly believe that any major German naval build is a complete waste of time, unless it is done after and only after hevily fortifying the Eastern front. And then only to support Italy in the mediteranian little by little!

Mediterranean… wait a moment…

G1: 1 IC in France, 3 Tanks, do the usual German attack (3 British Fleets sunk and 3 Russian Territories captured), with an emphasis on holding Ukraine.  Move Italian fleet to the Sea Zone South of France and have them capture Gibaltrar.  Have them build a Transport
G2: Build 6 Transports south of France, while positioning enough Infantry/Tanks (such as the 3 you just built) in France/Algeria to use them.  Build a Carrier and 4 Transports if Britain still went Bomber happy (given that you got an IC, that’s probably a yes). Focus your eastern front forces even more in Ukraine.  Italy lands units in Ukraine, or lets Germany load units in its transport/s, then moves to Caucasus
G3: Invade Caucasus or UK, probably the Caucasus.  Landing 14-16 ground units in Caucasus, along with a large ground force and possibly air force, should be rather difficult for Russia to handle.  In the mean time, build 6 Infantry in France and more Infantry+Bombers in Germany, blocking a UK invasion.

Damnit, I keep forgetting that battles aren’t to the death anymore, and that units can retreat.  Such makes the Battleship vastly superior.

@Yoshi:

and why uk would not take it back ?

The simplest way to block UK is to use the Sub fleet to kill the Destroyer so that the Cruiser can move to block a British invasion.  This will mean that Britain is limited to strafing Karelia, which can be reinforced next turn anyway by units from Norway, Baltic States, those produced by Karelia, and the transport if its still alive.

While destroying the Battleship/Transport would also work, all of your airforce is being used to take Karelia and strafe Belorussia, so all you have left to take out the Battleship/Transport is the Sub pair, leaving only 1 Sub leftover to deal with the Destroyer to allow for a Cruiser block.

@atarihuana:

there is no follow up attack… you bought all navy…

???  Does 6 Infantry and 2 Artillery count as Navy?

@Yoshi:

sorry, I did not read well.

So this may work, but should cost most of the german planes. And moreover, the english navy will be bigger, and you just avoid russia to take it back, since you cannot kill the uk battleship with only two subs. Thus, UK can counter karelia, and with a russian build as 6 armors, they can take back karelia on turn 2 quite easily I think…

Yoshi

They can’t take back Karelia if Belorussia and Archangel are taken on G2.  Unless UK takes Karelia on B1, it will probably have 2 Tanks and a bunch of transported Infantry on it.

Thinking it over, and Germany going 1 CV, 2 Transports on G1 is best.  No matter how much they reinforce their Baltic Fleet Britain will try to sink it, so there’s no reason to hide your transport builds.  Then on G2, you can either build 1 CV and 4 Transports (to kill Britain) or simply switch to Baltic Zeppelin Gambit instead.  Ukraine will be weaker, so Italy will reinforce it to stabilize the gambit.

Granted, Japan can’t switch its strategy at this point.  Perhaps its part should be dropped, but that would mean US can help Britain…

@Unknown:

part of the beauty of this strategy is that the Allies are unlikely to see it coming the first time.

The UK and the US get to see both Germany and Japan’s opening moves before they do anything. With Germany buying all navy and Japan sending every single transport towards the US west coast, I think they would see the danger pretty quickly.

I mean, what else would 5 loaded TPs be doing around Iwo Jima?

I think this is one of those plans that looks good on paper when you’re playing solitare, but versus a good opponent who is aware of what’s going on, and will do everything in his power to stop you, it’s just not going to work. I suppose this might work on an inexperienced player, though, and it would certainly be fun to try out if nothing else. I just don’t think its “good” strategy overall.

@Unknown:

Oh, and wodan, I’d be willing to play it out sometime if you want.

Perhaps you’d like to try it out on someone who hasn’t thought about how to counter it yet though, as Comassion points out. That way you’d keep any element of surprise you might have with this.  :evil:

The problem is that trying to maintain control of the Baltic isn’t subtle, but this strategy works best if done subtly enough that the Allies aren’t quite sure what you are doing.

One possibility is that Germany spends the first turn building nothing, then building 2 CV and 6 Transports the following turn.  If Britain somehow anticipates this anyways, or can stop it, you can drop the strategy, and build 6 Bombers instead, which should still be useful on the eastern front.

@Unknown:

If you Build 5 Infantry and 5 Tanks, all of your starting money, they only win 75% of the time.  Add in the Infantry from Central US as well and it drops to about 60%.

Not sure where you’re getting your numbers, but against a defeding force of 6 inf, 5 arm, 2 ftr, 1 bmr, 1 aa Japan is only about 38% to take the territory, not 60%. The US can make these odds even worse by sending in the EUS fighter, but let’s suppose they send it to Britain.

@Unknown:

If Japan simply takes Canada, they will be… slaughtered by an Infantry/Tank force

Correct. So what can Japan hope to accomplish by doing this?

Dunno.  Assuming that they can’t take West US, I’d vote that they take Alaska with the majority of their forces, and Canada with a token force.  This allows them to deploy their air support more effectively.

@Unknown:

Whereupon Italy takes Western US instead

Nope, cause the Italian fleet is dead the moment it sets foot out of the Med. On UK1, they buy 3 bmr, 2 inf. If Italy moves their fleet as you describe, Britain pounds it with 4 bmr, 3 ftr (1 ftr from FWA, escaping from Egypt on UK1), winning easily with no fighter loses.

Fighter from Egypt will have nowhere to land because Gibraltar was taken.  Also, if you build such a massive airforce, the Italian fleet will probably stick to Sea Zone 13, meaning you can only hit them with your Bombers, causing you to lose most of them.

@Unknown:

If Britain builds a navy on B2 to block Germany while sinking the Italian force, Germany simply destroys the blocking fleet and invades Britain

Uh, not quite. With the 1 IPC saved from UK1, they have 44 to spend UK2 thanks to the Axis opting not to attack british holdings in Africa, Asia, or the Pacific. They buy 2 cv, 2 dd and place them in sz6, along with the dd and fighters already on board. The US adds its dd and fighter on US2 for a grand total of 2 cv, 4 dd, 4 ftr.

That’s assuming that on G2 Germany doesn’t simply move some or all of its forces to Sea Zone 6 or 7.

Granted, I think you are beginning to dismantle my strategy at this point.  The main problem is that I assumed that a typical British build would be navies, not airforce.

@Unknown:

So G3 comes along and, if we’re extremely generous and suppose Germany’s entire airforce is intact and in range of sz6, they have 1 ss, 1 ca, 1 cv, 4 ftr, 1 bmr to attack with according to your builds. That gives them at best 20% to clear sz6 for the invasion force. If they choose not to attack, we all know what will happen on UK3…

0 ss and 2 cv, actually.  Unless they decided to go Carrier and double Transports first turn, whereupon Italy would probably go to Sea Zone 12 after all.

@OleOneEye:

War Bonds – 0 Japan

War Bonds will generally pay off its cost with interest, so its always at least decent.

@OleOneEye:

Mechanized Infantry – 1 USA, 3 Russia

America doesn’t use Tanks much, and when they do, they are almost always moving 1 space.  I question the wisdom of Russia buying that many Tanks at all.  F

@OleOneEye:

Rocket – 1 USA, 0 Japan

Japan can grab the AA in India and bombard Russia.  It can also move its other AA to Alaska or Midway.  America can move an AA to Britain and Algeria to bombard the Axis powers.  Also, can multiple Rockets bombard the same IC on the same turn so long as they are in different territories? That makes a significant difference in their power levels.

@OleOneEye:

Advanced Artillery – 0 USA/Brit/Japan, 1 Germany/Russia

I think you are under-rating their usefulness.  They allow you to have an Infantry force that is almost as good on the offense as it is on the defense.  Given that Russia starts with 35 Infantry and Germany with 19, its well worth it for them.  Less so for the powers that operate mainly at sea and/or away from ICs.

@OleOneEye:

Jet Fighters – 1 Russia

Fighters are useful to Russia, but they really can’t afford them if Germany goes all out.  They are more useful for long games.

@OleOneEye:

Radar – 0 Japan

Radar makes it very difficult to SBR Japan, and very difficult to invade it, seeing as most invasions rely on air power to supply the strength of the attack.  That means that America can only really threaten Japan with naval units, so Japan can just spam Subs and rest easy.

@OleOneEye:

Shipyard – 1 Germany R1, 0 Germany R2+, 3 Japan

I agree with the Japan value.  However, Germany can build Sub fleets inexpensively.  Subs are generally safe from UK’s air force, and unless Britain has a Destroyer close by when they are built, will remain so.

@OleOneEye:

Super Subs – 1 USA/Japan/Germany R1, 0 Britain/Italy/Germany R2+

Super Subs are again quite uber.  USA can use it to clear the pacific and keep it cleared, Japan can use it to keep USA at bay, Germany and Italy can dominate the Atlantic, Britain can counter-dominate.  Britain and Italy, I think should be reduced to 1.

Chart 1    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
War Bonds[–1–][–1–][–1–][–1–][–2–][–2–]
Mech-Inf  [–0–][–1–][–4–][–3–][–0–][–2–]
Rocket    [–2–][–2–][–3–][–1–][–1–][–2–]
Adv Art    [–1–][–1–][–2–][–1–][–3–][–1–]
Manufactu[–0–][–3–][–4–][–3–][–2–][–2–]
Paratroop [–3–][–3–][–3–][–3–][–1–][–2–]

Chart 2    [USA+][Brit–][Ger–][Jpn–][Rus–][Itly–]
Jet Fight  [–3–][–3–][–3–][–4–][–0–][–1–]
Radar      [–0–][–2–][–3–][–2–][–2–][–2–]
Heavy Bo [–5–][–4–][–4–][–4–][–3–][–3–]
Shipyard  [–3–][–3–][–2–][–3–][–0–][–3–]
Spr Sub  [–2–][–1–][–2–][–2–][–0–][–1–]
LRA        [–4–][–3–][–3–][–4–][–1–][–2–]

@Unknown:

And America is able to do that how?  Given that they lost 1 of their Bombers…

I still don’t see how the strategy is effective though. The US can simply plop down a stack of inf and/or arm on WUS, landing the fighters from Hawaii and sz44 there. Good luck taking it with only 8 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, and 6 figs. Then the moment you land in W. Canada your force is pre-emptively attacked and killed.

If you build a flat 10 Infantry, then land 2 Fighters there, Japan wins 90% of the time roughly.  If you Build 5 Infantry and 5 Tanks, all of your starting money, they only win 75% of the time.  Add in the Infantry from Central US as well and it drops to about 60%.  Even if it fails, America just wasted all of its money and will be of no help to Britain

If Japan simply takes Canada, they will be… slaughtered by an Infantry/Tank force, and break even with an Infantry+Fighter force.  Even so, that requires America to invest all of its money into the endeavor.

Whereupon Italy takes Western US instead, if it packed its transport with its own troops and not Germany’s.

@Unknown:

As for Europe, UK buys 3 bmr, 2 inf on UK1 as I mentioned, then if Germany bought more navy G2 (which they will have to), UK simply wipes out the Italian fleet in sz12 instead and drops a massive fleet into sz6 to box the German fleet in.

As I described, Germany buys 6 Transports turn 2.  If Britain attacks with its airforce on B2, it will probably lose, as discussed before.  Then Germany will invade them with 8 Transports, plus the Italian transport if it is loaded with German troops.  If Britain builds a navy on B2 to block Germany while sinking the Italian force, Germany simply destroys the blocking fleet and invades Britain, who has probably not stocked up on troops what with all its Bomber and navy builds.

@Unknown:

Americans mop up if the dice don’t break UK’s way.

And America is able to do that how?  Given that they lost 1 of their Bombers and are under immediate threat of invasion by Japan?  Ok, they can land their other Fighter and Bomber preemptively, but how can they know that such is even going to be needed?  Why aren’t they trying to deal with Japan or Italy, both of which can invade US proper?

@Unknown:

If instead of the DDs Germany buys a second carrier G2 and lands it fighters there, there’s an 85.3% chance that Germany will have AT MOST 3 units remaining after the UK attack. If you keep fighters, the TPs die and the threat has been eliminated. If you choose to keep naval units, the US kills them on US2. Again, threat eliminated.

Why would the transports die?  The British airforce is wiped out, and the German fleet joins up with the Italian fleet before they can build another.

Not that it matters.  If a single German naval unit survives the Air attack on B2, then on G3 the United Kingdom is going to be invaded by a force that they couldn’t hope to defeat.  Unless the US reinforces them, which would require them to ignore Japan, which would result in Japan taking West US.  Is Britain willing to take that chance?

That’s the point of the strategy.  If the all 3 Axis members ignore Eurasia and focus all their effort into threatening invasions of USA and United Kingdom, then they just might be able to pull it off.  USA can’t block a Japanese kamikaze attack AND reinforce Britain.  Britain can’t build an airforce strong enough to sink the German/Italian fleet unless they fail to reinforce Britain enough to resist a prior invasion.

Also, you are presuming that the Allies are fairly good at predicting what the Axis are going to do.  Most likely, Britain won’t even realize that they are going to be invaded until the second turn, when Germany builds its transport group.  Why would they build Bombers to merely eliminate a Carrier group or two?

An India IC build wouldn’t work against my basic (non-crazy) strategy.  I would do Transports to Kwantung, Burma, Philipines, Borneo, and East Indies on J1.  On J2, the Borneo and East Indies Transports shift the 4 Infantry to India, along with the forces in Burma(1-4 units) and a Fighter or two if need be.