You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.
So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.
I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.
@Cmdr:
Bomber, 3 Infantry for Russia on Round 1. I just wanted to see what it would look like to have Russia SBR Germany for a change. ^_^
And how did it look? If you dont mind sharing that is.
I read this in some strategy (sorry, been reading too much of them to remember which one), but I cant find it in the rulebook so quickly.
in Revised…is it allowed to have more then 1 AA in one territory? IIRC in Classic it was 1 AA per territory right?
Okay, so the majority here is not keen on the buy fleet thing on G1.
But how do you all stand towards at least preserving the Baltic fleet? (by, I gues the only option is a AC).
That tranny there, does provide it’s use as a bridge to Norway and Karelia, allowing German to threaten Russia a lot easier.
(which is what I like about the 3 TRNS + AC buy. If you dont attack UK on G2…which prolly is the case if UK and US respond to your threat, you still have some flexibility on G2. You can put quite a force in Russia with the 3 TRNS, or respond to an allied landing on either Norway or W-Europe, giving a big punch on the UK fleet. )
Or do you all take the loss of the Baltic fleet, and not invest at it at all, going for air and ground units solely?
I miss a point. I am not a KJF expert but it seems to me that in a correctly conducted KJF Japan is not supposed to take naval dominance of the Pacific.
According to this article it seems highly feasible….
My ftf gaming group doesn’t use bids so I’m used to whatever advantage/disadvantage that brings to the table for the respective sides. I’m not used to a bid though. The other day I played a pick-up 4 player game online where the axis had like an 8 bid. I was Russia and sure wasn’t used to that automatic 2nd transport in the Med. round 1.
Well from my perspective I think the perfect bid is Axis 3. Just to add another dude in Libya and only that because if Anglo-Egypt round 1 goes sour for Germany the rest of the game is an uphill struggle for the Axis. Nobody wants to play a game that’s largely decided by round 2. In fact, just add the dude to the initial setup and do away with bidding altogether. ~ZP
Very well put. I do like that thought of extra dude in Libya. Just to even out the odds on that first roll a bit indeed.
But for the rest, I defi see the challenge with the Axis as they are.
In round 1 both Japan and Germany seem to be in the better position then the Allies, and it’s then where you have to make the most out of it.
Woodstock. There is no problem in playing the game without bids. But the poll is for a bid that makes the game balanced, meaning both sides have as close to equal a chance as possible to win given equally skilled players (very important for tourneys, etc.). You seem to agree that the axis is at a disadvantage because it is more fulfilling to win as the axis, so you’re really agreeing that a bid is needed to balance the game. But again, for games where you’re just playing for fun, and not in a tournament or other group where your record matters, playing without a bid is fine if that’s what you want.
Kick ass remark actually, thanks.
Indeed, with my statement, I am agreeing with a bid for the Axis.
But besides that, I still am interested in whether or not I am the only one who gets some satisfaction from winning without bids.
Unless that’s too off-topic.
Let’s fire up an old topic. I’m a newbie to Revised…so…sorry :P
(I’m going for a no-bid game here, sorry, I like it)
In this thread, the G1 AC + 3 TRN buy seems to put quite a load on both UK and USA, right to RND2 at least. It doesn’t seem all that bad for Germany, and might even pull of some luck.
Russia can be efficiently defended still aswell…but at least…you will force all UK and USA troops to UK (according to the various responses here).
Not all of a too bad situation I might say, as Germany also has some back up plans on G2 when indeed, UK and USA scramble to UK, and Operation Sealion doesnt seem to be so fortunate anymore.
But despite all this, the G1 naval buy still seems a bit questionable. There’s a bit too much if’s and but’s.
However!
What I miss in this thread is the added benefits for Japan in the above scenario.
If indeed UK and USA scramble to UK, Japan has a free game in the Pacific.
Just act as if it was a KJF-game, taking complete Naval dominance, and a fair block in Asia.
You can waltz into Asia on J2 easily.
Or maybe even USA? …Nah, a bit too enthusiastic, sorry.
But what if USA and UK do not scramble to UK?
Well, even better in my opinion. On G2 you still have a nice german force to do whatever you like (strong fleet, and strong…yet…centralized ground force.
On J1…Japan could pull of the anti-KJF aswell, as it seems the right thing to do…in pretty much any scenario for Japan…
Looking at the poll results so far, it seems you are not the only one.
But then I wonder…isn’t that the beauty of playing with the Axis? When you win with them, without bids or any advantages, then you feel good.
I will never forget the first time my Japanese guys were having sushi in the Kremlin. :-D
@KGB:
The problem with an India IC on turn 1 is that you have to commit before any dice are rolled in the East, and I feel that Asian ICs (and perhaps KJFs in general) only well if Japan gets bad dice on UK1 and/or J1. Building an IC in Sinkiang won’t stop Japan from capturing India on Japan 3 as outlined in the CSub paper. But this is a bit off-topic probably blush
Dont worry, I lik off-topicness. The more thoughts spread around, the better ;)
Would you mind linking me to this CSub paper you speak off? I’ve been going through quite some pages in this board (rather swiftly, agreed) but was unable to find any “complete” strategy layouts for Revised.
because you already have 2 figs to land there
Yeah, I only just thought of that. Thanks though :-)
Stll have to get used to Revised rules. I dont recall from Classic that you were able to immediately put two FTR on a AC upon it´s deployment.
Japan attacks Russia anyway.
But now Japan does not have to worry about a possible UK IC in India, or a large US force, as it´s scrambled to UK.
In the worst case scenario, both UK and US decide not to do so, and beat on Japan the normal way. This is still acceptible for Japan, as it´s used to that. And a KJF by the Allies should be noticed by Japan by the time UK´s turn has ended, so it can switch plans and prepare for that.
But then German will definitely have the edge in the UK, and still have some strength to keep Russia outside of it doors, with enough time and money to either attack USA or RUS.
Also would you please layout how you are going to purchase a destroyer on G1 and then have 5 transports on G2 to invade England.
Okay, this is a big IF and a definite best case scenario in which UK and USA scramble everything to UK for defense, etc and not interfeir in your plan.
G1
I buy 1 DSTR, 3 TRNS, 1 INF which is 40 IPC (German starting income)
I attack UK Battleship in SZ13 (Gibraltar) with sub, Med. TRNS and Battleship, plus some fighters. (Battleship takes first defensive return hit, and possible 2nd is for the sub).
TRNS 1 survives and is in range of UK on G2.
And so is the Battleship for some shore bombardment aswell btw.
The Destroyer that might attack these two ships in UK1, is no match for my Battleship.
The other 4 are the 1 already in Baltic Sea, plus the 3 I bought.
That is, offcourse, if the UK will not attack the Baltic fleet on their first round with the air. But then you might even consider taking the Destroyers or Subs away as hits. This will not deminish your amphibious strentgh on G2, and might even take out some defense strentgh in the form of the attacking planes.
If UK places his fleet in the way on UK1, you still have quite some force to attack their fleet in G2 (fighters and ships), killing his fleet. Nice odds for G3.
Ow wait….I think I just figured out the benefit of the AC over the Destroyer. If you deploy a AC, you can place 2 fighters from an adjacent territory on it right ? That would make the fleet even more powerful, withstanding any UK attack on UK1.
And thus, you have 5 TRNS available for attack on G2.
@Raunchy:
What are the VC (Victory Conditions)? If you need a navy to reach the 9th VC for victory, then the first turn German AC is the best time to buy it. You need to set up for the future and the other moves of the players are predictiable on turn 1 as they are set in funds and locations, then you know what you are facing round 2.
We usually go for a Worl Domination for both sides, just for the heck of it :wink:
But even in that case, wouldn´t the Destroyer still be more valuable then an AC?
If I take UK, and want to work my way to either Russia or US, I can reach both nations with my planes rather swift eventually.
And Bigdog
Agreed. It´s a hell of a risk to attack UK in G2 (and according to my math, it is…in the best case scenario 5 TRN´s which I could bring btw…but that´s a big IF though), but that would still mean the Allies have to focus on UK in their first rounds, giving Japan more or less free play to attack Russia.
If they ignore my threat, UK might just fall.
So I would like to try it some day. But then still the question remains. Why the AC instead of the destroyer, which is cheaper, and only limitation is the lack of a landing zone ?
Yeah, I’m doing the math now on any (G1) naval buy and a (G2) possible attack on UK, and it seems a bit risky.
But imagine if, if you decide to do this…wouldn’t a Destroyer make more sense then the AC?
Wandering of the mind…
I just read this article, covering the thoughts behind buying an Aircraft Carrier on Germanies first turn.
But now I am wondering. Why an Aircraft Carrier? Why not but a Destroyer, saving you 4 IPC’s, plus it seems more beneficial.
The Destroyer has more attack cap. then the AC.
The Destroyer is cheaper.
Another extra sub-annoyance.
The only benefit of the AC is that you create an extra landing spot for 2 fighters, which otherwise wouldnt be able to land after an UK attack.
However, actually doing the invasion on UK seems very tough for Germany, still.
So if you decide not to invade UK, but you do want to preserve your Baltic fleet, the Destroyer would be a better choice then the Ac right?
Or am I overlooking something?
And if you dó decide to invade the UK, then you could also just move your fighters in G1 within range of UK in Norway or Western Europe. That way you don’t even need the AC’s extra landing spot. This would mean less force on the Eastern front to cope with Russia for 1 turn though, but that seems like something you could overcome.
You are right, sorry. It’s right there indeed.
Another q about the battle ship.
It may not participate in a sea battle, and then conduct shore bombardment.
However, I do have to move all my pieces in the combat move phase before delivering battle.
So the battle ship will be in the same sea zone if I plan on attacking a fleet + an amphibious assault.
If I decide that my battleship is going to conduct shore bombardment, it may not fire during the sea battle prior to the amphibious assault.
But is it allowed to take hits in the sea battle?
I mean, it is right there in the area. It can take 2 shots, so can it take 1, and then, when I win the sea battle, can it still conduct shore bombardment?
(For instance…bad example though: G1, Amphibious assault on Anglo Egypt.
The UK Destroyer is in the way, but I want my Battleship to bombard the main land during the landing, so I have two fighters from Europe take on the Destroyer. If the Destroyer places a hit, I have my Battleship take it, so I dont lose anything.
Can the Battleship then still bombard the shore after I sunk the Destroyer with my fighters?)
May we use this poll for general discussion on bids aswell?
Because, I don’t think there shouldn’t be any bids at all.
The challenge for the Axis is to win with what they have got.
Agreed, I have only played 1 Revised game so far and lost with the Axis, but with Classic I have gotten my share of Axis victories…without bids or any other privileges.
Is Revised that much more in favor of the Allies, that the Axis actually need a bid to win?
So, I am going with 4 or less.