Posts made by Woodstock

And for all you Polar Express people, play some games and PROVE your right, get on tripleA or link me a forum game where two equal skilled players without dice going bonkers stopped a full bore KGF with a Polar Express, i’d love to see it.

Okay, not exactly what you asked for, but here’s a picture: I am currently in a TripleA '42 scenario game.
It’s my first 42 game ever, and I was stunned by the lack of Japan’s options.

But look at it now. Turn 4, all the Allies went for Germany. And guess who’s knocking at America’s door? Japan.
The entire attack plan of the Allies now falls to bit.
Agreed, the Japanese got foot at the US mainlaind just in time, as Rome was about to fall, but USA now definitely needs to divert it’s attention, giving both Germany and Italy the chance to catch a breath again. The entire US supply line is halted (or needs to be halted, US isn’t up yet) to kick out the Japanese.

Now, while US is going to divert it’s forces, Japan is already in Persia, China is gone, and it’s income is nearing 70. Russia will be soon toast if they don’t start diverting infantry to the Japanese front aswell.

Germany is still in the +30’s (Italy is indeed down to 9), so the UK wont be able to cripple Berlin on it’s own.

Now, this is nothing out of the extraordinary. Everytime I play as the Axis, I pretty much follow the same tactics. With Germany, I delay the invasions with some navy, meanwhile stacking up on ground units for the big waves to come.
In the meantime, Japan is slowly creeping up to Russia, collecting IPC’s and NO’s, and by turn 3 the first Japanese reach American shores.

The few times I lose as Axis, is when someone indeed pulls of a decent balance, or even a full bore KJF.

He can build 1 IC and 1 INF. The damage markers only indicate the limited production of a damaged IC.
A newly built IC is considered to be build in a new territory, with the resources and manpower available of the country it is in.

@squirecam:

@fanofbond:

i have taken out uk first as Germany before and still lost due to a much to powerful Russia and the US going for France every round.  Uk was eventually liberated and then Germany/Italy fell that same turn and the next turn.  After that the entire allied effort was against a very economically strong Japan, but it was only a matter of time before they were pushed out of Asia and back to the home islands.  Going after the UK is not an option.IMO

If you lost UK Germany and Italy all in the same turn, I dont know what to say……

As for going after the UK, it might be possible. Its probably not very likely. But buying 2 transports G1 is certainly not the way to do it.

Quoted for truth.

If you buy 2 TP’s on G1, your intentions are pretty damn abvious, and all the Allies need to do to wreck your plans is ships some american units to UK, which would already be heading that direction anyways (UK, or Africa).

So what do you have now? 2 useless transports (that most probably are killed by the Royal Airforce on UK1 aswell), and 14 less IPC’s against the Russians…

I think a KUF (or KUKF? KGBF?) is possible, but it will require the Japanese to bug the Americans (= no US reinforcements to London), a swift run on UK’s assets (combo of Japan and Italy into Asian and African territories), and big German investments by turn 2 or 3, after making sure the Russian front is a stalemating battle.

@Funcioneta:

Well, Sahara, Gobi desert (Mongolia) and Himalayas should remain impassable for physical reasons. Switzerland also, because it was too costly for germans to invade. Those 4 should remain impassable

Or…just like the original neutrals…should cost you some (and thus…more then “normal” neutrals) money or units.
It wouldn’t be impossible to cross the Sahara…it just would cost you 25% of your tank force, breaking down to the heat and sand…

Is it a 1 vs 1 game? Or are all nations played by individuals, without discussion about strategies?

Our group usually consists of 5 players (German player gets Italy), and we usually agree on no discussion amongst eachother about strategies. So sometimes stuff like you just described happens spontanously, and then it’s awesome indeed.

Sadly, more often it results in name swearing amongst eachother :P

No, not really to be honest, so I could’ve figured your intention myself aswell…

I will practically never attack the German shores with the UK, if I don’t have some US reinforcements ready to follow up immeditaley after. So yeah, naming the UK and US landings in one turn “the first wave” seems perfectly alright.

@Adlertag:

@Woodstock:

Adlertag:

You are not allowed to move your AA gun during combat movement, only in non-combat movement. (Right…?  :? )
So this means that you are saving 1 transport from the attack, and use it in ncm, or that you take NWE with UK first, and then have the americans ship one there?

In case you are talking to me.

Always attack and conquer with UK, and support with US infantry stack, fighters and AA-gun. This is basics. US have 2 AA-guns they never use. Put them on next tranny, and convoy them to France.

Yeah, I know that, but you confused me with your:

I always land an AA-gun with the first wave

I thought you were saying that you move in your AA gun during during combat move…

You sure do, dude, and I got a counter to that. I always land an AA-gun with the first wave, and hope to shoot down som Hun aircrafts. And when you take it back, I’ll make that AA-gun useless because I will not use airforce but Battleship bombardment.

Adlertag:

You are not allowed to move your AA gun during combat movement, only in non-combat movement. (Right…?  :? )
So this means that you are saving 1 transport from the attack, and use it in ncm, or that you take NWE with UK first, and then have the americans ship one there?

I have bought an IC twice in Egypt, once with UK, once with Germany.

The German was placed there on G2 IIRC. By round 4, there were american and british forces coming in from the west, and a big ass american fleet from the east, that managed to sneak by the japanese.
The only way it can hold now (the game is still going) is with excessive Japanese protection, who at the same time needs to defend it’s IC’s in India and FIC.
Russia is almost falling to Japan’s tanks, but that was not thanks to the German IC. So…so far…the German IC merely seemed like a distraction to the Allies, and not a valuable addition to the Axis attack force.

In the other game, Germany didn’t attack Egypt. So I though, ow, what the hell, let’s give it a go, and dumped a british IC there.
It fell to the japanese on turn 2, thanks to a 1-2 action with the Italians. (Italians attacked, all UK and Italian forces got killed, and Japan just swooped in a transport with 2 INF).
Luckily, it was reclaimed on UK2 with a tank that landed in Morocco and the british bomber, costing me te bomber to have the tank survive.
And now, with T3 starting, it still is vulnerable to an italian attack. (Japanese are spread too thin now, so no land unit can reach it) I can repel the first italian attack I hope, but if Italy and Japan put their effort in it, it will fall again in T4 probably.

So…again…the IC is merely a distraction, this time to the Axis. Granted, both Italy and Japan have to focus heavily on it if they want it now, so they don’t have much to much equipment at other theatres (for Siberia, India, China it looks rather good so far) and Italy is still stuck in the balkans, reduced to 9 IPC, and only a battleship and 2 tp’s left.

I kinda miss the “we dont need anything to achieve balance”-option, if I am allowed to say that here.
As others have stated before me…the game could also just be perfectly balanced, but we just havent figured it out completely yet.

@CalmDragon:

@Woodstock:

Another one:

IJN?

Initial Japanese Navy?

Close, try Imperial

Got ya…makes  a lot more sense…d’oh.

Another one:

IJN?

Initial Japanese Navy?

Great work! Excatly what I was looking for in our hours lasting games filled with intoxicating beverages… :P

+1 karma for you!

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

Because TripleA is flaky on people’s machines.  It’s far better to use Battlemap that works on everyone’s system, even if you are running an 80486SX chip and DOS 5.0 you can run Battlemap.

I actually got Battlemap to work on my Ubuntu 9.04 with wine, but looking at the map, who would want to use such a pos? It’s not even a game! Sure the unit icons and the map in TripleA is not the artwork of DaVinci, but it looks ok and is very playable.

Look out where you are going Subotai. I once tried to convince Cmd Jennifer about the pro’s of TripleA, and before I knew it, it turned almost into a flame war ;-)

I think we all conceded in deciding TripleA and Battlemap cannot be compared to eachother :P

Also note that your british fighters dont get to shoot at the german sub at all, as you are not bringing a destroyer along with you.

Nice opening post, and I completely agree. Not sure if I can add to the discussion in the quality everyone else is doing (english is not my first language, and I’m not good with big words and stuff :P ), but here’s my $0.02.

Apart from the opening move from Germany, I rarely ever use the same opening move for any other nation. Simply, because you have to react on what the other is doing.
With that said, I am kinda contradicting myself, as I do see myself as a more long term thinker. I hardly ever count the immediate economic value of a battle, I look at at the advantage of the territory itself. Does it allow me to pass on to another theatre, do I force my opponent to react on it and distract him from his own strategy etc.
(Heck, I’d even kill a $20 UK fleet if it would cost me a $40 Luftwaffe if that was the only UK fleet)

Take the G1 naval buy (see the topic that I started myself). The discussion there is all about economic value of that CV, the flexibility of other units, how you can buy 4 inf for that 1 CV etc.
The reason why I like that CV buy is because my goal with Germany practically never is to take Russia. My goal with Germany is always to survive, and soak up UK and USA IPC’s, and have Japan take Russia. In my opinion, that CV helps me with that, even though it might not be the best economic advanced purchase, nor does it give me any ground units that are a must have accordnig to other players.
…no clue where I was going with my post, and I definitely dont want to derail this topic into another G1 naval discussion.

For myself I have often compared A&A with Chess…but only with Low Luck. The main difference between Chess and A&A are the dice. With the dice, you never know the outcome, and you always have to keep in mind a bad outcome (or be surprised with a great outcome, and realise you just spent money on reinforcemenets you dont need), whereas with Chess, you can always tell which options there will be in the next turn. (Might be hard to predict all various moves in chess, but in theory, you can).
With Low Luck, that difference is minimalised.

Nonetheless, your 4 schools of chess players do seem to be around in A&A aswell indeed.
There’s the economics (why take a 2 IPC country if it cists you 3 5-ipc units?), there’s the gun and runners (dont care about the costs, Im gunning straight for Russia/Berlin), there’s the long term strategists (look 3 turns ahead, pull your opponent where he doesnt want to be, as you slowly build up your main attack), and …well there should be a 4th.

In short:

Is a UK IC the ‘perfect’ move?  No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
Is a Ger. CV the ‘perfect’ move? No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.
Is there an “unbeatable” strategy for ANY nation? No, it depends on everything else that’s going on in the game.

I couldn’t have answered any of those questions better myself.

The UK IC is very dependent of the overall Allied strategy (are you all going KJF? Then by all means, get those UK IPC’s into the Pacific, someway).
The Ger CV depends on what you want to do. (Are you going straight for Moscow? Then heck no……Are you waiting for Japan to come over and party? Then yeah, why not? It keeps those pesky Britains at the other side of the canal at bay)
An unbeatable strategy does not exist. Period.

@cymerdown:

So, the big question that makes this whole discussion moot is: What does building navy in the Baltic actually -do-?  What is the goal of building it?

1. It ferries a few additional troops to Karelia faster.
Ok, but taking and holding the Karelia factory accomplishes the same purpose without wasting IPCs on building navy.  In any case, the land units you build in Germany will get to the eastern front eventually, whether by walking there or taking a transport.  Does a few of them getting there slightly faster until the navy dies accomplish that much (i.e., is there a quick attack that kills Russia very fast where you need those few extra troops in the east a couple of turns earlier)?  Nah.  The game designers were smart enough to make sure there’s no cute tactics like that which Germany can pull - it takes at least 6 turns or so to really take Moscow against any sort of decent Russian player, and the Baltic fleet should be dead long before then if you don’t play the naval arms war with England more than a carrier or two.

Not just Karelia. Scandinavia aswell. UK and RUS can easily take that, taking valuable IPC’s from Germany. Beig able to ship some men there helps out a lot.

2. It threatens the UK with invasion.
There is no way that Germany can build enough of a navy to compete with the UK -and- hold the east against Russia.  It’s just not possible with the IPCs that Germany has access to in the beginning of the game.  So, one or the other will have to go.  Besides, the UK can easily build enough land units to prevent Germany from ever really taking the UK.  US can come with assist if it’s ever needed, but it won’t.  So this threat is empty in that it doesn’t gain any territories for Germany, and they’ll be losing territories to Russia while sitting around building this empty threat.

If UK has to resort to defending, my goal is already accomplished. That means less British IPC spent elsewhere. That means a field day for Japan.
As for Russia, let them come. Once they get stretched far enough, they’ll be pushed back again. In the meanwhile Japan is nearing from the East.

3. It makes the UK focus on fleet for an extra turn or two instead of prepping invasion of France or Scandinavia.
Ok, but it also makes Germany focus on building ships instead of land/air units, like they should be.  So this is a trade-off, and one that Axis can’t really afford to make IMO.  UK will eventually crush the Baltic fleet, and by crush I mean not a fair battle.  Axis will lose on the IPC trade and UK should be left with a fleet that is unassailable, and -then- they can start the invasion prep.  Also, by building ships, Germany is going to start losing instead of gaining land IPCs to Russia as they begin losing the land arms race since they are preoccupied with ship building.

UK focus on fleet for an extra turn or two

You mean, delay UK by a turn or two? Great. Another goal achieved.

So, I think we’re left with admitting that building ships as Germany has no real goal to it

In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, no. There’s other goals that you didn’t describe yet (next to delaying UK in building a fleet, you will also eventually have a very big chance to wipe out the same fleet, whilst Ger is sitting on +50 ipc, and UK is sitting on +20 IPC. Good luck in rebuilding the UK fleet after it got wiped…) and so on.

Look, I cant say it just as good as Mollari and some others did , so I am just gonna say…

“Prretty much everything MOllari and those others said” :P

You might wanna read up on the forums, as the the general consensus is that in the '41 scenario, with NO’s, the Axis are in a huge advantage. There’s even talking about bidding (which I think is a bit overboard) for the Allies.

Obviously, fair enough.

That makes me realise two things.

1. I either had sucky Allied opponents

or

2. I managed to weaken my Eastern front just enough to hold the Russians back, but still provide a decent threat to any navy reaching the European shores.

Yes! Page 20 of the rulebook!

An antiaircraft gun or industrial complex in the captured territory remains there but now belongs to your side (see Liberating
a Territory, below). If you capture an antiaircraft gun, you cannot move it in the Noncombat Move phase of the same turn. If
you capture an industrial complex, you cannot mobilize new units there until your next turn.