Posts made by WOPR

@axis_roll:

The problem is that the USA doesn’t get much reward for a substantial investment against the Japanese.  It is also very hard, if not impossible to team up on Japan.  UK pacific forces are decimated on J1, and pretty much wiped out by J2, even India.  Sure UK can throw some resources into an IC in India or australia, but those are short term road blocks that Japan will overcome with only a 1 or 2 turn delay…. meanwhile Germany is goose stepping into Stalingrad or Lenningrad on their way to Moscow.

An IC in India can work very effectively if you do it right. If you really want to have fun you can even build 2 ICs on UK1.  8-) Axis doesn’t know what to do if you pull that on them. I literally rolled over an experienced opponent when I showed him something he hadn’t seen before. He was so taken off his game he made two massive coin flip attacks (50 % chance of success) and lost both of them. He surrendered turn 3 because his situation was pretty much helpless.

@Funcioneta:

India IC cannot simply hold, no matter what do you send. If you don’t lose it round 2 or 3, you will lose it round 4: Japan starts with 5 trannies and at least 6 figs, and can buy ICs pretty near to take India, being East Indies the more nasty

But even a attrittion battle will be lost: you have no China to aid, opposite to Revised, so it’s 3 guys against all the japanese power: even 1 IC to Manchuria, 1 IC to FIC will beat India soon or later, and you have still enough income to stop USA’s fleet

Well I don’t think it will hold indefinitely if the Axis are really determined to take it. I said it will slow the Japanese push to Moscow. It’s also a lot more fun than focusing solely on the European theater.

@Funcioneta:

One more thing: in 1941, soviets move before Japan. So if soviets send troops to aid India, Japan can simply focus her moves on that place as reply as allies will probably want a India IC.

Well, it’ll look that way but the Russian player can always pull the forces back and if he does he will have succeeded in getting Japan off their regular game plan. Therefore, advantage Allies.  :-D

@Gargantua:

Ya pulling 15 and then 9+ ipcs away a turn from UK, and russian units off the eastern front to India to be exposed to the entirity of the Japanese Juggernaut is a BAD plan of action.

that Sz35 fleet should NEVER survive, barring extreme luck, beating 2 fgt’s.  and YUN should also NEVER survive any good J1 strategy.  Other locations on J1 are negotiable to the success of those battles, barring the bat in Sz 53 that must also be destroyed.

The only time and India complex is viable is if, J1 is Horribly botched, or you are playing against a Japanese opponenf, who is VERY new, or VERY inept.

I disagree. If we ever get a software version of the game I’ll show you how it’s done mate.

@Telamon:

I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships.  At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships.  I don’t mind where they are placed 10-11, but at 12 IPC they are pricing themselves out of the market.  Bombarding doesn’t make up for a weak, expensive unit.

I disagree. Yes it does.

@gamerman01:

Also, if you “buff your fleet” with a bunch of destroyers, you’re right that they’re more efficient than cruisers - against other fleets only.  But my land and air units on land are not afraid of your destroyers coming closer, but your cruisers are menacing.  Also, Larry had a great point about the cost.  Battleships “only” cost 1.67 times more than a cruiser, but many times I do not want to commit 20 IPC’s to one unit.  Or what if I have 12 IPC’s I want to spend on my fleet?  Which is better, a destroyer or a cruiser?  I can’t buy 2 destroyers with 12 IPC’s. I don’t think 12 IPC cruisers should be in the top 20 of our suggestions for improvements to AA50.  We’ve come a long way from 24 IPC one-hit battleships and 18 IPC carriers, though, haven’t we?

All good points.

@gamerman01:

Put it this way, if I had 5 cruisers I wouldn’t want to attack 3 battleships with them

You wouldn’t want to do that in real warfare either so no problems there in my opinion.

@oztea:

Hold on a second….why are ships always getting AA guns?
The vulnerability of the big ships was one of the top 5 lessons of WWII!
Battle of Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Midway, etc.

No AA guns on boats, it doesnt solve anything. It just makes the UK fleet stronger if germany can only attack it by air late game.

Agreed.

@oztea:

Cruisers are fine, a 3/3 for 10 is a fighter. A 3/3 for 5 Is a tank A 3/3 for 12 is a Cruiser.
Small discrepency, but its all realitive. In the water a 3/3 for 12 is fine, considering the 2/2 is 8 (66% of cost) and the 2/2 on land is 80% of the cost of its 3/3 counterpart. Boats cost alot of money folks, remember if you drop it low enough Russia might buy one and thats pretty ahistorical. 12 makes it an investment, not a bargan.

Again, I agree.

@Cmdr:

Move the Chinese fighter to Sikang.  As it stands now, and feel free to pass this on to Larry, I kill every last Chinese unit in Japan 1.  From there, it’s pretty easy walking to Moscow.

There is a counter to that strategy. If you go after the Chinese fighter on Turn 1 that opens the door for an India industrial complex.

If you do not send any fighters to sink the UK destroyer and transport in SZ 35 the UK player can use the transport to pick up the 2 infantry from Trans-Jordan to fortify India. That coupled with 4 or more Russian infantry from Caucasus and/or Kazakh S.S.R. as well as a russian tank or fighter can make India invulnerable to a Japanese attack on turn 2. Once there is a complex in India your quick train to moscow gets derailed.

If you send 1 fighter to SZ 35 and manage to sink the boats there is a 50% chance your fighter is going to be destroyed as well giving you less firepower in India (fortified by Russian forces again) on turn 2. The result is an India complex again slowing down your march.

@Cmdr:

Up bombers to 20 IPC in cost, but give them AA Gun protection.

Bombers are about the only thing that needs some tweaking in my opinion. Change the cost or make the optional fighter intercept rules (from the Anniversary FAQ) standard perhaps?

I created those tiles and yes, of course. That’s why I created them after all. Now if only the developers can work out their recent legal woes with Hasbro.

Truly beautiful work you’ve done.

@a44bigdog:

Sorry new plastic “toys” are not enough for me to buy what is appearing to be a downgraded Revised. I started Wargaming with games that had cardboard counters so I really don’t get all excited over the units sculpts. Really if I was interested in how the pieces LOOKED I would buy military miniatures and paint them.

This looks like the wonderful Magic formula where you release new cards that everyone just must buy but basically do the same as the old ones.

So the map has the C. US moved to the other side of the board big deal. I could also care less if it is the terrain look of AA50. Honestly the solid colored Revised board is easier to tell who controls a territory.

Honestly, Revised is unplayable because of the solid colored board. It is hideous. At least new comers to the game have a half way decent game board to play on now. The new mold for the German cruiser is nice too.

@Funcioneta:

1941 is far from being competitive, giving axis a monster advantage (many players are not killing China round 1 and that is the reason of many allied victories, even some players don’t kill the fighter).

Is the Allied player building an IC in India when you kill China on J1?

lol I never even knew you could drag the map. A mouse with a trackball makes scrolling a cinch!

I decided to put together some nation specific navy units for TripleA.

Download Here:
http://www.savefile.com/projects/808724519

Those rules sound pretty cool actually. It would be interesting to play a game like that, however I usually prefer stick to what’s official.

@rockrobinoff:

You have the opportunity to sink the lions share of the british navy

I certainly agree with you with on that part. The second part, however, not so much. When playing Germany I don’t see any naval units as a good investment. They’re just too easily and quickly sunk by the UK and allies.

If Germany had a BB though, on G1 you could purchase a CV and a pair of DDs and have a formidable little fleet. Without the BB, the CV and DDs aren’t so scary.

In the end though, the setup is not going to change so I’ll have to keep my German naval aspirations in check.

@Lynxes:

When I think of it, Japan can’t even send their fighters from Midway west to strike at India on turn 2, they only reach Kiangsu! So the best Japan could do is to forgo the invasion of Phillippines and send those two transports normally used to invade there to prepare for India turn 2 invasion. Then Japan could have: 10 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 5 ftr+CA+BB shore bombard, for a total of 28 attack plus 7 shore bombard first round (assuming one ftr hit by AA), vs. that defence force of 28 for India (or 32 if you send in 4 Russian arm).

So, if you see a Japanese opening move of setting up all five transports to invade India, you should maybe not build that IC in India, but that seems to be the only counter to allow a J2 invasion! Maybe be could see some nice American strategy being developed to exploit such a scenario, such as aggressive naval builds which could really pay off if you have both the Jap cruiser and battleship off India!

Japan can forgo the invasion of the Philippines as you describe, but I think they must at least sink the Philippines DD and transport with their BB. If I’m Japan I can’t send that BB to India, no matter what’s happening there.

I suppose you’re right, but I still want a German BB. I just think it would make the N. Atlantic much more interesting. The allies would still dominate that theater but it would at least give the Germans a few more gameplay options.

@GUY:

I don’t like heavy bombers, and wish they had kept the LHTR regarding that tech.

I agree the LHTR rules are better. Heavy bombers are too much of a gamebreaker. However, with my playing style, if I’m rolling for tech it’s usually because I’m losing and a gamebreaker tech is what I need so…

@Adlertag:

I miss convoy zones, or some kind of bonus when you controll strategig sea zones. Lets say if UK controll sea zone 1, 2, 7 and 12 with a surface warship, then UK get a 5 IPC bonus.

I’d like to see some N. Atlantic national objectives too.

Also the battleship Bizmarck was on the prowl in May 1941, yet the Germans have no BB in the spring 41 setup!  :?

Lynxes, that’s a well thought out strategy and I think it could work. However, Russia’s western front may be too weakened by the loss of the infantry and 2 fighter build (on R1) to withstand an aggressive Germany and Italy. It would certainly be a precarious balancing act defending both Moscow and India.

@Alair:

Well, the Allies are strong, it’s just about how to crush the Axis…

Here’s what I’m going to try next game;

R1, move 4 infantry from Caucaus to Persia.
(counterattack the foolish Germans if they attacked Karelia in G1)
Japan goes…
E1, move the 2 fighters and infanty and tank to Karelia.
E1, build IC on India (still haven’t decided about Africa)
R2, move 4 infantry from Persia to India.
J2 … if they attack India they will lose (I think)
E2, build stuff on India.

Yeah, I considered that strategy too for UK and Russia. The extra 4 infantry from Russia will not be enough however if Japan commits fully to the attack on India.

Japan’s India invasion force on J2 could consist of:

9 infantry
1 artillery
4 fighters
1 tank
1 cruiser (off shore bombardment)

That’s from memory though so don’t hold me to that. I’d have to re-examine the board to be sure.

If I’m playing UK I like the idea of an Indian IC but pulling it off is tough. I think you can build an Australian IC (on E2) after Japan takes India however. Japan would likely have to pull it’s entire invasion army off India to have a shot at capturing Australia reinforced by American fighters on J3.

I started playing in 1987 (give or take a year). I’ve been away from the game for years (never played Revised) but the Anniversary Edition has rekindled my interest so here I am.

@Alair:

Italy is weak, but you’re right.  The problem really is once you lose that fleet Italy is a lost cause.

Italy is not weak. What are you guys doing to lose Italy’s fleet so easily?

@Alair:

I don’t think Italy will necessarily win Africa as well, the odds are in England’s favor.

I think it’s strongly in favor of the Italians. Especially without a UK S. African IC.

@Flying:

But what I did on J1 is send my closest CV and 2 fighters to the Med to protect Italian navy. It worked like a charm and the navy survived until the last round(6). By then it was too late I had Africa most of the game and I was attacking Caucus the last 3-4 rounds. Japan never even missed that Carrier.

Exactly! If you’re playing with NOs, You can have a stocked Italian CV in the Med. at the end of round 2 as well. At the end of round 3 you can have two fully stocked CVs (1 Jap 1 Italian) in the Med. I see nothing that the Allies can do to stop this, especially with the US doing the predictable KGF and allowing Japan to do whatever they want.

@Black_Elk:

Should Germany have a battleship in sz 5?
I feel like they really should have had one in the 41/42 set ups, so can’t we give them one in 43? You know it would make the naval game more interesting.

@tin_snips:

germany should definitely have a battleship in a 1941 setup. symbolises their larger fleet before the destruction of the bismarck and the containment of the tirpitz

I completely agree.