Posts made by Xandax

Japan/Russia has no effect on UK/Anzac relations to Japan.
UK/Anzac can declare war on Japan “when they want” (so to speak)

@Zallomallo:

The application is too narrow imo.  If they were brought down to 11, I bet more people would actually think between a destroyer and a cruiser.  Right now they are only a filler when you have 9-19 left over for ships.

Can’t say I agree. I think they are a great supremacy unit with their 3/3. As said they do not stand alone, but I think they belong in any naval force if wanting to create naval dominace

@MarkHC:

Bottom line, I’ve played multiple games as the Soviet Union where I didn’t let anyone attack my units except an infantry I left as a road block.  Even when Japan invades Russia turn one/two and tries to keep pushing, it still didn’t make much difference because they can only take a territory a turn.  So when Germany finally reaches Moscow, almost every single unit I’ve built as Russia is there defending my capital.  Sure, if time weren’t a factor, it’s a bad strategy, but I know that the Allies are going to be landing in force by turn 5 or so, so the Axis is not able to deal with the Allied pressure and overcome a huge Moscow stack.

If the allies are landing in force in turn 5 Europe is lost regardless of a large stack of inf in Moscow.
Nothing is gained in the game by removing USSRs chance to defend and making a German attack on Russia go faster. On the contrary.
The huge stack isn’t an automatic win.

@MarkHC:

“Britain can be taken out of the game or just contained.”
Scramble your fighters west of London when Germany attacks; Save the transport/maybe the destroyer.  Make sure to save your fighters.  Move whatever forces you have left to Canada. Build your ships in Canada for a few turns. Move up to the SZ west of London and build more ships there. Use your fighters as a deterrent because they can scramble.  Have a few US warships join this squadron at the same time they move to off the coast of London. A threatened Sealion complicates this, but the infantry that will be built to defend London can be used for amphibious assaults later on.  Paired with the three/four fighters that were saved, its a pretty powerful landing force.

You can still do sealion - it happens in some games.

@MarkHC:

“Italy can move into Russia via the Middle East.”
If they ignore Egypt/clearing the med.  If they spend the time and money going into Egypt, it’s going to be fairly late in the game by the time they get any sizable force through the Middle East and into Russia.

You do not need a sizeable force to move through Syria, take Iraq and throw up a small IC, and it doesn’t need to take many troops away from Egypt/Africa. Italy isn’t going to take Moscow, but they can supply units to help and they can help removing USSR income.

@MarkHC:

“The USA could be kept busy by Japan in the Pacific.”
With all of America’s money and two rounds of building before war, surely America can spare two/three transports a turn and a warship or two (since they already have a warship in the Atlantic).

And that’s 30 plus IPC of units per turn not used to contain Japan, giving them a larger chance to mess around.
The US splitting focus gives the Axis a better chance.

@MarkHC:

“Germany can push for a G2 assault on Leningrad (especially if turteling)”
Fortify Leningrad from an attack from the sea.  When Germany attacks by land just move all those units back to Moscow via Archangel.  If Germany attacks G2 make sure they can’t hit you by sea.  If they hit you over land on G2 all they have is their starting units and 5 newly built tanks. As long as you keep Leningrad fortified, Germany can’t hit you G2 with any real force.

And that’s unit not used to reinforce Moscow.
Hence the “huge stack” problem got smaller.

@MarkHC:

“Japan can move into Russia to also eat away of those 1 IPC zones.”
They have 18 infantry to contend with.  They can take a handful of territories in the far east, but doing so gives Russia a 12 IPC bonus.  It will take 2 turns of income before it pays off.   If Japan only takes a handful of Russian territories, it won’t make a difference until later in the game.  Additionally, Japan needs land units to go into China. So any units that are used to take and hold Russian territory aren’t being used to fight the Chinese.  If Japan tries to march through Russia, Russia can move one step back every turn.  This will lose money for Russia, but Japan will have tied down a large number of forces allowing the Pacific Allies a chance to gain momentum.

And with less American focus, that’s free Japanese units used to tie up Russian troops not used to fortify Moscow.

Now - we all (mostly) know that this game is difficult for the Axis, and it is easy to sit here to think up “Oh, Then the allies do X and the Axis need to do Y”, which really isn’t the point.
However - fact of the matter is that this game will not be improved by making it faster. And thinking a “huge USSR infantry stack” is the problem or “Moscow is too far away” is a problem,  is ignoring the real problem, because it is only a symptom.
It is a symptom of the fact that the Axis have to move fast. They’re forced to. They have no choice and no other strategy. Either take London fast or take Moscow fast or you’ve lost Europe.
The turtle strategy is - if time wasn’t an issue - a really bad strategy, because it’s purely defensive. So the reason why it is so effective is that it can delay Germany long enough that the USA can kill of Japan and focus fully on Europe afterwards. And that’s the problem. That the US economy is so large it can focus fully on one theatre of conflict, ignoring the other, because time is on it’s side.
If Moscow falls faster, then the game will be shorter and we’ll have even less strategic choices when playing Axis and most all games will be similar.

@MarkHC:

Some of you have said to just go around Moscow and soak up territory, except Russia can block you with one infantry every step of the way.  Even if Italy takes out that one infantry, only tanks and mech can blitz, so Germany will have left all the original infantry and art. behind.  A stack of tanks with only a handful of mech for fodder is going to get ripped to shreds.  And where is Italy getting the units to send to the eastern front?  They start out broke and have to spend all their money in the med just to get any NOs.  Furthermore, even if Germany can grab all this territory, Britain and the USA are going to be landing a dozen units or so every turn in Europe past turn five or six.  Most of Germany’s newly gained money is going to be spent fending off the allies in Europe.

If the Allied can throw “dozen” of units into Europe by round 5-6 the Axis would have lost without a turtling Moscow as well because that would mean Japan is contained or destroyed and the board is effectively lost for Axis.
Anyways:

Britain can be taken out of the game or just contained.
Italy can move into Russia via the Middle East.
The USA could be kept busy by Japan in the Pacific.
Germany can push for a G2 assault on Leningrad (especially if turteling)
Japan can move into Russia to also eat away of those 1 IPC zones.

Now - I’m not saying it is easy to take out a turtleling Moscow. It’s not easy taking any turtleling field due to the speed the Axis must put up to counter the Allied money maker aka USA, but even the Allies can’t be everywhere on the board either.
The reasoning behind “ignoring” Moscow and taking other land is that with a smaller economy you can whittle away at that stack of infantry faster than they can rebuild it.
So instead of spending 48 IPCs every turn, spend 36 and throw 6 tanks into Moscow every turn while using the remainder IPC keeping the Allies out of Western Europe.

Nobody said it was easy to remove a stack of 50+ defending infantry. But the issue isn’t that a stack of 50+ infantry can be made and is difficult to take with their 2 defence value. The infantry 2 defence is not a problem and the 3 attack of tanks neither IMO.
It is that time is of so much a factor due to the USA’s economy and ability to focus - that strategy and tactics on both sides of the board is much more limited as a result in the game.

@JayDavis:

I agree, the troops and transport are much more useful. And if I need to go a distance, those 12 points buy a bomber.

I’d really like to be able to buy cruisers, but it never makes any sense to do so.

Well - I’ll continue to put them into the mix of my double hit fleet where they do quite well. It has so far helped me when I needed to either create naval dominance or upset a naval balance.
In a double hit fleet, the battleships take the first hit, the cruisers 3 dice would survive multiple rounds anyway. Usually works quite well.

I don’t think the issue with AAG40 is that Germany can’t take Russia “fast enough” or “without difficulty”.
The issue is that Axis really have to move fast because otherwise USA becomes too much of a factor.

I don’t want it to be easier to take Russia even if Russia turtles all troops into Moscow - it would make for a much more one-strategy type game making Barbarossa the only choice the Axis have and making it way too fast.

This games issue is the massive economy the USA can get going and the undivided focus they can have. That is very difficult competing with for Axis and means that the Allied basically can go all out defensive and win once USA becomes “big enough”.
The issue with the turtle strategy therefore isn’t that it makes it too difficult to take the capitals/cities - but that it is viable due to the size of the USA economy.

If the USA economy had been less of a factor, turtleing would not be as viable a strategy because the huge stack would be whittled away over time. It is just that the “time” isn’t there to do so.

So if making alterations - I’d rather treat the cause and not the symptom.

@Trisdin:

I’m starting to realize that Mechanized Infantry should be Germanys weapon of choice, especially on the eastern front. However, I’m still thinking about a Minor IC in Romania (later in the game) just so I can combine a few artillery each turn.

Mech inf. can’t stand alone.
They should be along for speed and fodder. Not the weapon of choice. You need something that can kill off the enemy - not just soak up the damage they do to you.

As somebody who lost 4 out of 5 planes to an AA gun - I fear AA guns and will possible utilize them more in the future somehow.

I often spice up my fleet with cruisers. They’re no battleships sure, and they lack the anti-sub of the DD, but I do find their value to be worth it.
They shouldn’t stand alone, but when mixing your Battleships with crusiers and your Battleships can take double hit, you effectively have a very solid attack/defense with the 3 value.
Also remember, cruisers can also shore bombard in amphibious assaults. And then 5 3’s can do more than 3 4s.

Sending out cruisers on their own I wouldn’t do unless as a delaying tactic. And for that DD are properly a better use.
But Cruisers helps adding more power, fast, in your navy when coupled with double hit capital ships. So for that, they do good IMO.

I must admit that I do not see much need for Italy fighters until at least some additional land is occupied.
Until then pushing out inf/art and tanks and the occasional minor IC to help move the front, seems much more bang for your buck.
Once the Mediterranean and Africa have been taken, fighters might start being a good option to help keep US off your back and for pushing into south USSR/West India - but until then I feel using 10 IPC on a single unit is expensive.

@Trisdin:

@ozimek1:

30 IPC’s is a lot. That is 30 infantry units built in Berlin that you can upgrade to Mech inf for the same price. Mech inf from Berlin will reach Moscow faster than regular inf from Romania.

I like what your saying, I just don’t understand the math. In our games, infantry cost $3 each.

He means that you can buy 30 mech inf in Berlin for the cost of the IC in Romania and 30 normal inf with the added bonus of 2 space movement for the mech.
Not quite sure what the point is other than 30 IPC for a IC is expensive and possible could be spend better.

As speed is key for Axis - I must admit that I’m more of a fan of building small ICs and then push tanks/mech out from them and then as I push forward - put down more small ICs to keep the flow coming.
Did that with great success this weekend when I won an Axis OOB game.

@Ruanek:

What do you mean it isn’t played as a single nation in a 3+ game?  As far as I know, it’s always controlled by a player who controls another country (even in 2 player games) but it has its own distinct turn.

I mean the player controlling France is always controlling another nation as well. That alone should show the level of France’s involvement in the game. Even China has more of a role.

France only exists as a nation due to the boards starting position. It’s global, it’s 1940 and France hasn’t fallen yet - hence a French nation is needed.
But if France was in any position to threaten Germany/Italy - the game would be a failure because then the Allies would have even an easier time winning.
The game could just as well have started with France occupied by Germany, but given the 1940 start - it would have been odd.

Frances purpose is to give Germany some extra IPC and to slow down Italy’s movement a little to the west in Africa. It is also why it isn’t played as a single nation in a 3+ person game.

Most of the time, I’d advocate going heavy in Pacific to try and contain Japan. But as said above - the situation is a key issue.

Build production facilities close to Moscow and hope you can continue to push throughout a number of turns while taking the rest of Russia cutting down on how many infantry Russia can replace each turn.

Or - “ignore” Moscow and keep Russia contained while trying to take other land.

@mantlefan:

I’m not saying it couldbe objectively determined 100% of the time, but in a report there are bound to be moves players disagree with. Let’s say I am going over the game and it’s round 3 and I see something Germany does that I really don’t like. I can start from just before that and carry it out.

And that’s where the number of permutations will come into play.
Say turn 3 out of a 12 turn game, then turn 4 and onwards will be unknown.
Then there’s something in turn 4 somebody disagrees with, then turn 5 and onwards is unknown.
And somebody else disagrees with something in turn 2, making your turn 3 invalid.
And so forth.

Analysing the moves is fine and dandy, but it will ultimately be impossible to deduct much based on a play-by-play game. The overall strategies and result is point of contention here.

@mantlefan:

The way you test if a strat is too good in a particular game is to look at the game at each turn and see if there is anything that the allegedly disadvantaged player could have done better. Disagree?

I’m talking full breakdown of each turn [Gasp!] Yes, it adds a lot of time and work.
There’s strategies at the absolute highest, most  macro level (All pac, Barbarossa, Sealion, India first, Japanese Russia invasion, etc). These are things that can actually pretty much be decided before the game even starts in many cases.
As you move down and the number of territories specifically involved in each situation decrease, each issue becomes more context dependent.

Even the smallest moves in terms of IPCs can have an impact on the flow of the game, especaily over many rounds. To see if there is ANY way to defeat this strat regularly we need EVERY detail of how it was used effectively, to see if either the allies or the axis did not act to their best advantage at the time each move was made.

Actually -what you ask and intend to do is impossible.
There’s no way to deduct - whether people know logic or not - whether a move is to “their best advantage” at any given time. It’s not an objectively, quantifiable event.
So if somebody presents something they think, argue, believe is the best advantage at any given moment, it will always be possible to ask “what if” and “why not”.
So you can only believe or assume the move was the possible best at a given time. And because of the nature of the “what if” and “why not” in this context, nobody can then prove (when we talk logic) that an alternate move would have been any better.
There’s simply too many permutations to be able to say that a move is to the best advantage at any given time. Therefore asking for every detail is a dis-justice to the discussion, and possible just a delaying strategy used in argumentation (logic again), because every detail will be impossible to use for anything.

Sure there are situations - such as moving al your troops out of a defending city or only building factories and AA guns - that will unanimous be declared bad moves, but whether you move troops from one zone into another or a third zone into a fourth - then we’re in a situation where the “what if” and “why nots” alone can question any tactic made.
As you claim yourself: “Even the smallest moves in terms of IPCs can have an impact on the flow of the game”
Therefore any contrary opinion, even if followed by play-by-play - will easily be refutable in a “logical debate” and therefore we’ll always be back at square one simply due to the inability of objectively deciding what is to their best advantage.

Tactics affect the game and game moves are important to deducting whether a strategy is sound - balanced or imbalanced aside - however, you can only judge said move in the very context of the situation, aka the strategy.

If within a reasonable amount of games, going full pacific leads to victory for the Allies the vast majority of times , then it is assumed a sound strategy. And if it works the majority of times, it will be assumed imbalanced. Despite once in a full moon an Allied player will mess up or get diced or simply outplayed.
Despite the full turn play-by-play available or not.
But because it is time consuming and rather infeasible to test such things out, it’s a debate which will be governed fully by own personal experiences and belief.

Assuming equality in ability - then it is my clear opinion and experience the USA is too much of a powerhouse, and going full Pacific is viable most of the time.
And the times it isn’t - the dice usually have had their say.
That does not stop me from trying to out play or outsmart my opponent when Axis, but I know I’m up against the odds regardless and my success is more calculated on how long I can hold out than whether or not I pull of a win. The game is imbalanced, advantage the USA aka the Allied but I play with what I got.

The easiest argument for the game (still) being imbalanced is simply the existence of changed ruleset. The game was tested and shipped in a state that was imbalanced - otherwise Alpha+2 wouldn’t be here. So why suddenly do people think it will be balanced now? It might be more balanced, but there’s no ground to think it is fully balanced now when it was tested and shipped imbalanced to begin with.

@Krieghund:

Yes, there is.

Thanks - tried to search for it but only a “missing” topic came up and was wondering :)

(and no - 109 is not 110 :p )