Posts made by Zhukov44

@Upside-down_Turtle:

trolling?  Wow, now that’s a word I haven’t heard since those Boxxy videos on youtube.  Perhaps I don’t get around enough on blogs or something.   :|

I have little grasp of what the word means, I must admit, and yes, it was off topic; a digression derived from IL’s statement on rolling FDR down a hill.  I only meant to express my personal feeling, that is, I would tar and feather him first, then roll him down a hill.  However, if you wish a more scholarly and reasoned opinion against FDR, then perhaps I’ll start another thread.

No one seemed to accuse IL of “trolling” or whatever when he took a jab at the Pope for being a Hitler Youth, and I would expect the same tolerance when I call FDR a facist.

To answer the question on my avatar: I feel no reason to justify my having it.  Again, I must ask why I’m questioned for it when others seem free to have any randome thing they desire.  However, since you name is Captain Kiwi, I suppose it would fit you more…

Nice gun, btw…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

You may not like FDR, you may even feel he was a tyrant….but yeah comparisons with Hitler are the graveyard for discussions.

For my part, from what I understand if we’d had some insular Repub like Coolidge in charge at the time of WWII then Europe might be German speaking these days…  It’s genuinely frightening to revisit how the majority of Americans were opposed to a war against Hitler

Overall the changes are positive imho.  Revised is a classic game and deserves another run and the chance to appeal to a new generation.  AA42 takes the best innovations from Anniversary (ie naval rules and units) and applies them to Revised.  It should be interesting to see how the strategies change.  It’s also a good move to remove tech–Revised works better w/o tech because tech is about luck and detracts from the strategic aspect.  With dice, luck is already a sufficient factor in the game.

Could be a big hit.

Reinforce Sz 2 with the russian sub.  That swings the odds in your favor.  Germany should already be paying a price by losing a fighter at SZ 13.  Now he’s likely to lose 2 more planes attacking SZ 2.

I think Ukraine is safe enough if you use the full 3 inf, 1 art, 3 arm, 2 fig–you need to trim Germany’s Luftwaffe a bit…plus skipping Ukraine puts you at risk in other areas.  Everything else to West Russia.

Use some of the Eastern troops to put pressure on Japan and jump on openings there.  I like 4 inf to Sink and 6 to Bury with 2 fighters landed in Kazach to exploit opportunities, but then I like to be aggressive against Japan and possibly buy land factories or USA naval if Japan misplays J1.  However if you know he’s going to buy all armor with Germany  you might use it against him and pull all Russian infs West for a full onslaught…but then you are giving Japan a free pass.  It depends whether your oppo’s strategy would adapt if you come at him with all 3 allies–in this case he ought to buy infantry and play defensive, but if he keeps buying armor you should be able to take Germany apart before Japan can mount a serious threat to Moscow.

Against all armor G1 using all 3 allies against Germany is a good bet.  You need to be landing in Europe with UK/USA by Turn 3 or sooner perhaps.  With UK/USA, be buying mainly transports (4-5 with UK, 7-8 with USA) and inf/arm pairings.  If the BB dies and you need a carrier, buy one.

I think the error you are making is each ally is essentially isolated and fighting its own war, rather than helping each other.  You are better off picking one of the Axis powers and coordinating an assault with all 3 Allies.  In this case I would probably forget about Japan unless his Japan isn’t hitting the key J1 targets (Pearl and China) with sufficient force.  Spend every UK and USA dollar taking down Germany–even if Germany plays defense, once you have Africa and secure Moscow’s borders you have economic parity.

@Veqryn:

i do think it is hard on UK to lose the BB and Transport, but i would almost rather the Germans do that, risking losing their fighter in the process, than commit to such a low probability attack on norway.  However, i have included your possibilities in my new threat on Allied strategies.

I’m a little confused on a rules issue…can Germany opt to not attack the Russian sub and thus go with 1 sub 1 fig 1 bomb against the single bb?  If so that’s a serious problem for Allies.  Still, if Axis commits those units maybe that creates an opening somewhere else (like Africa).

I doubt a high-risk attack on Norway is the solution for  Allies.  That would be pretty lame if each game came down to whether a 59% R1 attack suceeded.

@chizzado:

Well, I failed.  I had a decent chance of taking Germany using all Allies at the start of the UK turn, but the dice went sour.  I might could’ve waited a turn or two, but he had roughly 25 tanks and 10-15 infantry ready to attack Moscow as the Japs.  I’ll be trying Low Luck next time.  If it’s not Low Luck and I find myself in that situation again, I will wait until I’m CERTAIN I can take Germany.  With that many units going into a battle like that, the standard deviation from a reasonable dice outcome can be quite large.  He should’ve had about 10 tanks left in Germany when it was time for my Russians to go in for the kill.  Instead, he had 23 tanks left in Germany….which made it an impossibility for my Russian stack to take Germany.  Game over.

It’s always frustrating to have Germany pinned down and then lose to monster Japan.  The way I look at it, the last turn the Allies have to kill Germany is usually the one right after Japan captures Moscow.  On the next turn the Jap tanks will likely be in Ukraine…and the turn after they will be in Germany.  In such a case, you gotta take account of how many fighters Japan has and whether them flying in between the UK and US attacks could have a decisive impact.

Sometimes if you have Germany completely pinned (and it can be tough to pin Germany given that they can still make 25 ipc a turn if they can trade all the territories adjacent to Germany minus EE), it makes sense to divert some Allied resources to pushing back Japan, as the Allies build up some more.

I’d say the best tactic is pick a power (USA or UK) that will make the decisive attack…then use the other power to trade key territories with Germany and wear it down while the other builds up.

Fleetwood,

I think the question of where to stack depends on situational factors (yours and enemy strength and disposition).  I’d say the initial goal should be stacking/controlling Cauc, a territory that is strategically invaluable.  The reason is Cauc is a place where Japanese tanks and fighters can arrive in force.  I figure by the time the Germans arrive at Cauc (whether via Ukraine or WR) then they are usually in need of some reinforcement, unless they are ready to attack Moscow immediately.

I had a game once where a strong UK shuck through Kar/Arch became such a problem that Germany moved its stack to WR–and this tactic did succeed in blocking UK reinforcements.  But in this case, by that time the Japs had a big tank stack at Cauc so the Russians weren’t strong enough to strafe either the German stack at WR or the Jap stack at Cauc.

If the game plan is to destroy Moscow with the Japanese and use the Germans to block reinforcements, then moving the German stack to WR makes a lot of sense.  It also allows Germany to contest Karelia and Archangel which should gradually wear down Russia and hopefully block the UK.

As for the USA, remember that going for a Pacific strategy is not necessarily the ideal strat–sometimes it is better to go with everything on Europe.  Either way, if you go for Japan then you should spend almost all on the Pacific theater in the first few rounds.

You will need 2-3 fully loaded carriers (2 if you successfully countered Pearl, 3 otherwise).  Don’t buy battleships.  Don’t buy destroyers.  Only buy subs if the Japs buy subs.  Buy carriers, fighters, and transports.

Why carriers and fighters?

1. Range–carrier based fighters can attack up to 3 SZs away and this forces the Japs to bunch up their forces in 1-2 fleets.
2. Defensive punch.  Your goal is to take East Indies and Borneo and build factories on them.  The Japs goal is to prevent this.  They will attack you–you will defend.  And fighters on carriers are the best bang for your buck on defense.  You just have to make sure you have sufficient subs and transports for fodder–I prefer transports because like fighters they are a muti-use item.
3. Flexibility.  Fighters are cheap and can fight both on land and at sea–lots of transports and fighters mean you project threats in all sorts of directions so the Japs will have to spend on infantry to defend Tokoyo and other important locales.

For USA1, 1 AC 3 transports and 2 AC 1 transport are both good (if you go with the combine in 30 strat with UK, then either of these will work).  Especially if you go with 2 AC on turn 1, you will need to buy fighters and then fly them out to your fleet.  I like either 2 rounds of fleet buys and then 2 rounds of fighters only or 1 round of fleet buys and 2 rounds of fighters only.

If you decide to do 2 turns of fleet buys before sailing out, you ultimately want 3 fully loaded carriers and at least 3 transports, plus the BB and destroyer that you start with, and perhaps a sub or 2.

If you are determined to go after Japan with the USA, alot depends on what you do UK1.  Here are a couple ideas…

1. on UK1, attack the sub in 45 with your fighter from the India fleet and your sub.  Then land your fighter on the USA carrier.  At the same time, attack Borneo and New Guinea with 2 inf each.  With the UK carrier…either block the Japs by parking it in SZ 36…or move it towards Africa with the intention of linking up with the USA fleet later on off East Indies (at that point you will land 2 usa fighters on this carrier for extra defense.  This deployment is a big pain in the a** for Japan.  If the Japs are a strong player, they can still kill your Pearl fleet if they come after it with everything.  However, I find most players will either spread themselves thin by retaking Borneo and attacking your UK trannies or they will skip Pearl altogether (giving the USA a head start).  The great thing about this opening is it weakens Japan and forces Japan to sacrifice some units but it’s still very flexible for the Allies…ie you can still concentrate on Europe if you want to.

But the biggest advantage is since you land the extra fighter on Pearl, it’s much more likely that the Japs will lose key units if they attack Pearl, which might allow USA to counterattack (if the Japs have anything less than 1 BB, 1AC, 2 figs, 1 dest then USA should attack with 1 bb 1 tran, 2 fig, 1 bomb).  A successful attack there is without doubt the most favorable way to begin a USA Pacific offensive.

2. Another option…send every UK boat to SZ 30 on UK1.  Send the fighter after the transport in SZ 59 and land it with the 6 inf in Bury (in every instance, you should also have your UK bomber landed at Novo or Cauc…this will prevent Japan from buying new transports without protection which is critical).  So…assuming the Japs don’t attack your fleet, on the next turn you will move all the boats below Aussie.  On USA2, you sail your USA fleet for Solomons, and then on UK3 you move your UK fleet to Solomons too.   This makes for a massive fleet for the Japs to deal with.  This opening is great combined with a UK factory in India.

@miragehunter:

That is a controversial strategy (big time!).  But i like it!  I remember games past of mine where i getting robbed blind by the Germans with rockets.  It feels nice to be able to give them a taste of what they are giving out :-D.  What are your thoughts on an Australian IC.  Thats a big gamble, I know.  But, no guts no glory as they say.

Aussie IC is a bad idea I think–-way too far away from the action.  India IC is much more viable and makes for a fun game.  Remember that if you build India you need to have the Soviets advancing on Bury/Sink, and you need a few Soviet tanks on Cauc to liberate India in case the Japs take it.  You also need some USA presence…either through fighters flown in, a factory at Sink, a Pacific naval offensive, or some combo of these.

I don’t much like playing Revised with tech… basically it means the game revolves around whether you get the techs early on.  Like say if you tech for rockets with UK and get them on Round 1 then Axis is pretty much screwed, but if UK techs for several rounds and doesn’t get them then they fall way behind.  Not to mention the fact that heavy bombers are very unbalanced, particuarly if USA gets them.

The game plays out beautifully w/o tech–why screw it up by making game outcomes exclusively determined by luck?

The war was already decided before D-Day, so I wouldn’t include that one.

The Battle of Britian was obviously decisive.  Actually I think Japan attacking USSR would have been a big deal too, specifically if it had kept the USA out of the war a little longer.

One thing that bears repeating in this discussion is a G1 IC is a BAAAD idea.  It’s not just that Germany doesn’t have the money G1 and needs infantry (or a bomber) right away.  It’s that you have no idea what the Allied strategy is.

And on edit….having played AA50 more I never buy a German IC anymore…  I think the logic behind it is holdover Revised logic that is unsuited to an entirely different game.

Key objectives for UK1 should be….

1. Sink the Baltic fleet.  Obviously you can’t if Germany gets a destroyer or carrier–in that case buy planes and try for it UK2 if possible

2. Get units into Africa if at all possible.  Unless Axis is going aggressive, securing Africa is Uk’s #1 priority in the early turns.  In addition, landing in Norway is pretty risky if Germany still has some Baltic fleet.

3. Retake Egypt if possible.  If there are 2 or less German units sitting in Egypt you have to seriously consider attacking with 3 infantry and 1 fighter.  This is vital because there are a lot of IPCs at stake–if you can take Egypt then Germany can’t blitz Africa until they recapture Egypt, which costs them vital IPCs.

4. If you don’t attack Egypt, Borneo is a good alternative destination for your India fleet transport.  New Guinea…sending a tranny there can help spread the Japs thin but I’m not sure the 1 ipc territory is worth the risk when you could send that transport towards Africa or save it to link up with the USA fleet.

5. Killing the Jap submarine in 45 is a good goal also–this helps USA at Pearl.  You can attack it with the Uk sub and/or the fighter from India (landing on the USA carrier, thus strengthening the USA fleet).

It’s not like an IC in Alaska is totally useless–it’s just not going to be terribly effective against a good Japan player.  The only point in buying the Alaska IC is to drop expensive naval units (preferably carriers, with fighters flown in from WUSA to Alaska) in SZs closer to Japan.  But to do that, you need to be basing the USA navy up north…that is, far from any territory greater than 1 ipc.  In this case, the Japs just need to defend Japan, which is easily done given they have an 8 ipc factory there.  Getting into a naval build-up in this region favors Axis, and meanwhile USA isn’t putting any pressure on the money islands.

It’s great to experiment with new stuff but going crazy on USA ICs is not good strategy.  I once played a 1-1 against an Allies who bought 5 factories with the USA (China, Sink, Alaska, Brazil, and West Russia) and 2 factories with UK (India and Norway).  He actually had the advantage in the early part of the game but all the cash he put into factories rather than gear hurt him down the line–not to mention the advantages the Japs had when they captured all those Asia factories.

Moral of the story is USA starts the game with a 12 ipc factory and a 10 ipc factory.  For maximum efficiency, the only factories USA should build are in mainland spots that can be defended (like say Norway) or maybe in Asia if all 3 Allies are pressuring Japan.

Re. the OP…

1. If Allies are receiving more money from NOs early on, then Axis isn’t playing right.  As Axis, make sure you are aggressively denying the Allies NOs, and are getting as many Axis ones as possible.  Ultimately, even in a KGF it should take a while for the Allies to deny the NOs.

2. If the Allies are spending all their cash on bombers (and teching for heavies) then Germany should counter appropriately.  Either buy mainly infantry and wait for Japan or go aggressive and take out Russia while the Allies are buying techs and planes.

An Alaska IC, like a Brazil IC, is not a terribly efficient use of resources.  You can just move land units up.  Concentrate instead on air power to destroy the Jap navy.

Theoretically, shucking from West Canada to Buryatia seems highly effective.  Yet for whatever reason I always seem to take the Southern route (ie Borneo, East Indies and eventually take Fico).  Still, if you can kill the Jap navy early shucking to Buryatia is biggg.

I don’t see how the French IC is a liability given Axis can hardly trade France and expect to win the game.  I’ll agree it’s vulnerable to SBR though.

Methinks taking and holding Karelia is not realistic against a skilled Allies.  Cauc is probably the more realistic goal but that can be tough to grab early.  So the choice is basically between buying the IC (G2…NEVER G1) or spending the extra cash on planes or a tank rush.

No, they fixed that too.  The battleship will bombard only the first territory you attack.

Well I can agree with that only if the Allies are preventing Italy from achieving NOs.  Sure, if Italy pours all its income into carriers that’s pretty inefficient purchasing and maybe its better to let the fleet stand.  But honestly if Axis is going to put fighters on those carriers I wouldn’t mind buying even more bombers as USA and bagging the whole shebang.

I like this.  The idea of buying bombers UK1 to sink the fleet UK2 isn’t bad either, but depends on what Germany did and bought G1.  USA3 is probably a better idea in most cases.  But an attack needs to be made by USA3 otherwise Allies are asking for trouble.  At that point it’s tough to prevent a Jap carrier coming through unless the Allies have stacked Jordan.