Posts made by Zhukov44

Great discussion.

It’s very tough to choose which British units to attack.  I have a hard time allowing the destroyer/tranny off Canada to live, since it would be easy to kill it with 2 subs or just 1 bomber.  But no fighters can reach, and if I only send 1 sub that attack could fail.  Anyway, it seems like a good bet to destroy at least one of the British transports so there’s minimal threat of a landing that could destroy the German air force.

So which target takes priority–the BB/tr or the DD/tr?  It’s hard to clear the Atlantic without the bomber but I need that bomber in Egypt–success in that battle seems critical for Axis war aims and the bomber is the unit that swings the odds in Germany’s favor.

@dondoolee:

@Zhukov44:

Maybe I haven’t played enough to fully understand the discussion….  But doesn’t Italy have a pre-existing factory?  Shouldn’t capturing it be a priority?

For me it just has to do with the logistics and flexability of the whole thing, Italy can turn into a logistical nightmare.  On top of that it is too remote to be a prime target for me.  On top of that, it is fairly easy to neuter w/o much effort.

Yes, I’m starting to realize that if Germany has a lot of planes it will be tough to get an offensive going.  But….if USA can take and hold the Italy factory (and Germany can’t really liberate it unless they have a stack on France)…then isn’t Germany doomed?

Interesting discussion.  From the map, it’s clear that India is the best possible factory for Japan.  So when do you like to build there?  Turn 4 maybe?

I find a Turn 2 build in Sumatra very tempting for reasons already described above.  But Sumatra will require 2 transports (not too much of a problem given that Japan starts with 5).

Cmmdr Jen makes some good points above about the problems with an island factory….so it’s hard to tell whether Manchuria or Sumatra is the better choice.

I would think those 3 would be the max and Japan should be gunning for Cauc as its 3rd or 4th factory.

Gotcha.  Thanks Krieghund.

You mean here?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/downloads

That’s what I’m saying–it isn’t there anymore.  I remember finding it there before though.

Maybe I haven’t played enough to fully understand the discussion….  But doesn’t Italy have a pre-existing factory?  Shouldn’t capturing it be a priority?

Why is no one mentioning Norway?

In AAR I prefer a USA factory in Nor, but in AA50 Norway seems destined for the UK.  UK can afford the factory, and it enables the production of 11 land units per turn.  This justifies creating a 6 transport fleet–-that’s a lot of potential power for Germany to contend with.

India seems implausible against a good Japan without massive Russian support.  Japan just has too many transports and fighters at the start.

I like the Egypt idea though and will try that if given the opportunity.

I once found the entire rules online in pdf format…now I can’t.

Does anyone have this file and some means of posting it online?

Assuming that Germany still has 6 figs…the odds are very stacked against Germany taking England G2 (assuming the 5 inf 3 arm buy and the Amis shuck 4 more units up).  Germany will lose this fight at least 80% of the time.

If UK responds like this, instead of attacking England G2 I’d combine the fleet in 7.  Meanwhile, I’ve bought 5 transports for Japan that are sitting in SZ 60.  If the Allies don’t see what is happening and block me, I land both German and Japanese units in Canada on Round 3.

@Imperious:

google the internet. Prices will drive higher each day. The longer you wait the more it will cost. It will never go down in price.

Well if it is a better game then Revised won’t there be a reissue?

A funny coincidence–I just played a game today where I lost due to VCs, even though I was close to taking Moscow.  But ultimately I lost fair and square—I set the game to 9 VCs and the USA had a successful Pacific offensive followed by taking Western (the Brits snagged Karelia).  I was down to 3 VCs and lost.

Of course, this kind of thing rarely happens.

I don’t know if I would have lost if the game was at 10 VCs, but that wasn’t the game I was playing.

I think if you really want to avoid these problems go with 10 VCs–if one side has 10 at the end of a turn the game is over.

And yes, 8 VCs is slanted to Axis unless you use a rule like Japan can’t take India for 3 turns.  I’m not saying a good Allies can never win it–but between equal players Axis will win 80% of the time.

@ShadowHAwk:

@Cmdr:

@ShadowHAwk:

9 VC’s for the axis is the same as playing without any VC’s, Sure you can take LA from a USA player but then he deserves it. Other then that you need 1 capital and how many will continue playing if you lost 1 capital and the enemy is looking strong still?

9 VC’s for the allies is relaxed you can get 10 without attacking a capital so a lot easier to do.

That was the basic idea behind the discussion.  It’s possible for the allies to “snipe” a VC for the win.  Sniping is landing one or two guys there and taking a VC for the win because the opponents either do not get a turn to liberate or are not in position to liberate regardless of who is winning.

It’s also the idea that one team should not be rewarded from making a tactically insane move by being awarded the game.  If you plow 48 bombers into S. Europe with an infantry and a tank, taking it (at the cost of 48 Bombers) and the Axis have 100 tanks in Central USA (between the east and west, the one that is not a VC) and America only has a couple of infantry in E. USA and W. USA combined, did the allies deserve to win just because they denied the axis another round of play (which probably would have resulted in the Axis getting +3 Victory Cities for Toronto, LA and Washington!)

It’s just an ill-thought out rule.  Requiring a team to hold all 9 victory cities does not change the game, it just prevents one side or the other from pulling a hail mary or sniping a territory for the cheap win.

As I said back in December 2008, if you are in a position where winning is assured, then it should be a simple thing for you to hold all 9 VCs for a game turn, right?  Many people who use the 9 VC system like to argue that if you can manage to get 9 VCs then you are going to win the game anyway.  But it’s been demonstrated that the premise is false.  9 VCs do not necessarily mean you are going to win.  In fact, it means absolutely nothing tactically.  HOLDING 9 VCs shows you have strength and position on the board.

Yep that is my point also except that i dont agree that 9 is really fair, 8 would be more fair and would force the allies into suboptimal moves removing the bid thingy.
Example if japan captures india turn 1 and germany has karelia as well you would win next time japan’s turn comes around and both zones have not been traded hands.
That removes the sniping thing but at the same time forces the player into suboptimal moves sometimes.

Well, the problem is 8 is less fair than 9 (too ez for the Axis generally).  I agree in principle that the game would be more interesting if the Allies couldn’t abandon places like India.  Maybe the introduction of more VCs in Anniversary is a step in the right direction.

There’s nothing wrong with 9 VCs–it adds a great dimension to the game.  As I was learning, I lost alot of games to VCs…especially as Axis.  But eventually holding them becomes part of the game and an excellent way to incorporate the historic importance of capital cities into the game.

If you feel 9 VCs is too hard for the Axis the solution is easy–play with 10 VCs.

@Wizzi:

Alright good suggestions, I will try it next time I play.

But I have a question about infantry and tanks

Infantry costs 3
Tanks cost 5

The difference isn’t that much, is it really worth to buy infantry?

It’s about economic efficiency.  Ideally, the only units that die in battles are infantry, which are the cheapest to replace.  With Russia you want at least twice as many (preferably 3-4 times as many) inf as tanks at all times.

Also what should be your basic tactic for England then in the beginning? Do you just buy airplanes and kill the German navy?

Kill the navy, secure Africa, then focus on secure landings in Europe asap.  Typically, you need fighters, land units, a carrier, and transports.

@balungaloaf:

was hitlers invasion of the soviet union code named “barbarossa”?

why on earth would they knowingly give the biggest operation undertaken by the german army  the codename which is the name of an byzantine emperor who drown while swimming in a creek on his way to leading his army to jerusalem.

wouldn’t they consider that bad luck? i mean, they were basically launching a crusade to moscow themselves.  and look, they wound up short themselves, drowning metaphorically on the banks of the volga.

Well Barbarossa was 1) a German 2) led an invasion against an “evil” empire in the East.

That’s about it.  Reasoned decision making was not Hitler’s strong point.

Looks like “I Don’t Build a Factory” is as popular as any option.  So in this case, if/when UK exceeds 40 ipcs, do you simply buy extra air?

I voted Norway because that is where I place the most–it’s difficult for Germany to threaten Norway from mid-game on.  Obviously Western Europe is better but no good German player is going to allow it.

I’m still divided on the India factory question.  I’ve seen it played well against me and I’ve had some success with it myself…but when I’m successful it usually seems like I either 1) got good rolls or 2) was up against an inexperienced opponent.  Still, every once in a while an expert opponent demonstrates a new interpretation… so I’m kinda on the fence.  For the time being I consider India a fun strategy that opens up a lot of options, but sub-optimal against expert opponents because it ties down too much valuable hardware in the sub-continent.

As for South Africa, I never place there as it seems too far away from anywhere useful.  But if I’m playing with bids and Germany takes Egypt in full force, I might try it.  In addition, it might even have potential as a place to build naval units that will combine with the USA Pacific fleet late game.

Your chances of winning will increase a lot if you concentrate on killing Germany with all 3 allies.  In this scenario, once you destroy the German navy, concentrate on buying transports and land units with UK and USA while Russia buys primarily inf/art, but some tanks also.

Once you figure out to win using KGF (Kill Germany first) strategies, then you can experiment with fighting Japan too.  But I’m guessing what’s happening to you is the Germans are sacking Moscow again and again, which means you aren’t attacking Germany enough.

Yeah I certainly see the logic.  I also prefer to buy transports J1 so this is a perennial dilemna, though the transports are safe in the Manchuria SZ most games.

I guess it can’t hurt to get another AC–it just won’t be of much use if the USA abandons the Pacific  (which I probably would if you hit Pearl as you describe).  Forcing Japan to spend the 16 ipcs on the carrier seems like an accomplishment in itself.

Japan may be better off with a 2 factory or 1 fact 1 fig 1 arm buy—with either of those you are putting a lot more units on the ground J2.  Granted, buying factories J1 is sub-optimal from an economic efficiency standpoint but the justification is that these factories help secure the mainland without any big risks…and of course you won’t need to buy any factories later.

Of course, a 3rd AC will be hella useful if USA really does come for you, so I’ll definitely keep this strat in mind the next time I think USA is coming.

I’m not sure I’d spend any money on subs or ACs until the USA commits to building Pacific fleet.  Fighters are more flexible.

Although it’s possible to win the game without building a factory, I find that in most games United Kingdom ends up placing an IC somewhere…unless it is under attack and/or cash poor.

Granted, where you place a factory depends on what’s happening in each particular game.  But even so, what space do you use most often for a UK IC?  When is the right time to place it?