Another good move to slow Japan down was to destroy the Transport off the coast of Kwangtung.

Hehe I don't mean to be mean but this is a pretty standard move. It looks like you are a little impressed by it?

It was a mistake to build 2 complexes AND skip Pearl Harbor, as well. This let the US build an effective navy too early.

I'm still waiting to see your secret strategy, Octo. I've done double complex start builds like you are trying against Switch, and it hardly gives the Axis an overwhelming advantage.

The Axis kicks major butt at low levels of play. But I have yet to see a single high-skilled level game, barring terrifically bad dice, that shows the Axis have the advantage at all. In fact it's the reverse from everything I've seen - the Allies win most games without a bid. It's not overwhelming like 75% to 25%, but probably like at least 60% to 40%.

So can we just all agree that, baring a person playing without LHTR and without a bid for Germany, this is an incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed and will most likely (though, since dice are involved, nothing is final) result in a speedy defeat for Germany?

Who here has done the math?

With 8 dice tech rolls, you have a 76% of getting the tech.

With 1 inf 1 tank 6 fighters + 1 bomber, you have a 72% of winning against 2 inf 1 art 1 arm 1 bomber 2 fighters 1 aa gun.

Thus, you have a composite chance of 54% to take the UK. That's not 30% like the guy a few posts up was saying, nor is it an "incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed." In fact, if I could win 54% of the games with the Axis without a bid I'd be really happy.

It is indeed moot because of LHTR, but it was precisely this move that inspired LHTR. It's dumb for a game to be decided in less time it takes to set it up, and it's also dumb to lose your capital before you even made a move.

Don't keep us waiting too long Octo. I've personally already tried a few variations on Japan (double complex start, complex/tran split start, full tran start), all pushing hard for Russia, and it's more common that I'm too late to win the game for the Axis than it is this huge advantage you speak of : O

I don't see anyone building battleships, destroyers, or bombers, so I don't see why you'd pick on subs as the unused unit. Subs are the unit of choice if you're going navy; I would be hard pressed to choose battleships or destroyers over subs. The improvement to battleships just makes the existing ones scarier and tends to help the Axis because they start with more of them.

Subs are the most efficient anti-navy unit per IPC. 3 subs will win out against 2 destroyers, or 1 battleship. They offer decent enough attack/defense and are cheap so you can mass a lot for fodder. They are very scary if there are no destroyers present since you will lose units before they can attack back. You can roll a tech for them that improves their attack/defense by 1, which makes a big stack of subs that much scarier.

You don't see subs being built because you don't see people going after Japan very often. Otherwise you would/should see them a lot for people who do the math.

I'm really not sure I understand what you're trying to say, Octo. Sneak attacks is 100% an advantage. Anything you kill during the opening fire round does not get to fire back.

I think you're confusing the rules - you think that the cause of battleships not firing back is because the sub kills it, which isn't the primary reason. It's because the battleship died during the opening fire step, in which step it does not have an attack. It is then not alive during the normal firing step to do any sort of return fire.

Your example of the destroyer and sub versus the battleship makes little sense to me. You say that you should get to choose the order of attacks, because if you have the destroyer hit first then the sub would kill the battleship before it gets to fire. Well, the destroyer can't really hit first against the battleship - they both fire at the same time. No matter how you did the order, the battleship would get to fire back unless they were both subs because destroyers and battleships share the same firing step.

I don't see how subs' sneak attack defeats the purpose of subs. It makes 100% perfect sense to me the way it's stated in the rules.

Does this mean the difference between the battleship returning fire and not returning fire is based entirely upon what ship scores the killing blow?

In a twisted sense yes, because if your subs didn't sink the battleships then obviously there's a chance for your normal ships to kill the battleships, but you're confusing correlation with causation. It's better to look at it just like the rules state:

1. Opening fire steps. Units with opening fire roll here and now. Casualties are removed before the normal firing stage.
2. Normal fire. The rest of the units do their normal rolls. Destroyers/battleships that are alive both fire at the same time (we just roll for attackers first for convention's sake, but defenders get to roll even if they were chosen as casualties).

The way you look at it is very strange - you think you should be able to assign both the destroyer AND sub hits before the battleship even gets to roll back, when in reality the destroyer and battleship fire in the same step as long as they're alive.

Doh looks like someone else discovered the Brazilian IC!

I keep this in my back pocket in case I want to gun after Japan mostly, but need to keep Africa out of German hands. It's very effective if you're just looking to boot the Germans out of Africa; send 2 tran and both destroyers down that way, and 1 fighter and 1 bomber to Brazil on turn 1. It should be a cinch to contest Africa at this point with 3 inf flowing into the heart of Africa + 1 fig/bomber messing around, and you won't fear any German navy/airforce because of your destroyers and your ability to make more ships.

The rest of the money can be spent towards making an island-hopping navy in the Pacific. Perhaps you need to make 1 carrier on turn 1 to help the UK defend himself from the German navy, but past that you can fool around with Japan =P

If you're doing a shuck to Europe there's no real benefit to building a Brazilian IC. It costs you IPCs that can't be used later against Europe, and you could as easily drop troops in Algeria and march them down while your transport fleet.

Split the difference... 7 IPC's, used however you like

You just don't want me to be able to purchase an additional transport piece for the bid, or a tank/inf, do you? 

I think we're just trying to figure out what bid is appropriate at this point. I'm sure that either of us could beat the other as the Allies without terrible dice.

8 IPCs and it's a deal?

But Wes...

It worked against you the last time   You never breached Sinkiang or Yakut

I know you're not seriously banking on 4% or lower dice happening. So why even kid about it?   

So now wouldn't you say that the Axis needs a bid? I think Japan is too slow even if I abandon the East (I don't abandon India anymore btw), and you think they're too slow if you do a bit of Russian defense, while Germany is receiving a big butt-whooping : P

Btw I like stacking the Russian tanks in Moscow after turn 1. From there they can push on the German front, as well as push into Sinkiang once the Japanese get there. The central Japanese prong is very weak and if you can crash it proactively then it takes some turns for the Japanese to retake it.