SZ 35 to SZ 33
SZ 33 to SZ 27
SZ 27 to SZ 17
SZ 17 to SZ 7

(Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer, Transport off India)


SZ 40 to SZ 42
SZ 42 to SZ 22
SZ 22 to SZ 12
SZ 12 to SZ 7

(Transport, Submarine off SE Australia)

Oh I see, I'm really bad with seazones. I assumed you first unified off of Australia, not immediately run separate ways!

I would like to ask: is it not better to use Indian Fleet against Japan and slowly rebuild UK Home fleet?

I like to kill the Kwang transport myself

Lmao I too, at first, was like wtf  you rolled it exactly in order on individual dice?

Agreed Mr. Frood. When I overbuild transports, it's never primarily because I intend to throw them away. I might be forced to if the enemy is taking a risk and succeeds. I usually try to overbuilds transports to the point where the Luftwaffe just go "eff it, too many of the buggers" or "damn, even if I did land a few hits, it wouldn't interrupt their shuck at all because they could just lose the extra tran and sub and absorb a hit on the BB..wahhh!!" and don't attempt to attack, which means some IPCs saved on building a carrier/using fighters to guard, and also the force multiplier thing is awesome, as well.

As far as taking hits on trans, it really has to do with how hard the enemy dice hit, and also if the opponent was being technical about battles or not. If the dice hit hard, you're just going to have to take it on tran, because otherwise your entire navy will be wiped out the next round at little cost. But if the dice hit average or light, you can lose the extra tran and maybe one of your dest so that your shuck isn't interrupted at all, and rely on average rolling to kill enough attackers to discourage future rounds of attack.

Technically defenders have to choose casualties before rolling defense, but some people might be lazy and roll both at once so you have the advantage of knowing how the battle came out, which makes it a little easier to assign casualties.

It's my belief that you should SBR Russia with at the very least the Japanese bomber, if not also the German bomber.

On mathematical average they will deal 15.5 IPCs before going down, which is about 5 infantry's worth. After those first few battles in which you do absolutely need your bomber to do things, it's unlikely that your bomber will cause that much IPC damage. Think, in a normal battle, in order for a bomber to kill 5 infantry on average it has to survive about eight rounds of attacks. Even the biggest capital battles don't last more than maybe 5-6 rounds. It's very unlikely that you will get 8 rounds of true bomber usage (your fighters should be more than enough for the small engagements prior to capital assault), and 8 rounds is simply to break even.

As for the other bombers, there is more gray when thinking about them. Germany might need every bit of strafing power available, and UK/US might need every bit of dice to overpower W. Europe, so you might not want to risk them doing SBR. Generally I would still be in favor of them SBRing, but there is a little more to think about.

I expected that you would think that I knew what you meant, but I forgot to say that in the previous post by pointing out the Archangel thing. 

Not quite sure what you're talking about but I've tested my random number generator and it will average a roll of 3.5 on a d6.

That's the thing with odds, in real life you can't actually roll a 3.5. For instance if you're fighting a tank, you have to kind of think of what happens when it hits, and when it doesn't, because you can't exactly go on the math which says it will kill half a unit on average, since you can't kill half a unit (bb ships excluded lmao).

So what's the 411? What's the downlow, the lowdown, the latest gossip on pushing with Japan in a KGF?

There have been 3-4 main ideas that have been slushing around in my brain. Number one is starting with with a build of 2 ICs, and slowly use the existing tran to drop off inf from the islands until all the close ones are gone, then go after Aus/New Zealand/etc. Get up to 3 ICs quickly, and pump out massive quantities of tanks. The highlights of this is that it is extremely fast pushing because of the way tanks can quickly support each other due to blitzing, and it quickly gets to your mid-late game which looks like pumping 9 tanks out of 3 ICs. However, it offers extremely low threat to the Americans, is slow on taking outlying IPCs, and you have to be really careful of where your tanks are or Russia will strafe them at the cost of inf.

Number 2 is starting with a 3 tran build + 1 tank. Dump ass heavy into Buryatia for 3-5 turns using equal mixes of inf/tanks. The idea behind this is that transports are more economical than ICs, since it's 16 IPCs of transports to build 4 units, while the complex is 15 IPCs to build 3 units (until you hit Japan's limit of course), and also give you a natural good skew since you have mixes of inf/tank. Also, dumping into Buryatia and quickly pushing along the northern border gets to your main goal quickly, which is to weaken and destroy Russia. However, the weakness is that I may not get India until late in the game, and that I'm still not taking the outlying IPCs quickly.

Number 3 is a mix of 2 tran + 1 IC (Japanese took one IPC from the bid). It's sort of a mix between 1 and 2, except that each turn I add 1 IC and build pure inf every turn until I have 3 IC's to construct from, then max out on tanks. This way is slow, but gets lots of infantry on all 3 prongs of the attack as needed then the tanks come roaring in.

Number 4 is playing the long term. Build 3 tran, immediately offload into F. Indo with the existing tran, then go grab the outlying IPCs as quickly as possible. We're talking like Madagascar + Hawaii on J2, then S. Africa, Australia, and New Zealand on J3. The problem is that pushing on the mainland is slow and tedious until later, which means you aren't that far economically ahead if at all since you're missing lots of those IPCs in Asia.

What's your guys's preferences/thoughts? What're the other other good options I'm missing here?

I was actually thinking of smiting everybody that replied 

But I guess the title is indeed provocative and suggestive that you should smite me 

By the way did anyone catch the reference that my title contains? O_o?

Also, you could take care of the Baltic fleet with the American Airforce.  America is in a much better position to replace lost aircraft then England, especially with England fighting for it's life in Africa and trying to help Russia secure it's forward territories so they can turn on the Japanese.

See, but I've already said this before already. If you let the Baltic sit there, it just opens up Allies options. They can kill it immediately if they want (odds are quite in favor, just because you "feel" that you "can't count" the number of times that you've lost all the airforce doesn't change the odds), or just wait for the Americans like you said, or build up more UK airforce like I said, or move the fleets together, like everyone does. A sitting Baltic does jack! I've explained how the Allies can deal with it later at lower cost, you've explained how the Allies can deal with it later at lower cost, so why not sail it out and force the Allies to deal with it right here and right now at an inescapable cost?

Why is having a sitting Baltic a good thing, when it is at worst impotent? A Baltic that runs away is hardly impotent; even using Ike's counter it's losing 3 tran immediately and having the UK buy a carrier and quite possibly not using the tank from E. Canada. That's not impotent! Therefore, it's better than the impotent sitting Baltic. Even assuming if I don't attack the Baltic immediately, assuming that I'm playing it by your book, that just makes the Baltic even easier to take out, even more impotent and less damaging. Why would you want the Baltic fleet to do nothing?

Wes, I think you need a game with one of us to see how things have advanced in the past year...

Could you give me a brief taste? A summary of the things that you guys have overcome and come up with? It'll get my heart pumping! 

In any event, I never let Pearl live.  America is more then capable of making enough navy to royally p�ss me off.  England cannot.

OH lol, so your previous statement earlier in the thread was jest. I too think the Americans become way too annoying if you allow Pearl to survive. You have to start landing fighters on carriers out in the ocean which is for taking territories.

I really must be missing something. How does a unified fleet off of the north west side of Australia get into the W. Europe seazone by UK4? Are we simply assuming that you can sail through the Suez with impunity on UK2? I just don't see it because you have to be in control of both sides of a canal at the beginning of the turn in order to pass through, which seems to me impossible because Germany can/should have either Egypt and/or Trans-J  Or did I read some rule wrong or miss something else?

Ok Frood it is clear.
I may say that this at least is an error we do not commit in our face2face games.

Good grammar.

Last 5 player games Russian player is trading Ukraine and Belorussia with Germany each turn, while UK trade karelia, from Norway.

"In the Last 5 player games, the Russian player was trading Ukraine and Belorussia with German each turn, while Uk traded Karelia, from Norway." Remember to use past tense since you're talking about a past game.

I am USA and I am landing units in Africa from the first turn and I have cleared Africa from Germany and aiming to Persia.

"I am USA and I am landing units in Africa from the first turn and I have cleared Africa from Germany and aiming FOR Persia." You usually don't say you aim to a noun, you aim for a noun. You aim to become something, but you aim for the target.

At same time Red Army is massing in Novo to counter Japanese advance.

...counter the Japanese advance.

Moscow territory only 2 inf and 1 tank in the last turn, part of the buyed units! They will be used to strengthen the combat fronts.

..part of the purchased units. The correct tense of "buyed" is "bought", but generally you want to say purchased since it sounds smoother.

My problem is really more important with Germany. Keep the right balancing of defensive units in WE, SE, GER and EE is crucial.

My more important problem is really with Germany. Keeping the right balancing...

As I said I usually arrive to have 2-3 more inf than strictly needed, evaluating the UK/US 1-2 punch and this cause German to have less inf available on the Eastern front.

usually arrive with

So I am wondering about my defensive planning skill!
I have read of the "Lurch" move from Classic. I do not know what it is. Rigth now I think it is abandoning WE and massing in Ger and EE in order to increase the power of those two army for trading, WE, eventually SE and the eastern territories. I do not know if this is correct.

Good grammar.

Now in regards to your content, I don't have a whole lot to say because I'm already tired from this grammar lesson and because there's already lots of good advice! I will just tell you that the "Lurch" technique generally means to move a large stack of units towards the opponent's capital in an attempt to draw attention to it, but you will retreat if you have to. You're lurching forward, but you withdraw at a moment's notice.

With a 5 tran USA buy, you can have a total of 12 tran, 2 dest, 1 bb, 1 sub off of Algeria at the end of US2 O_o! (well I overbuild with UK so I have 5 transports, then add US's 7 transports lmao) That's an average of roughly 4 hits. Definitely worse than using 1-2 carriers, but if you can get by with 5 tran, then you haven't spend a dollar on defense that you don't need in the future. Usually if you use SZ1/2 for the shucking from E . Canada to London then you don't need more defense than the US BB (to guard against a bomber in W. Europe), and the main shuck is combined with the UK's bb/tran so you don't need a carrier there either.

I don't see how going into Karelia is by any means Russia over-extending itself. It's right next to Russia, very inaccessible to Germany, and is defended once the Allies land in Karelia.

That's what I see too, Frood. I just don't see how it's overextending Russia even if you did Ukraine/W. Russia.

But what if German have still a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?
UK probably could not invade Norway in second turn, so the blitz of the german unit, finally hurted UK.

Quick grammar lesson Romulus - it should be

"But what if the Germans still have a sub to use as a roadblock in sz5?"

And

"Uk probably can not invade Norway on the second turn, so the blitzing of the German unit hurts the UK."

And I gave you a smite also...
For last fall's 2-on-2 Round 2 match, and for the complete lack of acknowledgment of that despite PM's, or upon your return.  I had to forfeit due to that.

All I can say is that I'm sorry for that, Ike. Usually when I'm in a self-destructive mood I don't take down others too; I'm really sorry I let that ruin your day. It was unacceptable.

you seems to completely ignore my posts in the threads about Axis and Allies Revised. You may check by yourself in the threads you participate, maybe you should have read also some posts of mine.

You're right Mr. Romulus, I'll pay more attention to your posts.

If I receive negative feedback on my toughts about the game  I may learn where I am wrong.
If I receive negative feedback on my grammar (I am not born in an english speaking country, I am Italian) I may correct my writing abilities.
If I receive negative feedback on whatever I write I may then avoid that in the future.

That's a good attitude...I'll reward you with my criticism 

Well I'm not going to smite anyone back. Not enough reason