Combat Results:
Sin: CWLO 1 Inf
Per: TWOL Undefended




Non-Combat Moves:
Ind: Tank(Per)
Chi: Tank(Ind)
Sz61: TT(Sz36)
Man: Inf+Tank(Jpn) Via TT(Sz61)
Sz59: TT(Sz60) Loading Art+Inf(Jpn)
Kwa: Inf+Art(Sz59), 1 Ftr(Sin)
Bry: Inf+Tank(Jpn) Via TT(Sz60), Bomber(Sin)
Phi: Inf(Brn), Inf(Car) Via TT(Sz48>50>49)
Sz60: BB(Sz49), SS(Sz45), Ftr(Bry)
Yak: Ftr(Bry), 1 Ftr(Sin)


Mobilisation:
Jpn: 4 Inf+3 Tanks+Bomber


Collect 39 IPC, 1 saved, 40 IPC On Hand

Somehow I knew you would get a hit....

[Rolls:]

Japan 6
-------
Builds:
--------------
On Hand    40

1 Bmr      12
4 Inf      12
3 Tank     15
--------------
Saved       1
--------------



Combat:
Per: Tank(Ind)
Sin: Inf(Chi), Bomber(Bry), 2 Ftr(FIC) Vs Inf



Sin: Inf(Chi), Bomber(Bry), 2 Ftr(FIC) Vs Inf

Rolls: 1@1 2@3 1@4; Total Hits: 1

1@1: (6)2@3: (5, 2)1@4: (5)

Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 1

1@2: (2)

Did it again, attached the wrong map!

Get the allied players drunk.

Non-Combat Moves:
Bel: 3 Tanks(Ger)
Ukr: 1 Inf(Blk)
Sz12: SS(Sz22), SS(Sz10)
EEu: 3 Tank(Ger)
Ger: 5 Inf(SEu), AA(Blk)
WEu: AA(Ger)



Ger: 6 Inf(WEu), 1 Inf(SEu)

Blk: 4 Inf(SEu)



Builds:
Ger: 5 Tanks+5 Inf
SEu: 2 Inf

Collect 41 IPC, 0 saved, 41 IPC On Hand

[Rolls:]

WRu: Inf(Ukr)+2 Bombers(WEu) Vs Inf

Rolls: 1@1 2@4; Total Hits: 2

1@1: (3)2@4: (2, 1)

Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 1

1@2: (2)

[Rolls:]

Ger 6
-------
Builds:
--------------
On Hand     46

2 Inf        6
8 Tank      40
--------------
Saved        0




Combat:
Bel: Inf+12 Tanks(Ukr) Vs Tank
WRu: Inf(Ukr)+2 Bombers(WEu) Vs Inf
EEu: 11 Inf(Ger), 10 Inf(Blk), 4 Ftr(WEu) Vs Inf



Bel: Inf+12 Tanks(Ukr) Vs Tank

Rolls: 1@1 12@3; Total Hits: 4

1@1: (6)12@3: (6, 6, 1, 3, 5, 4, 4, 6, 1, 4, 6, 1)

Rolls: 1@3; Total Hits: 1

1@3: (3)

WRu: Inf(Ukr)+2 Bombers(WEu) Vs Inf

Rolls: 1@1 2@4; Total Hits: 0

1@1: (6)2@4: (6, 5)

Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 0

1@2: (6)

EEu: 11 Inf(Ger), 10 Inf(Blk), 4 Ftr(WEu) Vs Inf

Rolls: 21@1 4@3; Total Hits: 6

21@1: (3, 2, 4, 3, 5, 5, 6, 2, 5, 1, 1, 1, 6, 1, 6, 6, 1, 2, 5, 4, 5)4@3: (4, 5, 2, 4)

Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 0

1@2: (5)

Yes it does.  One angle is Russia on turn 1 builds a sub that can attack Sz14 or Sz15 the following round.  It forces Germany to either sit back in Sz14 and build a destroyer to protect against attack from Sz 16.  As Germany I would still go ahead and attack Egy.  Russia should really be building boots on the ground. 5 Inf+Art+Tank putting the tank in Russia or 3 Inf+3 tanks putting 2 tanks in Russia or the two most common builds for Russia on R1.  Putting the tanks in Russia means they can hit PLUS the newly built units in Caucus.

Gargantua, I probably should have mentioned that I agree with you 100% and was merely stating what you said in a different way.

I don't recall when bombardments were instant kill, of course there are many flavours I have not played.





Uncrustable, in your response (Reply #23) you stated:

And your artillery Speel is pants on head retarded. One artillery and one infantry is far better than one tank and only costs one more IPC. The only downside is Range.

It seemed logical to me that your comment regarding an artillery speel was in reference to my Reply #18.  There is no mention of artillery between your mentioning of an arillery speel and when I was discussing artillery.  You really should think of this as a LIFO not a FIFO.  Generally, you reply to the most recent thing talked about and work your way back in time.  I am guessing you were referring to an artillery comment by somebody else then.  Perhaps if you could adhere to etiquette of a threaded conversation and reply to the most recent comment first then work back in history then you wouldn't assume people are merely being trolls as you put it.

Gargantua, I personally NEVER buy battleships, ever.  Of course, I lack the experience in other versions of AA to understand the nuances that might make a BB attractive to purchase.

In spring 42, if you buy battleships you are probably going to lose.  It's carriers and planes to make the enemy defend against more threats.  It's all about threat projection and making your opponent defend against as much as possible (dictating his purchases) with as little investment as possible on your part as possible.

As for other purchases, you don't win the game with a navy, a navy cannot win you a single IPC (other than convoy routes say).  IPCs are what wins the games between experts for the most part.

You invest the bare minimum in things other than land units and transports.  You have just enough navy to allow you to deliver land units to battle.

Uncrustable, what is retarded is taking a sentence out of context then treating it like a straw man to attack.

Lets take the context of the sentence....gawd its a sad day when I have to explain grammar.....

Navy support shots only work if you use them. �Landing a few infantry and artillery supported by a few surface ships against a stack of infantry and tanks will attrit that stack a bit but SBR inflicts more damage on average for both what you plan to lose on average and does it for less investment.

So, the way grammar works is we start out with a sort of context, kinda like what the first sentence does.  "Navy support shots" is the concept at hand.  Reading further we see the word "attrit", let me spell it out for you... attrition, look it up if you are not familiar with the concept.   So we are talking about building ships (cruisers) in order to attrit a large stack of units you can't hope to win a full out a battle against.  In that case, it is more cost effective to lose an infantry and artillery in a 1 round of expected combat than it would be to lose a tank and infantry.  If you do the cost benefit analysis of single round of combat in order to attrit a large stack, Infantry and Artillery win.  I then went on to mention if your plan is to build cruisers or battleships in order to support a plan of attrition, you're better off to use SBRs.

Having to explain this in gruesome detail makes me think you are not as well versed in the game as you should be in order to shoot your mouth off like you are.

Cruisers do have their point.  They do shore bombardment whereas destroyers don't.  They are more cost effective than battleships for shore bombardment if that is your thing.  They are also a price point where if you can't buy an additional ship, you can upgrade your destroyer purchase to a cruiser for less than the cost of a sub.  They are also affordable for minor nations.

The fact they 'could' move three I think is a bit too much of a perk of the unit in my humble opinion.  Now the basis for the speed 3 is that they are that much faster than other units?  I don't think cruisers are faster than destroyers if so, not by a significant margin.  I think getting close to the range of air units based on the premise that cruisers are faster than other units in real life (are they?) unbalances things too much.  A p51 mustang easily is 10x faster than a cruiser but if a cruiser can move 3 than a p51 only covers 33% more distance being 1000% faster.

I think it should be played as a house rule, but again, my suspicion is that it would tend to unbalance things a bit too much, but if the goal is to have cruisers play a bigger part it certainly will do that!

Combat Results:
Ind: TWLO 2 Inf
Chi: TWOL Undefended




Non-Combat Moves:
Sz45: SS(Sz60)
Sz60: CV+BB(Sz49), 2 TT(Sz36)
Sz36: TT(Sz61) Loading Inf(Jpn)
FIC: Inf(Sz36), 2 Ftr(Ind)
Chi: Inf+AA(Man)
Bry: Ftr(Sz60)
Brn: Inf(NGu) Via TT(Sz48>47>48)
Sz49: BB(Sz35)


Mobilisation:
Sz60: 1 Ftr
Jpn: 4 Inf+Art+2 Tanks


Collect 40 IPC, 0 saved, 40 IPC On Hand

[Rolls:]

Japan 5
-------
Builds:
--------------
On Hand    36

1 Ftr      10
4 Inf      12
1 Art       4
2 Tank     10
--------------
Saved       0
--------------



Combat:
Ind: 3 Inf+2 Tanks(FIC), 2 Ftr(Sz49) Vs 2 Tanks
Sin: Inf(Chi) Vs Undefended



Ind: 3 Inf+2 Tanks(FIC), 2 Ftr(Sz49) Vs 2 Tanks

Rolls: 3@1 4@3; Total Hits: 2

3@1: (2, 6, 2)4@3: (3, 4, 3, 5)

Rolls: 2@3; Total Hits: 2

2@3: (1, 2)