No more Pearl Harbours?

[Ozone27]

Maybe you guys should rotate players more often...? I think this is step #1 if you find games are stagnating w/ either the Allies OR the Axis are winning 90+% of the time. If that doesn't help, more tweaks are in order, but playing the same people in the same positions every time the game will stagnate REAL quickly. One side will find a way to win vs. the other side every time. The other side will always lose until they stumble on a way to counter the 1st side's moves. Then that side will always win; and so on.

Ozone27

[BigBlocky]

Axis not aggressive enough?  Rely on dice rolls?  Why not flip a coin to see who wins then?  

I won't do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat.  I would not use a ftr to knock out an infantry in S. Africa to gain 1 turn, I'd move up an infantry and attack next round, there is little risk benefit in that.


The reason the axis only wins 90% of the time is we don't use bids and the games is slanted against the allies.  I'll take the allies against you any day and we'll see where your luck gets you  Of course if the allies are not co-operating it makes it easier, don't count on that and luck to win a game however.

As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven't read all the pertinent threads on it.  If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn't help much at all in a faced paced game.

If you move it up to Wake island more than likely you will face from Japan 5 ftrs, 1 bomber, 2 BBs, a sub, carrier (30 offense) and up to 4 transports for fodder.  On average the US would have a single piece after the first round and the Japs would still have transports for fodder.  Moreover, the Brits need a hand to get going quick.  I think that's why most people don't go after the Japs as the US.

BB

[The Man in Black]

Axis not aggressive enough?  Rely on dice rolls?  Why not flip a coin to see who wins then?  BB

That's the point, without all sorts of things to restrict the allies (Restricted Russia, Tech for the Axis, Bidding etc) the axis must STRIVE to turn the game into a toss-up and hope they win.

I won't do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. BB

My suggestion was not to do suicidal things. But if the Axis is presented with an opportunity for a roughly even fight, they should strike without mercy and hope the dice go their way. But if the Allies face a roughly even battle, then they should consider postponing it and use their economic leverage to gain an advantage. If things have gone badly for the Allies in previous turns, then they might consider taking the gambler's path to regain the momentum.

As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven't read all the pertinent threads on it.  If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn't help much at all in a faced paced game.BB

That has not been my experience at all. Usually the extra shipping helps a great deal when the assault on western europe and southern europe (usually on turn four or five) occurs. A battleship bombardment and two extra infantry makes a difference.

If you move it up to Wake island BB

I don't move the combined US fleet to Wake, I move it to Alaska on turn one. This, combined with a russian offensive into Manchuria on turn two causes the Japanese all sorts of issues. They can choose to smoosh the US Navy like a greasy insect and prevent USA from reinforcing the Soviet Far East, or they can devote their battleships and carrier aircraft to halt the Russian Advance in Manchuria. Either way, they are delayed a turn or two.

This works well when the japanese build factories, but is less effective when they build shipping. However, even if Japan builds up a lot of transports, the sacrifice of the US navy delays the use of those transports for a turn and restricts their range.

Since the Axis is so spread so thin, the Allies should strive to keep them that way as long as possible. By presenting them with an abundance of targets, the Axis will be forced to prioritize, and then the Allies can exploit the areas that the Axis offensive has passed over.

[The Man in Black]

Axis not aggressive enough?  Rely on dice rolls?  Why not flip a coin to see who wins then?  BB

That's the point, without all sorts of things to restrict the allies (Restricted Russia, Tech for the Axis, Bidding etc) the axis must STRIVE to turn the game into a toss-up and hope they win.

I won't do a battle if the odds are against me unless the benefit of success outweighs the risk of defeat. BB

My suggestion was not to do suicidal things. But if the Axis is presented with an opportunity for a roughly even fight, they should strike without mercy and hope the dice go their way. But if the Allies face a roughly even battle, then they should consider postponing it and use their economic leverage to gain an advantage. If things have gone badly for the Allies in previous turns, then they might consider taking the gambler's path to regain the momentum.

As for pearl harbour, I guess you really haven't read all the pertinent threads on it.  If the US fleet goes to the Atlantic it doesn't help much at all in a faced paced game.BB

That has not been my experience at all. Usually the extra shipping helps a great deal when the assault on western europe and southern europe (usually on turn four or five) occurs. A battleship bombardment and two extra infantry makes a difference.

If you move it up to Wake island BB

I don't move the combined US fleet to Wake, I move it to Alaska on turn one. This, combined with a russian offensive into Manchuria on turn two causes the Japanese all sorts of issues. They can choose to smoosh the US Navy like a greasy insect and prevent USA from reinforcing the Soviet Far East, or they can devote their battleships and carrier aircraft to halt the Russian Advance in Manchuria. Either way, they are delayed a turn or two.

This works well when the japanese build factories, but is less effective when they build shipping. However, even if Japan builds up a lot of transports, the sacrifice of the US navy delays the use of those transports for a turn and restricts their range.

Since the Axis is so spread so thin, the Allies should strive to keep them that way as long as possible. By presenting them with an abundance of targets, the Axis will be forced to prioritize, and then the Allies can exploit the areas that the Axis offensive has passed over.

[BigBlocky]

You should count on Japan building 2 transports on turn 1.  It allows the maximum # of units/round into asia and if the US tries to play games in the Pafic it's also the best move.  The US moves the fleet to Alaska and it's sunk without effort.

If the ��� player plays conservative on R1, counter-intuitive perhaps, then Manchuria is so stacked the russians have to retreat.  You say as Japan you take India and china but lose Manchuria?  By no losing manchuria you gain access to 4 IPC worth of territories from the russians.

Having the entire pacific fleet move into the atlantic to get 2 infantry and 1 battleship shot is not the best use of resources in my opinion.  What if the only option to get units in is via norway, the BB never gets used.  It's a trade off but I can manage fine in the Atlantic without the Pacific fleet moving over so I don't move it over.

The allies should never enter into a fair fight if by not fighting they lose little and if the next round the battle is slightly more in your favour.  Time is usually on the side of the allies.

BB

[GeneralMarino]

In my games, Japan always holds back from attacking the US fleet. The fighters help the continental expansion, and Japan normally has everything east of Russia and Syria-Iraq. The US navy either moves to the atlantic, which lets the Japanese Midway, Pearl, and alaska unimpeded; or it builds up, spending precious IPs on the pacific, leaving Germany to use luftwaffe to kill british chances of building for D-Day and to take the russian capital, sence Japan widdled Russia down to 1 or 2 territories. So i think either way, Pearl is almost better avoided, especially since Japan can never rebuild navy it loses if it doesnt get money from the mainland

[GeZe]

I do not attack Hawii as the attack only destroys units that japan can't rebuild but the US can and it also gets the US's attention because it wants to cou ter attack. If you dont attack a good US player will move there fleet to the atlantic and if they ever decide to go back to the pacific you have a navy with which you can defend. My J1 strategy uasally involves attacking (and taking) India, China and Sinking( a nice bit of IPCS ), this move would be impossabe if I had forces commited to the pacific.

[dezrtfish]

If japan doesn't pearl I, as America, will take France on turn 3 and keep it.

[GeZe]

not if germany uses my

"Montains of Infantry" tm

approch, Germany only buys infantry and moves them towards russia and towards positions needing fortifing (such as france)

it always works agansit the computer  (on Hard setting too! )

[JoePar22]

I for one, strongly believe in crushing the US Navy in the Pacific!  Of course America has the money to rebuild but it is nice to have that one turn jump on America, especially since Japan does not start with too many IPCs

[El Jefe]

I always adhere to the El Jefe Directive...

this is "TOP SECRET", ...

so don't tell anyone else, ...

but this is it...

"It depends... ."

Do not divulge this...

under penalty of...

me licking the soles of your feet!