SZ 37 is not a help in taking Hawaii, a44. The idea of the transport for Japan, IMHO, is to take out a third American fighter. Otherwise, I’d rather have ground forces in Asia for Japan (or Africa/Europe for Germany.)
Fair Bid for Novices/Sleepers
-
Channel dash on G1 is suicide. End of story.
But so is leaving it in sz 5.
Neither is affected by not having a bid.Also, without a bid in Africa, the chances of taking and holding Egypt in G1 is almost nil.
It doesn’t matter if you can’t hold it immediately after G1.
Can you hold it after G2? That is much more relevant.As for the initial question, I would agree with those that say start with no bid. If everyone is of equal experience and new to Revised the Axis will have a bit of an advantage. It is not that easy for new players to play UK and US in the Atlantic without a few mistakes.
-
You have a better chance in SZ 5 then you do in SZ 7, hun. For one thing, England has no battleships to send after you in SZ 5 on UK 1. And a destroyer, transport and 2 submarines are going to do significant damage to the RAF if he’s attacking you with just 2 fighters and a bomber.
You have about a 30% chance to shoot down all attacking planes. That’s pretty good odds for the German fleet who is going to get killed anyway.
Move to SZ 7 on G1 and you reduce that too 6% odds to destroy all attackers. (FYI I did not include a british transport in the battle, assumed England would want it for aggressive moves like hitting Norway or want to save it to save cash if possible.)
-
You have a better chance in SZ 5 then you do in SZ 7, hun. For one thing, England has no battleships to send after you in SZ 5 on UK 1. And a destroyer, transport and 2 submarines are going to do significant damage to the RAF if he’s attacking you with just 2 fighters and a bomber.
You have about a 30% chance to shoot down all attacking planes. That’s pretty good odds for the German fleet who is going to get killed anyway.
Move to SZ 7 on G1 and you reduce that too 6% odds to destroy all attackers. (FYI I did not include a british transport in the battle, assumed England would want it for aggressive moves like hitting Norway or want to save it to save cash if possible.)
You are missing the points. The points were 1)you have an option to attempt to merge, 2) the lack of a bid does not affect the moves to merge, and 3) the absolutes stated were incorrect.
As for your BB+air attack on the German fleet (2 subs + DD + trans), please remember:
1 - The subs get to fire, (and get to submerge). Given you only have a BB, should both subs hit, they must go vs the BB so it is an expensive loss. Each sub will hit 1/3 of the time. The fact that 1 sub hits DOES NOT make it less likely the second sub hits. That sub still has a 1/3 chance. Think of how “many times” you attack 2 inf and both hit. It’s “enough” so that you should at least respect the chance your BB is sunk.
2- If 2 subs dive, then the USA bomber can only get one, which means at least 1 sub gets to merge. Which may be all you care about (that free sub) since you didnt care about your baltic fleet anyway.
3 - The lone BB, (unless other sea units were purchased), can be killed by german air at a minimal cost.
4 - If sea units were purchased, and Germany fights to the death (subs dont dive), this increases the chance of the BB loss. Also, perhaps Uk loses a fighter or 2. Whatever is placed in SZ7 may be killed by German air easily.
This again brings me back to my very first point on this subject….
Play WITHOUT a bid. Doing so FORCES you to think clearly about your strategy. You must examine “different” options because your “bid crutch” is not there to dumb things down for you. You will becaome a better player because you learn to think, rather than follow some bid script.
Squirecam
-
I agree with Squire.
Even in our tourney, we’ve had Axis players win with bids of 2, 4, and 5 and this was against other experienced Allied players. I think the 2 semi-final games had bids of 2 and 4 and it appears that both Axis players are going to advance. So, I don’t think it is unreasonable for new revised players to start with no bid and have a fair game.
-
I think the Allies should win around 80+% of the time without a bid.
Without bid units, there is no chance of invasion of London on G1, and no chance of Germany being able to hold Anglo-Egypt past G1, and no way for Germany to unite its Baltic and Mediterranean fleets on G2.
Which means, IMHO, that the game will swing on the result of a naval/air battle in the Atlantic or Pacific; if the Axis get lucky, the Axis will end up winning the game, if the Axis get unlucky or even just have regular luck, the Axis will lose.
1. Triple A rules, along with some other clubs/rules (such as c-sub), PROHIBIT an attack on an opponents capital before they get a chance to move. So the bid could be 5 transports in the baltic, London still cant be attacked. So your first point is moot.
I was talking about games that are not necessarily TripleA. I am personally against the prohibition on attacks on an opponent capitals on first turns, and have extensive notes on how to counter G1 Long Range Aircraft Sealion with preplaced 7 bid. It is silly to say my point is moot so long as there are considerable players that do NOT play by your aforementioned club rules. Silly bear.
2. Germany has 4 units in Africa at start. G1 can bring 2 units to egypt G1 and 2 more G2. Thats a total of 8. They can hold Egypt “past G1”. Your second point is flat out incorrect.
If Germany does NOT keep Anglo-Egypt past UK1, then Germany cannot quickly and easily dominate Africa. The question, you understand, is not whether Germany can RETAKE Anglo-Egypt, which is what you’re talking about, squirecam. I think the question really IS whether or not Germany can HOLD Anglo-Egypt, and have the consequent 2 tanks with which to rip through Africa on G2.
Remember that without a bid, you have moved the Mediterranean fleet east, allowing the Allies to unite west of Algeria with 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 4 transport, and a sub. So the Allies can start retaking Africa IMMEDIATELY. If Germany moves tanks to Egypt, that’s less tanks going up against Russia.
3. Germany can merge G2 depending on the allies build. HOWEVER, the merge does NOT depend upon a bid. An extra transport will not “make or break” a merge attempt odds nor will a bid such as 2inf UKR or inf UKR inf Belo. Another “absolutist” statement which is indeed wrong.
Okay, so you have no bid, and you are moving to unite the fleet on G2. This means that you built naval defense in the Baltic to prevent the UK from bombing that navy out, and it means you moved the Med fleet west. That is the only way that you will be able to with surety unite the German fleets on G2. Is that “absolutist”? Seriously, I think that’s just what happens. So with that, and no bid, the maximum attack you can take on Anglo-Egypt is now 1 inf 1 tank 2 fig 1 bomber. Let us assume that you took Gibraltar, to avoid the UK counterattack of air plus destroyer. (Reasonable, yes?) So now you have a scenario in which every German casualty in Anglo-Egypt beyond the first either costs a 10 IPC fighter, or allows UK to retain control of Anglo-Egypt and thus move the Indian fleet into the Mediterranean. Which is tolerable, but also the Germans didn’t put any additional units in Africa, and furthermore, will probably have at best one defender, allowing the UK to retake with a minimal 2 inf and fighter, or even 1 inf 1 fighter 1 bomber if anything less than both German fighters and the German bomber landed in Africa. Even so, with the following German turn of threatening 1 inf 1 art into Anglo-Egypt on G2, if the Germans DO unite their fleet off Western Europe, the UK can retake Anglo-Egypt yet again. This allows UK to retain control of African IPCs into UK3, unless Japan commits transports to Africa early, which will disrupt early Japanese units to Asia, which pretty much means that by the time the Axis CAN crack Africa, the Allies have a strong combined Atlantic fleet.
And let’s not forget that if there wasn’t a bid, Russia could try to forestall the German plan by going West Russia/Ukraine, leaving the German attack force at 1 inf 1 tank 1 fig 1 bomber vs 1 inf 1 tank 1 fig.
4. Were you on the c-pipe when you wrote this ???
Don’t hate. 'Preciate!
Squirecam
(edit) changed typefonts
-
I agree with Squire.
Even in our tourney, we’ve had Axis players win with bids of 2, 4, and 5 and this was against other experienced Allied players. I think the 2 semi-final games had bids of 2 and 4 and it appears that both Axis players are going to advance. So, I don’t think it is unreasonable for new revised players to start with no bid and have a fair game.
1. What ruleset was being used for that tourney?
2. How can you be sure that the Axis players were not simply lucky with such a small sample set?
3. How can you be sure that the Allies actually pursued the optimal lines of play?
4. How annoying are little kids that ask a lot of questions?
-
I was talking about games that are not necessarily TripleA. I am personally against the prohibition on attacks on an opponent capitals on first turns, and have extensive notes on how to counter G1 Long Range Aircraft Sealion with preplaced 7 bid.
Wow. Really. “Extensive notes”. How long did it take to accumulate such useful knowledge. By useful, though, I really mean useless.
Considering, under LHTR you cant use a G1 tech roll anyway, and Triple A prevents the move. So the vast majority of players wont be able to use your move. So you are giving advice to new players USING RULES THEY WONT EVEN BE USING (they reference downloading Triple A).
I think the question really IS whether or not Germany can HOLD Anglo-Egypt, and have the consequent 2 tanks with which to rip through Africa on G2.
Not what you said. Your assertion was Egypt cant be held after G1. It will be.
Remember that without a bid, you have moved the Mediterranean fleet east, allowing the Allies to unite west of Algeria with 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 4 transport, and a sub.Â
How so? You mean there is NO PURCHASE G1 that stops this?? Another “absolutist” position npb??
Okay, so you have no bid, and you are moving to unite the fleet on G2. This means that you built naval defense in the Baltic to prevent the UK from bombing that navy out, and it means you moved the Med fleet west. That is the only way that you will be able to with surety unite the German fleets on G2.Â
YOU are the only one using “surety” I never said it was a sure thing. I said you had a shot. (And I said it was a channel dash not buying baltic units)
Don’t hate. 'Preciate!
Not hating. When you make absolutist statements that are untrue, expect to be called on them. But at least you write larger, so thats something…
Squirecam
-
I was talking about games that are not necessarily TripleA. I am personally against the prohibition on attacks on an opponent capitals on first turns, and have extensive notes on how to counter G1 Long Range Aircraft Sealion with preplaced 7 bid.
Wow. Really. “Extensive notes”. How long did it take to accumulate such useful knowledge. By useful, though, I really mean useless.
Oooo! I do believe squirecam is talking smack! Or using smack. What’s up, squirecam?
Considering, under LHTR you cant use a G1 tech roll anyway, and Triple A prevents the move. So the vast majority of players wont be able to use your move. So you are giving advice to new players USING RULES THEY WONT EVEN BE USING (they reference downloading Triple A).
The vast majority, the vast majority. How is it that squirecam is now the speaker for the masses? You should realize that TripleA rules ARE subject to change, and that not all TripleA players will even necessarily use the TripleA ladder, and that the intended audience for the post in question was Axis and Allies players in general, not TripleA players. I said that the first time; pay attention, squirecam!
I think the question really IS whether or not Germany can HOLD Anglo-Egypt, and have the consequent 2 tanks with which to rip through Africa on G2.
Not what you said. Your assertion was Egypt cant be held after G1. It will be.
What I wrote is a matter of record. I don’t know why you are insisting on misreading what I wrote.
Remember that without a bid, you have moved the Mediterranean fleet east, allowing the Allies to unite west of Algeria with 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 4 transport, and a sub.
How so? You mean there is NO PURCHASE G1 that stops this?? Another “absolutist” position npb??
Frankly, your attitude is quite tiresome. If you think that Germany has a simple counter, by all means, say exactly what it is. Remember that the Allies aren’t COMMITTED to unifying off Algeria; if Germany does something outrageously silly and costly to prevent unification off Algeria, the Allies can exploit that instead. Your Platonic argument is not impressive, and does not support your empty assertions.
Okay, so you have no bid, and you are moving to unite the fleet on G2. This means that you built naval defense in the Baltic to prevent the UK from bombing that navy out, and it means you moved the Med fleet west. That is the only way that you will be able to with surety unite the German fleets on G2.
YOU are the only one using “surety” I never said it was a sure thing. I said you had a shot. (And I said it was a channel dash not buying baltic units)
Don’t hate. 'Preciate!
Not hating. When you make absolutist statements that are untrue, expect to be called on them. But at least you write larger, so thats something…
Squirecam
Dude, you are SO hating. What do you call it when you call someone’s arguments “useless”, and harp on them being “absolutist”? And when you start saying that they said stuff that they never said? Honestly, why don’t you take a big step back? You’re continually taking an offensive tone with me, and trying to put words in my mouth that I have not set. Really, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by acting in such a manner.
I made allowances for your first post, in which you were rather condescending, but I will not stand for your repeated accusations in your reply to my post, especially since you insist on glossing over the valid points I have made, and misinterpreting what you DO quote. You can continue to post however you please, but I advise you to put together a good and cohesive argument before you make more of an a** of yourself.
(edited for color. Text color, that is).
-
I will not stand for NPB’s repeated use of coloured text!!! Take pity on us poor coloured blind folk!!!
-
I will not stand for NPB’s repeated use of coloured text!!! Take pity on us poor coloured blind folk!!!
Changed text color.
-
Your statements were clear. “No chance of holding Egypt past G1 w/o a bid.”
Which was absolutely wrong.
As to the rest of your post,
-
So touchy all of a sudden NPB? One little “extensive notes” jab and you throw a forum fit? I expected better.
-
But, rather than faking offense, or throwing fits, why not just say your first positions were somewhat overstated.
-
As another example, the allies might not move into Algeria with 4 transports if England is threatened with a c-sub transport buy. In which case Africa is “not lost” G2-G3.
Squirecam
-
-
Your statements were clear. “No chance of holding Egypt past G1 w/o a bid.”
Which was absolutely wrong.
As to the rest of your post,
-
So touchy all of a sudden NPB? One little “extensive notes” jab and you throw a forum fit? I expected better.
-
But, rather than faking offense, or throwing fits, why not just say your first positions were somewhat overstated.
-
As another example, the allies might not move into Algeria with 4 transports if England is threatened with a c-sub transport buy. In which case Africa is “not lost” G2-G3.
Squirecam
Get a load of this guy. Lol.
C-Sub German transport buy has its own drawbacks, not least of which it’s conditional on the Russian move. If you build a load of transports, the Allies can just do something ELSE. Oh wait, I said that already, and as usual you didn’t bother to read it. Ah ha ha ha! Here it is again:
if Germany does something outrageously silly and costly to prevent unification off Algeria, the Allies can exploit that instead. Your Platonic argument is not impressive, and does not support your empty assertions.
Baltic transports aren’t categorically wrong, but don’t say it’s a counter to Allied control of Africa. Don’t say you have a categorical answer when you don’t. The fact of the matter is, the Germans are greatly aided by the bid, and no matter of bluster on your part is going to make that untrue.
-
-
Again you skip the point of my listing the c-sub buy…to prevent an algerian allied merge. Which the buy generally does. AND WHAT YOU ASKED FOR WAS SUCH AN EXAMPLE !!
So the allies attack it. It’s meant to die…AND save africa income which it does. But this admiission was apparently to big for you to make…
Either your logic is flawed or you are deliberately obtuse. Either case, debating is pointless with you if you act in such a way.
Squirecam
-
If you really wanted to “debate”, I would be happy to do so, squirecam. But your accusations, misquotes, and insinuations are hardly a “debate”.
Suggested Topics
