• Folks, please bear in mind that by her own admission Jen is a second tier gamer.

    As a result, her strategies and ideas are NOT guaranteed to win against the best players here.

    :mrgreen:

    Signed NCSCSwitch, who is 4-0 against Jennifer…
    :evil:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    2 and 0, technically.  3 and 0 since you like to claim the game even you said was a bad game and offered to allow a restart on.  We havn’t played a 4th game to my memory.

    And my theory stands.  Wasting 16 IPC on useless transports just for some imagined “threat” of landing 12 units somewhere is just that, a waste.  You are much better off spending that money on infantry, artillery and tanks and using America’s second wave as your “threat” to other territories.


  • 3 and 0.

    The first game you surrendered on 18 NOV 2006

    The second game you surrendered on 10 December 2006

    The third game you surrendered on 9 September 2007.

    Until you beat me in a game, may i suggest that folks evaluate your moves accordingly…  :mrgreen:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Just because you’ve been lucky doesn’t mean my strategy’s bad.  I’ve beaten some darn good players, just because you’ve had time to play 3 games in 7 years with me doesn’t mean you’re a good person to get advise from.

    “Be ware those at the top, they do not like company.”

    Besides, I have NEVER seen you waste 16 IPC building unnecessary transports with England.  Perhaps people should look at your games, not what you post?  Maybe you are posting bad advise so you can stay in the top 10 of the league? eh?

    I have, on the other hand, seen you throw your entire air force with Germany away attacking Libya for no real significant gain there.


  • you’ve had time to play 3 games in 7 years with me

    Dang you guys go back a long way… O_O Since classic I imagine?


  • I have been a member of this website for just under TWO years.

    Keep back peddling Jen…  :mrgreen:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t know when you joined, just sayin, I’ve been here a long time and 3 games isn’t exactly the world’s best results over a LONG time.  And two years is a LONG time.  That means you are averaging one game every 8 Months.

    Some players are averaging closer to 1 game a week.

    And I see you back peddling on the whole giving bad advice so you can maintain your superiority complex. :P


  • People with superiority complexes are fun to trash talk with, don’t take switch for granted =P

    Which by the way, leads me to the following:

    First surrender offer on the table, Ike!


  • I usually buy an AC to protect the fleet together with the BB, and aiming to have 4 TRNs.
    Having 6 TRNs is a big advantage for UK. Maybe those 2 addictional TRNs may be built instead of the AC.

    So the objective of 6 TRNs is feasible but maybe not always achievable, it depends by the overall situation.
    For sure an England Home Fleet with 6 TRNs is really powerful and more dangerous than the ordinary fleet based on 4 TRNs.
    We should identify the situation in which it is suitable to aim for 6 TRNs.

    I usually buy 1 AC+4inf in UK1 (saving 2), land in Algeria, together with the US. Then in UK2 land in Norway, building 2 more TRNs and deploying them in sz6.

    Maybe UK may build 2 TRNs in UK1 and 2 more UK2, aiming to have 6 TRN for UK3-UK, and landing in Africa for one more turn.

  • Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    I have been a member of this website for just under TWO years.

    Pffft. Two years, that’s nothing.  :-D

    As for the question at hand, for me it depends.  Obviously UK’s income comes into play and if you’re earning 24, it doesn’t make sense to me to add a 5th trn and have a big shortfall one turn, just so you can transport 10 the next.  Also, when did you move to Sz 5?  If I already moved there with 4, I doubt I’ll buy a 5th or 6th since I now have to protect it when I place it, unless you have a Nor IC, but if you bought that then you don’t need more than 4 trns as it is.
    It also depends on the German naval and air threat and what I’m doing with the US.  If I keep the US in Sz 12 to threaten SE, and UK has near 30 income, I’ll probably buy a 5th at some point for the fodder and the ability to at least threaten a 10 unit attack.

    I view it as a luxury item, I focus on getting just 4, but if I have the income and the oppotunity arises I may add a 5th or 6th, but chances are if that happens the Allies are probably already winning and it may only be a matter of time.


  • @Bean:

    Another small strategical question. Please explain your answer for a better discussion  :mrgreen:

    It’s a bad question.  You should build according to board position, so in some situations no transports are OK, in some situations you want seven or eight.

    As for the basics, the reasoning is as follows:

    1. No extra tranports (total of 4 transports) –> with 4 transports, you are already transporting the maximum number of units off the UK every turn. Save the extra IPCs for a rainy day in Africa, for extra planes, or for the day when you finally capture S. Europe and now can churn out 14 units!

    Depends on the stage of the game.  If it’s early, and Western Europe can’t be seriously threatened, four transports is fine.

    2. One or more extra transports (5+ transports total) –> with more than 5 transports, you have some interesting effects. Although you won’t be making use of them most of the time, it’s the ghost of the threat that counts. First obviously is that you have a better naval defense. Second is that you can lose a tp or 2 and your shuck still continues at maximum strength. The third and scariest is force multiplication; now you can land 10-12 units in W. Europe or the capital, which means Germany has to commit some extra defenses in both territories, which means they may have to step back from their Eastern front on that turn.

    Again, depends on the stage of the game.  You’ll hit 5 transports about midgame anyways without even buying one, as the UK transport off Australia reaches Africa - if it survived, of course, see what I mean about board position?  And you can’t threaten “force multiplication” if you don’t have the units, though, obviously.  So again you can see what I mean; you will certainly not want 5 transports on UK2, for example.

    If you think building extra transports is the best case, please detail how many extra you think is reasonable.

    Depends on the stage of the game, and how Germany has responded to Allied moves, and the Japanese position - among other factors.  If Moscow is secure and Germany is turtling with infantry, UK should hit 7-8 transports.  Otherwise, UK will have less.

    This of course assumes a KGF; KJF is entirely different.


  • I think building 1 extra is enough, but not in the UK1, but after that.

    As said before you should focus on the RAF, Royal Navy and of course the infantry.
    You do not gain respect with transports, respect can be a good key to victory, having your enemy fear you, it’s all psychological, they fear you, they retreat quicker, and do not attack you that hard. ;)

    So those 5 transports will do just fine, and letting you lose one if needed (while you never want to lose any)


  • @Cmdr:

    And two years is a LONG time.

    In a way it is…

    In just under 2 years I have played 59 games (excluding four 2-on-2 matches and several Classic matches).  Considering it is only in the past month that I have downloaded TripleA and have been limited to 1 game at a time for almost that entire 2 years, one game every 12 days is not exactly being “sluggish” in my gaming.  :roll:

    As for only playing you 3 times…I think 4 games is the most I have played against any single opponent.  There are more than 4,000 members of this site, and we have about 30-40 active gamers.  If I were being fair to everyone, at this point I would have played you 1 1/2 times.  :-P


  • If I may say my opinion: IMHO Switch competence emerges from his posts, not from the number of games played.

    In my country we say: “There is not need of having been an horse for being a good horse rider.”

    I would mean that for sure the number of game played is a measure of the experience of a player and experience is a fundamental gaming abilities.
    However for discussing strategies it is needed an open mind, abstraction skills and also the ability to go over the personal episodes in the games. Other than the player abilities.
    Thanks to the discussion on this forum my gaming skill is improving. There are a lots of interesting posts and opinion form many people. Comparison of different approaches to the strategic problems.

    I have personally tested several idea from Switch posts and the outcome is positive!

    Karma +1 for Switch!


  • Thank you.  I am glad that you find my posts worthwhile :-)


  • Switch you should add in your signature:

    “An A&A nation, to be successful, should read Switch’s posts” [Romulus]

    Naturally, you have to check the grammar of the sentence before… Romulus is almost famous for making grammar errors!

    Obvioulsy it is a joke. Switch do not need advertisement from me! :D


  • @Romulus:

    If I may say my opinion: IMHO Switch competence emerges from his posts, not from the number of games played.

    Well, if you want to go by that basis, I’d nominate DarthMaximus.  He doesn’t post much, but I usually see some solid thoughts in his posts.


  • I agree.
    I nominated openly only Switch in this case.
    Effectively I have also read many interesting things also in Darth Maximus posts.


  • Darth has taught me a lot.

    He is a FAR superior gamer to me in Classic.

    And he is likely to win 2 out of 3 on average (perhaps 3 of 4…) in Revised.


  • @Romulus:

    I agree.
    I nominated openly only Switch in this case.
    Effectively I have also read many interesting things also in Darth Maximus posts.

    I forgot to mention also the strategy article written by Darth Maximus that are very useful sor looking at A&A with the correct point of view!

    (That I also tralsated in Italian for the Italian website. I have still a lot of strategy article from DM to translate!)

    Buth it is normal with such a powerful name!
    The power of the Sith: Darth
    The power of the Roman general that caused Hannibal defeat: Quintus Fabius Maximus “Cuntactor”.

    From some things that DM said I thing that “Cuntactor”, in the militar view of the ability, could fit to him!

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 6
  • 17
  • 5
  • 22
  • 18
  • 22
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

40

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts