Buying AC on G1

[AxisOfEvil]

@squirecam:

You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

And, to discuss the OT, A baltic carrier was and IS still a viable strategy.

Do not listen to the nay-sayers, but think out of the box and you will have much more fun playing.

….  And the world is flat. Don’t listen to the heretics. Umm, what does saying something IS without any reasons to back it up accomplish? Why should the OP listen to your YAY versus our NAY? anything useful to contribute?

[Woodstock]

You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.

I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.

[Jennifer]

@Woodstock:

You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.

I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.

Kind of my point, actually. :P

If Russia is diverting a few armor, and a few Infantry to India and America is retreating some infantry back from Sinkiang and bringing in units from North Africa to hold India, what are the chances Russia will survive long enough for Japan to be knocked back?

[Woodstock]

@Cmdr:

@Woodstock:

You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.

I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.

Kind of my point, actually. :P

If Russia is diverting a few armor, and a few Infantry to India and America is retreating some infantry back from Sinkiang and bringing in units from North Africa to hold India, what are the chances Russia will survive long enough for Japan to be knocked back?

Well…even with little Revised experience…I know it won’t be long :P

And after reading those CSub papers…I am pretty certain this will be my opening move on Game #2 in Revised. (Without the AC though). My opponent (who only has played once)…won’t know what to do  :-D

[squirecam]

@AxisOfEvil:

@squirecam:

You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

And, to discuss the OT, A baltic carrier was and IS still a viable strategy.

Do not listen to the nay-sayers, but think out of the box and you will have much more fun playing.

….   And the world is flat. Don’t listen to the heretics. Umm, what does saying something IS without any reasons to back it up accomplish? Why should the OP listen to your YAY versus our NAY? anything useful to contribute?

Lets just say I know what I am talking about. I could bring up several threads here or at C-sub or at the old AH site, or even Larry’s site. I’ve won quite a few of the Gencon/origins/WBC A&A tournaments, and I know what “can” be defended and what “cant”.

With apologies to Crazystraw, that C-sub paper is piss-poor. It’s conclusion, which was wrong when it was written, is certainly not valid now. Several C-sub editors (who attend Gencon, and who I have beaten) now themselves use KJF and buy an India IC. Would they do this if India is always taken J3, or Russia would fall? Of course not.

I’ve met these folks personally, know how good their game is. And so I also know what a terrible travesty that paper is. Its very misleading.

I’ve even found an old thread for you…

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=250&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[squirecam]

@Cmdr:

If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

USSR begins at 24. Give them Belo (2), WR(2), Norway (3) and Ukraine(3), you are already at 34. You could take Manchuria R2, and FIC R3, and get up to 37. Both gives you 40. Its not that hard to achieve. Of course, you are not buying stupidly either. No bombers. No planes. Just inf/art.

As for “losing 36 IPC” at the cost of “20” as you so aptly phrase it, perhaps you should look at the opportunity cost:

Germany is losing the ability to transport two infantry directly to Norway/Karelia from Germany.  However, how often does Germany actually do this?

I like trading Norway for a few turns, rather than letting the Allies just have it. So I’d say I do this pretty often.

[squirecam]

@Woodstock:

@Cmdr:

@Woodstock:

You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.

I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.

Kind of my point, actually. :P

If Russia is diverting a few armor, and a few Infantry to India and America is retreating some infantry back from Sinkiang and bringing in units from North Africa to hold India, what are the chances Russia will survive long enough for Japan to be knocked back?

Well…even with little Revised experience…I know it won’t be long :P

And after reading those CSub papers…I am pretty certain this will be my opening move on Game #2 in Revised. (Without the AC though). My opponent (who only has played once)…won’t know what to do  :-D

Russia is going to hold out quite well.

Lets take an example. You “know” USSR will be left 1v1 vs Germany. Lets give Germany 50 IPC (combo of Europe $ and some Africa territories) and USSR the 40 I outlined above.

Germany will not have enough firepower to overcome USSR. Even at $50, 10 tanks (30) will (generally) lose to 13 Inf (26). This assumes germany can even afford “10 tanks” to march on USSR immediately, and not worry about protecting France or dealing with UK landings.

You cannot just “march” into Russia and defeat them in a few rounds. Barring extreme bad dice, it just wont happen. Russia will be still be very viable on its own at round 6 or later, and allies will be bringing more help as well.

[Mazer Rackham]

@squirecam:

Lets just say I know what I am talking about.

Let’s not get crazy here; I certainly wouldn’t say that about you.

KJF only works under the screwy tournament rules that don’t apply to the games generally discussed in this forum.  Folks here tend to play TripleA domination or other domination games, and for those games the paper’s conclusions still hold up quite well.

KJF works in gimmicky games with weird rules, not box or Triple A games.

But by all means, you are certainly free to boycott CSub.  I would hate to see your game crippled by such bad ideas.

Leaving the group is surprisingly easy to do, and then you wouldn’t be tempted to rely on CSub and it’s “poor” papers.

For anyone else that just wants to have some fun and learn about the game, here’s a link:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

[Woodstock]

@squirecam:

@Cmdr:

If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

USSR begins at 24. Give them Belo (2), WR(2), Norway (3) and Ukraine(3), you are already at 34. You could take Manchuria R2, and FIC R3, and get up to 37. Both gives you 40. Its not that hard to achieve. Of course, you are not buying stupidly either. No bombers. No planes. Just inf/art.

Offcourse, if this would be R1’s outcome (which is already a big if, if you calculate), then you offcourse won’t do some funky naval stuff, and just blow Russia away.

[Jennifer]

@squirecam:

@Cmdr:

If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

USSR begins at 24. Give them Belo (2), WR(2), Norway (3) and Ukraine(3), you are already at 34. You could take Manchuria R2, and FIC R3, and get up to 37. Both gives you 40. Its not that hard to achieve. Of course, you are not buying stupidly either. No bombers. No planes. Just inf/art.

As for “losing 36 IPC” at the cost of “20” as you so aptly phrase it, perhaps you should look at the opportunity cost:

Germany is losing the ability to transport two infantry directly to Norway/Karelia from Germany.  However, how often does Germany actually do this?

I like trading Norway for a few turns, rather than letting the Allies just have it. So I’d say I do this pretty often.

I see.

I have found the flaw in your logic.  Russia should never get too that point, unless of course, you build a Carrier on Germany 1, then you may as well expect it. :P

A more normal Russia 1 would be up Belorussia and W. Russia (28 IPC) and losing Belorussia and Karelia on Germany 1.  Then you end up trading Belorussia, Karelia and Ukraine from that point on.  No where near 40 IPC a round mind you, not for Russia.

This normally results in either England or America taking Norway and with plenty of defensive force to prevent the Germans from retaking it with a mere 2 ground units transported from the mainland.

[squirecam]

@Mazer:

@squirecam:

Lets just say I know what I am talking about.

Let’s not get crazy here; I certainly wouldn’t say that about you.

KJF only works under the screwy tournament rules that don’t apply to the games generally discussed in this forum.  Folks here tend to play TripleA domination or other domination games, and for those games the paper’s conclusions still hold up quite well.

KJF works in gimmicky games with weird rules, not box or Triple A games.

But by all means, you are certainly free to boycott CSub.  I would hate to see your game crippled by such bad ideas.

Leaving the group is surprisingly easy to do, and then you wouldn’t be tempted to rely on CSub and it’s “poor” papers.

For anyone else that just wants to have some fun and learn about the game, here’s a link:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

First, I dont even know you.

Second, KJF works fine. Regardless of tournament or dominance games. And if you attended Gencon, you’d know that.

And, I did not say every paper was poor. The India one, however, is.

[squirecam]

@Cmdr:

@squirecam:

@Cmdr:

If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

USSR begins at 24. Give them Belo (2), WR(2), Norway (3) and Ukraine(3), you are already at 34. You could take Manchuria R2, and FIC R3, and get up to 37. Both gives you 40. Its not that hard to achieve. Of course, you are not buying stupidly either. No bombers. No planes. Just inf/art.

As for “losing 36 IPC” at the cost of “20” as you so aptly phrase it, perhaps you should look at the opportunity cost:

Germany is losing the ability to transport two infantry directly to Norway/Karelia from Germany.  However, how often does Germany actually do this?

I like trading Norway for a few turns, rather than letting the Allies just have it. So I’d say I do this pretty often.

I see.

I have found the flaw in your logic.  Russia should never get too that point, unless of course, you build a Carrier on Germany 1, then you may as well expect it. :P

No, UK will re-take Karelia UK1. This allows a blitzing tank to go through to Norway R2. There “is” no baltic fleet, as UK would take it out (as you yourself suggest) without a German carrier.

The 37-40 IPC is on USSR 2 and/or 3. WR, UKR, Belo, Karelia, Norway, Manchuria, and/or FIC.

And if Germany does buy a carrier, then we are not talking about an all-out assault on Moscow, and thus, vastly different circumstances.

[Jennifer]

If England is attempting to take Karelia, which is very daunting considering the mass of units there, then it will need it’s fighters for the attack.  Remember, you only have ONE transport that can reach on UK 1.

No, odds are, England is sinking the German fleet at the loss of its fighters and landing in Algeria.  Not attacking Karelia and SZ 5 even without a carrier purchase.

BTW, taking Karelia would also result in England losing their other battleship to German fighters too, btw.

Or you can buy a carrier, England does NOT attack SZ 5, but still lands in Algeria.  Cost to England?  -20 IPC in non-lost British Fighters.  Cost to Germany, 16 IPC + loss of position on the board.

[squirecam]

@Cmdr:

If England is attempting to take Karelia, which is very daunting considering the mass of units there, then it will need it’s fighters for the attack.  Remember, you only have ONE transport that can reach on UK 1.

No, odds are, England is sinking the German fleet at the loss of its fighters and landing in Algeria.  Not attacking Karelia and SZ 5 even without a carrier purchase.

BTW, taking Karelia would also result in England losing their other battleship to German fighters too, btw.

Or you can buy a carrier, England does NOT attack SZ 5, but still lands in Algeria.  Cost to England?  -20 IPC in non-lost British Fighters.  Cost to Germany, 16 IPC + loss of position on the board.

You have a tank + inf + BB support shot. That’s enough to swap Karelia back (95% of the time, Germany would have simply attacked Karelia with 2 inf + fighter G1)

Secondly, fighters cannot reach from WE to attack the UK fleet . They have no landing spot.

[Jennifer]

Germany should have attacked Karelia with

2 Infantry, Armor from E. Europe
Armor from Ukraine
Armor from Balkans
2 Infantry, 2 Armor from Germany

and

3 infantry from Norway

That would leave: 7 Infantry, 5 Armor in Karelia at the end of Germany 1.

Since Russia is almost always in Ukraine/W. Russia you can add 3 infantry from Belorussia to that stack for 10 infantry, 5 armor if you don’t want to liberate W. Russia (and I would personally for go making that atack.)

England is NOT swapping that.  And if they DID make an attempt, Karelia would be a safe LZ allowing the German fighters to sink any ships the British have in SZ 4.

---

Squirecam, I know you really want this to work out for you, but there is no way that Russia is getting Norway.  They can get Ukraine, on any given Sunday they might even get Balkans or E. Europe for a round, but they are not getting Norway and should not expect E. Europe or Balkans.

BTW, I assumed Ukraine fell and had 1 tank left and that W. Russia fell with 2 infantry, artillery, armor there.  This would leave the russians iwth exactly 2 Infantry, Artillery to attack Karelia with.  And Germany with fighters + 2 infantry in Balkans + armor in S. Europe to attack Ukraine with to liberate it.

I think those are all safe assumptions.

---

---

So England is looking at the following map on their turn.

(Assumes 1 Infantry bid into Libya, 3 IPC which almost everyone seems to agree is too low for the axis.)
(Assumes 8 Infantry purchase on Russia 1; 4 Infantry in Caucasus, 4 Infantry in Russia)

Basically, 7 or 10 infantry and 4-5 armor in Karelia (depending on if Ukraine was attacked or if Belorussia was attacked by Russia on round 1)

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Germany should have attacked Karelia with

2 Infantry, Armor from E. Europe
Armor from Ukraine
Armor from Balkans
2 Infantry, 2 Armor from Germany

and

3 infantry from Norway

That would leave: 7 Infantry, 5 Armor in Karelia at the end of Germany 1.

Since Russia is almost always in Ukraine/W. Russia you can add 3 infantry from Belorussia to that stack for 10 infantry, 5 armor if you don’t want to liberate W. Russia (and I would personally for go making that atack.)

I could be wrong, and I don’t want to speak for squirecam (he does well enough on his own)
but I think you would forgo Ukraine if you intended to do a KJF.  I probably would.  Many russian units in WRU mean no German Karelia G1.

[squirecam]

@axis_roll:

I could be wrong, and I don’t want to speak for squirecam (he does well enough on his own)
but I think you would forgo Ukraine if you intended to do a KJF.  I probably would.  Many russian units in WRU mean no German Karelia G1.

Correct.

Option B would be merely a strafe on UKR, but its usually not done.

[Mazer Rackham]

Squire, sure you know me.  My old avatar was CrazyStraw ;-)

Quite a long time ago a whole bunch of people changed their avatars to characters from Ender’s game.  I jumped on that bandwagon - you must have missed that thread.

As for your comments on KJF, it is only in systems with odd victory conditions that KJF has a major following.  KJF is only viable when the Philippines is worth $13 and India is worth more than central Europe.

I have some really important fantasy football to work on today, and I have a deep need to kayak in the flood waters, so I won’t be very active on this thread.  But you have my 2 cents.

[squirecam]

@Mazer:

Squire, sure you know me.  My old avatar was CrazyStraw ;-)

Quite a long time ago a whole bunch of people changed their avatars to characters from Ender’s game.  I jumped on that bandwagon - you must have missed that thread.

As for your comments on KJF, it is only in systems with odd victory conditions that KJF has a major following.  KJF is only viable when the Philippines is worth $13 and India is worth more than central Europe.

I have some really important fantasy football to work on today, and I have a deep need to kayak in the flood waters, so I won’t be very active on this thread.  But you have my 2 cents.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it is. :-)

KJF works in any context, VC system or not. It works for several reasons, but here’s one.

Russia (total) is worth 24 IPC. Japan (total) is 30. If you can crack Japan (and you can) before Russia falls, you gain much more IPC than Germany does. Note that Germany must take Moscow first (before the eastern USSR territories, and so in reality Germany does not get the full “24 IPC”. Contrast that with the allies, who are taking Japan’s 13 IPC in islands, and 9 IPC on land, reducing Japan to just Tokyo, which can only hold out so long.

And my opinion on that paper hasnt changed. Despite your several name changes (will it be Ocho Cinco next  :-o) that paper did not fully discuss so many important things required to take India J3. You admitted that yourself in the past.

So to rely on a paper, which skips/ignores so many important points, as “proof” of something is quite misleading. Not to me, but to new players. Which is my main problem with it. You disuade folk from thinking for themselves by telling them the cant do something, when the paper is too conclusory and skips several important points. You are capable of better than that. Which is why that paper was a poor effort.

But dont take it personally. :-D

[axis_roll]

We’ve swayed off topic, so I will try to bring it back (G1 a/c buy)

A key to KJF is not to “tip” it off early (read R1).  It is possible to do so, but then KJF becomes less optimal (note, not impossible, just less effective as it can be).  If Germany sees a KJF set-up, they can do somethings to stop it, like build an A/C and tpts to keep UK honest… no cash to buy the IC in India.

---

Sidenote

I know alot of players like to decide KJF AFTER G1.  This is certainly doable.  Perhaps this is best as the allies are then not tipping their hand. 
I however, like to be set-up to KJF IF Germany doesn’t react correctly to my opening moves.  I don’t over commit, but I do show that it’s possible (when I feel like maybe running KJF).  It’s always better in this game to make your opponent do what you want them to do, in other words, force them into moves they might not make on their own.