By the way how did the US bonuses go? Did you get the correct amount? Or did the US 20 IPCs per theater?
Calvin found a loophole in Sealion that invalidates the UK naval block!
-
and the 3 other TRNS go into SZ 113.
UK’s fighters can kill that. UK has an AB
-
@Imperious:
and the 3 other TRNS go into SZ 113.
UK’s fighters can kill that. UK has an AB
The UK isn’t an island (funnily enough), so fighter units can’t scramble (I think you’re referring to that??)
-
Isn’t there a scramble rule - putting some ftrs in West-Ger can save the fleet in SZ 112. The fighters can still attack UK because they are in an airbase. The West-German airbase rules!
Ow, and putting a dd in SZ 119 with UK does block acces to SZ 109 via SZ 119 right?
Aircraft (not bombers) can only scramble from ISLANDS with an airbase. West-Germany may have an airbase, but it’s NOT an ISLAND (Niether is the UK, by the letter of the rules, for that matter!)
-
@Imperious:
and the 3 other TRNS go into SZ 113.
UK’s fighters can kill that. UK has an AB
Uk ftrs can’t hit sz 113 from England and return home. You can get two ftrs into that battle, but UK must either bring up the sz 91 carrier, or build one in sz 110 to pick up surviving ftrs (if any).
He is also leaving the German BB in sz 113 w/3 transports. The UK can only get 2 ftrs to sz 113, if it (theoretically) brings the carrier up to land the planes (or builds a carrier in sz 110). I say theoretically, because the carrier may not be able to noncombat in to pick up the surviving ftrs from the sz 113 battle. The UK would also have to kill the German cruiser that is cock blocking in sz 104 to bring the carrier up.
-
IL,
In any case, if you give the UK a juicier German target (fleet), then yeah you will probably save the Italian fleet. The Italian fleet is worth 39 ipc’s. The starting German fleet is exactly the same (39 ipc), but you are adding boats to it to be slaughtered (getting over 60 ipc’s). If you lose the German fleet it’s just as bad as losing the Italian fleet (you would know this if you actually played a game). The Germans need a fleet in the safety of the Baltic to keep Norway. In global Norway is part of your NO (Norway is tied to two German NO’s in Europe only). Germany must fight for Norway the same as Italy fights for Egypt (Africa). Once Norway is allied, things get really tough on Germany. Especially if the US gets it (builds a major ic). So before you go sacrificing the German fleet, keep this in mind. Plus building only fleet G1 will give Russia some breathing room. If you lose that fleet the soviets will be stronger then you would like. Adding to the German fleet is a good idea (but keep it in the Baltic for now). I have played UK a few times and the Germans have got ballsy and came out into the North Sea to early. They paid the price, and opened up a lot of doors. -
The only ship i give UK is my CA. Thats my carrot. The rest is safe unless you feel that sending 3-4 planes against 1 CV, 1 BB and 2 fighters will do the job?
Italy may be safe or not, at least the German attacks against the UK fleet wont receive a counter of any measure.
-
@Imperious:
and the 3 other TRNS go into SZ 113.
UK’s fighters can kill that. UK has an AB
If you leave your BB with the 4 trans, the most the UK can reach that fleet with is 2 fighters (he can only land 2 on the CV). The other fighters can’t be flown cause they couldn’t have landed on the CV.
-
STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.
there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.
and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS? Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.
Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense. It’s really not that hard.
1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP
Don’t make Axis and Allies a foriegn language for no reason. 3 letter acronyms are used in battlemap for territories for obvious reasons as well.
-
STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.
there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.
and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS? Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.
Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense. It’s really not that hard.
1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP
Don’t make Axis and Allies a foriegn language for no reason. 3 letter acronyms are used in battlemap for territories for obvious reasons as well.
I could not agree more! Every time they give them other names!
-
Is Japan considered an island in Global though? (I just wondered today why the UK player never scrambles his airforce in the naval fights…)
-
STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.
there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.
and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS? Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.
Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense. It’s really not that hard.
1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP
Don’t make Axis and Allies a foriegn language for no reason. 3 letter acronyms are used in battlemap for territories for obvious reasons as well.
I could not agree more! Every time they give them other names!
Or people could take the extra 3 seconds to write the word out fully, it really isn’t that hard.
-
STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.
there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.
and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS? Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.
Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense. It’s really not that hard.
1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP
Don’t make Axis and Allies a foriegn language for no reason. 3 letter acronyms are used in battlemap for territories for obvious reasons as well.
You’d have thought CA might be for carrier? Nope, try a c word with no a’s. I thought this was voted on some time before I joined the boards so I kept my mouth shut. I figured as long as the system was uniform, I could learn them and protest silently. Now all of the sudden I was gone for a bit and the transport turns into AP? Musta missed the vote again sigh. If people want to use the 2-letter acronyms, there should at least be a legend stickied to the top of a board.
-
I agree, if we want to use acronyms then let’s have a vote on it.
-
:lol:
-
If you are confused why some us think that way:
http://www.hazegray.org/faq/designat.htm#t1-2-1
See 1.2 The US Navy designation systems, Section 1.2.2 Ships, boats, and other vessels
I’ve just used those abbreviations in wargames for 20+ years, so it’s an old habit that might die a little hard and I suspect the same with others too.
-
STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.
there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.
and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS? Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.
Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense. It’s really not that hard.
1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP
No because this is not proper military nomenclature.
Just memorize the proper names of naval vessels and make life easier.
1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN
Nobody goes by this.
They go by this.
http://www.2-sir.com/TwinFalls/acronym6.html
http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/us-navy-ship-classifications.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Navy_acronyms -
wow thats alot of stuff to remember!!
-
Back on topic:
This reply is from another thread ( http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19947.300 ), but posted here because it’s about this topic and two threads just confuses the debate.
So here it comes!
@Imperious:
UK could buy a carrier for SZ110 so that a fighter from the UK could reach the Baltic Sea and still land on the new carrier.
It matters not. The point is my main fleet is safe from attack because he cant bring naval soakers. He must use planes only and he does not have enough.
If he wants to build a CV thats even better, now it sinks because its easy for me to get at it.
Just to make sure we’re not mixing up different versions here: I’m assuming the German battleship is in SZ112 (possibly damaged), the cruiser is blocking in SZ104, all transports remain in SZ113 (1+3 new) and possibly another naval unit.
If this is correct, then how would a newly built carrier in SZ110 not matter?
- The UK can now launch an air attack on SZ113 with 1 or 2 fighters (depending on if a destroyer was also built in SZ113) and kill the entire transport fleet along with any hopes of a G2 operation Sealion.
- Depending on any surviving UK naval unit it can also launch an additional attack on either the damaged (?) battleship or the lonely cruiser with the remaining fighter in the UK and 1 or more destroyers.
- Finally the main attack on the Italian fleet can still go ahead as planned … and depending on G2 builds, the air units used can fly back to the UK the following round to assist against a possible G3 Sealion.
… all that for the cost of one carrier? Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Defending ships can shoot back against attacking submarines. Not that I would complain if the casualties could only be taken by the aircraft though
We are talking about " killing my subs". thats not possible unless you got destroyer. I will sink them and the other is blocked with the CA. So subs protected for UK 1.
No, I was talking about the G1 attacks on the UK home fleets. In those battles the subs are attacking so the defending UK naval units are free to shoot back and kill the subs, with even a small (but not negligible) chance of killing an aircraft.
Keep in mind what those numbers actually mean. A tie, both sides scoring a kill, would actually be a victory for the Allies under these circumstances because it means the transport will survive and bring extra units to the UK.
It actually means that the DD wont be an issue to force me to ‘divert’ forces to both sink it and commit sealion. THis adds to the UK desire that if he still has that AP, he will protect it and this means his carrier comes back to UK. Thats the point. I diverted him from attacking Italy. A tie forces him to land the tank and inf and also protect the AP with ships.
Also if i kill a DD and lose a sub i still gain in net IPC.
I think that I can safely claim that no experienced A&A player would ever call of the attack on the Italian fleet just to safe a single transport at the UK. After the transport has moved the additional infantry and tank to the UK, it’s job is done
It’s not about who wins those sea battles, which is obviously going to be Germany. What I’m trying to show is what the cost might be to Germany. This is very important because the only thing that really matters is if there is a CREDIBLE THREAT OF OPERATION SEALION during the second turn. Lose too many units, or allow too many reinforcements to reach the UK and it will no longer be forced to skip the attack on the Italian fleet.
… The key provision is my CA block, which protects my fleet allowing me to kill him and not have to deal with a credible counter. If everything goes right he must forget Italy and come back. This is the only plan that can do that and both protect the main fleet.
The cruiser block simply isn’t enough. If you go for a 3 transport build, they will fall prey to an air attack from the UK, landing on a newly built carrier. In G2 you could attack the carrier with subs (the air units land in the UK), also aircraft (you lose more air units, or also the battleship (losing protection for a new transport fleet) … neither of these options gives you better odds for operation Sealion during later rounds.
If you go for a 2 transport build with more escort units you can probably protect it well enough against UK counter attacks … but with less German ground units and with the reinforcements coming from Canada and the expected air losses during the G1 attacks and the AA during operation Sealion the odds of success have dropped dramatically.
Run the simulations and you’ll see what I mean.
8-)
-
@Imperious:
Nobody inside the US military goes by this.
Don’t force your believes onto other people, the abbreviations you propose are counterintuitive, and not used by anyone but some hard core “A&A should be about realism instead of fun” forum members. CA for cruiser when most people use AC for Aircraft Carrier is only introducing confusion, both for new players and veterans. Using AP is just ridiculous, half a year ago you used trn just fine like everybody else. If you like threads to get disrailed by people commenting on these abbreviations, then keep up the confusing naming scheme. Or even just people going “what does abbreviation X mean?” will also pollute discussions. Besides, this is not the only board on the net, lots of people here also play tripleA or at DAAK.org. So even though you might find it cool to refer to a cru as CA, or a trn as AP, acknowledge the fact that for the overwhelming majority of A&A players, it’s just unneeded confusion and clutter.
So just keep the naming scheme intuitive, so that even noobs can easily know what unit is meant by seeing an abbreviation. One exception I think most people can live with: BB. It has been like this for more than 20 years, and served its purpose well. (and looks more impressive than sub or des, which it should). So plz, just keep it like this:
inf
mec
art
arm
ftr
tac
bmr
trn
sub
AC
des
cru
BB
mIC
IC
AA
NB
ABThanks!
-
I am used to the proper military designations, but I often switch back and forth for lesser known designations like AP.
CV,BB,CA etc. have been used for years on this forum. Most players are avid readers of history and should be familiar with most designations. If they are not, they will learn after reading the forum.
I remember someone posted the terminology for others years ago.
Suggested Topics
