Hobbes is a good player with excellent manners. If I was a woman, I would introduce him to my daddy.
Hobbes beat me in a game of Spring 1942 on TripleA. He beat me like a rented mule. And although when I rock myself to sleep sucking my thumb blaming dice, programmer conspiracies, medications, and varying theistic pantheons, deep down, I know the truth. Truth is he, outplayed me. And I can’t accept that.
I can’t accept that as a player, I can’t accept that as a man. He rocked my core, made me question my fundamental worth as a person. Because if you can’t beat the crap out of people in games, what use is money, power, or women (or men, or maybe farm animals if you like that sort of thing)? No, at the end of the day, I feel empty inside if I can’t beat a man like Hobbes at his own game, because there just isn’t any petty thing that I can lord over him, to prove how superior I am. I can’t even compare, ahem, shoe size. Because you know how it’s sometimes said that someone fills a big pair of shoes. Hobbes strikes me as such a man.
So rather than trying to beat Hobbes man to man, it is clear to me that the only thing for me to do is to categorically deny my inferiority complex by stooping to petty revenge schemes - like, oh, taking his a copy of his avatar and screwing with it to make a new avatar of my own - or perhaps blabbing his strategies and what I think would be effective counter-strategies like I’m going to do later in this post. Rather Ayn Rand-esque, isn’t it? But some people have no shame, and I’m - proud, really, just so very proud, to be able to say I’m one of them.
Comments on Hobbes’ play -
I think it may not be so much that he has a set plan, as that he may have the intelligence and/or experience to best capitalize on opportunities. In my game, I split the German destroyer at the Baltic to Western Europe to force UK to split its air attacks. He responded by whacking the German destroyer and flying to Africa with a fighter. That set him up for a high-odds UK2 attack on the German battleship in the Mediterranean (along with his other moves). Worked, too.
But in spite of his admittedly superior play, I do not fear Hobbes’ power. At best, he is a man. I will pry and chip away, and one day, I will be the Paris that strikes his Achilles heel. Then, I will disappear into the night, to live forever in legend, like great Cthulu.
On to the dry analytic part. How dry? Just ran 10K without drinking any water dry? Gobi Desert dry? Your fashionista girlfriend’s panties in an auto shop dry? Let’s just say it’s pretty dry.
Re: 3 ACs in Baltic - refers to a G1 build of carrier, and potential G2 build of 2 carriers. I can now think of five answers, which may be used independently or together.
(following not one of the five answers) I considered a R1 Norway attack, to help preserve the UK battleship, creating a much more powerful early UK navy in the Atlantic. With one Russian fighter at Norway, the odds are reduced, with two fighters, Russia drops a fighter to a G1 Karelia attack. Destroying the German Norway fighter stops it from being used in the attack against the UK battleship on G1. Capturing Norway prevents it from being used as a landing spot for the German bomber, preventing it from being used against the UK battleship. Even NOT capturing Norway probably prevents Germany from landing the bomber there. But I do not think preserving the UK battleship is sufficient answer to a G1 carrier, in light of a G1 sub attack on Eastern Canada and moving two German subs to SZ7 southeast of London.
A. R1 tank build. If Germany builds a carrier, Russia will make early territory gains. If Germany does not build a carrier, Russia will probably still make early territory gains. Germany can build pure tanks to push Russia back, but without infantry, Germany’s staying and trading power are badly compromised. (I think probable best for Germany in response to a R1 tank build would be infantry and tanks, but I haven’t practiced it yet.) This can combine with anything; I think a R1 tank build strategy’s solid, barring a Ukraine attack. (If Ukraine’s hit, Russia loses most of its existing tanks, making its tank threats against territories far weaker on subsequent rounds. The difference effectiveness in claiming territory between a 4-tank Russia and an 8-tank Russia is huge.)
B. R1 fighter attack against Baltic fleet. Using 2 Russian fighters drops one of the fighters to the G1 attack on Karelia, but has at least one fighter surviving 95% of the time. (It doesn’t matter too much if a Russian fighter is lost in combat on a 2-fighter attack, since one is doomed anyways.) Using 1 Russian fighter to attack offers 50% win with Russian fighter surviving, and about 25% of mutual destruction. I do not favor losing, or even taking a chance on losing a Russian fighter, but if Hobbes’ strategy can stop the Allies from setting up a transport chain in the Atlantic, a R1 attack may be the best answer.
C. R1 Norway attack, to help preserve the UK battleship, but Norway MUST be captured, denying the Germans Norway as a landing spot for fighters. This reduces German attacks on G2 against a UK1 built fleet at sea zone 2 to 2 fighters, 1 bomber, and subs. Assuming 3 subs, a UK1 build of 2 destroyers 1 carrier gives a defensive fleet of 1 Russian sub, 2 UK destroyers, 1 UK carrier, 1 UK battleship, 2 US fighters (8 hits, 19 defense) vs 3 subs 2 fighters 1 bomber (6 hits 16 attack). This favors the Allies, but there’s two extra negative conditions on the German attack. First, leaving any German fighters alive will require the German carrier to come out of the Baltic, where it is subject to a UK2/US2 attack. Second, the UK battleship can absorb hits and repair each round; if the attack fails, Germany will find it even harder to recover.
D. A threatened UK sub counter using a destroyer to block Germany from hitting the sub fleet. The UK destroyer block/sub build can be countered by a Japan bomber hitting the UK destroyer, leaving Germany free to hit next turn, so UK must watch for this. This does not work on UK1; on G2 a destroyer block will be destroyed by German air as the German subs return to the Baltic during noncombat movement for a defensive fleet of 2 subs 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters (6 hits, 16 defense); UK’s best response is 3 subs 3 fighters (one from Indian fleet) 1 bomber (7 hits 19 attack), but the Germans can see the attack coming. A response of 2 carriers plus 1 sub fodder leaves the German defensive fleet at at least 13 hits 37 defense. That’s enough to absorb UK’s attacks while obliterating them. Given this, UK will not attack, so the 8 IPC destroyer block will have been wasted.
On UK2, UK can build 1 destroyer 7 subs for a threatened 1 bomber 3 fighter 7 sub attack (11 hits 30 attack) if appropriate, particularly if Germany moved its subs out of the Baltic area on G2. (too far away to sail back in to the Baltic Sea to act as fodder.) It depends on the G2 turn - and really, the G1 turn, particularly if Germany built a Baltic transport threatening invasion of London, as I think Hobbes’ plan called for.
On G2, Hobbes’ plan called for the threatened unification of the German fleet, with G1 Med battleship and transport west, capturing Gibraltar to prevent UK air from destroying the German battleship. The two threats are invasion of London with 3 infantry 3 tanks 4-6 fighters 1 bomber plus battleship support shot, and the unification of the German fleet for 2-3 subs, destroyer, carrier, 2 fighters, and battleship. The Allies need to defend London, so find unification far more difficult to stop. On G3, the combined fleet can sail north, dropping units at Norway and threatening a drop to Karelia/Archangel next turn, or moving straight in to drop a load of units into Karelia, offsetting the progress Russia will have made to this point.
Africa is lost to the Allies at this point, but experienced Allied players often stop Germany from progressing in Africa anyways. Without pressure at Africa, the Allies can switch their attention to India, but Japan has plenty of power in the area, so inevitably pushes the Allies back. When Japan reaches Africa, Japan easily claims it, as its transports allow it to hit any number of target territories, making Allied defense impossible.
Remember on G1, Germany’s only made a 21 IPC investment - the cost of the G1 carrier and transport. Only if the Allies have beefed up in the Atlantic does Germany turtle with a 2 carrier build in the Baltic. If the Allies built in the Atlantic, Japan is free to run around. If the Allies built in the Pacific on US1, Germany can switch to infantry and tanks, using its transports to catch up for lost time, and its carrier to continue to threaten the sea zones around London. Since this presupposes a lack of US help, UK is stuck for a bit.
E. UK1 2 fighters 1 bomber vs the G1 defensive fleet of 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters. (German subs can’t defend against air). This hurts UK and Germany, but Germany’s probably going to have to decide whether to lose fighters or carriers very quickly. If Germany drops the carrier, UK’s work is done and it can run away. If Germany drops fighters, it’s weak for subsequent rounds of combat. If UK wins the battle, it snags an extra 7 IPCs worth of transports. At any rate, UK can at worst usually hit Germany’s valuable air force. (edit - Germany can pre-empt this with an extra destroyer, but Russia can really press on Germany quite hard on R2 if it built tanks and did not hit Ukraine.)