• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, that’s similar to the lines I was thinking.

    If you block the unification, if only for one round, you are capable of taking your 5 fighters, 1 bomber to the northern section of the fleet and destroying it completely.  Thus negating any potential rewards for fleet unification.


  • @ncscswitch:

    Standard Sea Lion block works nicely…

    Also US/UK blockage of Gibraltar with a joint T1 landing in Algeria prevents fleet unification.Â

    US SBR campaign build also works quite nicely to kill the increased fleet.

    And of course Russia can just fire a spear at Berlin… West Russia Stack, lurch forward, lurch forward, lurch forward.  Germany can’t afford to defend AND keep that fleet alive.

    Germany starts with 25 Inf 10 Armor 4 art and 6 fighters
    USSR starts with 24 Inf (4 of which are 4 spaces away from the front) 4 armor 2 art 2 fighters

    Even assuming 8 INF a turn, that equals the USSR build. Germany still has 16 IPC A TURN to use for a fleet (assuming the fleet will prevent allied landings).

    Germany has “equal” infantry, but has more fighters. Presumably it has additional africa income, and USSR has a bit less from Japan’s takings.

    How is it that a German fleet cannot survive if you invest in it?

    The allies need transports. 8 IPC, no attack, 1 defense. If they buy subs, the Germans are happy, because subs do not aid the allies in taking land.

    Germany doesnt need land. Subs are 8 IPC too, but attack/defend at at 2/2.

    From this perspective. 1 sub = combat value of 2 transports. So 16 IPC spent would = 32 spent by the allies.

    Squirecam


  • First off, Russia is ABOVE 24 IPC for several turns in most games (West Russia taken and held, Ukraine traded, sometimes Belo also).  And they are slow to lose IPC in the east (1 a turn max, if played correctly)

    Germany may have a mass of forces, but they ahve a lot to defend, and on 2 fronts.

    If the US and UK staged to SZ12, Germany is risking Norway, Western and Southen for amphib (Algeria already lost, Libya and any otehr Africa gains also at risk).

    Of Germany’s starting forces, they lose 6 INF, 2 ART, 2 ARM and a FIG before they ever get to use them (standard West Russia/Ukraine R1).
    If on G1 they do a Western IC AND an AC in the Baltic (to prevent loss of the Baltic Fleet to Allied air before they can even sail to Western), that leaves them $9 for land units.

    Against that, Russia is sending the WR stack.

    And if Germany turns to face it, the US and UK strike… Western, Navy, or Southern.

    And that is BAD for Germany


  • @ncscswitch:

    First off, Russia is ABOVE 24 IPC for several turns in most games (West Russia taken and held, Ukraine traded, sometimes Belo also).  And they are slow to lose IPC in the east (1 a turn max, if played correctly)

    Germany may have a mass of forces, but they ahve a lot to defend, and on 2 fronts.

    If the US and UK staged to SZ12, Germany is risking Norway, Western and Southen for amphib (Algeria already lost, Libya and any otehr Africa gains also at risk).

    Of Germany’s starting forces, they lose 6 INF, 2 ART, 2 ARM and a FIG before they ever get to use them (standard West Russia/Ukraine R1).
    If on G1 they do a Western IC AND an AC in the Baltic (to prevent loss of the Baltic Fleet to Allied air before they can even sail to Western), that leaves them $9 for land units.

    Against that, Russia is sending the WR stack.

    And if Germany turns to face it, the US and UK strike… Western, Navy, or Southern.

    And that is BAD for Germany

    1 - Forget the Western Europe IC. Not part of this discussion.
    2 - Germany will NOT always lose 6 INF 2 ART 2 ARM. What about the bid??? What if a 1-2 INF bid is placed in Ukraine?
    3 - If you count Germany’s losses, you have to count Russia’s too.
    4 - Germany is not going to allow the USA/UK fleet to live.

    I thought a few weeks ago we cleared this point up. Germany can merge if it wants to. Which is going to prevent a strike into SE or WE.

    Lets begin with this though. Germany has 2 inf bid.

    Hypo 1 - 2 inf bid Ukraine
    Hypo 2 - 1 inf UKR, 1 Inf Lybia.

    What does your USSR do?

    Squirecam


  • On Hypo2 I am stillhitting Ukraine.

    On Hypo 1, I am probably STILL going to go for it, and have a 90% chance to take it, 97% to kill everything there.

    As for teh link… staging to SZ12 as both UK and US will block the link.  It may be expensive, but it blocks the link.

    And in my post above, it was as a direct counter to the AC and IC G1 build, which allows Russia to go “medieval” on Germany for several turns.  :mrgreen:


  • @ncscswitch:

    On Hypo2 I am stillhitting Ukraine.

    On Hypo 1, I am probably STILL going to go for it, and have a 90% chance to take it, 97% to kill everything there.

    As for teh link… staging to SZ12 as both UK and US will block the link.  It may be expensive, but it blocks the link.

    And in my post above, it was as a direct counter to the AC and IC G1 build, which allows Russia to go “medieval” on Germany for several turns.   :mrgreen:

    Battle sim says only 70% for allies.

    21 vs 19 is not a very big edge.

    Squirecam


  • @Jennifer:

    Attack Borneo with 2 infantry
    Attack New Guinea with 2 infantry

    You are daring! Sounds like a great move if it works out, but this has the potential to backfire in a big way. You are 1:3 in each NOT to take the islands(2 inf vs 1), clearing the islands has little to no purpose - the objective is to capture. If you fail on both you have effectively lost Australia, NZ, Africa, India and the UK pacific fleet. All on UK1…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    You put 1 infantry into Ukraine and Russia still ends up with 2 armor left over.  So I fail to see the need of the extra infantry, really.  If you want to put a bid in Ukraine, put 3 infantry in there and destroy Russia’s chance of taking it.

    And yea, the premise is that we’re looking at an AC/IC buy on G1 with one sub a round (or equivalent) into SZ 6/7 to bolster it.


  • @Jennifer:

    You put 1 infantry into Ukraine and Russia still ends up with 2 armor left over.  So I fail to see the need of the extra infantry, really.  If you want to put a bid in Ukraine, put 3 infantry in there and destroy Russia’s chance of taking it.

    That requires a 9 bid. I’m going off a 6 bid. The dice sims I saw said 70% Allies.

    2 infantry makes Ukraine a 21 vs 19 fight. With Dice, this is no simple battle. Approximately 1/3 of the time, Germany will “win” this outright or by forcing a russian retreat.

    Will people risk a Round ONE attack when 1/3 of the time they will lose?? Perhaps so, but IMHO its not a good idea.

    Also, again JHMO, you are better off buying AC + 3 Trans or+2 trans+sub rather than AC+IC.

    Squirecam

  • Moderator

    But Russia can just strafe Ukr, if the first rd of battle goes bad.

    I did this against Jen.  She placed 2 inf Bid to Ukr, I attacked with 3 inf, 1 rt, 3 arm, 2 ftrs (I think - basically I sent in all that could reach).

    My intention was, to see how the first rd of battle went, if I roll avg or up I continue, if I roll down I retreat my arm and ftrs.

    In that case I rolled up and ended up taking Ukr wiping out her bid.

    Even if you get Avg dice, you can still choose to retreat to save your tanks.

    Are there better alternatives, maybe.  But I think the old strafe attack is underused by many players and can be quite an effective tool in that case.


  • A good strafe can decimate a defense that took TURNS to build up, and leave you powerless to respond.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    But the purpose of a 2 Infantry bid in Ukraine is to give your fighter half a chance to survive.  6 IPC for 2 Infantry to save a 10 IPC fighter that exponentially increases your first round combat abilities.

    Though, I’m begining to think I don’t like the Axis with anything less then 13 IPC.  2 Infantry in Libya, 2 in Ukraine, 1 IPC to Japan.  (I just don’t like leaving her out.)


  • @ncscswitch:

    It was a hairbrained idea (like the Candian Shield), and like Shield, it had the potential to work if never seen before :-)

    But I know too many ways to counter my own hair brained idea for me to put much more than “novelty” as a characterization of it.

    1.  “Harebrained”, not “hairbrained”.

    2.  Canadian Shield isn’t harebrained.  It lists very specific circumstances under which it may be attempted.  Please read the paper again to inform yourself.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    @ncscswitch:

    It was a hairbrained idea (like the Candian Shield), and like Shield, it had the potential to work if never seen before :-)

    But I know too many ways to counter my own hair brained idea for me to put much more than “novelty” as a characterization of it.

    1.  “Harebrained”, not “hairbrained”.

    2.  Canadian Shield isn’t harebrained.  It lists very specific circumstances under which it may be attempted.  Please read the paper again to inform yourself.

    Actually, it is “hairbrained,” not “harebrained” as you suggest.  We aren’t wabbits, you know. :lol:

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Yea, I think Canadian shield is a silly notion.  You spend all that time setting up an invasion that America can easily counter, meanwhile you’re getting walked over by the Brits and Russians….


  • @General_D.Fox:

    1.  “Harebrained”, not “hairbrained”.

    2.  Canadian Shield isn’t harebrained.  It lists very specific circumstances under which it may be attempted.  Please read the paper again to inform yourself.

    Actually, it is “hairbrained,” not “harebrained” as you suggest.  We aren’t wabbits, you know. :lol:

    Ooo, according to the online dictionary, they’re BOTH words.  DAGNABBIT!

    “Yea, I think Canadian shield is a silly notion.  You spend all that time setting up an invasion that America can easily counter, meanwhile you’re getting walked over by the Brits and Russians….”

    It isn’t just a blind attack on America.  There are very specific circumstances that lend themselves to Candian Shield.  The goal is not simply an attack on Washington and/or Los Angeles; there is a secondary objective of delaying any Allied fleet build while the US and UK concentrate on defending Washington.  Allow me to pull an “example rabbit” out of my endless magical hat.

    Example:  If you ALWAYS play rock in a game of rock-paper-scissors, that is probably not going to win in the long term.  (Your opponent can just start playing “paper”.)  But if you NEVER use rock, that is not going to work well either (your opponent can always play “scissors”, and assure him/herself of at least a draw).

    Canadian Shield is “rock”.  If your opponent played “scissors”, you play “rock”.  If your opponent played “paper”, you do not play “rock”.  If you don’t know what your opponent will play, you could take a chance on “rock”.  Similarly, you will want to try Canadian Shield in some games, and not in other games.

    If your opponent played “scissors”, and you SEE the “scissors”, then you can play “rock”.  That is, if the situation is conducive to a successful Canadian Shield, and the Allies are going to be largely helpless to respond because of their poor unit choice and building, you opt for Canadian Shield.

    If your opponent played “paper”, and you SEE the “paper”, then you do not play “rock”.  That is, if your opponent did something like building a gigantic Allied fleet very early that could wipe out the German fleet.

    Sometimes, you do not know exactly how your opponent is going to respond, so you take a chance on “rock” and hope that your opponent is going to play “scissors” by mistake, or play “rock” incorrectly rather than the optimal “paper”.  That is, in some games it is not clear whether or not Canadian Shield will work well or not, so you take a chance.


  • New, you have just done a very extended version of showing that flexibility and adaptability is the key to victory :-)

    And I ahve been arguing that here for months :-)  (with a LOT of support from others, very few folks think otherwise)

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I actualyl read the paper, and I understand it, and I’m telling you it takes multiple turns to set up and the whole time you are diverting attention from teh real objectives.

    If I were the allies and saw you setting this up, I’d let you.  America is more then capable of crushing a joint Germo-Japanese invasion since you KNOW it’ll be 2 turns before reinforcements can arrive.  Especially if America sets up in the correct fashion.

    Meanwhile, you are not pressing the Russians hard.  And the British are laughing all the way to the bank.

    I could see how lesser players might get critically delayed, and that’s good.  They’ll probably learn something from it.  I know I learn with every loss in this game.  Heck, 3 months ago I’d never played it before and I already have some of the major strategies locked down.

    However, I’d love for an axis player to use it on me.  You would delay me 1 round as I clean up and then I’d be back in full swing.  And that’s assuming you successfully took Canada and didn’t die on the shores.


  • @Jennifer:

    I actualyl read the paper, and I understand it, and I’m telling you it takes multiple turns to set up and the whole time you are diverting attention from teh real objectives

    Did you also read Caspian Sub papers 11 and 12?  Because paper 13 is really not a stand-alone paper.

    It is not a matter of a “lesser player” falling victim to an Axis attack on U.S.

    It is a matter of the Axis using a multiple-threat attack in response to an Allied opening.


  • @ncscswitch:

    Just be sure to give credit for the concept to the proppe source  :evil:

    I hope you don’t think you were the first to think about this strat!  :-D

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 10
  • 9
  • 10
  • 52
  • 4
  • 2
  • 21
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts