KJF- Austrailian Fleet and Alaskan Naval Base

[Guest]

Give me some time to look it over.

But at first glance, it looks like fun… if your opponent plays exactly as you expect.  Otherwise, I can see it going south really fast…

[newpaintbrush]

“US4 naval battle, destroy Eastern Tokyo Navy. You can use all 4 fighters because 2 start on the carrier, attack the navy, and land in Alaska. 2 from Alaska attack the navy and land on the Carrier.”

–

“In the colonial garrisoned Australia, I’ll build a destroyer and a fighter onto the Carrier from India.”

“The great thing about this is:
#1- Japan doesn’t know for sure what I’m doing”

–

“I haven’t addressed how I’m going to stop Germany”

–

“I have played only one A&A game. I lost against a very experienced player.”

“I know that Germany is going to build many, many Submarines”

–

“I’m very smart”

–

ORLY

–

1.  Any experienced player sees any sort of naval build in India, it’s a dead giveaway.

2.  In case it isn’t clear above, there will be no Eastern Tokyo navy to defeat.  Unless your opponent is REALLY dum, and leaves his whole Jap navy there, equipped with red Star Trek shirts and “Shot Me” signs.  (I assume they will misspell “shoot”.)

3.  Leaving Germany completely alone is like asking to get kicked in the nuts.  With tanks.  Against any experienced player, that is, who isn’t playing down.

4.  Lots of subs for Germany isn’t smart.  It is very dum.  (That’s like, one step down from “dumb”.)  I know you said your OPPONENT is the one building the subs, but I am going to say that he is either inexperienced, or playing down a notch or fifteen.  Anyways, making an assumption about what your opponent WILL do is a bad thing to do.

–

Look, I’m not going to say you’re not a bright fella.  I’m sure you’re very astute.  But since you ARE astute, you should know better than to make assumptions about what your opponent WILL do.

Anyways, with OOB, Lend Lease is enough to end the game.  Just build fighters with UK and US and send them to Russia.  Russia’s massive air force kills everything, game over.

[A Person]

He WANTS to build subs because of his two U-Boat NAs.

If the US and the UK have no Navy in the Atlantic, then subs will be a waste to him.

As I’ve said before, I know him. I know what his ideas are. I know what maneuvers he considers a waste of IPCs, and what maneuvers he considers useful. I’m going to use that to my advantage.

He loves to try to bring down people by being very confident and aggressively, verbally assaulting all of my plans. He throws the dice aggressively because, in his own words, “it intimidates people.”

So, I fight fire with fire, and I’m massively egotistical to him. It’s wrong, and I’ll stop it.

Either way, that’s why I said that I was “smart.” Sorry.

Ok, if the Australian Navy is a big giveaway to my plan, either way, on turn two, I can chose to go the other way.

With the money the US has saved, I can research heavy bombers and build them until I get tired.
From London, they will hurt Japan.
UK can build fighters. Either the UK researches Jet fighters, or Russia does and the UK sends it’s fighters there to become russian.

Now I’ll stop trying to defend myself and my plan.

Could you just give my advice as to how I can improve upon my plan?

[Guest]

A Person…

Your strat may be of the nature that JSP used to beat me in our second game… custom engineered to beat a specific player.

But I think that in a broader venue, that it is too rigid, and ignores too many “traditional” moves to be viable byoned this one player.

[A Person]

Thanks.

[Guest]

You have a viable framework as regards a KJF, or at least SJF strategy though.

You just need to work out the factors relating to attacks on and containment of Germany (assuming a LAND focused Germany) to translate it into a broader use.

[newpaintbrush]

@A:

Could you just give my advice as to how I can improve upon my plan?

Honestly, if you’re playing OOB/FAQ, I would just exploit the h*** out of Lend-Lease.  It’s very simple.  You build fighters in UK and US.  You fly them to a red territory.  You  have 4 fighter 1 bomber by Russia’s second turn, and 8 fighters 2 bombers by Russia’s third turn.  By Russia’s fourth turn, you have something like 11 fighters 2 bombers.  It is extremely stupid and unfair, which is why LHTR (Larry Harris Tournament Rules) nerfed the g***ed s out of that NA.

You can use that gigantic air force to slaughter naval units, trade territories with Germany, or pretty much do whatever you want.  No Axis power can come even remotely close to any pile of infantry you control, because you will just send your massive air force and infantry to smash them.  Your opponent MIGHT spend IPCs on AA guns, but those are slow to move, and mean there will be one less tank coming your way.
The key to any battle in Axis and Alllies is having superior numbers, and having a gigantic air force makes that very easy for Russia to accomplish.

–

Or you could use Superfortresses and build bombers on US1 and 2, research heavy bomber tech for US3 and immediately neutralize Germany’s economy.

With either, Germany’s navy is useless, except for POSSIBLY invading London, which Russia can stop simply by flying fighters from Moscow to London.

–

As for his Clever Plan, I’m sure I don’t have to explain to you why it’s a bad deal.  But since I like to

I will pay you 1 dollar over a period of three years, in return for which you will immediately give me 8 dollars.

You can say that the Germans will actually force the Allies to pay 1 dollar multiplied by 2, over a period of eleven game turns, for a potential gain of 22 IPC per 8 IPC spent.  But on the other hand, the Germans have to immediately spend that amount on subs, the later the Germans build subs, the less effect that IPC drain has on the Allied economy, and the less IPCs Germany put into building ground units to help in the fight against Russia.  Really, it balances out to be a pretty sucky deal for Germany, especially since subs have no defense against air, and the Allies can base fighters out of London.

–

IF I had Colonial Garrison, I would probably build infantry for India, and consolidate the UK fleet southwest of Australia, followed by a naval build at India on UK2 joined by the UK fleet.  I wouldn’t use battleships for US build, I would use the existing battleship, transport, get two more carriers and some fodder subs, and grab the nearby destroyer (so you have all the essentials for a fleet; ability to capture territory, strong defense, a destroyer to stop sub preemptive attacks and help defend against air, and fodder subs).  Fighters are far cheaper than battleships, and more flexible in use.  Only build battleships if you anticipate an extended period of naval conflict.  Battles in the Pacific are far more likely to be short and brutal, though.

[cyan]

@newpaintbrush:

LHTR (Larry Harris Tournament Rules) nerfed the g***ed s out of that NA.

i donb’t mean to sound retarded but there are no swears that begin with G. so what are you talking about?

[frimmel]

God d**n perhaps?

[cyan]

@frimmel:

God d**n perhaps?

okay i gottch’ya. if your goin swear paintbrush do it right you F*******e(wroung way)  :-)