What I think too.
UK/USSR VS Germany/Italy
-
Can’t agree with the no sub bid.
You’re also assuming no real losses g1.
-
Can’t agree with the no sub bid.
You’re also assuming no real losses g1.
What do you mean no real losses? You simply don’t scramble. Also most players don’t go for SZ91 and instead go for 106. Questioning it being alive is like assuming Japan to do J1 and instead of going for Phillipines going for Hawaii. I don’t see your points at all Simon. Also that is just with a bid of 21. If it’s 29 you could put a destroyer in 91. Which would allow that Gib Fighter to then Hit Tobruk instead which would really raise those odds. I think you can see that doing Ethiopa/Tobruk/Taranto/Persia all on UK1 if you dedicate your bid to doing such.
-
I mean you’re assuming they don’t hit anything you care about like the Cruiser in SZ91. If you’re committed to no scramble, then maybe you can do that.
One thing you can’t do is send the Gibraltar fighter after Tobruk. It doesn’t have the range.
21 seems a pretty high bid to me. I think a lot of the problem with the lack of balance in this game is the victory city rule which favours the axis.
Also, 75% odds is pretty low with the consequences of a failed attack on SZ97 doing it that way. It’s basically the game lost right there, 25% of the time. With those other attacks you’re committing to, Egypt is going down - even if the SZ97 battle is a draw. 2 inf + 1 tac left, which will be attacked probably by 2inf 1art 1arm.
-
@ProtesT:
I got a game coming up, it will be one on one and I will be playing the Allies. I’m contemplating going full 100% Pacific with my USA economy with the exception of perhaps 1 or 2 transports and maybe a destroyer in the Atlantic just to activate Brazil and get those troops over to Africa. Question is do you think the USSR and UK can contain Germany and. Italy enough until the Pacific allies can conquer Tokyo?
No.
You won’t ever capture Tokyo before Germany/Italy get enough victory cities to win.
What you can do - and I have a legacy of trying KJF (Kill Japan First) games - is cripple Japan and secure the Pacific before refocusing and saving Europe from the Fascists.
The goal here is to knock down the Japanese fleet so that ANZAC/India can keep pressure on and deny the Japanese NOs. Eventually China will be secured. Japan itself won’t ever be conquered, but that’s moot.
After the goal is achieved, it’s a matter of getting reinforcements into Russia. England’s goal will be to get planes to Russia and secure Africa to prevent Italy from growing too large. It’s a race against the clock because if you wait too long, Germany will be unstoppable (they do make 2 to 3 times as much as Russia.)
-
This is for NO BID players
We find that the combination on UK1 usually consists of Taranto, Tobruk (if available) and activating Persia.
As such
Taranto
Bmr, 2 ftrs London >SZ97 use AC in 98 if needed
Tac, DD, CR SZ98 > SZ97
ftr Malta > SZ 97
74% win with full 3 ftr scramble from S. Italy, BB, CR SZ 97Tobruk only if available (UK CR in 91 alive)
CR, ftr Gib > SZ 96
95% win with Italian DDArt, inf Egypt via TT to 96 >Tobruk
2 inf, art, armor Alexandria > Tobruk
mech Egypt > Tobruk
66% win its iffy but worth it.Activate Persia
Art from india pick up inf w. IndiaMove CR to 80 move BB to 79 for Iraq bombard next turn.
This has pretty much neutered Italy for the long term in practically 80% of our games. Ethiopia or Iraq gets slammed in the following round.
Non Combat
UK places blockers in Kenya and Anglo Egypt Sudan, DD SZ71 > SZ 81
Everything else lands in the usual places. AC retreats if needed.USSR has a lot more options in our NO BID game.
We push into China which allows our USA player a bit of room and frustrates Japan. Suiyuyan becomes a base of operations for the the final push to Manchuria with all of the Amur joining in. Use the chinese to can open so you don’t upset the mongolians. Read pg 39 of the AAP40 rule book 3rd paragraph last sentenceSo if the Chinese can get Manchuria you can non combat in there and blast infantry all the way to Shanghai.
UK sends Ftrs to Moscow via Persia. We usually only send the Buryatia inf west as they are the only ones who can really make it in time to do anything R6. At that point Germany is probably about to siege Moscow.
With the massive impending American landing becoming a reality Germany always begins to contemplate a big troop purchase. Italy is never a factor after about one can opener because they get bombed by USA from Algeria. Most of this strategy relies on the fact that the USA commits early to the European theater with an occasional submarine purchase in W. USA. Yes, Japan becomes a monster but with a little help from the USSR when needed, China can cause major problems and keep the India crush as a non starter along with the USA subs. Japan can be reduced to trying to get mainland asia back.
We borrowed/modified some stuff from Young Grasshopper’s strategies and played around with it bit and made it just a smidge better (read as more effective) in our opinion.
Thoughts? Please feel free to poke holes in this as it help me to find counter attacks that I haven’t seen or thought of
-
I mean you’re assuming they don’t hit anything you care about like the Cruiser in SZ91. If you’re committed to no scramble, then maybe you can do that.
One thing you can’t do is send the Gibraltar fighter after Tobruk. It doesn’t have the range.
21 seems a pretty high bid to me. I think a lot of the problem with the lack of balance in this game is the victory city rule which favours the axis.
Also, 75% odds is pretty low with the consequences of a failed attack on SZ97 doing it that way. It’s basically the game lost right there, 25% of the time. With those other attacks you’re committing to, Egypt is going down - even if the SZ97 battle is a draw. 2 inf + 1 tac left, which will be attacked probably by 2inf 1art 1arm.
Excuse me on the gib fighter. As for 21 being a high bid, are you serious? I would t even play for 21 personally, 29 I MIGHT consider. Also 75% odds are completely fine for Taranto since I’m doing Tobruk as well and have a 89% chance of at least one of those happening… If they take Egypt with 4 Units I can take it right back, I have a loaded transport from Persia and very likely a loaded transport from Ethiopa, PLUS my Trans Jordan Inf as well as the Strat Bomber and Tac Bomber that can reach… As for SZ91 let me repeat myself, most players target SZ106 instead.
-
What TransJordan inf? If Taranto failed you’d send the Tac somewhere like Malta or Alexandria to try to keep it alive? Interesting theory.
I can’t see what you’ve done with the Mec, but the best I can see is 2TTs two tanks and the Mec + the tac.
It’s possible that you can retake it if enough is left. Perhaps Italy would hit TransJordan instead and stage into Iraq or Egypt.
I can’t agree with hitting Persia from India. Not getting on Sumatra sacrifices India which I would count as more important.
-
What TransJordan inf? If Taranto failed you’d send the Tac somewhere like Malta or Alexandria to try to keep it alive? Interesting theory.
I can’t see what you’ve done with the Mec, but the best I can see is 2TTs two tanks and the Mec + the tac.
It’s possible that you can retake it if enough is left. Perhaps Italy would hit TransJordan instead and stage into Iraq or Egypt.
I can’t agree with hitting Persia from India. Not getting on Sumatra sacrifices India which I would count as more important.
excuse the Trans Jordan, I confused the G42 setup (where there is one) also what about the Strat Bomber that came down for Taranto and landed in Malta? Or if I saw that Egypt could fall I could send the Indian RAF to Brit Somaliand. But you are missing the whole point of this, it started with you questioning how in the world could taranto, tobruk, and ethiopa all be done in one turn with favorable odds. The way was presented to you so instead of critiquing why you wouldn’t do battles of 75% odds just understand that doing all 3 is possible. And also realize that in a game that is majorly against the allies, 75% odds are damn good for them and shouldn’t be snided at or considered doomed to fail. Prior to this thread I had never considered being able to do all 3 attacks on UK1, but I have now found a way and intend to use it.
-
Righto.
I wouldn’t do that. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
There is one thing though. If taranto has failed, the Strat bomber is dead.
-
To follow on from my previous post with a more thoughtful reply, doing it like this is something I’ll have to think a bit more about.
A couple of points that I hate though:
- Not bringing in the Tac, even though it doesn’t need to land on the CV.
- Expending the CV on absorbing 2 hits
- Lack of potential blocker in case of Taranto failing.
- Lack of a sub bid out of a 21 bid
- Using valuable bid money on a TT while throwing another one away to hit Tobruk.
You’ve got to figure on at least one of the attacks going bad hitting it this hard. Perhaps if Taranto goes bad and the other three succeed (including SZ96) - what does Italy do? That’s going to be a big question. With two remaining TTs, it can get on Egypt, but depending on how many units are around the Brits can take it back. I guess that’s the big question. In any event, nothing can be done to stop Italy landing on TransJordan and an inf and a tank there is very unlikely to fall to the ANZACs. Perhaps survivors are stronger than I am thinking? 4.24 from Tobruk, one of which is a plane can probably be taken out by the Libya force with air support 1.46inf +art+tank in Ethiopia would help crush any Egypt landing - I see that point.
They may hit Egypt and TransJordan and likely take both down. Given that they can always occupy TransJ, they may be well advised to do so. The other option they have is hitting Syria and TJ. That means they can get on Iraq I2 unless the allies get there first. Perhaps if the Allies brought an art from India, they can block the Iraq move. Still, if the UK is sacrificing India for med, I’d have to say that as an Axis player I’d be very happy. Getting on Persia UK1 instead of UK2 generally makes minimal difference, as does that 1 inf from West India.
-
The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist, so with 21 as I stated the Brits have put a land unit in every possible spot, but by putting a Trans down in the bid it is as if they got to put down 2 more Inf since there are 2 Inf starting in South Africa. Plus as you mentioned you sacrifice your transport by doing Tobruk, but you automatically have a replacement so as to Shuck 2 men up to Egypt every other turn, and 2 Tanks/Mech on the off turn so as to have a good shuck shuck to defend Egypt and yet still prepare an Invasion force.
-
The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist
Have the bid rules changed? I thought that limitation only applied to sea units?
-
The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist
Have the bid rules changed? I thought that limitation only applied to sea units?
Well bidding is a house rule, but yes I’ve always known it to apply for land. I’m other wise with a bid of 21 why not 7 Inf in Paris? That would force Germans to send Some Luftwaffe there which would mean I could keep 110 or 111 alive. Or the Germans could simply attack it with no air and possibly lose, leaving it to the Italians (which the British air could have reinforced Paris by then).
-
The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist
Have the bid rules changed? I thought that limitation only applied to sea units?
League has the default rule as it applying everywhere.
-
The whole point of the Transport is that you can only put bid units where like units exist
Have the bid rules changed? I thought that limitation only applied to sea units?
League has the default rule as it applying everywhere.
Ah, I haven’t played any games with that rule. Wasn’t even aware it existed and had to look up those league rules. I’ve usually played with 1 unit per territory, no ships where there aren’t already ships, and you had to put down a unit matching the nationality of the terr you were placing it in.
I guess that rules out putting an Aussie in New Guinea or other similar moves. With those rules I’m now trying to figure out if there’s a way add an Aussie or French unit in any of the territories they share with UK that would be really useful . . .
-
You can add ANZAC units to Egypt or Malaya. Well, one each. There is no requirement to add them on territories with the same owner (unless I’m mistaken).
Yes, it does rule out that cheesy New Guinea move.
-
Well you could also add a Frenchie in London. But I can’t figure out anything really worth bidding. :-D
-
As Tirano and I keep discussing OL, the problem is that the bid will be used to the greatest effect wherever it buys the most 1) timelyness 2) theatre-altering math.
That means the bid goes to UK (since it is in the war from start and on the front line) and not RUS (who may or may not need the bid T1 but cant exploit it as much as UK anyways, arguably).
Then, you use the bid to close out Africa and Med, which you were already capable of doing in 2 turns (rather than 1) in the OOB setup. You’ve also reduced Italy to a side player, but it wasn’t the problem in the first place. Italy isn’t the reason Russia is weak…dog piling and the diplomacy rules and weak allied income early game are the reason Russia is weak. Russia is weak because it starts the game with nothing.
It leads to the logic that the bid shouldn’t be used to add pieces, but rather subtract them from your enemy, since it is the Axis board position and starting setup that is the reason for their dominance, not allied weakness (the allies start with much more on the board and it all dies because it is spread out, badly placed, and easily picked off).
-
To start with, I already think most of you are bonkers for wanting bids in the 30-40 range for the Allies. (I realize that I’m in the minority here.) But let’s put that aside.
If you remove pieces, there have to be detailed rules about what you can and can’t remove. Otherwise, you could just remove all the Japanese transports, or both the German strat bombers, or all the German tanks in Greater Southern Germany, or all the German subs…
If Russia is the weak point that needs fixing, then it makes more sense logically for the entire bid to be given to Russia as IPCs. That would let the Allies concentrate on the desired theater early while knowing that Russia can hold out until the US can relieve it. That’s a much more logical position than your assertion that pieces should be removed as part of the bid. It also requires a lot fewer rules, and last time I checked simpler is usually considered better.
Marsh
-
Yes I agree. I wasn’t even proposing removing pieces; im saying that that would address the balance better than adding them, but either one alters one aspect or theatre of the game without fixing what might actually be broken (USSR’s anemic setup and the realistic diplomacy that lets Japan and Germany and Italy whallop on it pretty much unrestrained for 4 turns).
A clearer way would be to simply give the allies more, specific units, without the flexibility of a choice that they will use in 1 or 2 idiosyncratic ways. But its all houserules, with no consensus, so we can keep going in circles I suppose…
Suggested Topics
