• I have to say that “I accept the challenge only I am really busy for the next month, yeah I also was too busy last month.” is and will always be a classic excuse :)


  • @GCar:

    I have to say that “I accept the challenge only I am really busy for the next month, yeah I also was too busy last month.” is and will always be a classic excuse :)

    Why do you feel you have to say that? This is something you guys could be gloating about if I talked trash and left. I’m still here and still not worried about a handfull of Japanese planes that take at least 3 rounds to get to Germany. I don’t have a lot free time, so deal. In fact, all of these posts I’ve made at work.

  • '12

    CGar felt the need to say what we all are thinking……

    So you will only play live now is your new excuse?  Let me point out the painfully obvious.  Nobody you play live with knows how to play Fortress Europe or even the game from the inkling you are giving me.  PBEM is not fun??? Really, I wonder why so many people play that way…maybe it’s so they can play with a wider group of people and LEARN.

    Sure it’s great to have friends over share a few drinks and provide munchies, see some friends you haven’t seen in awhile, but ONLY play face to face?  Sounds like a lame excuse to me.

    You have “Yeah But” syndrome… Yeah but I can’t play now… Yeah but I would play but only live…  Yeah but I would play but my cat ate my homework and i have to do it over again.

    Sure you are still here, and still making excuses.  I would have had/will respect for you if you just played the damn game and won or even lost.  But you make lame excuses over and over again rather than just putting your money where your mouth is.  Perhaps a new thread should be open so we can do a poll on what your new excuse will be.

    There would be no gloating if you just vanished, we have seen your type before…over and over again.  We would do a collective head shake and move on.

    Indeed, there would be no gloating if you played and lost.  This is a community of people who really enjoy this game, wins or losses are not personal or should not be at least.  You often learn the most from your defeats.  If you don’t wish to elevate your game, then don’t play, continue to make excuses, I am pretty sure we’ll be able to live with your choice no matter what it is.

    Put up or **** up…  :-)


  • I have a lot of good comparisons coming to my mind for this situation but I’ll keep it clean and say this: Anyone that doesn’t even know what fortress europe is, is not a good player. Just like someone not knowing what a slap shot is, is for sure not a good hockey player, or someone not knowing what a curveball is, is definitely not a good baseball player.


  • But it’s the same . I’m enrolled in a course that ends in Sept. I won’t have much free time until then because I want to pass. I’ll leave until then and come back after the 24th and challenge a Fortress Europe fan.

  • '12

    Good luck on your course and on your future game.


  • @MrMalachiCrunch:

    Good luck on your course and on your future game.

    Thanks!

  • '12

    Col. Stauff,

    I recently played a good friend a game of '42 and used Fortress Europe on him for the 6-7th time.  I am sure I could have played it better as my pool of opponents has been small.  There are a few minor things I would have done as the allies differently, though I have yet to play the allies against fortress Europe knowing what is coming.  I am sure once I play an experience fortress europe opponent as the Axis I will learn how to play the allies better.

    Defending the European coastline knowing you have a stack of Jap fighters that can defend a territority that the brits hit first as a 1-2 with the Americans makes planning easier and allows the Germans to lean forward more heavily.  Germany really needs much less defense knowing that if the brits hit there first, there are 4 or more(in my case 8-10 by round 10+) fighters ready to move from WEu (primarily) to Germany.

    The allied fleet had to be much larger than it would have been otherwise if the US could easily provide cover for the weak brit transport fleet.  Instead, the Brits needed a large defensive navy AND so did the US.  They were not able to have 3 fleets in the atlantic to feed Africa when required.

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24618.210


  • Ok so I took my test and now have the free time to play. Do you want to try Fortress Europe against me Malachi? If so, how and when would you like to do it? I don’t have Triple A but I’ll sign up for Game table online if you want to do it that way.


  • If Malachi doesn’t want to do it I’ll challenge any Fortress Europe axis player.

  • '12

    I’m in the middle of a game now, but if you have not received any takers than perhaps after the weekend.  I’m not sure how I missed your post on Sept 26.


  • @Col.Stauffenberg:

    If Malachi doesn’t want to do it I’ll challenge any Fortress Europe axis player.

    One question: are you assuming 100% that the Axis player will use Fortress Europe? Or is it a condition for playing?

  • '12

    Hobbes has a point, probably a bit deeper than I am seeing.  That being said, if there is US navy being  (more than a sub say) built in the Pacific then Fortress Europe probably isn’t going to happen.  In a KGF, if Germany is not being threatened significantly I also don’t see a need for Fortress Europe.

    If nobody is up for the challenge then I’ll play you a game if you wish to start the thread and do Russia 1.  I’d prefer to just watch the game but……


  • The issue is Russia - if they know that the Axis player will follow a Fortress Europe strategy then they can make things very hard for Germany from the beginning.

    The US turn is not so critical - it can go Pacific but in that case G can and should still harass the UK on the Atlantic as much as possible, although the focus will be to take out Russia.

  • '12

    Hey Hobbes.  What are Russia’s choices on R1, vis-a-vis how can they make it harder on the Germans knowing fortress europe is in store?  Ukr and Wru are the two targets from what I understand, the only question is 2 or 3 tanks in Ukr and to leave the Inf Kar or not from my limited play experience.  I’ve read about the Norwegian Gambit but it seems like a high risk ‘Pray to the Gods’ kind of strategy that I am uncomfortable with.  Is Russia pushing Japan harder knowing FE is coming?


  • The Norwegian Gambit saves the UK battleship and makes sure that the Brits can build ships on UK1. However, it does not  prevent the Axis from using Fortress Europe - Japan can still bring all those fighters and a G1 bomber buy will add that additional punch needed.

    The most danger from Russia is not the R1 attacks (which should be WRus + Ukr/Nor) but the R1 and subsequent buys. If you see Russia buying 4 arm + 1 art on R1, then 4 arm and 3 inf on R2, etc., then the Russians may be able to stack Ukraine/Karelia by R3. Or just imagine what Russia can do with 10+ armor against Japan…


  • @Hobbes:

    @Col.Stauffenberg:

    If Malachi doesn’t want to do it I’ll challenge any Fortress Europe axis player.

    One question: are you assuming 100% that the Axis player will use Fortress Europe? Or is it a condition for playing?

    yes, it’s a condition on playing. This fortress Europe debate got started because people where saying it’s better than a Med Navy, to which I disagree. I’m not going to do anything crazy with Russia or build in the pacific with the US (maybe a sub or two).

    In our games we have often have 3 loaded Japanese carriers in the med by round 4 or 5 and a bomber usually in Egypt so the allies always have to buy massive navy anyway, that’s why I think it’s going to be easier to beat than Med Navy.

  • '12

    Hmmm, Japan adding a CV to their navy and hanging out in the Med.  It would seem they would be light in Asia then.  Add to that a small bit of navy to fend off a brit and 1-2 US subs in the pacific combined with a purchase of a capital ship….

    With FE you wouldn’t need much Jap navy in the Med.  I like the idea of being able to move Jap land units from Asia to europe, but only to help defend the Atlantic wall.  You would need defense from bombers going from England to Caucus and air units from Caucus/Rus.  However, I don’t think you need a jap navy in the med to deny africa from the allies at latter stages of the game, nor do you need it to help defend Germany.  Air units shift position faster than navy so their threat is more dynamic and less predictable.

    If the Allies just shuck along the north atlantic the Med navy would have to come out to do something.  Coming out of the med to sail to the North Atlantic seems risky in that its a lot of capital tied up in a very long journey towards enemy ICs that can react at the last second to the threat.

    It would be interesting to see how a Jap navy in the Med would work, I understand that it is not that unusual.  But better than FE?  I thought most non-users of FE insist the axis needs a bid.  I am not sure if I ever lost using FE, but I have yet to be schooled by elite players so…

    Hobbes would know much much better in how to foil FE than I.

  • '12

    By the way Col, the weekend is over, although I am still playing a game, its in the end game so I await you starting a thread and doing R1.


  • @Col.Stauffenberg:

    In our games we have often have 3 loaded Japanese carriers in the med by round 4 or 5 and a bomber usually in Egypt so the allies always have to buy massive navy anyway, that’s why I think it’s going to be easier to beat than Med Navy.

    Interesting.

    Moving the Japanese fleet to the Med is a good strategy on Revised because of the pressure it poses on the Atlantic. The drawback is that if the Allies retake Egypt and close the Suez then that fleet will become trapped and can be destroyed by the Allies, unless Germany buys 1 carrier to support it.

    I tried it on Spring 1942 a few times but the advantages are less than on Revised, in my opinion, due to the new rules. The Allied subs on the Pacific require that Japan keeps back some of the fleet to protect against them and with the defenseless transports you only have the Japanese carriers as fodder in a battle (and the battleships, if they tag along), instead of the 1-2 transports that Japan can bring to the Med on Revised.

    The key point though is that the Axis need to control the Suez channel on turns 3-4 in order for the Japanese navy to pass through. That might not be so easy to achieve - on my games the German Med fleet is sunk on turns 2-3, unless there’s some very bad dice. It is still possible, but Japan would have to rush its transports south for them to hit Egypt on turn 3.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 31
  • 8
  • 12
  • 6
  • 4
  • 22
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

148

Online

17.2k

Users

39.5k

Topics

1.7m

Posts