• 2007 AAR League

    Gotta have Long Range Aircraft of course.

    Looks iffy, but possible.  Thoughts?  Experience?

  • 2007 AAR League

    Usually you play with a prohibtion to attack Capitals on round 1 with ground units.

  • 2007 AAR League

    @Nix:

    Usually you play with a prohibtion to attack Capitals on round 1 with ground units.

    Never heard of that rule before but I thought that the new rule is that when you research something it doesn’t go into effect until next turn.

  • 2007 AAR League

    Well if you play tournaments and triple A that rule is in effect.  (i mean who want to flip a coin when you started a game,)?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Actually, in LHTR you can’t do it.  LRA won’t take effect until the end of your round, thus killing the Operation Sea Lion on Germany 1 strategy.


  • I have taken UK on G2 several times (counting both Revised and Classic).

    But in all cases it was because of poor movs on the part of UK.  It is an opportunistic strategy, and in general a given player only falls victim to it ONCE.


  • One of the guys I play with tried to do it to me on G2 when I was the UK but the attack failed and left Germanyopen to a Russian offensive since he spent G1 money on transports.


  • If you roll 1 or 2 tech dice, it’s a worthy endeavor.


  • @newpaintbrush:

    If you roll 1 or 2 tech dice, it’s a worthy endeavor.

    Only if using the Operations Manual AK Out of the Box rules, which are inherently flawed, especially as it relates to tech.

    Using LHTR or any of the other common Tournament rules, tech does not take effect until the END of your turn.  And without LRA, a G1 Sea Lion fails 94% of the time.


  • There are several key flaws in the box rules that are corrected in LHTR.

    LHTR is BASICALLY the OM, but with the flaws corrected.

  • 2007 AAR League

    I’m not sure I would consider this a flaw though … If Germany attacks UK on G1 they are probably going to lose a lot of Figs which are worth more than the 30 IPCs you are gonna get and America will capture UK on US1 anyway so I think it’s a stupid move in the first place. Not to mentions Britain’s AA Gun.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ajgundam5:

    I’m not sure I would consider this a flaw though … If Germany attacks UK on G1 they are probably going to lose a lot of Figs which are worth more than the 30 IPCs you are gonna get and America will capture UK on US1 anyway so I think it’s a stupid move in the first place. Not to mentions Britain’s AA Gun.

    Germany looses 4 fighters, for 40 IPCs.  England looses 30 IPC on R1 and cannot build on R2 either.  That’s -60 IPCs in units for the allies, -10 IPCs in units for the Axis (give or take.)


  • And your analyis Jen also does not include the Allied forces that have to be dedicated to re-taking London.

    The financials posted do not include another $8 that Germany gets paid for owning UK at teh end of their move.

    So, if you were to take London on G1, UK can;t build in UK2, even if liberated (they will have no cash), and they did nto build in UK1 either.  So that is -60 Allies.
    Another -8 for teh lost territory, now -68.
    Germany gains $30 from UK’s bank, another 8 for London itself  +38
    US has to liberate london on US1, no forces to Africa (additional Germany IPC gains there now, with UK not being able to send full force to retake Africa, and with US not landing there either).

    Germany will have around $80-$85 to spend on G2, Japan around $35 for a total Axis build in Turn 2 of about $120 (addded to the $70 in Turn 1)
    UK has no buy UK1 or UK2.  Allies build $66 in T1, and about $69 in T2.

    Net Axis Advantage after 2 turns:  +$45
    And since they start out with far more units, and teh Allies need their early economic advnatage to reach parity with the Axis, and that is now completely reversed…

    Lastly, leaving tech immedaietly available to allow for the G1 Sea Lion reduces teh game to the results of a single set of dice rolls.  If you want to play that way, just roll the tech rolls, and the UK invasion.  If Germany wins, game to Axis, if they lose, game to Allies.  It will save you all the time of setting up the game, and still yield accurate results.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Actually, we both forgot to include the damage to Germany’s land units.  So they’re down 1 Infantry, 4 Fighters.  England is down 2 Fighters, 1 Bomber, 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor.

    That’s 50 IPCs in units vs 43 IPCs in units lost to Germany.  Germany has +38 IPCs for England.  England is short 60 IPCs (not 68, they’ll get it back.)

    So the Allies are down a total of 110 IPCs and Germany’s down 5 IPCs.  (not including the counter attack.  -8 Germany on counter attack, assuming the tank doesn’t hit the allies and win, and I’ve seen 1 armor shoot down 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 armor before!)

    I’ll take that trade on any given Sunday, twice on Mondays, and just about any day of the week!


  • One other thing…

    The ONLY thing in London on G2 is the US forces used to liberate.  You can potentially RE-TAKE London, and possibly a LOT heavier than before if you built TRNs in G1.

    Or better yet, let UK collect income on UK2 while Germany builds fleet on G2, and strike London AGAIN in G3, taking another $30 ish in bonus revenue

    :mrgreen:


  • Well, ncsswitch, the assumption is that LHTR is NOT being used, nor any of the other common tournament rules, because with delayed tech, a G1 attack on London is just silly.

    I really don’t feel it’s a matter of “game over” for the Allies at all, if Germany spent 25+ IPC on tech.  Even if Germany spent only 5 on tech, if both players know that a G1 attack on London is possible, you run into the possibliity of 2 USSR fighters in London, which is, I admit, horribly costly for the USSR, but also horribly costly for Germany.

    You have infantry, tank, six fighters, and a bomber, going against a bomber, two infantry, artillery, tank, two fighters, and a very important AA gun.  Of course, with additional Russian fighters, it looks rather worse for the Germans; I don’t think it should even be attempted in that event.

    Depending on the AA gun, and a few bad rolls, and whether or not USSR fighters are in London, most or all of the German air force will be destroyed, and the Germans will hold London with 1 tank.

    Now, if the Germans spent all their IPC on tech, they can attack London next turn, at best, with one infantry, one tank, and one bomber.  Even if the German Med fleet moved west, it can be blocked from helping in the attack on London by a USSR sub block.  Given that the UK can possibly retake on its turn with battleship bombardment and tank from E. Canada, and US can move in to reinforce with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fighter, and 1 bomber, a repeat of Germany taking London will almost certainly not happen.  Either Germany will take Anglo-Egypt with preplaced bid units or not; if it doesn’t, India will be quite strong, if it does not, the UK will very likely be able to retake Anglo-Egypt with 3 infantry and fighter.  Germany WILL have 78-82 IPC, but will have next to no air force (if any), which means that the Allied fleet buildup will threaten Germany quite fast.  Germany can build a new airforce, but that will be quite expensive, and because Germany spent no IPCs on ground units, USSR can push early (even if it has to retreat later).  Germany will also have to commit more forces to trading territories with USSR in the east.

    Basically, I think a G1 attack on London is very risky; the initial attack has a decent chance of success, but the Allied counter can easily rock Germany back.

    BUT, if Germany only spent 5 IPC on tech, and bought more transports, or some ground units or air force to counter USSR, I think the Germans would have a signficiant advantage.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Ya know what, if you put 2 russian fighters in there, I might be more tempted to come knocking.  Russia with no fighters is just asking to be walked over by Japan and Germany.

  • 2007 AAR League

    The fighters would be the last casualties to be taken so I think rolling 4 4’s would wipe you out before they can be hit


  • Well, if you came knocking with 2 extra Russian fighters in London, that’s

    1 bomber, 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 4 fighters, 1 AA gun vs
    1 infantry, 1 tank, 6 fighters, 1 bomber.

    Say you’re using Low-Luck (I’m not an advocate of Low-Luck, but I recall that you posted a few posts using those projections), and got about average luck and lost a fighter.

    Now you have attack 23, defense 26.  Assume four casaulties by each side (with slightly favorable Low-Luck dice), then you have attack 10 defense 19, with a tank, fighter, and bomber going against four fighters and a tank. The next round inflict two casaulties for Germany and three for the Allies, and you have a tank going against three fighters, at which point the tank will die with a 50/50 chance of killing a fighter.  Since I would far rather lose UK than USSR fighters, that means that the 2 USSR fighters will both certainly be alive at the end of any Low-Luck battle.

    Basically, Germany needs to have quite good luck to kill those last remaining Russian fighters.  Even a bit of bad luck with rolls, though, will mean that the UK and the USSR will both keep their fighters, and the entire German Luftwaffe will have been destroyed at the cost of a few ground units and a bomber.  Germany will also suffer from not taking Anglo-Egypt, the cost of weapon development research, and early Russian pressure on the German front.  It’s very much all or nothing, in a battle that does not favor Germany by any means.

    ALTHOUGH I have to say that a G1 attack on London is always fun, even if the odds are not favorable.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    That G1 attack gives you a 23% chance of killing both Russian fighters, 2 british fighters and 1 bomber.

    It results in 0 Germany luftwaffe anymore…but that’s worth it, I think.

    It’s a bit risky, but then again, you already gambled to get the LRA…so obviously you are not opposed to risk!  And Russia’s probably NOT putting two fighters in England on R1.


  • Putting 2 USSR FIGs in London on R1 just invites Germany to spank the crap out of Russia.

    Russia only has enough punch for ONE good battle (they give up Ukraine completely, and if they try Belo and WR, they will be very weak in both.  Germany can counter with taking Karelia, Belo or West Russia (depending on if Belo was attacked) and Caucuses.  That puts Germany at +4 to +6, plus whatever happens in Africa.  And Russia is under $20 for pretty much the remainder of the game.


  • Tsk, tsk, spankings?  Think of the children!  Won’t someone please think of the children?!

    OK, so the USSR will be spanked.  But if it’s a choice between London or Karelia, Belorussia, AND Ukraine, it’s still an easy decision, isn’t it?  I can’t see any other way to defend against the G1 invasion of London (assuming, of course, that tech is immediately effective and a G1 invasion of London is not barred by the local ruleset, and that Germany didn’t go absolutely mad on tech dice and purchased a couple of transports, I think it’s very possible that the German player can take London and get a lock on London by G3 at the latest with only two or three transports purchased first turn, while Japan pushes on the USSR from the east.)

    If there is a better way than 2 Russian fighters in London to help defend, I can’t think of it.  German infantry, tank, six fighters, and bomber going up against UK bomber, two infantry, artillery, tank, two fighters, and AA gun, is favorable for the attackers.

    I suppose you might be saying that if Germany invests minimal IPC on tech, it has a greater chance of failure, and if it invests more IPC on tech, it still has a moderate chance of failure.  For the case of a moderate instead of minimal IPC investment on tech, I can see that the slightly favorable German attack will be outweighed by the fact that a 52% absolute requirement to win (spending 20 IPC on tech dice which must succeed) followed by a 75% absolute requirement to win is overall only a 39% chance of success, meaning Germany will self-destruct if it uses 4 or more tech dice, sure, I can see that, especially since 20 IPC spent on unsuccessful tech is a huge investment.

    What I have in mind, though, is specifically the 16% investment of a single tech dice, or possibly the slightly higher investment of two tech dice, followed byGermany’s purchase cycle dependent on whether or not the weapons development research was successful - and the consequent and straightforward win of Germany in perhaps 31% of its games using an investment of only two tech dice to attack an underdefended London.  If the tech succeeds, Germany builds transports and hopes for a successful attack on London, followed by an almost certain lock on London.  If the tech fails, Germany can still build ten infantry and go either for the KGF stall, or the KGF push on Caucasus if the Allies decide to go KJF.

    In the latter case, isn’t 2 USSR fighters in London a reasonable investment on security?  Maybe not.


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    Or you just shoot down the baltic fleet with your fighters on USSR1 and get rid of the problem all together 😄
    Ok ukraine you might have to forgo in that situation but it is not impossible to counter at all. Although 2 figs VS 2 subs 1 tranny 1 dest might not be in your favor but you only need 3 hits to make his invasion near impossible ( put a sub between his fleet and london he has to take it out and if you hit -> end invasion :D)

    No trannies -> No invasion.
    Also invading UK on turn 1 makes the game a lot like gambling imo, gambling on tech dice and then gambling on a pretty hard fight.

    Using the Russian fighters on the Baltic fleet still faces ncsswitch’s problem of leaving the Russian fighters out of any fight.  And I also think that a Russian fighter attack on the Baltic navy is risky, although the additional sub move could be decisive.  Still, the whole Russian operation described is risky (After all, Germany is not locked into having to invade London, and the proposed USSR attacks do mean some pain for the USSR).

    The game is like gambling?  Of  course!  It’s got dice!  The whole thing is about calculated risk.  With a 2 dice investiture, you can get a lock on London, and likely the game, with a 30% chance; even if you fail, you’re only out 10 IPCs . . . 10 very valuable IPCs to be sure, but I’d rather go for that 30% chance plus a stall game in case of failure than for the regular Axis game, which I think is too vulnerable to coordinated Allied attack.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    What if you went with 3 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter and attacked the Baltic Fleet on R1?

    What’re the odds?


  • You are still giving up a win in Ukraine if you pull out a FIG (on average you lose more often than you win with less than maximum punch).

    And 2 FIG vs. the Baltic Fleet is not very great odds of killing a couple of German units.

    And in addition to not being able to count on a win in Ukraine, you are now short 2 FIGs for defense of Caucuses.  That means that you have to weaken the WRS and/or leave Caucuses vulnerable.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 8
  • 27
  • 13
  • 2
  • 3
  • 72
  • 21
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

32
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts