A good strafe can decimate a defense that took TURNS to build up, and leave you powerless to respond.
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.
@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:
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….
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)
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.
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
Only the first to give voice to it here. :lol:
The game has existed too long for any strat to be truly original. You might find a unique twist or refinement, but the core strats have probably all been at least thought of, and I would imagine they have all been tried somewhere by someone many, many times :-)
I have been itching to try a new strategy for Germany, but have not yet had the chance. It entails purchasing a AC and BB on G1 for the Baltic fleet. Then move the Med fleet to the Gibraltar SZ and stock up Algeria. US and/or UK will have to either commit all of their forces to taking this territory, or otherwise will regroup in England. This opens the door to combining the German fleet on G2. If the Allies do invade Algeria, then having all of Germany’s planes placed in striking distance (like Algeria or WE) could possibly clear out the allied fleet off the coast of Algeria and allow the german fleet to still combine on G1 during Non-Com moves. Sorry i don’t have exact movements of pieces as I have yet to try this, and believe me, I did not forget about Russia. I would then commence to move all of my troops towards Russia, maybe with or without attacking, seeing that I won’t be putting any land forces into the game until the end of G2. Perhaps a defensive stance for a turn or two would hold off Russia long enough to allow me to re-enter the Eastern Front.
Now consider the domination of owning the seas with a german fleet that consists of: 2 BB, AC (loaded), 2 Tran, 3 Sub, DD all combined. I really don’t think that the allied Fleet would be much of a match for this fleet. You could camp it out in front of WE to deter the allies from invading anytime soon, or you could hunt down the allied fleet and suppress any further building. By G4 you could break off your Trannies and send them to Africa.
It definitely goes against the grain of Germany acting fast and furious, but the idea of a combined German fleet chewer is very desirable. What am I missing? Why won’t it work?
Here’s a question:
What do you do if Russia does NOT attack Ukraine? They reinforce Cauca, clear W. Rus and send equipment to India to defend there, temporarily?
What do I do? Well if I’m Germany, then I’ll be reaching for a beer. That means that Russia spared Germany some IPC’s and some Troops that otherwise would be lost. Also, it allows Germany to inch closer to RUSSIA. Who is doing this? They are moving troops away from the fronts in which they will have to turn around and move back to a couple of turns later. It seems like a waste of time, unless they are going for a KJF method. It still leaves the door open for a german Blitzkrieg. Interesting……
That’s exactly the point, Nov. The temporary loss of an armor to India is more then enough to stop a successful invasion of India by Japan and England puts up an IC there to pump out fodder to kill off Japanese forces. This slows their attack on Russia allowing Russia to refocus on Germany.
Yes, you saved some money on Round 1, but how much do you loose in Rounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8?
Round 8 …… whoa!
I don’t think I’ve ever made it that far. :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o
I routinely get through 10 rounds in a game without extreme dice results.
How long does that take?
Well let’s see…
By not taking/trading Ukraine, Russia now effectively is losign 1 INF per turn.
Germany is also net positive units by not losing Ukriane on R1. That means that a well played German open can stage forward a stack that is MORE than a match for the WRS.
And it means extra air for Africa on G1, increasing UK’s casualties.
And you are talking about Russia bleeding off forces to hold India. So Russia gains NOTHING in their own defense against Germany while letting germany have the Ukraine forces still alive on G1, and you are having UK divert HALF of their first turn income to India.
Sounds to me like the UK is losing their fleet, Russia is going to be negative income from R2 forward, and Japan can still take care of India pretty quickly, and gain the free IC in the process.
Good points, Switch. However, please keep in mind that I’m not bleeding off troops to hold India, I’m lending troops to India for one round and then pulling them back. 1 Armor or 1 Armor, 2 Fighters to India is hardly a detrimental loss to Russia’s defense. It is detrimental to their first round combats however, possibly reducing them to only taking W. Russia. (Which I used to do standard.)
