• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @axis_roll:

    Right on queue “Posting Jen”.  Page 4… post #4!

    Same sort of silly rhetoric too.

    Your sarcastic list of things Russian ftr(s) MIGHT do is only more reasoning WHY a Russian ftr is more important because, guess what… I HAVE used Russian ftr(s) in EVERY SINGLE way that you say they MIGHT be someday used:

    • defending allied carriers

    • taking Berlin

    • supporting Western

    • supporting Southern

    Oh yes, I have used Russian ftr(s) after Moscow has fallen too.

    Yes, but is that the primary use you’ve used them for, or was that just a silly circumstance you found yourself in despite your best efforts to the contrary?

    That’s the main difference.  Russian fighters are almost exclusively used to defend Moscow and trade two different territories each round.  The British bomber is almost exclusively used to crush Germany under the heel of the British Jack-Boot and failing that, to make Germany so whipped that when America’s turn comes around she screams “achtung!  May I please have another, Herr President!”

    So i ask, is it better to defend Moscow or to take Berlin?


  • @Cmdr:

    So i ask, is it better to defend Moscow or to take Berlin?

    That’s a trick question.

    and to that, I will answer “YES”

  • '19 Moderator

    @Cmdr:

    So i ask, is it better to defend Moscow or to take Berlin?

    I think Holding Moscow indefinatly will result in Allied win, Taking Germany will probably result in allied victory.  I have recovered games after losing Germany.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @dezrtfish:

    @Cmdr:

    So i ask, is it better to defend Moscow or to take Berlin?

    I think Holding Moscow indefinatly will result in Allied win, Taking Germany will probably result in allied victory.  I have recovered games after losing Germany.

    The only way that I know of for the allies to hold Moscow indefinitely is to send all the English and American forces it can to Moscow which negates taking Germany for a long time.

    I honestly think it’s better to let Russia fall to Japan if you can get Germany.  Europe is denser and worth more, plus, it is easily fortified from England and America.  Russia is worth less and is hard to reinforce from Japan.


  • @axis_roll:

    Right on queue “Posting Jen”.  Page 4… post #4!

    Same sort of silly rhetoric too.

    Your sarcastic list of things Russian ftr(s) MIGHT do is only more reasoning WHY a Russian ftr is more important because, guess what… I HAVE used Russian ftr(s) in EVERY SINGLE way that you say they MIGHT be someday used:

    • defending allied carriers

    • taking Berlin

    • supporting Western

    • supporting Southern

    Oh yes, I have used Russian ftr(s) after Moscow has fallen too.

    Soooo  ….  does this mean for a fact that Jen’s dead grandmother has grown testicles? post photos?

  • '19 Moderator

    Lets be realistic here, the most important piece is of course, the first piece, because every other peice is always compared to the first piece :roll:


  • The industrial complex is the most important piece. You can’t build diddly squat without owning one.

    I voted for the British Bomber for this poll. Gotta wipe out the med fleet early and it helps a whole bunch.


  • German bomber ! May be key to keeping Allied fleets at bay longer.
    (Since it isn’t on the list, then, have to settle for…) Russian fighter.


  • 😮
    Russia is not worthless!
    Shiftless maybe, but not worthless.
    Besides, if Japan has Russia, it often will also have the Caucasus, and those 2 combined are worth more than your precious Germany  😛

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Crazy:

    😮
    Russia is not worthless!
    Shiftless maybe, but not worthless.
    Besides, if Japan has Russia, it often will also have the Caucasus, and those 2 combined are worth more than your precious Germany  😛

    Yes and no.

    If America has Germany (and they are usually the nation that ends up conquering Germany in my experience and that’s because England softens the target and America finishes it off.)  and England has S. Europe and W. Europe, that’s 16 units per round going into Europe vs the 12 units per round going into Russia by Japan.

    Or

    If America ended up getting S. Europe and Germany, England could always put an IC in W. Europe and now you have 22 units going into Europe.

    And,

    If option A happened, there’s nothing to stop America from putting the extra cash into some naval purchases in the Pacific to threaten soft Japanese income or force Japan into rebuilding some Navy which detracts from their ability to prosecute the war in Europe.

    Honestly, if Europe falls to the Allies within a round or two of Russia falling, it’s over.  I just don’t see how Japan can win in those circumstances without benevolent dice.


  • Picked Russian fighter simply because a UK fighter to me is as good if not better than a UK bomber (defense+attack, and landing on carrier to defend navy, also it’s not too difficult to get a landing in Norway or land on a carrier where fighters can launch to W Eur, Germ, E Eur anyway).  And I’d certainly rather have a Russian fighter than a UK fighter.


  • 77% of voters feel that the russian fighter is more important than any other item on the list! So let’s agree that not everyone agrees all he time, but 77% of these voters disagee with Gen most of the time. 😛

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Actually, I am quite proud that I, and game play, have convinced about 25% of the voters that the British Bomber is more important to the grand scheme of things than a single Russian fighter.

    I wonder how many of the Russian Fighter votes are influenced by experiences in Classic Axis and Allies where the Russian fighter was incredibly more important than it is in Revised.

    Still rounding the numbers we have:

    40 votes Russian Fighter
    10 votes British Bomber

    Which proves one thing: My assertation that the British bomber is the most important piece on the map is not a solitary position and not a loony position to take.

    In either case, no one wants to leave the Russian fighters as the sole defender of Karelia at the end of Russia 1 nor leave the British bomber the sole defender of Italian East Africa at the end of England 1.  On that, I am sure we all can agree!


  • @Cmdr:

    I wonder how many of the Russian Fighter votes are influenced by experiences in Classic Axis and Allies where the Russian fighter was incredibly more important than it is in Revised.

    I’d guess no more than voted British bomber simply because it costs 15 IPCs to the 10 IPCs fighters cost.


  • The Russian fighter attacks at a three and is only going to be used in land battles like a tank, so no huge advantage to me. British and American fighters end up defending Russian territories in the majority of games I’ve played, so again no huge advantage. That British bomber has options, however. SBRs and Med/Baltic Fleet attacks or finishing off Africa. Keeping Germany off balance early helps the allies and a fighter could never have the impact a bomber can.

    My 2 pennies…


  • @Cmdr:

    Actually, I am quite proud that I, and game play, have convinced about 25% of the voters that the British Bomber is more important to the grand scheme of things than a single Russian fighter.

    I wonder how many of the Russian Fighter votes are influenced by experiences in Classic Axis and Allies where the Russian fighter was incredibly more important than it is in Revised.

    Still rounding the numbers we have:

    40 votes Russian Fighter
    10 votes British Bomber

    Which proves one thing: My assertation that the British bomber is the most important piece on the map is not a solitary position and not a loony position to take.

    In either case, no one wants to leave the Russian fighters as the sole defender of Karelia at the end of Russia 1 nor leave the British bomber the sole defender of Italian East Africa at the end of England 1.  On that, I am sure we all can agree!

    Sounds like you were working for the Gore camp in Florida based on your vote observations.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @allies_fly:

    Sounds like you were working for the Gore camp in Florida based on your vote observations.

    Nah, if that was the case, I’d say the bomber won when clearly it did not, nor did I expect it too.

    Honestly, I thought so many players were going to be stuck in the rut of fighter > bomber that no one but myself would vote for the bomber, even though there is very clear and strong evidence that the british bomber is at least one of the top 5 most valuable pieces that start on the board (to me it is THE most valuable piece that starts on the board for a LONG time.)


  • @allies_fly:

    Sounds like you were working for the Gore camp in Florida based on your vote observations.

    Trying to make a new P&D forum are you?

    SMITE!


  • @Cmdr:

    Actually, I am quite proud that I, and game play, have convinced about 25% of the voters

    ….

    40 votes Russian Fighter
    10 votes British Bomber

    I really, really look for things to agree with you about jen. I like your enthusiasm in your analysis. But im confused. How can you incorrectly quote vote results that are posted at the top of this thread. How can anyone agree with you when your misrepresent obviously verifiable facts. Note the time and date of my post here. I am going to reproduce the numbers I see at the top:

    ONE Russian Fighter  34 (79.1%)
    ONE British Bomber  7 (16.3%)
    ONE Japanese Fighter  1 (2.3%)
    ONE American Bomber  0 (0%)
    ONE German Fighter  1 (2.3%)
    Remove Vote

    Total Voters: 43

    Look, they even include a handy % next to the number for us!! sweet. So 43 total votes. 7 for UK bomber. And logically, if 79.1% of the votes are for the russian fighter, it does not mean Jen can claim the other 20.8%. There are other options, created be Jen herself. Think of those as the Nadar vote, it doesnt count for your side Jen.

    Again, why should we debate easily verifiable facts, especially ones posted at the top of the page!!!


  • @AxisOfEvil:

    @Cmdr:

    Actually, I am quite proud that I, and game play, have convinced about 25% of the voters

    ….

    40 votes Russian Fighter
    10 votes British Bomber

    I really, really look for things to agree with you about jen. I like your enthusiasm in your analysis. But im confused. How can you incorrectly quote vote results that are posted at the top of this thread. How can anyone agree with you when your misrepresent obviously verifiable facts. Note the time and date of my post here. I am going to reproduce the numbers I see at the top:

    ONE Russian Fighter  34 (79.1%)
    ONE British Bomber  7 (16.3%)
    ONE Japanese Fighter  1 (2.3%)
    ONE American Bomber  0 (0%)
    ONE German Fighter  1 (2.3%)
    Remove Vote

    Total Voters: 43

    Look, they even include a handy % next to the number for us!! sweet. So 43 total votes. 7 for UK bomber. And logically, if 79.1% of the votes are for the russian fighter, it does not mean Jen can claim the other 20.8%. There are other options, created be Jen herself. Think of those as the Nadar vote, it doesnt count for your side Jen.

    Again, why should we debate easily verifiable facts, especially ones posted at the top of the page!!!

    Hence my observation of the Florida vote count (no political agenda was implied!)

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 4
  • 1
  • 5
  • 3
  • 14
  • 4
  • 11
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

40
Online

15.7k
Users

37.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts