• Okay, so the majority here is not keen on the buy fleet thing on G1.
    But how do you all stand towards at least preserving the Baltic fleet? (by, I gues the only option is a AC).
    That tranny there, does provide it’s use as a bridge to Norway and Karelia, allowing German to threaten Russia a lot easier.

    (which is what I like about the 3 TRNS + AC buy. If you dont attack UK on G2…which prolly is the case if UK and US respond to your threat, you still have some flexibility on G2. You can put quite a force in Russia with the 3 TRNS, or respond to an allied landing on either Norway or W-Europe, giving a big punch on the UK fleet. )

    Or do you all take the loss of the Baltic fleet, and not invest at it at all, going for air and ground units solely?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I either entice the British to attack it in the hopes of destroying some planes and maybe, if lucky, the bomber too OR

    I make a run for the Med hoping to at least trap the British fleet OR

    I build almost all navy and really make a play for the North Atlantic.


  • AC costs 16 ipc. The baltic fleet buys germany 2 units 1 extra space. So lets say we wanted to stack Karelia. By round 3, the surviving baltic fleet can have 4 extra inf. Or maybe 2 inf and 2 art. for a cost of ac = 16 4inf=12 or 2inf2art=14. or 28-30 ipc. With no AC buy, you can have 10 inf in kareila on r3 (mixed with any art). Clearly, for the cost, its better to buy more inf and march them east, then to buy an AC for minimal benefit.

    The AC purchase to me was an idea that was meant to throw money at an issue that people tried to avoid as a “sunk” cost. The blastic fleet is a sunk cost. I sometimes bring it out to bate UK. or try a unifiication, but any benefit i get is a “nice” to have.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I view the carrier as lost IPC to Germany because it prevents England from attacking the SZ 5 fleet.  The whole idea of a SZ 5 fleet is a way to sink British planes.  IMHO


  • @Woodstock:

    @KGB:

    The problem with an India IC on turn 1 is that you have to commit before any dice are rolled in the East, and I feel that Asian ICs (and perhaps KJFs in general) only well if Japan gets bad dice on UK1 and/or J1. Building an IC in Sinkiang won’t stop Japan from capturing India on Japan 3 as outlined in the CSub paper. But this is a bit off-topic probably blush

    Dont worry, I lik off-topicness. The more thoughts spread around, the better ;)

    Would you mind linking me to this CSub paper you speak off? I’ve been going through quite some pages in this board (rather swiftly, agreed) but was unable to find any “complete” strategy layouts for Revised.

    Then DO NOT RELY ON C-SUB.

    C-Sub “papers” are a few page “cheat sheet” for a beginner. They are not complete in any sense.

    Secondly, that India paper is poorly written, years old, and was incorrect when first written.

    You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

    And, to discuss the OT, A baltic carrier was and IS still a viable strategy.

    Do not listen to the nay-sayers, but think out of the box and you will have much more fun playing.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    India can be defended at great cost to Russia.  If you think you can afford it, then sure.

    The Baltic Carrier is a waste of resources.  By getting one, you negate any chance you had at destroying most of the British Air Force on round 1. ( Fighter in Egypt, 2 Fighters in England and a very good shot at killing the Fighter in SZ 35 too basically leaving England with Zero Fighters on England 2.)

    There is a 69% chance of reducing England to just a bomber (or too nothing at all) if they attack SZ 5 with 2 Fighters and a Bomber alone. (This assumes an order of loss of Submarine, Submarine, Transport, Destroyer and that England is A - too stupid to avoid this battle and B - too stupid to retreat once they lose something on round 1.)

    However, if you put a carrier in SZ 5 (and presumably land 2 fighters on it) what have you gained?

    1. Your SZ 5 fleet is not attacked by England’s air force on Round 1.  This is a GREAT loss to the Axis in my opinion.
    2. You tie up the SZ 5 fleet for a full game turn (since you need them to defend this new, majestic carrier) and therefore cannot advance them to SZ 3, 6 or 7 (a move I like to make since it forces England to do something about them which means they are probably not attacking Africa from the Algerian coast line then.)
    3. You are short 16 IPC worth of units that could actually be used offensively as well as defensively against the Russians

    What do you get with a bomber instead?

    1. Range to attack unprotected transports forcing the allies to defend them and thus, buy more warships.
    2. The ability to SBR both Russian complexes each round (Average 7 IPC in damage a round)
    3. The ability to provide air support far from the core territories in Europe allowing you too use your fighters as defensive anchors instead of pressing them farther out and thus needing too replace them with tank purchases

  • @Cmdr:

    India can be defended at great cost to Russia.  If you think you can afford it, then sure.

    What is this great cost? A few tanks/infantry?

    When Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC (as it should), its not much of a loss.

    The Baltic Carrier is a waste of resources.

    Rather than lose 36 IPC (usually at a cost of 20), buying a carrier forces the allies to spend much more IPC to take the fleet out. Its simple IPC management.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

    If you mean Geramny cashing in 35-40 IPC, I have to say that 16 IPC is a significant impact.  Russia is defending which gives them an advantage IPC for IPC.  Coupled with Germany taking on two or three allies at a time, they don’t really have cash to waste on naval units that they don’t need.

    As for “losing 36 IPC” at the cost of “20” as you so aptly phrase it, perhaps you should look at the opportunity cost:

    Germany is losing the ability to transport two infantry directly to Norway/Karelia from Germany.  However, how often does Germany actually do this?

    England is losing their entire Air Force on top of needing to build transports and warships to attack Europe.  It’s hard enough to build the transports and warships needed to attack Europe without needing to build the fighters.

    So on the one hand, Germany is giving up units they don’t need and never need to replace for units England desperately needs and almost certainly must replace.

    Sounds like a good trade to me.


  • @squirecam:

    You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

    And, to discuss the OT, A baltic carrier was and IS still a viable strategy.

    Do not listen to the nay-sayers, but think out of the box and you will have much more fun playing.

    ….  And the world is flat. Don’t listen to the heretics. Umm, what does saying something IS without any reasons to back it up accomplish? Why should the OP listen to your YAY versus our NAY? anything useful to contribute?


  • You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

    So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
    Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.

    I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Woodstock:

    You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

    So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
    Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.

    I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.

    Kind of my point, actually. :P

    If Russia is diverting a few armor, and a few Infantry to India and America is retreating some infantry back from Sinkiang and bringing in units from North Africa to hold India, what are the chances Russia will survive long enough for Japan to be knocked back?


  • @Cmdr:

    @Woodstock:

    You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

    So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
    Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.

    I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.

    Kind of my point, actually. :P

    If Russia is diverting a few armor, and a few Infantry to India and America is retreating some infantry back from Sinkiang and bringing in units from North Africa to hold India, what are the chances Russia will survive long enough for Japan to be knocked back?

    Well…even with little Revised experience…I know it won’t be long :P

    And after reading those CSub papers…I am pretty certain this will be my opening move on Game #2 in Revised. (Without the AC though). My opponent (who only has played once)…won’t know what to do  :-D


  • @AxisOfEvil:

    @squirecam:

    You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

    And, to discuss the OT, A baltic carrier was and IS still a viable strategy.

    Do not listen to the nay-sayers, but think out of the box and you will have much more fun playing.

    ….   And the world is flat. Don’t listen to the heretics. Umm, what does saying something IS without any reasons to back it up accomplish? Why should the OP listen to your YAY versus our NAY? anything useful to contribute?

    Lets just say I know what I am talking about. I could bring up several threads here or at C-sub or at the old AH site, or even Larry’s site. I’ve won quite a few of the Gencon/origins/WBC A&A tournaments, and I know what “can” be defended and what “cant”.

    With apologies to Crazystraw, that C-sub paper is piss-poor. It’s conclusion, which was wrong when it was written, is certainly not valid now. Several C-sub editors (who attend Gencon, and who I have beaten) now themselves use KJF and buy an India IC. Would they do this if India is always taken J3, or Russia would fall? Of course not.

    I’ve met these folks personally, know how good their game is. And so I also know what a terrible travesty that paper is. Its very misleading.

    I’ve even found an old thread for you…

    http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=250&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


  • @Cmdr:

    If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

    USSR begins at 24. Give them Belo (2), WR(2), Norway (3) and Ukraine(3), you are already at 34. You could take Manchuria R2, and FIC R3, and get up to 37. Both gives you 40. Its not that hard to achieve. Of course, you are not buying stupidly either. No bombers. No planes. Just inf/art.

    As for “losing 36 IPC” at the cost of “20” as you so aptly phrase it, perhaps you should look at the opportunity cost:

    Germany is losing the ability to transport two infantry directly to Norway/Karelia from Germany.  However, how often does Germany actually do this?

    I like trading Norway for a few turns, rather than letting the Allies just have it. So I’d say I do this pretty often.


  • @Woodstock:

    @Cmdr:

    @Woodstock:

    You can defend an India IC very well, by using USSR and USA to help.

    So then you have all 3 Allies, focusing on one 3 IPC territory.
    Should take the pressure off all other fronts if you ask me.

    I found CSub, and I must say, they have some well thought papers.

    Kind of my point, actually. :P

    If Russia is diverting a few armor, and a few Infantry to India and America is retreating some infantry back from Sinkiang and bringing in units from North Africa to hold India, what are the chances Russia will survive long enough for Japan to be knocked back?

    Well…even with little Revised experience…I know it won’t be long :P

    And after reading those CSub papers…I am pretty certain this will be my opening move on Game #2 in Revised. (Without the AC though). My opponent (who only has played once)…won’t know what to do  :-D

    Russia is going to hold out quite well.

    Lets take an example. You “know” USSR will be left 1v1 vs Germany. Lets give Germany 50 IPC (combo of Europe $ and some Africa territories) and USSR the 40 I outlined above.

    Germany will not have enough firepower to overcome USSR. Even at $50, 10 tanks (30) will (generally) lose to 13 Inf (26). This assumes germany can even afford “10 tanks” to march on USSR immediately, and not worry about protecting France or dealing with UK landings.

    You cannot just “march” into Russia and defeat them in a few rounds. Barring extreme bad dice, it just wont happen. Russia will be still be very viable on its own at round 6 or later, and allies will be bringing more help as well.


  • @squirecam:

    Lets just say I know what I am talking about.

    Let’s not get crazy here; I certainly wouldn’t say that about you.

    KJF only works under the screwy tournament rules that don’t apply to the games generally discussed in this forum.  Folks here tend to play TripleA domination or other domination games, and for those games the paper’s conclusions still hold up quite well.

    KJF works in gimmicky games with weird rules, not box or Triple A games.

    But by all means, you are certainly free to boycott CSub.  I would hate to see your game crippled by such bad ideas.

    Leaving the group is surprisingly easy to do, and then you wouldn’t be tempted to rely on CSub and it’s “poor” papers.

    For anyone else that just wants to have some fun and learn about the game, here’s a link:
    http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/


  • @squirecam:

    @Cmdr:

    If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

    USSR begins at 24. Give them Belo (2), WR(2), Norway (3) and Ukraine(3), you are already at 34. You could take Manchuria R2, and FIC R3, and get up to 37. Both gives you 40. Its not that hard to achieve. Of course, you are not buying stupidly either. No bombers. No planes. Just inf/art.

    Offcourse, if this would be R1’s outcome (which is already a big if, if you calculate), then you offcourse won’t do some funky naval stuff, and just blow Russia away.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @squirecam:

    @Cmdr:

    If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

    USSR begins at 24. Give them Belo (2), WR(2), Norway (3) and Ukraine(3), you are already at 34. You could take Manchuria R2, and FIC R3, and get up to 37. Both gives you 40. Its not that hard to achieve. Of course, you are not buying stupidly either. No bombers. No planes. Just inf/art.

    As for “losing 36 IPC” at the cost of “20” as you so aptly phrase it, perhaps you should look at the opportunity cost:

    Germany is losing the ability to transport two infantry directly to Norway/Karelia from Germany.  However, how often does Germany actually do this?

    I like trading Norway for a few turns, rather than letting the Allies just have it. So I’d say I do this pretty often.

    I see.

    I have found the flaw in your logic.  Russia should never get too that point, unless of course, you build a Carrier on Germany 1, then you may as well expect it. :P

    A more normal Russia 1 would be up Belorussia and W. Russia (28 IPC) and losing Belorussia and Karelia on Germany 1.  Then you end up trading Belorussia, Karelia and Ukraine from that point on.  No where near 40 IPC a round mind you, not for Russia.

    This normally results in either England or America taking Norway and with plenty of defensive force to prevent the Germans from retaking it with a mere 2 ground units transported from the mainland.


  • @Mazer:

    @squirecam:

    Lets just say I know what I am talking about.

    Let’s not get crazy here; I certainly wouldn’t say that about you.

    KJF only works under the screwy tournament rules that don’t apply to the games generally discussed in this forum.  Folks here tend to play TripleA domination or other domination games, and for those games the paper’s conclusions still hold up quite well.

    KJF works in gimmicky games with weird rules, not box or Triple A games.

    But by all means, you are certainly free to boycott CSub.  I would hate to see your game crippled by such bad ideas.

    Leaving the group is surprisingly easy to do, and then you wouldn’t be tempted to rely on CSub and it’s “poor” papers.

    For anyone else that just wants to have some fun and learn about the game, here’s a link:
    http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

    First, I dont even know you.

    Second, KJF works fine. Regardless of tournament or dominance games. And if you attended Gencon, you’d know that.

    And, I did not say every paper was poor. The India one, however, is.


  • @Cmdr:

    @squirecam:

    @Cmdr:

    If Russia is cashing in 35-40 IPC a round, then kudos too you.  I’ve only managed that in KJF games against players who can only handle the axis if they are defending against a KGF strategy.

    USSR begins at 24. Give them Belo (2), WR(2), Norway (3) and Ukraine(3), you are already at 34. You could take Manchuria R2, and FIC R3, and get up to 37. Both gives you 40. Its not that hard to achieve. Of course, you are not buying stupidly either. No bombers. No planes. Just inf/art.

    As for “losing 36 IPC” at the cost of “20” as you so aptly phrase it, perhaps you should look at the opportunity cost:

    Germany is losing the ability to transport two infantry directly to Norway/Karelia from Germany.  However, how often does Germany actually do this?

    I like trading Norway for a few turns, rather than letting the Allies just have it. So I’d say I do this pretty often.

    I see.

    I have found the flaw in your logic.  Russia should never get too that point, unless of course, you build a Carrier on Germany 1, then you may as well expect it. :P

    No, UK will re-take Karelia UK1. This allows a blitzing tank to go through to Norway R2. There “is” no baltic fleet, as UK would take it out (as you yourself suggest) without a German carrier.

    The 37-40 IPC is on USSR 2 and/or 3. WR, UKR, Belo, Karelia, Norway, Manchuria, and/or FIC.

    And if Germany does buy a carrier, then we are not talking about an all-out assault on Moscow, and thus, vastly different circumstances.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 6
  • 14
  • 46
  • 26
  • 8
  • 4
  • 5
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts