I like the idea- still gives the AA teeth but not quite as much. How do you feel about paying for the SBR, and the reduced damage done?
Posts made by 88 Millimeter
-
RE: New SBR Ideas
-
New SBR Ideas
This is soon to be playtested in a FTF game. A combo of LL rules and beer inspired this one…
Mechanic- It costs 1 IPC for the attacker to industrial bomb (per bomber), taken out during the collect income phase. A successful bombing run does 1-4 IPCs damage (use your polyhedrons, nerds- or roll a d6 and disregard 5s and 6s). A roll of a 1 for the defending AA (if one is present) results in the Bomber being turned away for no IPC damage, but the attacker must pay an additional 2 IPCs during the collect income phase. If no AA is present, the 1 IPC does not need to be paid- just 1-4 IPCs damage.
Rationale- It is absurd that on a roll of 1 on the AA a bomber dies. No precedent in history whatsoever. The U.S. 8th Air Force did go through a particularly brutal time early in the strategic bombing campaign over Europe, but it survived and eventually thrived. The money paid during the collect income phase represents the continual upgrades, refits, repairs, and payloads required to keep the bombers rolling. The additional 2 IPCs for a roll of 1 on an AA represents the need to replace planes- further, no damage was done on the bombing run. 1-4 IPCs is a good trade off for the bomber being essentially unable to die (at least during SBRs). It is, however, costly to run them.
On average, each bomber will do 1.5 IPCs damage after factoring in the cost to make the SBR in the first place. There is a 16.67 % chance that 3 IPCs will have to be paid by the attacker with no damage done, however bombers are no longer vulnerable to complete destruction during SBRs. It seems like a good trade to me- way more realistic, and it makes buying bombers a little more interesting. It also becomes less shattering when an AA hits- although you do have to pay for it.
I’ve seen too many games tip early on when a bomber is shot down. The line is so fine in this game that it sucks to see a good game derailed by one dice roll. I’m not saying that the loss of one bomber is the be-all end-all, but between two good players in a good game it can make a critical difference. This is an attempt to address that issue.
(BTW, To help make up for the sudden impotence of AA guns during SBRs, they cost 4 IPCs rather than 5, defend on a 1 if not being used as AA, and can be taken as a casualty. But that’s a seperate matter…)
What do people think, and any ideas to make it better?
-
RE: Pearl or no Pearl???
It’s definitely a good way to make Japan sweat, no doubt about that. Is that standard for you or do you do it based on what Germany does?
-
RE: Pearl or no Pearl???
You are forgeting that your 2 Inf from FIC is usually dead (in 60% of the cases so is the Fig in FIC, and UK lands an additional Fig in China)
And if you don´t do pearl you will have hell to pay, and if you don´t kill Buryatia, Russia will attack Manchuria with 6 inf, 2 Arm on R2 (then moving into China and to Sinkiang to Defend)
Good point Nix, but in most games I play the Allied player either retakes Egypt, is aggressive in the Pacific islands, or pulls troops out of India to use another day. I’ve never had that strat used against me (Brits vs. F Indo). If the garrison at F Indo was dead they would be very _un_usually dead.
And when I’ve seen the Hawaiin fleet left standing, I’ve never seen hell. It does mean that the U.S doesn’t have to buy a carrier. It’s a help to the U.S. but certainly not a game breaker. It seems you believe in going after Japan; most people KGF. That’s what I’m most experienced in facing.
I’ll re-emphasize, and I’ll put it in bold to make it clear, Russian and British choices dictate whether Japan can even think about Buryatia or not. It is completely contingent on the game as it stands at that point. I would hardly advocate assaulting Buryatia under good circumstances - if Britain comes after F Indo, then I obviously wouldn’t do it. So, I wasn’t forgetting anything- I just didn’t spell out every scenario that could happen.
-
RE: Pearl or no Pearl???
Wow, glad my Buryatia comment sparked some debate. I’ve only done the move once.
Russia and Britain dictate whether Japan can even think about Buryatia or not. As I said, it requires a conservative first turn from the Allies in the Pacific.
If Russia is in position to counter Buryatia I say bring it on. The 3 transport build means more dead Russians if Buryatia is countered- according to some of these posts a tank or two. Thanks for voluntarily depleting your offensive forces, Mutha Russia. As Japan I’d exchange troops with Russia all day long. As said above Russian troops defending the north means less troops in the Sinkiang/ Novo region.
And there’s no way around this fact- 6 dead Russians may not equal the Sub/ Carrier/ Fighter Pearl strike in IPC value, but they’re 6 dead Russians. The Axis goal is to get to Russia, isn’t it?
And in only two battles the force breakdown can look like this-
Vs. Buryatia- 3 Inf/ Arm/ 4 Ftrs/ Bmr/ BB shot vs 6 Inf. That looks like winning with an armor to me.
Vs. China- 4 Inf/ 2 Ftrs vs 2 Inf/ Ftr. Looks like a win with 1-2 Inf left to me.
SZ 60= BB, Carrier/ 2 Ftrs, Destroyer, 4 Transports. British Kwangtung destroyer has been taken out by BB + Carrier. Set up to hit F Indo in a reprisal, Buryatia in a reprisal, or reinforce either/or. Second turn IC and you’re rolling into Asia nearly unchecked. And if Russia is seriously (not just token defense) impeding your progress, then they’re certainly not stacking in enough force in W Russia to prevent German gains.
All that having been said, I don’t do this move. Being strong up the gut in China, and killing the Pearl fleet at little or no loss, is extremely solid play. But Switch, I don’t think a Buryatia strike should be summarily dismissed as a bad move. It can have merit in the right situation.
-
RE: Pearl or no Pearl???
The one thing I didn’t see mentioned here was the possibility of destroying 6 Russian Infantry and getting a head start in the north by crushing Buryatia. If Russia stacks in there, which is a common move, it’s worth consideration.
Considering the Axis’ need to kill Russia, it’s a blow to the Motherland. Typically it forces the Russian player to divert a few forces it otherwise wouldn’t have to to slow down Japan across the top. Usually those 6 Inf back off and team with others in Novo to form a defensive barrier, or they get wacky and attack Manchuria and slow down Japan. The Buryatia attack, when coupled with a 3 Transport build, gives Japan quick access to Asia as well as a large defensive fleet.
Again, this is contingent on what you’ve seen from Britain- an obvious KJF should be countered with a Pearl strike. A super-aggressive Britain (Borneo & New Guinea strike, Ftr landed on Pearl Carrier) might dictate the use of most Jap Fighters, which would make Buryatia an afterthought.
-
RE: Yak Attack
I agree- the first load of Allied troops should be able to clean things up. Combined with a British move from India into Egypt, it’s a pincer in N Africa that should keep Germany’s economy manageable. And Britain ends up with the 2 IPCs in N Africa rather than the U.S.- Britain needs the money more…
As an aside Switch- I noticed in your most recent game with Bebo that on G1 you bring an artillery rather than an armor from S Europe. I’ve always brought the armor to give greater mobility on G2- does your move presuppose that the Allied player will go after Egypt, so that you don’t lose 2 armor? Or is it to have a greater armored punch in Europe? Or a bit of both? Just wondering… always looking for ways to improve my strats.
-
RE: Strategic Withdrawal for Germany
Withdrawal from W Russia would allow Germany to become too big too quickly.
I always hope for the odds in W Russia- killing 3 Russian infantry on the first turn makes me feel good about the sacrifice my soldiers had to make…
-
RE: Yak Attack
Switch- an issue I see with it as well is Africa. It seemed as though most of your support went immediately north, without unloading early in Africa to clean it up. If German and follow up Japanese forces get rooted in Africa, it may affect the game enough to make it an economic war- with the balance slightly in the Axis’ favor due to the loss of most of Africa.
If you had foreseen this and planned for it in your strat, what specifically would you do?
As an aside, a house rule I sometimes use allows Russia to potentially develop Yak Fighters later in the game- 7 IPCs, attack on a 3, defend on a 2, but can attack land units only -an attempt to capture the essence of the Yak- a heavily armored, slow but devastating ground attack aircraft (but terrible in air-to-air combat and therefore can only attack or defend against ground units). They’re excellent for trading territories, and cost effective.
-
RE: Making UK more exciting
The worst part is checking out the game the next morning and wondering just exactly what you were thinking. Oh man I’ve made some bad moves on whiskey.
When I play FTF I write down every purchase for every nation (leaves a nice purchasing history)- but I’ve seen one paper where the writing got so big and sloppy I could hardly read it. :oops: Drunken hieroglyphics.
Remember kids- you must be 21 to purchase and imbibe intoxicating substances…
Are we off topic or is this really the key to making the UK more exciting?
-
RE: West Coast Garrison
I play FTF with just one player- we alternate sides. He happens to be the 7th ranked player on the Flames of Europe site, so I get good competition. We’re about 50/50 on wins- the game we’re in now will decide the balance but I’m in some trouble with the Axis.
Anyhow, we feel that the game is nearly balanced, but we use several house rules to try to give the Axis a nudge.
-
RE: West Coast Garrison
Great point. I’m not used to the German players that I play against moving out of the Baltic- they usually stay put to hold the north as long as possible. We also don’t play with bids, so our German moves never include the German player trying to combine fleets- the Egypt move has to be done with navy.
The extra Fighter would be helpful though, especially the longer the game went. It might also be a deterrent to the German fleet moving out in the first place.
-
RE: About Caucasus
Nice example Frimmel.
I like killing the Ukraine. But I’d only advocate doing it if you’re confident in your UK and US logistical acumen. Imagine it as a tug of war. If you see Germany being pulled deeper into Russia you need to find a way to pull them back. There are many threads here regarding maximum efficiency with the Allies, especially regarding how to set up Transport chains to get the maximum amount of troops on the ground in Europe (first priority) and Africa. This is key to Russia’s play. If you know the Allies will be showing up - 8 units per turn from Britain on turn 2 and a quickly escalating US presence of 6, then 8, then 10 units per turn, then you can be aggressive with Russia. If you plan on nibbling at the edges then you’d better be conservative. A trading war on the front with Germany gets deadly really fast if the Allies aren’t putting any pressure on Germany’s flanks or diverting Germany’s economy into killing Brits and Americans.
-
RE: Making UK more exciting
Well, Switch, since you slapped me to the curb with your response… :-)
Did I mention that I pull the Brit navy away when I’m feeling conservative? Yup. And with proper logistics Africa can be sealed up quickly with the help of the 2 extra Infantry from Australia. It keeps Germany out of S Africa if Egypt wasn’t immediately re-taken. Nothing wrong with that. And being dreadfully out of position to hurt Japan just happens to make the UK perfectly in position to keep Germany’s economy down. You say tomatoe, I say tomato… many ways to skin the ol proverbial cat. If you like skinning cats.
But to make Britain’s turn more exciting… drink more beer.
-
RE: Making UK more exciting
When I’m feeling conservative I pick up the New Zealander on UK1 and bring him back to Australia- back to the original SZ. I then keep an eye on the Jap navy- if everything had to move out of range I head the transport West toward Africa. 2 Brits stay to make Australia not quite a cakewalk. The Transport/ 2 Infantry team up quite easily with the original Carrier which had also retreated to SZ 34 or Rhodesia SZ. The U.S. Ftr in Hawaii went to Australia on US 1, and then voila! it lands on the UK Carrier on US2. The US Ftr is in the appropriate theater 1 turn earlier than if it had flown across the U.S. to Britain or Algeria. It also protects the Brit Carrier and can be useful during US3 in Africa.
In the meantime I would do the normal stuff I do- kill Jap tranny with the destroyer, and use the Brit Ftr to either take back Egypt or help the sub kill the Jap sub- then land on the US Hawaiin Carrier to make Japan’s life more miserable.
Try it, you’ll like it. And it’s not too risky- just quietly effective.
-
RE: West Coast Garrison
James- I agree that the UK often doesn’t have the cash to build extra transports. The flow of a particular game would dictate that purchase. I’d use it at a key time when Germany is threatening a key position to force them to move some troops into defensive positions or keep them at home.
My secret (don’t tell anyone) UK first turn move is 2 Transports/ 3 Infantry/ 1 Armor. It provides the UK the opportunity to deliver 8 land units on UK2, which is pretty devastating that early in the game. It forces Germany to make quick decisions regarding the defense of France/ Norway. It relieves pressure on Russia. If the idea is to get the maximum number of Allied land units to the mainland in as quick a time as possible, what’s not to like about that purchase? I’ve seen that purchase single-handedly demoralize someone who had never seen it before. It works particularly well if the person purchased a Carrier, as German land forces are in shorter supply. Germany has to choose immediately- defend my flanks or give them up to go after Russia?
A British Carrier on UK1 hasn’t made sense to me since I started using the 2 Transport strategy. Take all Allied navy to Algeria on turn 1, build two Transports out of range of German aircraft. Or sit in SZ8, and let the US join you for added protection (works best with a US1 build of a Carrier and 2 Transports), go wherever you desire on turn 2 and then build a Carrier, after your infrastructure is in place. Now your British and US fleets can act together or independently, as each will have Battleships/ Carriers/ and Transports rather than one nation relying on the other.
-
RE: West Coast Garrison
Exactly DM. When I’m Germany and I see only 4 Brit transports I know exactly how much the UK can bring to my flanks. 5 or 6 transports allows a constant threat of 10-12 land units to W Europe, Germany, and E Europe, as long as you’re operating in SZ 6 or in the Baltic. It forces Germany to either hold back more troops from eating Russians- or if they don’t you can land with more force, which might allow you to land U.S. troops w/ fighters to reinforce. Which for Germany is scary.
When defending my flanks as Germany I use Britain’s transport capacity to determine how strongly I defend my coast- if Britain can’t destroy the entire force then the U.S. can’t land fighters- if they do it can easily put them over the top and allow them to hold the territory.
4 transports for Britain does make sense logistically- if you’re more concerned about getting help to the center of the board then don’t buy more- but more does have its advantages.
Back on topic. A west coast garrison is important, especially the logistical method outlined by others. I’ve made the mistake of not defending it and had to deal with a constant Japanese flow- I over-corrected in the next game by defending W Canada so heavily that it was impossible to take. I think a better idea is a compromise- a light continuously moving garrison of 4 Inf (with an AA from W US if any Japanese airforce is nearby), with Armor built in W US- also constantly flowing east- is plenty. If Japan wants to devote resources to that then it means Russia is able to breathe a little easier.
-
RE: Starting Germany off…
Exactly. Never lose focus on the importance of Infantry. Keep buying 8-10 per turn and you will hold out a long time vs. a KGF. Eventually the stacks of Infantry can become offensive as well.
-
RE: What to do with my German Navy?
Don’t get attached.
The 16 IPCs for a Carrier is designed to force the Allies to react to your move, rather than letting them set the pace. Eventually the navy will die- turn 4 against top competition is about right. In the meantime Germany has been able to funnel troops to Karelia more quickly, and makes a northern move more risky for the Allies. Also, Norway is worth 3 IPCs, so it allows you to contest it (with minimal troops, most should be heading to Russia) longer into the game.
To me it’s a bad idea to spend any more IPCs on German navy- but there might come a point when a sub or transport could keep your navy alive for one more turn. If the end is near and you can’t stop it, make sure your Fighters get to land before the end comes.
To me combining the navies only makes sense in a bid game, when Germany can place an extra unit in Africa to take Egypt and still move the navy to Gibraltar. Otherwise it makes no sense (at least to me). Britain’s weak underbelly becomes not-so-weak when Egypt’s economy and units belong to them to start the game.
-
RE: Top 5
Ok. I’ll try.
#1 Radiohead
#2 Metallica pre Black Album
#3 Pink Floyd
#4 Faith No More
#5 Peter Murphy/ BauhausTop 5 Songs? Holy crap that’s a tough one…
#1 Band on the Run- Paul McCartney and Wings
#2 Us and Them- Pink Floyd
#3 For Whom the Bell Tolls- Metallica
#4 Indigo Eyes- Peter Murphy
#5 Jerusalem- Sinead O’ConnerHonorable Mention…
#6 The Long and Winding Road- Beatles
#7 The Unforgettable Fire- U2
#8 Leper Messiah- Metallica
#9 Porch- Pearl Jam
#10 Synchronicity II- The Police