Posts made by aaFiendish

@ncscswitch:

But that turtle can open up… in MASSIVE force… in ANY direction.

You seem very frightened of the turtle after octo pummeled you with it. While it’s true that it can open up, it is three rounds before russia has to worry if germany is turtling in berlin.

@trihero:

No I did not make it. But what’s really good about it is how it runs on everyone’s computers instead of some other fancy ones that require certain programs or RAM.

It still requires a web browser  :evil:

It’s also awfully painful to use in lynx.

@Axel:

interesting!!!
(you can tell me more if you want)

Or you could go into the game section and read it yourself, it’s a good one.

Nix, you usually don’t have a bomber left. Well, you may, but it is statistically unlikely. If you want to play by made up odds because by some miracle the holy one has blessed your dice, go ahead. For us mere mortals though, we like to stick to the actual odds of an attack, and what the benefits are to it. Even if you get LUCKY and kill his units, you still lose your fighter and bomber. Not really a worthy trade in my book.

If you expect the enemy to not build full defense when you plop down 5 transports you are crazy.

That’s too much money spent in the baltic, you will crumble if the allies have anywhere near decent play.

To clarify Triforce’s point, you would have to attack ONLY with fighters and bombers to have that option. Therein lies the trick with strafing. Overstrafing is usually worse than not strafing at all, and sometimes it’s gonna happen.

No one in the group I play with (a pool of 10 or so, lets say) ever gets bored. We all stare and drool at the board regardless if we are playing teams or not. Maybe, triforce, you play with a bunch of spineless people, and your coalition is run by a dictator (which would be appropo for the axis). I tend to play with people who see logic and can make reasonable arguments about why X is good and Y is bad. Sometimes I am the X, sometimes I am the Y.

I find that playing only one ally is pretty boring (specifically the UK). Nowadays we usually all just form a team and don’t have individual countries. As long as everyone is on the same level of play it pretty much works out, and if there are any disagreements you can always consult the die to arbitrate. We usually have a designated roller for each country just so we can claim the largest snake-eyes roller, but otherwise a country’s actions are a teams decision.

While you may think…

@triforce:

Anything with two heads is a freak.

I would agree. I think what most people need to realize is that the axis and the allies are each a “thing”, and playing either of them with two heads, let alone three, is going to result in a problem. If not socially, than certainly tactically.

Of course, it’s always fun to have your very own country that you make all decisions about, but I assure you that germany buying 2 bombers every round is likely to upset me as japan more than me being able to call him an idiot for 30 minutes before he makes that buy.  :evil:

Note that even though you can unload troops you can not do bombardment.

The problem MuthaRussia is that you are assuming a poor decision / poor choice by the opponent, which is not a good strategy to follow.

Japan becoming a superpower is as inevitable as the sun coming up (lets bar some very nice kjf play for the sake of this discussion, since an indian IC is pretty obvious during kjf play). The problem is that even if japan is twice as powerful as one ally, they are only as powerful as two. If germany is out of the picture, they cannot stand up to three, and that is where the game is won, in my opinion. Japan, without any allied intervention, cannot be at russia’s doorstep in absolute minimal force until round 3. However, through good play both on the east by russia, and on the west by the other allies, russia should be able to delay a japanese push into their IC’d territories until something like round 7, if not indefinitely. Of course, if the axis are playing well, this doesn’t happen and germany and japan are at russia’s doorstep at say, round 5, and this inevitably leads to russia’s defeat. As long as the allies can prevent germany from getting to russia in force, russia should be able to prevent japan showing up in enough force to take moscow for quite awhile.

I think most people overestimate japan. There is no denying that in most games japan is or will become very powerful, it is more a question of timing. Japan as uber-powerful as they are before or after germany is gone is not important, or rather, does not have to be important. As long as russia can keep japan at bay long enough for germany to fall the game is over. In a successful allied version of KGF (which obviously does not always work), I divide the game into three sections.

1. Germany’s eastward progression is halted due to russian agression, and mounting pressure from allied fleet landings in the north and potential threats in the west. This usually should commence around, I’d say round 3/4 I think.
2. Russia can now ignore germany for the most part and turn around to face japan. This coincides roughly with around the time japan is near important russian territories, and is not taking into account minor skirmishes around china, india, and yakut/burytia. Until japan can turn its dominant economics into units on the front line, russia can remain at parity and then some with japan, keeping them at bay and from standing in novo or persia in force. Meanwhile allied pressure continues against germany, assisted from russia if possible.
3. Germany falls. Russia if it cannot continue assaulting japan turtles up and holds out until allied troops can arrive in force. If this fails, russia falls, but if germany has fallen one or two rounds before, it doesn’t matter.

That’s how I try and deal with it, anyhow. Your mileage (and mine) may vary.

If I have the capability to build navy off of the east coast of russia, I usually consider one of two options.

1. Shove splinters up opponents sphincter to convince them to surrender.
2. Drink ten shots of grain to keep things interesting.

Yes and yes.

@mojo:

i disagree i’m reading the rules manual from revised. whenever a air unit enters a territory. so roll all air units at once, attacker choses casualites. SBR is only bombers so you roll that seperately

The FAQ is meant to be a clarification of the rules, because they cannot reprint and automatically insert it into the box. Therefore, the FAQ supersedes the rules, and LHTR if you want to go with those would also supersede the rules in the printed version of the manual.

Exactly.  8-)

You can do that mojo if you want to be ignoring the errata which clearly specifies that it is not the case, which is of course fine as that is common in this game.

To trihero’s question -

_Is anti-aircraft fire targeted against specific aircraft?

Yes. In practice, you can roll a handful of dice against all enemy fighters, then roll another handful against all enemy bombers. The reason for this rule is so that bombers will be forced to take hits from AA guns._

I would say that it clearly states that you can pick whichever fighter you wish. Again from http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised - which you can count as a reliable source or not.

Try and suspend disbelief when applying rules of a game to reality. There are plausible and not plausible situations where everything could occur. For example, bombers destroyed a lot of fighters in WW2. They were grounded fighters, but still. And yes, subs cannot defend, but they can submerge after first round.

Well, there are 5 in play in europe/russia, which is plenty. The axis and allies each get “a lot” when combined. If you are seriously complaining about over-analyzing, why are you on a forum discussing all the nuances of play? 

I don’t see too many people buying them, but they are a very useful piece to have. Lets take the caucus for example, and you have 4 inf, 2 fighters there. Germany is going to attack with 4 inf, 4 fighters. With your aagun there, germany’s chances are at 72% or so, but they will likely not have any inf left to take. Without the aagun there is a shift to 90%, and they probably will take with infantry.

I think you underrate aaguns. In the course of a game I’d say that each aagun is likely to take out at least one air piece, maybe more. Considering that you get a lot of them for free, I wouldn’t complain.

I don’t know about where it is in the rules, but…

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/faqs/axisrevised

"Is anti-aircraft fire targeted against specific aircraft?

Yes. In practice, you can roll a handful of dice against all enemy fighters, then roll another handful against all enemy bombers. The reason for this rule is so that bombers will be forced to take hits from AA guns."

1. Everything can attack everything. The ONE exception is that subs cannot hit planes.
2. Memory?
3. Typically just the ones that didn’t start off as yours. That is, even though the country is dark red, if germany owns it you want a token on it. If there is no token on a land, it is assumed to belong to the original country.
4. Hmmm, I don’t know, or I forget.
5. A plane can land anywhere that was owned by it or an ally at the beginning of the combat phase. You cannot land in newly taken over territories or anything owned by an enemy. If there is not enough movement for a plane to reach a safe landing area, then it may not attack.
6. Trihero does a good job elsewhere, but basically you must state when you move a fighter into combat a valid place for the fighter to land. That can either be, as above, a territory, or it can be a sea zone. If it is a seazone, you must show how a carrier can reach that sea zone. If it is even vaguely conceivably possible for a carrier to reach, then it is fine. BUT, the carrier must follow through on the actions stated at the beginning of the turn. Example: A fighter moves 4 spaces to attack 1 transport, therefore it must land in that sea zone. There is a carrier two spaces away that will move there, but there are 20 battleships in between the two. That player can attack the battleships with a bomber, and say they are going to move the carrier into the fighter sea after the battleships are cleared in noncombat. Of course, the battleships are never going to be cleared because they, just won’t, but it is still a valid possibility. At the end of this turn your fighter will die, because it has nowhere to land. But, there was a potentially valid place for it too land at the beginning of the turn, so it was able to make the attack. If there was no valid conceivable place to land, it couldn’t attack the transport. (answer editted from being 20 subs to battleship, thanks to trihero’s point. I knew there was going to be something wrong with the example).
7. Find better friends  :evil:

@ncscswitch:

Another risk with Ukraine is it leaves Caucuses less well defended.  Germany can get there with Amphib forces, BB, and AF.

Not really a big deal though switch. You can bring 1 inf, 1 arm via transport and drop them. You can only bring 2 fighters. Ukraine one is dead, west europe, norway, germany cannot reach and land anywhere. So, the most you can bring is 1 inf, 1 arm, 2 figs, 1 bmb, bb shot. That gives you about 20% shot on caucus, with only 4 inf 2 figs there.

I would definitely expect the germans to counter the tanks, to me it is completely worth it for germany to do so. However, I estimate the trade of 2 russian armor, 1 artillery, 3 inf to be well worth 1 german armor, 1 art, 1 fig, 3 inf. I could see how it may not be worth it for some though. I just hate german figs.

Are you sure that 9 inf, 1 arm, 1 art vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm is a 80% chance? I am pretty sure it is not…

Hmmm, I’m not so sure about that trihero. If I attack ukraine with…

3 inf, 1 art, 2 arm, 2 figs

then that leaves for west russia…

9 inf, 1 art, 2 arm. I guess you are talking about a full ukraine attack, so that’d be 3 arm in ukraine and 1 arm in west russia. So, with 9 inf, 1 arm, 1 art in west russia, you are looking at as you say about a 99% chance, don’t you? I mean, 9 inf, 1 arm, 1 art vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm? Then in ukraine you have 3 inf, 1 art, 3 arm, 2 figs vs. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig. You’ll say that’s about 96%. Attacking without that extra armor still gives you a greater than 80% chance. I very often keep the armor back and use it against west russia instead, because as you say, you will lose armor in a counter. Maybe my odds for west russia while doing the ukraine attack are very off for some reason…

With the extra armor in west russia that is a sure win, so you have about a 20% failure rate in ukraine. It’s probably more than that if don’t want to risk your fighters at all. I usually play lowluck so ukraine is always valid percentage-wise, so I guess I should have taken that into account.

I still think the move is valid though, even with “only” a 80% success rate. The question is, do you think it would be legitimate if you were guaranteed to take out ukraine and in return lose 2 armor? I can see that losing 3 would be worse news, but I am willing to trade 2 arm, 1 art 3 inf for 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig. I would not be willing to trade 3 arm for that same amount as russia.