I’m a big fan of this one:
Posts made by Amalec
-
RE: Why is Taranto raid so popular?
The big boon to Taranto is that it’s just such a low risk, high reward play. If you win, you all but cripple Italy’s ability to threaten the Med without also tying up significant German resources. If you lose, your losses are mostly units you won’t really miss while each of Italy’s losses limits it’s options severely.
-
RE: Japan Attacking Northeast Russia Accompanied by Sealion
Viability of Sealion aside, I think Japan’s best option to support a Sealion is to blitz the Pacific hard in order to either delay America’s liberation of London or take advantage of America’s focus in the Atlantic.
Russia is unlikely (and would be unwise) to send units east to save a handful of IPCs. While Russia losses 1-2 IPCs a turn, Japan is has to dedicate huge amounts of it’s land and air forces to chasing the Amur stack across Siberia. And what does that look like when you factor in build time and location? 2 less infantry on the Russia/German boarder on R6? 6 less on R9? It’s just not enough gain for the investment.
Every turn delay to liberating London, on the other hand, keeps Atlantic UK’s entire income out of the war. It provides 8ipc per turn to Germany, which it can use much more efficiently than Japan. It keeps cash cows like Norway in German hands. A monster Japan is itself a huge threat of a victory city win, and forces the Allies to react accordingly instead of pounding Germany.
-
RE: France survives turn 1, what now?
Going light on Paris with 80% and losing isn’t bad luck, it’s poor play.
Think about it from this perspective:
Taking Normandy and Southern France on G1 (or whatever else you’re using those units for) results in a 1 in 5 chance of losing the game outright. Are those good moves?Or from your opponent’s perspective:
Wouldn’t you take a battle at 10-20% chance of success if winning it gave you the game and losing it only cost you a couple of IPCs? -
RE: What is your least-purchased unit?
There is basically no situation where infantry are a better defensive investment than AA when you’re sure they’ll make use of all three shots.
Disagree, I just ran a typical German assault on Moscow. Giving the Russian +2 infantry gave a better defense than +1 AAA (and I made sure there were enough planes for the AAAs).
2 infantry are also 20% more expensive, so that’s not surprising.
-
RE: What is your least-purchased unit?
@Caesar:
I don’t see the justification for buying unit that has a 3/18 chance of hitting aircraft when I can spend more for infantry and get better results.
- It’s not a 3/18 chance of hitting. It’s a 43% chance of hitting with a smaller possibility of two or even three hits. That’s nearly 30% more likely to hit than an infantry unit.
- AA hits are much more valuable than infantry hits. They immediately kill 10-12IPC units, rather than 3IPC infantry, and they kill it before it can fire - which is a 3/6 or 4/6th chance of saving one of your own units outright.
- They don’t fire after the first round of combat - but neither do dead infantry. Just take a AA loss first and save an infantry.
There is basically no situation where infantry are a better defensive investment than AA when you’re sure they’ll make use of all three shots. More interestingly, the AA performs cost effectively no matter how badly you lose a battle - unlike, say, a fighter who lands a hit taken on an infantry and is then killed. An AA costs 5IPC and averages a fighter kill half the time. If you’re going to lose a battle badly and can’t avoid it, AA are the best way of burning as much of your opponents IPC as possible.
-
RE: What is your least-purchased unit?
I think AA guns are underrated. Basically, in any defensive battle where you’ll face at least 3 attacking aircraft an AA gun is a better IPC investment than infantry - and infantry was already the best IPC investment for a defensive battle. It becomes a better if you’re going to lose the battle, which you likely will, or you wouldn’t be attacked.
The problem with building AA isn’t the unit itself, but the game:
- Everyone starts with pretty much ‘enough’ AA. There’s no need to build more.
- Land battle TUV losses almost always heavily favor the attacker, so the optimal defensive strategy pretty much always ‘don’t get attacked’ - either through deterrence or movement.
Still, I’ve definitely built more AA guns than cruisers or battleships.
-
RE: What is your most-purchased unit?
Might be more interesting if the vote was weighted somehow. Even as the US I likely buy more infantry than any other unit while probably investing more IPC in bombers.
-
RE: Russia Question
Amalec….play Russia here…you are the Russian player facing this scenario…German movement into your territory is a friendly act when especially you are allied to the Italians? You would consider this friendly or aggressive movement by the Germans…considering you are now not being allowed to attack the Italians by your presence? WITH ABSOLUTELY no repercussions…and to boot collecting bonus income on a PACT you signed
Sure, it makes no sense. It’s also makes no sense for the German air force to, entirely on it’s own, wipe out a half dozen infantry divisions in Alexandria, but that’s the game we’re playing. It’s not a simulation.
You can keep saying PACT in all caps if you like, but the game mechanics do not recognize it the you think they should. As has been said: the rules are clear and established. I’ve done what I can to help you understand them, but this has turned into a pointless argument.
-
RE: Russia Question
Germany moving into Eastern Poland is interference
Oh my lord….slapping my head…it is breaking the pact
Please define “interference” in the rulebook. Please show what “act aggressively” means, and why a player cannot “act aggressively” towards a neutral power. Please show in the rulebook where the pact indicates Germany cannot move into original Russian territory. It does none of those things. Nor does anything else.
You don’t like the rule, and that’s fine. But the book only says what it says.
-
RE: Russia Question
And it prevents German encroachment into Russia should Russians withdraw to Bryansk and Germans keep moving in not DOW into Russia
This is not true. The extent of the pact is as follows:
This secret agreement, known as the MolotovRibbentrop
pact, assures that the Soviet Union will
remain neutral should Germany go to war in Europe. It
also permits each power to expand its sphere of influence
in Eastern Europe without interference from the other.
As a result, the Soviet Union may not declare war on any
Axis power before its fourth turn unless an Axis power
declares war on it first. However, if London is captured
by an Axis power, the Soviet Union may declare war on
its following turn.It is a restriction on when the SU can declare war. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
RE: Russia Question
the freaking non aggression PACT….sheesh man…Russian political situation
Europe rule book page 9…Molotov - Ribbentrop pact
Russia may declare war against AN axis power…SINGULAR…meaning ItalyGerman non combat move into East Poland (Italian controlled) is an aggressive move into a territory that was covered in the pact (All original Russian territories) hence breaking the pact meaning DOW and no bonus or it is an ILLEGALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL move…sheesh
and yes this scenario is not covered in the book in any form or fashion…hence those rules (Powers not at War) does not apply here
Russia may declare war against Italy, but it still cannot move into a territory with German units without declaring war on Germany.
A power can�t attack a territory controlled
by or containing units belonging to a power with
which it is not at war.I do not know why you think the Powers Not At War section does not apply to two powers not at war (Germany and Russia), but it does. The rules are all clear. At this point, you are arguing that 2+2 does not equal 4. You have left logic behind.
-
RE: Russia Question
Exactly….the rule book does not cover this scenario…you just made my point
Germans entering into an original Russian territory controlled by Italians hence breaks the pact…it is a DOW so no bonus…if they want to honor the pact then they can’t make that move�
I honestly cannot understand how you leap from ‘a Russian territory controlled by Italy is Friendly to Germany’, to ‘therefor Germany cannot move there’.
The territory is strictly defined as Friendly to Germany because it is Italian controlled. Germany can move into friendly territory.
This is the entirety of Germany’s political situation. There is no pact.
Political Situation: Germany is at war with France, the United Kingdom, and ANZAC. Germany may declare war on
the United States, the Soviet Union, or China at the beginning of the Combat Move phase of any of its turns. A state of
war between Germany and one of these three powers won’t affect its relations with the other two. -
RE: Russia Question
Amalec
No it is not….Germans and Russians have a non aggression pact…this is not Italian territory…It is a Russian territory in control by Italy…The Pact makes it a Russian territory…ILLEGAL
There is no support for your claims in the rulebook. The section on territories makes things very clear.
Territories
The border colors of the territories on the game board show which power controls them at the start of the game. Each
power has its own color and emblem (the United Kingdom controls the Canadian territories in addition to those with
its own emblem). When the rules refer to the �original controller� of a territory, they mean the power whose emblem is
printed on the territory. All other spaces are neutral and are not aligned with any power.[…]
All territories exist in one of three conditions:
Friendly: Controlled by you or a friendly power.
Hostile: Controlled by a power with which you are at war.
Neutral: Not controlled by any power, or controlled by a power on the other side with which you are not yet at war
(see �The Political Situation,� page 9). Neutral territories, such as Switzerland, have white borders and do not have any
power�s emblem on them. Most such territories also have a unit silhouette with a number, which indicates how many
infantry units the territory will generate to defend itself when its neutrality is violated. The Sahara Desert and Pripet
Marshes are impassable and may not be moved into or through by any units.As you can see, Italian-held but originally Russian territory is defined simply as “Friendly”.
-
RE: Russia Question
The rules are very clear:
It is legal for Germany to move into allied (Italian) held territory - regardless of the original owner.
It is illegal for Russia to combat move into a territory that contain units belonging to a power with whom it is not at war - regardless of the original owner.Why keep arguing the rules are dumb or make no real world sense? That has nothing to do with what the book clearly states. Change the at your table rules if you don’t like them and move on.
*Aside: it’s hardly uncommon for a ‘neutral’ power to occupy territory claimed but not controlled by another power without declaring war, either to hold it for a third party or annex it themselves. See: various ‘policing’ actions of the US, Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, etc.
-
RE: Question: How to minimise the damage from Germany swinging to the Middle East?
Russia’s primary purpose is to keep Germany busy. I believe a lot of players interpret that to mean “hold Moscow”, but that’s only a means to an end and should be disregarded if and when abandoning Moscow is a more effective means of keeping the Germans occupied than holding it.
Personally, I believe Russia should keep it’s ART numbers at around 50% of it’s infantry. A stack of 20 INF 9 ART vs 32 INF, for example, has a very small loss of defensive capacity for an enormous increase in offensive ability. You’re not going to be able to take the German stack head on, but it will allow you to keep Germany honest: to slow them down, keep them from splitting their forces and taking multiple objectives, force them to use their air defensively, etc. Without the offensive capacity Germany will leave you bottled up in Moscow building 2 infantry a turn while it continues to seize more industrial capacity.
A defensive battle, with Germany’s entire airforce in play, is unlikely to be in Russia’s interest in any case.
In other words, the best way to keep Germany from the Middle East is to slow the German advance as much as possible in the first turns, and then to maintain your ability to push back West as soon as they try to swing South.
-
RE: Sea Lion Discussion
I’ve found the best way to threaten/do Sealion is to sink the British navy as usual and then to simply not spend your turn 1 income.
On turn 2, if the UK hasn’t built significant land/air assets in London then you can build 10-14 transports, position/purchase your invasion troops on the coasts and optionally strategic bomb the London factory. Without significant UK1 investment in London’s defense, London is almost certain to fall. UK just can’t produce enough on UK2 to stand a real chance of defending London against you. You may need to purchase a carrier to protect your transports from UK2.
If they do invest in defending London on UK1, then you simply do Russia as usual - it won’t really cost you anything, since you can’t really push ahead of that G2 60+ IPC purchase anyway when you’re heading into Russia - and you’ve forced the UK into building units that they won’t get any real use out of for several turns instead of doing whatever they’d have liked to do.
-
RE: Deep dive & newbie questions as an Axis player
@Caesar:
No, after what I have seen, with a fast capture of India even more so if you grab money islands as you go, Japan may not necessarily need to smash China for victory. I can easily see Japanese victory over taking USSR in the east and UK/Dutch in the south. Maybe if they are ballsy and go into ANZAC. Japan is leaving good lands if s/he pulls out of China sure however China isn’t exactly a “death of an empire” situation.
While I think you can give up China and be successful as Japan, I think the Axis’ war effort as a whole will suffer for it. The primary issue isn’t the economic impact - it’s the loss of the Shanghai VC. With it Japan only needs two of the three of Calcutta, Hawaii and Sydney; without it they need all three. This delays their ability to threaten a VC win in the Pacific, and so delays their ability to force America to respond to a potential VC win. The ability to threaten a win on either side of the map is the Axis’ biggest strength; I wouldn’t compromise it without an extremely compelling reason.
-
RE: Bids, A&A Global 1940 ??
snip
I think Russia has more power than you’re giving it credit for. Being able to drive 2 separate stacks into Russia, far from your factories and close to theirs, each of which need to be capable of winning against the entire Russian stack without German air, by turns 3-5? I just don’t think Germany is capable of it. As for Russia taking losses - you’re not wrong but it’s still Russia’s best option in this scenario. With reasonable investment in artillery Russia’s offensive power is nearly as high as it’s defensive power - while Germany only gets a bonus to whatever infantry it lacks artillery for and can’t always make use of it’s air power for defense. What does Russia gain dying in Moscow against the combined German armies and air power, shooting only infantry when it could instead hit half of Germany’s stack, sans German air and with the potential to destroy valuable artillery/mecs/tanks while preserving/taking income?
Don’t get me wrong: I think your German moves are correct. And I don’t think a great Russia can beat even a good Germany, or stand them off indefinitely. I just think you’ll be forced to slow down, and that those who think Moscow can be reliably taken G5-G7 without Allied fighters are likely incorrect.
That said, I’ve never seriously considered dedicating Russian resources to China. Perhaps that’s the wrong approach; I’ll try it out next time my table plays. At a glance though, unless USA is already 100% invested in the Pacific I’d likely rather have Russia keeping those IPCs in the West - or use them to punch down to Iraq for 5IPCs/turn - and have America dedicate extra resources to the Pacific instead.
In any case, I’d love to game some scenarios out with you. I’ve used triplea but only hotseat, never live or PBEM.
-
RE: Bids, A&A Global 1940 ??
Also, IMHO, it’s best for Germany to march towards Leningrad first in order to secure that IC and National Objective.
Rarely do I see many G3 or G4 DOWs on Russia by Germany anymore. Ever since I learned how to get and keep Leningrad on G3, never have I tried different. For me, right on G2, I decide Sea Lion or Barbarossa. If Barbarossa, I stack everything on Baltic. Bulgarians defend Romania, and forces on Yugo defend Slovakia/Hungary. Then on G3, Germany moves into Leningrad. This is very standard play and it works for me well on table top games. This is probably in the Germany play book. Nothing special in this advance, but it’s tried and true for many players. G1 you purchase mostly slow ground (artillery), G2 mostly tanks some mechs, G3 mostly tanks/ some mechs, G4 tac. bombers (cause they can catch up to the stack) and fast movers from Leningrad (should be 3 tanks), G5 bombers…ect if allies aren’t going KGF.
On G3, the slow ground walkers (G1 purchase), make it to e. Poland because they have mechs/tanks catching up. At this point, in most cases, the huge stack at Leningrad, and your stack catching up at E. Poland, forces Russia to evacuate Belarus.
On G4, you stack everything at Belarus; (stack from Leningrad and e. Poland combine, plus you should be moving the Bulgarians up that way too if you didn’t take Greece, ect. because Italy is doing it’s job to defend Romania ect.).
Now, Russia might have enough stuff to stay at Bryansk. In most cases they won’t. But if they do this is where it gets tricky. To force Russia back, I’ve learned from others, you then move into Smolensk on G5 (rarely have I had to do that; mostly when I was very new). Russia has to evacuate Bryansk to the capital. Then on G6 you move into Bryansk. Make sure you’re bringing enough tanks to defend Bryansk from a Russian counter attack. Usually about 16 tanks some mechs and straight leg infantry/artillery is safe.
I’d like to play this out sometime. Russia in your example feels unreasonably complacent and isn’t taking advantage of it’s options. In practice I’ve never seen this work out so easily at my table. On G3/G4 your stack is effectively split in half, and a well positioned Russia should have the ability to hit one of your stacks with nearly it’s entire force of very cost effective inf/art. If you’re in position to counter, it should be able to decimate your force and then retreat to safety. Or to hit your follow up stack rather than your Leningrad stack, and build 20 infrantry in Moscow before your Leningrad stack can make it using the huge cash influx it gets from pushing briefly into Poland/the Balkans. Or even hit your Scandinavian forces on R2 that you’ve staged for Leningrad, and push towards their NOs in Finland/Norway. Moving into Smolensk to push Russia from Bryansk is asking for them to hit you in Smolensk with every piece they have on the board, and then retreat back to the safety of Moscow when you’ve got 3 units left.
That’s not to say those Russian options can’t be countered, but they generally slow Germany up much more than I ever see referenced on this forum.