Sounds like Don’s strategie to me. You can see them at:
Posts made by C_F
-
RE: OLD STATEGIES page need help!
-
RE: Allied Winning Percentage???
Okay, so lets say you have two good players who know how to coordinate between their countries and you are not playing bids. Since the axis guy is thinking he has about, at best, a 10% shot at winning, I think his best bet is to go for tech.
I almost never roll for it myself in a serious game, but if you consider that if Germany or Japan got either industrial technology or heavy bombers the axis would almost certainly win. On their first round the axis would get 11 chances to get a tech and although I haven’t checked it I believe the chances that one of those 11 comes up as heavies or industrial tech is a better than 10%. Especially if you are playing axis advantage. With jet power and super subs already taken I would say the axis have about a 33% chance of getting a “winning” tech on the first round.
Granted your destruction as the axis would be inevitable if you got something useless or nothing at all, not to mention that this would make the game really boring. Set everything up only to have the game decided by the end of Japans first turn.
-
Allied Winning Percentage???
People are always throwing out numbers that say the allies win 90% or 95% or whatever% of the time. Obviously if you have experienced players this will happen, even with RR and Axis advantage. However, does anyone have any actual numbers on the winning percentage of allies without bids?
-
RE: Naval Retreat
Even if the computer game let it happen you shouldn’t be able to. The battles are supposed to be happening at the same time so I think the sub should retreat and you decide where to after the combat phase is over.
-
RE: 4 Player Idea
One thing that could be fun would be to play this version, but have a non aggression pact between Russia and Japan. So Japan could attack the US in Asia and Africa, but could not hurt Russia in the East. Might make for some fun naval battle in the pacific. Otherwise don_riggins is right, Russia gets stomped.
-
RE: 4 Player Idea
hmmm……I am thinking that the US and Russia would get destroyed. Germany could just overwhelm Russia after a few turns. Maybe if there was no Russia restricted and you had a good allied player…
-
RE: Some Math
Whatever happened to kissing the dice and hoping for the best! J/k very nice, only one thing. When you said:
hence the attacking strength of infantry is aproximatly 1.4 time the defending strength
I think you meant that the defending strength was 1.4 times the attacking strength. Obviously infantry is better at defending than attacking, but everyone also knows that 10 inf attacking 5 inf will win almost every time. So you need 1.4 times as many attakcers as defenders when it is just infantry. I tried it on an odds grapher and it is just about dead even, very helpful, thanks.
-
RE: No more Pearl Harbours?
I wasn’t very clear on that last post, thats what happens when you write these at work.
I was trying to say that there really isn’t anything else to do with the Japanese Pacific fleet except Pearl Harbor, unless you want to do the Brazil thing. The three IPC’s from Brazil are not important, what is important is that the most powerful fleet in the atlantic now belongs to the axis and you can put a stop to the US/UK tranports for a few turns.
You are right, the US can block you with their fleet, but if they do that you can pretty much just go back to your normal game. All sorts of territories are in range from Hawaii.
-
RE: No more Pearl Harbours?
My bad blocky I was looking at a map online and couldn’t make out one of the SZ borders. Three turns to Algeria does not make Pearl Harbor nearly as important, but what the hell else are you going to do with your battleships and sub. You can coastal bombard in a place or two, and you can use them to protect tranports that harrass Alaska, Mexico, etc…
If you go west with them and use them to attack India then the US can make problems for your transports. I say take the two battlships and the sub and send everything else towards asia, especially if Russia and the UK make a slightly heavier stand in India and Eastern Russia.Another option is operation Ronaldo Ichiyama, said with a Brazilian accent. I call it that, I just made up the name, but I am stealing the idea from someone else, because I knew a Japanese guy who was born in Brazil and of course had a Brazilian accent.
If the UK builds a carrier and the UK and Russia are light in east Asia on T1 then take the whole fleet and the bomber except 1 transport, thats 1 sub, 1 bomber, 1 transport w/2 inf, full carrier,and two BS to Pearl Harbor. The Philipines transport stays in home waters.
Your objective is Brazil, but it also makes a tempting target to the US fleet and airforce. If the US attacks you with everything then both your fleets are pretty mangled but the UK carrier gets no support and Germany can sink it, which would severly hamper the allied shipping. If they do not bring the two extra fighters they get toasted in the battle.
You go through the Panama Canal and take Brazil on T3. On T4 you build a IC in Brazil and on T5 3 subs. The mission now is to introduce that pesky allied fleet to a real armada. If you have super subs you can really do some damage.
Asia will be a little tough without that transport and two fighters, not to mention the money going to subs in Brazil. But, you are using the full capabilities of your fleet and this game is won and lost in two places. The Russian front and the Atlantic Ocean.
The US can stop if if they want, do not go crazy trying to defend the IC in Brazil, but if you can produce subs for two or three turns while they are marching to South America you can really slow down the supply line to Europe.
Instead of Brazil you can go west for Egypt. Egypt has the advantage of being able to support the your buddies in Asia and the German med. fleet, and is more protected, but only 2 subs per turn and the US now has a powerful fleet that it can block up the med with.
-
RE: No more Pearl Harbours?
Granted the UK fleet never goes anywhere except to Africa, but check this out.
T1
UK: 1 Carrier, 1 Transport
Move Any remaining UK fleet to UK SZ (Possibly WCA Tran. or BS)
US: 4 Transports, 2 Infantry
Move Fighters to UK Carrier
Move EUS Transport to UK SZ
Move all infantry and armor to EUS or W Canada
T2
G: To smart to attack either UK SZ with whole Luftwafte or 4 EUS Transports with 1 Bomber.
UK: 2-3 Transports Some Infantry Depending on MoneyNow comes the problem.
Does the UK move the carrier to africa to defend the US Transports that will be bringing 6 inf and 1 armor or does it defend it’s newly purchased transports?
You could wait one whole round so that the US and UK could go after africa together, but now Germany has had 3 turns to itself in Africa and the Russians don’t like it.
However if Japan was kind enough not to destroy the US fleet in the Pacific. The carrier/fighter, BS, sub, and transport can meet the five US tranports in the Algiers SZ on T2. This gives you an extra fighter and BB to attack any German units that are there and a strongly defended fleet and all of the tranports the US will probably ever need.
Furthermore this allows the UK to transport totally independently and can drop off in EE, Germany, Gibraltar, or Karelia without the US transports having to waste a turn following them around.
-
RE: British in bliss??
Very cool variant and as ozone mentioned accurate too. Unfortunately it gives an even bigger advantage to the allies. With Russias eastern front safe the UK/Russia combo can take care of Germany all by themselves. And the US gets to play naval combat in the pacific, which is a hell of a lot more fun than transporting wave after wave of infantry to Finland/Norway.
-
RE: Axis rock!
I think the axis are more fun to play even if you don’t win. As blocky said how fun is it as the allies to buy 8 infantry with Russia and park them in Karelia, 10 infantry with the UK and land them in FN, and what a shock 12 infantry with the US and land them in FN. Excitement at its best!!! Besides if you win as the allies, the other guy just shrugs and says, “Well you had the allies….”
As the axis you can try all sorts of crazy stuff and not loose face because if it works you WON AS THE AXIS!! Amazing and if it doesn’t work then no biggie you can check that strategy off as no good.
-
RE: No more Pearl Harbours?
I agree that sometimes Pearl Harbor seems a little silly sometimes, but as the US I like to have my own fleet in the Atlantic. One problem with the British carrier/US fighters on T1 being the only strong allied navy is the US transports always have to go to the same place as the UK transports/carrier. Otherwise they are sitting ducks for the German airforce.
If the US and UK have seperate, except for the US fighters on the Brits carrier, fleets the US can drop off in WE, FN, or Africa every turn, while the Brits can drop off in any of those plus Gibraltar, EE or Karelia. Granted it takes a couple of turns for them to go through Panama, but I like having the flexibility. -
RE: A&A CD
Just kidding blocky……yeah Americans were upset about the Royal Navy over stepping their bounds and they wanted to show they couldn’t be pushed around. So we declared war and after the two year scuffle was over nobody harrased US shipping anymore. The British did burn our capital to the ground, but Andrew Jackson destroyed the British in New Orleans.
However, the last war the US fought in was WWII. War has not been declared by Congress in Vietnam, Korea, Panama, the Persian Gulf, or anywhere else since WWII. So we won in The Revolutionary War and withdrew from Vietnam, which by the way was a success.
-
RE: Bomber Strategy and Karelian Gambit.
I always like ideas that are a little bit different. I pretty much agree with blocky and ozone, except that if I usually do a reduced Pearl Harbor. If the US has it’s own carrier and BS it gives the allies a little more latitude when transporting troops to Europe.
I guess you don’t play Russia restricted, which pretty much gives the game to the allies if you are not bidding. The strategy of giving Karelia to Germany so you can run bombing raids on it is interesting, but I have to say that as Germany I would let you keep Karelia and use my German and Japanese bomber to bomb Russia. 7 IPC’s a turn being taken from Russia is going to hurt them especially since they get no support from British and US transports. Also the lack of a serious allied navy is going to let me go wild in africa and collect 35-40 IPC’s a turn. I can just sit in EE and the Ukraine, straif Moscow now and then, and wait for Japan to swallow Asia. If the allies see after a couple of turns that I am not taking the bait and decide to start transportnig troops to WE, FN, and Karelia then the Japanese have gained much needed time to win the race.
I really do like the idea of giving someone a IC so you can bomb them though, but only the allies are rich enough. Maybe let Japan have the UK complex or have the US build in Sinkiang, since they have more disposable $$$. As soon as they put an AA gun there though it is not very attractive.
-
RE: A & A EXPERTS!!! T1 German Med Fleet–what DO you do?
Expert advice? Probably not, but here it goes anyway. I think you are right about not wanting to be in the atlantic. Too easy for US aircraft to just sink you on the way to England, WE, or FN.
T1 - One Transport, 8 Inf
I would use one fighter to get rid of the sub. You can leave the 1 inf in algeria and blitz the tank west to take the two territories south of Algeria and Libya, don’t remember the names. On non-combat you can ferry over two mor inf and now you have 3 in Libya, 1 in Algeria, and an armor in French West Africa. Be sure to put 4 inf in SE.
You may lose Algeria to the allies, but you can attack it on T2 with 3 inf and the tank can go north or east. If England still has one inf and 1 armor in egypt you can dump 4 inf a BB on it, assuming the sub is dead. If the sub isn’t dead I would go for it anyway and lose the BS if it hits. Send a fighter to the sub too, because you want to make sure it dies. Pain in the a** if the BS misses and it submerges.Of course any strategy changes depending on what your oppenent does. One thing though. If you think your fleet is going to die before you get to use it again. I would use it as cannon fodder with the airforce to take out some of the now very scary allied fleet.
To the real experts, any thoughts?
-
RE: Strategic Bombing Raids Don't Work
I don’t want to be rude, but I can pretty much gurantee you that if you rolled 500 times for AA that about 1/6 of your bombers died. The ones that made it through did almost exactly 3.5 IPC’s of damage per bomber. If you want to bet that 3 of 4 of your rolls are 5’s. I will give you 100 to 1 , we can roll 500 times, and I would put every dime I own on it.
-
RE: A question about Naval battles…
Yeah, it would totally screw with the game, but sometimes that is fun. There is always room for improvement and you never know where you might find it.
-
RE: New to site with noob questions!!
The allies win if they meet in Berlin?? I have never heard of that before. What if Moscow has been taken by Japan and there is a huge German force in Western and Southern Europe ready to crush the allies in Berlin. I know it is not an official rule.
-
RE: A question about Naval battles…
Your friend is right, but I can see your point. Remember though that if you sink his transports they take their cargo to the bottom of the sea with them.
Giving tanks that capability would make them more valuable. It might even turn the tables in the game because the axis could expand at an alarming rate.
Ozone, he was talking about blitzing through territory on land. For example, Germany has a bunch of infantry, tanks, and planes in EE. They take the Ukraine with the infantry and planes and then the tanks blitz through on the same combat move with the tanks to attack Caucus.
I think it would be a realistic rule, but only if the 2nd territory was completely empty and the tanks could only partake as attack units with zero strength in the first territory.