Posts made by Dirt Baller

Japan, the land of many possibilities.

@Grigoriy:

It’s kind of like the thing where you can get 1=2.

Let x=y, then
xy=x^2
xy-y^2=x^2-y^2
y(x-y)=(x+y)(x-y)
y=x+y
y=y+y
y=2y
1=2
:lol:

@FleetCommander:

are you aware that 0.99999999 repeating is equal to 1 ?

Yes, they are equal. It’s like saying the limit of 1-x as x approaches 0 equals 1.

If the US is building its Pacific fleet as some sort of KJF strategy, then that’s one more reason to build transports to give Japan a bigger navy. Hopefully Japan will have one or more capital ships. Park them in Japan Sea and let the US match your transports.

There is usually no need to evacuate Japan’s islands anyway, usually just the Philippines.

Usually get at least 5 trns in Japan Sea before buying an ic, if ever.

Other

If playing 2nd ed rules (no air retreat), then Norway initially and may be Spain later.

If playing 3rd ed rules, then D-day and may be 1-2-3 punch on EE.

Never did SE.

I voted for 1 but it’s more like 95% USSR and 5% Africa.

Use the chips. 8)

Well, nobody says the rules are completely fair and you are welcome to play by your own house rules.

In this case the official rules are that, yes the transports unload to do amphibious assault right after the sea battle, and no the armors cannot blitz through an enemy occupied territory. The difference is that the transports are not in the disputed sea zone to do battle (they have no attacking ability) but solely to unload their troops, while you cannot hold back your armors from attacking in a battle.

I can see your point and holding back the armors to blitz after the battle makes an interesting rule variant. Like you said, make the armors that are used for blitzing vulnerable in the first battle. If you win the first battle, then the remaining blitzing armors must fight a least 1 round of the second battle. After that they can choose to retreat back to the first battleground. If you retreat from or lose the first battle, then the remaining blitzing armors must retreat as well. I think this variant makes the armor a much more valuable attacking unit. The attacker can now decide whether to go all out in one battle or take a chance to grab an extra territory. The defender must now defend a greater area. The armors now have better ability to outflank your opponent.

You can also make a case for holding back battleships in the sea zone battle to do bombardment. Of course everyone has to agree to these variants before you play.

You’re right, you can have as many BBs as you want to bombard provided that you didn’t do battle in the sea zone. So one way to stop the bombardment is to build a sacrificial transport or sub.

PS
If you’re having multiple BBs, you’re probably winning by a long shot. Your opponents should just graciously admit defeat. 8)

Thanks for the clarification C_F. It will definitely even the game out or even favors the Axis. Africa is much more attractive since the value essentially doubles for the Axis. The Axis can exploit the many odd IPCs territories. The Axis will catch up to the Allies economically in no time while having a superior number of units.

Read “Imbalance?Strategy?What’s goin wrong?”.

Are you buying at least 8 Infs on G1 and all Infs on G2.

Don’t strafe Karelia at least USSR starts building mostly in Russia or you’re outnumbered in Infs.

Stack everything in EEu except 2 Infs each turn and 1 or 2 Ftrs to WEu.

Against R3 EEu attack, you should have 13 Infs and 8 Arms in EEu if you do the stack right. The average result should be mutual destruction with 1 Rus Ftr left, which would be more detrimental to USSR than Ger.

But to prevent such suicidal attack from an ultra-aggressive USSR and bad dice, you might want to pull everything back into Ger except 1 Inf each in EEu and Ukr. Don’t forget to move AA back to SEu. Make USSR extend its supply line for a change.

Then keep strafing or trading EEu depending on the size of the USSR force in EEu until Japan comes to your rescue.

In addition to WT and Xi, move the SEu AA to EEu and play AAAA.
Move all ARMs to EEu.
Don’t take Cau to G1.
You’re right to leave 1 Inf in Ukr.
On G2, if Rus occupies Ukr with a small force (less than 4 units), then take it back with Infs and all planes.
My rule of thumb is to attack Ukr with twice the number of Infs as the number of units in Ukr plus all the planes (or only 1 or 2 planes if Ukr has AA). The idea is that a defending Inf or Arm is twice as likely to score a hit than an attacking one.
Never take more than 2 planes to attack territories with AA unless you intend to go all out.
Keep trading Ukr and/or strafing Kar (with max 2 planes) on subsequent turns.
Buy Infs only until you’re ready to take and hold Kar.
Move 2 Infs to WEu each turn.

Yes, the US got incredibly lucky with the tech roll. :lol:

Well, that “Clarification” sheet is going to the garbage…

I like to add 4th no to these suggestions. Multiplying the IPCs by 1.5 without change the number of units means the Axis die 1.5 times faster, essentially. :roll:

I like to give you a break C_F but I just can’t stand bad math.
241.5=36
321.5=48
301.5=45(!)
251.5=38(rounded up)
36*1.5=54
Seems like you have some weird rules for rounding numbers up and down. :-?

Let’s do some math.
Assuming the numbers provided by B_BB are correct, then for every $1 the US spent on A-bomb it spent 3300/20=$165 in total.

In A&A terms:
Assume on average the US makes 33 IPCs per turn. Then it takes 5 turns to make 533=165 IPCs.
Out of that it spends 1 IPC for weapon development. Since it takes 5 IPC to roll, it takes 55=25 turns to get 1 roll.
I’ve shown before it takes on average 21 rolls to get a particular tech you want, in this case A-bomb. Then on average it takes 2125=525 turns to get A-bomb.
Assuming 1 turn is 3 months in real time, then it takes on average 5253/12=131.25 years in real time for the US to get A-bomb. :o
Historically the US got the A-bomb in 6(?) years.
Therefore I’ve proven that it was much easier to get the A-bomb historically than in A&A. 8)

For the next lecture I’ll make a case for putting Antartica on the A&A map.

yes, Xi is quite negative today, even more so than before. :roll:

Not bad. It certainly is more reasonable than the old A-bomb tech. But I don’t see it having any impact on the game. BTW, I wonder how much did the US spend on developing and building the A-bomb relative to the total war effort.

These “scenarios” from you and others provide a nice change from the same old initial setup. Well until next time you’re in a jam then. :wink: