Posts made by eames57

@PainState:

In my experience a J1 does not provoke a KJF response from the USA.

USA does not usually commit one side or the other until around USA4 after a J1.

Not saying USA is sitting around doing nothing. Iam saying the focus of the USA can not be determined until around USA4 or so.

So what you’re saying is if America doesnt go KJF, it’s free to respond to a sealion?  And if it can respond earlier than usual, does this affect your UK1 builds?

I understand the value of SZ 91, but after a successful sealion, allied mission changes from establishing a continental beachhead to liberating the isles.  In response to wittman’s post about axis preventing America from liberating UK by stacking in Morocco, i offered gibraltar and quebec as alternatives.

I agree that throughout the whole game, UK definitely needs to keep track at all times of Germany’s invasion potential.  But this question is about balancing costs/benefits.  Previous threads have discussed the value of sealion.  The consensus seems to be that it mires Germany in a gridlock with Russia, but that can be a useful sacrifice if it makes America spend too much time and money to liberate UK, thus giving Japan the game.  But if America can liberate UK in the same turn, then Germany sacrificed its eastern initiative with little to show for it.  So the question isnt how does UK prevent itself from getting conquered at all costs.  The question is what is the absolute minimum UK needs to spend to make sealion not worth it, thus allowing it to project its force out sooner.

Let me phrase this another way.  6 inf, 1 ftr is usually enough to deter sealion on J3 dow.  So why would UK still need to spend the same amount after a J1 dow?

@wittmann:

If no fleet was bought, I would build an IC for Egypt and Ft amd 2 Inf for England.
If a CV, Sub and DD were bought , I would buy Ft  and 6 Inf for England .
If two or three TTs were bought and no DD , I  Would get a Sub, Ft and 4 Inf .
Germany and Italy  can still make an American landing in Morocco impossible . I would not presume America was my rescuer, just yet.

I think 2 inf, 1 fig sounds pretty reasonable because it defends a little without losing much mideast iniative.  But I would argue that if America projects enough force towards the atlantic, that UK buy would work even if Germany bought a cv, sub, and dd.

Why does America need to land in Morocco?  Are you worried about Luftwaffe violating neutrals’ neutrality to strafe troops in gibraltar?  And why can’t they come from Quebec?

I like the sub purchase as a way to force Germany to spend money on a ship if it wants to commit.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

Yes you have to buy the infantry. If you don’t then Germany can take out London with lots of units to spare making it far more difficult to liberate. Those extra infantry will be killing tanks and possibly planes if the Germans don’t dice the UK. Also, if you don’t place infantry there, then Germany can take London with a half-hearted transport buy and a strategic bombing raid on G2 leaving them cash to take on Russia at the same time instead of an overwhelming assault on London.

Maybe my math is bad, but that’s not how I see it.  I was presuming America would prepare for a sealion possibility with round 1 purchases that look something like 2 carriers, 2 transports, and maybe a sub, and by staging its SZ 10 carrier and transport (plus whatever ships it would need) over to the GoM (ready to turn back to Pacific if sealion isnt threatened.)

Germany would still need a full commitment with 10 transports bought and even then probably wouldn’t hold it.  With UK losing in 106, doing taranto, only buying one 1 fig/no inf in London, and only able to afford let’s say 8 inf after sbr’s on turn 2, Germany should have all its tanks and a couple other ground troops survive.

But America can still come in with 8 ground troops, 5 fig, 1 tac, and up to 7 bombers if it needs to (depending on if it can force the channel with its ships alone.  (6 of those bombers depend on UK still owning Scotland, but if Germany diverts a transport from the London landing into Scotland, your 7 planes should still be more than enough.)

Yup.  OOB

I suppose this question does presuppose that America used its turn to prepare for the possibility of needing to liberate  London, like buying a couple of transports and a carrier and bringing a couple ships from SanFran to the Mexican Gulf.

Taamvan, you’re correct that holding onto the other VC’s is the tough part, particularly the Philippines.  Hopefully Germany and Italy will have enough mobile units left to thwart China, but I don’t know.  On J3 you should certainly build a second IC on Shanghai or Shantung, building fodder to keep China wary of your airforce, and position those ground troops in Kwangsi, Kiangsi, and Anhwe in order to reclaim any territories that America troops have landed on.  Philippines is a different matter, and it may require IJN defeating the American fleet.  Luckily, the Luftwaffe will be nearby ready to soften it up, preventing America from choosing carrier capital hits if it wants its fighters defending in the Japanese attack.  If Germany is prevented from taking India until G7, it can still land its planes on Shan, which, with an AB, can attack SZ 35 so that Japan can retake Philippines on J8.

But that’s the iffiest part of the whole plan - too many variables by midgame and it needs playtesting.  Wheatbeer, I’d love to try this out one the TripleA forum (if the timing of my debut didn’t announce this strategy) but I don’t have regular internet access.  I will try it in person against my routine adversary, but only after having tried a few other strategies I’ve concocted, since I know he at least won’t be able to counter this and we’ll have to experiment with house rules afterwards.  In the meantime, I invite anyone else to try it out and let me know how it goes.

Thats sounds legit.  It’s not abusing combined arms; it’s using them effectively.

This is a break or bust strategy; no ecomonic strangulation or attrition of forces.  Yes, a VC KO before Allies become too large is the goal.

But am I underestimating the size of the fleet America can bring to bear in the first few rounds?  By my count, neither America nor Japan can attack each other’s fleet off the coast of Australia on round 4.  Because yes taamvan, the entire fleet will be there save for maybe a blocker or two, assuming America is stacking off of Queensland or Carolines.  I don’t care how threatened SZ 6 is, so long as Japan is safe, because after round 4, any units I produce will not be in play.  And Japan is easy to keep safe.

I like the Argentine tango (1st time I’ve heard of it) for its ability to shuttle ground troops to DEI and south Asia w/o requiring a force at Hawaii to defend the transport corridor.  But I think it gets rolling too late.  It can only bring an extra 2 guys to Sydney for a J6 or 8 guys for a J7 attack.  Let’s let Germany take care of India on G7.  That means that 2nd round of transports - 14 ground troops can be dropped off in either southern Australia or Queensland (Allies can’t defend both) for a J7 attack on Sydney.

I also dont care about threatening China or Russia after round 4.  The stack of ground troops working its way south to get picked up for the 2nd round of transports should be enough to keep China at bay long enough to keep Hong Kong safe (from them at least).  So just keep enough planes defending Manchuria long enough to prevent the Amur stack from beginning its march on Shanghai before round 4.

Taamvan, if I’m going for a Pacific victory, I don’t care how strong Russia is on round 4.  I dont even care if Berlin and Rome both fall on round 5 other than for matters of pride.  Gargantua, that Afghani corridor is an important point in late game.  But how many Allied planes are you imagining will be in Moscow beginning of turn 5 to get to India on 6 before Germany’s attack on 7?  Germany will have 30-35 mobiles plus lots of planes.  India, if it only buys inf and never moved any away towards Mideast or China, on a J3 DOW, can amass quite the stack of 40 something fodder by G7 (ignoring for the moment that can Germany can attack on G6 if India doesnt use about 10 of those to prevent an Italian can opener).  Considering the distribution curve of Germany’s attack, I estimate that UK/Russia would have to get more than a dozen planes into India to make it close to a fair fight.

Cow, I fully appreciate the effectiveness of fodder, even expensive and weak fodder.  But you’re talking about putting in 2 dozen hits to counter a strategy that puts in an extra 4 dozen hits.

All the objections posted are assuming that Allies are aware of the Axis strategy and prepare to counter it by fully committing to one side of the board.  But Axis doesnt have to commit to either strategy until round 4.  They’ll have a slow start if they divert, sure.  But so will the Allies by pursuing a less than optimal course.  E.g. When Allies think Axis is rushing a Pac victory, if UK/Russia are only producing fighters early to get them to India on time, Germany can always turn its stack of mobiles north after securing oilfields.  When they presume a Crussia and America is buying only bombers to land in Moscow, Japan can always decide to turn its stack on China and move onto Burma without much American intervention forcing it to defend its seas.

So America throws in 17 fodder hits before J7 attack and another 6 before G8.  That doesn’t sound like enough considering Russia is already under enough pressure to survive head to head with Germany before Japan whittles its stack by 40.  And neither Germany nor Japan is on much of a deadline if America is spending all its cash on bomber fodder.
Japan doesn’t have to commit until J5.  Until then, it can always swing its stack south against China and then India.  A slow start, sure, but that’s affordable considering America’s slow start.  Point is, I’m not sure America can commit to sending 23 bombers to Moscow lest Japan get too strong.  Because Japan can still take islands during all this.

At any rate, the European victory was just me +musing out loud.  The Pacific strategy was the one that I had thought out.  See any overt flaws in it?

There must be an earlier thread about this; it’s too simple a concept.  How do the Allies counter a full Axis commitment to one side of the board?

If Axis is going for a European victory, Japan can drop 24 inf, 8 art, 8 mech, 9 tanks, and 1 AA gun on Samara on J6 for a J7 attack with up to 30 planes.  Germany and Italy can reinforce that stack on G7 by going south through Stalingrad and with their airforce.  Let Japan use up all of its airforce killing ~40-50 troops depending on Allied planes.  It telegraphs pretty loudly that America is able to commit to the Atlantic, but can he do anything in time on a J4 DOW?

If Axis is going for a Pacific victory, let Germany take out India.
G1 buy all mobile.  Leave Bulgaria for Italy
I1 all mobile
J1 2 trans, 2 subs, screw the IC.  Start moving 11 ground troops south so that they make it to Shan or Siam by J5

G2 all mobile again just for assurances/ backup reserves
I2 as many mobile as you have transports.  Take Greece
J2 2 more trans, 1 CV, 1 dd.  Take FIC

G3 buy planes.  Stack mobiles in Greece.  Take Spain & Sweden if convenient.
I3 all planes.  Take Turkey
J3 IC on FIC.  DOW.  Take Malaysia and as many of the DEI as you can.

G4-6/I4-6 Germany and Italy leapfrog each other.  If UK doesn’t expend enough of its stack to prevent an Italian can opener, Germany will take India G6.  If UK does, Germany will still take West India in time to give Japanese planes somewhere to land for a J6 attack.

J4 buy 3 guys on FIC.  Land 12-14 troops in Western or Northern Australia.  You should have a large enough navy to protect your trans.
J5 bring those trans back to Malaysia ready to shuttle another stack of 14.  Australian invasion moves one step closer to Sydney; enough planes land on the continent.
J6 take Sydney.  Take India if need be or reinforce/retake Hong Kong, Shanghai, Philippines or whatever circumstances dictate.

Anything that Germany and Italy are doing besides 100% commitment towards Pacific should be directed towards making a credible European victory threat only to distract America.  How can the Allies possibly counter this?

I overlooked the starting in round 3 contingency.  So Russia is down an extra 2.  Down 5 IPC on a G5 attack and 7 on a G6.  One more in either case if Russia doesn’t retake any of the provinces.  I can see how that adds up a little.  2 or 3 inf can make a big difference when you’re attacking early with small stacks.  Still, the new NO’s certainly dampen the effectiveness of a Siberian attack by giving Russia an extra 2-4 IPC (depending on G5 or G6) than with OOB NO’s.  And much more than that if Germany and Japan don’t deny the lendleases in 125 and 5.

The battle ship can help defend 112, but so can the 1-3 planes you’d lose in 111, Baltic and Bessarabia.  (I’m included those Russian territories as potential losses for planes because without a BB in 111, your eastern attacks are thin.  You could retreat when only air is left, but then Russia might have enough to attack E. Poland.)

I haven’t played BM yet, so I’m not familiar with how the new NO’s affect gameplay.  It looks like Russia gets an extra 2 IPC starting his second turn for his lendlease in Persia after a Japanese attack.  This is assuming Germany has a warship in 125 and Japan also put something in 5 other than transports, else the bonus is more.  This extra income from a Japanese attack offsets the losses of Siberia and the Soviet Far East.  And he’s likely to take Siberia back since you only have 2 guys there and you haven’t put anything in Amur, in which case his IPC balance regarding the far east is actually in the black.  You can put pressure on him to back him up on R3 after you take Amur, but at that point, how much of a difference does it really make?  I assume with a G1 dow you’re trying to crush Russia ideally by turn 5 but hopefully by turn 6.

Difference in Russian IPC net with Japan attacking.
R1 moot
R2 +2 Persian lendlease      -1 Soviet Far East (regained Siberia)
R3 +2 "                            -3 “, Siberia, Amur
R4 +2 "                            -5 “,”,”, Sakha, Buryatia
Germany attacks moscow before R5
The total difference is 3 IPC, 6 if Germany’s push on Moscow comes G6, so one or two inf.  In the meantime the far east is sucking up a lot of Japanese resources (i.e. planes) if Japan wants to keep pressure on to make Russia’s +6 stronger stack take a step back.  Taking Siberia makes sense in the long run, but with a Crussia strategy in which those losses don’t have the time to significantly affect Russia’s income, is it worth it?

I am of course assuming that Russia’s leaving a token of force of about 4 in Sakha in order to respond to a potential Siberian landing, but even if he doesn’t, or if his attack fails, he only loses 2 more IPC.

Am I missing something in the understanding of these NO’s?

I agree 111 needs to be taken out, but that’s why I suggest your BB.  You won’t be able to attack Novgorod on G2 anyways; Russian cruiser might block you and your eastern stack won’t be there yet.  So buy a destroyer or two on G2.  Russia can still clear out your modest navy after you kill its fleet if he’s determined to do so, but at the cost of a plane or more likely two.  The downside (other than that trade-off just mentioned, if you consider that a downside) is that you’ll need to buy a destroyer on G1 to protect your transport, which is two extra mech not protecting your early advance from a counterattack.  The upside is you save a plane or two in 111, which is much more valuable for a Crussia than a BB or being able to ferry a couple troops to Novgorod on G3.  Also you can take 111 with only 2 pairs of planes, allowing you to beef up your eastern attacks.  If your raid on 111 only takes two hits, I suggest destroying your BB and keeping your sub.  127 sub or RAF could kill your BB, but royal navy only has one destroyer and three destinations.  Keeping the sub allows you to take 3 IPC from Russia for a few turns.

In BM3 G1 dows, does Japan usually attack Amur and allow Russia to collect 4 IPC from Persian lend lease, or does he often just keep a sub in SZ 5 to keep the NO bonus down to 2?  It seems as though that NO is pretty well designed to offset Siberian losses since Japan isn’t likely to take but a couple of territories for the first few rounds.  I guess what I’m really asking what sense is there in attacking Siberia at all if it won’t really help Germany?  Why not use those troops towards your Burmese hammer?

I had a feeling the answer to my first question (what’s BM3?) would answer all the rest of my questions.

You’ve just opened up an entirely new world for me.  I like the idea of compartmentalizing some of the NO’s.  It looks like they’ll make for much more nuanced Pac and Med play.  Is the only way to prevent the Vichy Rule to take Normandy back on UK’s turn with his 109 transport?

The additional NO’s also look to be slightly in favor of Allies (especially Russia’s lend lease).  That combined with Marines and Chinese guerrillas add up to a real advantage.  Is it enough to balance gameplay though, by most players’ accounts, so that a bid isn’t needed?

Simon, I’m not familiar with the different mechanics and patterns of BM, but with 3 pairs of planes in 111 and a fig in Normandy, you only have 5 planes for Baltic States and Bessarabia.  Is this enough?  When I G1 dow, I like to send in only 2 inf to Baltic and 1 to Bessarabia.  (One inf from Romania to Yugoslavia to hop my Austrian troops over on the retreat.)  I don’t like to send less than 3 inf to E. Poland because if they take 2 hits taking it, all my tanks are exposed to a counter attack.  Do you have any problem clearing out Baltic and Bessarabia stretched that thin without losing planes?

What’s BM3?  Is your goal here simply an effective G1 dow?
Why is your Baltic fleet so important to maintain that you’re willing to sacrifice some planes in 111 by not sending in your BB?
Why is it important to take Normandy instead of sending everything to France?  If you’re already sending 2 tanks east, France will start cutting into your more expensive pieces.
Why do you assume US will go full pacific?  If Japan isn’t declaring war until J3, and making that obvious by sending transports into Siberia, as America I’d let the Pacific wait and instead stockpile an invasion force headed for Gibraltar ready to go round 4.  It won’t get there in time to save Moscow, but if you’re hoping to take Moscow by turn 5, you’re throwing everything at it and keeping nothing behind to defend Paris.  Or Rome.  Or Cairo.

I once built up a sizeable American fleet on the Atlantic as part of a KGF.  Germany had built a navy on G1 and continued to augment it with subs to keep me at bay and then with destroyers when my fleet was too large to be attacked but not large enough to attack him in 112.  In the meantime he’d spent a good chunk of cash sending inf down to Italy.  In other words Germany wasted too enough of his money fending off the threat of a D-Day or Avalanche that Russia was no longer in danger.  So I brought my fleet through the Suez and liberated India.  I caught the Nihon Kaigun in a pincer when my pacific fleet joined up, killing some and sending the rest back up to Honshu with its tail tucked between its legs.  I claimed the East Indies in the name of 'Merica and those ships built in Norfolk ended up sitting in the Sea of Japan cutting off all supplies and starving that island nation before the Axis capitulated.

Why can’t Italy clear out that destroyer that sneaked into 112?

In these sea lion games, does America usually destroy all the transports on A3?
As Allies, I always activate Ireland.  If Germany built any navy, America might bring a carrier and a destroyer around panama and buy a bomber.  If he commits to a sealion, at the very least I’ll have a pair of fig/tac and 4 bombers that I can bring into 110, but probably 2 pairs and 5 bombers.  The only way to save his transports at that point is by buying expensive ships in the channel and probably even an airbase in Normandy.  There’s no question UK needs to take Scotland back if Germany pre-staged there; otherwise America’s bombers landing in Ireland can get blitzed.

When you say spare your BB, do you mean retreat it after one round of combat, in which case UK will still have a damaged BB and possibly a cruiser as well?  Because that combined with the cruiser from 91 and the 109 destroyer plus the possibility of a scramble on G2 will suck up a lot of your aircraft.  I’d say at least 5 or 6 planes would need to go into 110 on G2 which will leave more inf surviving in London than you’d like.

Or do you mean don’t even include your BB in the first turn of combat?  In that case,you’ll only have 3 subs to take hits when clearing out all of the royal navy (since you’re using 2 subs in 106).  That sounds like you’ll be taking prodigious hits to your luftwaffe.  I’d scramble if I was UK.  I’d be taking a lot more of your planes than you’d be taking of mine and I’d replenish them with Gib and a purchase on turn 1 and with Malta, the tac in 98 and another purchase on turn 2.  I wouldn’t mind sacrificing positioning in the Med either, since you’ve already committed to sealion and it probably wouldn’t work.

In fact, I took a break from writing this to enter this scenario into a battle calculator.  The most efficient distribution I found to take out both 110 and 111 with 3 subs, 10 planes is this:
110 - 2 subs, 2 pairs fig/tac, 1 or 2 bombers
111 - 1 sub, 2 pairs fig/tac, 0 or 1 bombers
This is the most efficient because after a UK scramble in both, you still survive with 3-4 planes.  But that’s on average; there’s still a strong chance (~25%) that you’ll fail one of them and a decent chance (~10%) that you’ll fail both.  Other permutations were even less favorable.

But all this is moot since, as AldoRaine pointed out, UK can just bring his Med fleet up to block you.  He can kill the Italian destroyer in 96 in the combat phase and then move its fleet to 92 in the noncombat phase of the same first turn.

They’re allies with each other and neutral territories are all neutral friendly.  The server still doesn’t recognize that quite right, though.  Sometimes they’ll take, say Saudi Arabia and control the territory, but there’ll still be 2 neutral troops sitting on there, so you have to change those to the controlling countries’.  And despite Finland and Bulgaria being unfriendly neutral, it’ll activate those troops, so you have to delete them and also roll dice to determine how many you’d have also lost in taking it.  By a weird quirk it treats the Allies as Axis, so Japan and Italy get all their bonuses.  Italy’s bonus would be convenient, since he only collects it once and it would go straight to my coffers.  But Japan’s bonus is annoying; he gets 25 bucks he doesn’t deserve each round - practically twice his base income, so that also needs to be routinely corrected.  Occasionally, one of the powers will declare war on each other at the most inopportune time for them to do so, like Russia doing it on Japan with Japanese troops uncontested in 2/3 of its territory.  His income immediately drops to half and all of his and Japan’s troops are distracted for a turn.  When you have control again, reset the diplomacy, return whichever territories to their original owner, and fix each country’s economy, but there’s nothing you can do about their troop movements.  And yes, I’ve been playing on hard, but based on Wild Bill’s experience, I might experiment with fast.

Yea, there’s a certain ownership of your own fate when manually rolling the dice as opposed to having to submit to the caprice of the RNG gods.  And most of the fun of the game is trash talking.  The other drawback to TripleA is it’s hard to keep track of what’s going on on the board, and not just because you have to choose between seeing the whole board at once or seeing how many pieces are actually in any given territory.  I can’t really get immersed in the game like I can with the real thing in front of me, following my opponent’s every move so I can contemplate every possible permutation of reaction and counterreaction.

The farthest I’ve gotten is round 12.  LHTR heavy bomber advantage is nullified by low luck, so I turned that off.  With a mini-dark skies strategy and a lot of super subs, I was able to keep America at bay.  Most of Italy’s and London’s troops had by this time been expended and weren’t replenishing, so I had almost secured the Balkans and was able to grind towards Moscow, controlling Novgorod.  But then I misread America’s fleet , left myself exposed, and threw the game away.  I thought he had 3 battleships when instead it was 9.

12 rounds is the record to beat.

Kill France turn 1
Kill Italy turn 2
Kill London turn 3
Dig in

Most of the challenge and fun of this game is figuring out how to take advantage of all the technologies that most people have no experience with.  Paratroopers are your best friend.  Turn on low luck to maximize the efficiency of your troop distribution.

No, that would be impossible.  I meant bored with the AI.  It’s extremely stupid but still overwhelming, which is why it reminds me of fending off zombie waves.  In fact the only way to survive is to rely on the AI doing things no player would, like spending all cash to repair facilities even if it means there’s no cash left to buy units.  Or doing an unescorted SBR against a territory with 4 fighters hitting at 2 or less.

Never really understood how online TripleA works.  Is it usually done in real time?  If not and if people do it by turns, such as one player goes one day and then his opponent goes the next, how do you manage which casualties to select?  I tried to do it by email once but there was some setback, I forget what it was - maybe I needed to register my address or something.

Bored with TripleA?  AI too dumb to be challenging?  Play as Germany and set all other countries, axis and allies alike, at war with you, all neutrals to unfriendly.  To level the playing field, give yourself every research technology and close research off to everyone else.  Defend the Reich from the hordes of human wave onslaughts coming from every direction.  I like to pretend they’re zombies.

So the general consensus is that leaving up to 6 men in Amur doesn’t much affect Japan’s opening move, so it doesn’t really matter.  Leaving 7-10 might work as bait.  Leaving anything higher than that is just dumb.  How many you leave in Amur is merely a question of which options you want to keep open for round 2.  If you leave any, you’re closing the option of moving those guys west.  If you don’t leave any, you don’t have the option of attacking Manchuria or Korea, or at least putting pressure there to prevent Japanese troops from heading south.

For those of you that move everything west except a small speedbump, do you find that Japan feels free to move all his Manchurian and even Korean troops south?  Even on a Jdow1, is he able to sweep through China?  (I know someone is going to say that if Japan wants, there’s nothing you can do to prevent him from taking all of China easily, but that’s only if he prioritizes it.  By moving all Siberian troops west, is Japan often able to take China and put pressure on India and defend DEI?)
Also, in your games does American ever have the chance to take Korea?  If so, wouldn’t you want a few Ruskies to sit down on top of it?

I think I’m starting to lean toward leaving 8 guys on Amur round 1 as bait just to draw a lot of his guys up and away from the real fight.  Or to attack Manchuria round 2 just to kill straggling ground troops if the option is there.  It leaves enough guys to slow down mobile units blitzing through Siberia with a couple left over to go round Mongolia and protect the Chinese flank.  But then again I usually have much easier time defending Moscow in its final hour than I do containing Japan.