Posts made by football2006

Very fun read, enjoyable thought experiment.

I have often been employing a buy of 3 transports, 1 tank, 1 art, and 1 bomber.

My two Eastern US transports pretty much always go to Algeria. I like the idea of moving one (or both) up to sz1 so to put early pressure on Norway. However, it is very common for Germany to have a bomber on Norway (post UK BB strafe). It’s not uncommon for me to have a UK dd in sz8 to block the sub(s) in sz7 from getting to sz1; but a bomber vs. a cruiser and 1 or 2 transports is too big of a risk for me.

I’ve very recently changed my buy (in these very common circumstances) to 3 transports, 1 inf, 1 art, and 1 AC. The AC will join the cruiser, dd, and 3 new transports. With the AC (and likely one fighter), I will be able to have my transports go to sz1 in US2 despite the decent possibility of having 2 German bombers in Western Europe. Also, the additional support allows me to take the US destroyer to destroy any U-boats within reach (assuming no untouchable subs can reach sz1).

Without the AC buy, 2 German bombers within reach of SZ1 forces my group of transports to travel to sz18 to join the (likely) incoming bb.

So, what’s your US1 buy?

Nice read, Granada.

@Ashkayel:

Because you can load and unload troops from ECan to Alg every turn with only a transport (only 1 sea zone away), compared to EUS where it is 2 sea zones away, needing 2 transports to unload troops every turn. For example, a transport already at SZ12 (next to Algeria) can go to Eastern Canada SZ (dont remember the number), load troops from Canada, and go back to SZ12 to unload them to Algeria. From US, you can’t, its farther.

This is a very interesting idea, I’ve honestly never thought of it.

I’m very curious to learn about how other experienced players use as their primary method of getting US troops to Europe. Up to this point I’ve had my transports go from Eastern Canada to Europe.

Edit: hehe

@Nomarclegs:

Started a game with Mr.Biggg’s pairing and turn order.
It’s shocking how powerful the UK is when they go first: Sank US carrier in Hawaii, German battleship in Med, and German destroyer in Baltic; captured Algeria; reenforced Egypt (total: 4I, T, B); finished UK1 with: battleship, cruiser, and  two transports off Algeria; fully-loaded carrier with cruiser and transport off Egypt; newly purchased carrier (loaded), and two destroyers in the Channel; and a loaded transport in the southern Indian Ocean.
I thought the Brits would land themselves a participation trophy….  :-o

I’d be interested to hear what happens in the Atlantic as you and Mr.Biggg progress in your game. It seems like Germany should be focusing all of it’s attention along with the US to capture London; I’m not too sure if you can maintain a large enough fleet to prevent waves of transports (as both enemy capitals need only a pair of fleets each to have a constant stream of impending transports).

I’m starting to address this one element of my strategy that I usually ignore: attacking with limited forces.

I played Zhukov the other day on triplea (this was a time when Bunnies was watching, and even commented on my improper use :D), and I, as Germany, attacked Ukraine (with a standing Russian force of two tanks or so) with everything I could.

This caused Germany to have a standing force of about 6 infantry and 5 or so tanks (too lazy to look it up right now) for Russia to attack the next turn.

Russia had a 100% chance to retake Ukraine if he used everything (which he almost did), however by having a standing force I was able to make it so that he lost a sizable amount of infantry on his attack, and that he had a large amount of forces to be attacked on G2. I think I was able to retake Ukraine G2 with a very few guys left, fodder for his R3 attack.

I’m starting to use calculators to attack with only enough forces that gives me >90% chance to win the battle (like attacking Ukraine G1 with 3/4 infantry + a tank + a fighter), and have the rest remain in waiting. What do you guys think/do?

@Nomarclegs:

I’d rather rather sink Germany’s med fleet on UK1 with the bomber and fighter from SZ 35.  I’ll lose the bomber first it’s probably toast anyway in Trans-Jordan and the fighter can be a real boon to d the defense of Caucasus.

Unrelated question: UK has placed a carrier and a destroyer in SZ 7 (English Channel), which already contained 2 German subs.  A US bomber can attack the sub (because of the presence of an allied destroyer. Right? Are the subs unable to defend?  Can they return fire against the UK fleet? Can the fleet fight; or just die?

I do not believe the US bomber can attack the two German subs. Because attacks cannot be joint, the US player can utilize the UK’s destroyers in the battle… which includes both the identification and attack of the subs.

@Bunnies:

@football2006:

The most common example that I’ve encountered is when Russia holds back a tank against Ukraine R1.

This is a good Monster in the Toilet example.  What’s the Monster in the Toilet?  Well, this plumber gets a call from his mom, see, and apparently the nice old lady can’t get her toilet to flush.  So he says did you try this and did you try that and she’s like “yep, did that, did that.”  So eventually they can’t figure it out over the phone and he comes on over.  So the plumber opens up the toilet tank and discovers a small gremlin inside that keeps screwing with the tank so it won’t fill up and flush.  The plumber asks his mom why she didn’t mention the gremlin, and she says he never asked.

So in this case - when you say “Russia holds back a tank”, what exactly does that “held back” tank do, what are the combat moves, what are the noncombat moves?  Why didn’t you ask whoever held back the tank why they did it?  If you did, why wasn’t that answer sufficient to explain “why people do what they do”?  If you didn’t, why didn’t you?

Hehe, you’re an interesting person; I enjoy your responses.

The tank that I specifically referencing is a tank that starts on Russia and is sent to West Russia instead of Ukraine (meaning that Ukraine sees all capable infantry and arty, 2 fighters, and now 2 tanks). This drops Russia’s chance of taking Ukraine down from roughly a guarantee to a decently sure thing.

I do not like allowing for the chance that the Ukraine fighter survives and can be used in Egypt or anywhere else. I understand that by making your West Russia stack larger (seeing as how less units will die with an extra tank helping the battle), you will have more forces to take Ukraine back, however I think it’s at too much of a cost.

In summary (pardon the redundancy):
My R1 move is to send everything that I can to Ukraine, and then everything that remains (besides one infantry on Karelia) to West Russia.

Taking a tank from the Ukraine battle to West Russia (which is the other option I am considering) creates:

• a more sizable attack force to retake Ukraine next turn
• less of a chance to lose a bunch of guys on West Russia
• fewer tanks to die next turn

• a lower chance to take Ukraine fully (bad= fighter survives, worst= enough Germans survive to pressure Caucasus… my Caucasus stack after R1 is 5 inf, 1 art, 2 fig)
• less defending units on Ukraine to hurt the incoming German force (nipping an extra infantry or two allows an easier chance to retake Ukraine and have a good stack there after R2)

Any opinions on what I am missing or what you regularly choose given this information?

@ragnarok628:

i think the most balanced way to change up the teams would be GER + UK vs RUS + JAP + US.   the german/british side i think would be stronger than the normal Axis, but not so much.  UK vs. JAP in the pacific and south asia would play out pretty much the same, but the UK BB would give the ‘new axis’ a good position in the atlantic.  UK would be able to quickly help germany pressure russia, but they would hang on to most of their income and japan can be of considerable help in propping up moscow.  US would have to focus on taking the atlantic, they’d have to go either africa or europe.

ANYWAY, it would be the same starting economies, except UK is a stronger power, due to not having to fight for africa initially and stronger in the atlantic.

UK would need Germany’s help in stopping the US from constantly unloading on them.

The most common example that I’ve encountered is when Russia holds back a tank against Ukraine R1.

I’d love to hear some pros and cons from an experienced person. I’ve never held back forces, so it’d be really good to understand why people do what they do.

Thanks!

@coorran:

I disagree totally. UK would never be able to get a fleet. And US/G sealion on 3rd turn would proabably overrun London, 4th turn max. Russia usually commits most of its ressources against G, so I don’t see it causing a lot more trouble for GER. It cannot take Berlin before R5-R6, and that’s if G doesn’t turtle.

UK instantly loses E and W. Canada on US1.

Also, keep in mind that Japan will have a hard time raising its income. The 2 China/Sinkiang then… that’s it. The other ones are in Western Europe. Good luck getting your troops there. Also, no IC close to US or G.

Bottom line for me is London will always fall before Berlin.

I have to admit that you’ve drawn me much closer to the middle of this argument. I do agree now that UK is completely boned. Their income is a lost cause (Canada, Africa), and they can just do their best to turtle, playing only to not lose London.

I feel that if this happens it will take longer than 4 turns for the US/Germany team to take them. I think by this time Russia has made a dent on Germany’s eastern front… however I agree that Germany has the ability to send waves at London (taking very costly units from UK while still holding Berlin), while US viciously unloads upon UK.

Lol, within a paragraph I’ve changed sides. I honestly just now realized the monstrosity that US is a one-step transport chain away from the UK capital. Although UK buying 6 inf, 2 tanks round one, and similar defensive buys each round is worth noting. I guess what I’m trying to think of most now is- what the heck does Japan do? US can still keep a Pacific naval force to limit Japan’s effectiveness (Atlantic being unnecessary).

Ok, hehe. It seems like it would be very hard to stop the US and Germany from dominating.

@Zhukov44:

Realistically I think Japan/UK/USSR would have a slight edge.  Japan starts out with 30 more TUV than USA and gets to go first.  UK has a good shot at taking out the cruiser/2 trn with its bomber UK1.  So unless Germany invests in a Med fleet right away UK should have good odds of holding Africa.  Meanwhile Japan is going to put a ton of pressure on the USA and Russia will have plenty of income to deal with Germany.  So United Kingdom itself should be safe and should get plenty of income from the colonies.

Maybe with some map edits or some changes in turn order this could be a balanced scenario, but I’m inclined to think Japan/UK/USSR leverages its initial TUV edge into a wide economic victory.

I agree. I think we need to draw a lot of attention to the fact that USSR can focus entirely to the west, and can put a lot of pressure on Germany if it does not match such aggression.

I think that Germany’s air and US support can limit UK’s naval forces dramatically, but too much focus from the US will allow Japan to cause quite a ruckus (and too much focus from Germany allows for Russia’s advances).

Instead of a common Moscow/Berlin race, it would be Berlin/London? Either way I don’t really think Moscow is in too much trouble. Although now I’m thinking that US can unload north of Russia.

Very interesting thought experiment.

I honestly wouldn’t have even thought of this if I hadn’t read it in another post (about nerfing Japan because he thought this was so powerful, sorry I do not remember where).

When seeing a KGF, dropping two ICs on the mainland (FIC and Kwangtung) seems like an idea worth some consideration. I mean, if you’re only interest is to pressure Moscow from the east, this seems like a decent way to get units there quickly. 6 tanks on J2 build allows a lot of mainland options: Sinkiang (obvious), Buryatia, India, Africa, etc.

Of course with this you would be pushing into China with starting units and probably transporting defensive units (as well as landed fighters) to FIC.

Thoughts?

Do you think it’s a good idea?

I’ve numerously see people abandon either Norway or West Russia, so you’d simply be forcing additional resources from Germany in taking back its territories, at the cost of a transport and two (replaceable) units. I really like the idea of taking Norway because Germany will have a hard time recollecting it (if complemented by the German Baltic transport being taken out by air).

I think in doing this it would be smart to abandon that transport. My UK1 buy is almost always an AC and two destroyers, and placing them next to the transport at either location (next to Norway or Western Europe) guarantees the entirety of the Luftwaffe to demolish what you’ve built, especially with a G1 bomber buy.

Just so I’m not second guessing myself, if there was a destroyer blocking you, you could still perform an amphibious assault if you aided the transport with fighters, right?

I’ve lurked around long enough to learn that you’re opinion is worth consideration. :-)

Specifically, I am wondering if the East Canada transport, without any sea support (assuming UK BB death) can unload on Western Europe if all Germany has put there is a sub (or two) on the Western Europe coast.

I know I could test this out, but I’m not in a position to do so right now.

If a transport can ignore an enemy sub, then I don’t understand how you could stop the East Canada transport from unloading if it is supported by two fighters.

I understand that the transport will likely die in G2 without (or with, probably) a massive UK1 naval build.

Thanks!

I am always consumed by the mistakes or misplays that I made.