Topics created by KillOFzee

Thank you for analyzing that statement for me. Odds favor a scramble, but my experience with it is okay. My decision depends on my mood and what I feel like doing. 🙂

When I am germany I throw that battleship. I don’t want to lose fighters, I will lose a battleship.  In which case the uk scramble odds are on average less than 1 fighter for 1 fighter… the battleship UK gets to kill anyway. So yeah I like that better.

Another Axis Victory….this time in 6 rounds(took 9 last time), Germany attacked Russia turn 3, Japan attacked turn Russia 1. Victory in Europe. 6 victory cities for Germany, 2 for Italy. Allies couldn’t respond fast enough or well enough to make any difference. It came down to Germany and Japan pounding the crap out of Russia. Japan didn’t declare war on the UK or the USA. USA entered war end of turn 3 and the UK declared war on Japan the next turn. Two major navel battles were fought in Hawaii and both were won by the USA. Japan wiped out the rest of the allied fleets with their super sub tech. Japan took all of China but lost part of it by the end of Round 6. The land battle was turning against Japan in China.  The USA had a fleet sitting two spaces from Japan.  USA had a round 6 invasion of Norway.  I believe that is about it in terms of things of note.

I don’t think you can go back,but you can use edit to fix most problems

also if your just getting used to aaa save the game after every nations turn and you can replay that way

@arwaker:

You chose a bad example, as the in “small” battle, the defender doesnt have an artillery. Get two battles, same unit mix, different size (1inf 1art vs 1inf 1art … 2inf 2art vs 2inf 2art) and see, how both battles are affected same.

Yes but mathematically, a battle with less units will vary in victory percentages then a battle with more units. 1 inf and 1 art vs 1 inf and 1 art will likely be so different as a normal amphibious assault, whereas a 10 inf and 10 art vs 10 inf and 10 art will be dramatically different, because you are channging the dice values for 20 units, where as in the small bale, you are only changing the dice value for 2 units.

“russia always falls unless germany takes london first then russia can hang on for a long time”

Yeah I don’t think you can toss out a blanket statement like that. There is a lot that the allies can do to stall the German onslaught, then turn things around. The allies (UK) need to hold places like Persia to allow air traffic into Moscow, maybe even carrier planes fly into Russia. UK filtering ground units up from India/Egypt to hold the back door, pressure/landings in Europe to force Germany to spend income in defense instead of only on the eastern front etc…

It’s not easy, and takes a concentrated effort. Sometimes it comes down to the final battle for Moscow, but the allies can make it a last desperate move for Germany. Even if successful what did it cost the axis, and do they have good position. Are the allies closing in ready to liberate the Russians right away, who has Italy, hell maybe the French are even being liberated (the later would be strange from what we’ve seen, but it could happen).

i always invade north, as its easier to reinforce, leningrad always falls very quickly and gives a nice cash bonus.
it also sways the soviet player from trying to invade finland and norway…
but i also send a lot of infantry south and keep my planes in range in case i need to attack…

Also, I always posture for a potential Sealion to force UK economy to stay home.

With the new setup, Italy can only do what the UK allows them to do, and with the pressure off sealion, it’s put squarely on Italy with the threat of an IC in Egypt UK1. Italy should have been given a tac bomber in northern Italy IMO.

Interesting idea and I have seen the Italians land in Syria and make a very big nuisance of themselves in the region. I am just wondering what turn you plan on dropping off your expeditionary force? It seems like you intend for a turn 3 (best case scenario) sneak into Syria an moving from there. If so then I woulnt worry too much about the South African IC as a German sealion would make it useless. While the Med. is war zone unto itself never lose sight of the greater Axis victory plan. Whatever Italy does it should be a facet of the over all Axis strategic aim.

@knp7765:

I would also add it’s kind of a silly thing for UK/ANZAC to do.

No doubt. especially as the OP was proposing landing UK planes (not enough of those) in a territory with no fodder defense.

If the UK ever lays out a delicious snack like their precious India fighters and the only cost will be a 10 IPC national objective and some japanese fodder infantry…  snarf.

I’m not so sure about the new convoy raiding rules.  It was kind of nice to have a set amount, something you could count on each round as long as your submarines or warships survived to attack the convoys.  However, the new system does present the possibility of getting much more damage per ship (6 per sub and 3 per warship) plus it lets carrier planes get involved too.  I will be interested to try them out in my next game and see how they work.

I played the demo, and enjoyed it.

Like real war, you learn FAST the hard way.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Is a “port” simply a territory with a naval base? If so, this means you’re adding to the advantages already given by the naval base?

Yes, a port is any territory with a naval base. And the added advantages would primarily affect land operations.

I am kind of interested in what people are having trouble with these 18 inf that russia can throw towards japan? I think those 18 inf are a lot less annoying than say giving brittain more troops, though giving china more troops at the expense of russia’s 18 inf might be a good change. I honestly like it when Russia keeps her 18 inf on the japan border or near it (18 inf and 2 aa guns less for germany to kill in moscow). If you weaken russia’s power here too much it might be worth it for japan to attack russia’s north. Maybe a good way to test it would be to make a house rule where russia looses 6 inf in the east and china gains 6 inf, but you can only put 1 inf per territory. I don’t know if letting china have the Burma road from the start of the game would be fair for japan? US going 100% japan for first couple turns might prove impossible for japan to beat it china is now significantly stronger with those 4 extra inf yunan plus the extra money and possibility of buying artillery. I see japan as being much weaker on the land since china will be more than just a pain, but a real threat and japan will have to buy more ground to compensate making japans navy weaker and in turn making US’s navy that much stronger. I haven’t played and extensive amount of games, so what do people think about the pacific side of the board and those 18 russian inf? Are you guys having a hard time beating japan as the allies, or keeping japan in check?

@Piet:

That’s a pretty lame rule. I guess the fact that losing sucks so much proves how good this game is

hear hear!

McMan, are those chocolate Me-109’s, He-111’s and Stuka’s? LOL!  😄 And of course, you use German chocolate!

OK, that makes a lot more sense now. One other thing I do see is someone abusing this rule to get an extra move for some of their units–if I owned a territory that was inaccessible from the territory my army was in, but my enemy owned a territory (with a factory in it) that bordered both of my territories, I could launch a strategic assault against my enemy’s factory and then “retreat” my forces into the inaccessible territory.

For example, a German army could launch a strategic assault against Karelia S.S.R with the sole objective of moving an army from the Baltic States to Finland, or launch a strategic assault from the Eastern Ukraine into Russia, and then “retreat” their forces into the Urals or Novosibirsk once the first round of combat was done (assuming the Urals or Novosibirsk were controlled by an axis power). In each instance, the assaulting nation could attack with a force much too small to actually take the territory, yet still get the advantage of moving through the territory as though they had actually conquered it.

I like the idea of strategic assaults, but if I was going to play a game with them I would require all assaulting land units to retreat back into the territory they had originated in once the assault was over.

Sending a strategic bomber and/or a tac bomber to bomb airfields to prevent a scramble that may or maynot happen, really spreads the Luftwaffe thin in a turn where there are a lot of must have battles going on for Germany. I recently accomplished sea lion without attacking sea zone 110 in G1 and it gave me good odds everywhere that mattered without risking a single aircraft (much needed when the troops land in London).

Turn 3 Alpha+2, Turn 2 OOB

@KillOFzee:

I don’t know if people aren’t reading the rules or what, but fighters in England CANNOT SCRAMBLE!!! Scrambling only takes place on Islands (A land territory within a SINGLE body of water), and the rule book SPECIFICALLY points out that England is not an Island. Is this an alpha 2 rule or something?

Be aware as well that in Alfa+2, you may only scramble up to 3 fighters per air base.

@Gargantua:

It’s not about when you attack but how…… Erosion is the name of the game.

This is the best part of this whole thread, and i totally agree with that.

Personally, i have attacked Russia on G2, G3, G4 and even G5 after Russia attack Germany on R4…All of them are viable. It depends, as Garg was pointing out, on HOW you do it.