@Alex-Phillips said in OOB or BM3:

@AndrewAAGamer I’ll be baited. Unfortunately I think there’s a lot of arrogance displayed by some of the more serious/veteran posters like yourself, Gen. Manstein, etc. It puts me off joining any league on here. I like to post the occasional snippet, read interesting strategies, but that’s it, thanks.

With all due respect, I think you’re misunderstanding Andrew.

I’ve played with him many times and lost many times, having won against him only once when his partner made a massive mistake in the Pacific that cost the US catastrophically.

Three other times I’ve come close to beating him:

Once he and a friend took the Allies against me as the Axis in Global. I threw the script away and launched a devastating mechanized attack against Russia (which appears to be me to be the basis for Andrew’s current Axis plan, albeit with some refinement). The question, “How are we going to beat him?” was asked and the answer from Andrew was “I don’t know.” In the end, I made a bad attack and beat myself.

The next time was Anniversary again, and three players against Andrew (running the Axis by himself I believe). The US and Russia did their parts, but the guy running UK was a horrible player who liked making questionable attacks. He did not want to do anything that his partners needed. At the end, the attack on Moscow would have never happened if the UK had killed just four more German infantry.

Once he and his buddy ran Axis in Anniversary, and I was on a team with two other players. One of the players was very new and a very good player who made Russia look interesting and easy, but at the end despite the fact that Japan was beaten in the Pacific Germany took Moscow. Japan was beaten but standing (and it would have taken many more turns to crush it completely). US fighters, a whole darned stack of them, were one more turn away from Moscow and that would have ended the game definitively in favor of the Allies, with Germany having no chance of success in Europe and Japan having no chance of success in the Pacific. The new player had refused to take a UK fighter in defense of Moscow in order to keep his objective. That resulted in a 50/50 battle that could have been like 35/65 in favor of the Allies. The dice came up against the Allies. With Russia defeated, we felt there was no way to achieve victory unless we risked defeat in the Pacific.

Andrew doesn’t believe in luck. He believes in hard work and patience, and he works harder at this game than anyone else I’ve ever seen or heard of. I’ve never heard him complain about getting diced (although I have seen him lose games because his opponent got lucky with the dice). He just waits til he has the best possible chance of success for an attack. He practices constantly.

He’s proud of his skill. I don’t think that’s arrogance. He works harder than any other player I’ve ever met to improve his play. There’s a difference between pride in your effort and arrogance.

Yes, Andrew is a serious player. He’s not a better player because he’s more gifted at strategy. He’s a better player because he works harder, period to understand the mechanics of the game and how they will play out. That’s not arrogance – that’s determination.

He’s not a better player because he blames other people for his mistakes. He accepts responsibility when he makes a mistake. That’s not arrogance – that’s honesty with himself, something many, many people in the world should consider taking more of.

I’m probably a better instinctive player than Andrew, but where I come up short is determination. Me, I spend my time on city government, running a D&D game, working on a book, and learning two different languages while juggling my day job and pondering graduate school. Why does he beat me? Because he practices harder and longer. Because I’m not as patient as he is.

Playing against him has made me a better player. He has always been willing to offer advice without judgement and to help me get better. He has taught me new things about the game both with and without trying to do so.

So, with respects, reserve your judgement and get to work. When you win as much as Andrew does, you’ll have the right to decide whether or not he’s being arrogant.

No, anyone in our local area playing the Axis would have conceded long before that happened.

Marsh

Also, I have yet to actually receive a 60 IPC bid from Andrew.

“Let’s eat Grandma”

“Let’s eat, Grandma”

COMMAS SAVE LIVES.

@tchenao If you control Normany, the German battleship should have repaired in the G2 purchase phase.

Since you can’t move it into the Med unless Italy took Gibraltar on I1, it would be better to move it to sea zone 112 where it can have air cover.

Marsh

@tchenao We once play a game where the French were the most effective minor power on the board. They could do no wrong on defense. At one point my partner (who was running the French) responded to the player running Germany saying, “Two guys and a plane should be enough” with “Are you sure? They’re French.” and the other player winced visibly. The French in that game killed more German units than the UK…

Fun day!

Marsh

In all frankness, I have never seen KJF work. Yes, I have seen Japan be completely hosed, with income down to the teens. Despite this, the US still has to spend money to keep Japan down and is unable to dedicate 100% of its resources to Europe.

Admittedly, I have only played with a few dozen players. Maybe there’s a good KJF out there that I have yet to see.

It is hard to script out KJF because Japan has soo many options, but here are a few random thoughts:

First, Japan has other income options that don’t depend on its navy. Crushing China early and taking Russian territory helps Germany and Japan while impeding Russia.

Second, it does not take that much US income to give the UK and Russia the edge over Germany and Italy.

Third, it takes almost the entire US income to overcome Japan’s navy.

Fourth, it is completely up to Japan when to go to war with the US.

All of these factors lead me to believe that KJF as a primary plan can’t work because it fundamentally assumes that your opponent is going to do certain things a certain way.

If you know your opponent always does a J1 attack you can certainly plan a response for that, but in terms of strategy that works against every opponent you need more tools than that in the toolbox.

Marsh

@panther Success now as apparently I thought “of” had a capital “O” and the forums did not.

@Contango I might be able to attend this, but with all due respect to YG I don’t want to watch a 27 minute YouTube video instead of actually reading a rules document. Is this variant written out somewhere?

Marsh

@oysteilo Ok, I’ve got the file. I’ll send you my first move sometime this weekend. Please be aware that my availability from day to day varies considerably and it may be more than three days before I’m able to move in some situations.

Marsh

Here’s the response I made to your posting in the Pacific forum.

@mikemikemike said in More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40:

AA 1940, Pacific: 1. If an US amphib assault of destroyer and 2 loaded transports hit the Carolina Islands, and the defender scrambles 3 fighters and kills the destroyer, can the transports retreat to a friendly adjacent sea zone (I know can’t unload) or are they killed?

The surviving transports can retreat to a non-hostile sea zone through which one of them travelled, but only after all the hits from the defenders are assessed. If the scrambled fighters got more than one hit in the situation you described, each hit beyond the first is assigned to one of the transports. Any units on a transport that is hit are lost.

The transports can retreat but cannot unload. In this case, on the next Japanese turn the transport is probably dead unless there are Allied ships guarding the transport.

2. If a US transport picks up 2 ANZAC infantry, can they goto an enemy island during non-combat phase? There are no enemy ships there but could scramble enemy fighters. During the ANZAC turn, they send in ANZAC combat ships and planes to support the landing of their troops from the US transports. Ok?

When loading Allied troops on a US transport, the transport cannot move until the US turn and the troops cannot be unloaded until the Allied power’s turn comes back around. The sequence you described is:

ANZAC: Load troops onto a US transport during ANZAC non-combat movement.
US: Move transport:
ANZAC: Unload troops during either combat or non-combat movement. (Note that in this case the transport cannot retreat as it did not move.)

Hope this helps!

Marsh

@mikemikemike said in More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40:

AA 1940, Pacific: 1. If an US amphib assault of destroyer and 2 loaded transports hit the Carolina Islands, and the defender scrambles 3 fighters and kills the destroyer, can the transports retreat to a friendly adjacent sea zone (I know can’t unload) or are they killed?

The surviving transports can retreat to a non-hostile sea zone through which one of them travelled, but only after all the hits from the defenders are assessed. If the scrambled fighters got more than one hit in the situation you described, each hit beyond the first is assigned to one of the transports. Any units on a transport that is hit are lost.

The transports can retreat but cannot unload. In this case, on the next Japanese turn the transport is probably dead unless there are Allied ships guarding the transport.

2. If a US transport picks up 2 ANZAC infantry, can they goto an enemy island during non-combat phase? There are no enemy ships there but could scramble enemy fighters. During the ANZAC turn, they send in ANZAC combat ships and planes to support the landing of their troops from the US transports. Ok?

When loading Allied troops on a US transport, the transport cannot move until the US turn and the troops cannot be unloaded until the Allied power’s turn comes back around. The sequence you described is:

ANZAC: Load troops onto a US transport during ANZAC non-combat movement.
US: Move transport:
ANZAC: Unload troops during either combat or non-combat movement. (Note that in this case the transport cannot retreat as it did not move.)

Hope this helps!

Marsh

@imperious-leader said in The rehabilitation of cruisers and the 4-4-7:

@crockett36 Cruisers always move 3 spaces, and if they roll a one and the enemy has a plane, it must be selected as a hit…ok balanced

Umm, this should be under house rules if that’s what this is about.

Marsh

@thedesertfox With respects, Young Grasshopper’s tournament uses house rules. This forum is for actual Axis & Allies Global 1940.

@crockett36 Sure, PM me and we’ll set up a game.

There is absolutely no way that Japan before mid-to-late game can force the US to put its fleet in harm’s way. Of course, you may be referring to the paltry collection of ships in sea zone 26 that can be attacked on J1. If so, we clearly have different definitions of “fleet”.

It absolutely IS a dumb thing for the US to consolidate their fleet in sea zone 26 if sea zone 26 is a dead zone.

So, either toss dice (PM me your address and we’ll do a game. I’ll take the Allies with a 30 bid.) or keep talking to yourself.

Marsh

@thedesertfox I’ve won many, many games this way and lost only a few. If you’re not willing to throw dice (PM me your address and we’ll do a game. I’ll take the Allies with a 30 bid.), I’m done with this thread.

Marsh

@squirecam said in Bismarck or Taranto?:

Well this assumes OOB since a 24 bid is high for a BM game. That said, I would buy a carrier and still attack both fleets in 110 and 111. If you want to scramble then go ahead. I’ve still got over 70% wins on both battles even with them.

To this I will add a “Yippee” from the Russians, since that’s four mechs/four art/five infantry not coming to attack Russia. And I assume since you build a carrier you are planning to keep planes on it, and to also probably put a DD with it. Russia happy! I can now go for Iraq and other Axis territories in Africa, hold my territory longer and keep the Axis out of the Middle East.

And if Germany builds a carrier, I will probably not use this build for UK 1. I would probably go 5 infantry and a minor IC for Egypt, and you can be darned sure that the US is coming to liberate London and that the Russians start advancing towards Germany.

@squirecam It would be better for Italy to not divide its fleet on I1, but then doing so would mean it never gets it’s NO other. Again, the primary job of the UK to secure the Med is done – Italy’s income is nerfed and Italy is on the defensive.

Marsh

@squirecam I don’t play “Balanced Mode”. I refuse to address any issues you raise regarding that particular house rules variant, which has its own sub forum and should not be discussed here.

Marsh