Kind of off-topic, but IMO, we should reward Spain for their support of the US position vis-a-vis Iraq by giving them back Florida. Let them f**k up Spain’s electoral process for a change… :wink:
JMO
Ozone27
Kind of off-topic, but IMO, we should reward Spain for their support of the US position vis-a-vis Iraq by giving them back Florida. Let them f**k up Spain’s electoral process for a change… :wink:
JMO
Ozone27
Submersible subs, doesn’t favor anyone IMO, it’s just nice that they are not necessarily sitting ducks.
In my opinion 2-hit BB favor the allies, it often costs Ger an extra ftr, maybe 2, to take out the British ships. Too costly for Ger. Like BB said, Jap usually owns the Pacific anyway.
Same here…
Ozone27
BigBlocky is correct–in the normal rules, Western Canada is adjacent to the Hudson Bay SZ. However I HATE this rule, since the Atlantic area on the board is WAY too small anyway, with TRs & aircraft just zipping vast distances without even breaking a sweat. If anything, I’d like to see MORE SZs in the Atlantic to make the Allied supply line to North Sea a little slower & more vulnerable to German SUB & air attacks. When was the last time Germany built a fleet of SUBs? IMO, SUBs are part of the flavor of playing Germany, but no one (including me) ever opts for a SUB program because it’s too much investment for too little effect.
But I’m rambling…We don’t play w/ Western Canada adjacent to Hudson Bay SZ for precisely the reasons stated above & that in many cases it totally defies logic. But it IS standard rules.
Try this: park a large Japanese CV fleet in the small SZ west of British Columbia. Next turn, fly all the FTRs across West Canada through Hudson Bay SZ to attack the Allied TRs in North Sea SZ. Plan on landing all surviving FTRs on Western Europe, though there will be no survivors. Note the fury on the Allies’ faces :lol: ! They’ll agree to an amendment to the rule in no time.
As far as the Panama Canal, here’s what you do: take a standard black ball-point pen & draw a tiny line on the board between the two halves of Panama. Mine has lasted for years, and I have to point out to most people that I put it there!
Ozone27
Ozone…… I am relaxed, you should read me when I am not, and you haven’t yet :-)
BB
LOL! I’ll take that under advisement :wink: !
The more I think about the more unworkable this scheme is. I am all for interesting variants if people want to mix it up a little, but this one seems like it would need a few more tweaks to be really good. I like the basic concept, but the Axis would definitely require some extra boost to make up for the wall USSR would represent vis-a-vis Japan through most of the game…
Ozone27
I am not a big advocate of the USA putting its whole fleet into the Atlantic. I think its overkill. The Germans are insane if they are willing to risk their precious FTRs–unsupported–attacking a naval force that will be immediately rebuilt the next turn anyway. The Italian fleet is incapable of sallying against even a moderate UK/USA fleet. And provided a little bit of cooperation between UK & USA, they can easily win Africa back with a few INF & FTRs after sinking the Italian fleet. The main battle is in Europe & everyone knows it, but this doesn’t require the whole USA fleet to do it! Use TRs/INF/FTRs in Europe–use any leftover IPCs (if there are such things :lol: ) to either research, or to build a few SUBs in the Pacific. Interesting results either way. Its unlikely anything more than one BB (or 1 CV) will be very useful in the Atlantic.
Basically if Japan Pearl Harbors, THEN evacuate the fleet. If not, take it as an opportunity.
That is all. Return to your posts.
Ozone27
Since the USA can make a big impact in Africa/Europe theaters using TR’s ONLY–taking advantage of the UK CV build you mentioned–the USA Atlantic force is just hanging out waiting for something to do. Basically, USA doesn’t need them so they can make a great nuisance of themselves before being destroyed or (possibly) form the core of a strike force against Japan’s #1 resource, her TRs. At the very least, the presence of a medium-to-large USA fleet in the Pacific will limit Japan’s movement options vis-a-vis her TRs (as opposed to complete mastery of the Pacific for Japan), while a few USN capital ships can prove a royal pain-in-the butt for Germany if they make it there.
The chief reason for a T1 “Pearl Harbor II” (so-named because in the context of the game, PH I has already happened) by Japan is that the USN CV fleet is just hanging b**ls-out there at Hawaiian Islands & it will never again be as easy to deal such a devastating blow to Allied naval power as it is there on T1. 1 SUB, 1 TR & 1 CV represent 38 IPC’s-worth of equipment you can destroy & prevent from threatening either you OR your ally, Germany. PLUS, you can do it with little risk to your own forces.
There are 2 basic ways to do this. I call them “Pearl Harbor II” & “Pearl Harbor Lite”. Which to use depends on your overall strategy. In PHII, you commit overwhelming naval forces (like 2 BB, 1 CV, 1 FTR, 1 BMR & a SUB) along with a Hawaiian Islands invasion force consisting of 2 INF and a FTR. You could also hit w/ 3 FTR in the SZ, but you weaken the landing force(if you still choose to go forward w/ it) & risk an additional US FTR available for a counterstroke on their turn–might be worth it. In PH-Lite you attack w/ minimal forces w/ the exclusive objective to eliminate the US ships & plane w/ minimal commitment. In this case, a BB, SUB, FTR & BMR are usually sufficient, although more or different forces may be dispatched depending again on your overall T1 objectives.
Basically as Japan, though I would avoid attacking in more than 2 places T1, as to do otherwise you run the risk of spreading your forces too thin. Seek a steady upward curve of attack power plateauing around Ts 5-6. Don’t try to win the game T1 unless you are a gambler!
Ozone27
I’ve said it before–RELAX BigBlocky :wink: !
I think it’s an interesting attempt to “get historical” although I question the amount of the IPC’s required. Say 20-21 IPCs for each side, that’d be more interesting. I think what they are trying to do w/ this rule is reflect the reality that–considering circumstances–neither USSR nor Japan wanted to open a major front with one another in 1942. As soon as one got weak enough, maybe they would change their minds (as USSR did days before the end of WWII). It would be very difficult for Germany alone to reduce USSR to 21 IPC’s especially after the loss of Finland-Norway. Japan would HAVE to link up w/ Germany to help the latter attack USSR strongly enough to hit the critical threshold–that’d be really wierd!
Of course, had the Japanese Army command got their way, the whole '40-'41 push would’ve been vs. USSR rather than UK/USA/Netherlands. I think many players play this scenario, since it yields better results in the context of the game, but w/ such an IPC restriction, might make it more interesting. Call it a “treaty agreement”…
Ozone27
I agree that the game is pretty well-balanced at the beginner level, which is why I strongly discourage beginners to start w/ rules like RR!
However, in my opinion cooperation is extremely important for both sides in the war–if not more so for the Axis, not the Allies! All things being equal, I have seen many games with my buddies hinge on the cooperation factor. It’s harder to cooperate as the Axis powers early on, but if you can pull it off, it is really your best chance for victory–at beginner OR advanced level…
Ozone27
I agree w/ BigBlocky’s 1st 1/2 (though he may be being too sensitive about the alleged “personal” nature of Xi’s posts. If not, I’ll stay out of it!).
If you post a strategy on the forum, you MUST be expecting SOME critique from fellow players here. Personally, when I post a strategy or a question, I am usually SOLICITING responses because I want to see what other (especially more experienced) players think.
Of course if a strategy works for you, then there is no reason to change it until the enemy catches on. But it’s often useful to acquire the opinions of other players–especially their means of countering the strategy–to see the limits of your ideas. The forum ought to be a give-&-take: by posting here it seems to me one is accepting whatever feedback one gets (as long as it’s not mean-spirited or unproductive–neither of which I’ve seen on this topic)…
JMO
Ozone27
As I stated before & after looking at the numbers it seems to me that SBRs are something you utilize on a medium scale (2-4 Bombers) spreading the risk among as many of your friends as possible on a turn-by-turn basis ONLY. That is, you & your Allies have available BMRs (that is, BMRs not required to achieve that round’s objectives) within range of an enemy that cannot afford to lose the troops it can be expected to purchase next turn. The way I see it, this means an enemy already reeling, but having enough IPC’s to make a nuisance of themselves the next turn (or the following turn) w/ what they purchase. For instance if USSR had just lost a major battle vs. the Axis, but had enough cash on hand to buy a lot more troops. In this case, a 2 BMR series of raids by Germany & Japan might yield good results with less risk than if they attacked from a position of weakness. It’s a gambler’s choice…
But it’s NOT a strategy…
Ozone27
Not only that, but it seems to depend on Germany hitting Karelia & maybe North Sea SZ on T1 & nowhere else.
Japan is just asleep or drunk or both! USA has abandoned Ssinkiang & China & yet Japan has lost Manchuria & sluggishly (even begrudgingly) moved ahead, into China I guess, on T2–since as you said USA still has 34 IPCs. They apparently won in Hawaii T1, but their mighty fleet did nothing thereafter but sit & watch while the remnants of the US fleet slipped out of their grasp. Why didn’t they take Australia? Japan should (as has worked for me :wink: ) ignore Manchuria and just pump all her units through China taking Ssinkiang T2 & threatening India. On T3 The Australian force can sweep in in conjunction w/ the Ssinkiang force & just whale on India whatever UK out there! Meanwhile Manchuria has been retaken utilizing the additional TRs built on the last 2 turns & now USSR is paralyzed. End of turn 3 Japan owns virtually every important territory in the Far East, has 0 threat from USA Pacific fleet & faces NO units in USSR. Better hope Germany has been defeated by T5, 'cuz otherwise you’re sunk…
Ozone27
Interesting idea. Mainly a time waster for the Allies, making them hunt you down in Sweden or face the threat of a (weak) counterstroke in Norway at any time. Certainly would be fun to see their faces when you do it! :o
Mainly I just wanted to say that the word “occupate” in the heading is totally cool. I can imagine all sorts of new trash-talk…
“First I’m gonna occupate Sweden! Then I’m gonna eliminate Norway! THEN I’m gonna activate your dental plan!!!”
Ozone27
Taking on UK can be done only on a surprise basis–your enemies must have no idea you are planning to go vs. UK until it’s too late for them to do anything about it. Even so, it’s risky…it’s rare that vs. expert players you’d even have a chance. But since you did it once… :wink:
Do as waraxis says and play all-out economic war vs. UK. Take India, take Australia; Germany should deploy heavily in Africa, take as much territory as possible, then attempt to link up w/ Japan through the Suez. You will be in the impossible compromise situation of having to save your FTRs & BMR for the attack, while at the same time keeping Allied ships away from North Sea. This is important as well because if the Allies start loading INF into USSR it will be impossible for you to survive. With a good 1/2->2/3 of the Japanese fleet in the Med, you will buy yourself a little time to build some TRs as Germany–build 'em all in 1 turn! The round of the assault, attack with all available Japanese forces to soften up the UK & take over the North Sea SZ. Then, on Germany’s turn, launch the main invasion.
Since UK is poor anyway, you will not net very many IPCs from plunder, but you have siezed an Allied capital that will be almost as difficult for them to liberate as it was for you to conquer.
Now just conquer USSR and you win! :o
As you can see, this is an extremely difficult maneuver to pull off, and one the Allies have to be practically helping you to do! But who knows? With the element of surprise–and if USA deploys in the Pacific…you never know…
My advice–kill USSR. If you can do that, THEN try to take UK. Or even USA, since they are sometimes easier to kill at that point in the game!
Ozone27
I dunno about that one. Why would I wanna break out into the Atlantic? I’m relatively safe in the Med; in the Atlantic I’d be a sitting duck for any potshots from Allied ships & aircraft in the area. In this case the SUB I bought would be a better choice–at least it can submerge/withdraw!
Using the SUB I bought to defend my TR would likewise be pointless. The Allies are most likely to use aircraft vs. my fleet, so a SUB could do nothing but die. Even if the Allies threw in a ship, my SUB would have only a 1-in-3 chance of hitting it. In this case, my original BB is the better choice. SUBs are really effective only when used in numbers (or to back up other Naval units), and then they are best used offensive-defensively–that is to protect your ships and coastline by aggressively attacking adjacent enemy units in order to utilize their “1st-shot” capability.
Ozone27
As far as the AA-gun question, its never come up w/ us–we just go by memory (AA guns are not usually captured then recaptured then captured again). If you need help, I suppose you could place a territory marker under the AA gun to show ownership. You’d have to be careful though not to confuse it w/ the marker of who owned the territory! Disputes between allies are very bad in A & A :wink: !
Ozone27
The 3rd-edition rules are not that different from 2nd. In addition to the rules I mentioned above there are a couple of other tweaks, mainly on territory adjacency rules…
If you & your buddies insist on using special rules in your early games, then here are a couple of the most common ones. Keep in mind that these tend to benefit the Axis, so you may find them rolling over USSR pretty easily–I strongly suggest you play with the normal rules first!!!
1.) Russia Restricted. USSR may not attack on its 1st turn & goes directly to NonCombat Move from Purchase Units. Thereafter, game proceeds as normal. (Incidentally, contrary to popular belief, this is NOT actually more historically accurate than the normal rules. USSR’s spring offensive in 1942 came right at the start of the early thaw that year–postponing the German spring offensive by several weeks. But no problem–history sticklers can just assume the game begins in April 1942 and the USSR’s offensive has already bogged down :) !)
2.) Axis Advantage. Germany begins the game with the Jet Power technology. Japan begins w/ Super Submarines.
3.) No New Industrial Complexes. No new ICs may be built by any power during the game.
4.) Bid. This one is impossible to implement w/ nOObies, because the players have to have some idea of how much they think the game is slanted against the Axis. Bidding starts at, say 24 IPCs. Team one bids down to 18. Team 2 bids 11. Team 1 bids 9. Team 2 bids 6, and team 1 passes. Team 2 will play the Axis, but before the game begins they get 6 IPCs with which to purchase additional units. These new units may be placed on any territory the Axis control at the start of the game (check the color-coding :wink: ). German units cannot be placed on Japanese terrotories & vice verse. In the case of a high bid, no new ICs may be built w/ the additional funds. When the Axis are finished placing their additional units, any excess bid-IPCs are lost & the game begins with USSR’s 1st move.
Ozone27
:lol: :lol: :lol:
BigBlocky relax, man! :wink:
The “when the Axis meet in Persia, they cannot be knocked off their inertia” is just a general rule of thumb, not some kind of victory condition! With that in mind, Morphling was just saying that when the Allies meet in Berlin, the game is probably in the bag for them, as the Axis generally can’t win on the force of 1 alone.
The only “official” victory conditions are military victory for the Allies (capture 2 enemy capitals); military victory or economic victory for the Axis (capture 2 enemy capitals, or have a combined income of 84+ IPCs at the end of any round of play). Anything else is a house rule or special rule…
Ozone27
But C_F, if you allow that you are screwing around with one of the most basic rules in the game: the sequence of phases in a player’s turn.
You can’t take Ukraine (for instance) & THEN blitz through it to attack Caucases because the “taking” of a territory occurs during the Combat Phase of your turn. Once Combat Phase begins, all attack moves are over, because those occur on Combat Movement.
Not to mention that the move you describe would not be a “blitz” because you have already taken the territory. A “blitz” occurs only when the 1st territory an ARM enters is enemy-controlled, but not enemy-occupied–that is, the enemy controls it, but has no units (well, maybe an AA gun) there. Since in the above example, you already own Ukraine, there can be no “blitz” through there–you are “blitzing” your OWN TERRITORY. This is assuming that your house rules are that players can Combat Move, go to Combat Phase, fight, win, & then go back to Combat Move again however they wish. I don’t think I’d want to play by those rules, except maybe as a lark…
Ozone27