agree. the bigger the battle, the less LL will matter. the smaller battles are where you really have to worry about getting diced.
either way, they’re completely different games. LL is mostly deterministic, and you can plan out your moves accordingly, knowing exactly what battles are coming 2, 3, 4 turns in advance. normal is completely stochiastic, there’s no way to be sure what things will look like next round even.
its ALL counter-intuitive because generally speaking, if the attacking force doesn’t want to kill subs, they wouldn’t aim at subs :lol: I can’t think of any tactics that would force the attacker to dispatch the subs before the transports, but thems the rules.
well if we wanted to get tricky, we could always add an asymmetric information element. let’s say subs are invisible except to destroyers or units being attacked by the sub. call it a constant submerged state. the position could be tracked by pen and paper in case of a dispute. if a destroyer enters a sz occupied by an enemy sub, the owner of the sub must say so. then simply allow planes to attack ‘unsubmerged’ subs at full attack value.
not TOO incredibly complicated, although it is probably inconvenient to use pen and paper in such a way. sub buys are still announced, etc. etc.
also it feels wrong to have a ‘fog of war’ for subs exclusively.
i cast my lot with the crowd, i love playing Japan. You get to deal with some interesting naval maneuvering in the pacific, can reach across the whole map participating in every theater of war, and you are often the largest power in the game, geographically speaking. Many options, and usually no one putting a whole lot of pressure on you, leaving you free to dictate your battle plan.
reality is shot to hell once you even START to make this a board game, because it is definitely not realistic for each power to know the exact makeup and location of the other powers’ fleets! even though planes attacked subs in WWII, they didn’t already happen to know the location of every enemy sub beforehand. therefore allowing air strikes on subs would result in a completely UNREALISTIC dominance of aircraft over submarines to the extent that the subs would rarely ever be built in the game.
yes, that’s the point. how did he do it? what did you learn from how he dealt with that strategy?
i’m jealous. i would love to double up on AA42 minis
ah, that chess analogy was beautifully put, granada. and thanks hobbes for your reply as well. i’m definitely more of a boil-it-down guy than a split-the-atoms-of-a-hair type as far as these things go, and putting in in terms of “what is more important: russian fighter or UK BB” really helps me to understand my own thoughts on this norwegian gambit. although i still haven’t decided where i come down myself! i think i’m leaning towards not doing norway.
i just don’t understand why several of you refuse to participate and accept the situation presented? it depends on the situation. we all get it. saying so as a caveat will prevent you from being ‘wrong’ but it doesn’t mean you can’t take part in the fun little hypothetical.
as far as a 16 sub buy goes, that’s not an offensive fleet, that’s a defensive fleet. you can’t attack anyone with it! it’s defensive because you have to wait until an enemy fleet positions itself in range of your subs, because if you move into their range, you’re stuck with half the punch.
i think i get the joke now, let me rewrite it–
the captain asks, “how much?”
the answer: “Forty”?
captain: “Forty what?”
answer: “How much ‘what’?”
are you a native english speaker, granada?
(i realize that might sound rude, it isn’t intended that way)
ok then, but excluding some exploitable snafu for russia, does sz2 become a no brainer, or just a good option among others?
my real question for you, hobbes, is this: how significant do you feel was the norwegian gambit’s success at saving the UK BB? was it worth the opponents sacrifice/opportunity cost in this case?
i don’t get granadas joke.
i think the purposes of the exercise are clear, if you have 100 IPCs what is your dream navy? general purpose navy, a navy in a vacuum, a navy you feel will do you proud whatever it might go against.
i’ll take 2 AC’s with 4 fighters, 3 destroyers, and 2 subs.
fair enough. any opinions to the contrary?
i also would like to hear some experienced voices about sz2. i always try for the UK BB but the problem is it is not really a sure thing, and even when it works i often lose a fighter. whereas if i don’t go try for it, i can use the bomber in egypt, the sub for the free transport (or even take the cheap shot at US fleet) and the fighter for… something, i suppose. considering that the UK1 buy doesn’t really change whether or not they lose the BB, is destroying it always worth the lost units/missed opportunities? i’m wondering. again, thanks for any opinions on this.
i think i understand OP’s point, i’ve run into it myself playing with newer-than-me players. i think it takes something away from the game for them if i just tell them what to do. And i can imagine a situation where if i’m playing with someone i don’t know well, and either i or they assume the role of supreme commander i think one could take umbrage. I think it’s better if the dialogue were along the lines of, "i think it would be best if i were to…. " "well i thought a good strategy for me is… " "well in that case, i think i can better support that strategy by… " instead of “OK you need to buy X, Y, Z and on your first move use THAT THAT AND THAT to TAKE THIS”
A good strategy is going to take the law of averages into account–and low luck games will give you a good idea what the law of averages is.
well i’m convinced. for a strategy to be really considered viable i think it would have to work in low luck. if it doesn’t work in LL, then you don’t have any reasonable expectation for that strategy to succeed. i don’t expect the opposite would be true, however. therefore a reasonable position is that LL could be a sort of litmus test, failure in low luck meaning don’t bother in dice.
the thing i don’t like about playing UK is you get to have all your fun rounds one and two, but after that you’re more or less a one note banjo: land in europe, land in europe, land in europe. you lose what forces you have in the rest of the world and have reasonable way to replenish them, so from round 3 on you base your whole game around (usually) the norway-germany invasion. the only time i was able to have a little fun was by running away from the japanese, and it cost me.
i don’t know what you are currently trying, but a few things that might help you (i’m pretty new as well):
winning in the pacific doesn’t get you far, so do your best as japan to put pressure on russia, helping germany out. you can even send your fighters over to europe to strengthen your ally.
german planes are very useful in the early rounds for clearing out enemy ships, slowing the landing attempts. are you eliminating the UK battleship on round one?
maximize your income in africa.
don’t let your infantry reserves get too low.
and the general tip that is very basic but important is this: always be aware of what the other side can do to you! good luck.
just so i’m following: US would use the BB, SUB, and 2 FTR to mop up the leftovers of pearl or pearl lite, and then throw in an extra 20 IPC of navy into SZ-52. so then Japan would have to deal with upwards of BB, AC, 2 FTR, SUB if it made a counter-strike. OK, that is pretty daunting. i think it wouldn’t be worth the 10 IPC hit to US, and Japan would do better to focus on its Asia campaign. Even if pearl harbour survives, Japan has enough surface ships on the table at the beginning of the game that they won’t have to divert resources to the pacific for several rounds.
well, it’s interesting to think about.
i guess i didn’t factor in that you would land 2 fighters there. and yeah biggg is right about the BB. still, if i’m thinking this out correctly, this change basically just forces japan to take more effort in dealing with the US in the pacific. maybe this makes KJF a bit more viable?
i think operation almanac is more of a strategy than an operation, and operation holyfield is just naval tactics, not an operation.
still, that’s pretty clever 
i think that would just take away options for japan– no more ‘pearl harbor lite’. new units in SZ52 will just immediately die to japan again anyway.
well i don’t think it’s inherently a horrible thing to not take west russia on R1, but if you attack both norway and ukraine, the units you can bring to bear are basically the same as if you were doing a triple. and that gives you less than favorable odds. i guess what i’m saying is, by not attacking w. russia, you aren’t really increasing your odds of winning in norway and ukraine so then the only reason to do it is to possibly play it safer at the probably cost of sacrificing more of your income to germany. unless i miss something. i think it’s still a high-risk move due to it being quite possible to fail in one or the other, and if you’re going to go high risk, you might as well just do the triple.
I did forget about losing canada. but then, they can consolidate in E Canada, add 2 TRN of units + 2 fighters turn 1. this would be a decent defense against what US can throw at that territory R1.
i don’t think the US would be able to constantly unload on UK because of the initial naval advantage. UK and GER can consolidate fleets right on the US eastern seaboard and with only modest reinforcements could prevent the US from taking control for several rounds at least.
i think mr.biggg is right about UK in that they’ll have to worry about keeping up their income, though. i guess the only expansion is russia. i don’t think they stand a chance at making any progress further east, they’ll definitely lose their islands and india quickly. japan doesn’t have as many expansion territories as in a normal game because of russia being an ally, so mostly they’ll just take islands and take the route through india to africa. Germany will probably need to protect that route, and UK can make up for it by helping against russia.
I’m interested to try this. i don’t think i’d switch turn order, though, because i think any switches will just make things worse for UK or Russia.
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.