i think my understanding is hampered by the fact that my opponent never makes good use of his german fighters to keep the seas clear so i’m used to not really having to build much fleet after UK1, so the difference seems more drastic to me if he were to fleet up in the baltic. but on a higher level of play you have to build more boats as UK regardless of the german fleet. does that sound right?
Posts made by ragnarok628
-
RE: German Strategy…beef up the navy or straight to Moscow?
-
RE: Noob questions on KGF and G vs. Africa
yeah we’ve been really liking the R1 sub buy lately so odds are i don’t still have my boats by G2.
ok but i have questions about UK then. if UK does do all that stuff to japan, aren’t they just going to lose it all? i mean, they’ll gain income from borneo for a few turns but they are sacrificing a transport, cruiser, AC and 2(?) fighters. is it worth it, if you could move into the med instead? i mean if germany takes egypt then that fleet is hosed anyway as far as i can tell unless you want to run it around africa so you might as well do that stuff. as japan i always feel like i have plenty of navy to take out anything within my reach on J1. like, you mentioned setting up a 6 dice attack east of japan? how does that work? by which i mean, under what circumstance would japan actually allow that to happen?
sorry for pestering you with questions, i’m just trying to learn :-D
ok for the first question: so, if i’m US doing KGF and if japan does leave itself exposed and has lost 2-3 capital ships, does building/staying in the pacific mean i should transition into a strategy where i split my attentions between J and G, or do you just say that i should build once/keep forces there only in order to keep pressure on but still focus 99% on G?
-
RE: German Strategy…beef up the navy or straight to Moscow?
i can understand that the allies don’t have to kill the baltic fleet but they have to remain ABLE to kill the fleet, which i guess is what i mean. because besides the logistic advantage you mention a strong baltic navy can force the UK/US players to build up stronger navies to make any kind of landing. right? maybe i’m not right.
-
RE: Submarine Rules…Whaaat?
ah, i read that wrong, apologies!
note to self: read and re-read everything carefully!
-
Noob questions on KGF and G vs. Africa
so does Kill Germany First mean basically that the US player for the most part completely ignores japan and moves whatever pacific fleet survived J1 to the atlantic? or do you still build a few ships to threaten japan? i honestly feel like i don’t really have to participate at all in the pacific as US, if i can kill germany fast enough.
also
is it better to attack egypt and commence sacking of africa on G1, or rather to build up the afrikakorps for a round before commencing? i’ve been doing G1 attack because you get money sooner, plus i will most likely lose my TRN by G2 anyway. but if i load from TRN to libya 1 tank 1 inf, and combine the art + inf, and attack G2 i’ll have more ground units and probably more fighters available, even if i lose TRN. only thing is, i’m one round behind and UK can add forces.
advice?
-
RE: German Strategy…beef up the navy or straight to Moscow?
@Bunnies:
I am of mixed mind regarding a Baltic AC build. Germany cannot keep it if the Allies want to destroy it, but the logistic advantage of Germany/West Europe to Karelia, messing with UK1 fleet build, and added control to Norway are good compensation for the early game.
but if you build it, they HAVE to destroy it, amirite? so you buy time, time that you use to get japan into the fight against moscow. i don’t know if it works at all against good players though.
-
RE: Submarine Rules…Whaaat?
i think she meant before 1942 version? also, cruisers are 3/3 right?
-
RE: Russian moves to start game
excuse me. i meant atlantic. i have this really bad habit of writing the opposite of what i’m thinking. :|
i’ve done the R1 sub buy twice more since then, and i have to say that i’m sold.
-
RE: Does anyone still use paper money (ipc's)?
that’s the other thing, i’ve been using keredrex’s chart for the last 3-4 games. it’s a godsend. well, a keredrexsend at the very least.
-
RE: German Strategy…beef up the navy or straight to Moscow?
well now, i feel like a geography noob. i know where the baltic is but for some reason i just got it in my head that we were talking about a mediterranean carrier. i don’t know why, i even wrote baltic in the same sentence as med. i am a clueless idiot :?
so help a clueless idiot out real quick with this one, i guess it’s a rules point: i was under the impression that you can’t land fighters on a newly placed carrier because non combat move comes before mobilization……
…oooooooooh. wait. ok. i get it now. you end the planes’ non combat move in the sea zone where the carrier will be placed, and then when mobilization happens, the plane doesn’t crash because now, the carrier is there. i’ve been playing my games thinking that you couldn’t do that but i guess it makes sense that you can.
ok now that i’ve got my head on straight, i will contribute this-- i actually did the baltic AC (only i bought two fighters to go with it, because i didn’t realize i didn’t HAVE to) a few games back, and it actually worked out rather well for me. i play against another newbie though, we’re learning together, and he just didn’t know how to handle it, and for some reason he’s resisting the idea of building nothing but navy for UK1. so i bought another carrier and owned the atlantic for the rest of the game. this probably wouldn’t have worked against someone who knows how to deal with it.
-
RE: German Strategy…beef up the navy or straight to Moscow?
ok talk this out to me. baltic carrier can’t work unless airforce takes out british destroyer and cruiser in the med, right? because it would just get wasted. and if russia buys a sub R1 then sub + 2 fighters is still coin toss vs BB and AC so that’s pretty risky. so seems like you’d have to get at least 1 fighter as well. so 1 fighter + 1 bomber + 1 AC = 36 and you only have 4 dollars left for land. and on top of it all you won’t be able to attack anglo-egypt G1. am i getting this?
-
RE: Does anyone still use paper money (ipc's)?
my knee jerk was to hate writing it down instead of actual paper money, but after a game or two, i actually find it more convenient.
-
RE: Submarine Rules…Whaaat?
Realistically… not a super good idea, in my opinion.
There are SOOOOOOO many variables that come into play that digging this deep will just make the game too complex.
The current rules mimic the “abilities” of a sub well enough, so that, apart from modifying the basic stats, there is no need to add another layer of rules. Maybe make them a 3/0 unit.
well i dunno, the rules give the sub the right abilities but still i don’t think the gameplay that those rules promote reflect the reality of sub combat at all. instead of being a powerful offensive force subs in A&A seem to be more likely used for fodder.
i do agree about adding deeper mechanics would probably be bad. what about stripping it down more though? make them a one shot sneak attack 3/3 (i think a defending sub should be just as capable and likely to sneak attack while defending a sea zone as attacking one), and once they’ve fired their shot they auto-submerge. destroyers would mitigate the damage by removing the sneak attack ability (thereby allowing ships hit by the sub to return fire) and then enabling the fleet to destroy the defenseless sub instead of allowing it to escape. i think this would reflect actual use of subs as attack vessels. they gain destructive potential, and as an offset the destroyer is a harder counter and the subs won’t really function as extra hit points any more.
this one would probably be too much of a game changer to implement, but i’ve also thought that it’s kind of silly that when a ship moves into a sea zone occupied by a sub that the intruding ship decides whether to engage the sub or not. in real life wouldn’t the sub, hiding under the waves, be the one to decide whether or not to engage?? absent a destroyer of course. still, not being able to block a fleet is a disadvantage of the sub that should probably remain.
open to feedback! i think i’d like to try these rules sometime.
hobbes:
yeah, the information i was looking at said the same about focusing on U-Boats almost exclusively, although i guess whether or not that was a mistake could be open to interpretation. by the estimate i looked at, every dollar germany spent on U-Boats forced the allies to spend 10 dollars avoiding or compensating the destruction by the submarine force. i’m not an expert but it seems conceivable to me that this was the best way they could have spent their money in the atlantic, and if they hadn’t then the wehrmacht would have been absolutely flattened in much shorter time, ceteris paribus. then again, they may have just been dumping money into a strategy that had stopped working that they could have spent better elsewhere.
-
RE: Submarine Rules…Whaaat?
whelp just found some information here that says a german sub cost ranged from 1 to 3.5 milion whereas a full fledged american destroyer was 10 million, and a destroyer escort (DDE) was 5.3 million. japanese destroyers had similar cost. american subs also range about 1 to 3.3 million. so i guess subs were pretty cheap!?
aanywho that’s my history contribution, and it’s possibly wrong.
-
RE: Submarine Rules…Whaaat?
just for the record, i agree entirely with mrbill about the way subs should realistically work. i realize gameplay takes priority over realism in this game however.
has anyone crafted a ‘homebrew’ balanced set of more realistic rules for sub combat? after having thought about it for a whole two minutes, what if, destroyers absent, the subs got one sneak attack that hits on a 3 and thereafter if it chose to remain in combat hits on a 1 in standard combat? maybe they should get a sneak attack that hits on 2 for defending as well? a 3/2 sneak attack unit and a 1/1 normal combat unit. then make them cost 7 or 8 or maybe even 9 to balance it out. (that’s another thing that seems fishy to me, shouldn’t a sub cost more than a destroyer anyway, realistically? really i have no idea, some WW2 navy buff will have to answer that)
-
RE: All hail Bunnies P Wrath
@Bunnies:
I play on TripleA. Your comment on context is dead on. I would have commented more, only people tend to fall asleep when I go on. And on. And on. :roll:
Well, if you experienced this, it’s a pity. Actually, I am completely convinced that if you (or Hobbes or someone else) posted a game here with screen shots explaining to what extent the moves have been turned out as ,good’ or ,bad’ moves or which moves were supposed to be a promising strategy, many new players and newbies (like me) would be utterly grateful to you for such an effort. Moreover, I am quite sure that we could learn a lot! Not everyone has the board completely in mind as the best players here seem to have.
So, without any intention of sucking up to you, I could listen to you (i.e. reading you comments) as long as you are willing to do so…
seconded
-
RE: All hail Bunnies P Wrath
I think it would be cool if we organized a small club or perhaps a small round robin tournament either here or at the TripleA War Club–those games could be pbem or live.
i would look into being a part of something like that, i can’t get many people to play live with and the triplea AI plays on the level of a demented squirrel. how long does an online game tend to take for triplea?
-
RE: US1 transport to Algeria?
@Col.:
It’s also about all there is for the US to do turn 1.
i think this right here is a bigger part of it than anything. you feel lame doing nothing so you take the one territory that is available to you.
-
RE: Russian moves to start game
well just tried it for one game, and sure enough, the BB ran out to the pacific (where it was eventually sunk) and G failed to take egypt. helluva deal, i’ll keep trying it to see what results i can get.
-
RE: Land bombardment
not trying to start a flame war, but YOU are the one taking correction personally and trying to ‘defend yourself’; the rest of us are only trying to ensure that this is a source of good, clear, information, and i’m sure your contributions are as appreciated as anyone’s. but in this case, at least four people felt your description could be benefited by a clarification. just ask yourself which is more likely: that four people need to ‘learn 2 read,’ or that your post just wasn’t very clear?
case in point: ‘one bombard per unit dropped off per ship’ would mean, using actual definitions of english words, that if four infantry were dropped off with one battleship and one cruiser available for bombarding, then they would get 2 * 4 = 8 bombard dice rolls. that’s what one bombard per unit dropped off per ship means. in reality, according to the rules, there are only 2 bombards in that scenario.
i’m not trying to talk down to you or pick on you or anything, for all i know english is not your first language, i just say this so you will hopefully understand why some felt more explanation necessary.