Posts made by syntaxerror111

I have looked on the forum and didn’t see any articles on this topic.

In a KJF game is it viable to build an IC in Australia? There are a couple of reasons why someone might place one there instead of India:

1. Japan will have to make the choice to either attack Australia with more than it usually does (thereby reducing the number of troops sent to the mainland) or let you threaten its money making islands.

2. If you end up losing it to Japan, you don’t give them an IC on the mainland that can quickly be used to threaten Russia.

There may be other advantages than those listed, but I’m tired and going to bed now.
Let me know what you think.

@KindWinds:

Has anyone tried to by an Aircraft Carrier and trans on Russia turn 1?

I tried this once- it was a nice change of pace, but I ultimately lost the game.
Wouldn’t recommend it unless you want to give the Axis player a better chance to win, but that is what bidding is usually for.

@ezto:

NO.

No what? You talk about useless suggestions in the Confronting Monster Japan thread, but fail to provide a useful one here.
I know that I am new to this forum, but even I know that a single word post is not very useful.
If you have a better suggestion, by all means share it- you most likely have much more experience than I do.

I am of the mindset that building an IC before maxing out Japan’s production capacity is a waste of IPCs. Yes you can produce directly on the mainland, but the transports are more versatile. Generally I wait to build an IC on India or Sinking.

Also, I do agree that keeping some Tns in sz 5 can be very useful. However I don’t think you need an IC in WE to take advantage of your Tns. Just put them in Ger and shuttle them from there.

I see now there is more to consider. I do have a few questions for clarification:

@Blitz:

For example, the allies are almost forced into uniting there fleet in sz 8 to preserve it on each of their 1st turns. This means africa is yours for that much longer.

How do you threaten the US or UK fleet on G2? I assume by moving the baltic fleet G1 to sz 7. The best way to counter this is with a UK attack with air only, or with BB and tns, and retreat ships after 1 round. This will usually kill all but a sub or 2.

Also, to unify fleet on G2, the BB and tns from sz 14 must attack the BB in sz 13 G1, right? I assume then you play with bids- otherwise you sacrifice taking Egypt G1.
Therefore you can threaten UK fleet with 1BB, 1Tns, and whatever is left in sz 7. UK can handle that.

I do relish the thought of getting UK to panic!

I can see some benefit to an IC in WE, but I think that it is a sub-optimal purchase. Lets look at the main reasons for the purchase:

1. Build naval units directly in sz 6, 7, and 13.
2. Build infantry and possibly fighters directly on WE.

First and foremost, in most games Germany’s primary target should be Russia- which means spending most of your money on troops for the eastern front. Spending 43 IPCs (IC + AC + Des) on units that do not help with this makes putting any kind of early sustainable pressure on Russia near impossible.

Second, fighters are more flexible. A destroyer and a fighter have the same attack, but the fighter is cheaper by 2 IPCs. Fighters can significantly bolster a territory’s defenses, provided you have infantry as a shield. They can not be attacked by naval units (excluding bombards, which should kill infantry anyway), and defending subs cannot hit them at all. Neither can an enemy’s air force directly attack yours- they have to attack the territory they are stationed in. If needed your fighters can be sent east to help with attacks against Russia, then pulled back to help defend in later rounds. No naval units have the same flexibility. In addition, the allies can afford to spend more on their navy than you can on yours, especially the US.

Third, why not just build infantry in Ger and SE? They only take 1 turn to get to WE, and this saves you 15 IPCs. In my opinion, the only reason for Germany to build an IC anywhere is if their production is maxed (16 inf alone is 48 IPCs- most likely you will make some art/tanks instead of all inf).

I confess that I sometimes purchase an AC on Ger 1 in sz 5 and land a fighter on it. This is to keep the fleet alive long enough to regroup with the BB+Tns in the Med. But that is the extent of my naval purchases in almost every case.

There’s my 2 cents. Spend it well   

Welcome Veqryn!

That is a lot to digest. Instead of giving counters for each scenario, here is my general strategies for playing the allies.

Russia:
   -Make sure that the territories you trade in Europe are German, not yours to begin with. You cannot afford these trades for long, so make them count.
   -Consolidate troops in the east: Fortify Yakut, Sinking, and India/Persia. I keep most of the troops in Kazakh and Novosibirsk until I know which route Japan is 
       taking to Moscow.
   -Retreat when necessary: retreating is better than losing your stacks of infantry. Setup counter-attacks whenever possible.

UK:
   -Usually an IC in India is a bad idea, because Japan can take it if they want on J 3-4.
   -Contesting Africa: There are two ways I approach this: either with an IC in SA or without. If without an IC, then make sure you organize both US and UK fleets to 
       meet at sz 12 on the same turn. It will be much harder for German air/sea to take out a combined fleet.
   -Setup shuck from sz 4: Russia will most likely need help on the German front. Try to send troops to either Karelia or Archangel each turn to ease pressure on Russia.
       Your ships will be protected from German air in WE as long as the allies control Karelia and Archangel.

US:
   -Commit to either Japan or Germany: splitting up resources to go after both can be disastrous. Either kick Germany out of Africa or take islands from Japan. It takes too   
       many resources to do both effectively.
   -Get in the action as soon as possible: Even if this means taking losses that you would not normally approve of, it is important to put the axis on the defensive early.   
       Remember that you can afford losses that Germany and Japan cannot.

There is my 2 cents. I hope it helps.

@a44bigdog:

As far as loosing the Carrier off Borneo, a good Japanese player should attack the UK fleet that is in seazone 34 following a liberation of Egypt.

Forgive me a44, but I need clarification on this. Is this UK counter of Egypt on UK 1? If so how do you pull it off? This is something I have never tried before.
Usually Germany has at least 2 units on Egypt after G1, with another inf and art in Libya with any planes that helped attack. Even if you do take back Egypt on UK 1, Germany just takes it back, right? Or is there something I am missing? Thanks.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

I move the two subs down to sea zone 7, the rest of the med navy and other sub attack the battle ship (with figs). My opponent attacked the remaing baltic with his air force. He leaves the subs alone because he can only attack it with  his navy, which would put it in range of mine + all my planes in round 2. He has to choose what his air force attacks because it’s to risky to split them up. Sure this tactic delays me in Africa but it helps secure the Med and with a round 1 purchase of all men + 1 art, I can afford the delay. The us bomber has a crack at the subs but at the least I’ll keep one. Two or three subs, BB + tran is a good thing to have in the Med in round 2.

If I were your opponent in this situation I would have attacked the two lone subs with air on UK1 and the rest of the baltic fleet on UK2. You would most likely lose the Baltic fleet and both subs- if one sub survives the US Bmb gets a shot at as well.

@Zhukov44:

One game, the United Kingdom got 4 hits there and couldn’t retreat.  Since they didn’t buy a carrier, I was able to take down the UK fleet with air.

Generally, this is the exception (I wish it would happen more often to me  ). In most cases I expect either one surviving sub or a total loss, with very little to show for it.

Welcome OpT1mUs!

It really just depends on who you are playing. I see no problem with placeholders, or even pieces from another set, but I guess someone might disagree with that. In the few tournaments I have played only one restricted the pieces to those originally in the set. Other than that placeholders could be used for any and all pieces that run out.

By the way, where are all the AA guns going? I think running out of AA guns would be a first for me!

Even without a factory in India you can be aggressive in the pacific on UK1. By attacking the TNS in sz59 with a DD and the sub in sz45 with a FTR and sub you can slow down the Japanese advance, and hopefully distract them from what should be their main objective: Moscow. If your opponent is susceptible to such a distraction then you might consider an attack on Borneo as well.

@Zhukov44:

I don’t see the appeal of a Brazil IC when the USA already has a 12 ipc factory in Eastern USA.  I’d rather buy another transport and 2 pieces of gear and ship them directly into Africa.

A Brazil IC isn’t useless but it doesn’t seem very efficient.

I agree. Unless you plan on deploying a massive amount of troops in Africa, I think the IPCs could be better spent elsewhere.

My thoughts exactly. Unless you really need it to win/survive, I do not recommend rolling more than two or three dice at a time for a tech.

Zhukov44:

That would be correct, if multiple successes when rolling for a single tech gave you additional techs, like in original A&A. Let me give you a demonstration.

Let’s say that in Revised you wanted to research Heavy Bombers, and you bought 2 dice. This means that you a six on at least one of those dice to succeed- we can create a table to represent this.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 - - - - - x
2 - - - - - x
3 - - - - - x
4 - - - - - x
5 - - - - - x
6 x x x x x x

This table represents all possible combinations between the two dice, where the x’s represent a successful attempt. Now divide the number of successes by the total number of possibilities, and you get 11/36, not the 12/36 as you were expecting. This is because a result of 2 sixes does not grant two technologies, only one. Therefore each dice we purchase has diminishing returns on our chances of success. You can negate the diminishing returns by only purchasing one dice each round. That way if you are successful two rounds in a row, you receive two technologies and not one.

Another way to look at it is say the chance of success was indeed 1/6 * #dice. If you bought 6 dice, would that guarantee success every time? If you have ever done this in a game and failed (the whole reason I worked on this in the first place) then you know the answer is no.

Does this make things clearer?

Recently I came up with an equation for determining the chance of success when rolling for tech in A&A Revised. It is as follows:

(1 – (5/6)^n) * 100
Where n is the number of dice purchased.

ex. 3 dice = (1 - (5/6)3) * 100  =  (1 - 125/216) * 100  =  42% (rounded down)

I have written a proof for this, but the scanned image is too large to attach per forum standards (I think the max is around 256Kb, and the file is 1.16Mb). If anyone is interested I can type the proof and post it later, but if not thats ok b/c I am lazy by nature.

@murraymoto:

You have to look at what use you will get out of the units–not how long can I keep them alive.  What’s the best way to use them to further your path to victory–if that’s a delaying tactic, that’s something.

That is good advice- to always look at how the unit(s) can further your goals. Keeping them alive is just an added bonus!

@ogrebait:

A lot of units are fated to die Round 1 (think US Pacific Fleet). The German Baltic Fleet is just one of them. The difference between the US and Germany is that Germany actually has a chance to do something before the UK blows the fleet out of the water.

I never thought of it that way. Get the most utility you can before they are gone.

I appreciate the great replies on this topic- thanks again.

I’m either 22 or 23- I can’t remember…

I did read the “un-Baltic” article, and it is a well thought out post. However because of no bids I have to choose between either moving BB + TNS to sz 13 and sacrifice G1 Anglo, or not having BB + TNS to help threaten UK fleet on Ger2.

Time to beat the dead horse again- to AC or not to AC, that is the question.

I have searched the forum is some depth, but still haven’t found a good use for the Baltic fleet. In my limited experience there are three options:

1. Let it sit there until UK’s Royal Air Force sends them to meet Davy Jones
2. Build an AC and land a plane or two on it for maximum defence for your IPC
3. Make a break for the Mediterranean and hope something survives

It seems that no matter which I choose, I lose.

First, I should mention that in the local games around here bidding is just a hushed whisper in dark corners by disheartened Axis generals. In other words, it is non-existent.
Therefore, I need the BB and TNS to take Anglo on G1. This makes the possibility of threatening the UK fleet with the entire German fleet on round 2 not really an option.

Now, lets look at the three options listed above.

1. Let it sit
If we let the fleet sit in the baltic, then inevitably the UK will blow them to tiny bits, in their mercy- its just a matter of when. Their starting air units are sufficient for the task,
and usually lose one or two FTRs for their trouble. That means Ger loses 36 IPCs worth of units, while UK loses 10 or 20. Not only is there a large IPC difference, but the UK fleet can now
unload in WE, Ger, EE, Kar, and Norway. This can be prevented by a large Luftwaffe sinking the fleet, but it still can put Ger in more of a defensive position, which is almost always a bad thing.

2. Build an AC
An AC can go a long way in protecting the Baltic fleet, but that’s about all it is good for. What is in the Baltic that is worth spending 16 IPCs for? A single TNS? A couple of subs?
No way you say. And I agree- 16 IPC is way too much to spend in the water, especially on G1. Although the Baltic fleet with an AC can (sometimes) successfully block a UK fleet that is
shucking into sz4, the AC adds little to the offensive power of the fleet.

3. Make a break for Med
This seemes the best option at first, until I started using it in games. Here is how it usually pans out:
The UK will attack me with a TNS, BB, BMR, and 2x FTR. They usually avg 2 or 3 hits which I take on non-subs first, and I avg 2 hits which they take 1 on BB and 1 on TNS.
The attacking BB (and TNS if it is still alive) retreats, and I am left with 1-2 subs that immediately submerge. On US1 their BMR gets a shot at the sub(s) en route to Britian.
This leaves me with possibly one or two subs in sz 7, which move to sz 13 on Ger2.
This is not very helpful, considering they have no protection from another round of attacks from the two BMRs parked in Britian b/c the BB + TNS were used to secure Anglo.

Therefore I can usually expect a total loss of the fleet, with possibly one UK TNS to show for it.

So what do I do? It seems that I am in a lose/lose/lose situation. The only alternative that I can think of is a mix between 2&3, where you buy an AC on Ger1 and move the fleet toward Med on Ger2-3.
Is there anything I am missing? What can I do to improve the situation and get maximum benefit from the Baltic fleet?
Thanks in advance!