You’re a crazy mofo paintbrush…always entertaining to read your…“posts.” I think you’re more like general in teh jenf0rces than a major!
Posts made by trihero
-
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
-
RE: Having Trouble Connecting
I’m glad to see the mods are as impatient as I am :-D Dunno, makes me feel not so lonely. :wink:
-
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
and i have an AA in Karelia, you ˝liberate˝ the territory with UK forces, but the AA gun doesnt go ot USSR side but to UK side which as its writen up there to quote…
But you are not liberating Karelia. Because there is no capital, you are capturing it.
-
Discussing AARE
I’m gonna start out with my thoughts on NAs, feel free to discuss I’m probably wrong in a lot of circumstances, but I want to learn. If I take a
Russia’s
1. Russian Winter- :cry: . What kills it - it is too defensive, and not particularly good at it. AARE appears to have a lot of focus on the many first skirmishes in a scramble for victory cities. Russian Winter is basically saying that you’re waiting for the Axis to come all the way next to Moscow before you can use it, and that usually doesn’t happen as the game is usually determined at some point before that. You may also get no further benefit from it than one extra turn from it, because the Axis can dance around active zones for a turn. A free turn is good don’t get me wrong, but it would seem to come at an awfully late part in the game while the Axis could be dictating it far before then.Suggestion: Russian Winter can be declared at the beginning of the Russian turn. At least this way you could use it on R1 to boost a Russian Triple attack, or at least it would take away the warning the Axis players get in the current embodiment declared at the end of your turn.
2. Mobile Complex = :-) Good for a KJF strategy, or in a KGF, as a second NA. In some respect it is already as good as Russian Winter because it delays the Axis for a turn in which they have to rebuild the complex after they get the territory like Caucasus/Moscow. What makes it better than Russian Winter is that it is very flexible and hard for the Axis to avoid, you can move your complexes to areas where reinforcements are needed, and you can continue to do this as opposed to Russian Winter. You also get a free complex and inf, nothing to sneeze at.
3. T-34s = :-( Requires a big tank building session for Russia, and defensive play. However, the best defense comes from infantry, and infantry also provide fodder for future offense. It might be good if coupled with Lend Lease to nab a couple extra arm per round from your Allies, but it’s a little bit too defensive and not great at it either compared to the infantry you could build instead of the arm.
Suggestion: Give Russia a free arm at the beginning of this NA.
4. Lend Lease = :-) Solid all the way around in any strategy as first or second NA. Over some rounds Russia could feasibly accumulate the cash to develop a rocket tech, or in any case you can nab some fighters from your Allies to trade with Germany/Japan easier, which is great, since Russia already has a lot of men on the frontlines, just needing some expensive gear which it otherwise would not be able to afford.
5. Russian Rail :-) A great NA. Russia can easily hold Karelia by itself, which is sometimes a big problem with the other NAs. You can zoom infantry from Mos/Cauc directly to Karelia, and zoom a lot of infantry from Asia towards Germany as well. Big pressure on Germany limits their build options, which is good since Germany is difficult in AARE.
6. Siberian Conscripts: :-) You must plan a way to maintain the territories for a few rounds, otherwise it’s not worth it, but if you do plan it right, it’s worth a lot of IPCs and delay to Japan. It’s horrible if you allow Japan to expand to Yakut in 2-3 turns, because you have no NA anymore.
Germany’s
1. Atlantic Wall - :-) Not bad, but not always the answer. It gives you a superior defensive position, but you have to watch out for mass bombardments on W. Europe, which will eventually cave it in.
2. German 88’s - :-) Not bad, but it’s limiting in the sense that the way to take advantage of it is to do a huge infantry/artillery push, which may not be the best way to win in AARE.
3. Divebombers - :-) Not bad. It forces the Allies to build a carrier or two, and gives you more leeway in trading territories. What I like is that it’s flexible, since fighters are flexible.
4. Panzers - :-) Good. It lightens the load of trading territories in two ways; you can now take those annoying zones where someone pickets 1-3 inf + aa (normally risky to send aircraft in), and you can also take the territory even if your inf screen burns off. But you have to send the panzers en masse because it’s really not good if they dont’ instantly kill the opponent, so it might only help you trade 1 territory per turn if you want to be very certain of the results. But then again, 1 territory per turn helps a LOT.
5. Wolfpacks - :-) Good. What better way to annoy the Allies than with subs? The UK isn’t going to be happy at all when it starts off of -8 on its very first turn, and it likely won’t let up for a good while due to how difficult it is to tag subs and also the UK’s rapidly diminishing income.
6. Afrika Corps - :-). IMO it’s not terribly difficult to counter if you’re in the least used to AAR’s method of cleaning Africa out with the Allies; those few units don’t tend to make a huge difference because the Allies usually have air superiority in Africa, making it hard to trade/push there. But if you suspect the Allies’ strategy has a huge weakness in Africa, there’s no better way than to start off G1 with a truckload of units there and watch the Allies scramble with both that and the German navy.UK
1. Radar - :-) For $8, you get a $5 aa gun, turn your bb into an AA gun that shoots at a 2, and get your destroyers to bombard. Or you get all your fighters immune to AA guns and defend on a 5. Radar is good because it gives you the flexibility to deal with any combination of German naval/air assaults.
2. Royal Airforce - :-) I think usually the best way to deal a simple carrier reinforcement of the Baltic is to overpower it with air. With Royal Airforce, you can have a total force of 7 figs 1 bom ready to attack the Baltic on G2, forcing them to give it up or build even more boats. Although air alone can’t hit subs, figs are a great way to clear a sub-heavy navy by removing all the support units in an efficient manner.
3. Royal Navy - :-) Destroyers is a good strategy in AARE due to combined arms. More destroyers out in the sea means more defense against naval/air assaults, and eventually mass bombardments.
4. Commonwealth - :-) An inf per turn is nothing to sneeze at if you can manage the long term game. In fact, it’s easily one of the strongest NAs if you can do the long term. This NA alone can make Africa invincible to all the most brutal of Japanese/German expansion tactics, and those tactics are extremely costly to other theaters of war. Putting an inf per turn into an inaccesible place like South Africa helps a ton.
5. Colonial Garrison - :-( Personally, I don’t think the UK can manage to put up units at an IC and also deal with Germany’s navy. The other problem is that complexes you set out there are vulnerable to convoy raids, and you may not be very happy if both Japan/German y have subs along the Indian coast. Commonwealth is probably better if your only goal is to maintain some pressure at India/Africa. But if the Germans are hamstrung or don’t care about their navy, garrisoning India/Australia can create a headache for Japan as the subs/inf stream out.
6. UK Lend Lease - :-) If the Germans are going with a massive massive navy, this can be used as a second NA to recruit American figs as well as give the UK some cash to play with as convoy raiding takes its toll. The UK can assemble a huge airforce on its own with royal airforce + lend lease, allowing it to cleanly wipe out the Germans without the hassle of a 1-2 strike from UK/US which has a lower success rate.Japan
1. Banzai - :-D Gold star NA. I would recommend this 100% as Japan’s first NA. On J1, it frees up a significant portion of your airforce to do other things. On further turns, it allows your infantry to become quite the fighting force; each infantry has a 16% higher chance to hit on round 1, the most important round. Since the infantry is a cheap unit, that’s amazing. Really frees up a lot of equipment and gives you a huge battering ram to break through any pressure that the Allies are throwing at you in Asia.
2. Kaitens - :-) Good NA. If America’s going after you, the free sub and cheap sub are quite welcome for fodder. If American’s not going after you, you can manufacture 5 subs much more cheaply to convoy raid the US.
3. Tokyo Express - :-) It can be a very quick win by grabbing Australia on J2, and then holding Hawaii/Karelia/India, which is not out of the question the way some people play. Otherwise, it’s probably better as an anti-KJF tactic, since transports in KGF are getting you a more varied force to the frontlines at less cost. If you’re fighting off the Americans though, it helps a ton to build TE destroyers because they do a lot of things for their cost - offloading 2 inf per turn just like transports (in noncombat), sub detection, and reasonable attack/defense rates.
4. Most Powerful Battleships - :? Not sure about this one. It feels like it needs a permanent cost reduction of 1-2 IPCs. Look at NAs such as Royal Airforce, Navy, Divebombers, Kaitens, Kamikazers, Wolfpacks. Those NAs do 3 things - improve the unit, give you a discount on the first unit, and then give a further permanent cost reduction. Why is this one different? Two other NAs break the mold as well, but those are understandable - 88’s is understandable because a permanent reduction would make it way too good, it’d be the 100% replacement for infantry (not to mention you get 8 IPCs of free units as opposed to 5 or so on the above mentioned NAs). Reinforced carriers doesn’t necessarily deserve a permanent cost reduction because the US has another NA that can do that too.
5. Kamikazes - :? I just haven’t used this enough. I suppose it’s good vs KJF because you can snipe out transports, but using that ability isn’t economically sound, and is severely dampened if the US builds redundancy like having 3 transports with them. Plus the US might not even care about transports and simply look to convoy raid you to death. Also the US can easily counter this with reinforced carriers, so their carriers are no longer so vulnerable.
6. Tech Advantage - :-) Basically a quick +16 IPCs to the Japanese. Probably most useful in a KGF to give the Japanese Jet Power to lend some more defense to Germany, help their tech out if they need it, and also to help overcome the common AA gun in Caucasus.US
1. Reinforced carriers - :-) Possibly a requirement for KJF, otherwise your carriers are fodder for kaitens/kamikaze.
2. Naval Industry - :-) Very likely a requirement for KJF, gives you a big economic edge. Every naval unit you buy is $1 earned, so if you’re buying 4-5 subs a round, you’re making an extra 4-5 per turn. Awesome!
3. Tech Advantage - :-) Not only does it save on you a tech, but it takes out the 50% risk factor in rolling partial tech. That really makes a huge difference; failed techs hurt doubly because they cost you more to finish and they also take another turn to implement. This can quickly get you some rockets into the game against Germany, or any other tech you can think of.
4. Pac Divisions - :-) Basically +3 IPC per turn. That’s even better than naval industry if you build less than 3 boats per turn. Gives you flexibility in defending the W. Coast as well as shucking units. Combine pac divs + naval industry to make the US a monster to fight against.
5. Marines - :? Haven’t used enough. If you plan it right you could get a huge payload into W. Europe on turn 3 or so, but I think it’s a better idea to slowly ramp up destroyers with combined arms to wear out W. Europe then Germany.
6. Mech infantry - :-) Infantry aren’t supposed to move at 2, but now they do. That makes retaking Africa with the US a cinch, as well as operations in Europe. It would of course be worth a lot more with a nation like Germany or Russia, but it still is good for the US. -
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
I am not going to argue this any further. Neither Mazer nor I ever implied that the original UK gun in India becomes Russian when the Russians liberate it. Whichever way you spin it, the answer to the original poster’s question is the UK gets it.
I think the misunderstanding comes from whether you were trying to answer the original poster’s question or put a hypothetical about a Russian AA being in India. I was only trying to answer the poster’s question, not a hypothetical about a Russian AA being in India. That is where the misunderstanding is, I think. But I would agree with your interpretation about the hypothetical.
Also you are incorrect about the whole situation about capitals being captured and whatnot, if you read LHTR it says only AA guns in the liberated capital go to the owner of the capital, but everywhere else it stays pre-liberation control, not reverting to the original owner. Anyways bah! -_-
-
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
I am thoroughly confused. I answered the original poster’s question correctly. The AA gun reverts to UK control, not to Russian control. I have no idea what you are arguing about thereafter, talking about different pages superceding each other and capturing being the same as liberating.
-
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
So you see, the guns DO go to the owner of the territory, regardless of liberation or capture.
Thanks, you finally agree that I am right. The original owner of the territory (India) was UK, so both it and the AA gun go back to it. I am awaiting an apology.
-
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
You are still capturing the territory and then you give it over to the original nation if you liberate it.
No, you’re not. LHTR makes a clear distinction between liberation and capture. They are not interchangeable.
Liberating a Territory
If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you
“liberate” the territory. You do not take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the territory and its income. Antiaircraft guns or industrial complexes in that territory revert to the original controller of the territory.If the original controller’s capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the territory, you capture the territory, collect income from the newly captured territory and can use any industrial complex there until the original controller’s capital is liberated. You also take ownership of any antiaircraft gun in that territory.
So you see, you either liberate or you capture a territory. You do not do both. What evidence do you have to support your myth?
-
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
In case you don’t understand what I’m talking about, Jennifer quoted correctly that you gain control of an AA gun if you CAPTURE the territory; i.e. the original owner of the territory is of the opposing side. That’s beyond obvious, say Germany captures Caucasus on G1 and there’s a Russian AA there, it becomes Germany’s.
What she doesn’t understand is that the original poster asked about liberating a territory, and that there is a difference between liberation and capture. LHTR clearly makes this distinction. If you capture a territory, you get the AA gun, but if you liberate it, it goes to the original owner.
This makes me question (again) why Jen bothers to post about rules she clearly has not read, and is reminiscent of the time she confidently declared that 400 aa guns could fire rockets out of 1 territory if there were 400 targets to hit.
-
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
I just edited my post.
There is a difference between capturing and liberating. You need to understand this. You can capture an AA gun, but if you liberate it it goes back to the original owner. Read more please.
-
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
Pg 17 of the pdf of LHTR 2.0
Liberating a Territory
If you capture a territory that was originally controlled by another member of your side, you
“liberate” the territory. You do not take control of it; instead, the original controller regains the
territory and its income. Antiaircraft guns or industrial complexes in that territory revert to the
original controller of the territory.In response to your earlier post Jen, please read the rules before posting. I am right.
You quoted “CAPTURING” a territory. There is a difference between capturing and LIBERATING. The original post asked about LIBERATING. Clearly, I am right, and you are wrong.
-
RE: The UnBaltic - CSub paper #18
@Cmdr:
Bean, that’s because you never expect me to attack it. :P
In most of my games, I fly over the Baltic fleet and wave and unify my fleet in SZ 12.
It’s not that I don’t expect you to attack it, it’s that I’m waiting to see if your words ever match up with your actions. I think every time you have attacked it in AAR you’ve lost, anyways.
-
RE: Anti-Aircraft guns: Liberated or Captured
It reverts to its original owner, like the territory.
-
RE: The UK and Industrial Centers
Honestly, I have built about 7 British Industrial Complexes in S. Africa and have had none of them fall to Japan or Germany. I’ve done it in both traditional and free for all games.
Seems you already forgot when I took that complex and the rest of Africa with Japan in one of our quickie games?
-
RE: Solution to the LL vs ADS Debate
Secondly, you’ll invariably have fighters, artillery, armor and/or bombers in your attack which would thrust you out of the infantry only scenario and then LLADS will come into play making the results much more random then LL but not as random as ADS.
I already showed you with your previous example how one can easily adjust for LLADS; I merely shaved off one artillery and the battle varied from 9-10 inf strafed, 50% of each occurrence.
And it’s false to say that the fighters/artillery/armor will throw you off since you can easily make it so they come out to multiples of 6 in dice points.
No one has yet proven that LLADS is a bad method to test strategical theories or that it is worse then the predictability of LL or the weird results you could generated in ADS.
I have already proven to you multiple times that strafing in LLADS is still too ridiculous compared to ADS, because there is absolutely no way for you to get lucky and overtake the territory if you planned a little bit, while it can easily happen in ADS.
And even if your ego is saying that no one has yet proven you wrong, then I say no one has yet proven LL to be wrong, either. If it ain’t broke, dont’ fix it. And if it is broke, then fix it right, not half-ass.
-
RE: The UnBaltic - CSub paper #18
Kinda exactly what CSub is FINALLY saying that I’ve been repeating like a broken record for over two years.
There’s a time when to know when to give up your ego, Jen. Csub correctly advocates fighting 2 sub 1 tp 1 dest with 2 fig 1 bom, and if you’ve been reading carefully, they say even if you don’t like finishing that fight you should at least strafe then retreat. The addition of the extra sub though makes it a very volatile fight because you very well might not get to the tp and wind up trading your airforce for some subs.
And the funny thing, you’ve attacked my Baltic fleet every time no matter where it went, in spite of you “saying” that it’s not a good move. Guess what people think when you say one thing and do another?
-
RE: Having Trouble Connecting
I don’t have the patience to wait several minutes for the page to load, if it even loads at all.
Glad to see I’m not alone :-D
-
RE: Having Trouble Connecting
It seems to be ok now, I didn’t even bother posting the last couple days due to the delays :roll:
-
RE: Solution to the LL vs ADS Debate
No, you can still strafe precisely in LLADS. You can still send 60 infantry after 11 inf and get away with exactly 10 kills. That is not a valid strategy in ADS. It is false to say that something that works in LLADS should work in ADS, just as false as it is to say that LL strafing is valid in ADS.
The only solution that I’ve read about so far is the one that IL talked about or the guy from a few months ago posted that you can force the opponent to roll something ADS, that directly keeps the game honest, and directly addresses the main problem that you acknowledged but don’t even begin to fix, 60 inf after 11 inf.
-
RE: Solution to the LL vs ADS Debate
The Point is, LLADS is inbetween ADS and LL. LL is obviously a poor method to extrapolate a 15 round game for theory testing because it has very little variation in results and allows you to calculate your defense and offense to the nth degree.
Wrong, stop here, do not pass go. Your plan changes a lot, this is my 5th or 6th time saying this, there are plenty of divergent battles. The baltic fleet battle for existence, it ranges WIDELY from your entire RAF surviving to them all dying with a German boat surviving. Your plan changes a lot if you send the destroyer to Kwang and the tp wins. Going into Egypt you can lose 1 or 2 units, and that can be all the difference in the world.
There is quite sufficient variation in results in any number of battles. You can lose 1-3 infantry in W. Russia and/or Belorussia on R1. You can wind up with 1 art 3 arm in Ukraine, or 2 arm in Ukraine. There is plenty of variation to be had.
If you want more variation, that is your preference, but stop with the fact-ignoring by saying you can plan in LL, and stop saying that LL you can plan to the Nth degree. You can only plan to a certain point, and then you just have to live with things like the tp in kwang beating your dest/car, you just have to live with things like the baltic fleet defeating your RAF, you just have to live with things like 1 inf beating 2 inf 1 fig.
There are still large battles involving 20 units or more on each side which have ranging between 25% to 44% to 80+% of winning. There is still luck. It is low luck, not no luck. Where there is luck, there is variation. And you have to plan accordingly.
You can still plan in LLADS, it’s just that you have to withold some units to make it so you can’t overtake a territory.