Good stuff, however, I don't think an infantry can move a space and then load onto a transport. The infantry's movement from Western Canada to eastern Canada would count as the unit's entire move. it would not be able to load and offload after that movement I think.
Actually, now that you mentioned that, I realized that the transport can actually move to the sea zone off the Eastern United States, since the US will be building ships there, which is actually a viable way to save the transport in this case.
Just so you know it is my understanding that subs cannot be hit by airplanes, submerged or not. They are therefore unable to be chosen as a causialty in a battle where there are no naval vessels present.
Yes, someone else commented on that. In this edition, the Sahara isn't colored white like other impassable areas, so I didn't realize it was impassable.
Well, you can do that, but it will cost you very much; 15 IPCs for the factory alone and another 12 IPCs for two tanks, that is all that Britain earns in an entire turn. Where will you cut your investments instead? Europe? Or India?
Yes that will work, because it won't trigger a fighter with the German subs and the Americans will go before the Germans. That might be the optimal play.
Is a transport able to offload, when an enemy transport or/and submarine is in the same territory? Or is it just forbidden in a case of an amphibious assault?
I've never liked England losing their battleships in spring 1942, December 10, 1941 was the 3rd and last battleship England lost in all of WW2, fall 1941, certainly not spring 1942. Siri Lanka, spring 1942, England did lose an aircraft carrier, summer 1942 England lost another aircraft carrier east of Gibraltar. Italy and Germany both built 1 aircraft carrier each, neither commissioned it with crew and aircraft but the ships did exist, maybe half price is a good rule for the first 2 carriers built by the Germans. 1 in the Baltic and 1 in the Mediterranean.
Why not move the infantry from Burma to the Chinese territory, and the 3 infantry in India to buffer in Burma, your placing new units in India anyway. It will put up a stiffer resistance in China and in Burma, additional units rolling 2-1 would help stem the tide of the Japanese and cost them more units while giving U.K. more time to build up in India prior to going on the offensive. And I feel the British fighter would be more use in another chines territory, for example the Chinese territory you placed the infantry. It's under a more present danger and would help slow Japanese advances toward India... unless your setting up an axis biased board..
It takes ages to just set the board up, to find one person to play is a challenge and most can't be bothered to learn the rules. It's so much easier to play online, instant setup, multiple game types harder to cheat, less likely to argue over rules, placements etc. Downside is ragequitters. It happens a lot especially on dice games rather than low luck games. There was league tables etc and quite a community. As for time, usually by move six or seven you know how it's going. I once played a two day about 10 HR game, I got hammered in round one, but just hung in there. Lost. Russia hung in there got the US Forces rolling and steadied the ship about move 24 he stupidly left German capital uncovered I pounced took Berlin and he quit . It was epic (you had to be there). The 6 way free for all game was epic, political intrigue, pacts and huge armies, it was great a regular Sunday thing for a while.
The British taking Norway will just result in the Canadian tank and the transport being destroyed by Germany and will do little to halt the Germans. Germany expects to lose Norway in every game anyway. Norway is worth 2, the tank alone is worth 6.
The Russians move before Germany can do anything. Buying a German carrier means, the russians will out produce them, especially if Japan doesnt attack Russia in the east. Its only a matter of time.
BestViewedWithCable Germany has a huge IPC and strategic advantage over Russia with or without the carrier. Make follow up video showing how the Russians will outproduce Germany given this scenario if it's so obvious that Russia will crush Germany.
In your scenario, Germany only put 5 ground units on the board, Russia placed 8, i think. Theres no doubt Germany is tough. My point is more about giving up IPCs to allied players. Germany would definitely take the territory back, but they would have handed the allies as many as 12 IPCs. Furthermore the units Germany needs to take back its own territory are units they cannot use to take Russian territories. etc... Germany could buy 13 infantry if they didnt buy that carrier, instead of the 5 pieces you purchased. Sure there are many different buys etc... but you get my point.
this is a way too conservative approach for Britain. I have this feeling that you're "pro-axis" and seems to be the side you prefer to play. There are stronger strategies to put much more pressure on BOTH Germany and Japan in the first two rounds. Remember it's not always what's "mathematically" correct that wins. just like in chess. This opening for the allies basically says "we don't really start playing the allies until the 2nd round." But there are better strategies that force the Axis to deal with pressure in the first round.
Its never a good idea to save money, especially so in this scenario. Britain should build a carrier and a destroyer right away, and place them in the same sea zone with the transport and the german sub. Force the nazi's to commit their aircraft in combat against british ships. Youre going to kill 2 planes, that germany will never be able to replace, especially since they spent all their money on a carrier, in the first turn. Heck, I would even us my transport to take france and their 6 bucks. Thats a free british sub next turn, or a transport using the two dollars you saved. Plus it forces germany to send ground reinforcements they dont really have, in the wrong direction. If the germans kill your carrier, build another next turn until germany has no air force...
The Germans can just leave additional forces in France to prevent that possibility, with little cost to the eastern front. If the German aircraft commit to destroying this second fleet, as I explained in my response to your comment on the other video, the British will lose, and the Germans will still have their fleet, and can much more easily replace lost forces. They will also cease to lose their air force after the first combat, since their fleet will be in play. Continually building carriers will open Britain up to Sea Lion and sacrifice India. You need to save your money so that you can drop a big fleet the turn after, and be able to count on the Americans.
oh I understand what you mean. I just dont think youd be able to actually take Britain, because they can be reinforced by Americans, and/or build their own cheap units to defend at 1/2 the cost. For instance, what happens to Europe if you take 6 ground units for an amphibious assault on Britain, after only buying 5 on your first turn, while building ships the whole time.... Its too expensive, the japanese arent taking russian land in the east, and you and russia are trading territory every round.... etc... Russia will be up money and Germany is still building boats.... You made a good point about india, and thats why i think britain would be forced to take france on the first turn with a canadian tank and a british guy, just for the free 6 bucks, and also take borneo for the free 4 bucks, plus all the following turns until japan was able to take it back, with 1 transport they need to take india with.... etc... Japan cant take india without an amphibious assault, so britian is going to make atleast 12 bucks off of borneo alone.
Charlemagne, you assume to much. people are not statistics. your strategy's seem like you have not played a good HUMAN player. i know you are trying to teach but teach well.
uh wut, he simply is showing the statistics so that you can understand the odds and what might happen, what part of the strategy does not function well against a legit player?
![80. The Big One! - Stronghold Crusader HD Trail [75 SPEED NO PAUSE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Yu9mrERMuIk/mqdefault.jpg)
Good stuff, however, I don't think an infantry can move a space and then load onto a transport. The infantry's movement from Western Canada to eastern Canada would count as the unit's entire move. it would not be able to load and offload after that movement I think.
You're right, I have failed..... :(
Actually, now that you mentioned that, I realized that the transport can actually move to the sea zone off the Eastern United States, since the US will be building ships there, which is actually a viable way to save the transport in this case.
Agreeed it cannot in the same turn
Just so you know it is my understanding that subs cannot be hit by airplanes, submerged or not. They are therefore unable to be chosen as a causialty in a battle where there are no naval vessels present.
Which did you get those chips? Certainly a set up from the paper money.
Your videos are a big help to me. Good job.
It's my understanding that territories without power symbols, like Sahara, can't be moved though.
Yes, someone else commented on that. In this edition, the Sahara isn't colored white like other impassable areas, so I didn't realize it was impassable.
Which units to buy next turn with Britain? I know you said a fleet but not very specific. Love the vids though.
Carriers and destroyer
In this version, it takes a full round between loading the transport and then the next round you would unload
Never seen that one
correct me if i am wrong but why cannot Britain build in industry in south Africa thus holding Africa for the rest of the game.
I always do that and build 2 tanks every turn and send them North to fight Germany.
Well, you can do that, but it will cost you very much; 15 IPCs for the factory alone and another 12 IPCs for two tanks, that is all that Britain earns in an entire turn. Where will you cut your investments instead? Europe? Or India?
Audio cutting in and out.
Charlemagne are you the troll on AAA online that constantly joins games and doesn't finish?
Instead of letting the UK transport get auto killed, why not move into the sea zone with the US if the US is going to build a fleet there?
Yes that will work, because it won't trigger a fighter with the German subs and the Americans will go before the Germans. That might be the optimal play.
Is a transport able to offload, when an enemy transport or/and submarine is in the same territory? Or is it just forbidden in a case of an amphibious assault?
You would have to win the sea battle before you can land the troops, if you lose the sea battle, your troops go down with the transport.
I've never liked England losing their battleships in spring 1942, December 10, 1941 was the 3rd and last battleship England lost in all of WW2, fall 1941, certainly not spring 1942. Siri Lanka, spring 1942, England did lose an aircraft carrier, summer 1942 England lost another aircraft carrier east of Gibraltar.
Italy and Germany both built 1 aircraft carrier each, neither commissioned it with crew and aircraft but the ships did exist, maybe half price is a good rule for the first 2 carriers built by the Germans. 1 in the Baltic and 1 in the Mediterranean.
Why not move the infantry from Burma to the Chinese territory, and the 3 infantry in India to buffer in Burma, your placing new units in India anyway.
It will put up a stiffer resistance in China and in Burma, additional units rolling 2-1 would help stem the tide of the Japanese and cost them more units while giving U.K. more time to build up in India prior to going on the offensive.
And I feel the British fighter would be more use in another chines territory, for example the Chinese territory you placed the infantry. It's under a more present danger and would help slow Japanese advances toward India... unless your setting up an axis biased board..
Where did you find the IPC cips?
Google Axis and Allies IPC chips. You should find them.
Hmmmm......interesting strategies. Very conservative play. An aggressive opponent might crush these strategies with ease
agreed. this is a WAR game, not a slow careful game. aggression is the rule of the day.
how long can last a match of this game?
Depends on the players and edition, but as you can see each turn takes a while. Probably 6 hours is roughly average.
It takes ages to just set the board up, to find one person to play is a challenge and most can't be bothered to learn the rules.
It's so much easier to play online, instant setup, multiple game types harder to cheat, less likely to argue over rules, placements etc.
Downside is ragequitters. It happens a lot especially on dice games rather than low luck games.
There was league tables etc and quite a community.
As for time, usually by move six or seven you know how it's going.
I once played a two day about 10 HR game, I got hammered in round one, but just hung in there. Lost. Russia hung in there got the US Forces rolling and steadied the ship about move 24 he stupidly left German capital uncovered I pounced took Berlin and he quit . It was epic (you had to be there).
The 6 way free for all game was epic, political intrigue, pacts and huge armies, it was great a regular Sunday thing for a while.
The brits could even take norway on their first turn....
The British taking Norway will just result in the Canadian tank and the transport being destroyed by Germany and will do little to halt the Germans. Germany expects to lose Norway in every game anyway. Norway is worth 2, the tank alone is worth 6.
The Russians move before Germany can do anything. Buying a German carrier means, the russians will out produce them, especially if Japan doesnt attack Russia in the east. Its only a matter of time.
BestViewedWithCable Germany has a huge IPC and strategic advantage over Russia with or without the carrier. Make follow up video showing how the Russians will outproduce Germany given this scenario if it's so obvious that Russia will crush Germany.
In your scenario, Germany only put 5 ground units on the board, Russia placed 8, i think.
Theres no doubt Germany is tough. My point is more about giving up IPCs to allied players. Germany would definitely take the territory back, but they would have handed the allies as many as 12 IPCs. Furthermore the units Germany needs to take back its own territory are units they cannot use to take Russian territories. etc...
Germany could buy 13 infantry if they didnt buy that carrier, instead of the 5 pieces you purchased. Sure there are many different buys etc... but you get my point.
this is a way too conservative approach for Britain. I have this feeling that you're "pro-axis" and seems to be the side you prefer to play. There are stronger strategies to put much more pressure on BOTH Germany and Japan in the first two rounds. Remember it's not always what's "mathematically" correct that wins. just like in chess. This opening for the allies basically says "we don't really start playing the allies until the 2nd round." But there are better strategies that force the Axis to deal with pressure in the first round.
Its never a good idea to save money, especially so in this scenario. Britain should build a carrier and a destroyer right away, and place them in the same sea zone with the transport and the german sub.
Force the nazi's to commit their aircraft in combat against british ships. Youre going to kill 2 planes, that germany will never be able to replace, especially since they spent all their money on a carrier, in the first turn.
Heck, I would even us my transport to take france and their 6 bucks. Thats a free british sub next turn, or a transport using the two dollars you saved. Plus it forces germany to send ground reinforcements they dont really have, in the wrong direction.
If the germans kill your carrier, build another next turn until germany has no air force...
The Germans can just leave additional forces in France to prevent that possibility, with little cost to the eastern front. If the German aircraft commit to destroying this second fleet, as I explained in my response to your comment on the other video, the British will lose, and the Germans will still have their fleet, and can much more easily replace lost forces. They will also cease to lose their air force after the first combat, since their fleet will be in play. Continually building carriers will open Britain up to Sea Lion and sacrifice India. You need to save your money so that you can drop a big fleet the turn after, and be able to count on the Americans.
oh I understand what you mean.
I just dont think youd be able to actually take Britain, because they can be reinforced by Americans, and/or build their own cheap units to defend at 1/2 the cost.
For instance, what happens to Europe if you take 6 ground units for an amphibious assault on Britain, after only buying 5 on your first turn, while building ships the whole time....
Its too expensive, the japanese arent taking russian land in the east, and you and russia are trading territory every round.... etc... Russia will be up money and Germany is still building boats....
You made a good point about india, and thats why i think britain would be forced to take france on the first turn with a canadian tank and a british guy, just for the free 6 bucks, and also take borneo for the free 4 bucks, plus all the following turns until japan was able to take it back, with 1 transport they need to take india with.... etc... Japan cant take india without an amphibious assault, so britian is going to make atleast 12 bucks off of borneo alone.
Charlemagne, you assume to much. people are not statistics. your strategy's seem like you have not played a good HUMAN player. i know you are trying to teach but teach well.
uh wut, he simply is showing the statistics so that you can understand the odds and what might happen, what part of the strategy does not function well against a legit player?