Yea, KAF is the sole reason people started building infantry in W. USA and walking to E. Canada. Slower assault into Europe, but Japan has no real ability to do anything to N. America.
KJF etc.
-
TRN. And grabbing Algeria for the hell of it with 1 INF, 1 ARM.
-
Still sounds like the best Axis opener. For buying 0 naval IPCS, you cost the Allies 3 transports and made the UK buy the carrier. At the beginning of turn 2 the UK only has 1 tran to land somewhere, meaning Germany can get farther in Africa than normal. How’s that for an “impotent” Baltic fleet? :evil:
-
Still sounds like the best Axis opener. For buying 0 naval IPCS, you cost the Allies 3 transports and made the UK buy the carrier. At the beginning of turn 2 the UK only has 1 tran to land somewhere, meaning Germany can get farther in Africa than normal. How’s that for an “impotent” Baltic fleet? :evil:
Hey, what was that Baltic fleet move again?
I betchoo I can do somethin wid da Allies that will rock teh Axis . . . unless you have a really fat Axis bid someplace, so be sure to mention how much the Axis bid and where it went (also the Russian and German moves; I reserve the right to veto any Russian move that I judge to be “on crack”).
-
Exactly, if the SZ 5 fleet stays home, the combined allied fleet in SZ 12 is still killable, but it takes Geramny’s air force and it’s going to punch some serious holes in it. Not worth it usually.
If the SZ 5 fleet runs to SZ 3, 6, 7 or 8, I’ll sink em and sink em GOOD. Depending where they are and where I am, I may or may not bring the Battleship.
The idea of not using the Battleship is to save it for later, thus not needing a carrier. The idea of using the battleship is to absorb a free hit and add to a carrier to make the German’s royally pay for making a channel dash on the counter-attack and the attack.
As I said though, it kind of depends what the board looks like at this point.
-
I betchoo I can do somethin wid da Allies that will rock teh Axis . . . unless you have a really fat Axis bid someplace, so be sure to mention how much the Axis bid and where it went (also the Russian and German moves; I reserve the right to veto any Russian move that I judge to be “on crack”).
I didn’t say this Axis opener would win the game or even shift the bids much if at all. I said it was the best available option with 0 German naval IPCs, to which I have heard no contradiction. All I hear is YAY the German navy will be sunk so bad, but that’s not the point. It’s beyond obvious that Germany can’t be a naval power, but how do you maximize what you’ve got? Linking the Baltic + SZ8 sub is a great move that discomforts the Allies much more than any other move I have seen, especially considering that it costs 0 naval IPCs which allows a full land build. Sitting in the Baltic is pretty bad because it lets the Allies deal with the navy on their own time, but running away forces them to do something about it immediately. That’s a bomber that can’t be used to counterattack in Anglo Egypt, a couple of dead UK transports, and a sacrificed American transport if you use Switch’s counter.
-
Linking the SZ 5 and SZ 8 fleets is not wise.
It’s much wiser to leave the SZ 5 fleet in SZ 5. This way, if England wants to kill it, they have to risk all their aircraft to get it. Otherwise, they risk losing 1 aircraft and a transport to sink the combined SZ 8 and SZ 5 fleet and prevent you from doing much of anything about it.
-
There is a cost though Wes… 1, maybe 2 German FIGs in SZ13 if you go air-only on the BB
A Med Fleet attack with AF and DST if the Med Fleet heads west.
I argued this whole Channel Dash thing over and over a bout a year ago with the guy that runs Caspian Sub. It is NOT a viable German option, only a fast way to lose your ENTIRE navy and most of your airforce, instead of just the Baltic Fleet.
-
There is a cost though Wes… 1, maybe 2 German FIGs in SZ13 if you go air-only on the BB
A Med Fleet attack with AF and DST if the Med Fleet heads west.
I argued this whole Channel Dash thing over and over a bout a year ago with the guy that runs Caspian Sub. It is NOT a viable German option, only a fast way to lose your ENTIRE navy and most of your airforce, instead of just the Baltic Fleet.
Wait, I don’t understand…what’re you talking about? Air only on what BB? Send the Med bb/tran and 2 fighters to kill the SZ13 BB. Take Gibraltar.
And why do you keep saying that Germany has to sacrifice their airforce? You don’t have to make attacks that cost you airforce. You don’t understand how the threat of an attack slows the Allies down, and that is the point. No one’s trying to say that you should be able to take out Allied shipping, or that you even should actually try to at the cost of airforce. It’s about slowing the Allies down, letting them sacrifice 3 transports at low to no cost to German airforce, and making the Uk buy the carrier.
It’s much wiser to leave the SZ 5 fleet in SZ 5. This way, if England wants to kill it, they have to risk all their aircraft to get it.
But you see, England has quite a few options. They don’t have to kill it immediately; they could build up an extra fighter or two. They can build anywhere they want to and make pretty much anything they want to if the Baltic is waiting there for UK action. However, moving out prompts the UK to immediately sacrifice 2 transports and the US to sacrifice another tranport and makes the UK build a carrier and also jettisons their tank from W. Canada, which I forgot to mention earlier. That is 24-29 IPCs of units that must be replaced. You don’t have to rebuild the fighters/bomber that you lose if you attack the Baltic, they don’t influence your ability to land or build up forces. But transports you have to replace. That’s about a rounds worth of truly delaying the Allies.
-
Sticking the German fleets out front too early is simply a way to remove any roadblocks that the Allies would have to face later. There is NO slow down. Allies either lose 1 turn early taking out the fleets, or 1 turn later taking out the fleets when the time comes to make their landings.
And losing the Kriegsmarine early means that Germany has to defend more of its coast from immediate amphib than they would if they could rely on their navy to give them 1 round of defense first.
-
There is NO slow down. Allies either lose 1 turn early taking out the fleets, or 1 turn later taking out the fleets when the time comes to make their landings.
The Allies lose no time taking out the Baltic fleet on UK 1 with airforce. Their transport system hasn’t been impacted in the slightest, there is no 1 turn delay sooner or later, and they can rely on less defense than usual since there’s already no more German naval fodder. 0 turns delay!
I don’t see how you can say NO slow down when the allies are down 3 transports, possibly the tank from Canada, UK building a carrier. That is a slow down right there, plus to Germany.
If the Baltic sits in SZ5, then the Allies knock it out immediately, not spending a single dime to replace their transport system. UK doesn’t have to spend a turn rebuilding its airforce, but it does have to spend a turn rebuilding its transport system.
-
I betchoo I can do somethin wid da Allies that will rock teh Axis . . . unless you have a really fat Axis bid someplace, so be sure to mention how much the Axis bid and where it went (also the Russian and German moves; I reserve the right to veto any Russian move that I judge to be “on crack”).
I didn’t say this Axis opener would win the game or even shift the bids much if at all. I said it was the best available option with 0 German naval IPCs, to which I have heard no contradiction. All I hear is YAY the German navy will be sunk so bad, but that’s not the point. It’s beyond obvious that Germany can’t be a naval power, but how do you maximize what you’ve got? Linking the Baltic + SZ8 sub is a great move that discomforts the Allies much more than any other move I have seen, especially considering that it costs 0 naval IPCs which allows a full land build. Sitting in the Baltic is pretty bad because it lets the Allies deal with the navy on their own time, but running away forces them to do something about it immediately. That’s a bomber that can’t be used to counterattack in Anglo Egypt, a couple of dead UK transports, and a sacrificed American transport if you use Switch’s counter.
Woops, didn’t mean to say u were sayin it was a game winner or anythin. damn i need a sandwich! not thinking or writing very clearly.
Linking the Baltic and the German sub off Sea Zone 8? o ya the muscle channel dash (oo that sounds secksy . . mm . .) Think I’ve seen that comboed with a two fighter buy for Germany. always meant to give that strat another look, i don’t see anything inherently wrong with the move.
comments?
-
Trihero:
The allies lose a lot on Round 1 if they go for the SZ 5 fleet. They potentially lose all their British fighters and bombers for a pair of submarines. Not a good trade.
I almost never hit SZ 5 with my air force. Sometimes I do. But almost never. 35 IPC in aircraft is more then England’s first pay check!
-
Thank you Jen.
UK with no AF is pretty much impotent.
-
If you don´t kill German Baltic fleet your in for headache.
That means theres more units to Hit your fleet with.
-
The allies lose a lot on Round 1 if they go for the SZ 5 fleet. They potentially lose all their British fighters and bombers for a pair of submarines. Not a good trade.
I almost never hit SZ 5 with my air force. Sometimes I do. But almost never. 35 IPC in aircraft is more then England’s first pay check!
It’s not just a pair of submarines…
You don’t have to replace the aircraft, and I also don’t know why it’s your position that UK always loses all their aircraft. Also, carrier + 4 tran is more than England’s first paycheck (48 IPCs…much more than 20 IPCs to replace 2 fighters), which is what you have to purchase if you sacrifice 2 tran, build a carrier. And you’re also losing your tank in Canada. 48 IPCs is a greater loss than 35 IPCs, and remember that the 35 IPCs is hardly guaranteed or something that you must replace. Only 18% of the time would you lose everything, 72% between 0 and 2 fighters. You could always retreat as well when you’re down to a bomber, meaning even less % of losing all the airforce (leaving 1-2 naval fodder for Germany which is unfeasible to strafe with, which is the goal)
UK with no AF is pretty much impotent.
Why? At which point? UK doesn’t rely on aircraft to trade territories at all, they rely on massive buildups; plus they have a BB to trade Kar/E. Europe if German is trying to do little nitpick trades where you might use aircraft normally. Plus there’s no reason to lose the bomber except in those 1/12 times when both tran and dest hit.
-
Wes, I think you need a game with one of us to see how things have advanced in the past year…
-
@Nix:
If you don´t kill German Baltic fleet your in for headache.
That means theres more units to Hit your fleet with.
Yes and no.
The Germans have some throw away units if you go in range, which you will eventually. But by the time they can attack you’ll have the Russian submarine + a british battleship + an american battleship and fleet.
Also, you could take care of the Baltic fleet with the American Airforce. America is in a much better position to replace lost aircraft then England, especially with England fighting for it’s life in Africa and trying to help Russia secure it’s forward territories so they can turn on the Japanese.
Now, why do I say England risks 35 IPC in units to sink the SZ 5 fleet? Because I cannot count the number of times I’ve seen England get obliterated with a Destroyer/Transport hit in Round 2 after a Destroyer hit in Round 1.
I, and some others, will usually let you kill the submarines first just to give us the opportunity to kill the British fighters. The SZ 5 is nice to have and I won’t throw it away needlessly, but I’m not going to be heart broken if it is lost. I’ll be much more heart broken losing 2 fighters to some pissy little Russian AA Gun.
-
Also, you could take care of the Baltic fleet with the American Airforce. America is in a much better position to replace lost aircraft then England, especially with England fighting for it’s life in Africa and trying to help Russia secure it’s forward territories so they can turn on the Japanese.
See, but I’ve already said this before already. If you let the Baltic sit there, it just opens up Allies options. They can kill it immediately if they want (odds are quite in favor, just because you “feel” that you “can’t count” the number of times that you’ve lost all the airforce doesn’t change the odds), or just wait for the Americans like you said, or build up more UK airforce like I said, or move the fleets together, like everyone does. A sitting Baltic does jack! I’ve explained how the Allies can deal with it later at lower cost, you’ve explained how the Allies can deal with it later at lower cost, so why not sail it out and force the Allies to deal with it right here and right now at an inescapable cost?
Why is having a sitting Baltic a good thing, when it is at worst impotent? A Baltic that runs away is hardly impotent; even using Ike’s counter it’s losing 3 tran immediately and having the UK buy a carrier and quite possibly not using the tank from E. Canada. That’s not impotent! Therefore, it’s better than the impotent sitting Baltic. Even assuming if I don’t attack the Baltic immediately, assuming that I’m playing it by your book, that just makes the Baltic even easier to take out, even more impotent and less damaging. Why would you want the Baltic fleet to do nothing?
Wes, I think you need a game with one of us to see how things have advanced in the past year…
Could you give me a brief taste? A summary of the things that you guys have overcome and come up with? It’ll get my heart pumping! :evil:
-
Because sailing it out allows the allies to deal with it at a lower cost too. :P
-
Because sailing it out allows the allies to deal with it at a lower cost too.
I just went over how not sailing it out allows the Allies to deal with it at almost zero cost, by your methods. Let’s no longer assume I’m talking about attacking it immediately with airforce (I find is still a good move, but I’ll play your side and say it’s too costly). By your reasoning, having the Baltic sit there should be impotent because of the way you link fleets and so on.
But by sailing it out/linking with the sub, it’s not nearly zero cost. 3 transports down, a tank abandoned in E. Canada, and UK buying a carrier, is not nearly zero. It’s not a lower cost than the impotent sitting Baltic.
Suggested Topics
