Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time. Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians. So I go Pacific whenever I can. But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy. The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.
KJF etc.
-
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.
-
Sailing it out right away throws the fleet away. England loses nothing on the attack. England probably loses very little (maybe a transport or two) in the counter attack. Germany loses most of their air force and their Northern Fleet.
Leaving it in SZ 5 costs the German’s nothing. If the Allies fail to attack, Germany can always augment the fleet later to make it costly when they own Africa, Brazil, Australia, India and New Zealand. (At least in game where DM or I are Germany…we tend to go ballistic with our transports. :) )
Basically, what I’m saying is that you start with a 101 IPC land and air surplus over Russia. Why dwindle that early trying to save 36-44 IPC worth of worthless boats? Why not press your advantage on the ground?
After all, if England ignores your SZ 5 fleet on UK1, you can move it to SZ 7 on G2 and move the SZ 14 fleet to SZ 7 which means you can pretty much leave W. Europe empty putting that much more pressure on Russia. (Yes, I realize you cannot both be invading India and putting the same transports in SZ 7. Different circumstances/game ideas. You don’t need to be a one show pony, you know.)
Or, if you REALLY want to make waves:
Germany 1:
Buy(40)
- Aircraft Carrier (16) - SZ 5
- Industrial Complex (15) - W. Europe
- 3 Infantry (9) - S. Europe
Germany 2:
Buy(42)
- 4 Submarines (32)
- Fighter (10)
Germany 3:
Hope like hell you can get enough Infantry with the 30-40 IPC you have left to push the Russians back!
-
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.
UK should buy AC, generally speaking. Most players would gladly use the 4 naval units as fodder when ftrs are in range, and
they should if G makes right desicions.
The Baltic is only impotent if the G player is impotent.
Unless it is killed UK1. -
If Germany puts the fleet in SZ 7, then unfortunately, yes, the British have to buy naval forces to protect their battleship. It’s an unfortunate cost of war. Better then letting the Germans unify their fleets!
Though, I would honestly go Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer because you can always use that destroyer later to stave off the Japanese fleets. Remember, you have 4 Transports at the start of the game, so you really don’t HAVE to buy more. (A 5th early on can be nice so that you arn’t waiting forever to get more. But I like to use that breathing time to flex my RAF muscles by adding more fighters to my pool. Nothing like UK with 6 fighters to instill the fear of Ivanova in the hearts of the Germans!)
-
England probably loses very little (maybe a transport or two) in the counter attack. Germany loses most of their air force and their Northern Fleet.
I don’t know why you continue with the idea that Germany has to sacrifice their airforce in a bad trade. They don’t! The average by the way is 2 transports, not between 1 and 2, but 2. Not to mention a tank in Canada, and the US sacrificing a ship to block the med fleet from strafing the UK navy.
Basically, what I’m saying is that you start with a 101 IPC land and air surplus over Russia. Why dwindle that early trying to save 36-44 IPC worth of worthless boats? Why not press your advantage on the ground?
Basically, what I’ve consistently said too many times in this thread is that Germany doesn’t have to sacrifice aircraft in a bad fight. I’ve also consistently said that a sitting Baltic will, by your own measure, be impotent, and the definition of impotent means causing no harm, none. Escaping the Baltic isn’t impotent. That’s 3 transports down, UK buying a carrier, and a tank lost in E. Canada. Compared to sitting the Baltic where it is, doing absolutely nothing by your own measure.
-
England:
Battleship, 2 Fighters, Carrier, Destroyer, Transport (assuming you lost a transport taking out the SZ 7 fleet.)
Germany: 5 or 6 Fighters, Bomber.I’m going to give Germany the benefit of the doubt that they have all their available aircraft in range to attack SZ 7 and none were killed by Russia or in any German counter attacks up to this point.
Overall %*: A. survives: 53.1% D. survives: 40.2% No one survives: 6.7%
- percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The average results from above are highlighted in charts below, while the median result (equal odds of getting a worse or better result) is written in red.
Attacker results:
Probability % # units / losses
0.03% 7: 6 Fig, 1 Bom. no units. : 0 IPCs
0.58% 6: 5 Fig, 1 Bom. 1 Fig. : 10 IPCs
2.92% 5: 4 Fig, 1 Bom. 2 Fig. : 20 IPCs
7.93% 4: 3 Fig, 1 Bom. 3 Fig. : 30 IPCs
13.41% 3: 2 Fig, 1 Bom. 4 Fig. : 40 IPCs
16.05% 2: 1 Fig, 1 Bom. 5 Fig. : 50 IPCs
12.21% 1: 1 Bom. 6 Fig. : 60 IPCs
46.87% 0: no units. 6 Fig, 1 Bom. : 75 IPCs
Defender results:
Probability % # units / losses
0.33% 6: 2 Fig, 1 Tra, 1 Des, 1 Car, 1 Bat. no units. : 0 IPCs
1.61% 5: 2 Fig, 1 Des, 1 Car, 1 Bat. 1 Tra. : 8 IPCs
4.86% 4: 2 Fig, 1 Car, 1 Bat. 1 Tra, 1 Des. : 20 IPCs
9.52% 3: 1 Fig, 1 Car, 1 Bat. 1 Fig, 1 Tra, 1 Des. : 30 IPCs
12.62% 2: 1 Car, 1 Bat. 2 Fig, 1 Tra, 1 Des. : 40 IPCs
11.23% 1: 1 Bat. 2 Fig, 1 Tra, 1 Des, 1 Car. : 56 IPCs
59.83% 0: no units. 2 Fig, 1 Tra, 1 Des, 1 Car, 1 Bat. : 80 IPCs
Now, who is NOT going to take that trade as the Allies?
Of course, Germany probably won’t do that attack, in which case England just sunk 44 IPC worth of navy at the cost of 8 IPC of naval units. 23 IPC if you take more then 2 hits because you’re going to want one transport to ensure the German’s don’t attack your SZ 7 fleet. Bombers are nice, but they don’t defend for squat and killing German fighters > saving British bombers.
- percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The average results from above are highlighted in charts below, while the median result (equal odds of getting a worse or better result) is written in red.
-
I think that the fundamental idea of trihero is interesting.
We seem to agree that Baltic fleet is useless. Good. Then let’s send it out of the Baltic to create a little suspense on the UK.UK will be for sure disturbed by the exit of the Baltic Fleet. MAy be needed to buy 1 AC and 1 DD, and, moreover, maybe no landing in first turn… And all this happens with o IPC of naval expenses and without the need to attack with the Luftwaffe.I like this evolution of the situation!
The thing I dislike is that it needs to not use the SUB in sz8 as fodder against the UK BB in sz13.
So Germany has two possibilities.
Using only aircraft to attack the BB (most likely losing at least one fighter) or using the Mediterranean BB for covering the attack. (I discourage to call those BB “Italian BB” it may start to fire as a real Italian BB … rolling 6 every time! :) ask me why if you want to know more!)This last thing create a problem. How deal with the sz15 UK DD? And morever what to do with Egypt, only the bid may be not enough to conquer and keep it, the addictional unit from Italy may be needed (also for the transport I discourage calling it Italian TRN… it may act like an Italian TRN and … sunk while full of units! :) )
So on a side I like the idea on the other I see some problems that arise.
-
Weather it’s a good move to risk losing German airpower, or if G knows for sure it’s gonna lose some ftrs in an
air-only attack on naval units, and UK will lose some trans or maybe the whole navy in sz, there is no clear
answer.
It will depend on the situation. -
Screw it, if you’re making a run for it, send the submarine to SZ 8 anyway. The difference in SZ 7 is negligible at best. You’re still looking at about 1 to 3 hits on defense with your ultimate destruction in one or two rounds of combat. (Only difference is you could submerge after the first round if it goes badly for England.) Meanwhile, your SZ 8 submarine could be safe in SZ 13 (if you brought the BB/Trn instead of sending it away.)
Could force England out of Africa for an extra round.
But, to be honest, it seems like a gambit. Something to do when you want to shake up a static player.
-
Now, who is NOT going to take that trade as the Allies?
Of course, Germany probably won’t do that attack, in which case England just sunk 44 IPC worth of navy at the cost of 8 IPC of naval units. 23 IPC if you take more then 2 hits because you’re going to want one transport to ensure the German’s don’t attack your SZ 7 fleet. Bombers are nice, but they don’t defend for squat and killing German fighters > saving British bombers.
But Jen, you’re going backwards on the statistics. We already discussed that the average result is a loss of 2 transports, which is 16 IPCs, when you first attack the German navy. That’s not 8 IPCs, so no need to sugarcoat it with the low end of results. You’re also forgetting that the US needs to block off SZ12 with something, a transport, otherwise the BB/tran will slip out and provide fodder for the luftwaffe. BB + tran + 5 fighters + 1 bomber incur about 4 hits on average, and take about 3 hits on average from a carrier, sub, 2 figs, bb, and 1 tran. That means the German navy is gone, but so is most of the UK navy, no transports left on the board at the start of UK2, and no damage to Luftwaffe. So you block off SZ12 with the American transport to prevent that from happening, but that is a sacrifice of another 8 IPCs. 3 transports total = 24 IPCs, + tank from E. Canada which may not even be retrieved, UK buying a carrier, and this is hardly the 8 IPCs that you predict.
-
That TRN also drops units into Africa, taking a German IPC, and making the Egypt forces “turn around” instead of pushing deeper into Africa.
So yes, teh US loses a TRN, but the Royal Navy is preserved (at least the Capital Ships), the Allies have their initial landing in Africa to slow th Germans. From here on out, the Allies OWN the Atlantic, and Germany will never again be a threat to their fleets.
Oh, and Germany had to use ARM in order to provide punch for their trades since the Luftwaffe was in use elsewhere, so Russia gets to do some bonus damage to Germany’s Panzers on R3…
-
Oh, and Germany had to use ARM in order to provide punch for their trades since the Luftwaffe was in use elsewhere, so Russia gets to do some bonus damage to Germany’s Panzers on R3…
No, the Luftwaffe is only needed to kill the American transport, since there’s no way they’re going to attack the UK fleet without the med as fodder. That takes 2 figs? Enough Luftwaffe is free, and there are also artillery pieces on the board, to fend of the Russians.
From here on out, the Allies OWN the Atlantic, and Germany will never again be a threat to their fleets.
That’s always the case, whether it happens on Round 2, or Round 5. It’s what you made the Allies do or not do that’s the measure of success.
making the Egypt forces “turn around” instead of pushing deeper into Africa.
They don’t have to turn around at all, in fact it would be unwise to do so, since the Allies for sure are landing more troops right after that. I’m not even sure the Germans could turn around if UK counterattacked Anglo on UK2 again : (
-
So you sacrifice Africa for a 1 round threat to the UK Fleet and “force” UK to build a range extender for the RAF?
How do you count that as a good idea for Germany???
-
The Allies will have Africa no matter what you do, if they want it. It’s very easy to overspend there, especially if you do something like 2 transports. It quickly becomes hurtful to bleed out 4 units a turn trying to get Africa. Only if you feel if you can actually make a lasting influence in Africa would it be a sacrifice to give it up.
-
OK, so let me get this straight…
The whole point of your exercise is to get UK to spend $16 IPC on an AC (which gives their FIGs added range and removes any future threat to the UK Fleet) and to abandon Africa and focus on Europe only, now that UK can ignore fleet threats and drop their 8 divisions a turn without any thought of risk from Germany…
Did I miss something here? Where is the advantage to Germany?
-
But Jen, you’re going backwards on the statistics. We already discussed that the average result is a loss of 2 transports, which is 16 IPCs, when you first attack the German navy. That’s not 8 IPCs, so no need to sugarcoat it with the low end of results. You’re also forgetting that the US needs to block off SZ12 with something, a transport, otherwise the BB/tran will slip out and provide fodder for the luftwaffe.
Actually, I’m not. YOU decided that you were going to attribute 3 hits to the axis. However, there’s at least a 40% chance that you only get two hits and, for the sake of argument, to truely ensure that Germany is cowed into submission, if, by some miracle, you get a 3rd hit, England could kill a fighter and have America land the E. USA fighter to restore the strength.
Meanwhile, yea, America puts a transport in SZ 12 landing 2 infantry in Algeria. So? America can build 5 more that round, not like losing one is going to cripple it’s war making ability.
And no, the allies do not always own the Atlantic. Germany can keep the Allies out of SZ 5 and SZ’s 13, 14, 15 and 16 if they want.
But yes, you can pretty much force a waste of 16 British IPCs by threatening a Unification. But what, exactly, is that buying the Germans? Now England has two carriers, a battleship, 2 destroyers, 4 transports and a full contingent of air and land power. Germany is now out of Africa earlier. She’s without any defense of SZ 5 and no threat to SZ 3. If she’s foolish, she’s also out of an air force.
All in all, pretty bone-headed move. IMHO.
-
OK, so let me get this straight…
3 Allied transports are dead. That’s 24 IPCs that must be replaced. Could you honestly do that if the Baltic just sat there and added no naval IPCs to it?
Actually, I’m not. YOU decided that you were going to attribute 3 hits to the axis.
I haven’t used a battle simulator since I’ve gotten back to these forums. I’ve simply been basing my calculations provided by both you and switch. Both you and switch quoted the average loss earlier in this thread as 2 transports. There’s no need to go back on that.
Let’s back up a moment and actually try to address 24 IPCs of loss that the Allies have to replace, at almost no risk to German airforce and no naval IPCs spent. Now they also have 2 useless carriers and a destroyer…
And Germany isn’t going to sacrifice Africa. You prevented that by blocking SZ13. By doing that, I can’t sacrifice my bb/tran in an attack on SZ12.
All in all, pretty bone-headed move. IMHO.
I need some proof here that it’s a worse move than a sitting Baltic with no naval IPCs spent. A sitting Baltic with no IPCs spent is even more worthless, by your own measure. Can a sitting Baltic with no reinforcements incur a 3 transport loss, possible tank abandonment, and a destroyer/carrier purchase? Not even close. So therefore, it’s a better move.
-
No, the average number of defensive HITS are 2 or 3 (equal probability of either result.)
If you decide to take a hit to your battleship and lose two transports if the defender gets lucky and gets 3 instead of 2, that’s what YOU chose to do.
However, I may chose to lose a transport and a fighter (a fighter that will be replaced with the E. USA fighter on USA 1) so that any retaliatory strike on my British fleet would result in the complete destruction of the German forces with minimal damage to my fleet.
-
That’s fine by me, 18 IPCs loss instead of 16.
If running the Baltic is boneheaded, then sitting it must be even more so since it is impotent as it sits there.
Suggested Topics
