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.
-
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.
-
Sitting there tempts the British to attack it trading 35 IPC in aircraft (and reducing their build ability if they try to replace them) for worthless fleet.
And I lose 1 fighter, 1 transport with my attack. You lose 2 Submarines, Transport, Destroyer. Meanwhile, I have 2 transports, submarine, aircraft carrier and destroyer coming. All I need is 1 transport to bring me back up to 4 so I can maximize my entire production limit.
Unless Germany’s willing to throw away fighters and bombers to reduce me to an Aircraft Carrier and Battleship in which case I have to build 2 transports and some fighters to recover.
-
Sitting there tempts the British to attack it trading 35 IPC in aircraft (and reducing their build ability if they try to replace them) for worthless fleet.
It wouldn’t tempt you or Switch, so you should by that standard. In which case this point is moot. It’s also just a bad point in general because you generally dont’ lose all 3 aircraft, at reasonable most is 2 aircraft since you can retreat. That’d be like saying W. Russia costs you 6 infantry on average since you’re looking at the minority statistic.
And I lose 1 fighter, 1 transport with my attack. You lose 2 Submarines, Transport, Destroyer. Meanwhile, I have 2 transports, submarine, aircraft carrier and destroyer coming. All I need is 1 transport to bring me back up to 4 so I can maximize my entire production limit.
The US lost a transport too, and you probably abandoned the tank in Canada. Can you do better with a sitting Baltic fleet? I also just don’t know if the UK can wait that long to land in Europe.
-
Well, after getting RIPPED by the Baltic Fleet on UK2 in our Tournament Game, Bo and I still have 6 UK divisions in Norway, and 10 transportable US divisions in UK and North America. We lost 3 UK FIGs while Germany lost only a SUB in a UK 2 AF strike on SZ5.
Yet, if you look at the map, the Allies still look pretty good overall :-D
http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/30028/2002057481917662235_rs.jpg
-
Part of it is because the Axis have terrible dice rolls, and part of it is that Japan appears to have taken some risks, which might have been warranted, I’m not sure because I didn’t study too closely.
I mean yuck, Ukraine held with 1 art 3 arm on R1? Then completely brutalizing a German strike force of 1 inf 3 arm + something else? Then Japan losing 6 inf to China and still not holding it? : (
You definitely did get diced there Switch, but the Axis has cold dice as well, which is massacring their land advance. If you didn’t get diced, it’d just be over faster O_O
-
Not everyone is as intelligent as Switch or as paranoid as me.
So I’d rather lose a fighter, keep the transport and at least be able to land something on UK 2 if Germany doesn’t attack then to find myself in a situation where Germany can shred my entire fleet (at the cost of an air force) and then be able to rebuild their air force cheaper then I can a fleet.
-
Then Japan losing 6 inf to China and still not holding it? : (
That one you cannot blame too much on luck. It was an underpowered attack due to the need to use Japan FIGs elsewhere (which is a point I made in a couple of other threads: one regarding UK fleet movements, and another where I state that giving the enemy too many places to fight means that dice ARE going to go south in at least one of them on average.
Engineering your enemy into a position where luck becomes a more significant factor in their results is an element of skill. :-P
-
:-o
It looks to me like the Allies should win this one, barring bad die that is.
:roll: -
@ncscswitch:
Then Japan losing 6 inf to China and still not holding it? : (
That one you cannot blame too much on luck. It was an underpowered attack due to the need to use Japan FIGs elsewhere (which is a point I made in a couple of other threads: one regarding UK fleet movements, and another where I state that giving the enemy too many places to fight means that dice ARE going to go south in at least one of them on average.
Engineering your enemy into a position where luck becomes a more significant factor in their results is an element of skill. :-P
Knowing which are the more worthy attack and giving up elsewhere is a possible answer Swithc?
I mean, if I am forced by good enemy planning (or bad planning of mine) in a situation where I have too much attacks to do, the only viable think is to renounce to some of them?
Or there are other options according to you? -
Giving up one or more attack is a viable answer… but has the repercussion of leaving an enemy in an advanced position, or an otherwise dead enemy alive, etc.
What does Japan skip in that scenario?
They already skipped the remote chance at India (which tends to be only an opportunistic target on J1).
They already skipped Bury (a pretty common J1 target).
They already skipped SZ45 (leaving a SUB and TRN)
Do they skip China, leaving 4 USA INF and a FIG to stack in USA1?
Do they skip Pearl leaving the US Fleet free in the Pacific?
Do they skip SZ59 leaving TWO UK fleets that can unite in the central Pacific?Seriously… Which of those 3 do you skip as Japan in order to not have your Asian INF reduced far more than normal, not have half of your fleet and AF killed, and not have a large UK fleet in the Central Pacific (around say Carolines, New Guinea, or Borneo) WITH TWO TRANSPORTS?
-
If you are gunna go KJF, why not consolidate in SZ 30 then take Borneo on UK 2? 4 Inf, Fig vs 2 Inf. Coupled with an American build in SZ 55 and you should have Japan quaking in their boots.
If you kill the transport attack the Submarine, hit New Guinea and hit Borneo you do serious damage, but it’s not a huge deal. Japan can easily liberate Borneo on J1 without changing their Round 1, and sink the SZ 59 fleet (BB, AC, Fig vs DD, AC) and sink the SZ 52 fleet (3 Fig, Bom, DD, SS should be enough) and hit China with 4-6 Infantry, 2 Fighters (depending on if Buryatia/India were abandoned.)
Suggested Topics
