The attack on Norway is very risky. Even if the Submarine in SZ 8 isn’t used to kill the second British Battleship in SZ 2 because the Russian’s killed the fighter in Norway, the risk of losing the Russian fighter is pretty high and most Russian’s, because of it, won’t make the attack.
With a second Submarine in SZ 8 you still kill Egypt, Battleship in SZ 13 as well as Battleship, Transport in SZ 2.
And even if you DONT kill the Egyptians and the British come into the Med. You can always put the Battleship/Transport back in SZ 14 and put a carrier (fighters from land) and 3 Submarines in SZ 14 with them and bulk up in Libya instead of attacking Egypt in Round 1.
Trust me, I’d gladly take a submarine in SZ 8 over just about any other bid in realistic circumstances.
As risky as the attack on Norway is, so also is the attack on SZ2. There’s a 50% chance there to wind up with only 1 bomber or less. Feels like too much of a coin toss to me, except tails really hurts and heads isn’t always clearly great. It is not a battle in which retreat is acceptable, because that means the BB heals.
The Russian response it to hit Ukraine/W. Russia, and watch the Germans take a very risky series of attacks. I would be very squeamish to attack SZ2, Egypt, and SZ13 like Jen says. That means sending 1 inf 1 arm 1 fig to Egypt, 3 figs 1 bb 1 tran to Gibraltar, and 1 fig 1 bom 2 sub to SZ2. There’s absolutely no more that you can bring to Egypt since the Ukraine fighter is dead, the bomber is off to SZ2, and there’s no bid in Libya. There’s a humongous compound chance of something going horribly wrong between Egypt and SZ2.
It seems to me like a Russian triple - except the odds are crappier and the risks involve fighters.
@Cmdr:
The attack on Norway is very risky. Even if the Submarine in SZ 8 isn’t used to kill the second British Battleship in SZ 2 because the Russian’s killed the fighter in Norway, the risk of losing the Russian fighter is pretty high and most Russian’s, because of it, won’t make the attack.
With a second Submarine in SZ 8 you still kill Egypt, Battleship in SZ 13 as well as Battleship, Transport in SZ 2.
And even if you DONT kill the Egyptians and the British come into the Med. You can always put the Battleship/Transport back in SZ 14 and put a carrier (fighters from land) and 3 Submarines in SZ 14 with them and bulk up in Libya instead of attacking Egypt in Round 1.
Trust me, I’d gladly take a submarine in SZ 8 over just about any other bid in realistic circumstances.
Put the battleship back in SZ 14? Then you’re probably not killing the british BB in 13…or you’re sacrificing a plane or two (or three!) to do it. And if you’re not killing the british BB…well, I thought killing both BBs was the whole point of this submarine bid.
And you suggest spending your entire budget on navy? 3 submarines? Meanwhile you build no ground troops and Russia rolls right over you? Honestly this sounds like one of the worst strategies you could come up with.
I have no problem with loosing 2-3 figs if i can clear the Uk navy out on G1 (uually you end up with 1-2 lost).
Beebs, putting the Battleship back in SZ 14 means I moved it from somewhere, like SZ 13. So the British Battleship is most likely dieing without killing anything in SZ 13.
Coupled with the loss of the other Battleship and leaving the Suez open isn’t so bad.
Germany Round 1:
Buy(40)
Carrier >> 16 IPC
3 Submarines >> 24 IPC
Germany Round 2:
Buy(40)
Carrier >> 16 IPC
3 Submarines >> 40 IPC
(Assumed W. Russia is Russian, Karelia taken by Germany and Ukraine liberated.)
From here on, it’s a game of keeping the Allies out of the Atlantic while you dedicated everything you have against Russia. Not the worlds BEST tactic, and you’d have to make sure you killed the British battleship on G1 in SZ 2 and the one in SZ 13 to even have a chance, but it’d be fun to pull once or twice!
That’d be interesting to fight against, is it something you want to try in a fun/friendly game, Jen?
@Bean:
That’d be interesting to fight against, is it something you want to try in a fun/friendly game, Jen?
Love too. Never played it in a regular AAR game. Dunno how that would work out in the long run.
Give me 7 IPC bid? It’s what I normally bid anyway.
I have played with and against the 2 CV Germain strat, it can lead to some interesting options for Germany especially if you use AC heavily.
Sure, take 7 and we’ll keep it ADS for your sake :evil:
I’m a little bit confused though, I kind of got the impression that you wanted an 8 IPC bid for a sub in SZ8 to kill both BBs and leave the Suez open.
Nah, trying out the 2 CV 6 Submarine purchase strat.
What I also find contradictory about doing a KJF is when you say Jen that it’s 300% easier to defend than to attack, but then you try to make the US attack Japan when Japan has a great defense and more IPCs. I’d rather send the US off to Germany to defend/contain it faster, then defend Moscow. Defense is easier than offense, no?
It’s not contradictory. No defense in the world will save you from losing. That’s because you cannot conquer if you never attack.
And, btw, if a44 insists on stacking up SZ 12, I may not get around to building the carrier, 3 submarines in SZ 14. :P
In fact, is Japan who must attack at the begining, or UK/USA’s fleet will conquer those tasty IPCs islands at Indonesia/Philippines.
Japan must also attack the India and Sinkiang’s ICs, Siberia … :-P
In fact, is Japan who must attack at the begining, or UK/USA’s fleet will conquer those tasty IPCs islands at Indonesia/Philippines.
Japan must also attack the India and Sinkiang’s ICs, Siberia … :-P
You commonly build IC with US+UK in Asia?
In fact, is Japan who must attack at the begining, or UK/USA’s fleet will conquer those tasty IPCs islands at Indonesia/Philippines.
Well so far Jen delays her fleet build up, so it is not I who have to attack, but she. Liberation of Hawaii on Round 5 at which point I’m already contesting Novo and have a near 50 IPC income.
I would like to fight an early KJF in which case Japan would have to significantly alter strategy, but that is not the case - as of yet.
@Cmdr:
It’s not contradictory. No defense in the world will save you from losing. That’s because you cannot conquer if you never attack.
And, btw, if a44 insists on stacking up SZ 12, I may not get around to building the carrier, 3 submarines in SZ 14. :P
Link to game? What’s he doing by stacking SZ12? =p
You commonly build IC with US+UK in Asia?
If I’m going for Pacific islands, yes. USA simply cannot take by alone if Japaneses are rampaging across Asia without opposition (40+ipcs, more income than USA)
And If I want defend India and China, I suppose that island chasing is needed too. Both things should be joint :-D
Bean:
It’s your standard Allied Fleet link in SZ 12.
Battleship (UK)
4 Transports (2 UK/2 US)
Submarine (Russia)
Destroyer (UK)
Easily hit by Battleship, Submarine, Transport, 6 Fighters, Bomber.
Meanwhile, I’ve gone away from the Industrials in SE Asia. Right now I’m playin with ICs in S. Africa, working out strategies for that. I’ll probably go away from that too, soon. (IC in E. Canada/Brazil might be workable though.)
I guess I don’t HAVE to hold off on the American incursion into the Pacific. It’s just a matter of sacrificial submarines. I don’t like using them until I’m almost indominable anyway. But I could just buy up a bunch of submarines on R1, then use 2 DD, BB, TRN to invade while I built more ships. That would at least allow the US/UK forces to meet faster.
Funcioneta, how often do you use that KJF strat, building IC in India UK1/UK2 + IC in Sink, and also then you
build most US units in WUS?
You may want to try a game against me with your KJF strat. TripleA, no tech, preferably LL 8-)
IC in India is great for Colonial Garrison NA. Then you could buy an American IC in Sinkiang, since Japan has to focus 100% on India to get it.
Otherwise, once the Indian IC goes down, the American one is automatically in jeapordy without major Russian help.
Much better to go with an IC in Australia if you must get one. Or S. Africa (since that lets you take and defend 11 IPC in land, almost the value of the IC itself.)
You don’t need ICs to slow down Japan anyway. Japan’s navy is a push over, America can sink it with minimal investments and strategic positioning.
