I’ve also seen someone use an 8 bid to get another transport for this move. He took UK but America took it back and since there was no pressure on Russia for a few turns the guy ended up loosing.
Germany Keys
-
@ncscswitch:
2 TRN buy DEMANDS a UK attack in SZ5. You have to sack the 2 FIGs 1 BOM to avoid several turns of Sea Lion risk while you build up your fleet and landing forces.
I would disagree with this.
I don’t see how the UK can make that attack.
Best Case you leave Ger with 1 trn, 1 dd
Avg to Bad Case you leave them with 2-3 trns, 1 dd
Worst Case you whiff and take a double hit and end up retreating the bom. Which leaves you facing the same scenerio minus the UK ftrs for defense.
Even if you get two hits in the battle you still risk seeing 3 trns sitting in Sz 5 on G2.I think 2 ftrs, 1 bom vs. 2 sub, 1 trn, 1 dd is a bad attack so I think going against 2 subs, 3 trns, 1 dd is a really bad attack.
I usually think it is bad to attack with less units then what is defending. 3 units attacking 6 just looks like a disaster waiting to happen. There are some exceptions, certainly planes vs. only subs, but I just don’t like the early risk here for the Allies.
-
@ncscswitch:
2 TRN buy DEMANDS a UK attack in SZ5. You have to sack the 2 FIGs 1 BOM to avoid several turns of Sea Lion risk while you build up your fleet and landing forces.
I would disagree with this.
I don’t see how the UK can make that attack.
Best Case you leave Ger with 1 trn, 1 dd
Avg to Bad Case you leave them with 2-3 trns, 1 dd
Worst Case you whiff and take a double hit and end up retreating the bom. Which leaves you facing the same scenerio minus the UK ftrs for defense.
Even if you get two hits in the battle you still risk seeing 3 trns sitting in Sz 5 on G2.I think 2 ftrs, 1 bom vs. 2 sub, 1 trn, 1 dd is a bad attack so I think going against 2 subs, 3 trns, 1 dd is a really bad attack.
I usually think it is bad to attack with less units then what is defending. 3 units attacking 6 just looks like a disaster waiting to happen. There are some exceptions, certainly planes vs. only subs, but I just don’t like the early risk here for the Allies.
Well said, and I would also say “Just say no” to heavy Axis naval purchases unless: (1) you really know what you are doing (most don’t); (2) Russia got TOTALLY SMOKED on R1 dice; or (3) your opponent does something stupid with the Allies and you have IPCs and time to burn.
-
@ncscswitch:
3 is a completely different UK1 counter… It involves an AC buy by UK, and is a source of ongoing disagreement between me and the head of Caspian Sub…
Could you elaborate? I’m failing to see how an AC buy on UK1 is a remotely viable or useful strategy but I could be missing something.
-
I would say because Germany is massing a navy, even if the transports are used for fodder, they could still easily take out you UK Navy so you have to sure it up with a car and 2 fig.
-
Bunnies:
You are missing the point, in my opinion.
Yes, you CAN have Transport, 2 Fighters, 2 Destroyers and a Carrier in SZ 15 on UK 1 if Germany does not take SZ 15 and Egypt on Germany 1.
And yes, you CAN have 5 infantry + change in Trans-Jordan as well.
However!
Germany can take Egypt on Round 2, build 3 Submarines in SZ 14 and station 5 or 6 fighters and a bomber to hit SZ 15 with massive firepower. (Though, lately I’ve had 7 fighters, 2 bombers at the end of Germany 1 because I buy a fighter and a bomber with Germany.)
Now, there is absolutely nothing England can do to escape the trap. Germany WILL be able to sink the British fleet with Battleship, Transport, 3 Submarines, 6 Fighters and a Bomber on Germany 3.
Even running in all out speed, the American destroyers cannot help by then anyway. American landings in Algeria would get to Libya on USA 2, just after Germany deserts it to invade Egypt and thus, will not be able to re-open the Canal.
Maybe Russia could reopen it, IF, Russia sent tanks to T-J on Round 1 and I don’t know a single Russian player that’s doing that with Russian tanks on R1.
-
@Cmdr:
Maybe Russia could reopen it, IF, Russia sent tanks to T-J on Round 1 and I don’t know a single Russian player that’s doing that with Russian tanks on R1.
I send 1 USSR tank to India for protecting UK’s IC (in KJF games), but true, even in this case, another arm to tr-j is useless to open Suez, because Indian IC means no retake Egypt in UK1 (or Japaneses can go heavy and conquer the Indian IC in J1 :-P )
-
I would say because Germany is massing a navy, even if the transports are used for fodder, they could still easily take out you UK Navy so you have to sure it up with a car and 2 fig.
But if you move all your navy in range of the Baltic fleet to block them, as I believe switch is advocating, and the build a carrier and put your fighters on it, your fleet (and your fighters) will be slaughtered.
Heck even if you build a destroyer to further augment that fleet you will be destroyed. The German AF is almost entirely in range. Even if the Bomber is in Libya, he can still make it. Maybe if there is a fighter in Libya you will be down one, but maybe there won’t be. That still leaves the Germans in really good shape.
They can bring.
5 Fighters
1 Bomber
1 Destroyer
2 Subs
3 TransWith a combined attack of 26. Count of 12.
The UK fleet consist of.
1 Battleship
1 Destroyer
2 Trans
1 Carrier
2 FightersFor a defense value of 20, and a count of 8.
The Germans attack, killing on average 4 guys with a 33% chance to kill another one. That means the Btl takes a hit, the trans are out, and the destroyer is dead as well. Leaving a wounded battleship, a carrier, and two fighters.
The UK player responds, on average killing 3 with a 33% chance to kill another. The German player can choose between destroying subs or transports depending on how they feel. Say they take out the transports. Germany attacks again, and the UK fleet and fighters are now gone. UK returns fire, they shoot down the remainder of your navy. The UK just lost their entire fleet, the majority of their airforce, and their entire first turn’s worth of income. Even if the battle swings badly Germany shouldn’t drop more than one fighter. I’d easily drop a German fighter to hold off the brits that long though. For the cost of 24 IPCs you just shot down 88 IPCs worth of UK gear, and slowed down British invasion for 2-3 rounds. IMO that’s worth the cost.
And that was the whole battle with just 5 ftrs, if you bring in all 6 Germany easily can come off with two transports still alive.
There’s no need for a carrier UK1. The Germans are entirely out of range of your fleet. It’s a pointless waste of IPCs for the first round. Build some transports maybe, maybe a couple planes if you want, some more troops. Then next turn you can move in and plop down a carrier if necessary, and you might get Norway in the bargain, and you didn’t just let the Germans trade their fleet for your fleet + AF.
-
@Cmdr:
Bunnies:
You are missing the point, in my opinion.
Yes, you CAN have Transport, 2 Fighters, 2 Destroyers and a Carrier in SZ 15 on UK 1 if Germany does not take SZ 15 and Egypt on Germany 1.
And yes, you CAN have 5 infantry + change in Trans-Jordan as well.
However!
Germany can take Egypt on Round 2, build 3 Submarines in SZ 14 and station 5 or 6 fighters and a bomber to hit SZ 15 with massive firepower. (Though, lately I’ve had 7 fighters, 2 bombers at the end of Germany 1 because I buy a fighter and a bomber with Germany.)
Now, there is absolutely nothing England can do to escape the trap. Germany WILL be able to sink the British fleet with Battleship, Transport, 3 Submarines, 6 Fighters and a Bomber on Germany 3.
Not gonna happen.
Russia will be walking all over Europe and into Berlin.
Turn 1, UK puts Med and IO fleet in Sz 15, UK and US Atlantic fleets go to Sz 12 and on R2 Russia moves Heavy to Ukr.
Germany can’t attack all three.And an attack on any one of the targets still leaves great options for the Allies. While a split attack on 2 or more leads to potential disaster for the Germans.
-
@Cmdr:
However!
Germany can take Egypt on Round 2, build 3 Submarines in SZ 14 and station 5 or 6 fighters and a bomber to hit SZ 15 with massive firepower. (Though, lately I’ve had 7 fighters, 2 bombers at the end of Germany 1 because I buy a fighter and a bomber with Germany.)
Now, there is absolutely nothing England can do to escape the trap. Germany WILL be able to sink the British fleet with Battleship, Transport, 3 Submarines, 6 Fighters and a Bomber on Germany 3.
What I think should happen is that either:
1. UK takes 1 transport 2 destroyers 1 carrier 4 fighters 1 bomber and kills the German fleet, keeping the UK air force and the TransJordan force meaning the Allies retain Africa. UK loses its fleet, Germany loses its fleet.
2. UK takes 4 fighters 1 bomber and probably kills the German fleet at a heavy price in air. If the Allied fleet did NOT land at Algeria on UK1/US1, it probably consolidated either at sea zone 8 southwest of UK or sea zones 1 and 2 (at Eastern Canada and northwest of UK respectively). If the Allies consolidated at SZ 8, assuming the UK attack on German navy is successful, the UK fleet in the Med can now unite with the SZ 8 fleet plus US fighters for a pretty sizable Allied fleet (probable 4 trns 1 destr 1 btl 1 sub plus 1 carrier 2 destr 2 fighter 1 transport). The Allies will still probably control Africa and the US shuck to Algeria is supplemented by early UK forces in Trans-Jordan, allowing early contest of Africa as well as the possibility of securing Persia with a UK/US march through Africa, followed by a transport chain from E. Canada to London to Europe giving Russia almost direct reinforcements.
Theres stuff the Germans can do to mess with this plan, but it’s all pretty expensive.
-
How do you plan to do this, Bunnies?
Pretending you have all your fighters and bombers in range of SZ 14, why should Germany care? They can just unify their fleet in SZ 7 and take England instead. If you leave your fighters to defend the homeland, then the Germans can kill the SZ 15 fleet.
You seem to think Germany is locked into keeping their fleet in range of 4 fighters, bomber, transport, 2 destroyers and a carrier and they just are not.
Even if they were, what’s to stop Germany from building two Aircraft Carriers and a Submarine on G2? That would effectively destroy any chance England would have of sinking the fleet on G2. And no, you would NOT be able to conceal England’s move because England goes after Germany. You would have to move the two fighters from England to Russia on UK 1 to have them in range. (Maybe W. Russia, but that forces Russia to lock down their infantry, and I don’t think anyone wants to do that when there is an option not too.)
So what we have is 5 possible options for Germany on G2:
1) England put her fighters in Russia and moved her fleet into SZ 15.
2) England and America joined forces in SZ 8. In which case, you better have built some destroyers or something to keep the 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers from sinking the combined allied fleets in SZ 8 and to do that, you would have negated purchases for the protection of England opening up a Sea Lion attempt.
3) England and America joined forces in SZ 12 allowing the Germans to hit you with Submarine, 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers sinking yout fleet and unifying destroyer, 2 submarines, 2 transports and a battleship in SZ 7.
4) England invaded SZ 15, but did NOT bring the fighters from England into range of SZ 14 in which case Germany can either attack SZ 8/12 or just unify SZ 7 or build a small set of naval fodder and stationed herself in SZ 14 to sink the British fleet on Germany 3.
5) England did something smart, retreated everything it could and let Germany control the Med without invasion.
The only SMART option is for England to retreat. All other options bring death and destruction to either the British fleet OR the British Fleet AND the British Air Force. (No serious American fleet units can be put in range for Germany to wreak havoc on American naval might by that time.)
Darth:
The idea is to absolutely destroy the British if they get in range. Since Germany spent just about everything on ground purchases, opting for the Bomber in lieu of the carrier (thus +1 IPC for ground forces not normally spent there on Germany 1) I fail to see how Russia is “walking all over Europe and into Berlin.”
If England does something stupid and gets in range of the Germans, then yes, Germany MAY for go one round of ground purchases. So they don’t invade in and Russia gets an extra 3 IPC for one round. However, the British and Americans are no threat allowing Germany to put 100% effort into killing the Russians without worrying about England and America for the next 2 or 3 rounds.
So yes, while you have a nice army in Algeria and a small fleet in SZ 12 and a small fleet in SZ 15, as I showed above, Germany sinks the SZ 12 fleet at the cost of 3 fighters and a submarine (5 fighters, 2 bombers, submarine vs 4 transports, destroyer, battleship, submarine) and unifies her fleet in SZ 7.
What’s England going to do, seriously? Sure, you have a wee little fleet in SZ 15, cut off from the world and no way to escape. It’ll be a full two rounds before America and England can liberate Egypt, that’s two rounds for Germany to move the combined fleet back to SZ 13 and then sink the British if they want too.
If you do not stack in SZ 12, Germany can still unify if they want and cost you a pretty penny if you attack them in SZ 7 and then slip back into the Med where they are protected. (Later putting up a carrier if they want to be a real pain.) That’s assuming, of course, SZ 8 isn’t a really juicy target and, of course, assuming that England is actually defended enough to stop Sea Lion. 2 Transports plus battleship, 5 fighters and 2 bombers is going to be a lot of firepower on England.
So, as I said, unless someone sees a really big hole somewhere, Germany’s sitting very pretty no matter what England does on UK 1. There’s nothing the Allies can do to stop Germany from either Unification of their fleet or Sinking the British fleet. You just don’t have enough equipment on UK 1 and US 1 to make a difference.
-
You missed Darth’s point Jen… it is not the G1 build that dooms Germany… it is that G2 massed SUB build in SZ14 that causes the problem… specifically a lack of ground forces for central Europe after spending (between G1 and G2) $39+ out of $80 available cash on Navy/BOM
And without any G1 naval buy in the Baltic (since you opted for a BOM instead), the SZ5 fleet is TOAST, and UK is landing in Eastern on UK3, and Russia is also attacking Eastern on UK3…
NOT a good combination for a land unit starved Germany…
Who cares what happens to the UK Suicide Fleet that started off India? UK and USSR are on the gates of Berlin Turn 3!
-
@Cmdr:
How do you plan to do this, Bunnies?
With teh jenforces! (hums A-Team theme)
Pretending you have all your fighters and bombers in range of SZ 14, why should Germany care? They can just unify their fleet in SZ 7 and take England instead. If you leave your fighters to defend the homeland, then the Germans can kill the SZ 15 fleet.
Why pretend? India fighter plus Anglo-Egypt fighter at sea zone north of Anglo-Egypt, two other UK fighters in Russia, UK bomber at Russia. UK fighters at Russia have range to south of Western Europe with the UK carrier; the UK carrier fighters can hit waters south of S. Europe and land in Africa.
All of this is, of course, DISCRETIONARY - the UK can wait to see Germany’s turn. UK does not HAVE to do this; UK can opt instead to unite the UK fleet against Japan. And all that movement mentions NO buy by UK1; UK can easily buy 5 inf 3 tank or some such to make a German capture of London impossible. (Although UK is probably better served by buying other units.)
You seem to think Germany is locked into keeping their fleet in range of 4 fighters, bomber, transport, 2 destroyers and a carrier and they just are not.
There’s nowhere else for the German fleet to go on G2 except to the waters south of Western Europe, and even then the 4 fighters of the UK air (and of course the navy and the bomber) will be in range if UK buys a carrier on UK2 to land the fighters that start in the sea zone north of Anglo-Egypt.
Even if they were, what’s to stop Germany from building two Aircraft Carriers and a Submarine on G2? That would effectively destroy any chance England would have of sinking the fleet on G2. And no, you would NOT be able to conceal England’s move because England goes after Germany. You would have to move the two fighters from England to Russia on UK 1 to have them in range. (Maybe W. Russia, but that forces Russia to lock down their infantry, and I don’t think anyone wants to do that when there is an option not too.)
If Germany buys mass navy on G2, UK should be just as happy considering the Russians have a 10-13 less ground units to worry about.
Correct, you WOULD have to move the UK fighters to Russia on UK1, but the ONLY reason for UK NOT to do so is even BETTER German targets in the water - in which case UK can always opt instead of sending the UK Indian fleet north of Anglo-Egypt to put up a defense of India with the extra infantry, tank, and fighter spared from Anglo-Egypt and possibly contest Japanese control of the west Pacific.
So what we have is 5 possible options for Germany on G2:
1) England put her fighters in Russia and moved her fleet into SZ 15.
2) England and America joined forces in SZ 8. In which case, you better have built some destroyers or something to keep the 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers from sinking the combined allied fleets in SZ 8 and to do that, you would have negated purchases for the protection of England opening up a Sea Lion attempt.
If 5 fighters 2 bombers is all that is in range of SZ 8 and London is threatened, the London invasion threat is 5 inf 1 bomber 1 inf 1 tank unless you’re proposing a G1 Med fleet move to south of Western Europe which is SUCH a HUGE change that you HAVE to mention it. Anyways, US can add 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber and UK can add 1 tank - this is without buying anything - for defense of 1 AA gun 4 inf 2 art 2 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber. UK can EASILY afford a carrier and four infantry to lock up London, and assuming the Med fleet is out of range, that’s a London defense force of 1 AA gun 8 inf 2 art 2 tank 1 bomber and a SZ8 fleet of 4 transport 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter 1 battleship. True, the Germans can kill a lot of that, but it is probable that any sort of attack on that fleet will be very expensive for Germany (again, unless Germany moved its Med fleet WEST, which is such a HUGE difference that you have to mention it)
3) England and America joined forces in SZ 12 allowing the Germans to hit you with Submarine, 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers sinking yout fleet and unifying destroyer, 2 submarines, 2 transports and a battleship in SZ 7.
Unification in SZ 12 is just silly with a German Med fleet sitting at S. Europe or south of W. Europe. But look, you’re proposing German Med fleet south of W. Europe if you’re proposing German fleet unification in SZ 7 west of Western Europe (would you PLEASE refer to sea zones with geographical reference instead of these arcane numbers?) Anyways in this case UK/US can still send fleet to E. Canada and northwest of UK and build UK ground to prevent German invasion of London, and as you make no mention of a Baltic fleet buy, UK could attack the Baltic fleet (and of course keep the UK Indian fleet out of the Med.
4) England invaded SZ 15, but did NOT bring the fighters from England into range of SZ 14 in which case Germany can either attack SZ 8/12 or just unify SZ 7 or build a small set of naval fodder and stationed herself in SZ 14 to sink the British fleet on Germany 3.
England shouldn’t make a mistake of this magnitude, so discussion of that point is moot. It is so dumb to bring the UK fleet to SZ 15 north of Anglo-Egypt but not bring any fighters to within range of S. Europe that it simply shouldn’t happen.
5) England did something smart, retreated everything it could and let Germany control the Med without invasion.
Again, England doesn’t HAVE to do this. My point is that the UK can RESPOND to the German move, and the Germans leaving Anglo-Egypt alone gives UK that many more options.
The only SMART option is for England to retreat. All other options bring death and destruction to either the British fleet OR the British Fleet AND the British Air Force. (No serious American fleet units can be put in range for Germany to wreak havoc on American naval might by that time.)
As I said earlier - Germany can FORCE the UK to stay out of the Med, but it is horribly costly to the Germans. I will pay the price of an arm if I can get an arm and a leg for it.
Darth:
The idea is to absolutely destroy the British if they get in range. Since Germany spent just about everything on ground purchases, opting for the Bomber in lieu of the carrier (thus +1 IPC for ground forces not normally spent there on Germany 1) I fail to see how Russia is “walking all over Europe and into Berlin.”
Not into Berlin, but into Europe. The G2 land purchase is key to the German advance. You could get some more milage out of Europe by draining forces from Africa, but any sort of German fleet buy has to be very worth it.
If England does something stupid and gets in range of the Germans, then yes, Germany MAY for go one round of ground purchases. So they don’t invade in and Russia gets an extra 3 IPC for one round. However, the British and Americans are no threat allowing Germany to put 100% effort into killing the Russians without worrying about England and America for the next 2 or 3 rounds.
The Germans have to keep their Med fleet at least at S. Europe to prevent a UK/US landing at Algeria. This means no German Med fleet use against Ukraine/Caucasus/Transjordan/AngloEgypt, which means that a great deal of the German power is being left unused at a time when Russia has a lot of ground forces moving through Europe.
Russia retains additional territory in Europe for a lot longer than one round. The G2 production is what allows a G4 take and hold of Ukraine. The additional German bomber helps, and you can halve the German air force between Western and Eastern Europe, but doing so makes it easier for the Allies to land at Algeria, and there’s no substitute for cheap German fodder.
Through all this UK and US shipping is probably out of danger. If worst comes to worst, the Allies can set up a E. Can-London-Norway/Karelia/Archangel route to reinforce Russia. Considering the German sacrifices made to this point, the Allies still have a very solid game.
So yes, while you have a nice army in Algeria and a small fleet in SZ 12 and a small fleet in SZ 15, as I showed above, Germany sinks the SZ 12 fleet at the cost of 3 fighters and a submarine (5 fighters, 2 bombers, submarine vs 4 transports, destroyer, battleship, submarine) and unifies her fleet in SZ 7.
But again the Allies can SEE this coming. The Allies don’t HAVE to land at Algeria considering that you’re talking about the German Med fleet south of Western Europe 5 fighters at W. Europe and 2 bombers in Germany at end of G1. The Allies can see that.
What’s England going to do, seriously? Sure, you have a wee little fleet in SZ 15, cut off from the world and no way to escape. It’ll be a full two rounds before America and England can liberate Egypt, that’s two rounds for Germany to move the combined fleet back to SZ 13 and then sink the British if they want too.
If Germany leaves Anglo-Egypt alone on G1, the UK will have enough forces to either secure Anglo-Egypt or at least reclaim it from German without significant delay. Response to UK India fleet in SZ 15 north of Anglo-Egypt as previously stated. Again, I do not see that there is a significant ADVANTAGE to Germany - Germany buys time with a naval purchase, but gives Russia more time in exchange.
If you do not stack in SZ 12, Germany can still unify if they want and cost you a pretty penny if you attack them in SZ 7 and then slip back into the Med where they are protected. (Later putting up a carrier if they want to be a real pain.) That’s assuming, of course, SZ 8 isn’t a really juicy target and, of course, assuming that England is actually defended enough to stop Sea Lion. 2 Transports plus battleship, 5 fighters and 2 bombers is going to be a lot of firepower on England.
At most, it’s 1 transport 5 fighters 2 bombers. It DOES hurt for the Allies to block the German Med fleet with a Russian sub, but that move does leave the Allies with a lot of options and less trouble defending London. Note that a Russian sub block also allows for an early unified Allied fleet at SZ 8 - although I don’t think I would personally prefer to do this as I prefer to preserve forces.
So, as I said, unless someone sees a really big hole somewhere, Germany’s sitting very pretty no matter what England does on UK 1. There’s nothing the Allies can do to stop Germany from either Unification of their fleet or Sinking the British fleet. You just don’t have enough equipment on UK 1 and US 1 to make a difference.
That part about the Allies being forced to choose between German fleet unification and the loss of the Allied Atlantic fleet MAY be true to some extent (although I think without a G1 carrier build German fleet unification is risky due to the Allies being in range with fleet and navy).
But in any event, I do not see that German move of NOT attacking Anglo-Egypt on G1 (moving German Med fleet west, buying 1 bomber plus perhaps 8 infantry landing 5 fighters at Western Europe) to result in a superior German position. Germany must PAY for the gains it gets, which I think leaves the Allies with at least an equitable position (I actually think superior, but I can leave that to argue for at LEAST equity.)
-
@ncscswitch:
You missed Darth’s point Jen… it is not the G1 build that dooms Germany… it is that G2 massed SUB build in SZ14 that causes the problem… specifically a lack of ground forces for central Europe after spending (between G1 and G2) $39+ out of $80 available cash on Navy/BOM
I disagree. Germany can hold back without pushing forward leaving the Russians alone for 1 round (maybe taking Ukraine back to prevent them from also getting Balkans) and not be strapped for ground units on Germany 2.
Also, remember those submarines/carriers are ONLY bought in the specific circumstances I outlined before.
And without any G1 naval buy in the Baltic (since you opted for a BOM instead), the SZ5 fleet is TOAST, and UK is landing in Eastern on UK3, and Russia is also attacking Eastern on UK3…
Again, the odds of England losing significant air power against the SZ 5 fleet makes it all the more worth it, to me, to let you attack it. In 3 rounds of combat, I’m almost guaranteed one or two fighter kills with the fleet. Yes, there are chances I kill nothing, and yes there are chances I kill everything without losing the destroyer and transport as well.
Thing is, is that a risk England wants to take? Especially with the rest of their fighters now sitting trapped in SZ 15?
NOT a good combination for a land unit starved Germany…
Who cares what happens to the UK Suicide Fleet that started off India? UK and USSR are on the gates of Berlin Turn 3!
Again, Germany is not land unit starved by any means. Before Germany’s second round of purchases, she has IN EUROPE (I’m not counting anything in Africa)
21 Infantry
8 Armor
1 Artillery
5 Fighters
2 BombersThat’s hardly starved for ground forces. Now sure, you COULD build 10 more infantry and a couple of armor for Germany and that’s great and all. However, if I can sink half the British fleet with either securing Africa forever OR putting England under threat of invasion for the next 3 to 4 rounds without investing another IPC then why shouldn’t I do it? Not to mention how much easier Japan has it now that they don’t have to worry about English fighters in the south, leaving my battleships and carriers for Japan much more open.
See, thing is, you are advocating a Carrier build on Germany 1. I am advocating a Bomber build on Germany 1 because it is more flexible. That means I have a STRONGER position in Germany on Germany 2 then you do.
-
@Bunnies:
@Cmdr:
How do you plan to do this, Bunnies?
With teh jenforces! (hums A-Team theme)
Yes, you do seem to be using imaginary units a lot.
Pretending you have all your fighters and bombers in range of SZ 14, why should Germany care? They can just unify their fleet in SZ 7 and take England instead. If you leave your fighters to defend the homeland, then the Germans can kill the SZ 15 fleet.
Why pretend? India fighter plus Anglo-Egypt fighter at sea zone north of Anglo-Egypt, two other UK fighters in Russia, UK bomber at Russia. UK fighters at Russia have range to south of Western Europe with the UK carrier; the UK carrier fighters can hit waters south of S. Europe and land in Africa.
All of this is, of course, DISCRETIONARY - the UK can wait to see Germany’s turn. UK does not HAVE to do this; UK can opt instead to unite the UK fleet against Japan. And all that movement mentions NO buy by UK1; UK can easily buy 5 inf 3 tank or some such to make a German capture of London impossible. (Although UK is probably better served by buying other units.)
Exactly my point. ENGLAND SHOULD DO SOMETHING ELSE, like what you just outlined above. In which case, you have given Germany the least of all her great options (namely to take Egypt at almost no cost, instead of a huge cost resulting in the possible loss of Africa forever.)
But yes, you CAN for go the attack on SZ 5, put your fighters and bombers in Moscow, move your fleet into SZ 15, still get cut off with Germans in Egypt and have the German fleet sitting united in SZ 7. As I said, just because England does something on UK 1 does NOT MEAN GERMANY HAS TO DO SOMETHING ON GERMANY 2. You cannot wait and see what Germany will do on Germany 2 to make England 1’s combat and non-combat moves. Not unless you are playing with the Hippity Hoppity Rules set.
There’s nowhere else for the German fleet to go on G2 except to the waters south of Western Europe, and even then the 4 fighters of the UK air (and of course the navy and the bomber) will be in range if UK buys a carrier on UK2 to land the fighters that start in the sea zone north of Anglo-Egypt.
Incorrect. From SZ 13 Germany can easily go to SZ 7, 8, 11, 12, 17 or 18. All of which are out of range of the fighters and bomber in Russia. SZ 7 is probably the best place if England’s all set up. Now you are trapped in the med with your only escape coming right into Germany’s united fleet.
And, if we pretend you were foolish enough to try a fleet unification in SZ 12 to block the Germans in, the Luftwaffe + 1 Submarine can sink it all with the loss of 1 submarine, 3 fighters (4 fighters if she lost her submarine in SZ 13 on G1) allowing the unification to happen anyway. Honestly, that’s pretty good option to me, I have eliminated the British and American threat and can recover the extra fighters over the next couple of rounds. (2 fighters, 2 bombers is plenty for use in trading with Russia in most cases. Since England and America are no longer a threat, I no longer need 5 fighters, 2 bombers until they become a threat, and by the time that happens, I’ll have 5 fighters, 2 bombers again.)
If Germany buys mass navy on G2, UK should be just as happy considering the Russians have a 10-13 less ground units to worry about.
Correct, you WOULD have to move the UK fighters to Russia on UK1, but the ONLY reason for UK NOT to do so is even BETTER German targets in the water - in which case UK can always opt instead of sending the UK Indian fleet north of Anglo-Egypt to put up a defense of India with the extra infantry, tank, and fighter spared from Anglo-Egypt and possibly contest Japanese control of the west Pacific.
Again, that’s my entire point! England SHOULD NOT MOVE INTO SZ 15 on UK 1. It’s a trap they cannot possibly win. You go in there and you’ve handed Germany the advantage for the next 4-6 rounds as best I can see it. Yes, Russia’s pushed ahead into Europe a little farther then normal (though to be honest, when I have Russia I almost always have Balkans, Belorussia and Karelia as dead zones with a large contingent in Ukraine, so it’s not like less Germans are going to be allowing me in farther then I normally am anyway); but now Germany can leave W. Europe empty and focus everything on Russia. So instead of locking up 25 units in W. Europe defense, you have nothing there and +25 units pushing Russia back. That’s a HUGE swing.
So what we have is 5 possible options for Germany on G2:
1) England put her fighters in Russia and moved her fleet into SZ 15.
2) England and America joined forces in SZ 8. In which case, you better have built some destroyers or something to keep the 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers from sinking the combined allied fleets in SZ 8 and to do that, you would have negated purchases for the protection of England opening up a Sea Lion attempt.
If 5 fighters 2 bombers is all that is in range of SZ 8 and London is threatened, the London invasion threat is 5 inf 1 bomber 1 inf 1 tank unless you’re proposing a G1 Med fleet move to south of Western Europe which is SUCH a HUGE change that you HAVE to mention it. Anyways, US can add 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber and UK can add 1 tank - this is without buying anything - for defense of 1 AA gun 4 inf 2 art 2 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber. UK can EASILY afford a carrier and four infantry to lock up London, and assuming the Med fleet is out of range, that’s a London defense force of 1 AA gun 8 inf 2 art 2 tank 1 bomber and a SZ8 fleet of 4 transport 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter 1 battleship. True, the Germans can kill a lot of that, but it is probable that any sort of attack on that fleet will be very expensive for Germany (again, unless Germany moved its Med fleet WEST, which is such a HUGE difference that you have to mention it)
Now you are reacting, not acting. Yes, you CAN stop Sea Lion by massing EVERY LAST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT POSSIBLE IN ENGLAND. And of course, now that the British fighters are NOT IN RUSSIA LIKE YOU ORIGINALLY ARGUED, now Germany can easily sink the Transport, 2 Fighters, Carrier and 2 Destroyers in SZ 15 because there is NO THREAT AT ALL to SZ 14 from England.
Again, my point is made. You are allowing Germany to be very flexible with her units and you are NOT stopping any of her plans. However, she has forced you to change your plans twice now. And no matter what set you chose, you end up losing more then she does (not to mention she’s almost losing nothing in either engagement but you are losing a lot in both.)
3) England and America joined forces in SZ 12 allowing the Germans to hit you with Submarine, 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers sinking yout fleet and unifying destroyer, 2 submarines, 2 transports and a battleship in SZ 7.
Unification in SZ 12 is just silly with a German Med fleet sitting at S. Europe or south of W. Europe. But look, you’re proposing German Med fleet south of W. Europe if you’re proposing German fleet unification in SZ 7 west of Western Europe (would you PLEASE refer to sea zones with geographical reference instead of these arcane numbers?) Anyways in this case UK/US can still send fleet to E. Canada and northwest of UK and build UK ground to prevent German invasion of London, and as you make no mention of a Baltic fleet buy, UK could attack the Baltic fleet (and of course keep the UK Indian fleet out of the Med.
Thanks for finally realizing that. I was beginning to think you’d never realize that the German fleet was NOT in SZ 14 that I was using it to sink your battleship without loss (in most cases anyway, there’s the off chance you’ll sink a submarine, but it’s not very high.)
So yes, the unification in SZ 12 is pretty silly. Honestly, without buying a carrier and locking up your fighters from England, a unification in SZ 8 is also very silly. In either case, the German Luftwaffe can sink the combined fleet with very modest losses (like 3 fighters and a submarine to get 4 transports, submarine, destroyer and battleship) with the carrier and fighters, the Germans would probably have to expose the battleship and that would make the attack cost prohibitive. Then again, now the fighters are NOT in Russia like you originally called for.
4) England invaded SZ 15, but did NOT bring the fighters from England into range of SZ 14 in which case Germany can either attack SZ 8/12 or just unify SZ 7 or build a small set of naval fodder and stationed herself in SZ 14 to sink the British fleet on Germany 3.
England shouldn’t make a mistake of this magnitude, so discussion of that point is moot. It is so dumb to bring the UK fleet to SZ 15 north of Anglo-Egypt but not bring any fighters to within range of S. Europe that it simply shouldn’t happen.
And yet, in the 5 games I’ve done this, England has never brought her fighters into range. Normally she loses them in SZ 5 after sinking the Baltic Fleet which is fine with me.
5) England did something smart, retreated everything it could and let Germany control the Med without invasion.
Again, England doesn’t HAVE to do this. My point is that the UK can RESPOND to the German move, and the Germans leaving Anglo-Egypt alone gives UK that many more options.
And what I am saying is the smart move is to take the armor, fighter and destroyer gift and get the heck out of Dodge before Germany spanks you. And that the options left open to England are far less in power and scope then the options left open to Germany if Germany waits one round to take Egypt and instead consolidates her forces to mass fire on the enemy.
A sniper is deadly. An artillery barrage is more deadly.
As I said earlier - Germany can FORCE the UK to stay out of the Med, but it is horribly costly to the Germans. I will pay the price of an arm if I can get an arm and a leg for it.
Yes, but the Germans can save a lot of money in forward placed units creating a much stronger front against the Allies because of it if they do not attack SZ 15, Egypt, SZ 13, Karelia and Ukraine at the same time. It’s easier to hit Gibraltar, SZ 13, Ukraine and Karelia because it costs you much less and allows you to put more firepower on the enemy resulting in fewer of your own losses.
I am pretty sure we agree that the value of an Infantry Unit 2 spaces away from the nearest friendly Industrial Complex has a greater tactical value then an Infantryman bought this round. Mainly because the purchased unit has to be placed and then move two spaces whereas the existing unit is already in position to attack or defend.
And that’s my basic concept. Germany can easily have 6 Units in Libya without moving anything there (assuming Libyan bid) and have her entire navy poised to attack SZ 15/SZ 12/SZ 7/SZ 8 without any long term tactical cost to her. If England moves to allow it, then England is at great risk of both making a tactical error somewhere and cascading dice failure. Germany is at risk of neither. The reason Germany is not at risk is because Germany is acting and forcing England to react to whatever she does. This gives her control of the board.
End part 1
-
@Cmdr:
@Bunnies:
Not into Berlin, but into Europe. The G2 land purchase is key to the German advance. You could get some more mileage out of Europe by draining forces from Africa, but any sort of German fleet buy has to be very worth it.
As I mentioned before, the Russians normally get Karelia, Belorussia and Ukraine anyway and when I run the Russians I normally get Balkans as well. I fail to see how them having it in other games is any different. Remember, the Germany 1 buy is actually stronger for ground warfare then the Germany 1 buy with the carrier. The carrier forever removes 16 IPC from your ground forces and never gives you a tactical advantage over the Allies, only a defensive one. The bomber does not remove any IPC from your ground forces, adds 15 IPC to your naval forces and gives you a significant tactical advantage both militarily and economically.
It’s Germany 2 that we are quibbling about then. But, as I said, Germany only goes heavy navy IF the Brits do something stupid. Otherwise, 1 transport in SZ 15 is hardly going to force Germany to do anything drastic. And the Germans are in position to take Brazil if they want it or sink the combined Allied fleets in the Atlantic. Or, unify and set up a wall around W. Europe making landings there very difficult. No matter what happens, Germany has plenty of GOOD options and all of those options make life extremely difficult for the Russians. (Face it, 3 Submarines, Battleship, 2 Transports and a Destroyer can be killed, but it’s going to be expensive and it’s going to take time. The threat of 3 submarines, battleship, two pieces of fodder and a destroyer coupled with 5 fighters, 2 bombers is a threat you have to consider no matter what you do and that will force you to build up and move slowly.)
The Germans have to keep their Med fleet at least at S. Europe to prevent a UK/US landing at Algeria. This means no German Med fleet use against Ukraine/Caucasus/Trans-Jordan/Anglo Egypt, which means that a great deal of the German power is being left unused at a time when Russia has a lot of ground forces moving through Europe.
Russia retains additional territory in Europe for a lot longer than one round. The G2 production is what allows a G4 take and hold of Ukraine. The additional German bomber helps, and you can halve the German air force between Western and Eastern Europe, but doing so makes it easier for the Allies to land at Algeria, and there’s no substitute for cheap German fodder.
Through all this UK and US shipping is probably out of danger. If worst comes to worst, the Allies can set up a E. Can-London-Norway/Karelia/Archangel route to reinforce Russia. Considering the German sacrifices made to this point, the Allies still have a very solid game.
I disagree. Why do I have to lock my forces in SZ 14? SZ 13 is so much more tactically superior in every way I cannot possibly think of a valid reason to allow you to sink me in SZ 14!
Furthermore, I have 21 Infantry, 8 Armor, 1 Artillery, 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers against your 19 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, 2 Fighters (not including Bury or SFE units which are still multiple rounds from the front.) That’s plenty of firepower to prevent you from stacking Ukraine heavily on Russia 2. And no, I don’t have to protect W. Europe because you won’t go there. :P If you do, I forever end the British threat to the Atlantic.
But again the Allies can SEE this coming. The Allies don’t HAVE to land at Algeria considering that you’re talking about the German Med fleet south of Western Europe 5 fighters at W. Europe and 2 bombers in Germany at end of G1. The Allies can see that.
Exactly my point. No matter WHAT you do with the Allies, the Germans can counter it. As you say, the allies CAN see it coming, so why should they be bone headed enough to go into SZ 15 in the first place? No matter what they do, the Germans can react in such a way on Germany 2 to come out on top. Remember, the Germans control your actions from the instant you invade SZ 15. Now you have to make a choice. Atlantic Fleet or SZ 15 fleet? You’re going to lose one or the other and there’s nothing you can do about it. Germany, on the other hand, loses next to nothing (SZ 15 fleet costs me 3 submarines, 2 I had to buy; Atlantic Fleet costs me Submarine, 3 fighters none of which I bought and the fighters are easily replaced over the next two rounds at very little strategic impact to me, if I want to replace them at all.)
My entire point is, if Germany leaves Egypt open, the BEST POSSIBLE ACTION FOR ENGLAND is to retreat the units, thank Germany for the gift, and go about business as usual.
If Germany leaves Anglo-Egypt alone on G1, the UK will have enough forces to either secure Anglo-Egypt or at least reclaim it from German without significant delay. Response to UK India fleet in SZ 15 north of Anglo-Egypt as previously stated. Again, I do not see that there is a significant ADVANTAGE to Germany - Germany buys time with a naval purchase, but gives Russia more time in exchange.
If Germany buys a fleet on G2 it’s not to “buy time” it’s to sink the British fleet that is now trapped on G3. End of story. Russia gets a slight boon for the next round because there are no new German armies coming at it, but that’s not enough to turn the tide. England suffers a devastating defeat allowing Japan to move much faster without the need of surface ships and fighters to defend her transports against British forces.
At most, it’s 1 transport 5 fighters 2 bombers. It DOES hurt for the Allies to block the German Med fleet with a Russian sub, but that move does leave the Allies with a lot of options and less trouble defending London. Note that a Russian sub block also allows for an early unified Allied fleet at SZ 8 - although I don’t think I would personally prefer to do this as I prefer to preserve forces.
Assuming you do not build a carrier in SZ 8: Luftwaffe sinks everything you have in SZ 8 (German submarine from SZ 13 joins, since your submarine does not block my submarine) and Germany brings her BB/TRN to sink your Russian Submarine while the rest of her fleet comes out to SZ 7 for good measure.
If you do build a carrier, kudos to you, you have a second carrier. However you did NOT put your fighters into Russia. Now I can either sink your fleets in SZ 8 at cost to myself - a good option, or I can unify in SZ 7 which is a better option in my mind.
If you did not unify your fleets because you see the trap, then Germany can still unify.
If you did not bring your fighters to Russia (or they died over SZ 5, a very realistic option) then Germany can invest lightly in navy and sink the British fleet in SZ 15.
That part about the Allies being forced to choose between German fleet unification and the loss of the Allied Atlantic fleet MAY be true to some extent (although I think without a G1 carrier build German fleet unification is risky due to the Allies being in range with fleet and navy).
It’s really not that risky. What does the Destroyer and Submarines do for Germany if they sit in SZ 5? Not a hell of a lot. I don’t want to not have them at the start of the game, but I’m not exactly disappointed to see them go. Meanwhile, the British Air Force runs a very high risk of destruction attacking them without my reinforcing them. If I reinforce them with a Carrier, all I’ve done is convince you not to take the risk. Why would I want to do that!?!
But in any event, I do not see that German move of NOT attacking Anglo-Egypt on G1 (moving German Med fleet west, buying 1 bomber plus perhaps 8 infantry landing 5 fighters at Western Europe) to result in a superior German position. Germany must PAY for the gains it gets, which I think leaves the Allies with at least an equitable position (I actually think superior, but I can leave that to argue for at LEAST equity.)
I disagree. Germany has to wait one round to have Egypt, but she still gets Egypt. Meanwhile, she has lost significantly less units. (Specifically she lost 4 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor less since she almost always gets crucified in Egypt and then you have the English counter attack removing her from Africa completely) She’s got significantly more range with air power allowing her to trade territories further off then before without losing her fighters as air defense where she needs them. She’s also set up a position allowing her to attack in multiple different directions on Germany 2, all of which are strong moves that will force the Allies to spend money on naval purchases to recover and every IPC America and England put towards non-Transport naval investments is worth 2 IPC of ground units Germany does not have to put towards defense and thus can send towards Russia.
End Part 2
-
It must be Christmas again with all the fancy colours being used to quote, re-quote, state and argue points. :-P :lol:
-
@The:
It must be Christmas again with all the fancy colours being used to quote, re-quote, state and argue points. :-P :lol:
I wanted to use pink, but it isn’t readable.
-
@Cmdr:
@The:
It must be Christmas again with all the fancy colours being used to quote, re-quote, state and argue points. :-P :lol:
I wanted to use pink, but it isn’t readable.
Use yellow. :wink:
-
Black stuff is Jen’s. Red stuff is my reply. Green stuff is my original post.
@Cmdr:
Exactly my point. ENGLAND SHOULD DO SOMETHING ELSE, like what you just outlined above. In which case, you have given Germany the least of all her great options (namely to take Egypt at almost no cost, instead of a huge cost resulting in the possible loss of Africa forever.)
What “huge cost”? If Germany attacks Anglo-Egypt with 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber, it should kill the Anglo-Egypt units with minimal losses. Or Germany could have placed an Africa bid with a decent probability of having a Anglo-Egypt force that’s too strong for UK to counter.
But yes, you CAN for go the attack on SZ 5, put your fighters and bombers in Moscow, move your fleet into SZ 15, still get cut off with Germans in Egypt and have the German fleet sitting united in SZ 7. As I said, just because England does something on UK 1 does NOT MEAN GERMANY HAS TO DO SOMETHING ON GERMANY 2. You cannot wait and see what Germany will do on Germany 2 to make England 1’s combat and non-combat moves. Not unless you are playing with the Hippity Hoppity Rules set.
Well isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black. All the moves I mentioned are in the proper order.
Incorrect. From SZ 13 Germany can easily go to SZ 7, 8, 11, 12, 17 or 18. All of which are out of range of the fighters and bomber in Russia. SZ 7 is probably the best place if England’s all set up. Now you are trapped in the med with your only escape coming right into Germany’s united fleet.
What do you mean, “England’s all set up”? Anyways, UK can sit on its fleet in the Med, it isn’t in any danger any time soon.
And, if we pretend you were foolish enough to try a fleet unification in SZ 12 to block the Germans in
Look, let’s not make silly assumptions like that. The Allies are not going to unite at SZ 12 with 5 fighters at Western Europe at 2 bombers at Germany plus the Med fleet moving to south of Western Europe, and you are not going to leave Germany and Eastern Europe open to a USSR tank blitz from Ukraine.
If Germany buys mass navy on G2, UK should be just as happy considering the Russians have a 10-13 less ground units to worry about.
Correct, you WOULD have to move the UK fighters to Russia on UK1, but the ONLY reason for UK NOT to do so is even BETTER German targets in the water - in which case UK can always opt instead of sending the UK Indian fleet north of Anglo-Egypt to put up a defense of India with the extra infantry, tank, and fighter spared from Anglo-Egypt and possibly contest Japanese control of the west Pacific.
Again, that’s my entire point! England SHOULD NOT MOVE INTO SZ 15 on UK 1. It’s a trap they cannot possibly win.
I still don’t see it.
You go in there and you’ve handed Germany the advantage for the next 4-6 rounds as best I can see it. Yes, Russia’s pushed ahead into Europe a little farther then normal (though to be honest, when I have Russia I almost always have Balkans, Belorussia and Karelia as dead zones with a large contingent in Ukraine, so it’s not like less Germans are going to be allowing me in farther then I normally am anyway); but now Germany can leave W. Europe empty and focus everything on Russia. So instead of locking up 25 units in W. Europe defense, you have nothing there and +25 units pushing Russia back. That’s a HUGE swing.
You can’t keep the German fleet west of Western Europe. The Allies build air and navy fast. If you stay there, the Allies use transport fodder plus air plus assorted navy. Germany does not survive the attack even with 2 trns 3 sub 1 destr 1 battleship.
My opinion is that Western Europe should be lightly defended if at all anyways until the Allies are in a serious position to take and hold Western Europe, at which point Germany can shift Eastern Europe units to Germany and German units to Western Europe. This should not happen until at least the fifth or sixth turn anyways, by which point the German fleet you speak of will be long gone from the area (it might survive, but it will certainly have to retreat into the Mediterranean or the north Atlantic) and will hence be of no use in defending Western Europe at all.
So what we have is 5 possible options for Germany on G2:
1) England put her fighters in Russia and moved her fleet into SZ 15.
2) England and America joined forces in SZ 8. In which case, you better have built some destroyers or something to keep the 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers from sinking the combined allied fleets in SZ 8 and to do that, you would have negated purchases for the protection of England opening up a Sea Lion attempt.
First part true, you must buy defense for SZ 8. Second part untrue. If the Allies DO unite at SZ 8, the proper USSR move is sub to SZ 12 west of Algeria to block the German Med fleet, given that the Allied player is not retarded and moved the USSR sub to join the UK battleship and transport in USSR1. (Note that the Germans may have bid a sub at SZ 8, but as I assume we are discussing a game with an Africa bid, I will not elaborate on this at this time). This prevents both the German Med fleet from being used as fodder against the SZ 8 forces, and prevents the German Med fleet from supporting the UK attack. This means that the US can send 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber to UK (there’s no place else for them to go), send the E. US and W. US fighter to land on a UK carrier in SZ 8. The specific buy and move are: UK1 buy 4 infantry 1 carrier move 1 tank from E. Canada to London via SZ 8, move UK battleship and transport to SZ 8, US1 buy (whatever), move E. US ground forces to London and move E. US and W. US fighters to SZ 8. USSR2 move sub to block at SZ 12 west of Algeria. The result is that the Germans have two threats; 5-6 fighter 2 bomber 1 transport vs 1 AA gun 8 inf 2 art 3 tank 1 bomber (note that Russia CAN add up to two fighters but probably shouldn’t), or 5-6 fighters 2 bomber vs 4 trns 1 destr 1 carrier 1 btl 2 fighter. This even assumes that UK moved its fighters and bomber towards the Mediterranean and Russia. Neither battle is particularly tasty for the Germans.
If 5 fighters 2 bombers is all that is in range of SZ 8 and London is threatened, the London invasion threat is 5 inf 1 bomber 1 inf 1 tank unless you’re proposing a G1 Med fleet move to south of Western Europe which is SUCH a HUGE change that you HAVE to mention it. Anyways, US can add 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber and UK can add 1 tank - this is without buying anything - for defense of 1 AA gun 4 inf 2 art 2 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber. UK can EASILY afford a carrier and four infantry to lock up London, and assuming the Med fleet is out of range, that’s a London defense force of 1 AA gun 8 inf 2 art 2 tank 1 bomber and a SZ8 fleet of 4 transport 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter 1 battleship. True, the Germans can kill a lot of that, but it is probable that any sort of attack on that fleet will be very expensive for Germany (again, unless Germany moved its Med fleet WEST, which is such a HUGE difference that you have to mention it)
Now you are reacting, not acting. Yes, you CAN stop Sea Lion by massing EVERY LAST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT POSSIBLE IN ENGLAND. And of course, now that the British fighters are NOT IN RUSSIA LIKE YOU ORIGINALLY ARGUED, now Germany can easily sink the Transport, 2 Fighters, Carrier and 2 Destroyers in SZ 15 because there is NO THREAT AT ALL to SZ 14 from England.
So what’s wrong with reacting? Indeed, I think appropriate reaction is a necessary component of strong play.
Anyways, you still can’t kill the UK force of 1 transport 2 fighters 1 carrier and 2 destroyers in the Med on G2 because the German fighters are at Western Europe or Norway. All you have is 1 transport 1 battleship 2 bombers against 1 transport 1 carrier 2 destroyers 2 fighters - 00444 vs 133344 which favors UK.
Again, my point is made. You are allowing Germany to be very flexible with her units and you are NOT stopping any of her plans. However, she has forced you to change your plans twice now. And no matter what set you chose, you end up losing more then she does (not to mention she’s almost losing nothing in either engagement but you are losing a lot in both.)
As described earlier, I see how Germany can inflict heavy Allied casualties, but I would certainly not dismiss Germany’s losses in such attacks as trivial.
3) England and America joined forces in SZ 12 allowing the Germans to hit you with Submarine, 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers sinking yout fleet and unifying destroyer, 2 submarines, 2 transports and a battleship in SZ 7.
Let me be clear. Under no circumstances with 5 fighters in W. Europe, 2 bombers in Germany, and 1 transport 1 battleship south of Western Europe should the Allies unite their navy in SZ 12. Doing so is completely retarded, and if the Allied player is really that dumb, the Allies were probably going to lose anyways.
Unification in SZ 12 is just silly with a German Med fleet sitting at S. Europe or south of W. Europe. But look, you’re proposing German Med fleet south of W. Europe if you’re proposing German fleet unification in SZ 7 west of Western Europe (would you PLEASE refer to sea zones with geographical reference instead of these arcane numbers?) Anyways in this case UK/US can still send fleet to E. Canada and northwest of UK and build UK ground to prevent German invasion of London, and as you make no mention of a Baltic fleet buy, UK could attack the Baltic fleet (and of course keep the UK Indian fleet out of the Med.
Thanks for finally realizing that. I was beginning to think you’d never realize that the German fleet was NOT in SZ 14 that I was using it to sink your battleship without loss (in most cases anyway, there’s the off chance you’ll sink a submarine, but it’s not very high.)
It isn’t a matter of “finally realizing it”. It’s a matter of piecing things together with circumstantial evidence. You didn’t say that Germany sent their fleet to Gibraltar, I had to figure it out. Hence the “jenforces” aspect . . .
So yes, the unification in SZ 12 is pretty silly. Honestly, without buying a carrier and locking up your fighters from England, a unification in SZ 8 is also very silly.
You can buy a carrier with UK and still send the UK fighters roaming as described above. If the Allied player wishes, Russia can almost lock London with a USSR fighter flying from Russia to London - it can’t be used to trade territory on USSR2, but Russia should have at least 1 artillery at West Russia to compensate, and the fighter can be used on USSR 3 to trade Karelia.
In either case, the German Luftwaffe can sink the combined fleet with very modest losses (like 3 fighters and a submarine to get 4 transports, submarine, destroyer and battleship) with the carrier and fighters, the Germans would probably have to expose the battleship and that would make the attack cost prohibitive. Then again, now the fighters are NOT in Russia like you originally called for.
The move as described previously ends with 4 trns 1 destr 1 carrier 1 battleship 2 fighters in SZ 8 southwest of UK, a sub to block the Med fleet in SZ 12 west of Algeria, 1 AA gun 1 bomber 8 inf 2 art 3 tank in London.
4) England invaded SZ 15, but did NOT bring the fighters from England into range of SZ 14 in which case Germany can either attack SZ 8/12 or just unify SZ 7 or build a small set of naval fodder and stationed herself in SZ 14 to sink the British fleet on Germany 3.
As previously described, Germany will not “sink the British fleet on Germany 3”, as the UK can hit the Germans on UK 2 barring some gigantic German Med fleet buy.
Assuming G1 Med fleet moves south of Western Europe, 2 bombers at Germany, 5 fighters at Western Europe, UK2 India fleet to north of Anglo-Egypt, G2 Germany finds a tough target in that Med fleet. As previously mentioned, IF Germany moves its Med fleet to S. Europe and buys protective fleet on G2, Germany needs a massive investment to protect its Med fleet which gives the Allies a unit advantage in Europe. IF Germany runs to west of Algeria or west of Western Europe, then UK could recapture Anglo-Egypt on UK2, allowing the UK to retreat through the Suez at its discretion on UK3, or the UK could make some attacks on Balkans (with Russia taking Ukraine to prevent the German fighters from having range to hit the UK fleet) or some combination thereof.
Considering the huge UK forces near Africa, the UK should have little trouble controlling the Suez canal at the start of UK3 as well. Germany can take Anglo-Egypt on G2, but UK counters on UK2.
England shouldn’t make a mistake of this magnitude, so discussion of that point is moot. It is so dumb to bring the UK fleet to SZ 15 north of Anglo-Egypt but not bring any fighters to within range of S. Europe that it simply shouldn’t happen.
And yet, in the 5 games I’ve done this, England has never brought her fighters into range. Normally she loses them in SZ 5 after sinking the Baltic Fleet which is fine with me.
I’m betting in most of those games UK didn’t move its fleet through the Suez Canal either. Moving the UK fleet through the Suez Canal and moving UK air into range are part of the same package.
5) England did something smart, retreated everything it could and let Germany control the Med without invasion.
What is this “Control of the Med” you speak of? Germany should control the Med until well into the game anyways with its battleship and transport usable as fodder plus air force.
Again, England doesn’t HAVE to do this. My point is that the UK can RESPOND to the German move, and the Germans leaving Anglo-Egypt alone gives UK that many more options.
And what I am saying is the smart move is to take the armor, fighter and destroyer gift and get the heck out of Dodge before Germany spanks you. And that the options left open to England are far less in power and scope then the options left open to Germany if Germany waits one round to take Egypt and instead consolidates her forces to mass fire on the enemy.
A sniper is deadly. An artillery barrage is more deadly.
Even with a bid, I count 3 inf 1 art 2 tank in Libya at end of G1 (although I note that of my last knowledge you favored a Ukraine bid, not an Africa bid), which allows a G2 attack into Anglo-Egypt of that much (assuming the Allies abandon Anglo-Egypt). I take it that you took Gibraltar to prevent the UK destroyer and UK air from killing the Med fleet.
UK should have 5 inf 1 tank 2 fighter 1 bomber in range assuming the S. Africa infantry is still out of range, and 1 infantry kept in India. The Allies can hit the Germans with 4-5 ground units plus air and kill them, and follow up with more infantry/air attacks.
As I said earlier - Germany can FORCE the UK to stay out of the Med, but it is horribly costly to the Germans. I will pay the price of an arm if I can get an arm and a leg for it.
Yes, but the Germans can save a lot of money in forward placed units creating a much stronger front against the Allies because of it if they do not attack SZ 15, Egypt, SZ 13, Karelia and Ukraine at the same time. It’s easier to hit Gibraltar, SZ 13, Ukraine and Karelia because it costs you much less and allows you to put more firepower on the enemy resulting in fewer of your own losses.
I see that the Germans save a good bit of IPCs, but I think their position suffers because of it. I think the position from such a German move is at BEST equal to the traditional German move. I do not think it superior for the reasons given above.
To those people that may agree with me - remember to beware of hoboes! Don’t believe it just because I say it.
I am pretty sure we agree that the value of an Infantry Unit 2 spaces away from the nearest friendly Industrial Complex has a greater tactical value then an Infantryman bought this round. Mainly because the purchased unit has to be placed and then move two spaces whereas the existing unit is already in position to attack or defend.
And that’s my basic concept. Germany can easily have 6 Units in Libya without moving anything there (assuming Libyan bid) and have her entire navy poised to attack SZ 15/SZ 12/SZ 7/SZ 8 without any long term tactical cost to her. If England moves to allow it, then England is at great risk of both making a tactical error somewhere and cascading dice failure. Germany is at risk of neither. The reason Germany is not at risk is because Germany is acting and forcing England to react to whatever she does. This gives her control of the board.
I don’t see England as being FORCED to react any more than in any situation. If you see a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk, you are not FORCED to pick it up. You may react to the situation and decide to pick it up, but you are not FORCED to do so.
–
I noticed I wrote a lot about UK sailing through the Suez into the Mediterranean. But there is another real nasty threat which is to the Japanese.
To sum up my position -
Anglo-Egypt has 1 inf 1 transport 1 fighter, and the waters north of Anglo-Egypt have 1 destroyer. All in all, they do not SEEM to be important, but I think they ARE important. German cannot easily move units to Africa with its single transport, and Japan does not have the transports or the range to move units to seriously threaten India early.
UK can either sail into the Mediterranean and make trouble for the Germans, (assisted that much more by the destroyer, fighter, infantry, and tank which are considerable, with consequences as described previously), OR UK can sail towards India and make trouble for the Japs.
You don’t USUALLY see UK make a case for the Japs early, because the UK destroyer north of Anglo-Egypt is usually dead, as is the UK fighter at Anglo-Egypt. With an additional fighter and destroyer, the UK attack fleet swells to 1 trns 1 carrier 2 destr 2 fighter 1 bomber quickly supplemented by 2 fighters moving from Russia to India UK2. This is a serious threat, especially since the UK can see it coming and move its Australian fleet appropriately.
All in all, I think allowing the UK units at Anglo-Egypt to survive is a horrible horrible thing for the Axis given the great flexibility and power it gives the UK in the Mediterranean/Indian region.
Could I be wrong? OF COURSE I COULD LOL!!! :lol:
But am I? (dundundun) (hoboebilgrin)
-
I tell you what, Bunnies.
Let’s start with England 1 with the following board position:
Russia 1:
Russia purchases 3 Inf, 3 Arm
- Russia takes Ukraine with Armor, 2 Fighters
- Russia takes W. Russia with 5 Inf, Art, 2 Arm
Final Setup looks like:
SZ 2: Submarine
Russia: 4 Inf
Caucasus: 3 Inf, 3 Arm, 2 Fig
Kazakh: 2 Inf
Novosibirsk: 2 Inf
Karelia: Inf
Yakut: 3 Inf
Buryatia: Inf
Germany
Germany purchases 5 Infantry, 2 Armor, Bomber
- Germany sinks the Battleship in SZ 13 taking damage to her own battleship in return.
- Germany takes Karelia with 2 infantry
- Germany takes Ukraine with infantry
- Germany takes Gibraltar with infantry
German Field position looks like:
Germany: 5 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Bomber
E. Europe: 7 Infantry, 5 Armor
Norway: Infantry
Karelia: 2 Infantry, Flag
Belorussia: Infantry
Ukraine: Infantry
Gibraltar: Infantry, Flag
W. Europe: 3 Infantry, 2 Armor, 5 Fighters, Bomber (AA gun, mentioned only because of lack of IC)
SZ 13: Submarine, Transport, Battleship
SZ 7: Destroyer, 2 Submarines, Transport(Bid was 7 IPC, Infantry/Artillery to Libya. Usually enough to win in Egypt, but then get crushed by British counter attacks.)
Okay Bunnies, do you accept the challenge? All those results are most likely outcomes from Frood, nothing unusual in the attacks or results. Only deviations are the ones I mentioned:
1) Germany does not sink the destroyer in SZ 15
2) Germany does not attack or capture Egypt
3) Germany purchases 1 bomber on Germany 1 to replace the lost fighter in Ukraine.If so, start a thread and show me how England is in a such a superior position by invading SZ 15. (BTW, that is your only restriction, you MUST INVADE SZ 15 with the Transport, Destroyer, Carrier and Fighter from SZ 35, they may not be used for anything else. You may chose to use the Armor, Infantry and Fighter in Egypt anyway you chose.)
I attached the start map for you. If you can impress me in the first 5 rounds with a superior position then the allies normally have at the start of Russia Round 6, then I’ll concede that Egypt is absolutely critical for Germany on Germany 1. Otherwise, I expect you to concede that Egypt is optional. And if the Axis are in a superior position then they normally are at the start of Russia Round 6, I’ll expect you to concede that not attacking Egypt on Germany 1 is the better move.
Suggested Topics
