Why is germanys first round total attack on egypt a gambit ?
A gambit is a term used in chess to describe a doubtfull or even wrong opening move involving sacrificing a piece of matirial to gain some other advantage in the game. This advantages could be in form of better development or just playing a familliar type of game. It needs some skill and understanding of the game and accurate play for the opponent to refuse a gambit. Gambits are played and enjoyed by a lot of players including me, because of that
In axis and allies a gambit would be the same , just also involving opening moves relying on dice luck as well.
Setup: a RR game, with new factorys allowed, and with or without axis advantage and not 2hit battleships
An total german attack on egypt would include 1 armour, 1 fighter, 1+2 infantery against 1 inf and 1 armour in egypt, and a german battleship and the transport (and maybe a fighter) against the sub.
Looking at the outcome from a german point of view.
The best case : No losses – 3 inf and 1 armour enters egypt. And 1 fighter lands in libya.
To happend less than 1/7 cases
Good case: 1 inf loss. Something like 1/5 cases
Even case : 2 inf lost (with or without a transport lost)
something like 1/3 case
Bad case : 3 inf lost
Around ¼ cases
No case :4+ troops lost
Around 1 /14 cases
(germany could have brought in a fighter in the sub battle just lovering the chance for a second round shoot from the sub from 1/3 to 1/6, and this improves the odds a little for an axis succes)
These numbers is not total precise , (i did like 2 rounds of battle calculations). But they are acurate enough to see the fact, that a counter attack from england (including the 2 infantry from india,) 3 inf and a fighter will have supirior odds taking egypt back without expecting more than 1 inf. loss. This would happend In close to 2 out of 3 cases
But in 1 in 5 cases england face a more even battle and in 1in 7 its a bad one.
With this gambit , the german take over of africa is proberly delayed or stopped.
the sub could have taken the transport- germany might not have bought another transport- and if he has there might be in turn 2 a transport as a airtarget , and he could have lost troops in egypt, all over weaknesses there means that its limited how fast troops is sailing into africa.
This is a case where african factorys are appropiate . The english is building a factory in south africa, and if the course of the game calls for it later( sometimes next round), another one in egypt.
With a normal (recommended) german build up in libia , adding an transport to the mediterrainan fleet (and drowning all english ships) egypt is threatend by 8 inf and 1 armour attack in round 2 and germany have the abillity to bridge 4 more troops over each round. Here an african factory would often simply be runned over. (but off cause a german player devoting to many troops would miss them elsewhere and that can be the whole point of the factory)
But with the egypt gambit, the german if very, very lucky can get 4 troops over in round 2 (and just as likely 0), and most likely 2 and proberly he have lost nearly every ground troop in africa already.(this depends a lot on if the english find it valuable and safe to target a new build mediterrainian transport with its bomber.)
The english added 2 troops and a plane from india in first round and comes with 2 more each round after and are maybe going to land some planes to destroy the german mediteranian fleet .
Without a english factory the germans with an average 1 surviving transport , and dedication of some planes would soon be able to fight down the remaning english troops.
The conseqense that both africa and india is lost (for the moment- until transport lands troops in algier/vestafrica).
With an english counter attack and a factory in south africa germany is in a process of being trown out of africa from round 1, without ever getting it !!!
In the big picture it means (again every thing is most likely – dices are tricky- we all know) that giving up india secures africa, and as soon as the germans are out, the english can be back on the asian front (or the east front), but with the economic strenght of african ipc and a egypt factory too. And mean while germany have not get the IPC’s from africa which means they miss infantery on the east front! This have released more russian troops to delay the the japanese.
Summary. To go total for egypt is an gambit, there can give advantage by diceluck, or by the opponent not responding with a south african factory. The moving of the german fleet makes it unlikely that the german would have the posibility to send more than 2 troops to africa the next round(s) .
There is this lesser german 1 round attack on egypt, not including the transport, but often with a fighter and then the libyan armour and infantery. Assuming a standard german purchase of 8 inf and 1 transport, this is more tricky because the german player is, no matter outcome of that attack and counterattack on egypt threatening to attack with 6 inf and a fighter in round 2 , assuming he got the sub when taking out the english fleet. This is more close to the safe standard german first round build up.
Any idea and opininon on that subject is very velcome , but I will wait adressing the lesser attack on egypt later. Just going to mention the defensive move of troops from india to kenya/rhodesia I would like to here if anyone have played that with an S. African factory as a response to a succesfull lesser german egypt attack .
with regards
jondifool
Let me just sum that up in a few words.
Germany attacks and almost always destroys england in Africa turn 1. Problem is, new transport is not protected after build, and if the Sub hits and kills during the Amb. assault on Egypt, then there is a big problem.
no need for a transport, one fighter or bomber sways the battle in your favor.
just pray japan takes india.
Seems to me you’ve got a 50-50 chance of taking Egypt as Germany T1 with just what you have in Africa anyway. A FTR increases the odds. Put in another ARM and add a TR and you’re doing pretty good. Why put 8 INF in there if you don’t have to? Do you know what that 8 INF could do for you on the Eastern Front?
As far as UK is concerned I can’t see how a 30-IPC investment in Industrial Complexes to defend a continent worth an extra 9-IPCs to the Germans can possibly be viable. 30 IPCs could buy you a HOST of other potentially more useful items in other areas (for instance a CV and FTR in North Sea or an IC and 3 ARM teh following turn in India). Putting 2 IPCs in Africa (or even 1 in my humble opinion) would be like USSR putting an IC in Yakut: sure it might secure the far east against the Japanese, but it would require SO MUCH CASH as to be an empty gesture: the Axis would defeat you in other more decisive theaters while you were spending your limited resources elsewhere. You can defend Africa (or as Germany, take Africa) with less resources than this.
Ozone27
I agree with ozone on this one. With 3 inf. and 1 armor (2 from tansport), the chances of taking Egypt are weighed in your favor. Plus the counterattack by Great Britain against Egypt is not exactly brillant. Sure Egypt will be retaken, but those troops in India need to remain in India to act as a deterant against Japan. Trust me, Japan taking India on the first turn with ease is a very, very bad thing for the Allies. As always, Germany can attack Egypt again with 3 inf with fighter support.
But, if the 2 infantry from the transport dont get through, a simple counter attack from the british will ruin all african plans. To prevent this, the transport must get through with it’s 2 infantry.
A comment to what I adress as the Standard german start move.
Of cause you don’t put 8 inf in africa if not needed. The point is you have the ability too do it. Flexibility is very important. German can counter a lot of moves, with that.
2 transport in the mediteranian, (with a german standard first turn)is not going to ferry 4 troops to africa every turn in the game (but sometimes they ferry troops the other way, flexibility !!). But the ability to do it, can discourage allies a few more rounds to make an africa landing from the atlantic. It certainly should discourage england from do an early factory setup in africa.
Now to the argument about the value of the investments in 2 factorys with england compared to the african ipc value of 10.
Here it’s important to understand that every teritory taken and kept is worth twice as much, because the enemy does not have them.
10 to england and minus 10 to germany= worth 20 in one round!! worth a factory ?
the second factory in egypt is often not needed for the taking of africa. But its valuable for puting presure on the asian front, getting back from the indian set back.
if germany have lost africa in turn one (happends in around 1/3 of the cases!) the 2 factorys in turn 1 and 2 would make a persian front in turn 4, with 4 armors rolling in each turn.
if germany gets egypt scratced then the counterattack and a south african factory givis england an immidiatly edge in the african battle, at the cost of an indian factory, but with a russia with less presure from germany, and later an possible asian front, from persia. (also around 1/3 cases)
If germany gets egypt with 1 or zero losses, and still haves the abillity to gets troops to africa, england stays in India. And what germany got was an african take over accomplised 1 round earlyer than with a standard 1st round move.
(also roughly around 1/3 cases)
so we comes down to 1/3 cases there is clarly an disaster for germany and 1/3 cases there is just max 1 round faster in taking africa and then 1/3 cases there is unclear(at this stage in the argument)
so is this worth it. NO its not.
I think it is that simple as put by Yanny in the short version. And with analyzing and discussion, we might get more to agree on that!
And then to the case with an german egypt attack with only libyan troops (and maybe a fighter) and a shoot at the sub. this combined with the ability to ferry in 4 more troops in round 2 (in egybt if the sub is gone) to the 2 there lands in libya in round 1. Is this move usefull for germany ?
Is it worth it try to force England to choose between India and Africa, while still having abillity to land more troops in africa. Is the price to high! I rarely sees it played among my circle of friends , so I have not made up my mind on this. And defently would like to hear others opinions on this.
with regards
Jondifool.
Okay, heres my findings:
First Amphibious Assualt (w/ 2 hit BB) Attacker will win about 62% of the time with both BB ship and tansport. Usually I play with 2 hit BB so that doesn’t really matter.
Now for the Land Battle: (3 inf. 1 tank vs. 1 inf. 1 tank)
41% of the time attack will win with only one loss. If you don’t like those odds, you can throw in a fighter (odds: 44%) but I rather use it to wipe out UK’s navy.
Now comes UK’s counter attack: (3 inf. 1 fighter vs. 2 inf. 1 tank ?)
This battle is really close. Usually UK will win but the odds are unsure about losses. UK will lose 0, 1, 2, 3 inf. 14, 20, 16, 19% of the time. I’ll use 20% (1 inf loss)
Now for Japans turn:
2 inf takes India (No losses)
This leaves 2 fighters and 5 inf. on the mainland to attaack either China or Russia.
Now for Germanys second turn: (2 inf., 1 fighter, 1 BB vs. 2 inf)
Germany wins 51% of the time with 1 inf. loss. If you unsure of this battle, you can throw in 1 inf from Algeria (though you can’t take West Africa) or an extra fighter.
Now lets tally the losses:
Germany: IPC +4
Japan: IPC +5 (Assuming 1 inf goes on to take Syria and Persia using tansport)
UK: Down -9
Germany: 4 inf, 1 tank
UK: 4 inf., 1 sub, 1 tank
Japan: None
Factory in UK?
By 2 turn UK will have 2 tank, 1 inf., 1 fighter in South Africa, turn 3 UK can hit Egypt with those forces. However Japan and Germany can put up a stiff presence at Egypt 3 inf. and 1 fighter. 20% (highest) Germany will hold Egypt with one 1 fighter remaining. 16%, 18% UK will win with 1 fighter or 1 ft. and 1 tank remaining. 14% of the time, everybody dies. Even though Egypt might be taken back by UK, Japan can send 2 inf. 2 ft. into Egypt with 2 inf. arriving every turn. This is if there is a factory in India, which WILL happen since Japan can take it with ease.
Hopefully these results help
Um u actually can’t attack the sub with the battleship (i think someone wrote that i may be mistaken its very late) because you can’t go through the suez canal unless you control both sides at the beginning of your turn which, unfortunately, germany does not.
Yes, but isn’t the sub on the European side of the Suez Canal? Plus in my time of play the CD version of A&A, Germany can cross the Canal without controling both sides. Is this some sort of bug?
Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much. 100 post in 36 days. That’s almost 3 post a day.
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-08 00:08 ]
Yes…its an obnoxious bug. And YES the UK SUB begins on the Mediterranean side of the Suez–in range of the Italian BB.
Ozone27
Thanks. At least now I know to handicap myself when trying to cross Canals in the CD-rom version.
Jondifool
Your strats are quite original. i’ve never seen anyone seriously surgesting to build a factory in egypt befor, and seldom surgesting to build factory in africa at all.
the way you say you want to counter egypt sounds weird to me. India is a very vital country in the game, you want to stagnate japans progress in asia, so abandoning india is the wrong way to go.
When i play germany, i send two inf to libya G1, and move the original two inf down to French Africa, and the armor to West africa, and attack Egypt G2, cuz by then i will have gotten rid of british-navy presense in the mediterranien. And aid the egypt attack with a fighter.
Deathflame
-=something funny=-
[ This Message was edited by: Deathflame on 2002-03-11 01:36 ]
Why does Great Britain have to worry about taking back Africa and investing tons of IPC’s into it? The US can throw many more forces into Africa on turn two, more so than any IC that Great Britain purchases. Let the US handle Africa.
Agreed. Africa (much like in the war) has to be taken back by America. Britain’s main role is turning the pressure up on Germany and helping USSR.
What I like to do with Great Britain is to build a large bomber fleet to cripple Germany economically and to build a large transport fleet to funnel troops into Karelia.
Shouldn’t the bomber fleet be reserved for USA? I mean once you get into the 2-3 rounds, UK probably has the lowest income in the game. So you’ll need every single IPC for infantry. USA (for the the most) investments are secure. But that’s just my opinion.
Maybe I was exaggerating about a bomber fleet with Great Britain, but I think Great Britain should assist the US in bombing out Germany. I like to have two bombers with GB and use them until they have all succumbed to AA fire.
Just think of it, three to four straight turns of the US and GB bombing out Germany. This will have very good results for the Allies. It also depends if GB purchases an IC in India; then it would be hard to allocate funds for a bomber “fleet” when you are also sending troops to Karelia and India.
there is no question that germany HAS to take egypt turn one. as germany, i can take egypt, and destroy the american transport and entire british fleet (besides the sub and transport east of arabia.)
by turn two germany has to be ready for a full out attack on karelia/and or caucasus.
i always find it essential to take egypt.
On 2002-03-12 10:12, Candyman67 wrote:
I like to have two bombers with GB and use them until they have all succumbed to AA fire.
Just think of it, three to four straight turns of the US and GB bombing out Germany. This will have very good results for the Allies.
As a long-time Germany fan, I can attest that this tactic, while somewhat risky, can take the wind out of Germany’s sails right quick when it works…
Ozone27
