The British Fleet

[DarthMaximus]

For Jen’s initial scenerio there, I agree with Switch, I think Germany should place in Lib.

However, I think Russia should be much more aggressive on Rd 1 (within reason), if you think you might be doing a UK unification on UK 1.

The main reason is to keep the pressure on Germany preventing them from doing too much in the Baltic or Afr.

Also, even if the Inf are placed in Ukr, you should attack.  You still have a 21-19 adv and you can always retreat prior to taking.  But you should still take with an arm and ftrs.

If the Inf are placed in Afr, you can probably write off an Egy counter, but that shouldnt hurt too much b/c you can take Ukr stronger and setup an even better trap for Japan.

Now I’ll take Switch’s counter to the UK Move.  Although I do like sz 30 with inf over sz 38, but they serve the same purpose.

I think Japan without a fleet is troublesome.  With the loss of 4 ftrs and the rest of your fleet on US 1 (except trns in sz 61) you put your self in some danger.

US can buy 1 AC, 1 trn, 1 ftr.
And Japan can’t pressure Sin or Yak with the loss of most air on J1.  At least not as effectively as I like.  And it should be pretty easy to prevent Japan from moving to either on J2.

Further, on US 2, prior to placement the US has 1 BB (at Pearl), 1 AC, 2 ftrs, 1 dd, 1 trn all in Wus sz.
So US Buys AC with 2 ftrs on US 2 and moves to Wake on US 2 combat move.

1 dd, 4 trns, 1 bom, 2 ftrs (Japan) vs. 1 BB, 1 AC, 2 ftrs, 1 DD, 1 trn (US) with 1 AC, 2 ftrs in WUS.  This is a very bad attack for Japan, so the logical course is to now concede all of the Pac to the US.

Now you are stuck in SZ 61, but just as you can claim Sin, Yak on J3, you’ll be losing Phil and the other islands.

If Russia is played right they can keep the pressure on Germany for the first 3-5 turns easy as the UK gets rolling in the European theatre while not having to worry about Japan’s paper tiger status.

The tradeoff here, and it is might not be obvious, comes down to:

Normaly the UK DD (possibly AC) take out the Jap trn, then get killed on a counter, while the tran off Egy will be picked off by German air and the Sub and trn retreat to the Atalntic or somewhere non essential for the first 2-3 rds.
And of course the US ships at pearl are lost (every game) for basically a sub and 1 bb hit (sometimes you get the dd, but 3 defender hits is not the norm).

So the essential loss for Japan is the trn off Kwa and possibly one ftr if the AC was brought, but they still have 2 bb, 2 ac, 5 ftrs, 1 bom.

BUT

In the Pac Move, you lose basically the same allied units but take out the entire Japan fleet plus 3-4 ftrs.

I know which instance gets more bang for your buck.

And with good Russian play Germany will be too concerned about a possible Russian stack in Ukr to worry about London, especially if the Germans bought an AC on G1.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

[newpaintbrush]

@DarthMaximus:

For Jen’s initial scenerio there, I agree with Switch, I think Germany should place in Lib.

However, I think Russia should be much more aggressive on Rd 1 (within reason), if you think you might be doing a UK unification on UK 1.

You’ll notice that Jen’s post (I’m not sure if it was the “initial scenario” or a later posting) mentioned sending the USSR fighter to the UK carrier off India.  Given that, USSR only has ONE fighter usable in combat.

A 3 inf 1 fighter attack on Germany’s 3 Belorussia infantry would still be somewhat favorable.  But Ukraine would probably be right out, even without any German bid placement there.  If you want to only use 1 fighter in the attack on the Ukraine, that means you have to send everything you’ve got (i.e. three tanks instead of two), and Germany will certainly kill those tanks regardless of the USSR bid.  You could counter with four inf two art from Caucasus and two tanks from Moscow, but then Germany could counter with transported units from Southern Europe plus an E. Europe stack.  With the Russian fighter sitting on the UK carrier, Russia is stretched pretty thin.  With the loss of three tanks, USSR would be stretched out even more.

Anyways, as Germany, I never worry about a USSR Ukraine stack.  It’s inconvenient, but if the stack is thin, I can threaten it with the Med transport and air.  If the stack is thick, I could possibly take an underdefended Caucasus.  In either event, I can go north to Karelia then Archangel, forcing the USSR to retreat to W. Russia to prevent a German infantry and tank stack in W. Russia or an attack on Moscow through Archangel.  Not great, maybe, but USSR can hardly afford to go west from Ukraine.

[DarthMaximus]

Oh, okay.
Yeah, I’d never send the Russian ftr to Ind or Ind/sz or wherever.

[newpaintbrush]

@DarthMaximus:

Oh, okay.
Yeah, I’d never send the Russian ftr to Ind or Ind/sz or wherever.

What if I gave you a cookie?

A really NICE cookie.

[DarthMaximus]

Chocolate Chip?

[newpaintbrush]

@DarthMaximus:

Chocolate Chip?

Oh yes, you can choose from regular Chocolate Chip, Macadamia Nut Chocolate Chip, White Chocolate Chip, Chocolate Chunk, or any of our 132 exciting varieties of Chocolate Chip!  The British Empire feels this is simply one of the courtesies that should be provided to its noble Russian fighter pilots, along with afternoon tea, of course.

[DarthMaximus]

flys Russian ftrs to India

[Jennifer]

Well, the only flaws I see with Switch’s response is this:

31 IPC - 15 for an IC - 16 for two transports does not leave 1 as change.  (it’s nit picky, but I’m picking that nit anyway.)

and

Japan is now without a fleet.  No carriers, no battleships, only a few transports.  America has a full battleship and some fighters.  If they build a carrier, and some transports they can easily have 2 transports, 1 carrier, 2 fighters, 1 dd (sz 20) and 1 BB running amuck with no possible way for Japan to stop them.

Even without doing that, all the allies have to do is keep some fighters and bombers in range and they can prevent Japan from using her transports to great effect without SIGNIFICANT investments into naval units by Japan.

Retaking Caucasus, Ukraine, India, and Belorussia should be simplistic.  Meanwhile, England and America are shuffling 8-12 units per turn into Africa or they may switch to landing in Finland/Karelia/Archangelsk depending on the situation.

Russia’s down 1 fighter, but they successfully destroyed 4 fighters, 1 carrier and 1 battleship.  That’s 50% of the Jap fleet, 67% of the Jap airforce. (60% if you include her bomber.)

It’s almost an exceptionally good trade off!  End round 1:  Japan has no dominance in the pacific.  Russia’s down 1 fighter.  Germany’s not yet up to full production.  Japan’s no stronger then they would be normally on Asia, but exceptionally weaker.  England has plenty of Airforce to sink the Baltic fleet on UK 2, or at the least, do massive damage and follow up later…

[Guest]

A  couple of things.

Jen is correct.  i misread the post at 5:00 a.m. and thoguht it was a 2 IPC bid to Japan.  My mistake.

As for the question on the BOM being in the east, in range of SZ61…
Japan would modify their build to be an AC and ART instead of 2 TRN, landing FIG on the AC in SZ61.  This restores Japan’s capital ship fleet, keeps the FIGs in range for J2 attacks, and defends the existing 2 TRN.

Considering that Japan is nearly emptied on J1 because of the surviviing SZ59 TRN, the AC may be the better purchase regardless… pulling the teeth out of that surviving US BB, and providing a solid core for any future Japan fleet that many be needed.

Also, Jen said that the US had surviving FIGS.  They ahve 1 FIG, in EUS assuming they counter Pearl with enough force to win.  Otherwise, Japan has a heck of a lot more fleet around after US1.

Also, for those who mentioned the SZ shift from 38 to 30…
You will note that the force I used in my example this morning ONLY used the forces that could reach either 38 or 30.  I am aware of the more common linkage in SZ30, and thus posted using only those Japan forces that could be used in either link-up point.

Now, final caveat…
I used a NO LUCK simulation for that example.  In ADS, you get a much higher variablility that includes a UK AC (or more) alive off Australia, several Japan ships alive off Australia, and Pearl either resulting in more or less Japan ships, and a US counter that is more or less effective.

IT IS VERY DANGEROUS IN AN ADS GAME TO RELY ON RESULTS GENERATED USING A LL OR NL SIMULATION!

[Jennifer]

@ncscswitch:

IT IS VERY DANGEROUS IN AN ADS GAME TO RELY ON RESULTS GENERATED USING A LL OR NL SIMULATION!

Sorry, I thought that could be said again, for added emphasis.

The point of this thread, is to determine the feasibility of forcing Japan to loose EXTRA warships at very modest costs to the Allies (if any costs.)

Consideration was takein into account (and I’m drunk, so bear with me_) that the British and American fleets are normally dead anyway before America can move.  If the Brit fleet isn’t dead it’s because Germany failed to take Egypt, or England ran away, in which case their fleet is useless for 5 turns.

[Guest]

We jsut have a different view on a key element…

I think that Japan’s capital ships are less valuable in the long term than Germany taking Africa.

So, when the UK consolidates their fleet in the Indian Ocean, Germany gets more income from Africa.  And Japan is still able to destroy the Brits.  I just think an Egypt Counter is more essential than a consolidated UK fleet (of course I am not a fan of a consolidated German fleet either…)

[Jennifer]

On a similar note, is it just me or does DM always go KJF with America only???

He’s got that policy of 1 carrier a round down flat!  Hard to knock out.  Supports my theory….hehe.

[newpaintbrush]

@newpaintbrush:

In the scenario you mentioned, with only slight changes to the German plan, I can see that there is a decent possibility of Germany taking London on G2 with infantry, tank, five to six fighters, (depending on whether or not USSR did the Ukraine attack, I presume no German air was risked against the lone UK destroyer at Anglo-Egypt) and bomber going against a bomber, two infantry, two artillery, two fighters, and an AA gun.

Hm.  I see that Chocolate Chip cookies are apparently a weapon of mass distraction.

Either I’m right about this, but posters chose not to read that horrible text block  :|, or posters were distracted by the cookies in the subsequent posts, or maybe I was distracted by cookies and misread something resulting in a faulty analysis.

Yes, cookies are clearly to blame here.

Or it’s Jen’s picture doing its work again.  :evil:

weapons of mass distraction . . .  hm . . .

[DarthMaximus]

@Jennifer:

On a similar note, is it just me or does DM always go KJF with America only???Â

He’s got that policy of 1 carrier a round down flat!  Hard to knock out.  Supports my theory….hehe.Â

Well, it has been used AGAINST me at DAAK in 3 games (all with the same person), and the first 2 were very effective.  The third I went all out for Mos, I mean all out with both Ger and Japan.  I took Moscow in rd 10 or 11, but in the Process lost all of the Pac, including Bor, EI, Phi and have been forced to trade Man (once) and Fic.
But even though Japan took Mos, they are in serious threat by the US who have several island IC’s and the naval advantage (after I took out his first fleet).

In game one I tried the ignore/minimal ship buy until it was too late and lost, even though Germany was able to hold Cauc strong.
In game two I tried the a more balanced naval approach and was doing okay but I overextended too quickly with Germany and a US planes on Inf attack left a key German territory open for Russian tanks.

My current game with Jen is the first time I’ve really put into action a US Pac strat to see if it really works.

Side notes would be I had success against Switch with it, unfortately It was waaaaaay too late in the game and I used very little planning b/c I wasted about 5-6 rds of the US BB just doing nothing.  Also, NoMercy used against me in an effective Mid-game move.  I think I was already losing at that point but he never let Japan really breathe and was successful in throwing off my timing between Germany and Japan.

@newpaintbrush:

@newpaintbrush:

In the scenario you mentioned, with only slight changes to the German plan, I can see that there is a decent possibility of Germany taking London on G2 with infantry, tank, five to six fighters, (depending on whether or not USSR did the Ukraine attack, I presume no German air was risked against the lone UK destroyer at Anglo-Egypt) and bomber going against a bomber, two infantry, two artillery, two fighters, and an AA gun.

Hm. I see that Chocolate Chip cookies are apparently a weapon of mass distraction.

Either I’m right about this, but posters chose not to read that horrible text block :|, or posters were distracted by the cookies in the subsequent posts, or maybe I was distracted by cookies and misread something resulting in a faulty analysis.

Yes, cookies are clearly to blame here.

Or it’s Jen’s picture doing its work again. :evil:

weapons of mass distraction . . . hm . . .

I don’t see how Germany can take London on G2.  I can’t speak for Jens scenerio, but on R1, I go Wrus and Ukr.  On UK 1, I can go to Alg but I’ll buy
2 ftrs, 3 inf or 1 ftr, 5 inf, 1 arm or 1 bom, 5 inf.

Then add 1 US ftr and 1 US bom, that leaves UK with:
1)  3 inf, 1 rt, 5 ftrs (4 uk, 1 us), 2 bom (1 uk, 1 us) or
2)  5 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm, 4 ftrs (3 uk, 1 us), 2 bom (1 uk, 1 us) or
3)  5 inf, 1 rt, 3 ftrs (2 uk, 1 us), 3 boms (2 uk, 1 us)

I don’t see how any of these are in any real danger.

Germany can attack with 1 inf, 1 arm, 5 ftrs, 1 bom.
Pts/(Units)
1)  23 ( 8 ) vs. 30 ( 11 )
2)  23 ( 8 ) vs. 29 ( 13 )
3)  23 ( 8 ) vs. 27 ( 12 )

And that is with no ftrs being shot down due to aa-fire.
I perfer to go 2 ftrs and inf on UK 1, but #2 is the safest.

You can even send the rt to afr instead leaving: 3 inf, 1 arm, 5 ftrs, 2 boms on UK.  I don’t think it matters b/c it is a bad attack for Germany regardless.

[newpaintbrush]

@DarthMaximus:

I don’t see how Germany can take London on G2 . . .

Well, in her scenario, UK1 had ground units moving from London and E. Canada to Algeria, and UK fighters flying to, I think it was West Russia.  The only units in London were a leftover artillery, the bomber that flew back, plus two newly purchased infantry, one newly purchased artillery, and two newly purchased fighters.

I presumed that on US1, the Atlantic fleet would move to further reinforce Algeria to prevent mass air attack on the UK battleship and two transports off Algeria; this also prevents Germany from easily retaking Algeria with W. Europe fighters, infantry/artillery moved to Libya, and the German battleship/transport in the med.

[Jennifer]

Actually, you can let the BB die, but I would put the US DD there.  Meanwhile, you ahve 2 US Transports iwth 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm added to United Kingdom.

German wants to attack the fleet?  Odds are they’ll loose 3 fighters at least, and that’s assuming they get 4 hits on R1.  Dunno how realistic that is when 6 Fig, 1 Bmb = 22, or 3.5 presumed hits vs the fleet.  I would assume the US DD and UK BB to hit on R1, maybe a transport hit.  UK BB to hit on R2.

[newpaintbrush]

The UK took Algeria on UK1 in the scenario listed.  To reinforce London with 2 US transports on US1 stops G2 invasion, but then you have two different Allied fleets in the Atlantic; one fleet of UK battleship and 2 transports west of Algeria that’s very vulnerable if the German Med fleet moved west (can’t remember if it did or not), and one fleet of US destroyer and 2 transports (or maybe just 2 transports if you wanted to just reinforce London) in the sea zone southwest of London, that’s vulnerable to attack from W. Europe fighters (assume 4) and German bomber from Libya.

So really, I’d lose maybe a fighter to kill two transports, or 1-2 fighters for two transports and a destroyer or two fighters for UK battleship and 2 transports, something like that.  Not bad.

[Jennifer]

Coulda sworn I amended that in later posts to not have a british invasion of North Africa on UK1 and a joining of the US/UK fleets in Sea Zone 8 instead.  If not, I meant too.  (Perhaps the filter kicked it out because of a perceived bad word?)

Anyway, a UK build of 3 fighters with a consolidation of US and UK fleets in Sea Zone 8 cripple Germany’s ability to do anything more then take some more of Africa and hope to hold out against Russia.  On UK 3 you should be able to sink the Baltic Fleet and make life safe for Transports throughout the Atlantic Ocean.  (5 Fighters, 1 Bomber, 1 Battleship, 2 Transports should take out 2 submarines, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, 1 carrier and 2 fighters.)

[newpaintbrush]

@Jennifer:

Coulda sworn I amended that in later posts to not have a british invasion of North Africa on UK1 and a joining of the US/UK fleets in Sea Zone 8 instead.  If not, I meant too.  (Perhaps the filter kicked it out because of a perceived bad word?)

Anyway, a UK build of 3 fighters with a consolidation of US and UK fleets in Sea Zone 8 cripple Germany’s ability to do anything more then take some more of Africa and hope to hold out against Russia.  On UK 3 you should be able to sink the Baltic Fleet and make life safe for Transports throughout the Atlantic Ocean.  (5 Fighters, 1 Bomber, 1 Battleship, 2 Transports should take out 2 submarines, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, 1 carrier and 2 fighters.)

Oh, OK then.  Well, if you united at London, then German invasion of London is out.

For the rest - not . . . quite.  Because once an Axis player sees that the Allies have massed air, and have any kind of serious navy near the Baltic fleet, you have a couple options.

1.  If there is NOT a serious navy near the Baltic fleet (say it’s just a lone battleship and 2 transports), you just send the German air force to kill everything.  Lose a fighter or two.  It hurts, but you can rebuild a fighter or two that turn.

2.  If there IS a serious navy near the Baltic fleet (US/UK fleet), you can attack with German air and the Baltic fleet as fodder.  The massed air is usually on London, where it can’t help defend.  You take a huge chunk out of the Allied combined fleet, and usually lose maybe one or two fighters, if there wasn’t an Allied AC there.  If there WAS an Allied AC there, you could then think about building more navy (probably not recommended in most games anyways, but ACs aren’t all that great on attack, so at least the Allies spent 32 IPC on 2 units with  a combined attack value of 2).

But even after 2., there is usually some Allied fleet wandering around the Pacific that’s enough to deter attacks from the German air force.  So the transports are safe anyways; it’s just that the Allies lost a bit more navy.