Deterrent to Egypt mIC on UK1 -"Ram-rod" play

[MarshmallowofWar]

@MeinHerr:

Exactly what else do Italy’s navy and air force have to do that is worth sacrificing a German air unit to French ships in sea zone 93?

**It will help Italy kill off UK blockers in Malta and Greece Seazones.  Removing French Navy in Med frees up the Italians.  **

Italy doesn’t need that help.

@MeinHerr:

You still have done NOTHING to deter Taranto. The UK can do it, or not, as it pleases – the choice is not up to you. Please explain how anything you have done deters the UK from making the Taranto attack?

This depends on your definition of “deter”.  Given a choice between Taranto and Keeping Egypt , which would you choose?!  If it is Egypt, then you cannot do Taranto.  That is what I mean as “deter”  .

When you force the UK to actually make that choice, let me know. Nothing you have here is deterrance.

@MeinHerr:

You wrote this earlier…." UK can have in Egypt at the end of UK1: 1 AA gun, 7 infantry, 2 artillery, one tank, one mech, one fighter, and one tactical bomber."

So, on UK1, if the FTR and TB are on Egypt, it is not possible to do Taranto, correct?  Especially, if UK-CRU off Gib is sunk on G1

That is true. Still the UK’s choice and not yours.

@MeinHerr:

**If 3 German planes are lost, please remember, you did not flush down $30 in Navy… you built 2 SBRs…    **

You are trading on average 50 IPCs worth of German planes for about 24 IPCs worth of UK and ANZAC troops.

I got a $10 bill here. You can give me a $20 bill for it anytime!

@MeinHerr:

Yes, if strafe is called off, then no point sacrificing them.  There is no longer a threat to Egypt on I2 .But the next turn they can move back closer.  The deal is that as long as the Italian Navy is there, Egypt must be manned … or else it can fall.  Also any UK units moving out of the Egypt Sea Zone will be vulnerable.

Under my plan, the Italian navy is dwarfed by the UK navy. And if you are going to keep bouncing your Italian army and your German air force back and forth between territories, the Allies have already won because of your wasted impeti (is impeti the plural of impetus? or would it be impetuses?)

@MeinHerr:

Point is by the time US gets money and converts it to units and moves them back, it takes 4 turns.  Italy gets to use it 1-2 turns, use is is immediate.

So you are going to take a six IPC gain over about two turns, and after that you are going to give the US 3 IPCs per turn til the end of the game six or eight turns later? I just found a $5 bill. I will gladly take your $10 bill for it…

And you STILL haven’t told me how you are going to take North Africa and hold Alexandria, when we already showed you can’t hold Alexandria without the German air force staying put there. You won’t get the North Africa NO for more than one round, if that much.

@MeinHerr:

Yes, it does come down to that. But the three times I have played it, I have lost only 3 to 4 planes each time. Both the times have been victories for Axis

Well heck, as long as it worked twice it must be flawless! Does “both” include that third time it didn’t work?

@MeinHerr:

Agree . But should UK persist with Taranto, all its Egypt forces will get wiped out G2, and I2 should take it.  If Ethiopians are in Kenya I1, I2 they go to Tanganyrika on I2, then belgian Congo on I3… and will spread like cancer in heart of Africa.  UK will have a hard time trying to kill them, take Egypt, save India , help US invasion, or help USSR all at same time.

Since I don’t think Taranto is the best play in the Med for the UK, that certainly won’t happen. But I have never seen the UK played my way have any trouble stopping the “cancer” Italians in sub-Saharan Africa. Usually the UK has its NO back by turn six (sometimes turn five) and the Italians are wrapped up. And loading German troops on an Italian transport just makes it that much sweeter to kill that Italian transport with the UK navy/air force.

@MeinHerr:

Maybe its heresy to some that you lose 5-6 German planes. In my opinion its an acceptable risk.  
A)You have not bought the $30 Navy.
B)  India has relinquished $8…
C) If you have gained Egypt…  what does that do:
   1)it gives $2 a turn to Italy, UK loses $2…
   2) If Gib is not secured, because UK1 got it… then on I2, Italy gets a $5 bonus a turn
   3) Italian units are off to the hunt in central Africa… UK has to build in SA to hunt them down… or bleed IPCs each turn
   4) UK will not get its $5 bonus a turn
   5) UK will have to spend to get Egypt back… and that is less FTRs in Moscow
   6) Rome has a Naval defense that has to be broken before getting in. It will take a turn longer…

Ultimately, its a race against time.  If Moscow falls on G6, India on J6 and US is still not in a position to take Rome or W. Germany….   with entire Luftwaffe alive… hmmm Axis should be in a better position

I don’t see you taking Moscow by turn six if you lose five German planes strafing Egypt. Of course, you could be counting on Russia doing dumb builds…

Not spending 30 IPCs on navy is your call. Gibraltar is easily recaptured, and Italy has a limited number of transports. If by “Italian units are off to the hunt” that the UK is slaughtering them handly in like two turns, I agree. And the UK still has Egypt, the Italian navy is dead, UK owns the Med and Africa and the Middle East and is now shipping reinforcements to Moscow and/or India if it likes.

Marsh

[MarshmallowofWar]

Let’s look at what happens if the UK does Taranto on UK1, after you have landed all but one German plane within range of Egypt, and after the UK has built the MIC in Egypt on UK1. (This assumes no bid or bid not placed in Egypt/Anglo-Egypt Sudan/Alexandria.)

You stack Alexandria with 5 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 mech, and 2 tanks. Add to this three fighters and a bomber that will participate in your attack.

The UK has amassed in Egypt at the end of UK1 1 AA gun, 6 infantry, 1 mech, 2 artillery, and 1 tank. As you pointed out, if the UK does Taranto no aircraft are here yet. There is aircraft on the carrier in sea zone 97 and the Gibraltar fighter has made it to Malta.

Since your plan is a G2 strafe of Egypt to allow an Italian ground attack, I assume that you do not kill the fleet in sea zone 97 on G2. You go ahead with your strafe. Whether or not the AA gun misses, your strafe kills 7 units on average. The smart UK player loses all six infantry and an artillery and keeps the AA gun, since the AA gun makes a big difference with the Italian air force coming. You lose, on average, six air units.

UK2 happens: since you did not kill the fleet in sea zone 97, the aircraft from that carrier, as well as the fighter from Malta, fly back to Egypt. Your lone transport dies in sea zone 98 to a UK plane. The rest of your navy dies to UK fleet elements from sea zone 92 (that battleship and cruiser you did not kill on G1). The fighter and tactical bomber from India arrive. The destroyer and cruiser from India arrive in sea zone 98. Your fleet is dead (but your new fleet will be able to see it through fancy glass bottoms) so you can rule out any amphibious support for your attack on Egypt. UK places two tanks and a fighter in Egypt on its turn after bringing in two infantry from Persia. The force in Egypt now consists of:

1 AA gun
2 infantry
1 mech
2 artillery
3 tanks
5 fighters
1 tactical bombers

Your attacking force with Italy is still 5 infantry, 2 artillery, 1 mech, 2 tank, 3 fighters, and a bomber. Your chances of a successful attack on Egypt on I2 following a G2 strafe is 39% (rounded up) assuming the AA gun does not get a hit. (This can only get worse if you split the German air force to try to take out that UK fleet to keep the aircraft from getting to Egypt.) Furthermore, any UK fleet still in sea zone 97 is still convoy disrupting Italy.

You have now sacrificed half the Luftwaffe (on average) to get Italy a 39% chance to successfully invade Egypt.

If my numbers are wrong, please explain where and how. Otherwise, please explain to me how your 39% likely to win battle for Italy counts as deterrance.

Marsh

[simon33]

How many UK players would use the TT to bring the AA gun and inf from Malta rather than crush Ethiopia? I’m assuming the Tobruk crush is out due to the Luftwaffe.

If there is no Taranto, why wouldn’t the Italians proceed as they did before we discovered Taranto? i.e. land on Trans-Jordan to block the fleet in the Red Sea, land on Alexandria and move the Ethiopian force to Sudan, if they’re still alive. I guess the answer to that would be the fleet in SZ92, if it moves there as it should.

Like Marsh, I also don’t see the merit of the no SZ110 crush and Luftwaffe strafe of Egypt. Why not go more mainstream and block the Tobruk crush with the Luftwaffe G1, although a significant bid can still overcome one fighter flown to Tobruk. Perhaps use a 2nd or even a 3rd plane and still hit SZ110? You could do that with a more acceptable risk than leaving the SZ110 like this:
SZ111 - 2subs, 1ftr, 1tac, BB
SZ110 - 2subs, 2ftr, 2tacs, 2SBs.
SZ106 - 1sub

Perhaps they will scramble into 110 with that but I’d still rather that than leaving the fleet alive. A bid tends to telegraph the intention to crush Tobruk.

That leaves 2ftrs and a tac which can fly to Tobruk. With an bid of an artillery in Alexandria and a ftr and a tac, that attack is 54% to take the territory. But is it worth it for the UK? You’ve passed up Taranto or stripped some planes out of it. You have to do a stripped Taranto or put down a blocker to keep Egypt then most likely.

[MeinHerr]

Simon 33

I do not play bids given to UK.  UK does not need any more money to crush Italy and unbalance the Med.

Bids are given to balance out strengths or for time constaints for Allies having more powers to play.

The bids I play with are solely to Soviets as IPC only. Maybe to China, 1 Art.

That is it.  Anything else ruins the fun of playing as thing get too lop-sided.

But again, it’s upto different players and iam just giving you mY read on it.

MOW:

Did a comparative chart to see if losing 5 planes is wOrth it for Germany to help get Egypt for Italy. This is if Taranto is done by UK.

Took into account convoying.

Over 4 turns, the Axis net gain and Allies net loss is 60 IPC

It also makes UK pay about $40 -$ 48 to get back it’s territories.

All this with Original Italian units in Africa alone.

Do not wanT to go into details… every one can figure it out themselves…besides writing from work on cell phone.

So Axis gain twice for each IPC lost initially.

At same time over first 4 turns Italy makes 44 IPC… enough to defend itself

In scenario, where UK plays as you say, No Taranto, and Egypt holds and gets a mIC…

Then it takes UK the second turn to build, and third turn to deploy.

The T2 build is vulnerable to Luftwaffe… that can hit it and land in Greece.

So dunno if you plan to do it in Med. Red Sea is safer.

Which means, I2 could theoretically take TJ with a suicide TR…or… just focus on N. Africa.

All in all, Italy makes 56 IPC in first 3 turns. Not counting 8 IPC loss for India.

…

Now, if RamRod were NOT played, and Taranto done, Italy would make less than half this money, if G2 were to kill the Med UK fleet.

What this does is help Rome hold out one more turn than before.

Builds can be a CV on T2, if bonus is achieved. Combining with original Italian Navy and Airbase… US will probably have to let UK kill Italian fleet in T4… but now it means, that Italy can build one more turn, redeploy forces, and Germans can send help if this is the case before US hits on US5…

Remember the entire Luftwaffe is alive and kicking…since they did not strafe!

Also remember, at least 2, if not 4 units should have been “rescued”…aka Dunkirk. …from N.Africa. This provides even better defense.

My opinion is that this is still better than conventional opening.

[simon33]

You wrote all that on your phone? True dedication.

If the UK aren’t allowed a bid then Tobruk can be more or less stopped by the moves I mentioned. Perhaps Ethiopia crush will still happen though, at 79% to the attacker IIRC. I can’t imagine how I wouldn’t do Taranto to moves like this.

[MeinHerr]

Last word on this,

**If UK puts a mIC on Egypt, UK1, and also lands the planes there, I think with a 2 SBR buy, Germany can still take out ALL UK forces in 1 sweep.  **

You see, for Axis with mIC, it’s  a Strategic Objective. It’s worth burning the planes if need be. Once that force is gone, and all Italian forces are alive, you can forget Middle East and maybe India

It takes UK, way too long to rebuild and get back in time.

UK2 mIC in Persia, Produces units in SA
Italk has 12 units, and a Navy remember??! With 2 TRs…!!

Oh… yeah… Moscow may take 11 rounds to fall. But with Egypt falling on I2, and all UK land and some air going with it, Axis should win the game.

Try it.

My last word on it.

• Ramdas Vaidyanathan  aka Mein Herr

[MeinHerr]

Luftwaffe hits it, till everything is dead, or it dies first.

With Skelly Calculator,  it’s still a kill…although 8 planes may go.

So , not in 1 sweep…  correction.

[siparo]

MeinHerr,

The bid system is solidly in place at tournaments, on TripleA, and for friendly face to face games. Everyone is welcome to have house rules, we do with the Mongolian rule. But when discussing strategy, there are few seasoned players that wouldn’t drop a sub or destroyer in the med following a bid for the allies. It makes one of the largest pro allies impacts on the game. The allies are clearly disadvantaged in G40. Based on your rule I doubt many seasoned players would agree to take the allies without a very high bid for Russia.

I have to agree with Simon and Marsh regarding the exchange of German fighters for Egypt. The cost of those units just aren’t worth it.

I’d be happy to play test the theory on TripleA. I could be wrong. Maybe it is a crippling blow for the allies. If it is a crippling blow, then it goes back to my previous argument regarding the bid placement of a UK naval unit in the med.

Healthy debate is great for this game. Thank you for your contribution.

[WILD BILL]

I’ve been watching this thread from the side lines.

I’m not a fan of placing bid units in the Med either, although I do feel the allies need some help. I think that the Med is one of the theaters that plays out pretty well for the allies, and Italy generally starts off at a disadvantage anyway by time their turn rolls around. Much depends on how much help the Germans want to give to Italy. Either by allowing them to grab more territory to prop up their income, or loaning them some air for a couple turns.

With that said, I’m probably not going to use the Luftwaffe to strafe Egypt. Then in addition you would also forgo the sz110 attack, and probably not hit the UK Med fleet if they did Taranto I’m defiantly not going to sacrifice 1/2 the German air force. On top of that there is the sack of Moscow that will surly be delayed w/o the extra punch of those lost planes.

Leaving the sz110 fleet alive gives the allies a pretty good starting navy in the Atlantic. Add to that the Luftwaffe can’t project the same threat because it was cut in half means the allies don’t need as much navy as normal to come across either. The US will need less warships, so they build more transports, or maybe just spend more in the Pac. Either way I think this “Ram Rod” would help the allies in the long run, and the axis are toast if the Italians don’t win that battle for Egypt which sounds like a close one.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@simon33:

How many UK players would use the TT to bring the AA gun and inf from Malta rather than crush Ethiopia? I’m assuming the Tobruk crush is out due to the Luftwaffe.

If there is no Taranto, why wouldn’t the Italians proceed as they did before we discovered Taranto? i.e. land on Trans-Jordan to block the fleet in the Red Sea, land on Alexandria and move the Ethiopian force to Sudan, if they’re still alive. I guess the answer to that would be the fleet in SZ92, if it moves there as it should.

Like Marsh, I also don’t see the merit of the no SZ110 crush and Luftwaffe strafe of Egypt. Why not go more mainstream and block the Tobruk crush with the Luftwaffe G1, although a significant bid can still overcome one fighter flown to Tobruk. Perhaps use a 2nd or even a 3rd plane and still hit SZ110? You could do that with a more acceptable risk than leaving the SZ110 like this:
SZ111 - 2subs, 1ftr, 1tac, BB
SZ110 - 2subs, 2ftr, 2tacs, 2SBs.
SZ106 - 1sub

Perhaps they will scramble into 110 with that but I’d still rather that than leaving the fleet alive. A bid tends to telegraph the intention to crush Tobruk.

That leaves 2ftrs and a tac which can fly to Tobruk. With an bid of an artillery in Alexandria and a ftr and a tac, that attack is 54% to take the territory. But is it worth it for the UK? You’ve passed up Taranto or stripped some planes out of it. You have to do a stripped Taranto or put down a blocker to keep Egypt then most likely.

There is no need to do Tobruk or Taranto, but that is a different thread. The Italians can’t land on Trans-Jordan, even with no Tobruk, if the UK deploys blockers on UK1 and moves back into the Med on UK2.

I’m not sure I’m ok with taking all that force to Tobruk and hitting sea zone 110 light. The UK player would be right to scramble then, and it would be disastrous for the Luftwaffe.

Any UK player who wants to secure Egypt as fast as possible should bring the infantry and the AA gun from Malta to Egypt on UK1.

Marsh

[MarshmallowofWar]

@MeinHerr:

Did a comparative chart to see if losing 5 planes is wOrth it for Germany to help get Egypt for Italy. This is if Taranto is done by UK.

Took into account convoying.

Over 4 turns, the Axis net gain and Allies net loss is 60 IPC

It also makes UK pay about $40 -$ 48 to get back it’s territories.

All this with Original Italian units in Africa alone.

Do not wanT to go into details… every one can figure it out themselves…besides writing from work on cell phone.

So Axis gain twice for each IPC lost initially.

At same time over first 4 turns Italy makes 44 IPC… enough to defend itself

You make bold statements and do not present any detailed arguments to support them. You then ignore refutations of your bold statements that are backed up by detailed analysis.

I’ve presented battle calculator results for Egypt strafes followed by an Italian overland attack with and without Taranto. Each way shows that Italy has a poor chance of taking Egypt if UK defends properly. You are counting on your opponent making a mistake, and if they do you do well. However, if you are counting on your opponent shooting themselves in the foot before the battle, what do you do when they don’t?

As Siparo says healthy debate is good. But debate is a discussion, and you are not discussing. You should show your calculations and tell me where mine are wrong.

Marsh

[simon33]

@Marshmallow:

There is no need to do Tobruk or Taranto, but that is a different thread. The Italians can’t land on Trans-Jordan, even with no Tobruk, if the UK deploys blockers on UK1 and moves back into the Med on UK2.

Strictly speaking this is true. A no Tobruk no Taranto scenario means you’ve sacrificed two ships as blockers - a sizeable portion of your navy in the Med. I much prefer a crush on SZs 96 & 97. That way, you will generally leave blockers as survivors of these battles. The trouble comes when the attacks fail I guess. Generally, you can bring back survivors from Ethiopia although in one of my first league games, that attacked failed as well as SZ96. Still can likely hold or retake Egypt if you use a blocker in Alexandria. Still the slight risk of enough going bad UK1 is normally enough to deter me from investing in an IC in Egypt UK1. It’s not likely that it will be taken UK2 because you can land your planes and bring back your Mech but even if it is, you have presumably positioned your TT back in South Africa and bought some troops.

I don’t accept your assertion on the Malta AAA. I consider that there are better uses for that TT. I expect you’re bringing across the India TT to hit Ethiopia - a move I hate because it makes India’s fall largely imminent.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Nope, I would not hit Ethiopia either. I use the India transport to activate Persia. The Ethiopian forces are a nuisance to the UK, not a threat. Plus, Persia is worth eight IPCs (two for the territory, plus two free infantry) and if the Italians roll average in Ethiopia I actually wind up losing money.

Also, activating Persia lets me kill Iraq on UK2, negating any free unit payday the Axis might get from landing there later.

As for the AA gun, it is definitely useful if there’s an air factor to the attack. Aside from the fear factor for the attacker because AA guns are so unpredictable, it also gives you better odds for winning the battle.

Marsh

[simon33]

Hmm, I used to do that with the Med TT but then I realised that the West Indian inf can do it one turn later so it’s really only a 2IPC difference. Versus a 4IPC difference per turn in stepping on Sumatra and to the more valuable UK Pac. Attacking Ethiopia can make the difference between collecting the UK Europe bonus UK2, at least potentially.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Yeah, if Japan is holding off you can make a lot of money with Sumatra. Java I usually give to ANZAC, and if Japan is holding off I usually give Sumatra to ANZAC as well.

So, it’s not that I’m not getting the IPCs, I’m just getting them somewhere other than India.

Marsh

[simon33]

@Marshmallow:

Yeah, if Japan is holding off you can make a lot of money with Sumatra. Java I usually give to ANZAC, and if Japan is holding off I usually give Sumatra to ANZAC as well.

So, it’s not that I’m not getting the IPCs, I’m just getting them somewhere other than India.

Marsh

ANZAC IPCs are about 1/3 as useful as Calcutta ones. You also can’t get it until ANZ2 at best and even then it requires you to take units off Java. I like to fortify Sumatra from Calcutta, believe it or not and Java from NT. I don’t worry about Celebes until after I’ve bothered to take Dutch New Guinea, war or not.

[MarshmallowofWar]

Well, keep in mind I am willing to sacrifice India to secure the Med, Africa, and the Middle East. If I give IPCs to India they are not going to be around long, whereas ANZAC IPCs can be around for a long time and can allow me to build higher price units faster.

It’s all opinion really. I value Persia and Iraq’s 4 IPCs plus two bonus infantry more than I value Java and Sumatra’s 8 IPCs for India.

Marsh

[simon33]

@Marshmallow:

Well, keep in mind I am willing to sacrifice India to secure the Med, Africa, and the Middle East. If I give IPCs to India they are not going to be around long, whereas ANZAC IPCs can be around for a long time and can allow me to build higher price units faster.

It’s all opinion really. I value Persia and Iraq’s 4 IPCs plus two bonus infantry more than I value Java and Sumatra’s 8 IPCs for India.

Marsh

Probably why you feel so strongly about the weakness of the Indian economy.

[MeinHerr]

After having analyzed what I wrote, and  the responses, feel compelled to write a more detailed explanation.

Carl Jung is not good enough….need to do a-la Sigmund Freud

OK, will take it on. BuT will require a few days, work etc…  but when it does come , on a new thread…due to other factoRS related to it, will be quite interesting,  if not unique.  That I promise.

RV / MH

[MarshmallowofWar]

@simon33:

@Marshmallow:

Well, keep in mind I am willing to sacrifice India to secure the Med, Africa, and the Middle East. If I give IPCs to India they are not going to be around long, whereas ANZAC IPCs can be around for a long time and can allow me to build higher price units faster.

It’s all opinion really. I value Persia and Iraq’s 4 IPCs plus two bonus infantry more than I value Java and Sumatra’s 8 IPCs for India.

Probably why you feel so strongly about the weakness of the Indian economy.

Well, let’s see. I can pick up four IPCs for India by taking Sumatra, or I can pick up 8 IPCs (2 IPCs and two free infantry units) for UK proper by activating Persia. So from a money perspective, Persia is better. Plus, six of those IPCs are in play immediately – I don’t necessarily need to wait a turn to actually have them participate in combat. Plus, the unit from West India can actually go to India rather than activating East Persia (which gives me nothing).

On UK2 from Persia I can take Iraq, take Ethiopia, take Somaliland, retake British Somaliland, retake Kenya, retake Anglo-Egypt Sudan, reinforce Egypt/Trans-Jordan, reinforce India, activate East Persia, or activate Northwest Persia. So in addition to making more money I also have more options.

Furthermore, my transport tends to live longer (if Japan goes J2 my transport is toast and my infantry that took the island is paralyzed or dead) meaning that it can be used in the Med early and then be used in the Pacific again later if I need it, the IPC gains tend to stick around longer, and despite a slightly weaker India my overall position globally is stronger.

I do see your side of it – India might not fall if I grab Sumatra, or it might hold out a turn longer. That is true, but while getting money for India is good, India by itself is not the sole focus. Looking at it from a global perspective, securing the Med and the Middle East early lets me reinforce India in the long term and keep pressure on Japan if India falls, preventing Japan’s capture of India from letting it fight a single-front war in the Pacific. It also secures Russia’s southern flank, allowing Russia to concentrate on the German threat. Finally, with Italy reduced to exactly one option (building ground troops to defend Europe) UK resources are freed up to back up the US forces.

Marsh