Luftwaffe Strategy

Ya, I think I’d probably do something similar to counter EE.  Have to research it a bit more, but the supernavy may be a good plan.  Hard call, exposing Germany to fairly serious fighter attrition options may have some benefits (as seen in my last game), need to look at that a bit closer.

Ran it again,
UK withdrew transport to the med instead of running a blockade in the East Indies or trying to pull reinforcements from Australia, since the sub was alive this was either an opportunity for the germans to lose a fighter or an eventual atlantic reinforcement (just felt like it).

Japan stumbled in Sinkiang (moved one brit infantry there from India.  Reduces Japans chances to 79.7% from 94.7% of taking it out on Round 1, while still leaving token defense in India.  This was decisive.  The USA proceeded with the Atlantic invasion successfully, even though pearl harbor lost and escaping ships killed this time,  putting their four transports together with the british sub which had submerged earlier.   Germany probably should have tried to shut down the UK fleet at this juncture but I wanted to see if Japan could recover fast enough.

Since Japan lost a step, and France was liberated.  Germany was forced to gamble in order to try to stave off the momentum of the Allied invasion.   An unfortunate issue with EE placement, is that any fighters sent after the transports hitting the beach were forced off the line as they didn’t have range to return.  In retrospect this is probably a cue to hit the fleet (if any) with everything the Germans have.  This is likely to become a very desperate situation for Germany at that point, especially with the bulk of the Soviets mobilizing on the Eastern front.

In the above game:
Instant German disaster as they split forces, 4 at the transports (lost 2) hoping to slow the Americans enough to secure the beaches for an extra round. Sent 1 to support counter on W.Europe (shot down), and two left on the line to keep the Soviets in check.  W. Europe stood, planes forced to land in Algeria which incited an opportunity attack by Brittain. German airforce destroyed for all practical purposes, down to just 2 fighters.

The lost time on the Eastern front (that one turn makes a big difference) combined with the weakened German line quickly led to Axis disaster with Soviets able to protect their capital and E. Europe collapsing on round 4.

If the extra infantry in Sinkiang is successful it pretty much locks it up for the Allies.   If they intend to concede asia early, or at least take a low cost stab at slowing down the Japanese attack, this seems pretty solid.  When its Brittains turn, Germany has shown their preliminary move and Russia is showing a strong east front bias at that point.

RESULT:  Allied decisive victory.  Germany went down during the Russian turn in R6, after holding to the last man in R5 against a sequential UK/US assault.

CONCLUSIONS:
If Japan gets set back in Sinkiang (20.1%) or otherwise encounters severe difficulties in Asia the Axis are probably done from the get go, they are undoubtedly facing an uphill battle.   E.Europe presents plane mobility issues.  Attacking the fleet probably ends any chance of an early strike on the Soviet capitol and with it any chance of Germany regaining control of Europe.  Luftwaffe is probably best used in an all or nothing type role, Germany can’t afford to lose fighters.

NEXT TEST
EE and delayed fleet buy, will explore this situation and see what it looks like, using tactics suggested.  Looks like a solid response and the allied fighters will probably swing asia, or at least Moscow.  The fleet is probably heavily buffered enough that the allied fighters can quickly be assigned to necessary defensive support positions without compromising the invasion plans.  Probably some other implications in this that I need to look at, will take a closer look and get a better idea of the super fleet situation.

Thanks for the feedback.

• Norway move only used in very specific margin situations, not likely to happen
  ** R3, Japan has another action possible which is to send a loaded transport (troops at that stage are probably not vital on the mainland) to the Hawaii sea zone creating a direct threat on W.USA primarily and Mexico as a secondary threat.  This is intended to divert a bomber, force a defensive build (slightly adjusting available forces) or a quick ten point inconvenience in the event that it isn’t responded to.  Not a huge impact but probably worth doing.

ALSO
Looked at that last setup, just to get a feel for it.
–- You posted while I was commenting (response to that is below)
— Remind me not to drink caffeine after work, I’ll never get any sleep ----

Delayed Fleet Build:
This fleet cant deliver until round 3, although it is fairly safe.   The surviving transports are probably fodder in the interim, possibly saveable if just the UK delays its build.
Without ability for any early transits, Germany can harbor all fighters safely in EE.   Didn’t run the full game or any of the iterations, due to time constraints, but will look at it later.

The Germans can trade slots easily in the Ukraine, which has to be a dead zone as it appears Russia can’t split forces safely.  W. Europe faces no threat early and a lack of a threat on Germany allows safe full deployment of the majority of available forces to the front lines.  The dead zone chips away at both sides slightly.   The numbers suggest a mutual standoff in Round 3.  Not certain that a R4 attack on EE is viable under these circumstances.  Didn’t run it far enough to see how much is required to deal with an attack on Germany, really depends on the composition of the superfleet and how many ground troops are available to the brits.  US is still limited to W.Europe or Finland for at least one more round, if I’m counting it right, based on the superfleet strategy.

The British portion of the superfleet prior to the Americans joining is likely vulnerable (at a fairly high cost) due to their IPC damage in Africa and possibly India.   The American fleet is reasonably safe, facing just the bomber at most.   A round 1 American fleet build is probably necessary to keep the safety margin high enough for the British portion by joining at the end of round 2.  A round 2 US build leaves the Brits wide open as a sacrifice.  The timing of the build limits the number of fighters still and there is an option to trade airforce for the transports and then some (depends on fleet build).

Doing a sea sweep probably forces a German withdraw and open the gates for the Soviets to potentially pose a significant threat.   The upside of an exchange of this nature is that the allies (besides russia) have limited ability to touch Europe before round 4.  Brittain either has to spend another round of fleet building or switch to defensive support role fighters in this contingency.

Thoughts come to mind of a Japanese bomber program, or other lateral intervention, although its probably not fast enough even with that much warning and would likely allow the soviets to stake a preventative claim.  Putting a small amount of direct pressure on the US would probably help too.  Not sure if enough time is gained for Japan to seriously consider an industrial investment either, will have to play deeper to see.  If the Russians have limited support in Europe the time frames may change on taking out Berlin, but once again have to run the scenario.  Germany is still pulling a lot of IPCs and Japanese are very much on the move in that regard.  Not sure where the Axis are sitting at but America probably has to respond to any feint towards w.USA (at least if magic 84 is in play).   Anyhow, all speculation, don’t have time to examine the situation in depth or run tally’s at the moment.

Anyhow, this definitely involves an in depth look, at least for me.  A couple of major variants I need to understand better.  I’m not convinced of the merits of a delayed fleet build yet, seeing a lot of drawbacks of indeterminate value for the Allies on that plan.   Also need to explore the Soviet aggressive build in conjunction with a conventional fleet deployment, which may be superior overall.   Both scenarios with impact studies of a fleet strike.

response to last post:

Novosibirsk could house bombers, depending on how asia played out, they will need support on the ground as its within fighter range of all potential japanese fighter bases.  If they are around at that stage they can’t reach the atlantic without a secure W.Europe landing point.   IF the UK commits its airpower to that side it affects their invasion dynamics somewhat, doesn’t mean its a bad plan though.   Sinkiang rarely works out to anything more than a tenuous hold.

As far as Sinkiang goes, I’m leaning towards moving one out of India on the chance of an outright stop, puts the Japanese airpower in danger and might force a different Japanese attack plan as well as preserve the US fighter.  Whether that means Sinkiang is attempted in Round 2 and India is targeted instead, or Japan takes the high road depends on what the board looks like at that juncture.   Lots of Allied options to defend Asia, but each one involves a trade.  Going after it with a fighter weakens Karalia for at least one round.

Regarding the infantry its round 3 with a round 4 threat.   They are too far back to be vital in a quick bid on Russia, depends on how decisively Asia resists the Japanese aggression as to whether they are ultimately needed as reinforcements.
The window of opportunity on Russia is pretty narrow for a quick strike.  If factories are built or another longer window strategy is used then they will be needed on the mainland.   Trading 2 infantry and a transport for tying up a fair amount of US power is worth considering, particularly if Germany elects to engage the British fleet or if a serious D-Day type operation is looming.

Pearl attack light, run that one many times now.

Opening roll is big, not too many units on either side.  Japan loses rarely, mutual destruction sometimes – not too often, one BB common, 2 BB uncommon, full fleet survives rare.  Follow up attack at Panama with survivors if any is also not a foregone conclusion for either side.  Still marginal on whether its a good idea to send the fighter, puts it off the map for a long time.   The carrier is enough defense to handle a lone plane, particularly with a fighter on board.   To use the bomber, switches theaters away from the Atlantic, if a fighter survives asia and hunts down a transport its taking a 30% risk of being shot down and severely impacting defenses.  Also not available for ground support roles.  To go after the escorted shipping usually means a solo airplane gets one and only one shot at success.  That fighter is  considerably more vital to allied interests in the sphere than a transport is to the Japanese, in my opinion.

A variant, which I usually don’t do, because of the slower deployment in asia, is to bring along a transport and attempt a single infantry landing (holding one in reserve).  The transport is usually not taken as a casualty as it serves two purposes when used that way.  The primary one is it forces some form of US reaction, either delaying the fleet, inviting a full counter attack (tying up resources that could be used in the Atlantic) or if ignored leaves a unit that has to be defended against.  A side benefit is that 1/4 chance of taking hawaii which is in a very strategic location.  Usually if I go that route I’m sending the carrier and a fighter instead of the BB.  If the fighter lives it elevates the threat level of the infantryman considerably.  Its a pretty substantial tradeoff though, so I usually pass on that option.

A loaded non-combat move (wake island pickup) can be considered as well if pearl light becomes a complete victory, with the transport the Americans have a hard time ignoring it and that fleet can threaten america or take panama long enough and force a reaction on the Atlantic side if desired.  Its really a different approach though and I don’t think its the best answer in most cases.  Good way to wreak havoc with the Americans invasion plan though, if a total victory happens.

As you mentioned, strategy is always fluid in this game as circumstances will emerge that make each game different.  Every reaction creates some form or counter-reaction.   Some have minor impacts on the overall flow, some are very significant.   Every unit thats away from the line swings the balance, in some cases by double digit percentages.

Superfleet build for US
1 AC, 2 Transports (rd 1)
… ok, forgot the bomber starts in Germany, will be out of reach.  Might have to target the canadian with the bomber (only five planes required in North Sea) and take my chances with the battleship heads up in the Med.  US coast is secured.  Strat bombing Karalia might be worth the risk also, given the initial balance in that region, 1 inf in Russia on R2 vs quite a few uk infantry later.  Still probably use it on the battleship.  Beginning to doubt the wisdom of taking the battleship as a casualty over the bomber though, its starting to look more useful than the bomber is.  Tough call all the way around.

Superfleet build for the UK
Battleship, AC, 2 trans (58) have to check.  +2 US fighters.
Trade to knock that for a loop is typically steep (probably 4 fighters and a bomber) at start of round 3.
Puts axis down to 3 fighters and likely forces a withdrawl on the Eastern front keeps Brits at bay until round 4.
Thats probably a sufficient deterrent.  Still want to run that out, but I think that will work.

Africa
Libya gets one tank in the last several iterations.  Thats a 36% success rate and demolition of everything in the immediate area.  Average result I have a tank left and a few more IPCs and I get Egypt and another chunk of Africa in the next round.  I still don’t think the Germans are able to justify sending two infantry instead of the tank as thin as the axis line will be.

If that bomber survives the combat its a noble sacrifice, mission accomplished.  Pretty good bet for you since it could swing the game, better than the annoying tendancy for it to get shot down by lucky AA fire trying to support W.Europe raids…  Theres about a 20% chance you will have a battleship to contend with and this might be important as it makes a huge swing in any air raid, so will have to be dealt with one way or another.  If its there the Libya plan is probably shelved unless  you want to send a transport as a blocker.  With that as an added contingency your chances of securing africa are down to 30% overall… unless you want to run the risk of just using the US bomber and no backup plan and no safe landing zones.

Depending on the naval outcome, you’ve very possibly left some residual fleet with this bomber allocation.   A variable chance that UK is down two planes out the gate (target selection), probably still a good trade.  If the  German tank lives its 50/50 to mop up Africa unless either side gets reinforcements into the theater (which either takes a while or diverts ships).  Does slow the IPC collection rate though.

Likely issues to deal with on R1 airpower allocations:
1 transport in baltic
1 submarine in North Sea (+/-1) most common result
1 transport in the med (72% success chance with the sub)
20% of 1 BB in Med
Alternate targets: Libya, Norway

Ok man, enough :)  Got to unwind my mind, need to sleep…

SUPERFLEET TEST

This got very interesting and is extremely closely matched.
Some game specific events.

• Libya reduced to one tank, elected to utilize the US bomber to finish off the German threat in Africa,
  Successful.  Africa held, although the allies can’t quickly pick up the remnant territories due to only infantry.
  Costs the US their bomber. Probably a good Allied move.
• Allied air is down to just jets, after fleet is consolidated they move to reinforce Karalia, which needs them.
• Sinkiang defenders defeated, but Japan has to choose air or infantry.  Sacrifices infantry.  Held, leaves corridor.
• Pearl harbor goes to Japanese, 1 BB, but it dies trying to sink escaping fleet and inflicts no casualties.
• Superfleet built successfully.  Troop shortages slow down invasion a bit, not much.
• Novosobirsk tank blitzes and takes East Indies for the 3 russian IPC gain and an attempt to get into the soft underbelly of the Japanese advance.   In retrospect, might not be the best play, although it does slow the Japanese reserves slightly due to position, is tempting though.
• Troops in India reinforce the tank, also questionable. (r2)
• Southern Europe AA gun moved to the line
• Allies elect for W. Europe instead of Finland, as it becomes a target of opportunity.
• Japanese switch to Plan B after failing to secure ground presence in Sinkiang.
• EE chosen over W. Europe where only a small garrison holds.
• Ukraine used as a dead zone by both sides
• Allies secure a continental landing zone in Round 4 (3?)
• Japan gains two borders of Moscow in Round 3 with light holdings. Moscow in Peril. Roughly 15% chance of having to take serious consideration of withdrawing from Karalia to defend Moscow (required if a border can’t be retaken as 14 aircraft are in striking range).  Alternative choice is to bet it all on the two English fighters.
• Russians succeed, but are unable to secure a favorable strike at EE (at least in R4)
• Japanese eventually divert a transport to create a minor threat on North/South America
• Game not completed, several variants emerge for the end game.  Dice will heavily color the results.

A more detailed replay below, with specific moves/comments.

Not certain of timeline on the transport threat.  Think it was round 3, possibly 4.  Japan sends a transport to Hawaii with one Inf +1 island infantry, US places 2 tanks and 1 infantry for an 80% hold on W.USA.  These have to stay in place until the transport is dealt with or strikes.  A panama or venzuala move is also possible from here, putting the tanks out of position if they respond.  Regarding the actual attempt its an option.  Penetrating the Atlantic also forces reaction.  Only 20% success chance on the gamble, but if successful forces a counter attack as well as scooping 10 IPCs (good chunk of a factory build, or additional airforce.

Russia and Germany remain at an impasse in EE.   W.Europe falls to first allied invasion (UK) opportunity in round 3 as holding force is reduced to allow fighter and tanks to stand in EE.
One British tank, reinforced by available US units based in North Sea.

Japanese Plan B
Japanese switch tactics as Sinkiang not held.  All fighters, troops from Japan and Phillipines base in Manchuria.

Russia Falls back  with 6 from Novosobirsk in order to preserve infantry.

Japan buys (iirc) armor oriented, some infantry a transport
(Memory hazy, but it went a lot like this)
An island infantry plus 1 of the troops in China (?) bit hazy, don’t have the screen open, and a lot of airpower dispatch the remaining allies on the mainland.  Think they were able to get  there, might have pulled from Japan instead.  Appears that a tank from Japan went to assist.   Anyhow, Asia pretty much done for.

Japan invades Mongolia and consolidates every troop that isn’t needed for a picket, lands on the Northern coast, and takes Novosibirsk with air support.  Lands a tank and two infantry.

Round 3
The next round the rest of the soviet defense is trashed.   Russians may or may not have been able to pull a fighter in on defense… not sure how long allied fighters take to reinforce safely.  If they want to delay the attack they may have a limited ability to reinforce Moscow.  Due to deadzone in Ukraine (trading 2+fighter attacks to maximize capture chance), Germany is still dangerous.  Need to check the timing on this, may have missed an option.
This is when W. Europe falls.  The Germans have significant strike power and are still building at a decent clip.  Forces can respond.

Round 4, the Soviets have too low a chance to take EE due to the transfer to the Eastern front.  Superfleet buy has severely limited UKs ability to buy groundtroops.  They might have bought one too many transports.  All they can do is hold as a result of parity management.   Japanese have troops on two borders of Moscow and must be responded to, might be avoidable if troops can afford to be placed in Moscow in R3 but was looking for a R4 assault on EE, so didn’t do that.    Tanks and air support have to be peeled off and the Ukraine is a marginal decision, elected to let it stand since airpower not available.   A placeholder is needed in Novosibirsk to block a tank blitz, so another tank rolls off the front line.  Ignoring the Japanese isn’t an option due to the airstrike option of the Axis and a serious defense of Russia means that Karalia is lost along with UK/US airpower.  Best balance appears to hold the border and hope the Asian/Soviet line holds.

Since the tanks are gone, Russia needs at least 3 purchased infantry to reduce German raid to 33%, more is desireable.  Allied troops can’t reinforce until the Brits can land later in the turn.  Berlin combined attack might be possible, but it didn’t look optimal and would deny reinforcements.  Allies possibly can afford patience here.

Haven’t wrapped it up yet, but its a very delicate balance for both sides.  The Soviets had an advantage but not a lock to take both access points from the Japanese.   Had they failed, there is no option but to fall back from Karalia which probably leads to a long game.

German Buys (if I remember correctly. My notes are disorganized, was mostly looking at battle odds, forgot to record these)
Round 1 2ftr/1t/1inf
Round 2 Mostly infantry, maybe 1 tank (superfleet build allows these to reinforce)
Round 3 Three tanks, five infantry (if the odds merit it, forces tough soviet decisions, leaves some defense.  Not sure if a fighter is needed, haven’t run the allied chance of directly attacking Berlin.  
Round 4 Depends on a lot of things, probably infantry for defense.

Japanese buys (hazy on these, but see if I can remember
Round 1 2tr/3inf
Round 2 tank(s) and infantry (speed to front plus some line reinforcements, dont remember the exact mix)
Round 3 transport bomber 1-2 armor some infantry (asia decided by now, I need punch at the lines in rounds 4-5,
and want to have an option for a move on USA  while still maintaining something of a supply chain.  Bomber can assist if Russia fails to hold the provinces around Moscow in round 3.
Bit hazy on the specifics, but it was more armor oriented than I usually go. Cant remember exactly when I got the fifth transport, whatever worked with the supply chain.

AT THIS TIME
Its been a solid game and the battles have all been fairly close to average.  Eastern Soviet defense may have been handled better, but there are limited options in that regard for the allies.  Might have been better to keep the tank and draw the British troops north.

I think the superfleet strategy makes the fleet safe, and gives the Allies a potential foothold. As presented however, it creates logistics issues for the British and slightly slows the US deployments as the aircraft carrier represents troops that aren’t hitting the beach.    The decision to reduce defenses on W. Europe by the Germans is risky.  If the brits want to soften it up, they put 2 of the aircraft in Karalia at risk.   If the brits don’t soften it up the Americans can probably still take it, but can’t present anything resembling a threat on Berlin.  Axis could crush the landing, but at the cost of the Eastern front.  Finland may be a better option in some iterations.

As it stands it appears that the Axis have a fair chance of taking Russia before the Allies get Berlin.  A trade probably favors the Allies (long game), and Germany didnt’ hold Africa (outcome not carved in stone) which could ultimately be vital in this match.  Allies can most likely safely  reinforce before Japan is able if it comes to that.

Germans and Soviets both have a fallback option until they clash, I don’t think the margins are there for anything less than an all or nothing move by whichever side elects to do so.  Germans probably need a decisive chance to do this, as it takes the Moscow air strike off the table and probably costs their Empire.  Very much a timing thing.  Soviets are in similar straits.   Either side moves at the wrong time or fails a strafe and they are probably done for.

Round 4 and 5 probably decide the game.  Appears to be very close. Either side can win at this point.  Decisions made in round 3 are vital.  Need to look at soviet placements in this round, and if infantry can be assigned to Moscow or not.

Small tactical decisions by either side, particularly on the Eastern front, can swing the balance in a big way.  Big game deciding decisions are approaching.  Neither side has a definitive advantage until this happens.  Both Moscow and Berlin face serious threats at this juncture.  Guess I’ll play out the endgame, but thats where the dice will determine the winner.

If the Germans initiate its probably going to come down to the Anti-Aircraft rolls.  
Japans ability to advance quickly is vital and Allied ability to respond is limited without destabilizing the front.

Allies may be better off with a conventional fleet build.  UK in particular may need to evaluate its buy, possibly an AC instead of the BB or some other minor adjustment that gives them better access to ground troops later.

Anyhow, that pretty much covers everything up to the point where the dice take over (at least as far as I’ve played so far).  No clear winner yet, appears to be a close match if I’m reading the board right.  Germany is potentially overextended, several end game variants presented at this juncture.

In this rundown the Axis essentially have a 15% chance of forcing a Soviet retreat outright in R3 (improvable as a risk trade as the after action sitrep leaves Germany with only a 16% chance of taking Karalia in R4).  If they fail to hold the line I’m not certain that the Germans can press that fast enough without setting themselves up for a counter attack… big maybe.  A forced retreat means four dead fighters (us2/uk2) so I’m not ruling it out although I have doubts.  Guess I have to play it out all the way a few times.

In numerous instances the odds calculator would swing massively in either sides favor with just a few units in/out of the mix in EE, so fall back and counter might work for Russia anyhow.   Anti Aircraft roll variances were particularly important in soviet defense situations.  A few casualties more or less in Asia for either side could impact the balance quite a bit.  Axis were able to bring enough troops to preclude a soviet invasion.

Germany probably can’t press the Soviets and hold both Germany and Southern Europe or repell the landing force in W. Europe, although at the same time the Allies cant penetrate the post battle landed fighters in a single round. Germany probably can hold out for a small number of turns. They probably have a while against the allies if they withdraw, but that changes the dynamic quite a bit at that point, probably goes to long game mode as Japan and the Allies race while Germany digs in.

BTW, how do you handle the India transport?   I took it to the med this time, as an eventual troop carrier and as support in case the British took N. Africa.   Other options appear to be Australia, or East Indies to block a R1 invasion of India.

Spartan,

No Problem, no urgency to respond. Do appreciate the input.  I’m also spending too much time playing/testing/writing lately, as well, always work to be done … I should be better at prioritizing it :)

By East Indies I meant French Indo China, always get them confused, keep thinking that its East India or somesuch.

China was strong, 3-4 infantry, iirc, typically is.  Gets hit hard on round 1.
Transport play, will look at that.  Misunderstood your trans Jordan Unit, thought it was going towards Africa for some reason.

You might have enough between all that to slow down the Japanese, maybe cost them an infantry or fighter along the way.  Have to look at how that plays out.

Allied schuck-schuck with the tanks, not sure it changes anything if they are replaced or stay put.  If two new ones are continously put in East USA they get loaded on the next round anyhow.  Replacing forces a two tank buy every round, which may or may not be optimal.  In the test game, I hit Venzuala.    With Venzuala, US has to either commit the tanks at that point or forfiet Brazil indefinitely.  Transport has to be killed if possible as it still threatens western US, otherwise thats more troops out of position.

The seven stack of Soviet infantry, is it trying to hold out somewhere (novosibirsk) or retreating slowly using placeholders with the goal of reaching Moscow? Sinkiang? I didn’t see much in the line of effective counterattack possibilities with them, although some air support might make it possible at some point.  Haven’t been able to get much use out of them, just fodder.  Whenever I’ve kept them grouped they weren’t able to withstand what hit them, but maybe I missed an opportunity there.  Breaking them up doesn’t seem to help much either.

In this scenario, because of the failed Sinkiang attack, Japanese consolidated in Mongolia and used that as the early game pipeline.  Details in the writeup.  Japan plan B.  Seems stronger overall, facing low resistance, possibly becomes the go to plan.  Big question is if the Allies can buy time safely.

Obviously have to work on the Allied Asia defense.   If they can buy a round somewhere without endangering the EE situation, they may have an effective play.  If allied bombers can be kept out of the theater, the Aussie transport probably can be safely brought down without too much overall impact.   Just have to remember that its there, tends to  fall off the map on the computer version.

Wrapped up the game, Axis won, but probably a large factor being inexperience with the Allies at that game stage.  Had a hard time focusing them, coordinating them well and was torn between the pipeline, trying to defend Russia, and the various other choices.   If I’d played the Allies I would have lost, without a doubt, but as a result of my own skill level rather than any predisposition from that setup at that point.  Every area of the board outside of the greater co-prosperity sphere, was up in the air, lots of ways it could go down in live play.

Game gets pretty complex if it develops like that one did, far as I can tell its anyone’s game at that point.  Russia is under a lot of pressure and both sides have a lot of strategic options.  Probably will stick to a Finland pipeline next time around, even if Western Europe looks weak.  Not sure the tradeoff value is there as the superfleet build makes it hard to support at that stage of the game.  Avoids some force splitting issues as well, worth thinking about.

Allies had several competing interests at that juncture
1. Europe Continent
2. Reinforce the Soviets
3. Pipeline vs. air support
4. Keeping ships safe or deliberately trying to draw an airstrike
5. Offense to defense ratios

Germans had a complex array of options as well, although easier for me to handle because they were two armies operating mostly independently and I’m not to good at handling multinational forces yet, although my Allied play is improving, thanks to your help.

Anyhow was fascinating, even if quite precarious and tricky to play well for Germany.  May actually be less viable if allies don’t try and build a superfleet.  Lots of possible iterations to explore.  Does open up an interesting midgame if  it gets that far.  I think its worth a deeper look.  Will refine it some more.  Think I have the basic battle plan worked out, at least.

Thanks for all the insight

Ran Superfleet again for a few rounds.

Axis had a good start on the German side, Battleship lived, one submarine lived.   EE built up as much as is safe to do so.
Ukraine taken. Libya consolidated.  Allies lost both bombers going after the battleship.  Trans jordan sent to reinforce asian front.  Africa attack is dicey, the battleship makes a tough choice, especially with three other boats to clear.
** clearing the BB may not be necessary in games where it survives, but Africa can easily go sideways.
Round 1 German bomber usage is optional in RR,  it can target whatever it wants (including escorting the battlehip attack if you want to increase the odds that the German BB lives).  
Took a chance on the sub, with diving thats 67% to clear it, no escape this time.

Japan had a harder time dealing with the new configuration on the mainland, lost a plane clearing the fighter situation in Sinkiang.  (3 planes: 1 plane, had to finish it).  Pretty spread out at the end of it.   Transport ignored, creating problems in R2, not sure if the Japanese have an effective counter to the transport that can be applied.

IndoChinaBurma taken by one brit, Sinkiang defender replaced.  Russian troop stack looking stronger with more units around it.  It will eventually be forced to disperse to cover the outskirts of Moscow, even if troops are out of position to challenge it directly.   Some Soviet tanks kept in range of both fronts, safe to do so at this time.   A little bit has to be diverted south, but not enough to matter.   Situation is a lot different when they just have to reach the Moscow border instead of posting a credible force there.  Soviets will either have to be posting infantry or they will be mobilizing more expensive units in short order.

Without the TJ reinforcement and a strong opening roll, the Egyptian force is crushed.  Africa is a mop up at this point.  Two tanks and two infantry vs 1 infantry.   Axis now have a tank that can roll north to greater Asian region and still plenty to take a lot of points quickly in Africa.

Allies stay with plan and go for the superfleet, just to see how it works out without Africa contested much.  They are locked into a R2 power play because Britain has already passed their buy.

Japanese are still able to break through down the Mongolian path, despite getting weakened.  The allied fleet isn’t going to be dropping troops anywhere fast enough, even if ignored.   WE is accessable but not even close to fortifiable given the allied ground troop shortage.   By the time its worth thinking about, direct reinforcements from england to karalia are looking good, even if it involves a fleet split.

When the Japanese break through the first time, they can be repelled, probably  Brits lose a fighter clearing a zone.

** Another strategic twist
if British airpower gets destroyed or even diminished much, another option becomes available for the Axis that has to be taken into consideration by the Allies.

An airstrike after the Russian turn can clear a buffer zone allowing a tank to blitz Moscow with Japanese air support.  If this happens, not only is Karalia under more stress, the Soviets absolutely have to place a fairly decent number of security forces in Moscow or bet the game on a marginal placement, changing dynamics further.  If the Soviets over commit to the eastern front, 7-8 aircraft can punch a pretty big hole or two, even flying over 2 AA guns.

Problems can quickly multiply for the Allies if they wait to build the fleet, particularly with a strong German Round 1.
Pretty sure that the Allies simply aren’t fast enough using this method.  Western Europe doesn’t need many troops.  Even if the allies skip the superfleet they are going to have to get a strong threat in play very early or find a way to decisively hold asia.

The Japanese transport is in striking range of the West Coast USA on round 3, further slowing allied deployments.

Allies will eventually be able to get their pipeline rolling strong, but its very likely going to be too little too late.  At least with Superfleet and a good axis opening round at sea.   I don’t think they will be able to effectively be able to ignore Africa.    Soviets still can’t crush the EE position even with some relatively aggressive buffer zone trades.  With air support the Axis have a lock on winning the exchange rate there.

Round 3 I bought infantry with Germany, Just in case.  Should have gone with a mixed buy, can afford some tanks in that mix I think.   Allies just can’t bring much to bear that early using superfleet, at least not at any target that matters.

Situation may be different if the Allies can keep a bomber in the air, but all of the uses you suggested for them are pretty high risk, so they are going to die fairly frequently without strategic modifications.  Fighters have better chances depending on what they have to clear.

Asia is a bit thinner, but I don’t see the Soviets having much of a shot at that and the Eastern front at the same time.

Japan seazone is out of reach unless the allies can conserve a bomber and get it safely to the area.  This can be done but at the expense of other high value targets.  The carrier and transports probably can hold it off anyhow, although it will limit Japanese mobility for a bit.

Its not so much a question of misplayed allies in superfleet vs. luftwaffe, its a lack of timely options and logistical difficulties for the Soviets.  The Soviets have to allocate resources or get really lucky to be able to compete on both fronts.  Worst case, short of a total disaster, the Japanese can give up ground in Southern Asia and still present enough force to breakthrough somewhere.   Even more so if the Germans can hit a weakened Africa.  If Africa collapses against two tanks, German IPCs jump fast.  Both Axis powers running strong IPCs  is a problem for the allies no matter how you slice it.  The soviet IPC surplus doesn’t last very long in the face of that.  They just have too many points to defend.

Some Allied relief arrives in R3 (small american contingent).  Brits can split fleet and add a few more, but that opens options for the Germans as well.  Depending on what it takes to clear the gap, the soviet defense force can be diminished by the luftwaffe.   Fighters are still scarce for the allies, even without casualties.  At most, there are six to cover the fleet, Karalia and Moscow, and this is in pure defense with no risks taken.  Something is probably going to be weaker than it needs to be when all is said and done.

Granted this was with a fast start, but Africa is going to be tough to hold for the Brits without the TJ infantry, even then its not a great proposition for the Allies.  If the bomber tries to go into Libya its not going to be alive for long.

Pretty sure Axis will win the game being played,  by round 4 they are closing in on an economic victory (which will likely translate to military victory) and the Allies are still trying to get rolling.  I don’t think I’ve made any serious Allied mistakes at this juncture, although the first round definitely had an impact.

Currently I’m inclined to think that the Axis versatility and speed is enough to give them a reasonable shot at winning a decent percentage of games, but that may turn out to be way off base.  Haven’t ruled out a successful Allied superfleet/Norway strategy yet, just seeing some of the downsides at the moment.  Also very aware that you are seeing the upsides of this approach and you are obviously a solid player that has a lot of experience with allied strategy.

Allies may be able to bring a big hammer if they play it right or get some good breaks, but I think they have more bases to cover than is easily accomplished.  They may or may not be able to win without getting a better grip on Africa. Might be as simple as taking a more defense oriented stance with the Soviets, although this has some drawbacks as well.

Other potential allied counters (if superfleet doesn’t hold up):
Brittain could set up to get troops into Karalia directly and have US do the fleet security work initially (variant). Another possible adjustment, if the required allied supply chain can’t be worked out is to have Brittain counter by building aircraft of their own to bolster the Soviets and/or set up an Asian counter-offensive, then move to a fleet strategy.  Slower might work.   Allies may be able to capitalize on the reluctance of the Germans to put their airforce in harms before it can be used in a decisive attack.   A two fleet strategy may work as well, despite potential fleet protection issues.  The Germans in EE will have a hard time covering both the Eastern front and Atlantic, due to range limitations and fighters are still out of replacement range if they get attritioned.   All of these are very different games, so I’m going to run a few more on this strat and see if I can improve the allied position decisively before I look at those.

RE: MONGOLIA
Ya, 3 IPC for neutral territory.  Japan can give up an infantry for the path from Mongolia in most cases.  Its one more route for the Allies to defend if they dont go all in on Asia and ignore the Pacific.  Depending on how asia plays out, it may be the best route as it allows consolidation from Soviet Lands, Chinese Lands and Manchuria.  There are games where they need the buffer, I don’t think most of these are going that direction.

“On entrapping terrain move quickly” – Sun Tzu

Its a speed based strategy.  Speed and position as opposed to a dig in and fight. This is required due to the emphasis on air power.  Everything else that happens is a result of that choice.

The entire idea of the 2 fighter strategy is to disrupt the Allied war machine before it can get up to speed.  You already know that the Axis will lose a build up and slug it out type game.  Pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Methodical play kills the Axis more often than not.  Karalia opening strike isn’t viable.  Defense isn’t ultimately viable (especially in no bid).  They have to capitalize on their early advantages before the Allies can get into position.   I’ve played a couple hundred games,  so I’m not a complete novice.

Your adjusting the strat as you realize that hitting the Libya force is too costly.  Allies can’t afford to lose Africa, at least not that early.  The Axis may or may not be able to.  Will see when that happens.

Allies could have recovered 2-3 IPCs by the time the game was decided/forced to long game, probably decided, had they moved on Africa.

If I followed that you have
Kenya 1 inf from SA
Egypt 1 inf
Syria  1 inf/1Bmb/1tank
Nice trap positioning and a better play than any you’ve previously suggested.  Possibly an optimal play for that situation…  Makes Africa far riskier on the roughly 75% of the times that the bomber survives the transport run.  If it lives I might just retake the FEQ and possibly sending one tank to West Africa as well, inviting an allied landing. Then you have to  split your forces, make a low value attack, withdraw to Asia or consolidate and make a stand.  I have more options from the FEQ position.  If I felt I could afford to, I’d consider diverting a fighter to reinforce the Arena.  Depending on the outcome of Asia, round 2 might bring me an opportunity and incentive to soften you up from Burma, although I probably wouldn’t exercise that option.   Very situational.   Most likely it would buy you some time.

I agree the battleship shouldn’t be the highest priority. The threat of the Battleship is actually fairly low.  However was working from statements you gave previously, where you stated you would hit it with both bombers, although may have missed a point of context.   Also was before the decision to wait for a R2 fleet was made, which does make a difference.

Another advantage of the bomber position:
It also means that I have to take the AC to Burma if I plan on sending any transports to that front.   If you send the US bomber west it means I am confined to the sea of Japan on my next turn.  Probably going to be their anyhow,  Fighters can be rotated in most cases.  I have to be a bit more cautious with my planes, but they are pretty much used to swing favorable battles already.

Regarding IPC/Positional trades/Impact values

Just hitting China and Pearl leaves the Sinkiang fighter.   Pearl is a minor target, just need to cripple the fleet.  But you have to make sure it goes down hard enough to make Japan safe, Atlantic considerations aside.

Could use more force and get a higher chance at a decisive win, but its pretty decisive as is, doesn’t pull my aircraft out of position and gives me a strong opportunity get dominance in Asia early, rather than risk being bogged down (which costs more IPCs over the run, especially if they aren’t being traded, making it a full swing).

Going heavier on pearl opens up the possibility of a complete fleet loss to a counterstrike and more importantly 2-3 vital aircraft at risk and severely out of tactical position.  I don’t see the advantages.  The AC has more practical utility than the BB for a country with a lot of starting fighters.

Getting trapped in Asia is death for Japan, sooner or later.

Simply put, the road to Moscow is a  higher value target than Pearl, by a great degree.  The Japanese Battleships are expensive but not particularly valuable.  They will probably never need to be replaced.   I take three targets out of the possible six with high force ratios.   Sinkiang is a retreat if necessary, but the goal is to trade 1-2 infantry for the 2 infantry and a fighter (+12 to 15 IPC) where it counts.

If I choose to ignore Sinkiang for a round I’ve just set up either a massive roadblock which will be more expensive to take down later, or I’ve provided the allies with vital reinforcements.  Clearing out the defense in that zone also eliminates any chance for the US to put a heavily fortified factory into play between Japan and Russia in an attempt to buy time to develop the European theater.  Since the strategy involves a higher ratio of armor than normal, I can’t afford to get invoved in that situation.  Better to take it off the table immediately.

There is an initial IPC trade in Asia, but the Axis have to reduce pressure on Europe, especially with the fragile opening buy.   The extra two infantry that die are easily made up for by the territorial gain.

The answer to the will I be in a stronger position next turn if I hold off, is also similar.  Pretty much a game of delays favor the Allies, unless the Axis can get a very strong economic and positional advantage.  Given the starting buy that Germany makes, its even more important than usual.   The strategy hinges on selective aggression, positioning, flexibility and speed.    Where in other games Japan might try and march waves of infantry, they don’t have the luxury or the time to do so.

As far as biasing the results to get the results I want, I disagree I’m exploring options and their impacts.  I’ve played the axis a lot more than the allies over the years, and more recently, so I have a better handle on their moves.  I was thinking that Syria was out of reach of the British bomber until I recounted through Algeria after reading your post, was thinking it had to land in FEQ/Algeria so I didn’t take a deep look at the landing options.  Also one of the main reasons I elected to stack in Libya instead of moving out immediately.   Just overlooked it.   In most of the games I’ve played using other strategies the Germans have a fighter in Africa and Egypt was a primary target.

Actually, I don’t really care what the outcome is.  Its the sort of opening buy that immediately comes off as a rookie move, and something I decided a long time ago wouldn’t work.  Just looking at it with new eyes as it provides some tactical options for the Germans that wouldn’t normally be available, and I’m seeing some of the strengths and trying to determine if they outweigh the weaknesses.  Its also interesting because of the number of variants that can emerge.

What I am seeing is that the Allies can’t take Berlin until turn 5 at the earliest, at least not without taking excessive chances. Turn 6 is probably more likely.   I’m seeing an opportunity for the Axis to secure Russia earlier and possibly secure Europe with a quick return trip.   If the axis can’t take Russia then that’s how it works out.  It either can be done at a high enough success rate or it can’t.  Actually I think it can be shut down one way or another, but until I’m certain of how and why, I’m going to continue to examine the situation.

I do like the Africa Bomber to Syria play.  It limits Germany to just 1 or 2 extra IPCs, positions the bomber and knocks out the transport as well as setting up a strong counter attack at all points.   Good triple threat.  As far as the transport its as likely to use the black sea route as it is to use Africa.  Germany starts very thin on the Eastern front, not sure that it can justify sending two infantry during the second round, or even the third.  Still a high priority threat.

Started another one.  Japan off to a bad start on the Mainland.

The Bombing run went well for the Allies and they are in the position you suggested.  Germany now has to get aggressive in Africa if the Axis are to have any chance.  Elects to tie commit a fighter from EE.  I’d probably only go this route if Germany had the luxury of parity, limited coastal threats, and needed to tie up the bomber.

Africa Front:
Fighter + 1 inf + 1 tank.  vs 1 inf in Egypt
1 infantry to the FEQ (since allies didn’t take it, it works as a landing strip)
Tank Rolls to the Belgian congo.  Germany now has 6 IPCs in Africa and the allies have some choices to make.
Had Asia gone differently I would have stuck with the original plan and consilidated in the FEQ.  The allies will probably win Africa, but they don’t have it in the bag yet.

They can either take 50/50 in egypt and take a high % shot at the tank in BC.  If it works they have a good chance of winning Africa for at least the short term.  Alternately they could kill Egypt with high probability and hold the bottleneck with the Infantry.

If the bomber leaves the theater, they only have an effective option at Egypt and its got a fairly high cost if things go wrong.  Similarly, the Axis can only counter attack with the fighter in Egypt if they want to exit the fighter in R2.  They also have the option of sending one in and exiting one to get a momentary 2 fighter strike on Egypt if needed, but thats going to make them leaner in the Eastern front in R3.

In Asia
Pearl harbor crushed without casualties. 
Sinkiang taken with one standing.
China was a disaster (10% chance), with the Japanese losing all of their infantry, killing the defense but not being able to take the territory as it came down to infantry of fighter.  Going to be a tough round.  Forgot to hunt the transport in Australia (might or might not have anyhow), so the allies will be able to reinforce.  Since Manchuria was destroyed all available troops/air landed in Indo China.  AC, 2 ftrs and all transports now parked off the coast.

The situation in Asia is a serious monkey wrench in the Axis plans.  Soviets have one or two tanks in Moscow and all of their standard placements.  The Brits have a bomber in Syria.  FIC and the surrounding sea have every available Japanese asset except the infantry in Sinkiang.

Allies have a major edge at this point and a lot of options.

SUPERFLEET vs. LUFTWAFFE III

Played into early round seven.

Japan is able to regain the Asian mainland, relatively easily, despite the China disaster.   The allies don’t really have effective direct countermeasures available that can actually stop the offensive at this point.  The need for additional supporting troops on the mainland delays the movement of the Japanese coastal raider as well, so the US machine doesn’t suffer a significant interruption.

The Japanese are however delayed by a full turn and weaker than usual when they are in position.  Their force and numbers are sufficient to regain the advantage, but it takes longer and costs more.   They marginally obtain three borders on Moscow, but there are enough forces nearby to deal with them, plug the gaps and still hold the capital easily. The Japanese may have done better if they’d abandoned Southern Asia and reinforce Manchuria, but that probably would have been shut down fairly easily and would have cost a lot of IPCs.  Might be possible, didn’t try it.

Even with a smooth running pipeline, the Allies aren’t able to position a high odds attack setup in the early game, but have been able to maintain sufficient defenses.  However, time is on the allies side and they are able to get sufficient forces into Moscow, while preserving Karalia before the Japanese/German airstrike can be attempted.  Had that tank lane been opened successfully the Axis were still at a maximum of 10% of successfully executing a R5 strike against Moscow.

By Turn six the Allies could have considered an offensive in EE for the first time.  A viable continental assault would also be an option in round 5, although not the best choice.  Berlin is relatively thin, but a low odds attack isn’t necessary at this juncture.  Within a couple of turns it will be a certainty for a decisive win on the Eastern front.   Since they have time and a high chance of throwing the game away if the attack is blown, the line maintains defensive advantage and a counter-offensive is begun against Japan.  By the end of the round, its clear that the Japanese earlier fighting and fairly high armor ratios are now working against them.  They will be driven back in short order if the Allies want to continue to press.

Africa is basically a split decision for most of the game.  Could have gone either way, ended up with a German infantry standing.   Allies can reinforce first and lock it up.  Pearl Harbor went to the Japanese and they were able to stop the US fleet although it defended well and took out the sub and a battleship.  Asia is never secured strongle enough to consider a factory based offensive as they don’t have the ground troops or position to dig in deeply enough.

The axis have a few more turns, but the writing is on the wall.  Their best chance would probably to have been to throw a longshot attack on round 3 with the Germans either at the superfleet, finland or more likely Karalia.   A low percentage proposition which would probably have lead to a quicker allied victory.

SUMMARY
Japanese have to be in position for a round 4 attack to win the race against the Allies.  The Axis may not have an effective contingency plan if the first round Japanese assault on Asia goes poorly.   The Australian transport may have been decisive in that instance, but the decision to pursue it has to be made before the Japanese execute their attacks.  Axis peaked at 76 IPCs as they were not able to secure Africa completely. Eastern Europe is a standoff situation, neither side can gain advantage early unless the Soviets are forced to defend Russia or either side tries to strafe.  If the Allies can prevent the Japanese from positioning or establishing a blitz situation or holding a border point, the Allies will win.

Thanks, interesting variants and some maybe better, will take a look at that, in practice.  Next post has comments about the specific suggestions.

Basically what I’ve been trying to determine, is if its a gambit or a viable strategy.   I’m inclined to think its viable in the sense that it gives the Axis a decent shot at winning.   If it can be easily shut down  consistently or the requisite require above average luck,  then its just a gambit.  I’m not sure yet that it can.  Both sides probably need tuning, will definitely look at your suggestions for modification.   Hopefully its at least a strategy… I’ve practically written a book on it so far :)

Whether it ultimately is a winning strategy or not, I’m not sure.  Definitely a lot of variants and interesting dynamics going on and deeper than it looks at first glance. Probably could get very dangerous with a bid involved, whether it works without one, is maybe.   Regardless, more interesting than turtling.

HIT AND RUN ON MOSCOW
_[A short hit on Moscow is not an automatic game winner, but it can be very helpful and a good trade.[/i]

I just wrapped up a 12 turn game that played out that way.   Soviet forces had to conced Karalia and everything it anchors.   The round 4 air attack was combined with a strafe on Karalia, further weakening the allied position… well I remember considering it at any rate, might have waited until the Soviets moved to retake Russia.   Between Karalia and Moscow, most of the allied planes went down in flames.

Russia went with infantry from the start, as I was now aware that they had no real chance of doing more than maintaining defensive parity on the Eastern front.  This resulted in them having a few more pieces available to protect Moscow.

Germany had a tough fight ahead of it, without the airpower.  Japan had a couple of aircraft left.  The bulk of the allied airforce went down with Moscow.   Japan took with what was available and tried to set up a secondary attack.

Japan used the war spoils from its Russian hit to place two factories, one in Manchuria and one in FIC.  Prefere FIC and India but didn’t work in that game.  Factories produced armor and the ships kept bringing infantry across.   Germany was weakened and had to fend for itself.

After Moscow fell it was anybody’s game.  Allies ended up winning, but it wasn’t even close to a sure thing.
US hit western Europe as they couldn’t get Karalia yet.   Germany had to choose between driving back the invasion and turtling or turning up the heat on Asia.   They didn’t have quite enough to close the deal for the Japanese so went into homeland defense mode.  If I remember correctly they did strafe the Soviet stack at Moscow, to make it easier for Japans follow up.   They countered the invasion with mainland forces and started drawing down trying to hold both positions.

Allies were able to get a grip on Karalia.  Japanese made a couple of runs at Russia but weren’t able to secure it.  
Eventually Karalia/Moscow was reasonably secured (took a while and was in question quite a few times), and the Allies eventually got through on the weak side and were able to secure Western Europe.  The factory came online and Germany went down about the same time Japan finally broke through in Russia.

Was quite interesting, and after the factory build, had no idea which side would win.  I’m certain it could have gone either way._