It seems this blueprint assumes that Germany hit sz110 instead of sz109. If instead they hit and cleared 109, 106, and 111 and thus UK has no Destroyers in the Atlantic, do you have contingencies on what to do with the UK air that can no longer attack subs? Or do they just move to the landing spots you mention as a non-combat move? Also, if Gemany didn’t hit sz110, the UK has an extra BB and Cruiser to play around with. What would they do?
Or is this a “assume Germany cleared sz110, 111, and 112” blueprint?
Good point. It’s my standard open to hit SZ 106, SZ 109, SZ 111 and SZ 112 on Germany 1, precisely to prevent England from attacking my submarines and to force them to suffer the maximum amount of convoy damage as possible. (Yes, that meant in one or two games I lost a tactical bomber instead of a submarine, just so I could force there to be 2 submarines left in SZ 109.)
Also, what if you bomb the naval base in Gibraltar? (this assumes Sea Lion and you winning - as you should). Don’t actually TAKE it, but bomb it so it cannot be repaired. Serious damage to the American war-effort, they cannot reach SZ 112 from Gibraltar, but you can reach Gibraltar from SZ 112!! Problem is that now the Italians are stuck.
Guys,
IMHO the Italian player on I-1 should make a high priority the taking of Gibraltar
on I-1. This would seem to counter your proposed UK movement to Gilbratar. If the UK moves a large portion of the fleet to the Med. it usually helps the German player.
–-------------------------
And IMHO the German player on G-1 should ALWAYS take out the 2 UK Transports and 3 Destroyers located:
SZ 106 (1-DD and 1-AP), SZ 109 (1-DD and 1-AP), and SZ 110 (1-DD and 1-BB).
Please understand that I don’t think MY IDEAS are original, or the only way to play. In Axis & Allies, just as in real life, there are counters to every move.
I love this game because of the constant move/countermove strategies envolved.
I think A&A.ORG, and this particular thread about “blueprinting” your moves are excellent places to interact with others and learn their viewpoints.
What do ya’ll think of these “Priorities” for the G-1 and I-1 moves?
“Tall Paul”
Well, I agree in so much the destroyers. Gibraltar is a different matter, to me, and it depends on which German strategy you are going with: England or Russia. IF you are going England then the odds are VERY favorable that you will win putting the issue of Gibraltar in doubt. Do you want it so you can get the fleet from Italy out? Would you rather just build ground units to take over attacking Russia with and keep the Germans forcused on fleet (remember, it does not matter who controls a lot of these territories for Germany to get the NOs still). If you dont mind keeping the Italians in the Med, then Gibraltar becomes a liability and you are better off bombing the naval base after London falls so it cannot ever be used by the allies (even if they liberate London it’s probably 2 turns before they can work on repairing the naval base.)
If you are going after Russia, primarily, then Gibraltar is a must have, as England can keep repairing the naval base there indefinitely negating the whole reason for attacking the naval base and not taking Gibraltar.
I did have my first win with Italy the other day, Italians took Moscow and Germany was pretty much all fighters and fleet to keep the Americans at bay.
Grasshopper,
Not to bang on about this, but who is going to be taking the IC? I understand what you are saying about the no income meaning no reinforcments and I had mentioned that for this plan to work I would build the factory there on UK1. Im not trying to save London but rather accepting that London’s loss is inevitable and assuring my ability to resist on other fronts, and secure my income so that when London is liberated I will have my full economy to use. Im wondering what you see the Euro-axis doing to take Egypt in the face of 2 new fronts opening up against them when London falls.
Grasshopper,
Not to bang on about this, but who is going to be taking the IC? I understand what you are saying about the no income meaning no reinforcments and I had mentioned that for this plan to work I would build the factory there on UK1. Im not trying to save London but rather accepting that London’s loss is inevitable and assuring my ability to resist on other fronts, and secure my income so that when London is liberated I will have my full economy to use. Im wondering what you see the Euro-axis doing to take Egypt in the face of 2 new fronts opening up against them when London falls.
If you are accepting the loss of London, then I don’t think you should be buying industrial complexes. When I go surrender London, I focus on inflicting as many casualties as possible, so long as I end up with 1 or 2 carriers in range of British fighters but out of range of German ones so I can evac at the last minute and sail away.
@Tall:
Guys,
IMHO the Italian player on I-1 should make a high priority the taking of Gibraltar
on I-1. This would seem to counter your proposed UK movement to Gilbratar. If the UK moves a large portion of the fleet to the Med. it usually helps the German player.–-------------------------
And IMHO the German player on G-1 should ALWAYS take out the 2 UK Transports and 3 Destroyers located:
SZ 106 (1-DD and 1-AP), SZ 109 (1-DD and 1-AP), and SZ 110 (1-DD and 1-BB).
Please understand that I don’t think MY IDEAS are original, or the only way to play. In Axis & Allies, just as in real life, there are counters to every move.
I love this game because of the constant move/countermove strategies envolved.
I think A&A.ORG, and this particular thread about “blueprinting” your moves are excellent places to interact with others and learn their viewpoints.
What do ya’ll think of these “Priorities” for the G-1 and I-1 moves?
“Tall Paul”
There is no destroyer in #110, its a battleship and a cruiser.
Grasshopper,
Not to bang on about this, but who is going to be taking the IC? I understand what you are saying about the no income meaning no reinforcments and I had mentioned that for this plan to work I would build the factory there on UK1. Im not trying to save London but rather accepting that London’s loss is inevitable and assuring my ability to resist on other fronts, and secure my income so that when London is liberated I will have my full economy to use. Im wondering what you see the Euro-axis doing to take Egypt in the face of 2 new fronts opening up against them when London falls.
With the loss of London G-3, the Italians should be able to capture an IC in Egypt by I-5.
@Cmdr:
If you are accepting the loss of London, then I don’t think you should be buying industrial complexes…
Ok Jen, fair point, I could fore go buying the IC for egypt and just concentrate on reinforcing South Africa and possibly Canada.
@Young:
With the loss of London G-3, the Italians should be able to capture an IC in Egypt by I-5.
Well, to put it bluntly, with what? If I, as the UK, open with a Taranto attack in the Med. Theater, and then proceed to reinforce my fleet with the (assumed) Battleship and cruiser from sz110 and cruiser from sz91, how are the Italians going to reinforce themselves in Africa to take the factory in Egypt? They are near equal to the British in the initial set-up with only a few infantry more which is not enough to give them a clear edge. This also seems to ignore that for atleast 1 turn I could place, say, 3 tanks in Egypt on UK2, giving me a clear advantage over the Italians. By the time UK3 rolled around the fighters I had flee London would also be in position to further reinforce the UK position, and any forces I delpoy to South Africa would just be arriving in Egypt. Also, the US will be able to make combat moves on R3 further strenghting the Brits in the Med (though the US is likely to focuse on retaking London). So I am asking for you to explain to me how Italy is going to over come all this and still capture Egypt (because to me this would mean you have one hell of an Italian strategy).
Clyde, you’re trying to make a case for buying an IC for Egypt, not an impossible task, but not an easy one either. What I am saying is, as soon as you put an IC there, it will become a juicy rare steak in a dog pound. It has been said that the Torano battle favours Italy, that’s why in my blue print I force Italy to attack me. However, this discurion is point less if London falls, which will be a strong possibility if you divert $12+$ for future units in Affrica, that’s all I’m saying, and I’m done saying it. My suggestion would be to defend England with every tooth you have, and move the East India infantry towards Persia, if London is safe come turn 4, build an IC there. It is a much better location IMO, because it can protect Calutta with Europe money or, transport troops to Africa or sent them to protect Stalingrad. Again, this discussion like the Egypt one is trash if London falls.
Clyde,
If I receive Taranto then I am going to do Sea Lion, you won’t have the firepower to come close to stopping me, but it sounds like you are okay with that. What I’d do afterwards is focus on Infantry builds for Italy, get those units up and press them down to Greece. England’s not reinforcing the fleet, so it’s only a matter of time before you can overwhelm them with German submarines (SZ 105 can get to 92 in one round.)
That’s just me.
All valid points Grasshopper, and I agree with you, but I dont see Italy being able to over come the battlefleet the UK would have in the Med by the end of UK1(not to mention the French fleets there). It would be a juicy target, but I dont see how anyone could get to it, short of the Germans focusing on navy builds in the Med(assuming they have south France), but given that the Soviets AND the USA are in the war I dont think that would be a very wise decision on their part. Im just wondering why someone should focuse all their economy on trying to defend London in what seems like a lost cause? You said that once London falls that my IC in Egypt is done but how is Egypt in any better shape in your scenario where you dont send any extra forces there and London still falls? If we accept that London will fall, why bother trying to defend it with anymore then a token force? Wouldnt all those units lost in the inevitable fall of London be better spent on other fronts?
@Cmdr:
England’s not reinforcing the fleet, so it’s only a matter of time before you can overwhelm them with German submarines (SZ 105 can get to 92 in one round.)
Can subs pass through the straits of Gibraltar with out it being Axis owned? Are they not held to the smae rules as surface ships? I ask because I really dont know. Also, since you’re doing sealion the US is comming on turn 3, how would the subs get past the US fleet that would surely get placed in sz91? or are you planning on building them in sz93?
@Cmdr:
England’s not reinforcing the fleet, so it’s only a matter of time before you can overwhelm them with German submarines (SZ 105 can get to 92 in one round.)
Can subs pass through the straits of Gibraltar with out it being Axis owned? Are they not held to the smae rules as surface ships? I ask because I really dont know. Also, since you’re doing sealion the US is comming on turn 3, how would the subs get past the US fleet that would surely get placed in sz91? or are you planning on building them in sz93?
Yup. Gibraltar is a special case, explicitly written so that submarines can pass through even when surface ships cannot.
You know what Grasshopper I apologize, I realize this is its own topic and I really shouldnt be posting it here.
I didnt realize until I re-read through the thread that I was hijacking your thread and I didnt mean to do that.
Sorry mate, I’ll start my own thread on this topic
@Cmdr:
Yup. Gibraltar is a special case, explicitly written so that submarines can pass through even when surface ships cannot.
Thanks for clearing that up Jen
BTW, that’s a two edged sword! Watch out for American submarines too!
@Cmdr:
BTW, that’s a two edged sword! Watch out for American submarines too!
……what?? :? The US and Britian are allies, why would I, as the UK, need to worry about American subs?
@Cmdr:
BTW, that’s a two edged sword! Watch out for American submarines too!
……what?? :? The US and Britian are allies, why would I, as the UK, need to worry about American subs?
The Germans and Italians might need to hide behind the protection of Gibraltar just as England and America may one day need to do the same.
Destroyer in the Gib Straights negates the ability for enemy subs to cross undetected, no?
Destroyer in the Gib Straights negates the ability for enemy subs to cross undetected, no?
Well, the destroyer would force a fight, but it only takes 1 submarine (theoretically) to kill the destroyer and let 99 submarines pass through undedected.
@Cmdr:
The Germans and Italians might need to hide behind the protection of Gibraltar just as England and America may one day need to do the same.
This still dosnt make any sense to me, what are you trying to say here? I am picturing a US fleet sitting in sz91 creating a problem for the German subs to pass through undetected, please tell me how the above statment is related to this. :?
@Cmdr:
The Germans and Italians might need to hide behind the protection of Gibraltar just as England and America may one day need to do the same.
This still dosnt make any sense to me, what are you trying to say here? I am picturing a US fleet sitting in sz91 creating a problem for the German subs to pass through undetected, please tell me how the above statment is related to this. :?
Imagine 9 American submarines in SZ 91 and small Italian fleet in SZ 92. That’s one edge of the sword. The inverse (surface fleet in SZ 91, Italian submarines in SZ 92) is the other side of the sword.
