More troops in Egypt?

Evening your Highness. Good poll.
I think one more Inf is needed.

I don’t mind so much that Germany can reliably take Egypt G1 – with no ‘intermediate’ territories between Libya and Egypt, and with no sensible way for Germany to get to West Africa or Sudan or Ethiopia without going through Egypt, it’d be kind of boring if Germany couldn’t take Egypt – that would mean that Germany never sees any play in Africa.

On the other hand, I think it’s a problem that once Germany does take Egypt, Africa is doomed unless Britain builds an IC in South Africa (a weak play, in my opinion) or the USA sends massive reinforcements. I would like to see Britain have realistic chances of fighting back after losing Egypt, even without US help. If it were up to me, I’d leave Egypt weak, and add 1 inf, 1 art to British Italian East Africa, and add 1 tnk (for a total of 1 inf, 1 tnk) to South Africa. That way Britain can still generate some counterplay even if Germany does take Egypt, and it matters which direction(s) Germany goes south from Egypt.

EDIT 6/3/15: I changed my mind. I’d add 1 inf to British East Africa, and 1 art (for a total of 1 inf, 1 art) to South Africa. That way if Germany stacks in Libya on G1, Britain has at least two good options: option 1, he can pre-emptively retreat to Sudan and linking up with the Ethiopian infantry (which boosts the British stack to 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, making it difficult but not impossible for Germany to win), or option 2, he can hold in Egypt, hoping to wear down the Germans to about 2 tanks, and then try to counter-attack the tanks with a 2 inf, 1 art stack starting in Rhodesia, possibly with fighter support, on B3 or B4.

I disagree with the initial premise that Germany can take Egypt reliably. If Russia sends no fighter to support Egypt and Germany brings all available units (2 infantry, 2 tanks and the bomber) the odds are 70% to the attacker with an average of about 1.5 units remaining. This means unless you are willing to sacrifice the bomber to keep a tank alive, there is a significant chance that the British will fight you to a draw.

But worse than this, should the battle succede, if you put your battleship in sz 17 on G1, the UK can attack it with the bomber and the sz 35 fighter, with above 60% odds. Should you fail to take Egypt and close the canal, the battleship is toast for sure.

A single additional british infantry unit drops the German odds on Egypt from 70% to around 45% with only .85 units remaining on average, less than a 50/50 shot which means effectively the Egypt opener is off the table for a competent German player.

The odds here are so narrow that an extra inf unit means Britain can lock G out of Africa, leaving canal control entirely up to Japan. Just something to think on
:-D

Egypt is one of the interesting starting territories.

Without any additional allied units in Egypt, it’s questionable whether attacking egypt is actually a positive exchange for Germany. Germany takes on a high volatility profitable trade (on average) in Egypt at the cost of exposing the battleship and transport to UK air R1. The main benefit of taking Egypt is that Egypt is the path towards other africa income. Losing the germany med transport completely stalls this option.

On the net, Germany attacking Egpt destroys UK units in Egypt in return of losing Germany Africa land units and risking germany med fleet.

Any additional unit to Egypt makes attacking Egypt completely unattractive. Allies should do this if the egypt units are important to the strategy, or wants to play a conservative/uninteresting* game.

*By uninteresting game, I mean a game where both players avoid battles with risky outcomes. The usual result is that both sides accumulate units instead of engaging in battles.

All right, I stand corrected. I thought there was a fighter somewhere in Europe that could reach Egypt, but turns out none of the 6 German fighters can reach Egypt on G1. That means only 70% odds, which I agree is well short of “reliable.” It’s a gambit.

I still think the G2 attack on Egypt is reliable, because if you use G1 to ferry troops and one fighter to Libya and bring in the Algerian ground forces, then Germans have 3 inf, 1 art, 2 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 bmbr (8 HP, 19 pips) vs. a British maximum of 2 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 ftr, 1 bmbr (6 HP, 14 pips). My calculator shows 92% odds for Germans. If you don’t want to bring a fighter to Libya, Germans still have odds of 77%.

And whatever the odds are, I still don’t like that the British have no reasonable counter-play in Africa once they lose Egypt. What do you all think of putting extra British troops in Ethiopia and South Africa?

Good call Marine Iguana. That’s how I see it for sure.

Also to the G2 thing, remember that the flying Tiger can reach Egypt on USA1 before Germany. Its also possible to have both Russian yaks there (although that would be a rather poor use of the Soviet fighters.) If UK is willing to pull troops out of India you could also have another 2 ground in place.

In my experience it’s usually the J2 pressure rather than G2 pressure that persuades the British to pull out. But by that time however, USA can have a drop on sz 23 and start pushing towards Sudan out of F.E.A. So I think its hard to get in position on sub Sahara Africa with G, even if you nab the canal early. With the Libya push, I usually see people gun for Trans Jordan/Persia or threatening India/Caucasus or Madagascar on amphibious. Pulling put of the med to hide in the Indian Ocean with the IJN.
:-)

I tend to agree though, a boost in SA would be more interesting than a direct boost to Egypt. At least then Axis would still have a swing shot.

I seem to have reached some beginner’s conclusions on Egypt, so I’ll post them and find out whether I am on the right track.

In my limited experience even with the OOB starting set up a G1 capture of Egypt is unlikely. But a G2 capture is probable with a G Med purchase - such as carrier + 2 fighters (an idea I got from an earlier thread on this board from wittman).

Unless, that is, there is a UK1 investment in an Egyptian factory, plus probably the UK Indian Ocean fleet sailing up the Suez Canal, which means forgetting the raid on sz37. If the UK can build and defend that factory, the Allied position in the centre gains considerably. African ipcs are retained. It’s potentially a game changing ploy if it can be made to work.

I have managed to do this against triple a on hard AI without additional infantry. I have yet to play 42.2 as the Allies against a human (I said I was a beginner!) and expect the number of infantry to depend on the opponent. Playing another beginner I might even be happy with no additional infantry. Against wittman in my next forum game I’ll probably need a round dozen!

I voted for one infantry so as to put my money where my mouth is!

I like at least one there to completely deter a German player from taking a chance at it; it allows the UK fighter to be used else where immediately and potentially survive for later rounds. However, I’ve been starting to see some others make the point that 1 inf could change a lot in that region and that is somewhat of a shame. For a bid I’d favor Russian units or maybe even a DD for E.US. I just don’t want to loose that many Atlantic units from the outset. I still want to see the Allies win without a bid; I’m working on getting my group to lower our bid for the Allies, but let me not get too distracted from the original post or questions. How about 1 inf in East Africa? I know action occurred there in the earlier in the war around 1941, so it’s worth a thought.

@Private Panic, I was back pedaling against the hard AI on triple a at first, but eventually I made it pay for its weaknesses, which I feel are the Manchuria complex it likes to build on J1 and the fact that disregards any US take over of the cash islands. I’ll give it some credit since it likes to go after Moscow quickly and makes decent use of good tactics–choosing smart calculated battles and fair position of units/stacks.

To Frederick, I think a transport sacrifice could be interesting, if you’re willing to bring air into a fight instead of the battleship. It can draw off an enemy attack on the more valuable sea unit as the opponent usually calculates that its worth while to send a fighter or bomber against the easy target that presents no risk. This can be done in the med on the canal if you want to get risky in combat. I’d say 2 fighters would make it a safe play, if the Ukraine fighter survives to back up the Bulgarian one, but otherwise it’s kind of dicey sending a loaded transport and pining all your hopes on a 50/50 hit at a 3. Other places you can do a sacrifice move would be sz 14 gibraltar or sz 16 Russia, use fighters to cover the sz battle, and just keep the battleship in 15. The difficulty there is that with no transport capacity the battleship just sits around and can’t exploit the bombardment advantage, so I’d think 7 ipcs spent on G1 for another transport might keep the fight going. Or I suppose just give the battleship 1 round to float about as a distraction, and decide what to do with it on G2.

I took a long look at this.  We’ve played two games with 1942.2 so far.  I’ve been the Allies both times.  As the Brits, I’d certainly love to have more units in Africa at the start.  However, I voted for ‘as-is’ because I like the challenge.  I have to make a choice:  Use my Indian Ocean fleet to bring support from India (which means the token American/Russian force is much easier pickens) or do I try to build an IC in South Africa?  Even at only 2 units per turn, it could be enough to turn the tide and kick the Germans out, without pulling troops from India and that A.O.

Of course an IC in South Africa is going to cost initially, and at the expense of other interests.  But then, like I said, I like the challenge.
:-)

Does anyone try this bid instead of changing the opening battle?

Put a UK Industrial Complex on Union of South Africa at the start.

@Baron:

Does anyone try this bid instead of changing the opening battle?

Put a UK Industrial Complex on Union of South Africa at the start.

That’s a interesting one - think I’ll try it!

@Baron:

Does anyone try this bid instead of changing the opening battle?

Put a UK Industrial Complex on Union of South Africa at the start.

IDK, my concern is that the ability for troops to be placed in South Africa on GB1 would really neuter the Germans too much in having the opportunity to fight for Africa.  Being able to place troops there on GB1, along with America being able to land some troops on the west coast, along with possible troops from India (with only a temporary sacrifice against fighting the Japanese in southeast Asia) may be a little too much.  I could be wrong, but that’s my initial impression.

Making GB buy an IC on GB1 is safe enough for South Africa as neither Germany or Japan is in a position to get to it before GB2.  And thinking about it, even though the Russians could use the American fighter from China sitting in Moscow (or GB having it sit in India), a third (temporary) option would be making it all the way down to South Africa by A2 (I believe it will make it there by A2) for defense of the IC as well as for use with American troops on the west coast of Afica (assuming they’ve put some there).

@SEP:

@Baron:

Does anyone try this bid instead of changing the opening battle?

Put a UK Industrial Complex on Union of South Africa at the start.

IDK, my concern is that the ability for troops to be placed in South Africa on GB1 would really neuter the Germans too much in having the opportunity to fight for Africa.  Being able to place troops there on GB1, along with America being able to land some troops on the west coast, along with possible troops from India (with only a temporary sacrifice against fighting the Japanese in southeast Asia) may be a little too much.  I could be wrong, but that’s my initial impression.

Making GB buy an IC on GB1 is safe enough for South Africa as neither Germany or Japan is in a position to get to it before GB2.  And thinking about it, even though the Russians could use the American fighter from China sitting in Moscow (or GB having it sit in India), a third (temporary) option would be making it all the way down to South Africa by A2 (I believe it will make it there by A2) for defense of the IC as well as for use with American troops on the west coast of Afica (assuming they’ve put some there).

Probably true.

How about the Bid for Russia?  1 Bomber…  It does attack and allow for an additional replay in Egypt…

Not my idea.  Black Elk mentioned it as a valid startup.