The British Fleet

Speaking for myself…

As Japan, I build an IC and 2 TRN, saving 1 (also, my bid placement would nto ahve been 2 INF to Ukraine, but 2 INF to Libya, so I would have 2 more units in Egypt, thus able to take 4 additional territories on G2 instead of 1.  I also do not concur with your uses of Germany Eastern forces, but I’ll skip that for now.)

Now, as Japan:
1 INF FIC to India (vacant, taken w/o loss)
1 INF Manch to Bury (vacant, taken w/o loss)

China (2 INF, 1 FIG):
1 INF Manch, 1 INF FIC, 3 INF Kwang to China
1 FIG Manch to China
1 FIG Japan to China
(China taken w/ 3 INF, 2 FIGs)

SZ38 (2 TRN, 1 AC, 2 FIG, 1 DST, 1 SUB):
1 BB, 1 AC, 2 FIG SZ37
1 FIG FIC
1 FIG Carolines AC
Result: MUTUAL DESTRUCTION

Pearl (1 AC, 1 FIG, 1 SUB)
1 BB SZ60
1 DST Carolines
1 AC Carolines
1 SUB Carolines
1 BOM Japan
(SZ52 cleared, 1 BB, 1 AC, 1 DST, 1 BOM surviving)

The above is using the no luck sim at Frood.

NCM: 
SZ59 TRN and SZ60 TRN to SZ61
Bridge 2 INF, 1 ART, 1 ARM to Manch
Land 2 FIG China in Manch
Land BOM from Pearl in Japan

Placement:
IC in Manch
2 TRN in SZ61

Japan has cleared the Pacific except for the WUS BB and TRN.
Germany is free to raid like crazy in Africa.
Russia is down a FIG
Japan is +6 IPC’s, for $37 total.
I have 4 TRN in the inner SZ where they are immune to any attempt to reach them in Turn 2 by Allied air or sea units.

For the US to kill my Pearl fleet, they have to send their BB, TRN, and 2 FIGs minimum.  That leaves the US with a BB in the Pacific.  Add 1 DST on J2 to protect my 4 TRNs, and Japan is off to the races…

Good one ncscswitch. I like the way you handle Japan. The key for a KJF defense is to be confident.

However, how would you respond to the same + the UK bomber in Novo or Sinkiang?

I know Jen used it for SBR but let’s assume she hadn’t…

Would you do the same battles and buy that destroyer on J1?

Nice post; very detailed.

But I cannot say that the standard German moves in your area are the same as the standard German moves where I play.  I usually see placement of German units in Africa to aid in the attack on Anglo-Egypt without forcing the Mediterranean fleet to support.  Anglo-Egypt is taken, preventing the UK destroyer there from escaping, and preventing the Indian fleet from reinforcing in the Mediterranean.  (No German air is risked against the UK destroyer, since the UK destroyer can hardly do anything if Germany takes Gibraltar, which prevents 1 destroyer, 2 fighters, and bomber attacking the German Med fleet). The German sub in the Atlantic is very likely preserved instead of being taken as fodder to the UK battleship.  A UK/US attack on Algeria is far less likely with the German transport, sub, 5 fighters, bomber, and battleship in range.  (I presume that USSR took the Ukraine as well as West Russia, which is a reasonable possibility in most games, and that I landed fighters in Western Europe to discourage landings in Algeria, to threaten the sea zone west of Algeria, and to threaten invasion of London).  NOTE:  I don’t usually use a German bid in Africa myself; I typically run two Mediterranean transports these days and attack Anglo-Egypt with overwhelming force, but I am leaning in favor of the old German Africa bid again these days).

The USSR attacks I usually see are either West Russia and Belorussia (with 3 infantry and 2 fighters), or West Russia and Ukraine (with assorted ground units, two fighters, and usually two tanks tops, although I suppose some players might use three tanks instead)

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

–

As far as Japan goes - the proposed move is to unify the UK fleet of 2 transports, sub, destroyer, carrier, fighter, and USSR fighter at sea zone 38, not 30.  That means the UK fleet is in range of the Solomon islands next turn, or the waters off East Indies, Borneo, India, and French Indochina (opening up a strong possibility of a combined attack of Australian and Indian infantry against French Indochina).  The Solomon threat can be made a lot stronger with a UK bomber at Western U.S…

The sea zone 30 alternative can only be hit by a carrier, 4 fighters, and a battleship.  The sea zone 38 alternative puts more pressure on Japan, but can be hit by two carriers, a sub, a destroyer, 4 fighters, and a battleship.  Seeing that this could become very expensive for Japan, I would probably not do it.

Both sea zone 30 and sea zone 38 are far out of range of Japan’s western and eastern sea zones, so the UK cannot hit any Japanese transports there, even with fighters from carriers (since the fighters have to land), unless UK has Long Range Aircraft.  Of course, if UK puts its bomber in China (also fairly common where I am), it can hit any isolated transports, assuming the Japanese battleship intiially in Japan’s eastern waters moved off to protect against the Solomon threat.

Typically, I put a battleship and two carriers at the Solomons, and hit the US fleet with sub (if it survived), destroyer, 4-5 fighters, and bomber, losing the sub and the destroyer and perhaps a fighter or two tops.  This assumes no UK reinforcement of Pearl with the UK Indian fighter.  If the UK did reinforce Pearl, I might well go for a naval/air attack instead, bringing along an additional transport for fodder, and try to hold the waters around Pearl instead of standing off at the Solomons.

If the UK unified at sea zone 38 with a Russian fighter, if there was an Indian IC, I think I might forgo Pearl Harbor, attack the unified UK fleet, and keep a Japanese battleship to escort transports west of Japan.

–

With the given scenario, though, I think I might purchase two transports and an industrial complex (given a Japan bid of 1 IPC), or two transports and a fighter, send the Kwangtung transport north to take Soviet Far East, send Jap air, sub, and destroyer to take out Pearl, and unify the rest of the Japan navy at the Solomons, for two battleships, two loaded carriers, and transport, ready to attack Western U.S, Australia, or New Zealand.  I’d split newly built transports between eastern and western Japan sea zones, if there were a UK bomber in China (I know there wasn’t one there in the given scenario, but if there was), or put both transports in western Japan to protect against Long Range Aircraft attack from the U.S.

@Jennifer:

@ajgundam5:

From your original post you are saying that you are uniting the entire Indian Fleet … does this mean you are not going to attack the Japanese Trn in Sz 59 … I thought this was a pretty standard move why aren’t you doing it?

Here’s the basic premise, and i’m going to assume standard German moves.  I realize that you cannot count 100% on the outcome of the dice or the German’s move or the location of bid units, so please take into consideration that those objects could drastically alter the game!

Bid: 7

2 German Infantry in Ukraine
1 IPC to Japan.

Buy: 8 Infantry (This is the most conservative Russian build.  However, 4 Infantry, 3 Artillery works well, or 3 Infantry, 3 Armor work.)

11 Infantry, 4 Armor, 2 Artillery, 1 Fighter to West Russia.
*  2 Infantry, 1 Fighter from Karelia
*  3 Infantry, 1 Armor from Archangelsk
*  3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Armor from Caucasus
*  3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Armor from Russia

LL Results are: 2 Defender Kills, 5 Attacker Kills.  1 Round of Combat.

NCM:

1 Fighter from Russia to Kazahk to Persia to India to Sea Zone 35, land on English Carrier
1 AA Gun from Caucasus to W. Russia
1 Submarine from Sea Zone 4 to Sea Zone 2
1 Fighter from W. Russia to Yakut SSR
2 Infantry from Kazahk to Persia
2 Infantry from Novosibirsk to Kazahk
2 Infantry from Evenki to Novosibirsk
2 Infantry from Yakut to Novosibirsk
2 Infantry from SFE to Yakut
2 Infantry from Buryatia to Yakut

Place:  8 Infantry in Russia

Germany: Buy 1 Aircraft Carrier, 8 Infantry

BB/TRN from SZ 14 to SZ 15
1 Inf, 1 Art from S. Europe to Egypt
1 Inf, 1 Arm from Libya to Egypt
1 Fig from Balkans to Egypt
1 Fig from Ukraine to SZ 15
1 Bmb from Germany to Egypt
1 Sub from SZ 8 to SZ 13
1 Fig from Germany, 1 Fig from W. Europe, 1 Fig from Finland to SZ 13
3 Inf from Finland to Karelia
1 Inf from Ukraine to Caucasus

LL:

SZ 15 cleared with damage to battleship
Egypt 2 hits for attacker, 2 hits for defender on R1; 2 hits for attacker, 1 hit for defender on R2
Karelia no hits for attacker or defender R1: 1 hit for attacker, one hit for defender R2
SZ 13 2 hits for attacker, 1 hit for defender

NCM:

Bomber/Fighter from Egypt land in Libya
Infantry/Artillery from Algeria move to Libya
2 Fighters from SZ 13 to W. Europe
1 Fighter from SZ 13 to SZ 5
1 Fighter from E.Europe to SZ 5
2 Infantry, 1 Armor from E. Europe to Ukraine
2 Infantry, 1 Armor from Balkans to Ukraine
2 Armor from Germany to Ukraine
1 Armor from S. Europe to Ukraine
1 Fighter from SZ 15 to Ukraine
2 Infantry from Belorussia to Ukraine
3 Infantry from Germany to W. Europe
1 Infantry from S. Europe to W. Europe

Place AC in SZ 5; 6 Infantry in Germany, 2 Infantry in S. Europe

England:

30: Buy 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters

combat:

TRN SZ 1 with Armor to SZ 8 get Infantry to SZ 12
TRN SZ 2 with Armor/Infantry to SZ 12
BB to SZ 12 from SZ 2

• 2 Armor, 2 Infantry to Algeria

SBR Germany (3 dmg)

NCM:

Bomber lands in England
2 Fighters move to W. Russia
DD, TRN, AC, 2 FIG (1 UK/1 USSR) move to SZ 38 from SZ 35
TRN, SS move from SZ 40 to SZ 38
Infantry from Trans-Jordan to Persia
3 Infantry, 1 AA from India to Persia
1 Infantry to Alaska from W. Canada

Place 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 2 Fighters on England

It is now Japan’s turn, what do you do?

(note, I went with low luck and I biased it against the attacker and for the defender.  Meaning that if the attacker didn’t have a remainder of 3 or better he missed and if the defender had a remainder of less then 3 he missed.)

Japan’s in a quandry, navally.  He has 2 transports, 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and an Aircraft Carrier in SZ 38, in prime position to snipe islands.  Meanwhile, the Americans are sitting there begging to loose a Carrier in Hawaii.

@cdassak:

Good one ncscswitch. I like the way you handle Japan. The key for a KJF defense is to be confident.

However, how would you respond to the same + the UK bomber in Novo or Sinkiang?

I know Jen used it for SBR but let’s assume she hadn’t…

Would you do the same battles and buy that destroyer on J1?

I’m not sure I would call it a KJF without an Indian industrial complex, even though the commitment of a Russian fighter is pretty important.  It’s a KJF if the US builds a big Pacific fleet, but the Japs wouldn’t know that until after the US turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUT

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

I know which instance gets more bang for your buck.

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

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

@DarthMaximus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@DarthMaximus:

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

What if I gave you a cookie?

A really NICE cookie.

Chocolate Chip?

@DarthMaximus:

Chocolate Chip?

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

flys Russian ftrs to India

A  couple of things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We jsut have a different view on a key element…

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

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

@newpaintbrush:

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

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

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

Yes, cookies are clearly to blame here.

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

weapons of mass distraction . . .  hm . . .

@Jennifer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@newpaintbrush:

@newpaintbrush:

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

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

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

Yes, cookies are clearly to blame here.

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

weapons of mass distraction . . . hm . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

@DarthMaximus:

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

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

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