German strategy for building AC

If you are playing Revised with a bid then one possibility is to add a 2nd G transport to the Med fleet instead of adding units to Libya/Algeria. It doubles the transport capacity and can make the Russian player weary on an amphibious attack on the Caucasus/Ukraine.
Like mentioned above the drawback is that additional units sent to Africa won’t be used on the Eastern front and the 2nd transport will be sunk with the rest of the fleet if the Allies decide to do so.

Well I like an American Pacific offensive more and more because I find that Japan cannot keep pace in the fleet wars and build up a land force to threaten Moscow at the same time.  Either it loses the fleet battle (which means Japan will lose half its income) or it can only send a token force against the Russians.  So I go Pacific whenever I can.  But if USA starts with a disadvantage in the Pacific (this will be most games), it is not the best strategy.  The best players will adapt their strategy to what is happening in the game.

@Romulus:

IC in India may fall in Japanese hands if it is not backed up by an Allied Pacific strategy, at least an SJF. If UK place IC in India and goes after Germany it will have less IPCs to spend in UK, this means less quantity and less quality in the UK forces that face Germany.

The same reasoning applies to German CV. Building German CV means less ground units to press on Russia.

I think the better move to avoid India IC is to build all ground units with Germany and increase the pressure on Russia. If UK builds the IC in India then Russia will receive less help from the British.

I see your point… 
I’m not sure that some of my F2F opponents are smart enough to realize that!!    :lol: :lol:

@U-505:

I see no reason to use the bomber for SBR’s except when you are losing badly and you need to gamble. It is much more useful as a long range 4 based out of Southern Europe so it can threaten just about anything worth killing.

YES! the BOM is extremely versatile. I use it mainly in North Africa to support operations there and to give naval operations a boost. It never hurts to use it as ground support for a while and then when Germany starts to get a little fatter or thinner in the IPC realm then think about using it as an SBR. I’ve also found that using it in conjunction with submarines, depending on the game, is a great deterent to the US player wanting to use TRNs to invade N. Africa.

You definitely need the AC in a move to SZ3.  Otherwise UK can destroy you with just their AF.  If they have a BB to absorb damage, you could lose the Baltic Fleet potentially w/o loss to UK.

@Sankt:

Yes, in that respect we will have to agree to disagree. But I think that I feel that in “the average situation” the axis are favored, while you think the allies have the advantage.

Exactly how I see it as well.

There is no doubt that if you can sail the atlantic fleet through the suez the allies are very strong. My experience is that Japan will contest africa for most of the game by staging in sz34.

Sorry I don’t have a map available at the moment.  (don’t have TripleA on my computer at work, and I don’t have a board at work either.)  But if sea zone 34 is near Africa, then Japan still must contend with America building a naval fleet at the Pacific.  If Japan stays near Africa, just one transport, a carrier, and two fighters can really mess with the South Pacific.  Of course, if Japan does NOT stay near Africa, Japan has to spend time sailing west, during which time America can reinforce its navy, and also control the Suez, to pass into the Indian Ocean.  My experience is that Japan in Africa is pretty good, until Berlin falls.

The suez should be closed if not controlled by Japan, any allied med fleet should never be let through. But even that is a very defensive assumption, don’t you think Caucasus usually falls and is controlled by Japan before Moscow falls? That means Japan is building fleet in sz16 before the allied fleets can even move out of sz5. (Assuming Berlin falls by using units shipped from London.) Any us-algeria shuck will be too weak to enter the med alone, even with 5-6 trns for fodder. Any ships in sz14 will be attacked by Japan’s fleet supported by the fighters surviving the Moscow strike.

It’s clear that you and your opponents have quite a different style of play than I and my typical opponents.  In the games I play, Caucasus usually falls to the Germans, while the Japanese attempt to bulk up at Novosibirsk (or one of the other eastern territories adjacent to Russia).  The Japanese will often fly fighters in to reinforce German-held Caucasus in my experience, but having Caucasus USUALLY fall AND being controlled by Japan is something I’ll typically only see in a game in which the UK build an industrial complex in India, and in which I took India early with Japan.  As for entering the med, the typical MINIMUM I typically have will be 11 transports (6 US, 5 UK), UK battleship (from London), US carrier (built in Eastern US), and extremely likely US battleship and US destroyer from Pacific/Panama.  That’s 11 trns 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighters 2 battleships.  There will typically be a few Allied fighters and bombers around as well.  Because the fleet is multinational, it is poorly suited to attack, but the fleet can base in the sea zone adjacent to Anglo-Egypt and Trans-Jordan quite well, because Japan will probably have a hell of a time attacking it.  (Although Japan CAN build naval reinforcements with an industrial complex at India, and WIN a fleet battle, the Americans should also be applying pressure at the Pacific after Germany falls.

Since we can’t agree on any “standard variables” we can argue this back and forth. My point is simply that the axis have some tactical advantages that will pay off more than an ipc advantage. We can probably agree that w.russia is a strategically much more potent territory than e.eur(or similar) in the early front between russia/germany. And similarly africa is “made up” in such a way that it favors Japan. The high ipc territories are along the eastern coast, making it very easy for Japan to take/trade. The BBs will pose a substantial threat to the allied movements. Egypt is a choke point, while the allies can only hit Egypt with troops from libya Japan can hit Egypt with troops from fic/india/t-j/persia/iea. For the allies to reach s.afr, congo etc their supply lines are that much longer.

I think probably one of the key differences is that in your scenario, Caucasus is controlled by Japan, and in my scenario, the Allies control the Caucasus.  Further, in your scenario, the Allies do not control a fat Atlantic fleet, while in my scenario, the Allies have quite a few ships.  I think that if Japan DID control Moscow, and DID have a solid grip on the Caucasus, and DID have its fleet already in the Mediterranean, and DID have lots of tanks in Moscow, while the Allies had really minimal forces in Berlin and throughout Europe, then the Axis WOULD have the advantage.

Put it this way: as the Allies, are you more concerned about

a) 2 Inf 2 Arm that can land in Persia or Egypt next turn
or
b) 2 Inf 2 Arm that can be in FIC or Bury next turn
or
c) 3 Arm that can be in Caucasus next turn?

Maybe c), but a) is at least a close second. Ideally, I’d like FIC, India and EI ICs - I don’t care if I’m not utilizing Jap’s IC to the max, all that does is strand units in a backwater (unless it’s KJF of course). But once the Allies are well into KGF, it’s not so bad to tempt them into switching strats with a provocative little IC in EI. Right now I face NO allied units in the Pacific or the Indian ocean, so I just want to be able to bring units to Russia/Africa with maximum speed and responsiveness.

Responsiveness often gets overlooked as a value - if you have to build your units three turns before they arrive for combat, you have to guess what you might need then. If instead you can deliver in one round, you have much more flexibility. So I like to build ICs - people think it detracts IPCs from building actual combat units, but it can actually bring more units to the front more quickly if that IC is 1.5 turns closer to the front than the units you would have built back at your starting IC.

An IC in Anglo Egypt is the only one that makes sense, in my opinion. Africa is worth 12 IPCs per turn. If Germany, by buying an IPC in Africa, can hold Africa for an additional two turns, the benefits outweigh the cost, so it’s a good choice.