The allies lose a lot on Round 1 if they go for the SZ 5 fleet. They potentially lose all their British fighters and bombers for a pair of submarines. Not a good trade.
I almost never hit SZ 5 with my air force. Sometimes I do. But almost never. 35 IPC in aircraft is more then England’s first pay check!
It’s not just a pair of submarines…
You don’t have to replace the aircraft, and I also don’t know why it’s your position that UK always loses all their aircraft. Also, carrier + 4 tran is more than England’s first paycheck (48 IPCs…much more than 20 IPCs to replace 2 fighters), which is what you have to purchase if you sacrifice 2 tran, build a carrier. And you’re also losing your tank in Canada. 48 IPCs is a greater loss than 35 IPCs, and remember that the 35 IPCs is hardly guaranteed or something that you must replace. Only 18% of the time would you lose everything, 72% between 0 and 2 fighters. You could always retreat as well when you’re down to a bomber, meaning even less % of losing all the airforce (leaving 1-2 naval fodder for Germany which is unfeasible to strafe with, which is the goal)
UK with no AF is pretty much impotent.
Why? At which point? UK doesn’t rely on aircraft to trade territories at all, they rely on massive buildups; plus they have a BB to trade Kar/E. Europe if German is trying to do little nitpick trades where you might use aircraft normally. Plus there’s no reason to lose the bomber except in those 1/12 times when both tran and dest hit.
Wes, I think you need a game with one of us to see how things have advanced in the past year…
@Nix:
If you don´t kill German Baltic fleet your in for headache.
That means theres more units to Hit your fleet with.
Yes and no.
The Germans have some throw away units if you go in range, which you will eventually. But by the time they can attack you’ll have the Russian submarine + a british battleship + an american battleship and fleet.
Also, you could take care of the Baltic fleet with the American Airforce. America is in a much better position to replace lost aircraft then England, especially with England fighting for it’s life in Africa and trying to help Russia secure it’s forward territories so they can turn on the Japanese.
Now, why do I say England risks 35 IPC in units to sink the SZ 5 fleet? Because I cannot count the number of times I’ve seen England get obliterated with a Destroyer/Transport hit in Round 2 after a Destroyer hit in Round 1.
I, and some others, will usually let you kill the submarines first just to give us the opportunity to kill the British fighters. The SZ 5 is nice to have and I won’t throw it away needlessly, but I’m not going to be heart broken if it is lost. I’ll be much more heart broken losing 2 fighters to some pissy little Russian AA Gun.
Also, you could take care of the Baltic fleet with the American Airforce. America is in a much better position to replace lost aircraft then England, especially with England fighting for it’s life in Africa and trying to help Russia secure it’s forward territories so they can turn on the Japanese.
See, but I’ve already said this before already. If you let the Baltic sit there, it just opens up Allies options. They can kill it immediately if they want (odds are quite in favor, just because you “feel” that you “can’t count” the number of times that you’ve lost all the airforce doesn’t change the odds), or just wait for the Americans like you said, or build up more UK airforce like I said, or move the fleets together, like everyone does. A sitting Baltic does jack! I’ve explained how the Allies can deal with it later at lower cost, you’ve explained how the Allies can deal with it later at lower cost, so why not sail it out and force the Allies to deal with it right here and right now at an inescapable cost?
Why is having a sitting Baltic a good thing, when it is at worst impotent? A Baltic that runs away is hardly impotent; even using Ike’s counter it’s losing 3 tran immediately and having the UK buy a carrier and quite possibly not using the tank from E. Canada. That’s not impotent! Therefore, it’s better than the impotent sitting Baltic. Even assuming if I don’t attack the Baltic immediately, assuming that I’m playing it by your book, that just makes the Baltic even easier to take out, even more impotent and less damaging. Why would you want the Baltic fleet to do nothing?
Wes, I think you need a game with one of us to see how things have advanced in the past year…
Could you give me a brief taste? A summary of the things that you guys have overcome and come up with? It’ll get my heart pumping! :evil:
Because sailing it out allows the allies to deal with it at a lower cost too. :P
Because sailing it out allows the allies to deal with it at a lower cost too.
I just went over how not sailing it out allows the Allies to deal with it at almost zero cost, by your methods. Let’s no longer assume I’m talking about attacking it immediately with airforce (I find is still a good move, but I’ll play your side and say it’s too costly). By your reasoning, having the Baltic sit there should be impotent because of the way you link fleets and so on.
But by sailing it out/linking with the sub, it’s not nearly zero cost. 3 transports down, a tank abandoned in E. Canada, and UK buying a carrier, is not nearly zero. It’s not a lower cost than the impotent sitting Baltic.
Sailing it out right away throws the fleet away. England loses nothing on the attack. England probably loses very little (maybe a transport or two) in the counter attack. Germany loses most of their air force and their Northern Fleet.
Leaving it in SZ 5 costs the German’s nothing. If the Allies fail to attack, Germany can always augment the fleet later to make it costly when they own Africa, Brazil, Australia, India and New Zealand. (At least in game where DM or I are Germany…we tend to go ballistic with our transports. :) )
Basically, what I’m saying is that you start with a 101 IPC land and air surplus over Russia. Why dwindle that early trying to save 36-44 IPC worth of worthless boats? Why not press your advantage on the ground?
After all, if England ignores your SZ 5 fleet on UK1, you can move it to SZ 7 on G2 and move the SZ 14 fleet to SZ 7 which means you can pretty much leave W. Europe empty putting that much more pressure on Russia. (Yes, I realize you cannot both be invading India and putting the same transports in SZ 7. Different circumstances/game ideas. You don’t need to be a one show pony, you know.)
Or, if you REALLY want to make waves:
Germany 1:
Buy(40)
Germany 2:
Buy(42)
Germany 3:
Hope like hell you can get enough Infantry with the 30-40 IPC you have left to push the Russians back!
Because sailing it out allows the allies to deal with it at a lower cost too.
I just went over how not sailing it out allows the Allies to deal with it at almost zero cost, by your methods. Let’s no longer assume I’m talking about attacking it immediately with airforce (I find is still a good move, but I’ll play your side and say it’s too costly). By your reasoning, having the Baltic sit there should be impotent because of the way you link fleets and so on.
But by sailing it out/linking with the sub, it’s not nearly zero cost. 3 transports down, a tank abandoned in E. Canada, and UK buying a carrier, is not nearly zero. It’s not a lower cost than the impotent sitting Baltic.
UK should buy AC, generally speaking. Most players would gladly use the 4 naval units as fodder when ftrs are in range, and
they should if G makes right desicions.
The Baltic is only impotent if the G player is impotent.
Unless it is killed UK1.
If Germany puts the fleet in SZ 7, then unfortunately, yes, the British have to buy naval forces to protect their battleship. It’s an unfortunate cost of war. Better then letting the Germans unify their fleets!
Though, I would honestly go Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer because you can always use that destroyer later to stave off the Japanese fleets. Remember, you have 4 Transports at the start of the game, so you really don’t HAVE to buy more. (A 5th early on can be nice so that you arn’t waiting forever to get more. But I like to use that breathing time to flex my RAF muscles by adding more fighters to my pool. Nothing like UK with 6 fighters to instill the fear of Ivanova in the hearts of the Germans!)
England probably loses very little (maybe a transport or two) in the counter attack. Germany loses most of their air force and their Northern Fleet.
I don’t know why you continue with the idea that Germany has to sacrifice their airforce in a bad trade. They don’t! The average by the way is 2 transports, not between 1 and 2, but 2. Not to mention a tank in Canada, and the US sacrificing a ship to block the med fleet from strafing the UK navy.
Basically, what I’m saying is that you start with a 101 IPC land and air surplus over Russia. Why dwindle that early trying to save 36-44 IPC worth of worthless boats? Why not press your advantage on the ground?
Basically, what I’ve consistently said too many times in this thread is that Germany doesn’t have to sacrifice aircraft in a bad fight. I’ve also consistently said that a sitting Baltic will, by your own measure, be impotent, and the definition of impotent means causing no harm, none. Escaping the Baltic isn’t impotent. That’s 3 transports down, UK buying a carrier, and a tank lost in E. Canada. Compared to sitting the Baltic where it is, doing absolutely nothing by your own measure.
England:
Battleship, 2 Fighters, Carrier, Destroyer, Transport (assuming you lost a transport taking out the SZ 7 fleet.)
Germany: 5 or 6 Fighters, Bomber.
I’m going to give Germany the benefit of the doubt that they have all their available aircraft in range to attack SZ 7 and none were killed by Russia or in any German counter attacks up to this point.
Overall %*: A. survives: 53.1% D. survives: 40.2% No one survives: 6.7%
Now, who is NOT going to take that trade as the Allies?
Of course, Germany probably won’t do that attack, in which case England just sunk 44 IPC worth of navy at the cost of 8 IPC of naval units. 23 IPC if you take more then 2 hits because you’re going to want one transport to ensure the German’s don’t attack your SZ 7 fleet. Bombers are nice, but they don’t defend for squat and killing German fighters > saving British bombers.
I think that the fundamental idea of trihero is interesting.
We seem to agree that Baltic fleet is useless. Good. Then let’s send it out of the Baltic to create a little suspense on the UK.UK will be for sure disturbed by the exit of the Baltic Fleet. MAy be needed to buy 1 AC and 1 DD, and, moreover, maybe no landing in first turn… And all this happens with o IPC of naval expenses and without the need to attack with the Luftwaffe.
I like this evolution of the situation!
The thing I dislike is that it needs to not use the SUB in sz8 as fodder against the UK BB in sz13.
So Germany has two possibilities.
Using only aircraft to attack the BB (most likely losing at least one fighter) or using the Mediterranean BB for covering the attack. (I discourage to call those BB “Italian BB” it may start to fire as a real Italian BB … rolling 6 every time! :) ask me why if you want to know more!)
This last thing create a problem. How deal with the sz15 UK DD? And morever what to do with Egypt, only the bid may be not enough to conquer and keep it, the addictional unit from Italy may be needed (also for the transport I discourage calling it Italian TRN… it may act like an Italian TRN and … sunk while full of units! :) )
So on a side I like the idea on the other I see some problems that arise.
Weather it’s a good move to risk losing German airpower, or if G knows for sure it’s gonna lose some ftrs in an
air-only attack on naval units, and UK will lose some trans or maybe the whole navy in sz, there is no clear
answer.
It will depend on the situation.
Screw it, if you’re making a run for it, send the submarine to SZ 8 anyway. The difference in SZ 7 is negligible at best. You’re still looking at about 1 to 3 hits on defense with your ultimate destruction in one or two rounds of combat. (Only difference is you could submerge after the first round if it goes badly for England.) Meanwhile, your SZ 8 submarine could be safe in SZ 13 (if you brought the BB/Trn instead of sending it away.)
Could force England out of Africa for an extra round.
But, to be honest, it seems like a gambit. Something to do when you want to shake up a static player.
Now, who is NOT going to take that trade as the Allies?
Of course, Germany probably won’t do that attack, in which case England just sunk 44 IPC worth of navy at the cost of 8 IPC of naval units. 23 IPC if you take more then 2 hits because you’re going to want one transport to ensure the German’s don’t attack your SZ 7 fleet. Bombers are nice, but they don’t defend for squat and killing German fighters > saving British bombers.
But Jen, you’re going backwards on the statistics. We already discussed that the average result is a loss of 2 transports, which is 16 IPCs, when you first attack the German navy. That’s not 8 IPCs, so no need to sugarcoat it with the low end of results. You’re also forgetting that the US needs to block off SZ12 with something, a transport, otherwise the BB/tran will slip out and provide fodder for the luftwaffe. BB + tran + 5 fighters + 1 bomber incur about 4 hits on average, and take about 3 hits on average from a carrier, sub, 2 figs, bb, and 1 tran. That means the German navy is gone, but so is most of the UK navy, no transports left on the board at the start of UK2, and no damage to Luftwaffe. So you block off SZ12 with the American transport to prevent that from happening, but that is a sacrifice of another 8 IPCs. 3 transports total = 24 IPCs, + tank from E. Canada which may not even be retrieved, UK buying a carrier, and this is hardly the 8 IPCs that you predict.
That TRN also drops units into Africa, taking a German IPC, and making the Egypt forces “turn around” instead of pushing deeper into Africa.
So yes, teh US loses a TRN, but the Royal Navy is preserved (at least the Capital Ships), the Allies have their initial landing in Africa to slow th Germans. From here on out, the Allies OWN the Atlantic, and Germany will never again be a threat to their fleets.
Oh, and Germany had to use ARM in order to provide punch for their trades since the Luftwaffe was in use elsewhere, so Russia gets to do some bonus damage to Germany’s Panzers on R3…
Oh, and Germany had to use ARM in order to provide punch for their trades since the Luftwaffe was in use elsewhere, so Russia gets to do some bonus damage to Germany’s Panzers on R3…
No, the Luftwaffe is only needed to kill the American transport, since there’s no way they’re going to attack the UK fleet without the med as fodder. That takes 2 figs? Enough Luftwaffe is free, and there are also artillery pieces on the board, to fend of the Russians.
From here on out, the Allies OWN the Atlantic, and Germany will never again be a threat to their fleets.
That’s always the case, whether it happens on Round 2, or Round 5. It’s what you made the Allies do or not do that’s the measure of success.
making the Egypt forces “turn around” instead of pushing deeper into Africa.
They don’t have to turn around at all, in fact it would be unwise to do so, since the Allies for sure are landing more troops right after that. I’m not even sure the Germans could turn around if UK counterattacked Anglo on UK2 again : (
So you sacrifice Africa for a 1 round threat to the UK Fleet and “force” UK to build a range extender for the RAF?
How do you count that as a good idea for Germany???
The Allies will have Africa no matter what you do, if they want it. It’s very easy to overspend there, especially if you do something like 2 transports. It quickly becomes hurtful to bleed out 4 units a turn trying to get Africa. Only if you feel if you can actually make a lasting influence in Africa would it be a sacrifice to give it up.
OK, so let me get this straight…
The whole point of your exercise is to get UK to spend $16 IPC on an AC (which gives their FIGs added range and removes any future threat to the UK Fleet) and to abandon Africa and focus on Europe only, now that UK can ignore fleet threats and drop their 8 divisions a turn without any thought of risk from Germany…
Did I miss something here? Where is the advantage to Germany?
