Overbuilding Transports with UK

My extra UK TRNs usually come from the Pacific, so they don’t result in fewer Inf being built anyway.

Yes, those can be very handy.
For some reason I was under the impression people weren’t counting those.  My bad.

I certainly wouldn’t wait for them to get to sz 6 so I have only 4 trns but they are a nice “free” addition mid-game to bump you up to 6 or more if you go that route.

I counted the Transport from SZ 35 and the Transport from SZ 40 with the Transport from SZ 1 and Transport from SZ 2 in my total of 4 transports.  That’s why I say England needs to build no transports and any building of transports is a waste of resources.

Though, I think DM made my arguments a bit more eloquent then I did.

Fact remains, Germany’s going to be ready for a 1-2 punch in W. Europe.  Thus, if England attacks with 1.5 unit strength (due to 1.5 transport strength) the Germans will be more then able to throw off the attack.  America may now have a chance to win the territory, but still, the win will be short lived as Germany will reclaim the land.

What does that do?  It leaves England with 8 units it can use since they used all their other units up.  At the very least it limits them to drawing down their stack in Norway/Karelia to continually throw the lives of British soldiers on the beaches of Normandy with the only noticable effect of reducing the German stack there by 1 or 2 infantry.  How long can England keep that up?  Eventually England will run out of “extra” units to throw at the beaches of Normandy (remember they cannot retreat once they attack, so you cannot strafe there) and Germany will roll over the “extra” units not yet used as they advance on Russia.

Also, if you are building more transports in England, odds are, you are NOT fighting for Africa against Germany and Japan which means your income is already going to be down.  At the VERY least, you are down India, Australia, Madagascar, Persia, Trans-Jordan and New Zealand. 9 IPC out of 30.  You are also PROBABLY down Egypt, IEA, FEQ, Congo and Kenya (maybe even S. Africa and FWA.)

So the odds of filling 6 transports is pretty slim.  The odds of filling 4 transports is pretty slim too.

My main criteria is if I’m going to KJF then I need more transports to make up for the two I am not bringing home.  If I am going KGF, then I don’t need any extra, I’ll just put an IC in W. Europe which is infinitely more effective then 1 or 2 extra transports since extra transports, by definition, have nothing to transport!

I still say there’s no such thing as “extra” transports (well, at least until you get above 8 or so).

You seem to think that the only possible use of a transport is moving units off the UK (or another territory containing an IC).

The real use of a transport is to move units from a place where they are less useful to a place where they are more useful, and to keep the enemy on their toes because of your ability to do so.

So you can use TRNs to take gear

• from Nor to Arc, EE, Ger, WEU, Alg
• from Kar to Ger, WEU
• from Arc to WEU
• from Alg to SEU, WEU, Balk, Ukr, Caucasus, Egypt, TJ, Brazil

It’s a mistake to think that money spent on TRNs is wasted because it is not spent directly on ground units.

Yes, you spend 8 IPCs on a transport, but having that extra transport allows you to move 8 IPCs of other units to somewhere that you actually need them.

Consider this example:

Japan has 3 TRN at FIC, 3 Inf 3 Arm in FIC, and 3 Inf / 3 Arm waiting on Japan to get unloaded next turn.
The allies have just taken Egypt with a tank blitz, and you want it back.
The only Japanese units in range are in FIC, with those transports.

Now, approach #1, of “not overbuilding” or “wasting resources” would just leave Egypt alone, because you need to bring all your TRNs back to Japan to unload last turn’s build and you don’t want to waste money on more TRNs than you need to keep unloading Japan.
You end your turn with:

• Egypt still in Allied hands
• FIC units advance to India
• Jap units unload to Man / Bury, far back from the front

Approach #2 - “Wasteful”
You take 1-2 or even 3 TRNs to move your FIC units to Egy, Per, or somewhere else and accomplish something with them - take out some enemy units, claim territory, spread russia’s offense even thinner, whatever. To offset this, you build more TRNs so you can unload Japan NEXT turn.
That sounds like a wasted turn in terms of getting units off Japan, but consider: with the new TRNs, you will be able to unload Japan to FIC next turn, rather than to Bury / Man, so your units end up one turn closer to the front. What’s more, at FIC they will be met by TRNs returning from Egy, so THOSE units will be able to move to Egy/Per more quickly as well. Suddenly you have a shuck going, with a lot more options as to where to move your troops.

Troops are only useful in the field. Until then they are only mouths to be fed. And you like to be able to choose which field to put them in.

But if you don’t appreciate the value of having mobility (in a game that is all about tactics) then why should I try to convince you otherwise?

I understand that transports can pull units off Norway, Karelia and E. Europe too.

What I don’t get is where you are getting the 100s of imaginary infantry you will be drawing from to attack W. Europe or Germany with those waste ful transports.  Sure.  You might have one round, but honestly, if you do, the game’s over anyway and the transports are just icing on the cake, icing you probably built the round or two before you used them specifically for the one time strike.

Otherwise, all you are doing is dropping your stack by 4 units a round and not reinforcing it with anything.  A losing proposition.  Germany will roll right over you and you still won’t actually capture anything with England.  You won’t even tie up any extra German units because, as I’ve demonstrated numerous times, Germany’s already fortressed Europe against a 1, 2 punch by the allies, your extra units are going to do nothing but give America the hope of capturing the territory and getting the income for one round.  After which, American forces will be out of position and depleted and British forces will be depleted.  Germany will have smaller stacks in E. Europe, Germany and W. Europe afterwards, but they will still be stacked and you’ll be like a teenager with premature ejaculation disorder on prom night.  All dressed up, and no where to go.

@Cmdr:

What I don’t get is where you are getting the 100s of imaginary infantry you will be drawing from to attack W. Europe or Germany with those waste ful transports.

Lol, they are from the same place that you get 30 fighters from, Jen.

Each transport, even if not directly useful to shuttle more troops (due to lack of IPC for troops ;-) or factory capacity) still stretches German defenses in several places that must be garrisoned stronger: WEU, GER, EEU, KAR etc. “Shadow” forces of which any one may become real.

…
I wonder how common is the early (turn 1-4) overbuilding of UK troops to go together with overcapacity transports when they arrive round Africa and S.America.
To make full use of UK’s 8-unit production limit, one may build early lower quality (say 25 IPC = 7 inf 1 art instead of 2inf 1art 3tnk). When extra transports arrive, there are already 12-16 land units in London, sustaining a maximum transport flow for several turns more.

@newpaintbrush:

@Cmdr:

What I don’t get is where you are getting the 100s of imaginary infantry you will be drawing from to attack W. Europe or Germany with those waste ful transports.

Lol, they are from the same place that you get 30 fighters from, Jen.

You mean the 30 infantry which is only 90 IPC?

@Cmdr:

@newpaintbrush:

@Cmdr:

What I don’t get is where you are getting the 100s of imaginary infantry you will be drawing from to attack W. Europe or Germany with those waste ful transports.

Lol, they are from the same place that you get 30 fighters from, Jen.

You mean the 30 infantry which is only 90 IPC?

ONE of us comes up with imaginary forces, anyways . . .

lol crack pipe

@Cmdr:

I understand that transports can pull units off Norway, Karelia and E. Europe too.

What I don’t get is where you are getting the 100s of imaginary infantry you will be drawing from to attack W. Europe or Germany with those waste ful transports.  Sure.  You might have one round, but honestly, if you do, the game’s over anyway and the transports are just icing on the cake, icing you probably built the round or two before you used them specifically for the one time strike.

Otherwise, all you are doing is dropping your stack by 4 units a round and not reinforcing it with anything.  A losing proposition.

The third paragraph answers your 2nd one - you have reserves stacked in Karelia / Norway. And how is “dropping your stack” a losing proposition?

That stack’s primary purpose is to attack Germany. So if, God forbid, you actually USE those units to attack Germany, they are fulfilling their purpose.

What is wasteful is having a big pile of units collecting dust up in Karelia when they could be opening a 2nd front in Western Europe. Yes you may take losses on the counter, but Germany can’t afford to trade units 1:1 with all three allies, because Germany will run out of hardware a  lot faster than the Allies combined will.

You seem to think that having a stack is an end in itself. Not so. The point of Allied units is to kill German units and take German territory, or, failing that, intimidating Germany into playing defence. Once Germany’s game is primarily defensive, the Allies have won.

The stack’s purpose is to prevent Germany from killing your armor and fighters and to stop their forward momentum.

As soon as you start depleting your stack, it’s ability to do any of the above ceases to exist.

Your tanks and fighters are only in existence to attack Germany.

Jenn, it’s not as if you are taking 4 units off your stack only to drown them in the sea.

They are reducing Germany’s forward forces by
a) killing German units in WEU (or Ger)
b) drawing German units back to retake / defend WEU

So while the allied stack gets smaller, so does the German stack, hopefully faster, but the real benefit is that you are now fighting on Germany’s doorstep rather than in Karelia.

No, they arn’t drowning at sea, they are bleeding to death on W. Europe inflicting minimal if any extra casualties and thus making it so Germany NEEDS less in their forward stacks to push England back.

Jenn, I wouldn’t attack if it was a massively losing proposition. That being said, I would look at the likely effects of a 1-2 punch before deciding. The UK attack might be sub-par, but set up for a major winner, in terms of IPCs, for the US attack (eg. killing the luftwaffe)

So the stack is only reduced when there is an opportunity to make a gain in terms of units and territories. Until then, the extra transports simply force Germany to maintain larger defences in order to deny the allies that opportunity.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think…

@Ender:

Jenn, I wouldn’t attack if it was a massively losing proposition. That being said, I would look at the likely effects of a 1-2 punch before deciding. The UK attack might be sub-par, but set up for a major winner, in terms of IPCs, for the US attack (eg. killing the luftwaffe)

Thank you for finally realizing it.  No attack England makes even with extra transports is going to win for England.  England will always lose.  The only difference is that America may be able to take the ground just long enough to collect for it.  Odds are, even that will fail since you’d have to score average to above average in BOTH attacks to succeed.  Odds are more likely that one or both attacks will fall short leaving the Germans in a superior position then otherwise because now BOTH American and British forces are depleted on BOTH sides of the continent.  Germany, meanwhile, is concentrated.

Is there a time I could see extra transports in the Atlantic for England?

Sure.  America has W. Europe, England has E. Europe territories, Germany is down to Berlin and Rome.  Now you have the money and the time to want to take units from Karelia and England and your stack in E. Europe to attack Berlin all at once.  Then again, by this point, all the extra transports are doing is speeding up the result, not changing it.  And thus, it’s still wasted money, the only difference is you can afford it because there’s nothing your opponent can do anyway.

@Cmdr:

@Ender:

Jenn, I wouldn’t attack if it was a massively losing proposition. That being said, I would look at the likely effects of a 1-2 punch before deciding. The UK attack might be sub-par, but set up for a major winner, in terms of IPCs, for the US attack (eg. killing the luftwaffe)

Thank you for finally realizing it.  No attack England makes even with extra transports is going to win for England.  England will always lose.  The only difference is that America may be able to take the ground just long enough to collect for it.  Odds are, even that will fail since you’d have to score average to above average in BOTH attacks to succeed.

Jenn, did you know that generally, all blanket statements are incorrect?  :-D (little logic joke there, folks)

“England will always lose.”

I would say that rather depends on how heavily fortified WEU is, wouldn’t you agree?

Your response of course is that Germany will always put enough stuff there to make England lose (and the US) if it attacks.

True enough. Usually, a good German player will do that.

Here’s the thing though, and I will put this part in bold:

Germany will have to keep MORE stuff in WEU to make sure that England will “always lose”

The effect of this is that the UK, by its increased threat, has deprived Germany of front-line units for the Russian front, without any risk at all.

Now, if Germany is played by a BAD player, who does not optimize their force distribution, and keeps a massive stack in WEU, bigger than is needed, then I suppose the extra TRNs are wasted.

But then they are wasted by virtue of the fact that your opponent is a very silly person who stacks units where they aren’t really needed, and therefore are under-committing to the attack on Russia anyway. In that case I guess you don’t need the TRNs to keep German units away from Russia, because your opponent is obligingly doing it for you anyway.

So if your opponent is sloppy and wastes more units in defence than they would need to, then yes the transports are a waste. But that’s only because your opponent is already making the move that you want to force them to make anyway.

If Poll have any significance: 16 out of 20 players who woted here build extra transports with UK. 80%!!!

Extra transports are useful. They scare germany. Sie kommen! By Sea naturally! (With the extra transports)
Extra transports are cool. They can go to the bottom of the sea without reducing UK landing capabilities.
Extra transports shoot more. (They are extra so they make extra fire). UK extra transports are famous for shooting down unwary Luftwaffe pilot.
Extra transports are efficient. They get the infantry from the back of the army and throw them to the German on the front line.
Extra transports are funny painted. They raise the morale of the UK player looking as a big fleet.
Extra transports are the UK player best friend!
Extra transport rocks!
Long live to the Extra transports!

Actually, England will always lose because Germany has enough there to stop 4 American Transports, 4 British Transports and assorted air and naval support they may or may not have from winning.

Germany will only have to leave more defensive power in W. Europe to stop America from taking it.  However, why would you want to do that???  It’s West Europe, not Berlin or South Europe, so no real lose to Germany if it falls to America, especially considering the force that wins will be very minimal at best.

Meanwhile, you have almost assuredly destroyed enemy fighters and decimated both countries’ armies that attacked you, for a portion of your own army.  Oh sure, you’re size will be much smaller, but then again, BOTH of their sizes will be as well!

So, assuming a normal game, you have the following:

W. Europe defends with 20 infantry, 7 armor, 1 fighter, AA Gun

England attacks with 12 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, 2 Fighters, Bomber, Battleship

Germany wins with 10 Infantry, 7 Armor, Fighter, AA Gun remaining

America attacks this with 8 Infantry, 3 Artillery, 5 Armor, 3 Fighters, Bomber, Battleship using all 8 of their transports from the 4 by 4 system they had

America wins with 1 armor, 2 fighters and a bomber.

Germany, has now pulled apart the transport system, it will take TWO turns to get that system up again plus England has depleted it’s Karelian stack to weaken the Germans enough to allow America the chance (67% chance) to win in W. Europe.  Germany’s out no land because 1 armor is not going to protect W. Europe for squat against a determined German, however, now there’s nothing left to attack it but British forces.  Germany should be in more then good enough position to defend against 6 transports of British guys, especially now that England has no air force left.

So what has the extra transports gotten the allies?

Germany down 105 IPC in Ground and Air Forces
England down 89 IPC in Ground and Air Forces
America down 66 IPC in Ground and Air Forces (not counting the tank that lives to defend another day)

And, America is completely out of the game for two full game turns while they set up the transport system again.

105 IPC for 155 IPC and a stronger strategic position on the board all because I didn’t waste my resources on extra transports and didn’t set myself up to win at all costs over a piece of land I could allow the allies to take for a solitary turn and reclaim before I needed to collect my taxes that year?  Sounds like an awesome deal to me!