the best respons to a german ac built in the baltic is uk fighters.
uk purcase round1 and 2 3 fighters
then round 3 u can atack whith 9 fighters and 1 bomber, against 2 sub 1 tranny 1 dest and 1 ac 2 fighters. The calc says 99% chance whith 6 unit left.
and if germany purcase 1 ac in round 3, it has 4 fighters 2 subs 1 tranny 1 dest and 2 ac. Against 9 fighters and 1 bomber it gives uk a chance of 55% chance whih 1.78 units left. That is ok for the UK, uk fighters for germans, il trade any day. So in the 3 first rounds u need to invest 32 icp on navy, more if u want to be sure in cant be sunk.
In the mean time US is going trough the med treaten we, se, balkans, ukarine. The only area u dont trade is norway. The other problem is that germany can hold kardelia.
No presure from germany against russia eraly on will mean that japan will have a hard time.
u spent at least 32 icp the 3 first rounds and u only take a treat against norway away(usal u cant take EE anyway the 3 first rounds, what u can do if you stack kar.
That’s what I was thinking too, Enskive. Force the Germans to either abandon their navy or invest more into it early!
and if germany purcase 1 ac in round 3, it has 4 fighters 2 subs 1 tranny 1 dest and 2 ac. Against 9 fighters and 1 bomber it gives uk a chance of 55% chance whih 1.78 units left. That is ok for the UK, uk fighters for germans, il trade any day. So in the 3 first rounds u need to invest 32 icp on navy, more if u want to be sure in cant be sunk.
I’m not sure I would attack with the UK in that situation. That’s 8-9 fighters for 4 German fighters? With those kinds of chances the battle can go horribly wrong quite often, but the point was you made the Germans invest more into navy early.
It is not 8-9 fighers for 4 fighters.
Germany have put 72 icp in the fleet. U have purcase 6 fighters to take it out. So it is a god trade for UK. u are using and ekstre 30 ICP from fighters u have on the bord, but germany also have units for 36 ICP. That is 108 ICP for germany 90 for the UK. 105 if u count whith the bomber. That trade i will make any day.
But ofcourse if u have the time waith 1 more round and have some ekstre fighters whith u. you can alwayes decide when u see the bord.
let me say althings are easyer in theroy. There are alwayes counters, that can counters, that can counters.
But i have never lost to a german ac purcase round 1. So to me it dosent work. But what do i now :)
Just a thought, but if you’ve cost the Germans 72 IPC out of how many rounds and bought 60 IPC in fighters and other equipment to sink it, what are you buying to help Russia??? Did you leave Germany uncontested in Africa resulting in them earning 50+ a round while you are earning less then 20 a round?
Straight cost analysis is great, but what’s the ratio to income? If Germany loses 2 infantry to Russia and only kills 1 Russian, while cost analysis says the Russians are ahead, I think the Germans are really ahead in that exchange. A) Germany makes more then Russia. B) Russia has two enemies to contend with.
If England purchased 6 additional fighters to sink 2 carriers, 2 submarines, transport, destroyer and 4 fighters but lost Africa who is really ahead?
afrika is alwayes contested.
Uk sends 2 tanks and 2 inf there first round, and Us goes there all game. Anglo is retaken.
if germany purcase 2 ac in the first 3 rounds, russia will have it easy so UK dosen need to send help the first couple of rounds. US is going trough the med taking we, se and balkans, so there is alot of help.
The best help russia can get is germany purcase and ac. the problem is also that germany using alot of icp to controld on sea zone, that gives the control of 1 area norway, it helps germany in EE but there is normal a good stack so u cant take that anyway.
As i said thing dont alwayes go on the borad as it dose on the forum. But i have never seen this strat work agains a top player.
have any of u beaten a top player whith this strat?.
We can debate this alot but it is the games that speach the truth.
Okay, then you believe in the Northern Africa Domination Strategy, which is a good strategy. But if England is landing in Algeria with 2 infantry, 2 armor in round 1, then they are not landing in Norway. They have nothing to land there WITH.
no ofc, if germany wants invest so much icp to hold norway free for 3 ore 4 turns then let them. Because u only hold norway free.
But u have still 1 art free, and u can alwayes sail them back round 2 if there is a reason. But the only navy u have is a bb and 2 trannys, u dont want them in range of the german navy.
The AC may works better against an US going trough norway, i dont no, never uset it. But against US in the med it fails.
I woud like to here about some games were it have workt.
Yes, but you see, I am saying Germany can hold Norway without defenders for free. I’m not buying anything, I just threaten you with 2 submarines, 4 fighters, 1 bomber, transport and destroyer at least.
whith out the ac u dont have to purcase 3fighters for uk. And u can go to norway but only whith 1 inf. Uk round 1 2 inf 1 ac and 1 tranny. Then u have 1 bb 1 ac 2 fighters and 3 trannys in sea zone 3, u use the russian sub to block for the tranny and dest. U will only have 1 inf in norway, but that is not so importen the importen thing is what u can do round 2 whith uk. That gives germany about 10% chance to sink the navy. Then u just let usa go to afrika.
A smart person will watih for round 2 to purcase a german ac. because i have now comitted uk 1 to a navy purcase. I still dont think it is a good ide, but u will have distrupted the Uk counter to the ac purcase.
The best way to defent norway is to stack kar, and trade it whith UK.
The way i do it is to stack kar, and move the dest and the 2 subs to sea zone 7. The chance of during some dmg whit the fleet is not that high. But u can now defent we whith 2 inf and 4 fighter, and there is a good chance that the tranny will be alive round 2. And that means 2 more inf in kar.
Kar is the most importent area for germany, if u hold that the allies cant land europe, they can only trade. Germany needs to presuer russia, that will make the japans game so much easyer. And that means u gonner trade WE in round 2.
Okay, then you believe in the Northern Africa Domination Strategy, which is a good strategy.
I just tried this strategy against myself, and it didn’t go well. I didn’t do anything special with the Axis to specifically counter it, I just went about my usual business. Germany was uncontained for many turns, and infantry units landed in Algeria on Round 2 were able to go to Persia on Round 6, but didn’t want to do because Japanese forces were built up. UK landed in Norway on Round 5, and the US burnt up its bb/2 dest 8 fighters and a bomber in order to kill 3 car 5 fig 2 sub 1 tran.
I think I must be doing something wrong overall, though I’m not sure what it is.
Were you landing England in Norway/Karelia/Archangelsk and only America in North Africa after round 1?
America should be hitting Persia on round 5 and putting immediate pressure on Japan’s industrial might at that point onward.
Were you landing England in Norway/Karelia/Archangelsk and only America in North Africa after round 1?
America should be hitting Persia on round 5 and putting immediate pressure on Japan’s industrial might at that point onward.
I really must not understand the strategy. I thought you had to wait for the Indian carrier/dest to link with the main fleets in order to go to SZ6 safely, and that happens on UK4-5. Otherwise I’d feel like I would have to buy more UK navy to defend off of Norway. I also didn’t think the Allies could land in Algeria on round 1 because of the bb/tran/sub + 5 fighters 1 bomber ready to strike boats there.
So I counted Round 2 infantry in Algeria, being in Persia on Round 6, and not even bothering the Japanese because they took India on round 1, built a complex on round 2, then 3 infantry on each round afterwards. When the Allies got to TJ, they had to wait a round before wandering into Persia because of the sheer Japanese force easily waiting to roll them backwards.
Personally I don’t think the G AC buy is a good strat, and more than one is only worse.
But sometimes allies can’t even land in Afr. rnd. 1 becuase Germany may do sealion.
And in other games there’s even sub, trans + BB in sz 13, 4 G ftrs in WE + bmr in Berlin makes
allie landing in Afr. too dangerous, better to wait until rnd. 2.
To let Germany have Afr. uncontested means allies is letting axis win. E.o.d.
Bean:
The “classic” (as in what most people describe as) North Africa Domination is England solely on North Russia from UK 2 on and America in North Africa every turn.
MY version is a few rounds in North Africa with England and then solely into Asia. But in my version, England’s only buying 4 infantry for a few rounds as well, the rest goes to fighters which land in Russia to defend. That usually works out to about 6 or 7 British fighters by the time I have 4 transports for England.
The “classic” (as in what most people describe as) North Africa Domination is England solely on North Russia from UK 2 on and America in North Africa every turn.
I wonder how the UK can afford to operate by itself early on if there’s a carrier in the Baltic, maybe they have to build something silly like car/dest?
MY version is a few rounds in North Africa with England and then solely into Asia. But in my version, England’s only buying 4 infantry for a few rounds as well, the rest goes to fighters which land in Russia to defend. That usually works out to about 6 or 7 British fighters by the time I have 4 transports for England.
I see, I was trying it different.
Carrier in the Baltic is meaningless to England. You are off loading in SZ 4.
In my version, the carrier in the baltic can be sunk without American interference. But in Classic it’s just a 16 IPC tourist attraction since you don’t want to land in E. Europe anyway!
Carrier in the Baltic is meaningless to England. You are off loading in SZ 4.
Hmm that’s exactly what I thought would be untrue. Then the Baltic runs out to SZ3 and blocks you off unless you spent the first couple rounds building fighters.
Then the SZ 3 fleet is destroyed by America and England is still uneffected.
At worst, America loses a few transports and a couple destroyers, and England finishes off what’s left of the SZ 3 fleet and lands units in Norway for a round with minimal, if any, losses to England.
Then the SZ 3 fleet is destroyed by America and England is still uneffected.
At worst, America loses a few transports and a couple destroyers, and England finishes off what’s left of the SZ 3 fleet and lands units in Norway for a round with minimal, if any, losses to England.
This strategy is harder to understand than I thought. Isn’t America off of Africa? They can’t really reach SZ3 unless they’ve stopped dominating Northern Africa.
No you’re on the right track here, Bean. If the US fleet is landing in Africa and the UK goes to sz4, moving the Baltic fleet to sz3 is a devastating move. And if the US fleet is near UK then Germany isn’t going to be buying more than 1 CV in the Baltic or leaving it for that matter, but then Africa is open in that case.
