@KGB:
Is it really a disaster if you lose in Egypt? The tradeoff (if you lose, whereas there’s 40% of a draw or better) is losing a German trn and, say, 2 German ground units, versus killing a UK BB and transport… Seems worth it to me.
Why “say” losing two ground units? Winning Egypt light, barring very excellent dice, means surviving with one unit, or drawing. Losing four or five units. All of that happening no better than 40% of the time. Very dodgy battle.
I do believe that strategic discussions should list wether N.O.s are active or not (as they couls influence strategic decisions.
Sure, whether tech on or off is important as well. That said, I don’t think whether N.O. on or off effects whether you need to protect the Italian navy.
@KGB:
Well, I never said you could have it all… What do you think is better, having those extra Egypt odds or killing those British ships? Suppose you could also send sub, fig to sz 2, though that is riskier than not having the bomber in Egypt (and you don’t kill the trn if it’s a draw).
I think Egypt light is a disaster. Sub + Ftr to SZ 2 is about 40%.
What if you lose both? That’s probably game…
@KGB:
sz 2: sub (sz 7) + fig (Nwy) + bomber
sz 12: sub (sz 7) + fig (France) + fig (Ger)
Egy: inf, tank (France) + African unitsThis leaves Egypt a little light (just under 50% to kill the UK fig probably), but you can quite reliably clear out almost all of the UK ships. I don’t think it’s worth it to bypass sz2 only to slightly increase your odds in Egypt or sz 12.
They Egypt attack without the bomber is a bit under 40% to draw, and about 33% to win. Pretty ugly if you ask me.
Most or many players will have noticed that the Italian Fleet is vulnerable to the UK on turn 1 if both the UK fighter in Egypt, and the destroyer+cruiser combo in SZ 12, live.
A UK bomber+fighter+cruiser+destroyer versus an Italian battleship+2 cruisers is about a 55% UK win (netting a transport as well) and 65% to kill just the warships. I think most would agree if the Italian navy goes, its pretty much game over, as a full tilt KIF strat will succeed.
The German attack on Egypt is maxed at 3inf+2tanks+1art+1bomber versus 2inf+tank+art+ftr
which is about a 75% win for the attacker (a draw, around 80%, does the job as well, but if the final round of combat came down to bomber versus fighter, and the bomber missed and the fighter hit, it might be time for the Germans to call it a day…)
The attack on SZ 12 is 80% to win for the Germans, sending in 2subs and a fighter - though they could do this light (sub+ftr or two subs), given that it is only absolutely necessary to kill the destroyer.
So, given that it is a must that the Germans secure the Italian navy, the German player must a) attack egypt b) attack sz12 or c) both
If b or c, then then one obvious cost is not sinking the British battleship+trans, which is both slightly easier to kill than the dest+cruiser, and also a bigger prize.
The only problem with option a is that it fails 25% of the time. Not a brilliant prospect, especially if you are better than your opponent, and hope to grind out a long and sure win.
The problem with b is ignoring Egypt. The multitude of consequences other than leaving the Italians vulnerable, is more than obvious I would think.
To my mind, c is the only answer.
I guess that clears up sub v sub.
Despite surprise strikes, subs can’t force another sub to engage.
its a big blunder. if you have a look at the board, its pretty clear that japan can force its way into india by turn 2.
now, if japan is being slow or focusing elsewhere, then maybe, but if japan is moving west fast and hard (which it almost sure should be) then india IC is just a gift.
How is the logic as it applies to the real world at all relevant? Is it not simply a matter of game play balance? There are an endless number of unrealistic elements in all axis and allies games, so picking on one, and not another, seems entirely pointless to me.
i bought a german navy in rd 1 of my last game as axis. it was eventually sacrificed to the allied navy in a combined navy/aerial assault.
the downside of this strat is fewer units against the russians.
the huge upside is the delayed allied landings in the west, and the extra turns that it buys japan to get into the action.
so far, i have little to no idea what the allies should be doing in 41.
For truly balanced gameplay, one should never play with techs, because the difference in getting a tech on the first turn versus getting a tech on the seventh turn (I recently played an AA50 -41 Setup game and purchased 2 Research Tokens for UK on the first turn. After 5 turns without rolling a “6” with 2 dice, I paid 5 IPC more to roll 3 dice, and still didn’t get a tech until my seventh turn.) can drastically alter the balance of the game.
This is erroneus. As with most A&A decisions, it is a question of risk versus reward analysis. You bought your third tech die on round 6? Well, perhaps you should have bought it on turn 1, or no tech at all on any round, and saved the dollars for units. So you got unlucky when you rolled for tech. Sometimes your bombers get shot down by AA guns too…
The major advantage of playing with tech is that new strategies will constantly appear based on the combination of techs on the board, keeping the game fresh longer.
