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 : (

In my opinion, you should always give Japan 2 IPC's from the bid to give you the option of building 4 TP's on J1.

Do you ever get the feeling that inflates the Axis bid, U-505?

If I were to bid so that Japan gets 2 IPCs and also Germany gets enough IPCs to make a difference on their front, the bids would easily be 8-9, while some people are getting away with 6-7. It seems to me to add 2 IPCs to the bid, but what's your perspective on this?

Also U-505, if you start with a 3 tran build, would you go expanding to Hawaii/Aus anytime soon? When is a good time? Or simply keep them there off of Japan, continually offloading maximum units from Japan each turn?

5:40 < 3:24  Or in easier to understand terms.  You are killing 12.5% of Germany's starting income value vs losing 12.5% of your starting income but what's worse is that Germany has probably closer to 46 whereas you probably have 26 if you are lucky.

Meanwhile, you just pulled an infantry off the front lines to kill a tank.  That's one less Infantry that Germany has to kill to get into Stalingrad or Kiev or Warsaw, etc.

To me whenever you start quoting % of starting incomes I just go huh? You can't base Russia's success as % of its income, since there after all 3 Allies working together.

I continue to not understand your stance of "pulling an infantry off the front lines." It isn't in any way, shape, or form. The 1-2 inf you have leftover are immediately useful the next round to contest Karelia. Just think of it as predestinating those inf to go to Karelia. Otherwise they'd be going to W. Russia. It doesn't matter though since that just frees up 2 inf from W. Russia to do something else.

Also, it's not just "one less inf for Germany to kill", it's really "one less tank for the Allies to kill." I'd trade an inf for a tank all day long, keep it coming baby! 

The 5-6 units from Russia at the beginning of R2 usually just go to W. Russia to stage for frontline attacks. So what if 2 of them go to Archangel? Those 2 that go to Archangel aren't out of position, because they can contest Karelia. How clear can I be?

I'm all about conserving what you have and not wasting it on futile attacks if at all possible.

And then in the same breath you say blitz a German tank to Archangel? 

I do see where you're coming from actually, I like to conserve units, and it's a good move to keep in mind if Germany made some impossible fleet to crack. I'm just not sure I can wait that long (UK5) to land safely in Germany/E. Europe/Karelia.

Jennifer, in may country there is an ancient proverb that say:

"Who hits first, hits two times!"

Romulus, you are full of sh!

JK lol, I just thought since you asked us to say that in the other thread, that I would for the fun of it. What country do you come from anyways?

I save 6 to have 39 in J2, considering the conquest of China and Buratyia. So I can buy an IC (15) and 8 inf(24).

That makes sense.   

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.

J1 (30): 3 TRN, saving 6 IPC.

That is a good point, but I still wouldn't save the 6 IPCs. Build a tank with it, and drop off a tank instead of an inf on J2, that allows you for a little more punching/defensive power. Save the IPC on the next turn when you only need to build 3 inf 4 tank to get the max units on Japan.

Landing in Africa opens a second front on Germany and threatens a full 20% of the German's income (or saves 33% of Englands, depending on how you are looking at it.)

Actually, Germany only has 2 IPCs to lose in Africa. The best way to look at it is the latter, 33% of UK's income, and also chipping away at Germany's fortune.

Yes, Russia can afford to hit all 4 territories on Russia 2. (Karelia, Archangelsk, W. Russia and Ukraine.)  But is it optimal?

I don't understand. How is it not optimal? A German tank for a Russian inf is a great trade - for the Russians. At a 5:3 IPC ratio exchange, Russia could take out most of Germany by itself. Any leftover inf in Archangel is perfectly positioned to trade Karelia next turn, which is what you would be doing anyways. I'd take a German tank for a Russia inf anyday. You speak of "only 2 fighters?" So what? That's 4 territories with 1 unit in them apiece, nothing terribly spooky. You have 2 art 4 tank in W. Russia, 2 art 5 inf in Russia, and 5 inf 1 art in Caucasus, plenty to easily take over those territories and having a great chance at taking out a tank for an inf.

To be assured of killing the Kwangtung transport you must throw away an Aircraft Carrier and a Destroyer.  Cost: 28 IPC.  Gain? 8 IPC.  This does not strike me as an overly strong gambit.  Especially considering Japan's going to be spending money on transports either way.

You think of this incorrectly. It is 28 IPCs of units that basically has no value to you since it is so far away, and the 8 IPCs you are destroying definitely slows down Japanese land invasion. If you don't take it out, India falls on J1 for sure if you counterattacked Anglo, and also stacking 6 inf in Bury or even 1 doesn't remotely bother the Japanese anymore. It is also 28 IPCs of units you don't have to replace in any way. Looking purely at IPC costs of units isn't very useful; I mean really do you go "wow, the UK lost 55 IPCs of units - Anglo Egypt, SZ13, SZ15, at the cost of 2 German inf! They lose!"

As for Japan, they're neither further along nor farther behind because of their extra Transport.

I don't understand how you could say this. An extra transport will allow the Japanese to move in faster. Waiting for UK 5 to invade Norway because you're waiting for the Indian fleet does slow down the Allied advance.

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.

It's actually worse than it looks for SBR.

Because a bomber does not do on average 3.5 IPCs. When it gets shot down, it does not do its damage at all. So the average is 5/6 of 3.5 = 2.91, then -2.5 = 0.41 IPC gain.

But from a statistical point of view it is not a good move.

Statistically it's fine as long as you don't buy a bomber =P

I like to have 4 transports early myself, at least to make use of the 8 builds a turn on Japan.

24 IPCs on 3 transports unlocks a total of 8 units (since you already have a tran)

30 IPCs on 2 complexes unlocks a total of 6 units

So you spend more to get less, in a way. Of course, IC's can dump more tanks.

It might be a problem if blitzing Archangel magically opened up a German gateway such that Russia had to contest it as a 4th zone for many battles to come, but for one round? When you have plenty of units garrisoned on all 4 zones on R2? No problem, especially since you're getting a good economic trade out of knocking that tank out.

Yea good point, just sometimes it's annoying to maneuver the BB because it's usually lagging behind your "forward" fleet.

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.