Egypt SZ 12 and the Med

[Funcioneta]

Anyone ever contemplate a Russian bomber R1?

Soviets should buy 1 figh for both R1 and R2, so I guess you can spend 2 more IPCs for a bomber instead. I prefer convert 1 inf into a tank, but that's a matter of tastes

[DarthMaximus]

Has anyone tried to take out all the UK ships?

Sz 2 - bb, trn vs. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom
Sz 9 - dd, trn vs. 1 sub
Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs

You can still take out the Sz 6 ship and I don't think this messes up Egy, if you were going to do that and sz 2 anyway.  Obviously sz 9 and 12 are a bit dicey but you could really cripple the UK interms of transporting units for a rd or 2.  Just wondering if anyone has seen this.
 

[Funcioneta]

I think I prefer secure z2 and z12, but agreed, killing all is powerful. A thing about z6: if germans kill the dd but uk makes 1 hit, I think I would kill the cruiser, becuase the sub cannot be hit by aircraft (or course, It would be needed rolling z12 first for being sure of this). A alive sub in z6 makes any naval purchase with UK1 very dangerous.

Oh, long range aircraft can give you a additional fig. Then, you could try kill everything, or even making a try in z10

[Driel310]

Has anyone tried to take out all the UK ships?

Sz 2 - bb, trn vs. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom
Sz 9 - dd, trn vs. 1 sub
Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs

You can still take out the Sz 6 ship and I don't think this messes up Egy, if you were going to do that and sz 2 anyway.  Obviously sz 9 and 12 are a bit dicey but you could really cripple the UK interms of transporting units for a rd or 2.  Just wondering if anyone has seen this.
 

If you open like that in every Axis game I don't see one getting high up in a ladder. In other words, it's fun to try but don't expect consistent good results. SZ9 and SZ 12 are risky, plus I do think this messes up Egypt since you can't bring the bmb in to Egypt like this.

[AdamD021]

Has anyone tried to take out all the UK ships?

Sz 2 - bb, trn vs. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom
Sz 9 - dd, trn vs. 1 sub
Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs

You can still take out the Sz 6 ship and I don't think this messes up Egy, if you were going to do that and sz 2 anyway.  Obviously sz 9 and 12 are a bit dicey but you could really cripple the UK interms of transporting units for a rd or 2.  Just wondering if anyone has seen this.
 

Assuming you get good dice

[marfabi]

and what about using the german ca from Sz5 to take out the dd in Sz6, that leaves you with an extra fighter for Sz12

[tin_snips]

i really don't think pulling the German fleet out of the their fjord is such a good idea. if they do get destroyed (either by losing the first battle, or being sunk by UK's airforce once they're split-up) then Germany's just made a lot more territory that needs to be defended

i know i wouldn't want a UK fleet parking at Germany's door-step

[marfabi]

Managed to kill most of the UK fleet and kept my ca in Sz6 but then lost the ca to the russian sub. First strike is just to much..
The first thought was to divert the UK air to Sz6 so my transport would live another turn. Did not work...

[a44bigdog]

Again I still just do not see the need for Egypt G1. I think this is just more of a hold over from the older AA games.

My personal preference is to send 2 SS 1 FGT 1 BMB to SZ12, subs for fodder. I use the med Transport to reinforce Libya. So what if the UK fighter and tank in Egypt live. It isn't like this can't be taken care of either on Italy 1, Germany 2, or Italy 2.

So what if the UK builds an IC in India and flies the fighter there and sends the Egypt tank that way. I also do not see where Japan has to bust its guts just to take it out on J2. Yes the UK may take Burma, so what? After J2 China should be unable to produce infantry, the Pacific money islands (except New Zealand) should be yours, and Australia should be as well, to give you your 3rd NO and take away 1 of the UK's. Once all this has been done, on J2 mind you, Japan can set its sights on comfortably taking India when it is dang good and ready to with the proper resources.

[rockrobinoff]

Once all this has been done, on J2 mind you, Japan can set its sights on comfortably taking
India when it is dang good and ready to with the proper resources.

Well, I wont go so far to say that Egypt is a must, but that tank and fighter with a little bit of Russian help could easily translate into an India stays allied on J2. To my mind, that is a disaster - meaning a whole extra turn that the Russians get to build guys. Protracted wars dont favour the axis - speed speed speed.

[a44bigdog]

I don't even advocate attacking the Indian IC in J2.

If the Russians are reinforcing it, great! That is less units they have elsewhere. India can produce 3 units and with Improved ICs or whatever the Tech is called at most 5. Japan can match this without even breaking a sweat. Know what that means? Standoff. And I do not think it helps the Allies one bit. This is merely UK units tied down in one territory or maybe dead zoning and trading Burma. So what? It is no threat at all to Japan and again just a drain on Allied resources. As brutally nasty as Japan gets in the '41 scenario I don't even feel like they have to take the Indian IC, merely contain it. Japan can produce enough units to take the central or northern route to Moscow or go kick the snot out of the US.

Again I see more of the old answers being given. Has it been proved that a long game in '41 benefits the Allies? I think the verdict is still out on that one and I suspect the opposite is true.

[Funcioneta]

Again I see more of the old answers being given. Has it been proved that a long game in '41 benefits the Allies? I think the verdict is still out on that one and I suspect the opposite is true.

I think a long 1941 game beneficts axis (they will get economic advantage soon  ). Still, I have to discover how allies can make a quick game in 1941... or even win ...

[Alair]

Well I played it again and yea, G1 taking Egypt with the bomber is the right move.  Let England keep some fleet.

At the same time J1 move 1 AC off Burma to take out the fleet off of India and setup J2 to take India.

It's a strong move, the only downside is when I did it I didn't take the Phillipines J1, only the fleet, so the USA was stronger.

There was a player who heard the Axies have the advantage so we tried some 'house rules' that were, imo, terrible.  Non-aggression between Japan and Russia and China gets 1 army per territory instead of one per 2.  All the non-aggression did was free up more troops to take India and China while the freed up Russian troops never made it to the Russian front.

The allies can win with no mods, I think I've pretty much figured it out but my buddies have soured on the game already.  In A&A skill level plays a big factor so it's just not as fun if you're not as good.

[tin_snips]

Again I see more of the old answers being given. Has it been proved that a long game in '41 benefits the Allies? I think the verdict is still out on that one and I suspect the opposite is true.

I think a long 1941 game beneficts axis (they will get economic advantage soon  ). Still, I have to discover how allies can make a quick game in 1941... or even win ...

a long game definitely favours the allies. the more time it takes the axis to achieve their goals, the more time the allies have to build up their forces and win by a simple war of attrition

if Germany takes too long to capture Moscow, then UK gets in with the helping Russia defend, and/or invading German territory. if Japan fails to get a large enough foot-hold, then USA sends wave after wave of fleet/airforce

not saying this is for certain. it's just the odds of the game

[Funcioneta]

a long game definitely favours the allies. the more time it takes the axis to achieve their goals, the more time the allies have to build up their forces and win by a simple war of attrition

But, how can allies win a war of attrition if they collect less income than axis? Maybe you are talking about not using NOs?