Italian fleet kill on US3

[Lynxes]

OK, I posted this on the Italian fleet thread but I do it again in a revised format to get some feedback. The fastest and quickest way of killing the Italian fleet should be:

1) On US1, build 1 CV +1 DD +1 sub + 1 bom -> EUS/sz10.
2) On US2, move 1 sub, 2 DD+1 fully loaded CV to sz12, move 3 bom's to French West Africa (note: safe from attack from Egypt and can reach East Med., if Axis has tanks in range, place bom's in Belgian Congo covered by UK troops, i.e. 2 inf from SAF). Sz12 might be bolstered by UK fleet if needed for defence against German air strike.
3) On US3, strike Italian fleet with either: sz15 or sz16 2 figs, 3 boms, or: sz13 or sz14 1 sub 2 DD 1 CV 2 fig 3 bom. If the Italians builds a fleet of 1 DD+1 fully loaded CV in sz14 you still have 1 sub 2 DD, 1 CV, 2 fig, 3 bom vs. 1 DD, 2 CA, 1 CV, 2 fig, 1 BB, a 70%+ attack.

The only way for Axis to counter this strategy seems to be to build even more fleet and in that case a combined US + UK strike should be enough to finish it off. I doubt if an Italian fleet build is even worth it with this US strategy, it's probably a waste of IPCs that will be at the bottom of the sea! If the Axis survive with 2 tanks in EGY on turn 1, 2 infs might not do it to protect your bombers, and in that case using Russia as the bomber base works as well.

With a SAF IC and landings in Algeria, Africa will be secure quite quickly and UK's vital IPCs saved from dwindling too low. The stage is set for Allied success.  

[axis_roll]

With a SAF IC and landings in Algeria, Africa will be secure quite quickly and UK's vital IPCs saved from dwindling too low. The stage is set for Allied success.  

That's a large allied investment in Africa.  Are you sure the UK IC is needed if you plan on removing the Axis ability to reinforce africa by the end of round 3?  I think the UK navy is better served with the $15 (could be another tpt with inf and tank).

Just some food for thought...

[dondoolee]

That seems like it would seriously hamper the allies in Europe, I fear Russia would be in too much trouble.  The other problem I would see is the potential to have Japan start hitting Africa fairly hard if the Axis player became familiar with that strat.  Use a delay w/ Italy, then follow up with Japan.  Also of note the Japanese Carrier can get re enforce Italy T3 and maybe even a few surviving German subs.

Clearing the Med seems to be a living logistical Hell for the Allies.  Latley, I have been more concerned with just a US fleet that Italy can't sink/ is resticted a little (due to US bomber pressure).  Getting money and pressure on Europe seems far more profitable than worrying about wasting valuable turns/time in Africa sometimes. If the Axis want they can make the Med a living nightmare, on top of that taking Italy itself can sometimes be of no use as it is too difficult to trade most of the time due to the location.

I think the Allies should just worry about France 1st and foremost (easier to hit and hold PLUS you get an NO for US and UK), have America send in a very few "suicide trannies" w/armour into Africa to disrupt the Italians a bit.  But for the most part threaten France w/ a united fleet, be in a position to double hit Germany to keep German supply lines to Russia severly ltd, and hit Poland/NW Europe/Karelia at will. Another benefit to this is if the Italians usually build a fleet (particularly a defensive carrier) they have essentially just wasted money and time.

This game is still about relieving Russia as quickly as possible and trying to prevent Japan from getting uncontrolably big.  A large Allied commitment to Africa does not seem like the way to acomplish this goal.

[Lynxes]

I can't see a quick strike at France succeeding if Axis plays well, builds an extra IC as Germany and then uses both Italian and German inf to make landing very expensive indeed. If UK looses Africa they will be down to the low 20s in IPCs and won't be very threatening. The SAF IC can be used against Japan in the later game, channelling tanks through the Middle East and relieving pressure on Caucasus.

As for invasions of northern Europe, they are important and that's why I think USA should take the main responsibility for destroying the Italian fleet. Typically you land in Norway on UK2 and then somewhere on the continent on UK3, and that pretty much is what you can do early on. After the first US buy oriented towards Africa, they can start building up for the ECA/FRA shuck and maybe some Pacific builds. Those bombers in Africa of course transfer back to Europe after doing their job! It's not an all-out anti-African campaign that I'm advocating, it's just that in a long game IPC-balance is vital and Africa tips the scales.

[Corbeau Blanc]

Buy 3 bomber with UK turn 1, sink it turn 2 with 4 bombers.
That' the best way I found.

[dondoolee]

I can't see a quick strike at France succeeding if Axis plays well, builds an extra IC as Germany and then uses both Italian and German inf to make landing very expensive indeed. If UK looses Africa they will be down to the low 20s in IPCs and won't be very threatening. The SAF IC can be used against Japan in the later game, channelling tanks through the Middle East and relieving pressure on Caucasus.

As for invasions of northern Europe, they are important and that's why I think USA should take the main responsibility for destroying the Italian fleet. Typically you land in Norway on UK2 and then somewhere on the continent on UK3, and that pretty much is what you can do early on. After the first US buy oriented towards Africa, they can start building up for the ECA/FRA shuck and maybe some Pacific builds. Those bombers in Africa of course transfer back to Europe after doing their job! It's not an all-out anti-African campaign that I'm advocating, it's just that in a long game IPC-balance is vital and Africa tips the scales.

The UK owning France= All of UK Africa + being in an already relevent position.  There is also a good chance you will own Norway/Finland.   Plus there is a good chance of being able to trade Poland and/or NW Europe.  These territories put the UK at around 25-28 IPC's per Turn, that's not bad.  Plus you are in a much more relevant position.

I would think Germany building an IC on France T1 would cost it dearly.  Now the UK/US would have free SBRs and could potentially do  32 IPC worth of bombing damage (counting Germany/Franc.  44 with Italy).  More importantly Germany moves before UK, if Germany builds a T1 IC the UK can always adjust its strat at this point.  Also Germany just spent 1/2 of her income on a non attacking/non defending piece in the far reaches of the Western Front.  I would think Russia could make Germany pay dearly for this.  If Italy is planning on buying a navy, that would mean that Germany/Italy probably only bought, at most, 24 IPC worth of ground units on Europe T1 which is less than what Russia alone is going to put on the board.

Also I don't say abandon Africa completley, once in awhile send the US down there with an occasional transport to keep Italy occupied and MAYBE even a few Russians via Persia/the Caucauss.

I just see the UK factory hurting the UK on building a decent Navy on time from the Germans. To me an unsinkable Allied fleet is priority #1, without it the Allies are worthless. Many times the UK won't be in a position to make a drop in Europe untill UK3, why should I make that more difficult on myself by putting an IC in SAF.  \I say this assuming the UK has to spend all of UK1 buying capital ships just not to get sunk/be a non worthless player, and AT MOST will have only 1 Transport (though may not have any transports at all by the end of UK1, because all IPC's had to be invested in capital ships)

[bugoo]

An unsinkable fleet is so terribly cheap for the allies its not even funny.  Allies have 6 fighters on T1.  With a simple investment of 14 IPCs those turn into 2/4/4, up to 3 of 'em, for just 42 IPCs.  It would take G to kill 3 loaded carriers plus the 2 destroyers allies have at the end of turn 1 4 fighters and 7 bombers to have odds to win against that fleet.  Now if your purchasing the craptastic cruiser than yes, getting an unsinkable fleet is insanely expensive, but destroyers and carriers are crazy good at defending transports.

[critmonster]

the cruisers offshore ability makes it far from "craptastic" and at $12 it is easily affordable. (I still love the BB though, something about turning her on her side )

[bugoo]

Sure taking one shot at a 3 for a boat that defends worse than the same priced bomber attacks while the enemy is making more money than you is awesome, so is my fig that attacks all combat at a 3 =).

[critmonster]

Sure taking one shot at a 3 for a boat that defends worse than the same priced bomber attacks while the enemy is making more money than you is awesome, so is my fig that attacks all combat at a 3 =).

ships have always been more expensive than air for comparable firepower, just as air (fig attack @3. $10) is more expensive by comparison than ground (tank @3, $5) air has unprecedented mobility to offset that and navy is the only way to get units into the action for some nations so I don't think that is a good comparison.

comparing the relative value of the different ships (like your earlier post) is however an excellent topic for discussion. does this mean you invest in carriers and fighters to support you landings and find that a more effecient approach than building capitol ships and bombarding?

[bugoo]

Yes, i typically invest in 2-4 carriers with a sprinkling of destroyers.  This is the only way to get the troops into the fight in large quantities quickly.

Look at it this way, on UK1 I can buy a carrier and 2 or 3 transports and land the US fighters on her.  This, with the destroyer pair I start with, gives me a 2, 2, 4, 4 to defend with.  It also forces Germany to either stack france hard, or begin trading it turn UK2.  On US1 I can buy a carrier, transports, and/or bombers.  Then, on allied turn 2 G has alot of troops coming in to say hello.  Because UK typically has 30-35 IPCs to spend on turn 2 if I need to I can land in Norway, France, or NWE and build another destroyer or two, or even another carrier, or I can send said fleet down to SZ 12 and land 6-8 UK units in africa and join up with the US fleet.  The big thing about the carrier build though, is it allows me to land between 10-14 units into Europe/Africa, on turn 2.

Typically though I keep the UK fleet in the north (landing in Karelia typically, as G has a hard time keeping figs in range to strike SZ 4), and the US fleet in the south (landing in Africa, sending armor on a race to Persia to help hold against Japan).  This takes pressure off of Russia beginning turn 2, keeps G's income a little lower, and threatens France and Italy.

[Zhukov44]

I like this.  The idea of buying bombers UK1 to sink the fleet UK2 isn't bad either, but depends on what Germany did and bought G1.  USA3 is probably a better idea in most cases.  But an attack needs to be made by USA3 otherwise Allies are asking for trouble.  At that point it's tough to prevent a ��� carrier coming through unless the Allies have stacked Jordan.

[critmonster]

I also like the carriers and fighters approach if I am landing in heavily contested areas that require more than one round to clear since the air remains round to round. I prefer bombards if I am strafing (no risk to planes) or if I expect to clear the TT in one round of combat

[Cmdr Jennifer]

How does your attack hold up under an Italian Destroyer buy?  (Or Aircraft Carrier + Fighter buy adding the second fighter they start with to the fleet defense?)

[bugoo]

Best thing to do in that case, in my opinion, is to stack SZ 12 with combined US/UK fleets while US builds up her bomber fleet.  US and UK can land many more troops into africa than Italy could ever dream of, and the IPCs spent for boats means fewer Italians on France.  Combine that with ample US bombing of germany and building up for a 'take and hold drop' of france or Italy should allow you to push back.  The biggest weakness, esp with my typically 3 trannie buy, is the UK fleet is vulnerable in SZ 12 by itself on UK2 as it consist of only a destroyer and loaded carrier.  Because of this it is a good idea to suicide a tranny to take Norway or use the US one, but mostly to only send 1 or 2 trannies with the fleet into SZ 12, and purchase more tannies and troops into SZ 2 to give you a possible threat of around 12 ground pounders on UK3 into france.  G3 is not a good turn to have to move half your purchased units in the wrong direction 

This puts I2 in an strange position, as she can kill the UK fleet, but then she will most likely loose her fleet on US2 and the UK should still have 2-4 transports anyway that can rally under US carrier cover.  Or she could keep her fleet, but if the allies take africa anyway, as US2 should drop around 4-6 units in along with a large potential UK drop on UK3, what is the point.

Another fun thing to do with this on allied turn 3-5, is instead of hitting france, land on NWE in force while purchasing destroyers with the UK.  This allows the US to reinforce with fighters from the carriers on her turn and allow you to start scaring Germany, remember NWE is worth the same as Karelia to Germany!  Along with an aggressive Russia you can really put Germany in a tight spot.