The Bismark Gambit

It’s odd how you’ve highlighted the ramifications arising from an incredibly unlikely situation.

It’s also odd that the “gambit” is buried in the middle of your post with no highlighting. I will quote it below:

@MeinHerr:

BB to SZ 91 ?!!! Gambit

I don’t like going light to sea zone 111 like that – it begs for a UK scramble from Scotland. Sea zone 110 is better, but if the UK scrambles there you are going to take a lot of hits to your air force. Of course, if the UK scrambles in both these sea zones then A) Taranto is off the table and B) the UK can’t clear sea zone 91 and also do much of anything in the Med.

Assuming you can pull this off, it does make for an interesting pickle for the UK player – they really can’t kill the battleship and also clear sea zone 96 unless they use fighters from the UK. They could also bring a destroyer (from 106 or 109 since you aren’t touching those zones) to soak the defensive hit from the battleship.

If the UK does this, they might be advised to go ahead and bring in ground forces from Canada and the UK to land in Gibraltar. Four ground units and two fighters landing in Gibraltar should forestall any Italian attack. Of course, this also isn’t possible if the UK did two scrambles…

So, interesting. Creates an opportunity to throw the UK off script, and that’s seldom a bad thing. The potential German air losses due to scrambles concern me though.

However, the Bismarck was not actually battle ready until late 1940 and didn’t actually see combat until 1941. Maybe you should call this the Scharnhorst gambit?

Marsh

I truly worry about the losses of airplanes during the G1 sea battles.  There is a 50% chance of losing six planes in the SZ110 battle and it wouldn’t be unexpected to lose two planes in the SZ111 battle.  You have a significant chance of losing eight German planes on G1!  The UK might even be able to keep their Battleship alive in SZ110, making it into a “let’s start over” situation.  All of this just to save a battleship and take Gibraltar… not worth it IMHO unless you are going against a vastly superior opponent and need good dice to win the match.  There is enough risk of a failed Paris attack in a standard game, and now you add even more chance of a disastrous G1.

The German BB can’t reach SZ91 G1.

It’s odd that you have a critical battle in SZ91 on a coin flip.

Am I missing something?

Every scrambling action must be decided after combat move phase, but before combat phase. The results of any battle in this phase occure too late to have influence on your scrambling choices. In fact, those battles are considered to happen simutaneously.

If your whole point is to give the UK another target so they don’t hit the Italian navy, and/or possibly get the Bismark to the Med if they spare it why not just use the BB to hit and run sz111 (then return to sz112 damaged). The cruiser and transport could join it (or your cruiser and transport could stay in sz113 to as the Baltic fleet). You could also land just a couple planes on W Germany (for scramble) making it a more appealing target.

If the UK leaves the German BB (still does Taranto) the Germans have a couple options. They could leave the Bismark up North to strengthen the Baltic fleet, maybe using it to amphib Russia from sz115, or sz127. Depending on where the RAF ends up you may be able have the Italians sail their remaining fleet to sz91 taking Gib on It1, and the repaired Bismark (possibly the cruiser/tpt) could join them on G2 moving into the Med next turn. I know there are a lot of ifs, but the point is to make UK think about different things. If you leave their BB damaged in sz111 they could use it to attack you in sz112, or they may attempt to take action to save it, leaving them less resources for combat.

If the point is to give the UK additional targets to deter Taranto, then it probably makes more sense to leave the battleship committed to the sea zone 110 attack to take a hit, but make sure it doesn’t die. Then move the cruiser to sea zone 112, giving the UK two targets to worry about in the Atlantic in addition to any subs that survived.

Marsh

I would love to you see you build the Bismarck on G3 and have it join the Italian navy in sea zone 91 on G5.

You can get the Scharnhorst there on G2 though.

Marsh

Good point about Normandy, though in general I dislike taking it because it benefits the Allies more than Germany. In this case, since you are hinging some plan for the battleship, being able to repair it may justify taking Normandy.

Regarding Taranto and 110, that is the case except that if you also move the cruiser to 112 that is another target for the UK to consider. Also the UK may need that destroyer for killing surviving submarines, and if you have the damaged battleship and a surviving sub in sea zone 110 the UK will need more than one plane to do the job.

Marsh

Yes, the US can only produce three units there.

That means that the US needs two fewer transports to get the same number of reinforcements. If the US produces three non-infantry ground units (3 tanks!), that is three fewer transports. Spread over two turns, that is six fewer transports. If you multiply that by the Southern France IC, that’s 12 fewer transports.

That’s a pretty significant benefit for the US, and that’s in addition to not having to spend 12 IPCs on the industrial complex.

Germany might hold Normandy for five turns as the Axis, collecting 10 IPCs. Once the US comes in, they get those IPCs and a free industrial complex all because Germany took a territory that gives it no benefit at all other than the IPCs. In effect, you give the Allies 12 IPCs (plus the territory’s value) in exchange for 10 IPCs. Plus, you free up 14 IPCs worth of existing US units (minimum) for other duties…

EDIT: Actually, multiplied over two turns, you free up at least 28 IPCs worth of existing units for other duties. Forgot to carry the x2!

That seems like shoddy economics to me…

Marsh

Well, over five turns Germany makes (assuming no losses taking Normandy) 10 IPCs. With losses, that number is smaller. That amounts to basically one tank and one mech that can make Moscow (maybe less).

How much should Germany spend to defend a 2IPC income? If you build that counter, that is less money going towards eliminating one of your fronts as quickly as possible. If the US lands with say six units and the UK lands six units behind them (to keep it simple assume 12 infantry), you need to attack with enough force to destroy the invasion with at least one ground unit left over. On average, those 12 infantry get four hits on defense (assuming you can wipe it out in one round of combat). That means you lost 12 IPCs (again, assuming infantry) to recapture 2 IPCs and a 12 IPC IC that you do not build at.

And you’re going to have to do it again the next round? That’s now 24 IPCs not going into the Russian front. Exactly when are you going to take Moscow?

When you see the Allies not liberating Paris when they hold Normandy and Southern France, is it because they don’t want to lose the income? Maybe with the UK, but the US gets an objective to make up for the lost income. So, it’s not because of the income (at least if the US player holds them) – it’s because they want to be able to produce units right there and liberating Paris deprives them of that ability.

The Allied logistical issues are your friend if you are running the Axis. Why give the Allies an out?

Marsh

I get what you’re saying Shadowhawk, but in the case of Norway the US has to spend those 12 IPCs for the factory. In the case of Normandy, they don’t. That makes the Allies 12 IPCs richer, and now you have to immediately contest the territory to prevent them building. If you never take Normandy, then while the Allies can continue landing reinforcements there (which you eventually must quash, as I think you agree) at least they still have to worry about the logistics of getting those reinforcements there and you have a bit more leeway in your response to the landing.

As for using Paris to defend Normandy, Southern France, and West Germany, you are setting yourself up for a fork in which your forces must choose which direction to go and you basically have to sacrifice a territory.

(Also note that I am not complaining about taking Southern France, for three reasons:

1. The income is bigger.
2. It’s easier to contest as the Axis without leaving yourself open to fancy Allied maneuvering due to the presence of an Italian major IC right next to it.
3. It opens up the possibility of doing German builds in the Med to get an additional NO or help Italy.

Those reasons are not true of Normandy.)

Please note that I’m not opposed to taking Normandy if it serves a strategic or tactical purpose (you’re going to spam subs into the Atlantic, for instance and need to pump them out of the Normandy factory) that outweighs the economic issue.

Marsh