@colt45554
That’s a good point, I’ll try that out
German quick route to middle east back of Russia
-
Arthur Bomber Harris,
Not true for UK 2. The 3 fighter scramble is enough to protect the transports from the UK hitting the transports in the Black Sea because Germany and Russia would not be at war yet. Only the UK bomber from Malta could hit the transports and land back in UK territory. Fighters/tacs could not hit those transports if they’re either in Egypt or Malta.
Depending on where and how many UK and Russian planes are, yes, on G3, Germany may then have to add surface warships. But by purchasing an airbase rather surface warships on G2, Germany gets to hit Russia with 6 cannon fodder troops that turn, which hopefully if successful offsets the cost.
If of course Germany does have to purchase surface ships on G3, than this makes the investment becomes even more expensive and further proof of this not being a good plan. However, it still looks like a fun idea and I will to do some more play testing.
-
8 units in Caucus for russia is pulling a lot off the front lines. But for russia to hit Iraq it’s gonna need some troops and will get staged in caucus so I do see your point. I too was thinking about the UK planes coming up the black sea and hitting the transports and trying to figure out how to prevent that. I like the idea of the air base and a scramble.
UK did what Arthur is seeing, and retreated into the Red Sea. So I’m dealing with a loaded UK carrier in SZ 81. And if I hadn’t screwed up not securing trans-jordan those planes would not be a problem. The carrier will probably move to SZ99 and the planes could land on it, unless he is bent on finishing off the italian fleet in the med. I was thinking of getting a carrier and two transports and dropping them in the black sea G2 (my next turn), and putting two fighters on the carrier. The carrier can then hit back at two and the fighters could land back in romania, but then there is a broken or lost carrier that needs a naval base to repair… Where as an Air base would give me range for bombers and scramble.
Could try an air base, 2 transports, and a destroyer for a dollar more. Less troops to transport but still should be enough to take Caucus with air assistance.
With Russia buying a carrier and destroyer turn one, i think I am set pretty good to buy ground units and march inland. Just really want those NO’s for Germany quick, and eating russian territories.
-
With the Russian player buying a destroyer and carrier in the Baltic on the first turn you have already won the game IMO so it doesn’t matter what strat you do lol (24 Russian IPCs on ships instead of troops :?). Buy a couple subs for the Baltic to reduce your losses when you air sweep that shiny new Russian carrier :evil:
Taking out that Russian fleet w/Russian air on it will be a huge bonus :-D
-
Stollmaster,
8 units was not a lot off the front lines for Russia. It’s all relative. If Germany didn’t purchase a Romanian IC, didn’t purchase a black sea fleet, airbase whatever, than yes, 8 units would have been a lot off the front lines. But in this scenario from my play testing, 8 units was reasonable for Russia. In fact, I could say 9 units when adding the tac. bomber.
Believe me, I want to make this strategy work so don’t underestimate my criticisms.
From play testing last night, I found from the Russia perspective, I was able to move the starting 2 mechs, 2 tanks, 2 infantry from Rostov, and 2 fighters to the Caucasus and still match the defensive strength required against the German stack that was smaller than normal (due to all of the purchases in the Black Sea and the minor IC in Romania). This is also assuming that Russia isn’t going to attack Iraq because I’m play testing Russia using every piece essential for defense. Also, when play testing, worst case scenario for Germany was me having the US and UK do a KGF plan. Disaster for Germany was going to happen real quick. It was very obvious in my play testing. In other play testing, I’ll try to have Germany do a sacrifice Gibraltar capture followed by more troops from Italy in order to stall and counter that for at least another turn or 2.
As soon as transports are built on the Black Sea, Russia obviously has to start producing in Stalingrad in order to get a chance to move out it’s mobile from the Caucasus and or build more defensive strength there. It obviously becomes a “new” avenue of approach for the defense of Moscow.
Tonight, I will try the airbase, destroyer, and 2 transport purchase on G2 (and the 3 transport purchase plan), then hit Russia on G3 with 2 transports and also play test it with 3 transports (while then adding in the place new units phase a destroyer for extra defense…). I think 2 transports (4 ground) will not be enough. However, I think 6 ground from 3 transports might be enough to either make the Russia player not stack the Caucasus (for fear of losing their air/tanks), so Germany can either walk-in for a NO, or Germany will get to smash units and start a war of attrition much quicker.
I’ve never seen the plan where a “good” UK player retreats into SZ81 with results that produce a better allied situation. I just haven’t experienced that yet. Letting Italy keep 2 transports and their battleship for me tips the Med balance favorably towards the Axis. I’ve successfully made Italy go hog wild in that scenario a few times. Italy grows very powerful as a minor power when and if the UK fails to take out or retreats to SZ81.
Also, It doesn’t matter if fighters are sitting on a UK carrier on SZ81 or they flew to Persia from India en route to Egypt. They could still hit the Black Sea once Russia is at war. I was saying that the only unit that the UK can hit the Black Sea with on UK2 is a bomber because fighters and tac. bombers don’t have the range to land in UK territories. They can’t land in Russian owned territories. Russia is a neutral until Round 4 or when Germany attacks them on Round 3. Well, I guess the carrier could move up to SZ99 from SZ81 to be a legal landing zone for a fighter, tac. bomber combo to add to the UK bomber. But in that scenario, why didn’t Italy land on Trans/Jordan to block the Suez Canal? That’s the obvious solution to help protect the Black Sea fleet.
-
Strollmaster,
In my games, Germany doesn’t get troops to Egypt because I’m playing a competent UK player. The only time(s) that’s remotely possible and has occurred is if the UK player doesn’t take out two Italian transports UK1. In that situation the German Luffwaffe is used for defensive purposely to let Italy build up on Alexandria before attacking Egypt. Never have I as Germany thought it smart to purchase an IC in Yugo just for the purpose of going after Egypt. Not worth it all. In that case, let Germany get S. France. I think purchasing a minor IC just for hitting Caucasus is a better plan than a minor at Yugo for Egypt.
Ichabod
The minor isnt just for getting egypt but for getting the middle east and for helping out italy.
Since you can produce units in a protected SZ ( south italy airbase ) you can help italy become strong enough to stay afloat in the med.
This can give italy a 15 ipc NO germany a 5ipcNO and they can share the other 6 ipcs.though south france is cheaper it is also riskier as UK might be able to hit it with more units and you dont have a scramble. Yes you can build an airbase there to protect but � the minor IC is a cheaper investment.
Is this discussion about an IC in Romania or letting Germany get S. France? If S. France, yes, that’s a pretty standard way for Germany to help Italy get Egypt and then make a play for the Middle East, ect. �
But I think this discussion was about a minor IC in Romania (or Major) for going after the Caucasus or Ukraine (and another route towards the Middle East or back of Russia). Anything else is a great bonus. If a Romanian IC is used for getting Egypt…ect. than we’re talking violating strict neutrals, ect which is a discussion for a different thread. Yes, I understand the benefits of Germany helping Italy get Middle East NOs.
-
yes it was about a minor ic in romania to get the no’s of caucaus and middle east. I mentioned about needing to possibly build a minor ic in yugo to help transport germans to africa and there was some discussion about an ic in yugo not being a good buy, and if you were gonna do that to just use south france if germany controls it.
In your test playing as russia in round 2, and you see the transports placed in the black sea, you decide to then move 9 units to caucus? did you already have some units there to move into iraq? If caucus is built up heavy germany could transport units into ukraine along with a forward march from romainian troops. might pull russia back around and then just transport them next round.
Appreciate the test plays. I’ve been waiting for miniture market to get some back in stock to get another board.
-
Strollmasta,
When play testing, from the Russian perspective, the moment transport(s) were dropped into the Black Sea, I started moving units to the most obvious place of attack, the Caucasus. Also, it is obvious that builds need to be done on Stalingrad rather than Ukraine.
As a Russian player, I don’t stack on Ukraine anyways. So, from the German perspective, I started looking at the Ukraine as a place to attack as well, but in that case it makes the transports a waste. Ukraine should be taken by the normal march of troops through Bessarabia and then a large stack that can’t be counter attacked in Ukraine.
I usually station my Russian mechs and tanks in Bryansk on R1 because from there they can be used to hit W. Ukraine or E. Poland if the timing is right to counter attack. I don’t do Iraq. I see a lot of experienced allied players have the UK get Iraq. At a later time, they send 1 Russian mech to get an Italian African Territory. Those 4 mobile units just happened to be stationed within range of the Caucasus.
In my play testing, on R2, Germany had only 1 transport because it built an aircraft carrier and a destroyer to protect it from the UK bomber.
So on R2, Russia moved the starting 2 infantry that moved up from the Caucasus to Rostov on R1 then moved back to the Caucasus because of the German transport build on G2. I also moved the 2 mechs, and 2 tanks, plus planes (so 8 to 9 units there). It really made the German purchases on the Black Sea and Romania look like a silly waste of IPCs. On G3, Germany couldn’t hit the Caucasus with 1 transport and planes.
From my play testing, I conclude that Germany has to drop 3 transports and an airbase on Romania on G2. The Airbase wasn’t my idea in this thread, but it might be the key. Then hit Russia on G3 while purchasing an additional destroyer or 2x destroyers, or destroyer/cruiser combo (which in this situation is better than a battleship…cause it gets to roll 2 dice, still takes 2 hits, but you don’t have to worry about repairing it).
You don’t want to build a carrier on G3 cause Germany can’t afford to station 5 fighters just for defense and attacks with the transports. The amount of defensive warships built any turn is always based upon the striking air power of the UK and Russia of course. Situation dictates there. But the timetable for this to be plausible I think has to be 3 transports built and protected with an airbase for an attack on G3.
I will play test tonight.
-
Thank you for your input and play tests. Thinking for the money I might just drop troops and planes and start marching lol. If I could just get a few tanks behind Russia or into the middle east it would make for some entertainment.
Suggested Topics
