The confusion seems to be in you’re holding back naval ships for naval bombardment. The advantage about scrambling planes is that it forces the attacker to commit all their naval ships regardless if they want to or not. That’s why it is sometimes wise to scramble in a losing battle if the enemy is relying on bombardment for victory. The easiest situation would be when Japan invades the Philippine islands. If Japan was so aggressive that all they brought was two infantry with two cruisers as example. I would scramble the fighter in that situation because while I will lose the sea battle, if you choose to invade the island after the battle, you’re doing it without naval support which gives my defending infantry a better chance at winning.
Can you save the Bismarck
-
I also strafe sz111, although my focus is on minimising air losses albeit that the Bismark survives too.
The UK ships in sz111 then get sunk G2. Or UK1 if that playerdecides to be aggressive with ships that are doomed in any case.
-
Lately i attack 110 sz only, w. 4Ftrs 3TacBs 1Bmbr and 1SS.
Most of the time the UK flea out of range.
This gives me time to focus on only Land units build.
The initial Buy goes for a Bmbr and DD and whatever i may need.
By the time the UK comes back by following the US Navy, i should be in the Position to Buy any Naval and AF builds needed.
Having a BB in Stock makes it easier i Think to hold Off any Ally landing near Germany. -
@Marshmallow:
The only German battleship in service before August 1940 (ostensibly what would be G1) was the Scharnhorst.
What’s with all the Gneisenau hate?
-
Wolf: “Gesundheit”.
None of them were real battleships anyways, that was just sort of propaganda. Real battleships would have been too slow to do the crazy raids I suppose.
As to the AxA question, you reduce the risk of the UK fleet wipeout considerably when you bring the BB. You can also overcome any bid short of 20 that is being used to protect/increase risk, by bringing the battleship.
You don’t have to lose it if you bring it, it runs back to SZ 112, where it joins all the other stuff you built. If things went wrong during the battles, it was a sitting duck anyways, so there is some risk of fleet/buy splitting.
There is no reason you can’t destroy all those british ships, with modest risk, everytime. Just focus on only conducting 4 battles (110, 111, Paris, Yugo). If Paris ever seems in doubt, it is because you failed to bring the 3 extra armor in GSG and the 2 planes that can only go there.
If you don’t kill most or all of those UK ships, it is like a whole free turn (or turn and a half) of free positioning/advantage for them if they do a naval build because starting from scratch is way harder than building from a nucleus of survivors.
-
There is no reason you can’t destroy all those british ships, with modest risk, everytime. Just focus on only conducting 4 battles (110, 111, Paris, Yugo). If Paris ever seems in doubt, it is because you failed to bring the 3 extra armor in GSG and the 2 planes that can only go there.
I agree with almost everything you said, you don’t need 2 planes in Paris when you bring the 3 tanks from GSG, those planes can help in Yugo and be landed on important territories for added defence. Why give the Paris AAA something to shot down?
-
I agree none of that stuff has to come to Paris, I was addressing the older question of “what happens when you undercommit/roll badly on Paris”;
You have 5 pieces that could come, but don’t have to. If they do come, it make Germany less flexible, but it reduces the chance of failure from like 2% to 1% (estimates, of course).
You can and should still blow up all 6 British ships, the planes only have a limited number of other more dangerous and less useful tasks they can do on G1 (such as support paris, bomb London, attack Russia early, etc.)
And per our older discussion, the BB is what seals the deal; if you risk it, then a scramble by UK is probably not efficient and can be warded off. If you don’t add those 2 valuable hits to 111 or 110, then there is a fair chance that UK scrambles against the optimal commit, and then it goes to the dice.
-
If you don’t kill most or all of those UK ships, it is like a whole free turn (or turn and a half) of free positioning/advantage for them if they do a naval build because starting from scratch is way harder than building from a nucleus of survivors.
I agree 100%, that is why I generally over load sz110 to kill those ships quickly, and strafe 111 using the German BB so I have a chance to take out the DD and Cruiser in sz111, leaving just the damaged BB, then retreat back to sz112. Doing this I would look to take out the limped UK BB on G2. I will say though that if there is a J1 attack that the allies have a good chance of saving the UK damaged BB by moving it to Iceland. W/US able to move in the Atlantic they can put a rainbow fleet and air force up there to make it really costly for the Germans to hit it (even if they built a carrier G1).
YG back to the original topic……If you use the German BB in either sz110 or sz111 in a fight to the finish you would most likely not have the “Bismark” on G2. You would either be using it to soak 2 hits on G1 (sink it), or leave it exposed for an easy UK1 kill (you have no air cover).
I think that if you choose to leave the “Bismark” out of the G1 battles and attack both 110 and 111 you are inviting the UK to scramble both battles. This is a dicey situation IMO, with a huge risk/reward factor. You are exposing the Luftwaffe to the possibility of heavy losses against a scramble, but also get the chance to take out most of the RAF. This first battle could determine the game IMO.
Things to consider if you intend to hit and destroy all UK ships in both sz110 and 111 (w/o using the German BB). You have 4 subs that can hit (2 subs each battle because of placement and range), and 8 planes at you disposal. You will want to keep your firts and tacs paired for maximum attack power (in the first round anyway).
So say you go into sz110 with 2 ss, 2 ftrs, 2 tacs, 2 bmrs you have an 75% chance of winning the battle if they scramble their 3 ftrs (they would have 2 cruisers, 1 bb, 3 ftrs). This isn’t too good, because if you win the battle on average you would have 3 units survive (out of the 8’).
This would leave the sz111 battle with 2 ss, 2 ftrs, 2 tacs vs 1dd, 1 cruiser, 1 bb, 1 ftr (scrambled). You would have an 80% chance of winning, but again on average it leaves you with only 3 units surviving out of 6.
Now you could make the sz110 battle a little stronger swapping some planes around, but that makes sz111 weaker (and would probably expose you bmrs more). So if you do make these attacks I think there is a very good chance that you pull out before the job is done in one of the battles, which would leave the Brits with a damaged BB anyway. So in light of that wouldn’t it make more sense to hit sz 110 hard (so they don’t scramble), and strafe sz111 w/Bismark. Would be less risk to the Luftwaffe IMO. Maybe your intention is to take out the RAF, and you set up some dicey battles to entice the UK to scramble?
YG, generally you put things like this out there because you are trying to develop some sort of strategy, so what gives…
I did have another thought about using the German BB in the sz 110 attack, and building an AB for Holland G1 so you could scramble when the UK attacks your damaged BB UK1, but that is an expense way to try to hold on to it. However if they do attack it, the Italians will probably be pretty happy lol.
-
@WILD:
YG, generally you put things like this out there because you are trying to develop some sort of strategy, so what gives……
Had a 2 hour conversation on the phone last week with a “newish” player asking how one can possibly keep the German starting battleship for G2 while also killing the Royal navy G1. After the discussion had circled around many times, I became convinced that the Bismarck must be sacrificed to ensure favorable results heading into G2… although I’m not sure if I convinced him.
… therefore, I wanted the forum’s opinion.
-
Agree, it has to be lost in order to ensure the best, least risky outcome. that’s often what we are debating; what play represents the greatest risk (spreading thin, more battles, need to get lucky more times more consistently) and what play represents the most conservative moves that minimize the role luck will play.
I usually preach that you cannot design an opener, gambit, stratagem etc. that takes exceptional risks early in the game, or requires a series of wins/strafes/blocks all to succeed one after the other. This is partly because of regression to the mean; if you are rolling a ton of dice then you are more likely to have an “average” result, which in this case is to say, you will not get lucky multiple times in a row, or cannot expect your opponent to be unlucky over and over again, but that rather your general luck will be unspectacular (or spectacularly bad at least once!) when you are trying to do 11 combats involving 38 pieces in one turn.
One example of this is the “Rivera” bonus where Italy has to capture all the countries in north Africa. If there is no Taranto (and have 3 TTs somehow), Italy could conceivably gain this bonus on the first turn, but they have to win so many battles in a row, and spread out so much, that $5 couldn’t be worth it, and even if you pull all that off at once, you lose the bonus by Turn 4.
This game is not really won on general luck. Single consistent Infantry retals turn after turn can matter, but they aren’t game changing in the same way as getting great luck in a monumental battle, which can basically win or lose the game.
The game is won by ensuring that luck matters as little as possible to your outcomes.
So, to apply this again to the situation at hand, you might really like that BB later in the game, but since you don’t need it (you can have a fleet in being with 1 cruiser 1 carrier and 1 airbase), it is smarter to use it to reduce the role of luck, make the opener a blowout, and keep them rolling fewer dice (3 vs 6) because they don’t even have the opportunity to scramble against you.
If the first Germany turn ends up being this giant furball where the UK is reducing your airforce without risking a homeland invasion, that’s not favorable for Germany. And if you blow even a single first round of germany rolling against the scrambled planes and ships, you get demolished. If the UK has crap luck or great luck when it doesn’t scramble, its pretty much the same result either way (Germany loses or keeps a few subs, and all the planes survive…not really game changing…things usually go this way).
Same Paris, same all your early moves really. Certain things cannot be left up to luck and dice. You just have to win.
A good example of this is when the germans have, 2 infantry blockers, that if Russia fails to kill and block that territory, that 10-12 german tanks can pour through that square on the next turn. You might commit only 3 infantry, 1 artillery to attack 2 infantry under another circumstance where it doesn’t really matter whether you hold the target territory so much, but if you have to ensure victory with at least 1 survivor, then you might need 4 infantry, 1 artillery, and 1 tank or plane because you absolutely must take that square, you cannot allow luck to stymy the block since losing that small battle could cost you your capital. So this principle also works in reverse; if you force Russia to do several do or die blocking battles, they will have to sacrifice more men and spread mobile units out so thinly, they can’t do any other attacks. There are plenty of times where Russia has just about run out of steam and cannot take or retake key income or blocking squares simply because they have had to make so many spoiling attacks over the course of the whole game.
Dark skies also kind of relies on this principle. If your opponent gets really lucky, he can knock down a few bombers but that doesn’t stop you. Even if you are sort of unlucky with your damage rolls, you can bring so much to bear that eventually, you are doing a game changing amount of damage to Moscow. So, no matter how the luck goes for you (unless it is abysmal and you are losing bombers every round to do 4 damage total), the strategy still works.
-
I think I lost something like 5 planes when I left the BB out and was never able to get to Moscow, hence I would likely never try it again but Japan was able to win on the Pacific side so it didn’t matter. Lucky me :-D
-
And per our older discussion, the BB is what seals the deal; if you risk it, then a scramble by UK is probably not efficient and can be warded off. If you don’t add those 2 valuable hits to 111 or 110, then there is a fair chance that UK scrambles against the optimal commit, and then it goes to the dice.
What are you hitting SZ110 + 111 with that a scramble in SZ111 wouldn’t be optimal?
I normally hit 110 with 2subs, 3ftr 3tac 1SB, 111 with 1sub 1BB 1ftr 1tac 1SB. I expect a scramble in SZ111 only.
-
I usually preach that you cannot design an opener, gambit, stratagem etc. that takes exceptional risks early in the game, or requires a series of wins/strafes/blocks all to succeed one after the other. This is partly because of regression to the mean; if you are rolling a ton of dice then you are more likely to have an “average” result, which in this case is to say, you will not get lucky multiple times in a row, or cannot expect your opponent to be unlucky over and over again, but that rather your general luck will be unspectacular (or spectacularly bad at least once!) when you are trying to do 11 combats involving 38 pieces in one turn.
Or, rather, you can rely on luck, but if you do then you’re implicitly admitting that your opponent is a stronger player than you are, and if you rely too much on luck in the opening, then it’s probably poor sportsmanship. If you’re willing to accept a situation where you have a 30% chance to get a major advantage in the opening, a 40% chance to reach a balanced opening, and a 30% to lose the game in the opening, why not just play Yahtzee? That’s not meant as sarcasm…it’s an honest question. Why go through the motions of setting up hundreds of pieces if you are eager to let the game be settled by the luck of the dice?
There are times when we wind up in a bad position, where conservative play is extremely likely to lead to certain but slow defeat, and so the only plausible alternative is to “bet it all” on a 10% or 30% or 50% chance. That’s fine; that’s part of the game. But if you start the game with those kinds of wild risks, then why bother with such an intricate strategic ruleset at all?
-
I think I lost something like 5 planes when I left the BB out and was never able to get to Moscow, hence I would likely never try it again but Japan was able to win on the Pacific side so it didn’t matter. Lucky me :-D
Big D, is that you?… sounds a lot like our game when I was Japan and you were Germany :-D
-
Following from wild bill, a 75% battle plus an 80% one are 60% to win both. Too tight with the consequences.
-
Following from wild bill, a 75% battle plus an 80% one are 60% to win both. Too tight with the consequences.
Exactly, I wouldn’t do it either. Was just pointing out what I thought were the best odds w/o using the German BB G1 and hitting both sz’s. Like taamvan said it leaves too much to chance in the early rounds. Much more risk to the Luftwaffe then I would like for sure. With that said I don’t like to sacrifice the German BB either, that’s why often times I just strafe sz111 (not always though).
-
I strongly dislike the second sub into sz111. Isn’t it much better used in sz106?
-
Once I saw an airbase build in Holland Belgium on G1. It did it’s job in protecting the German battleship from UK1 attack, but rest of the game it was just sitting there. Staring awkardly.
-
Once I saw an airbase build in Holland Belgium on G1. It did it’s job in protecting the German battleship from UK1 attack, but rest of the game it was just sitting there. Staring awkardly.
If it’s only purpose for 15 IPCs is to try and save the Bismarck, I would just spend an extra 5 IPCs for a new battleship instead.
-
There is more you can do with that AB; enforce a block on the channel with as little as 1 DD that makes you very hard to move past and since you have the Normandy factory, you can add directly to a fleet-in-being in that square, protected by the planes. Probably can’t maintain it after turn 4-5. Its not a great place for the planes to be during a Russia-push game.
stretching it but;
Sb can reach 123
fighters and tb departing to attack SZ 91 don’t have to force-land in morocco.
scramble against Normandy landing
potentially leave the SZ hostile so UK transports cannot load or move during combat towards norwayI don’t think its worth the commitment of all that money early in the game.
-
I strongly dislike the second sub into sz111. Isn’t it much better used in sz106?
Yes i normaly put it in SZ106 but i can go either way, so its a choice.
But also luring the RAF into combat taking it out does help a lot with italy making taranto 705 battle iso a 90% battle for the UK.Exactly. People are saying holding the BB back is a reckless or even unsportsmanlike move. But I see players all the time doing the exact buys and strategies that they see in youtube videos. The only opening buy that I feel is standard is a J1 buy of a MIC and 2 TT. Everyone else is kind of free to do whatever (except China of course). So if in one game I decide to sack 4 subs and 5 planes (lucky rolls, sure) into the 110 and 111 battles (took one sub into 106 and lost), killing all the UK/French planes/boats, what do you think that does for Taranto? What does that imply for an Allied attempt at landing ground units in Europe? When we play so many games why not try something ballsy?
Suggested Topics
