Another German Navy Opener

[Guest]

1.  Japan is STILL down 2 units per round into Asia until that TRN is replaced (and I don’t mean you just buy a new one, I mean until you actually get the number of TRN’s you want, meaning when you buy your LAST TRn it is replaced), so again, about 10 units are delayed overall getting to Asia.
2.  You assume zero losses by Japan on killing the fleets

If you look at the example of this move in a real game:
1. China taken lighter than normal (open to potential counter attack, at a minimum unable to advance further until reinforced)
2. Japan loses a total of 1 AC, 1 BB, 2 FIG, 1 BOM, 1 SUB, 1 DST, 1 TRN from actions on UK and US fleets, and Allied counter
3. Japan loses either Manchuria or FIC for a round due to needing to stack either in Manch or FIC in order to block UK and/or USSR assault (they have insufficient TRN capacity on J2 to adequately defend both).

And that game IS a good example of this in a real world setting.
UK attacks on SZ59 and SZ45 were exactly average results
Japan attacks were ABOVE average in SZ59 and SZ52, below average in China.

So even if you disallow the liberation of China by the US that occurred in that game due to bad Japan dice, you then also disallow the good Japan dice in the other 2 battles where the US would typically have a BB alive in SZ52, and Japan would have lost another FIG in SZ59.

So Japan collects $32, with 3 INF in China, only 3 FIGs alive on the entire board, 1 BB, 1 AC, and 3 or 4 TRN, plus a modest number of land units, almost none of them in Asia. 
India secure for at least another round
US with a strong potential for a mid-game Pacific move with the BB anchor for new TRNs
Sinkiang secure for several rounds with modest USSR expenditure
Siberia a round slower for the Japan advance.

Where is the downside for the Allies (other than Egypt)?

[Romulus]

@Cmdr:

However, Switch is a better player then I, so is JWW and DM, but I’m more then capable enough to force them to take 10 rounds before I have to capitulate.  Why?  Because we’re mismatched, but not by much.

That requires a precisation.

I am not here to question ability or strategies of other people. I am here to compare and discuss my ideas, in order to learn. I would improve my strategy and my knowledge of the game.
The fact that player like you, Swithc, DM and JWW are here to discuss with me and with the other members is a very important thing. Because you all are willing to share your knowledge of the game. For that I thank you all.

[Jennifer]

How is Japan losing a carrier or battleship?

Battleship, Aircraft Carrier, Fighter from SZ 37 to SZ 59
Submarine from SZ 45 to SZ 52
Destroyer, Fighter from SZ 50 to SZ 52
Bomber, Fighter from Japan to SZ 52
Fighter from SZ 37 to SZ 52
Battleship, Transport from SZ 60 to SZ 48, 2 Infantry to Borneo
6 Infantry, 2 Fighters from Manchuria/Kwangtung/FIC to China

Results:

SZ 52: 99.8% Chance to win, most probable result: 4 Fighters, Bomber remaining, (runner up is Destroyer, 2 Fighters, Bomber or 3 Fighters, Bomber)
Attacker: 4 Fighters, Bomber, Destroyer, Submarine
Defender: Submarine, Aircraft Carrier, Fighter

SZ 59: 95.3% Chance to win, most probable result: Aircraft Carrier, Battleship (Runner up is no units lost.)
Attacker: Fighter, Battleship, Aircraft Carrier
Defender: Destroyer, Aircraft Carrier

Borneo: 68.4% Chance to win, most probable result: 2 Infantry, (Runner up is Infantry.)
Attacker: 2 Infantry
Defender: Infantry
(Riskiest battle of all of them)

SZ 48: 99.8 Chance to win, most probable result: No Damage (Runner up is same as original)
Attacker: Battleship, Loaded Transport
Defender: Transport

China: 99.7% Chance to win, most probable result: 5 Infantry, 2 Fighters (Runner up is 4 Infantry, 2 Fighters)
Attacker: 6 Infantry, 2 Fighters
Defender: 2 Infantry, Fighter

Now, how is America going to sink a Japanese battleship, let alone a carrier?

[Romulus]

But this confirms what Switch said. Japan, beside China. had to trascurate all the operation on the Asia mainland for lacking of aircraft for supporting infantry.
Moreover the probabilities that all the battles go well all togheter is: 64,7%.

[Jennifer]

I’ll take my battles one at a time. :P  You can make any strategy look like carp if you try to say “all battles average XX%” because the percentages always drop as you factor in more and more battles.

And what did I truncate?  Either India can be invaded by an infantry uncontested and then slaughtered or it’s too heavily fortified to take anyway.  Either you can invade Buryatia un-opposed or it’s too heavily defended as well.

Either way, you usually end up in China with 6 infantry, 2 fighters give or take an infantry or fighter.

[Guest]

No time to completely review, but 2 changes…

1.  Japan SUB killed by UK SUB, TRN, and FIG in SZ45
2.  Extra FIG (UK’s) in SZ52

Now, reconfigure, and remember India is stacked with 4 UK INF and AA, plus a USSR ARM and FIG.  Bury is stacked with 6 INF, 1 FIG.

[Jennifer]

You assume you kill the submarine in SZ 45

You have a decent shot, but I’ve seen England fail multiple times even with that force.

And if you have that much equipment against Japan, why arn’t you going KJF?  You know Germany’s gunna go balls to the wall on Russia if they see that open.

[U-505]

@ncscswitch:

No time to completely review, but 2 changes…

1.  Japan SUB killed by UK SUB, TRN, and FIG in SZ45
2.  Extra FIG (UK’s) in SZ52

Now, reconfigure, and remember India is stacked with 4 UK INF and AA, plus a USSR ARM and FIG.  Bury is stacked with 6 INF, 1 FIG.

Yes, it does limit Japan’s openings but, with Russian offensive units in India and the sz35 fighter being used in the Pacific and not helping retake Egypt, Germany gets a pretty big bonus. Six of one, half a dozen of the other in my opinion.

[trihero]

I think also that the way the Russian’s are stacking Asia that they are “limited” to a one area attack - W. Russia. That also helps the Germans. I don’t know which way is better overall (focus on KGF or SJF), though.

[Magister]

I’ve seen yet another interesting use of that “to-be-lost-anyway” German Baltic fleet. Now I thought NOT to open a new topic… as this one is descriptive at least as title.

1G: Baltic tra stays in Baltic and convoys troops to Karelia.
Des 2sub move to sz07 (NW France).
Med Btl tra go to Egypt to sink destroyer and convoy troops to battle.

Especially effective if G sub originally in sz08 has survived crushing the UK BB (33% chance) and 5 fighters landed in France. Bomber is in Libya, also in range.

UK fleet definitely cannot afford to attack, win and stay in sz07 even with UK air support, due to crushing counterattack. Can attack sz07 with air only BUT 1-2 subs may submerge. May attack sz07 with BB 2tra 2fig intending to retreat to sz08 after one round.
Some air may be diverted to attack Baltic tra or W.Med sub, but this leaves the whole sz07 to counterattack.

At the very least, this forces an UK carrier purchase, US fighter landing and unification in sz08 (so no Africa, Norway or other fancy actions).

[axis_roll]

@Magister:

At the very least, this forces an UK carrier purchase, US fighter landing and unification in sz08 (so no Africa, Norway or other fancy actions).

Why is a UK a/c purchase round 1 looked down upon so strongly?

Screw the optimal ‘KGF’…the allies can run KGF in a less than optimal fashion.

Flat tops in the atlantic offer ftrs lots of extra range throughout the game (i.e. ftrs in caucasus can hit germany/southern and land somewhere safely, or from west russia, add western europe as a target too).

Plus you guarentee a fleets safety with 2 ftrs on a carrier protecting it.
4 tpts and a BB can be sunk with just planes alone alot easier than people think.

[Guest]

Thank you Axis…

I have been arguing that for a while now, but to no avail to many folks apparently.

[Magister]

I didn’t intend to ever buy an UK carrier (many more useful options: 2 transports, fighter+2inf etc).
But now that it is, it has a positive effect. It could allow 3 Allied fleets to survive around Germany (sz08 SW Britain, 06 Channel, 05 Baltic) to add the new US transports without disrupting the existing deeper UK+US flows (to Karelia or EEU) or to spare something to reply better to a Japanese raid to Brazil.

[Jennifer]

In a Kill Japan First strategy, buying a British Aircraft Carrier isn’t so bad. In a Kill Germany First strategy, buying a carrier is as much a waste as buying extra transports.  Why?  Because you already have one, and one is all you need!

[newpaintbrush]

@Magister:

I’ve seen yet another interesting use of that “to-be-lost-anyway” German Baltic fleet. Now I thought NOT to open a new topic… as this one is descriptive at least as title.

1G: Baltic tra stays in Baltic and convoys troops to Karelia.
Des 2sub move to sz07 (NW France).
Med Btl tra go to Egypt to sink destroyer and convoy troops to battle.

Especially effective if G sub originally in sz08 has survived crushing the UK BB (33% chance) and 5 fighters landed in France. Bomber is in Libya, also in range.

UK fleet definitely cannot afford to attack, win and stay in sz07 even with UK air support, due to crushing counterattack. Can attack sz07 with air only BUT 1-2 subs may submerge. May attack sz07 with BB 2tra 2fig intending to retreat to sz08 after one round.
Some air may be diverted to attack Baltic tra or W.Med sub, but this leaves the whole sz07 to counterattack.

At the very least, this forces an UK carrier purchase, US fighter landing and unification in sz08 (so no Africa, Norway or other fancy actions).

It doesn’t force a UK carrier purchase.  UK navy stays northwest of UK.  German fighters in Western Europe can’t hit (not enough range).  UK air attacks; destroying German destroyer.  US bomber attacks with good chance of picking up a spare German sub.  Allied attack is delayed, but a carrier purchase is not forced.

@axis_roll:

Why is a UK a/c purchase round 1 looked down upon so strongly?

. . .
Plus you guarentee a fleets safety with 2 ftrs on a carrier protecting it.
4 tpts and a BB can be sunk with just planes alone alot easier than people think.

A UK a/c lets the Allied fleet attack a lot earlier.  However, where do you want to go with that a/c?  If you want to go to Norway, then the UK fleet cannot unite with the US fleet (the US is too far away).  If you want to go to Algeria, then the newly built UK carrier can’t join the fleet right away, so you might as well wait for the US to buy the carrier instead.  And so forth.

4 tpts, a destroyer, sub, and battleship can be sunk with just German air, yes.  However, it is quite expensive for the Germans to trade 10 IPC fighters for 8 IPC transports, and the Allies can quickly rebuild their fleet.

This is not to say that the Allies should NOT buy a carrier.  Nor is it to say that the UK should not buy a carrier.  I would say, though, that in most games, the Allies don’t need a carrier, and even in those games in which the Allies should buy a carrier, it is most likely to be the US that should buy that carrier.

[Lucifer]

AC UK1 is standard for me, maybe UK2 but even if Germany don’t buy ftrs the UK fleet can be easily sunk.