I am a big fan of the “Karelia Stack” combined with a major build up of the Baltic Fleet.
Plays havoc with the UK… :-D
I agree, the threat to the Germans is less if they cannot land directly in E. Europe.
I disagree that it is a bad thing for the allies though. I’d rather land in Archangelsk then E. Europe. Safer. Faster to get to Moscow anyway.
Also, staging in SZ 3 is BAD idea. Why land in Norway? So the German fleet can be fodder while the Luftwaffe sinks you? And if the SZ 5 fleet chases you, you can always 1 - 2 punch them iwth the British and Americans and sink them in SZ 3.
In other words, the SZ 5 fleet is safe until it becomes a nuissance then it is Unter-See Haus’ :P
I agree, the threat to the Germans is less if they cannot land directly in E. Europe.
I disagree that it is a bad thing for the allies though. I’d rather land in Archangelsk then E. Europe. Safer. Faster to get to Moscow anyway.
No matter whether you prefer Norway vs Archangel, there is a point at which you want to occupy E. Europe, because you want the Germans to stop gaining on that territory. If there is a bigass Baltic fleet, you can’t land directly there, which slows you by very arguably 2 turns of units, since you have a trail of 2 territories with units that can’t be in E. Europe (norway/kar or Archangel/kar). Being behind 2 turns of units each with US and UK means the Germans are quite happy for a while trading E. Europe. Yes, they’ll be behind the ball against Russia for a bit, but I’d rather delay the big death blow for 2 turns than just mediocrely trade territories with Russia.
I think this is a bad thing for the Allies. Landing in Archangel isn’t any faster to get to E. Europe. The benefit of Archangel is reinforcing Moscow, which is good in itself, but what we’re focusing on here is whether Germany should spend the IPCs to delay the Allies. I think it’s very much worth it; it’s an efficient use of IPCs since you already have the fighters that costs the Allies a lot more than the amount you spent in it. Although of course you will be light against Russia when you’re busy reconfiguring for the lower amount of inf and fighters for land defense.
It is a matter of when the Allies switch from “defense” (landing in Archangel) to “offense” (landing in Eastern).
So long as the Allies are playing defensive, the Axis has a chance. But once the Allies establish offense securely, it is over for the Axis.
It is a matter of when the Allies switch from “defense” (landing in Archangel) to “offense” (landing in Eastern).
So long as the Allies are playing defensive, the Axis has a chance. But once the Allies establish offense securely, it is over for the Axis.
I’m gonna go slightly off topic here, that’s a good point Switch. Now, do you think there is a “turning point” for the Axis to win? I would think that once the Axis are producing more IPCs than the Allies then it’s over the Allies, but it seems very difficult to achieve this turning point.
When Moscow is immune to a 1-2 Axis punch it is over for the Axis.
When Eastern, Southern, or Western remain in Allied hands for a full turn it is over for the Axis.
When Germany builds in Caucuses, and Japan has Novo and Persia it is over for the Allies.
General rules…
Bean, I think you’re making too much of this two-turn delay thing. If Germany buys two carriers, I frankly don’t care that it takes an extra turn or two to get there, because when I get there, Germany will be VERY THIN on defense. 32 IPCs on carriers = 9 infantry and an armor, almost a full turn of builds for Germany. That lack of troops has the secondary effect of preventing Germany from trading Karelia-Belo-Ukraine with Russia, and thus costs Germany even more income and, hence, troops. Unless Germany gets lucky in Africa, Germany will be sucking wind by turn 3 at the latest, and RUSSIA will be in Eastern Europe (or trading it with Germany), instead of Germany securely holding Eastern Europe with a massive stack. If you don’t think that creates a deep hole for Germany, then please sign up for the League and play me – I’ll show you.
@ncscswitch:
When Moscow is immune to a 1-2 Axis punch it is over for the Axis.
When Eastern, Southern, or Western remain in Allied hands for a full turn it is over for the Axis.
When Germany builds in Caucuses, and Japan has Novo and Persia it is over for the Allies.
General rules…
I don’t necessarily agree with Eastern, Southern or Western – it’s depends on the situation elsewhere on the board. If Moscow is about to fall, then Germany only needs to hold on long enough to let Japan leverage her massive economy. At that point, Eastern-Western-Southern is irrelevant.
Southern is NEVER irrelevant.
Let the US build there, with their TRN shuck extavlihsed, and Germany is in trouble, with ot without Russia.
Bean, I think you’re making too much of this two-turn delay thing. If Germany buys two carriers, I frankly don’t care that it takes an extra turn or two to get there, because when I get there, Germany will be VERY THIN on defense. 32 IPCs on carriers = 9 infantry and an armor, almost a full turn of builds for Germany. That lack of troops has the secondary effect of preventing Germany from trading Karelia-Belo-Ukraine with Russia, and thus costs Germany even more income and, hence, troops. Unless Germany gets lucky in Africa, Germany will be sucking wind by turn 3 at the latest, and RUSSIA will be in Eastern Europe (or trading it with Germany), instead of Germany securely holding Eastern Europe with a massive stack. If you don’t think that creates a deep hole for Germany, then please sign up for the League and play me – I’ll show you.
Hmm no I’m not trying to make too much of it, it’s just that the initial responses skipped right over any benefit of having the Baltic navy intact. I had to point out that there is a benefit to it, which was completely ignored and not fairly analyzed vs the costs. I do like your argument now that it has some flesh to it.
But also remember that I’m not going to purchase a second carrier until I feel that the Allies have presented a credible threat to the single carrier. I’m not buying 2 carriers at once, but over a few turns.
As for a League Game, I think I’ll be ready to jump back into the pirranha-infested waters after next week, I have a lot of tests coming up and I also want to get some practice in, I’m not exactly flying at full sail after a year’s hiatus (was I even flying at full sail back then? :wink: ). You’ll be my first opponent though once I’m ready, but don’t hold me to using a multiple carrier buy if I don’t think it’s warranted by that time =P
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia. Now, if the battle goes badly, you can retreat. If you amphibious it, you have to fight to the death. I don’t like being locked in like that if I can avoid it.
Also, I agree. The instant the allies can build in Southern or Western Europe the game is over for the axis. I disagree that hte game is over when Germany builds in Caucasus. Probably is, might not be.
I think Russia’s dead when they start earning less then 12 IPC a round. 2 good SBRs and they earn nothing. Furthermore, that means the Axis have 12 IPC of Russian lands!
Likewise, once England is reduced to 12 IPC, the game’s over for England.
Once the Allies cannot defeat either caucasus or novosibirsk, the game is over for the allies.
Once the axis lose Africa and cannot hold Karelia or Caucauss, the game is over for the axis.
Once the Japanese lose their fleet (roughly Round 7) the game is over for the Axis.
Sorry Jen.
What Makes eastern dangerous for Germany is when UK can land units direct from UK to Eastern AND pull their previous landings from Norway and karelia into the fray. It is generally more than Germany can handle…
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia.
Who said you need SZ5? Another strawman you created.
Of course you can invade from Karelia, but you’ll be 2 turns low on units (one turn is the units that can’t come straight from London, the other turn is the units just placed in Archangel/Norway last turn which can’t make it to E. Europe either). Being 2 turns low on units for both UK and US in E. Europe gives Germany breathing time.
@ncscswitch:
Southern is NEVER irrelevant.
Let the US build there, with their TRN shuck extavlihsed, and Germany is in trouble, with ot without Russia.
Well, all I will say is that I am currently building in Southern right now as the US in my game with No Mercy, and the outcome of the game is still very much in doubt. I will probably take Germany in a couple of turns, but whether I can withstand the Japanese onslaught (he has somewhere around 50 tanks, at least pre-Moscow invasion) remains to be seen.
@Bean:
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia.
Who said you need SZ5? Another strawman you created.
You did. That’s why you said to build two carriers. Are you so daft you are forgetting your own arguments? No wonder you think I am inventing strawmen! You don’t even have your own argument straight anymore! :-D
And Switch, I’m not arguing that it is “nice” to have SZ 5 clear of enemy ships. I’m saying it’s not needed and that if Germany puts 4 fighters and two carriers in SZ 5 then why not just let them sit there, wasted? I can easily invade E. Europe, Belorussia and W. Russia from Karelia and I’d rather land in Archangelsk/Karelia anyway. That way I can shift to Moscow to defend against the Japanese because after that kind of expenditure, Germany’s a footnote in history, they’re definitely no threat to the Russians anymore!
Quote
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia.Who said you need SZ5? Another strawman you created.
You did. That’s why you said to build two carriers. Are you so daft you are forgetting your own arguments? No wonder you think I am inventing strawmen! You don’t even have your own argument straight anymore! grin
You’re not making any sense. I said to build 2 carriers to protect SZ5 as the Germans. I didn’t say the Allies needed SZ5 to win.
And seriously, you need to stop it with the personal insults, the “are you so daft” statements. It’s immature.
The reason I say you make strawmen is a subjective opinion - I think I understand now it’s just part of your style to ask non sequitur questions or statements which are hyperbole. When I originally said having the threat of 12 units land in Germany/W. Europe etc, you immediately responded with “so you’re saying 8 units isn’t a threat?” It’s just your way of exaggerating, I’ll deal.
If you build two carriers with the Germans in SZ 5 then you are saying that the Allies need to throw themselves upon the German fleet in SZ 5 to win. Otherwise, why would you advocate spending nearly an entire turn’s income on Aircraft Carriers and tying up 67% of your fighters in SZ 5?
As for the 8 vs 12 unit threat. I really don’t see 12 units being a viable threat from England. They can only build 8. That means to get 12 they have to plunder their stacks somewhere else which means less forces there for a minor addition somewhere else. Honestly, since Germany’s already planning for an English followed by American assault, the change is very minor to include the addition of 4 more British infantry. What, you need an extra 1 or 2 infantry of your own in W. Europe? Not exactly a game breaking diversion of forces in my mind. But that’s my opinion of it.
Meanwhile, you’ve spent 16 IPC on transports. You’re also probably out of Africa because you were buying transports, not ground forces to liberate it, which means you have less then 25 IPC a round income, maybe worse, but you might be reclaiming some of Africa but down Australia, New Zealand, Madagascar, Persia, T-J, Egypt and India. So let’s just say 25 IPC.
That means to fill 4 transports you are making 7 Infantry, 1 Artillery. No tanks. To fill 6 Transports you’d have to take infantry/artillery from somewhere else and spread yourself very thin.
And if you had all your lands and more, then why would you need the 16 IPC in transports when you could put an IC in E. Europe or Norway cheaper and almost as efficiently?
It’s not merely the threat of 12 units + airforce + bb shot in one territory, but 3 key territories. That causes the Germans to spend a significant amount of total forces defending because the attack could come from anywhere. Left your capital with just 10 inf you bought? You’re a goner. Left W. Europe with 6 inf 5 fig? I got most of your fighters. A stack of 7 inf 5 tank in E. Europe? Goodbye! Having to upload 3 more inf into each territory in addition to spending 3 inf per Russian trading zone is stressful on the Germans. It also means if you finally broke through the Baltic, you can use your extra tran to bring units from Norway to E. Europe or wherever it is you’re dropping.
Meanwhile, you’ve spent 16 IPC on transports.
Meanwhile, you’ve spend 20+ IPCs on aircraft? Aircraft is nice, but extra transports is also nice. There’s nothing like having a force of 6 tps of equip + airforce + bb shot ready to invade W. Europe on UK3; the Germans don’t want to see that. They’d rather you have your 2 tps waiting for the other 2 to arrive on UK4, meaning minimal defense on W. Europe.
If Russia is less than agressive and Germany does well in africa and takes that cake early and holds it for a while, in addition to having all 6 planes (WRU, Belo R1 attacks), then an a/c (or two) in sz5 can be a decent strategy.
I do agree that the allies can usually just wait on killing the SZ5 fleet when they have enough units/time to deal with it. Summarizing, if the germans have the cash/units to afford to keep the sz5 fleet around, it can be a workable strategy.
If you build two carriers with the Germans in SZ 5 then you are saying that the Allies need to throw themselves upon the German fleet in SZ 5 to win. Otherwise, why would you advocate spending nearly an entire turn’s income on Aircraft Carriers and tying up 67% of your fighters in SZ 5?
It’s because it would delay them a lot. And remember, I’m not building that second carrier until it looks like I actually need it to prevent a SZ5 strike, it’s not like I’m building 2 carriers in one turn and have essentially no extra inf to reinforce. The Allies should probably work on killing the SZ5; there’s the bonus of possibly killing fighters out on the sea, and it gives them much more landing flexibility. You really don’t want to be walking troops from Norway or Archangel, because an attack on the German capital will be 3 rounds short on units each from UK and US if you have to march from Norway vs having SZ5 open.
A carrier a day keeps the Allies away? :mrgreen:
If Russia is less than agressive and Germany does well in africa and takes that cake early and holds it for a while, in addition to having all 6 planes (WRU, Belo R1 attacks), then an a/c (or two) in sz5 can be a decent strategy.
Hmm yes, that’s why I’m beginning to like 2 inf in Ukraine now for the bid, to allow the Ukraine offense units to survive.
