@andrewaagamer said in Land aircraft in neutral allied territory:
Only LAND units may take control of the now uncontrolled Neutral.
Precisely we are not talking about an uncontrolled Neutral, but about an uncontrolled allied territory.
Allied Strategy- London Calling
-
By no means am I saying that German transports in the Baltic are bad, not worth it, whatever negative adjective you want.
A few German transports will, like GHG and Argothair stated previously, provide Germany with flexibility to go for SeaLion or attack Leningrad and/or shuck some troops to Russia, whatever fits. Buying a full transport fleet G2 is more than bluffing, it is showing your hand. If I see Germany go build 8-10 transports on turn 2, I’m gonna max defend London and then laugh when Germany doesn’t go for London because they just wasted a whole bunch of money.
HOW is Germany going to have the production capacity to fully utilize those transports against Russia (shucking troops), and WHY would they want to shuck when they can build fast movers and then use the minors the Russians so kindly give them to build more slow fodder at the front? I don’t want to go off-topic here (this was an Allied strategy thread after all), but to me the fast movers you build in Berlin/W Germany will better serve you in Russia because of their flexibility. PLUS, you’re going to be putting money into your Western defenses, so not every single unit you build in the West is going straight to Russia
Every buck counts in this game and having 70 sitting in the Baltic waiting to be destroyed by some British planes after you choose to not attack London is not using that money effectively.
-
PainState staggers off to the local pub and gets drunk at this point, muttering to himself about how does Germany take Moscow on G6 again? He is sure that 8-10 TRS in the Baltic is the key to that plan.
-
I said it earlier in the thread and I’ll say it again-carriers, bombers, destroyers, and transports are not a waste of money for the Americans. Nobody is forcing the the US to buy them for no reason. If Germany doesn’t go Sealion then America did it’s job and they can position their units wherever they deem necessary. They were not going to attack anyone anywhere in the first 3 turns anyway unless Germany puts 10 transports in SZ 110, in which case they are going to sink them. They simply can’t reach anyone else worth attacking before then with enough force to matter on either side of the board. Calling London allows them to put units into place on the first 2 turns that can at least have some influence on what the axis decides to do. Other than that they have no influence on them at all.
-
Well what if on G3 they go with 20 units into Scotland?
USA is not at war until USA4 which means Germany can reload said TRS and hit London from both Scotland and SZ110 with up to 40 units. Now granted USSR will have some issue with this on USSR4 BUT London has fallen and fallen to the point that the USA might not be able to liberate it.
This goes back the give and take of the first 4 turns of the game. Axis do this and Allies do that.
-
Well what if on G3 they go with 20 units into Scotland?
USA is not at war until USA4 which means Germany can reload said TRS and hit London from both Scotland and SZ110 with up to 40 units. Now granted USSR will have some issue with this on USSR4 BUT London has fallen and fallen to the point that the USA might not be able to liberate it.
This goes back the give and take of the first 4 turns of the game. Axis do this and Allies do that.
That gives the UK one more turn to build units on London. Sure, Germany would still have their transports and could bring more units over but at that point it costs far too much to assault London. One more turn for the Bear to sharpen his claws too. I had already thought of that and several other ways to assault London besides what you seen in the video. So far I’ve yet to come up with anything that makes Sealion a good idea for Germany if the Allies counter with London Calling. They are far better off faking on turn one and then committing to marching on Moscow.
-
Once you realize that what a player could do is so much more threatening than what they actually do, the game changes. Why is a stack of bombers so good? Why does the Axis feel so overpowered at the beginning? It’s all about power projection, and to an extent, forcing responses.
As Germany once you commit to a non-mobile force, your power projection plummets. If you drop 70IPCs into TTs G2, the range of moves you can do diminishes greatly. The more Germany can do on its opening turns that threatens both London and Moscow the better. This is why the 2-bomber opening is so good, as are variations where you buy only 1 bomber and save or save everything. Those bombers can either bomb London, or hit the Eastern front. These moves force UK to not play greedy, and still lets every IPC turn around and hit Moscow.
-
Sounds like to me that PS and GHG should do a two best out of three….
-
Fun times!!! :x
-
“As Germany once you commit to a non-mobile force, your power projection plummets.”
This is spot on. You could go further, and say that most of the money Germany spends on anything other than Armor, Mechs, and Bombers should be limited.
Part of my position re: the bluff SL is that used to do the 1 CV/2 TT buy most games, deferring to the 2 SB/1 SUB concept, but not sure either one is the best. Anymore, I don’t add more than 1DD G1-3 to the surface fleet, I just leave it as it is, because even modest purchases (DD, CV) draw down your punch. If UK fleet is weak, and KJF, then I do buy some subs to annoy UK and potentially threaten SZ 91. And of course, a few infantry, as they will be needed to protect Rome, Norway, France etc.
Since Armor and Mechs are slower than bombers, and hitting Russia early is crucial; its probably more logical to buy armor/mechs early then bombers late (G4-6) because they can attack Moscow the turn after they are produced, assuming the invasion is going well.
All this concerns the critical path, as G40 is built, Germany spending money on ANYTHING other than Moscow punch is a recipe for a more stalemated game. To your point about shucking guys to Leningrad, its a 2-step move, and the former USSR factories themselves pumping out tanks is far better, so if I can grab the Ukraine and Leningrad factories as early as possible, that is better than putting 1$ on the water because pouring the tanks (ie money) directly into the fray is best.
-
GHG, nice way to continue the discussion of why sz 102 has a special rule. It is also worth pointing out that the rules were changed to allow the US to DOW in the event that London is taken, which makes sz102 more significant. There seems to be a good percentage of people, myself included, that like to do some kind of Sea Lion purchase to keep it on the table. Maybe they buy a little navy/bmrs G1, or try to keep the German BB alive etc…. Some might save IPCs to keep the allies guessing. This keeps the UK honest, and if the English falter they could pay a heavy price. Even if the UK does everything right Sea lion could still be pulled off.
London Calling (responsible buys for UK and US staging in sz102, plus bmrs in DC) is a good tool to have in your allied bag of tricks. If the Germans were serious about doing Sea Lion, this combined allied strat may change their minds. It tells Germany that it won’t be easy and there will be costly consequences. I agree w/GHG that US building mostly loaded carriers, destroyers, bmrs in the Atlantic the first couple turns is a good use of its income, and is in no way a waste. In the case of no Sea lion the naval assets will still be used to threaten Germany and get troops to Europe. The bmrs will be hitting German ICs, or sinking the Baltic fleet so its all good.
US can build Europe the first couple turns, then add to your Pac fleet later.
-
I think the only reason to stage a US fleet in sz 102 (fighters) and bombers in Washington DC (to sink the German Navy) is to try to let the UK get away with not doing a standard 6 /1 UK1 purchase. Because, otherwise what’s the point of doing this SZ 102 thing?
If the UK purchases a standard 6 / 1, and most of their pre-existing fighters are still there (minus maybe 1 that went to Taranto), then at that point SL is pretty much off the table. It’s now at the pyrrhic point. Ok, Germany could still go through with it, but if they lose most of their air and all of the tanks but 1 taking London, so what. Russia is a bear and Germany is way behind. Russia can hold their own for a very long time now. US can hound Japan for about 6-7 rounds spending 90% money and slowly buildup for a round 8-10 liberation.
-
It remains obscure, to me.
US 1 Purchase a Atl. Carrier. Divert this and 2 fighters that normally go to SZ 10/Hawaii to SZ 101
US 2 Move to SZ 102. Unless you bought a DD, you lack this critical item.G3 - If I have assets positioned near Normandy, or Gibraltar (regardless of ownership) I can hit you.
Sea Lion should be going down, if im doing that. I see the CV, but that fleet cant hit me in SZ 110, where i’ll be at the end of my turn. It cant land forces either, and US cant stage to SZ 106 until im at war. If SL is going to require a second round, that might be worrisome but the US still cannot declare war on me (unless I took London).
If I don’t care about SL, or are bluffing, slowbuidling, etc, I see that it wasn’t that great of a plan with the US in the Atlantic, but im not afraid of 1 CV 1 CA 1DD. I might be mildly afraid of some transports. If UK or USA have grand fleets in the Atlantic, its a source for concern G3-5, but unless they are both going 100% KGF I don’t have to divert resources from KRF yet.
This is when having some german subs and strat bombers ready to strike is pretty sweet because then they have to stack a SZ 91, 109, 110 et al… and if you were lucky and killed the French ships, there wont be a multination navy to cover 91 early game
This leads me to believe that you didn’t watch the video and are incorrectly assuming what is happening in the strategy. There are 2 loaded carriers and a destroyer in 102, and 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, and 3 transports in 101. They also have 4 strat bombers on Eastern US. The Brits have 1 strat bomber, 1 tac bomber, and 1 fighter on Gibraltar. The Med has been cleared of boats so the only way to take out the planes on Gib is with with planes.
This plan isn’t to actively prevent Sealion, it’s to dissuade Germany from doing it. The assets are to be moved to wherever the American player wants them after Germany declines to buy the wack of transports needed to do a G3 Sealion. If the Germans go ahead and do it then all of the US and if necessary the UK planes will destroy everything in 110. London will be liberated asap and Germany will cry in their beer as they get pounded by Russian tanks for the rest of the game. You can’t save 110 if London falls. If it is attempted but doesn’t fall then the UK can hit 110 with 5 planes because the Gib planes can land on London and won’t need the US carrier for a landing spot.
-
I do apologize, I didn’t watch the video as I im only able to post on my work computer. I was speaking more generally, I suppose.
Thank you for narrating it to me.
I guess my thinking that Germany has to commit to that early Sea Lion in general (in his mind, at least) to pull it off, so there may not be much to dissuade. If he’s setting it up, and USA looks like he’s coming straight for him with all those goodies, you make a strong point that he either has to switch plans, or blow himself up.
-
This plan isn’t to actively prevent Sealion, it’s to dissuade Germany from doing it.
Well, now that the video is out GHG has shown the counter for Germany to hold SZ110 after Sea Lion and blow up the entire German fleet.
My 2 Air Base plan on SZ110 was a counter to the first question of how does Germany hold SZ110 and their ill gotten gains in the UK.
So, now we enter the realm of counters of counters.
So, the USA stacks SZ102 like GHG laid out. What can Germany do besides bailing on Sea Lion which is the entire purpose of stacking SZ102.
Well, the 2 X Air Base plan most likely is a doomed counter. Mainly because it is to passive. Germany does not need passive plans that dissuade the Allies from doing something, they need to be bold and aggressive and make it abundantly clear that the Allies have no choice but to back down.
So, here is my second stab at this discussion, in classic manner, a counter to a counter.
Germany is going in on Sea Lion on G3, that is a given.
Germany plans to counter this SZ102 grand plan.
So, instead of being passive to dissuade the USA, Germany goes right at them.
Germany moves all 4 Atlantic subs into SZ106 and obliterates the Canadian navy.
Germany blows up SZ111, mainly to get rid of one of the UK DD sitting up there. Going in with the BB and air power.
Germany ignores SZ110 fleet.
Germany is only concerned in the first 2 turns about UK DD.
Germany needs to build a DD on turn 1 to take out that pesky Russian Sub on G2.
Germany in the non combat moves the lone sub in 124 to 108.Ok, so what has Germany done.
IF all goes to plan off the coast of Canada Germany has 4 subs and one sub in the middle of the Atlantic in range of SZ102.
SO UK now has to make some choices. Do they go standard opening move and go Taranto and ignore the subs? They do have one DD left in SZ109 who go back to Canada with some air support and blow up the Subs. But how many planes do they divert? they need all of them in the Med. So, if UK goes back to Canada to destroy the sub menace Italy keeps almost all their starting navy in tact. which is always good for the Axis.
** This is very Important to the counter ** Germany is forcing the UK to make a hard choice on UK1. Depending on their choice now Germany on G2 can make any changes to Sea Lion they want or just throw in the towel and forget about Sea lion. If the UK goes after the Subs with their planes that leaves Italy un molested in the Med which is always good for Italy navy and the German player on G2 can do a all into Russia build with land units.
You are now having the UK make the hard choices which always leads to good things.
So this is a aggressive counter move to SZ102 which then also effects what the UK will do on Turn 1. SZ102 now has up to 5 subs going into SZ102 on G3 at the latest. Heck they could go on G2 and declare war on the USA if they drop 2CV and a DD in SZ102. It will not effect Germany on a G3 invasion because the USA counter is sunk. Furthermore Germany now has subs sitting in the middle of the Atlantic that causes disruption for the UK.
So, that is my counter to the counter.
IF Germany on G1 purchases a DD and a Sub. They could have up to 6 subs in the Atlantic at the start of G3 to contest SZ102. I cant see how making the UK chase subs with 1DD in the Atlantic is a bad idea.
-
Well, if you put 4 subs in 106 on G1, the US can decide to move the cruiser to 102 as well, 5 subs vs 1 DD, 1 CC, 2 CV, 4 fighters may very well result in 5 subs lost against the destroyer and cruiser, leaving the carriers.
-
Well, if you put 4 subs in 106 on G1, the US can decide to move the cruiser to 102 as well, 5 subs vs 1 DD, 1 CC, 2 CV, 4 fighters may very well result in 5 subs lost against the destroyer and cruiser, leaving the carriers.
That is true.
But Germany could then go into Eastern USA SZ and blow up what ever TRS and fodder units they have on G3 instead.
Iam a big believer in making my foe have to make some hard choices on what to do. He has no clue what Iam doing and sometimes people way over think what you are doing when put under pressure. It is possible that the USA backs down from SZ102 in response.
Also leaving carriers fully loaded in SZ102 does have some risk. If the Subs get some good rolls they could damage all the CV and most likely all the subs die in the process. Â But that also means the USA loses not only their DD and CA, in the scenario laid out but also all 4 planes. I think that would be a really nice trade off for Germany.
I agree it is unlikely that the German Subs would hit 4 out of 5 shots. But will the USA risk it? That is the whole point of a passive counter. Your foe is more concerned about it going bad and losing a ton of units and set them back 2-3 turns. That is why passive counters work.
The proper response to a passive counter is to challenge it and flip the script and make the guy setting up the passive counter to actually spring the counter move and maybe losing his shirt in the process.
-
Now you’re thinking PS. I had thought too that the way to counter it would be with subs on 102. The problem that I’ve encountered so far is that Germany loses too many planes trying to take out the UK fleet which again is the goal of London Calling. The subs provide the fodder so that the planes aren’t lost but with them gone then for sure the UK will scramble and kill as many planes as possible. Leaving the 110 fleet means you move them to 109 to hook up with the destroyer and possibly a 4 plane scramble (depending on what has happened). Again, dead German planes trying to take it out and Sealion impossible. If Germany started with just a bit more navy in the game then it would be possible but they just don’t have enough boats in the water to do Sealion and protect their fleet by G3 any way you slice it.
-
I think the only reason to stage a US fleet in sz 102 (fighters) and bombers in Washington DC (to sink the German Navy) is to try to let the UK get away with not doing a standard 6 /1 UK1 purchase. Because, otherwise what’s the point of doing this SZ 102 thing?
The more I think about, the less reason I think there is for avoiding this purchase.
Later in the game, these infantry are very useful and normally need to be added to to prevent London falling shortly after Moscow, or can also be used to hit Normandy.
I guess one thing these strategies are useful for is removing fear from scrambling G1.
-
As a German player, to see this London calling strategy would make me giddy,this strategy is incredibly flawed….worthless in fact…people miss the point of Sea Lion which is to secure a flank, and prevent landing spots for US Bombers
Germany and Italy must play as one with same objectives in mind
-
As a German player, to see this London calling strategy would make me giddy,this strategy is incredibly flawed….worthless in fact…people miss the point of Sea Lion which is to secure a flank, and prevent landing spots for US Bombers
Germany and Italy must play as one with same objectives in mind
Well, I don’t think people miss the point that knocking out the UK and securing the island is key to Axis success.
I just want more insight on how the plan is flawed to the point of worthless. That is the real “meat” of your post. Back it up, lets get some insight on why it is flawed and pointless.
Suggested Topics
