Black stuff is Jen’s. Red stuff is my reply. Green stuff is my original post.
Exactly my point. ENGLAND SHOULD DO SOMETHING ELSE, like what you just outlined above. In which case, you have given Germany the least of all her great options (namely to take Egypt at almost no cost, instead of a huge cost resulting in the possible loss of Africa forever.)
What “huge cost”? If Germany attacks Anglo-Egypt with 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber, it should kill the Anglo-Egypt units with minimal losses. Or Germany could have placed an Africa bid with a decent probability of having a Anglo-Egypt force that’s too strong for UK to counter.
But yes, you CAN for go the attack on SZ 5, put your fighters and bombers in Moscow, move your fleet into SZ 15, still get cut off with Germans in Egypt and have the German fleet sitting united in SZ 7. As I said, just because England does something on UK 1 does NOT MEAN GERMANY HAS TO DO SOMETHING ON GERMANY 2. You cannot wait and see what Germany will do on Germany 2 to make England 1’s combat and non-combat moves. Not unless you are playing with the Hippity Hoppity Rules set.
Well isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black. All the moves I mentioned are in the proper order.
Incorrect. From SZ 13 Germany can easily go to SZ 7, 8, 11, 12, 17 or 18. All of which are out of range of the fighters and bomber in Russia. SZ 7 is probably the best place if England’s all set up. Now you are trapped in the med with your only escape coming right into Germany’s united fleet.
What do you mean, “England’s all set up”? Anyways, UK can sit on its fleet in the Med, it isn’t in any danger any time soon.
And, if we pretend you were foolish enough to try a fleet unification in SZ 12 to block the Germans in
Look, let’s not make silly assumptions like that. The Allies are not going to unite at SZ 12 with 5 fighters at Western Europe at 2 bombers at Germany plus the Med fleet moving to south of Western Europe, and you are not going to leave Germany and Eastern Europe open to a USSR tank blitz from Ukraine.
If Germany buys mass navy on G2, UK should be just as happy considering the Russians have a 10-13 less ground units to worry about.
Correct, you WOULD have to move the UK fighters to Russia on UK1, but the ONLY reason for UK NOT to do so is even BETTER German targets in the water - in which case UK can always opt instead of sending the UK Indian fleet north of Anglo-Egypt to put up a defense of India with the extra infantry, tank, and fighter spared from Anglo-Egypt and possibly contest Japanese control of the west Pacific.
Again, that’s my entire point! England SHOULD NOT MOVE INTO SZ 15 on UK 1. It’s a trap they cannot possibly win.
I still don’t see it.
You go in there and you’ve handed Germany the advantage for the next 4-6 rounds as best I can see it. Yes, Russia’s pushed ahead into Europe a little farther then normal (though to be honest, when I have Russia I almost always have Balkans, Belorussia and Karelia as dead zones with a large contingent in Ukraine, so it’s not like less Germans are going to be allowing me in farther then I normally am anyway); but now Germany can leave W. Europe empty and focus everything on Russia. So instead of locking up 25 units in W. Europe defense, you have nothing there and +25 units pushing Russia back. That’s a HUGE swing.
You can’t keep the German fleet west of Western Europe. The Allies build air and navy fast. If you stay there, the Allies use transport fodder plus air plus assorted navy. Germany does not survive the attack even with 2 trns 3 sub 1 destr 1 battleship.
My opinion is that Western Europe should be lightly defended if at all anyways until the Allies are in a serious position to take and hold Western Europe, at which point Germany can shift Eastern Europe units to Germany and German units to Western Europe. This should not happen until at least the fifth or sixth turn anyways, by which point the German fleet you speak of will be long gone from the area (it might survive, but it will certainly have to retreat into the Mediterranean or the north Atlantic) and will hence be of no use in defending Western Europe at all.
So what we have is 5 possible options for Germany on G2:
1) England put her fighters in Russia and moved her fleet into SZ 15.
2) England and America joined forces in SZ 8. In which case, you better have built some destroyers or something to keep the 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers from sinking the combined allied fleets in SZ 8 and to do that, you would have negated purchases for the protection of England opening up a Sea Lion attempt.
First part true, you must buy defense for SZ 8. Second part untrue. If the Allies DO unite at SZ 8, the proper USSR move is sub to SZ 12 west of Algeria to block the German Med fleet, given that the Allied player is not retarded and moved the USSR sub to join the UK battleship and transport in USSR1. (Note that the Germans may have bid a sub at SZ 8, but as I assume we are discussing a game with an Africa bid, I will not elaborate on this at this time). This prevents both the German Med fleet from being used as fodder against the SZ 8 forces, and prevents the German Med fleet from supporting the UK attack. This means that the US can send 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber to UK (there’s no place else for them to go), send the E. US and W. US fighter to land on a UK carrier in SZ 8. The specific buy and move are: UK1 buy 4 infantry 1 carrier move 1 tank from E. Canada to London via SZ 8, move UK battleship and transport to SZ 8, US1 buy (whatever), move E. US ground forces to London and move E. US and W. US fighters to SZ 8. USSR2 move sub to block at SZ 12 west of Algeria. The result is that the Germans have two threats; 5-6 fighter 2 bomber 1 transport vs 1 AA gun 8 inf 2 art 3 tank 1 bomber (note that Russia CAN add up to two fighters but probably shouldn’t), or 5-6 fighters 2 bomber vs 4 trns 1 destr 1 carrier 1 btl 2 fighter. This even assumes that UK moved its fighters and bomber towards the Mediterranean and Russia. Neither battle is particularly tasty for the Germans.
If 5 fighters 2 bombers is all that is in range of SZ 8 and London is threatened, the London invasion threat is 5 inf 1 bomber 1 inf 1 tank unless you’re proposing a G1 Med fleet move to south of Western Europe which is SUCH a HUGE change that you HAVE to mention it. Anyways, US can add 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber and UK can add 1 tank - this is without buying anything - for defense of 1 AA gun 4 inf 2 art 2 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber. UK can EASILY afford a carrier and four infantry to lock up London, and assuming the Med fleet is out of range, that’s a London defense force of 1 AA gun 8 inf 2 art 2 tank 1 bomber and a SZ8 fleet of 4 transport 1 sub 1 destroyer 1 carrier 2 fighter 1 battleship. True, the Germans can kill a lot of that, but it is probable that any sort of attack on that fleet will be very expensive for Germany (again, unless Germany moved its Med fleet WEST, which is such a HUGE difference that you have to mention it)
Now you are reacting, not acting. Yes, you CAN stop Sea Lion by massing EVERY LAST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT POSSIBLE IN ENGLAND. And of course, now that the British fighters are NOT IN RUSSIA LIKE YOU ORIGINALLY ARGUED, now Germany can easily sink the Transport, 2 Fighters, Carrier and 2 Destroyers in SZ 15 because there is NO THREAT AT ALL to SZ 14 from England.
So what’s wrong with reacting? Indeed, I think appropriate reaction is a necessary component of strong play.
Anyways, you still can’t kill the UK force of 1 transport 2 fighters 1 carrier and 2 destroyers in the Med on G2 because the German fighters are at Western Europe or Norway. All you have is 1 transport 1 battleship 2 bombers against 1 transport 1 carrier 2 destroyers 2 fighters - 00444 vs 133344 which favors UK.
Again, my point is made. You are allowing Germany to be very flexible with her units and you are NOT stopping any of her plans. However, she has forced you to change your plans twice now. And no matter what set you chose, you end up losing more then she does (not to mention she’s almost losing nothing in either engagement but you are losing a lot in both.)
As described earlier, I see how Germany can inflict heavy Allied casualties, but I would certainly not dismiss Germany’s losses in such attacks as trivial.
3) England and America joined forces in SZ 12 allowing the Germans to hit you with Submarine, 5 Fighters, 2 Bombers sinking yout fleet and unifying destroyer, 2 submarines, 2 transports and a battleship in SZ 7.
Let me be clear. Under no circumstances with 5 fighters in W. Europe, 2 bombers in Germany, and 1 transport 1 battleship south of Western Europe should the Allies unite their navy in SZ 12. Doing so is completely retarded, and if the Allied player is really that dumb, the Allies were probably going to lose anyways.
Unification in SZ 12 is just silly with a German Med fleet sitting at S. Europe or south of W. Europe. But look, you’re proposing German Med fleet south of W. Europe if you’re proposing German fleet unification in SZ 7 west of Western Europe (would you PLEASE refer to sea zones with geographical reference instead of these arcane numbers?) Anyways in this case UK/US can still send fleet to E. Canada and northwest of UK and build UK ground to prevent German invasion of London, and as you make no mention of a Baltic fleet buy, UK could attack the Baltic fleet (and of course keep the UK Indian fleet out of the Med.
Thanks for finally realizing that. I was beginning to think you’d never realize that the German fleet was NOT in SZ 14 that I was using it to sink your battleship without loss (in most cases anyway, there’s the off chance you’ll sink a submarine, but it’s not very high.)
It isn’t a matter of “finally realizing it”. It’s a matter of piecing things together with circumstantial evidence. You didn’t say that Germany sent their fleet to Gibraltar, I had to figure it out. Hence the “jenforces” aspect . . .
So yes, the unification in SZ 12 is pretty silly. Honestly, without buying a carrier and locking up your fighters from England, a unification in SZ 8 is also very silly.
You can buy a carrier with UK and still send the UK fighters roaming as described above. If the Allied player wishes, Russia can almost lock London with a USSR fighter flying from Russia to London - it can’t be used to trade territory on USSR2, but Russia should have at least 1 artillery at West Russia to compensate, and the fighter can be used on USSR 3 to trade Karelia.
In either case, the German Luftwaffe can sink the combined fleet with very modest losses (like 3 fighters and a submarine to get 4 transports, submarine, destroyer and battleship) with the carrier and fighters, the Germans would probably have to expose the battleship and that would make the attack cost prohibitive. Then again, now the fighters are NOT in Russia like you originally called for.
The move as described previously ends with 4 trns 1 destr 1 carrier 1 battleship 2 fighters in SZ 8 southwest of UK, a sub to block the Med fleet in SZ 12 west of Algeria, 1 AA gun 1 bomber 8 inf 2 art 3 tank in London.
4) England invaded SZ 15, but did NOT bring the fighters from England into range of SZ 14 in which case Germany can either attack SZ 8/12 or just unify SZ 7 or build a small set of naval fodder and stationed herself in SZ 14 to sink the British fleet on Germany 3.
As previously described, Germany will not “sink the British fleet on Germany 3”, as the UK can hit the Germans on UK 2 barring some gigantic German Med fleet buy.
Assuming G1 Med fleet moves south of Western Europe, 2 bombers at Germany, 5 fighters at Western Europe, UK2 India fleet to north of Anglo-Egypt, G2 Germany finds a tough target in that Med fleet. As previously mentioned, IF Germany moves its Med fleet to S. Europe and buys protective fleet on G2, Germany needs a massive investment to protect its Med fleet which gives the Allies a unit advantage in Europe. IF Germany runs to west of Algeria or west of Western Europe, then UK could recapture Anglo-Egypt on UK2, allowing the UK to retreat through the Suez at its discretion on UK3, or the UK could make some attacks on Balkans (with Russia taking Ukraine to prevent the German fighters from having range to hit the UK fleet) or some combination thereof.
Considering the huge UK forces near Africa, the UK should have little trouble controlling the Suez canal at the start of UK3 as well. Germany can take Anglo-Egypt on G2, but UK counters on UK2.
England shouldn’t make a mistake of this magnitude, so discussion of that point is moot. It is so dumb to bring the UK fleet to SZ 15 north of Anglo-Egypt but not bring any fighters to within range of S. Europe that it simply shouldn’t happen.
And yet, in the 5 games I’ve done this, England has never brought her fighters into range. Normally she loses them in SZ 5 after sinking the Baltic Fleet which is fine with me.
I’m betting in most of those games UK didn’t move its fleet through the Suez Canal either. Moving the UK fleet through the Suez Canal and moving UK air into range are part of the same package.
5) England did something smart, retreated everything it could and let Germany control the Med without invasion.
What is this “Control of the Med” you speak of? Germany should control the Med until well into the game anyways with its battleship and transport usable as fodder plus air force.
Again, England doesn’t HAVE to do this. My point is that the UK can RESPOND to the German move, and the Germans leaving Anglo-Egypt alone gives UK that many more options.
And what I am saying is the smart move is to take the armor, fighter and destroyer gift and get the heck out of Dodge before Germany spanks you. And that the options left open to England are far less in power and scope then the options left open to Germany if Germany waits one round to take Egypt and instead consolidates her forces to mass fire on the enemy.
A sniper is deadly. An artillery barrage is more deadly.
Even with a bid, I count 3 inf 1 art 2 tank in Libya at end of G1 (although I note that of my last knowledge you favored a Ukraine bid, not an Africa bid), which allows a G2 attack into Anglo-Egypt of that much (assuming the Allies abandon Anglo-Egypt). I take it that you took Gibraltar to prevent the UK destroyer and UK air from killing the Med fleet.
UK should have 5 inf 1 tank 2 fighter 1 bomber in range assuming the S. Africa infantry is still out of range, and 1 infantry kept in India. The Allies can hit the Germans with 4-5 ground units plus air and kill them, and follow up with more infantry/air attacks.
As I said earlier - Germany can FORCE the UK to stay out of the Med, but it is horribly costly to the Germans. I will pay the price of an arm if I can get an arm and a leg for it.
Yes, but the Germans can save a lot of money in forward placed units creating a much stronger front against the Allies because of it if they do not attack SZ 15, Egypt, SZ 13, Karelia and Ukraine at the same time. It’s easier to hit Gibraltar, SZ 13, Ukraine and Karelia because it costs you much less and allows you to put more firepower on the enemy resulting in fewer of your own losses.
I see that the Germans save a good bit of IPCs, but I think their position suffers because of it. I think the position from such a German move is at BEST equal to the traditional German move. I do not think it superior for the reasons given above.
To those people that may agree with me - remember to beware of hoboes! Don’t believe it just because I say it.
I am pretty sure we agree that the value of an Infantry Unit 2 spaces away from the nearest friendly Industrial Complex has a greater tactical value then an Infantryman bought this round. Mainly because the purchased unit has to be placed and then move two spaces whereas the existing unit is already in position to attack or defend.
And that’s my basic concept. Germany can easily have 6 Units in Libya without moving anything there (assuming Libyan bid) and have her entire navy poised to attack SZ 15/SZ 12/SZ 7/SZ 8 without any long term tactical cost to her. If England moves to allow it, then England is at great risk of both making a tactical error somewhere and cascading dice failure. Germany is at risk of neither. The reason Germany is not at risk is because Germany is acting and forcing England to react to whatever she does. This gives her control of the board.
I don’t see England as being FORCED to react any more than in any situation. If you see a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk, you are not FORCED to pick it up. You may react to the situation and decide to pick it up, but you are not FORCED to do so.
I noticed I wrote a lot about UK sailing through the Suez into the Mediterranean. But there is another real nasty threat which is to the Japanese.
Anglo-Egypt has 1 inf 1 transport 1 fighter, and the waters north of Anglo-Egypt have 1 destroyer. All in all, they do not SEEM to be important, but I think they ARE important. German cannot easily move units to Africa with its single transport, and Japan does not have the transports or the range to move units to seriously threaten India early.
UK can either sail into the Mediterranean and make trouble for the Germans, (assisted that much more by the destroyer, fighter, infantry, and tank which are considerable, with consequences as described previously), OR UK can sail towards India and make trouble for the Japs.
You don’t USUALLY see UK make a case for the Japs early, because the UK destroyer north of Anglo-Egypt is usually dead, as is the UK fighter at Anglo-Egypt. With an additional fighter and destroyer, the UK attack fleet swells to 1 trns 1 carrier 2 destr 2 fighter 1 bomber quickly supplemented by 2 fighters moving from Russia to India UK2. This is a serious threat, especially since the UK can see it coming and move its Australian fleet appropriately.
All in all, I think allowing the UK units at Anglo-Egypt to survive is a horrible horrible thing for the Axis given the great flexibility and power it gives the UK in the Mediterranean/Indian region.