Allied counter to German fleet-unification

[Guest]

With a TRN build, you do NOT split your Germany forces.  You make the biggest stack in Egypt that you can, and THEN move out.

3 INF, 1 ART, 2 ARM, 1 FIG, 1 BOM against 1 INF, 1 ARM, 1 FIG.
That gives Germany 1 INF, 1 ART, 2 ARM in Egypt, and 1 INF, 1 ART, 1 FIG, 1 BOM in Libya

Go ahead UK, hit me with 3 INF, 1 FIG, 1 BOM.  You average clearing without taking, and then I wipe out your FIG and BOM for minimal cost, and drop 4 more units in Africa as Germany the next turn while Japan walks into India for free (or for minimal cost).

[TimTheEnchanter]

@ncscswitch:

With a TRN build, you do NOT split your Germany forces.  You make the biggest stack in Egypt that you can, and THEN move out.

Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying I would recommend splitting the german landing forces, just that if you did it (as someone suggested), you wouldn’t necessarily be completely outmatched in egypt on G1.

[Jennifer]

I like Germany to get India if possible.  Japan can use it, but honestly, Germany can use it more.  Especially if Germany can also get Australia, Madagascar, New Zealand and, dare I hope, Hawaii too. (Did it before, but it took a while!)

Between that, and Africa (and you’ll almost certainly have Africa entrenched before leaving to get the other stuff) Germany’s got a really nice pay check.

[DarthMaximus]

@ste:

One further question belonging this topic: How is it if Germany does not buy the carrier. This means that Germany did not spend any money in the sea but made the same attack with the med-fleet in WMD (and took Gibraltar). The attack on EGY is again only with the bid plus some air from Germany.

How would you react? What are good counters in this case? Maybe the same moves as already mentioned? I would prefer to spend less money in the sea with UK in this case. The immediate attack against the German Baltic Navy is on the other side very very risky.

Thanks for replies!
Stefan

UK can go air, 2-3 ftrs or even drop a trn.  Unification isn’t a threat, but with no additional naval buy Germany may employ some type of Channel Dash strat, where they try to thin out the Allied ships and open them up to a G2 air attack.

I still go AC with the US, but maybe only 1 ftr (or bom).  The Baltic fleet dies on UK 2 (4-5 ftrs + bom) and the Med fleet dies in rd 3 or 4.

As for the bids brought up, an 8 bid is not scary at all.  It may change things but a trn/sub bid is weaker than an inf/arm on the front lines.

If your intent is to attack Egy, just bid the units to Lib, otherwise your pulling 4 units from Europe and still not going to be able to threaten the Atlantic.  If you want to attack Egy and Trj the inf/arm is still better (bid for Egy, trn for TJ), or instead you can use them to attack and take Gib (bid fro Egy trn/bb for Gib).
The trn bid essentially locks Germany into having a BB and 2 trns in Sz 15 at the end of G1.

A sub bid for the Atlantic is not much help since Egy is now opened to a rd 1 dicey and is a green light for an aggressive Russia.  Sure you can play nice in the Atlantic, but your likely to see Russia go Wrus/Ukr (seeing the sub placed in Sz 12), while UK will easily counter Egy.  Russia probably holds Ukr permanently by round 3.

Japanese 8 bids are typically weaker than German 8 bids.  While another trn is fun, it again doesn’t help with Egy and essentially locks in very specific moves for Germany.  Having a vast Pacific Empire won’t help if Germany is boxed in by round 4 and the Allies simply retreated to Novo/Kaz in the East.  It still takes Japan 3-4 turns to get new units to the front lines and they’ll still need an IC.

You are much better off boosting Germany early giving Japan the much needed time to get its war machine up an running.

Even with Unrestricted placement I won’t bid less than 9.

I will say I don’t think new players should start with bids, or immediately jump into 7,8, or 9 bids just b/c they read that may be the going rate.  Bid amount is directly related to how well you can coordinate all 3 Allies play and how well you work as one unit.  The better you are at that the more you can give up.

[Jennifer]

I still feel, in my opinion, that a German fleet unification threat is more easily countered with Aircraft Carrier, Submarine and 2 Infantry buy and a unification of allied forces in SZ 8.

This should give you significant punch on your assault of the Unified German fleet if needed, but plenty of defensive power if Germany should waste her efforts attacking you. (Submarines have twice the punch of a defending transport and infinitely more attacking power than an attacking transport!)

[Guest]

If Germany is waging an economic war with the Allies in the early rounds, the TRN bid to SZ14 is better than land units to Libya.  It helps defend your fleet from less than 3 Allied aircraft, gets you 4 units per turn plus BB shot into Africa, and allows Germany to argue with the Allies for a few turns in Africa.

The cost of doing so is offset by the extra revenue to Germany (extra cash is about equal to the expenditures for units to Africa).  The benefit to Germany is the cash and units lost to UK.  It also keeps the Allies tied up with Algeria landings a bit longer, delaying the Allied shuck into Archangel.

[Jennifer]

Oh I agree, the transport bid in SZ 14 is superior to ground units in Africa.  Mainly because you’re probably only getting two ground units anyway, and the transport bid can bring that on the first round and each subsequent round it is built.

Furthermore, the transport is already built, that means you don’t have to keep your med fleet in SZ 14 for a round to build one.

[DarthMaximus]

I view it as weaker b/c it eliminates options for Germany on G1.

If you bid a trn you MUST then use both to attack Egy.  Splitting them (as pointed out earlier) is a bad idea.

If you bid 1 inf/1 arm you now have the option to take both Egy and Gib.  You could of course just do Egy heavy.  In which case you can still wage the Economic War as Switch put it b/c Egy still isn’t counterable on UK1.  Also with the Afr bid you are free to potentially attack Cauc should Russia 1 go bad, while still having a good shot at Egy.  With the trn bid you obviously could attack Cauc as well and even bring in more troops but again this leaves a big question mark on the G1 Egy battle since in would be a bad idea to leave an unprotected trn in Sz 16.

I’m also not sure Germany can afford to transport 4 units a turn (in rds 2-3) to Afr.  I used to love the trn bid to sz 14 but just found that I perfer the straight PAfr bid so I have the maximum amount of options on G1.

It is sort of moot now in terms of my bidding strat, since I’ll typically bid 9 now and just go for 3 inf with either all three in Lib or 2 in Lib and 1 to Europe or something.

[Guest]

I simply do not see 2 TRN, 1 BB in SZ15 as being a BAD thing for Germany.

Always remember that the easiest way for the Axis to win is to smash Russia.  And a 2 TRN/BB fleet in SZ15 does several things:
1.  Is a fleet that is not easilly killed by Allied air
2.  Is WAY out of position and range to be attacked by Allied navy
3.  Wreaks havoc with UK income and forces the Allies to invest heavily in Africa
4.  Is always in range of Ukraine and Caucuses when Germany is ready for the main push on Moscow.

[Jennifer]

I don’t see how it can be bad in SZ 15, in SZ 13 maybe because it means you did not take Egypt (probably anyway.)

I agree however, I dislike being locked into moves and worse telegraphing my intent.  However, the extra transport I think gives Germany enough of a threat to Caucasus (forcing Russia to protect it, instead of just blocking by taking Ukraine) it’s worth it.

[ABWorsham4]

Wouldn’t land base aircraft be more practical?

[DarthMaximus]

@ncscswitch:

I simply do not see 2 TRN, 1 BB in SZ15 as being a BAD thing for Germany.

I don’t think it is a bad thing, I just think the direct bid is slightly better, b/c I think it frees up Germany a bit more on G1 b/c you can wait to see the results of R1.  I can certainly see potential in the trn bid, then buying the AC of Sz 5 and making the Allies really work to sink your ships, but again I’m not sure if I want to commit to that before seeing R1.

@Cmdr:

I don’t see how it can be bad in SZ 15, in SZ 13 maybe because it means you did not take Egypt (probably anyway.)

I don’t think Sz 15 is a bad spot.  Even with an 8-9 Afr bid, I still send the bb/trn to sz 15 in probably 95% of my games, I just want to see how R1 goes both in combat move and NCM.

You do get some neat transporting options with the 2nd trn, but once UK/US ftrs start arriving in rd 2 and 3 the threat to Cauc is moot (via a surprise landing) and it really does become costly to transport 4 units to Afr a turn and still worry about WE, Ger, and EE.  You’re almost going to need a Ger AC for Sz 5, otherwise that fleet is sunk in rd 1 or 2 and Germany might not be able to afford to place 4 units a turn in SE to optimize the threat of the 2 trns (Balk is usually empty and Ukr is being traded).

Remember one drop of 4 inf on G2 is 12 ipc, that is a lot of Afr you have to hold to start to make up those IPC, and an overall minus 4 units in Europe (minus two from the additional trn on G1, and minus 2 from the additional trn on G2).
If you went with the AC buy as well that is minus 5 more inf, that is potentially an awful lot of early missing inf in Europe for Ger.

[DarthMaximus]

@ABWorsham4:

Wouldn’t land base aircraft be more practical?

I actually like this approach too, with an extra ftr buy (maybe 10 inf, 1 ftr on G1).  I’ve bought a 2nd bom on G1 in a couple of games and had pretty good success as well.

I’m definitely a fan of Air power, and that goes for pretty much all countries.

[Jennifer]

Yes, but if the allies have to send their aircraft to Caucasus to defend against the transports that are only threatening Russia, then that’s a benefit to Germany, no?  Less aircraft protecting the Allied fleets.

[DarthMaximus]

Well I buy lots of Allied air regardless, so I tend to have lots of planes flying around anyway.  Cauc is a central enough location where you can’t really go wrong having a few Allied planes there anyway.

I’ll typically buy 2-3 ftrs on UK 1, 1-2 on US 1, then 1 on UK 2, and another 1-2 on US 2.  At this point I’m probably done with UK air, but the US I’ll keep buy 1 ftr a turn, or 1 ftr every other turn.

[Woodstock]

Let’s fire up an old topic. I’m a newbie to Revised…so…sorry :P
(I’m going for a no-bid game here, sorry, I like it)

In this thread, the G1 AC + 3 TRN buy seems to put quite a load on both UK and USA, right to RND2 at least. It doesn’t seem all that bad for Germany, and might even pull of some luck.
Russia can be efficiently defended still aswell…but at least…you will force all UK and USA troops to UK (according to the various responses here).
Not all of a too bad situation I might say, as Germany also has some back up plans on G2 when indeed, UK and USA scramble to UK, and Operation Sealion doesnt seem to be so fortunate anymore.

But despite all this, the G1 naval buy still seems a bit questionable. There’s a bit too much if’s and but’s.

However!

What I miss in this thread is the added benefits for Japan in the above scenario.
If indeed UK and USA scramble to UK, Japan has a free game in the Pacific.
Just act as if it was a KJF-game, taking complete Naval dominance, and a fair block in Asia.
You can waltz into Asia on J2 easily.
Or maybe even USA? …Nah, a bit too enthusiastic, sorry.

But what if USA and UK do not scramble to UK?
Well, even better in my opinion. On G2 you still have a nice german force to do whatever you like (strong fleet, and strong…yet…centralized ground force.
On J1…Japan could pull of the anti-KJF aswell, as it seems the right thing to do…in pretty much any scenario for Japan…

[Romulus]

I miss a point. I am not a KJF expert but it seems to me that in a correctly conducted KJF Japan is not supposed to take naval dominance of the Pacific.

IMHO the best way to force USA and UK to move to Europe is to buy all ground units with Germany increasing the pressure on USSR. (Eventually some air may help in this scenario to trade ground more easily with USSR and keeping honest Western Allies fleets.)
This forces Western Allies to go after Germany leaving Japan free to plunder Pacific and Asia. Just as in the scenario in which Germany buy naval units. With the interesting difference that Germany is more stronger on the ground and can keep USSR under a big pressure while defending from UK and USA Assault for a while and waiting for Japan help.

[Guest]

There are several highly ranked players on here that “scramble” to London on USA1 regardless.

It is a good staging point for the US, allowing them to then move toward Norway and points north, threaten Western, or hit North Africa.

The more threat-points you can create with your clustered units, the weaker then enemy defenses will be.

[Woodstock]

@Romulus:

I miss a point. I am not a KJF expert but it seems to me that in a correctly conducted KJF Japan is not supposed to take naval dominance of the Pacific.

According to this article it seems highly feasible….

[Romulus]

@Woodstock:

@Romulus:

I miss a point. I am not a KJF expert but it seems to me that in a correctly conducted KJF Japan is not supposed to take naval dominance of the Pacific.

According to this article it seems highly feasible….

No, it is desirable. It is one of  the possibility for the Japanese player, reducing mainland effort, for countering KJF.

If Allies goes KJF and allows the Japan to have naval dominance, they have little chance to win the game, given the fact that Germany is unchecked. For this reason I observed that KJF and Japanese Naval dominance are not two things that come together spontaneously.

Switch may easily smash a KJF with naval dominance but I would have more problems in doing the same.