Please stay on topic or don’t post in this thread. Thanks.
Should Germany take Egypt first turn?
-
What about this:
Sz 2 - trn, bb vs. 2 subs, 1 ftr
Sz 6 - dd vs. sub, ftr
Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs
Egy - 2 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm, 1 ftr vs. 2 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm, 1 bomNow, in Sz 2 you should get 1 hit in rd 1 between your subs and ftr and in rd 2 you may even sink the BB without it even firing back if your sub hits.
Sz 12 is risky with only the 2 ftrs, but the price is a beefed up Egy attack. Otherwise, the bom to Sz 2 and 1 sub to sz 12.
In my first game as Axis I did:
1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom to Sz 2
1 sub, 1 ftr to sz 6
1 sub, 2 ftrs to sz 12
2 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm to EgyAnd while I won all of them, I was not at all comfortable with the Egy Attack (I took with 1 tank leftover). I think I’d rather risk the Sz 12 battle then not taking out Egy. So I may try the bom to Egy in my next game.
-
Looks okay to me, DM. But then, I like to obliterate the Russian army between me and Moscow before I worry about england’s navy.
-
The main problem i see with this force deployment is that you are trading 2 fighters vs the cruiser and destroyer. Sure, if you succeed you got a clean sweep at the cost of probably loosing 2 fighters.
But now imagine that in sz 12 during the first cycle of combat you dont hit while the ca + dd hit once. Would you still attack? The ca and dd could together with the british bomber probably sink both italian cruisers or form the core of the new british fleet together with the dd and transport.
To sum it up: even if it works as planned you lose 1 to 2 aircraft, but if it fails i see great problems arise. Its a gamble hoping to lose no aircraft against the ca + dd. In this case the strategy is great.
-
So? With England without a navy, you can spend some of your hard earned money each round on fighters and bombers. I do anyway, personally. I think Air Force > Navy in this game.
-
But compared with an Egypt suicide attack you trade Egypt for two planes
-
My suggestion would be the moves in DM’s reply with one small change, I would probably go with the cruiser to Sz 6 as well. If they want to strike it they have to divide their forces between the lone transport and the cruiser. The transport should be toast anyway and the crusier will have the same amount of defense except that it will face fewer possible attackers.
When it comes to Sz 12 I want to point something out again, it is only important to sink one of those ships (probably the DD). There is a small chance of not hitting anything at all while loosing both planes but that’s is a risk I am willing to take.
Sz 2 has one upside, there can be no freak of nature-rolls here. UK can get 1 hit each turn maximum, Ger player always knows what he puts on the line each round of battle and is quite likely to win the battle with at least the Fig still flying.
-
@Imperious:
Well if you G1 Egypt what you bring, and how do you now allocate the attacks on the uk navy?
I guess off the bat the UK BB and Transport are to be ignored, or is their a way to still kill them plus the UK CA/DD?
you got 4 fighters and 2 subs
Ok here is what germany has to live with as far as taking out the UK fleet on G1:
1 sub, sea zone 5 to sea zone 6
1 ftr , Poland to sea zone 6 - land in Norway2 subs, sea zone 7 to sea zone 9
1 ftr, Norway to sea zone 12 - land in Algeria
1 ftr, Germany to sea zone 12 - land in Algeria
1 ftr, Northwestern Europe to sea zone 12 - land in AlgeriaI’m afraid the battleship and transport in sea zone 2 have to be left out for G1 attacks. The simple fact that no G1 attack on Egypt means no real Italian expansion in the game is too great a cost for 27 IPC’s of equipment. England loses 24 IPCs worth of men and equipment in Egypt alone which then leaves the door open to Italian expansion in Africa and possibly the mid-east.
On G2 the remaining fighters from the sea zone 12 attack can now either return to Europe from Algeria or continue to attack targets in the atlantic in coordination with whatever subs you have left. Also, use that German transport to then take Gibraltar to deny Allied planes from landing their and you have secured the Med for Italy in 2 turns, and forced the Allies to either take notice of Italy or let them eat the British empire territory by territory.
-
Look at it this way, lets say Germany ignores Egypt on G1, Britain then moves its 2 inf from Trans-jordan to Egypt and takes their two fighters in England to Africa where they can arrive on egypt by UK2
Thats two fighters spending two rounds doing nothing? No attack on the german fleet, no manning a carrier, no support for Karelia?
Just to make it even worse America and take its West coast bomber to Australia on US1 and threaten any Japanese tranports who sail alone, and then on US 2 land in Egypt to threaten Italy with SBR raids further knocking them out of the war.
Now the west coast bomber also spends two turns doing nothing? And you are aware that japan can take australia on j2? At least fly your west coast bomber into the UK and start SBR on U2. And if by some miracle there still are troops in Egypt, you can also land there.
1. They may not be attacking something each turn but instead are forcing the Axis to alter their strategy to respond to their movements. If Germany does not take Egypt on G1 then these 2 fighters spending a turn in the desert tip the balance of power in Africa in Britains favor and they can eventually go to India or land in Europe when they invade.
2. Once again the Bomber is not “doing nothing” it’s placement in Australia is a threat to any lone Jap transports and yes Japan might invade. So, you fly the American fighter from the US Carrier to Australia and force Japan to expend even more resources taking it.
Just becuase something is not attacking every single turn during the game does not mean it is wasted, or else in a couple turns the entire Jap navy is a huge waste? Are the two UK inf in South Africa a waste until the Axis come to wipe them out or they make it to Egypt so they can attack somewhere else? Their posistion in the game is a threat that forces the other side to change their strategy becuase they exist not just becuase they killed something last turn.
I do understand the frustration, but sometimes you have think longterm rather than shorterm. Which is why Germany must take Egypt on G1 and why some units do not get to attack every turn in the game.
-
I dunno, I’d feel bad if I left SZ 12 and there was a British boat afloat.
And the purpose of the Egypt attack is to stop England from having the Jordanians and Egyptians in the same zone, IMHO. Gives Italy a shot at taking both Jordan and Egypt and getting the NO
-
Should Germany take Egypt first turn?
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, YES!!!
Germany Turn 1: Capture Egypt using the Bomber of course. (Lose the Bomber if you must, to take Egypt.) Also, destroy the UK SZ#12 fleet.
Japan turn 1: Destroy the UK SZ#34 Fleet with 2 Fighters.
Italy Turn 1: Capture TransJordan. If UK captures Morocco, then take it back with 2 Inf from Libia and the Fighter. This also ensures that no matter what UK built on UK1, (Bombers for example), they won’t be in range of the Italian fleet in SZ#15 on UK2 (unless they get Long Range of course). This also ensures that Italy will collect 21 IPCs on its first turn. This is good. This is very good. This is good enough to play.
As far as what Italy should build on its first turn, it depends on what the UK builds. If UK doesn’t build Bombers, then I lean towards either a Fighter for an I2 Carrier and Transport buy or buy the Transport this turn but leave the Battleship to Guard it. (The only unit which should be able to hit it should be the lone UK Bomber.) You will already have the units available to transport. If UK does go the Bomber route, then perhaps Italy should just save his IPCs and then have 31 IPCs to play with on I2.
I do agree that hitting the UK BB is very attractive, but Germany can still eliminate all of the rest of UK’s Atlantic fleet with very good odds, which means that UK will have to spend a lot of those 43 IPCs to just have an Atlantic fleet.
-
That sounds like an absolutely brilliant idea. The British would be thrown out of Egypt and Trans-Jordan, India would be threatend from the west as well as the east, most of Africa would have a chance chance of duly falling into Italy’s lap. As for leaving the British Battleship there on turn one, why not? I mean, the U.K. is not in any real position to do anything with it on turn one, since they have few transports and troops. True they could use it to take Morocco, but like someone mentioned, Italy could simply retake it next turn, and the Battleship would be by itself (and a transport) off the Coast of Europe, in range of German aircraft. So what’s that battleships gonna do? The answer, it’s not going to do anything. If I was the U.K. and faced with that situation, I would simply move it out of range and build ships in that SZ, then I might be in a position to take Africa, but that’s still risking it, as Italy would have plenty of money, which they could buy planes with, and Germany would still have many planes, so chances are it’ll go down anyhow.
-
@Ó:
As for leaving the British Battleship there on turn one, why not? I mean, the U.K. is not in any real position to do anything with it on turn one, since they have few transports and troops.
I disagree.
UK can build a fleet and move into SZ3, taking norway (what does Germany leave there G1 anyways?)
Even if Germany built a bomber (and the sz6 sub is around after sinking the UK DD on G1), (UK buys 2 cruisers (24), A/C (14), save $5, giving a fleet of tpt, A/C, 2 Cruisers, BB and 2 ftrs. That is more than a match for a german sub, 4 ftrs and a bomber
UK 2 ftrs and bomber take out baltic cruiser, losing the bomber if Germany gets two hits.
72% chance of Allies winning that battle, typically survive with BB and a/c (maybe a ftr).
Note this is not even the max fleet UK could muster. If they REALLY wanted to max out, they could buy 2 a/c, Cruiser. The US ftr from EUS can make it onto the SZ3 A/C, giving tpt, 2 A/C, cruiser, BB, 3 ftrs.
only a suicidal Germany player would attack that G2.
-
As for leaving the British Battleship there on turn one, why not? I mean, the U.K. is not in any real position to do anything with it on turn one, since they have few transports and troops.
Its not even really what it can do on turn 1 that concerns me. But its a chance to kill 27 IPCs while risking mostly just the subs which are likely going to die anyways since Britain and the US have DDs and aircraft in range almost anywhere in the Atlantic. Unless the Brit player is nearly brain-dead you will never get a good opportunity to kill that thing again and it will be a thorn in your side the rest of the game. Once Britain’s money starts downhill they can likely not afford to replace that BB again. But if they already HAVE it, it will make every attack you make with aircraft more expensive.
And as stated above, Britain can simply drop a CV on UK1 and they have 2 Fighters to put on it. Add another DD or two and for 22-30 IPCs they are more less immune to German airpower for a while (assuming Germany doesnt go all out on planes, which would result in a serious shortage of troops for the Russian front). My experience has been that unless that BB dies on G1, Germany is going to be looking at having to defend France (and Northern, to a lesser extend) EVERY turn and with increasing numbers of troops. Killing that BB means that Britain cant really afford to threaten an invasion for the first few turns without risking her fleet.
-
I suppose they could go that route. I wasn’t aware that planes from the U.K. could be put on a newly created carrier. I always remembered that in the Original Axis and Allies for the PC, a newly created carrier would have no planes on it, and that is how I always played. Now, if there were two planes and an aircraft carrier along with 2 cruisers and a battleship, then the situation changes completely. Though you have to decide what’s more important, knocking England out of Egypt, and crippling their position in Africa, and threatening their position in India for awhile, or taking out that battleship. Priority is the key to this it would seem, and I personally believe taking out Egypt is a higher priority, since Italy cannot do it alone, and the chance will most likely never present itself again, since there are reinforcements close at hand.
-
I dont believe Egypt and the BB in Sz2 are mutually exclusive. You can still get odds on both targets. It does prevent you from taking Karelia and it does make you have to more of a risky shot at the 2 Brits off of Gibraltar, but I think that is more than acceptable considering the payoff potential.
-
@Ó:
As for leaving the British Battleship there on turn one, why not? I mean, the U.K. is not in any real position to do anything with it on turn one, since they have few transports and troops.
I disagree.
UK can build a fleet and move into SZ3, taking norway (what does Germany leave there G1 anyways?)
I NCM the 2 Infantry to Finland along with 1 Art from Germany and 1 Inf from Poland to Finland also, making a total of 5 Inf and 1 Art, setting up to take Karelia on G2, so if UK wants Norway, of course he can have it, but he’s not getting any free Shore Bombard hits.
Even if Germany built a bomber (and the sz6 sub is around after sinking the UK DD on G1), (UK buys 2 cruisers (24), A/C (14), save $5, giving a fleet of tpt, A/C, 2 Cruisers, BB and 2 ftrs. That is more than a match for a german sub, 4 ftrs and a bomber
UK 2 ftrs and bomber take out baltic cruiser, losing the bomber if Germany gets two hits.
72% chance of Allies winning that battle, typically survive with BB and a/c (maybe a ftr).
Note this is not even the max fleet UK could muster. If they REALLY wanted to max out, they could buy 2 a/c, Cruiser. The US ftr from EUS can make it onto the SZ3 A/C, giving tpt, 2 A/C, cruiser, BB, 3 ftrs.
only a suicidal Germany player would attack that G2.
Germany could easily spare the cash for a few Subs. I’ve really given thought to dropping 2 Subs along with a Bomber purchase. I know that this buy keeps the German land forces thin, but because the Mediteranean Transport is still alive, it can transport the tank from Egypt to Romania or Ukraine on G2. Also, if the UK fleet is taken out, then France doesn’t need to be defended so heavily. And since Italy has more IPCs to spend, he can help on the mainland as well.
Its not even really what it can do on turn 1 that concerns me. But its a chance to kill 27 IPCs while risking mostly just the subs which are likely going to die anyways since Britain and the US have DDs and aircraft in range almost anywhere in the Atlantic. Unless the Brit player is nearly brain-dead you will never get a good opportunity to kill that thing again and it will be a thorn in your side the rest of the game. Once Britain’s money starts downhill they can likely not afford to replace that BB again. But if they already HAVE it, it will make every attack you make with aircraft more expensive.
I guess it’s just a matter of deciding what will bring you the greatest return on your investment. Personally I feel that Germany’s helping Italy out at the beginning while possibly getting off to a slightly slower start will rebound to the Axis’ advantage.
I dont believe Egypt and the BB in Sz2 are mutually exclusive. You can still get odds on both targets. It does prevent you from taking Karelia and it does make you have to more of a risky shot at the 2 Brits off of Gibraltar, but I think that is more than acceptable considering the payoff potential.
I agree with you, but I guess that I’m just more of a conservative player, because usually when I have 2+ battles with only 50-60% odds, inevitably I lose the 1 or 2 most important ones.
-
heres my current favourite.
buy 1 bomb, 5inf 1 artsz5 DD sub > sz6 DD
sz7 sub + bomber > sz9 DD tran land morocco
sz7 sub +2ftr nor/NWE > sz12 CA DD land morocco5inf 2 art 2 tanks > baltic
1inf 1art 4 tanks > east poland
2inf 2 ftr > ukraine, land bulgaria2 inf norway > fin
arm,inf france libya
4 inf left in franceassume russia buy 6 arm or something ( at least2)
then have in karelia 9 inf 1 atr 3 arm max. mot enough to stop german without 2 uk ftr.
even then, if i feel like it i can send 2 ftr from bulgaria 1 bomb from germanyanyway. now uk buys 3 bombers to sink italians uk2.
option 1 move 2 inf to egypt.
then italy takes transjordan
G2 strike egypt now with4 inf 1 atr 1 arm 1 ftr
vs
4 inf 1 atr 2 arm r + as much air as u wantoption 2
leave TJ/egypt as it is, then IT1 attack egypt as preparative attack to let the germans take out the rest .
or attack t-j in hopes of suriving with one land unit there. i prefer hit egypt.
then, yes italian navy down uk 2 (but can only attack with 4 bombers as egypt is down G2 and must land in TJ.
exchange + egypt taken
option 3: move out of egypt/ move bombers to caucasus( he cant SBR and move them there :) wastes a turn of hitting with four 4´s :) - 2 extra turns of russian NO. still egypt taken.
and still no navy. only the BB. germany has 3 bomb 4 ftr in the air at G3 … and they have been fighting every round :)
so my answer is G1 no. IT1 yes unless TJ emptied by UK.
up to you to find the flaws in this plan :-)
-
According to your plan, how do you hold France on UK1? You only left 4 INf there, and UK can bring 1 Shore Bombard @4, 1 Inf, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, and 1 Bomber if he wishes. Then UK may want to build up the navy to take France every turn and eventually hold it. He just buys 1 Carrier, 2 Destroyers, 1 Transport, and 2 Inf. Remember that for UK, France is worth 11 IPCs, and if Italy doesn’t get his money up there, then if he doesn’t take it back, then US also gets +5 IPCs. Now Germany has to send all or most of those G1 Inf to France which keeps your eastern front weak.
Also, there is a decent chance that Morrocco will only have 1 Fighter, so with only 1 Inf, 1(or 2) Fighter(s), and 1 Bomber for defense, UK or US could try to take it out, and you lose your Bomber.
-
italy will liberate it. italy can send 1 inf to morocco before us moves.
if he send 1atr 1 inf shore bombardement and what? he wants to kill / lone german tran sz5.
he wants to kill sz 6 DD with a possible sub left but he has no destroyers.id welcome dday UK1 here :)
-
I have tried this and been on the winning end and the losing end of this. The move is risky, but not sound strategically. Holding off is the better way to do this. If you risk all to get Egypt for Italy on G1 you will be giving up something else on another front (Russian front, France, naval or air support). Don’t get me wrong, winning this battle is awesome but risky- definitely, a gambit. The question to ask yourself is whether or not you can live with losing the battle!!!- especially in a forceful KGF game.
:|
Questioneer
Suggested Topics
