Island hopping is great, but its not critical. Sometimes just having a presense in the region will do just great. This is how I build my fleets…… My flagships are my carriers. They are great for defense and their fighters can support amphibious assaults. I will have no less than 2. I then will support my fleet with destroyers. I try to build 2 for every carrier. If you build destroyers and in order to get more bang for your buck, get combined bombardment. This will increase your amphibious firepower drastically. Basically you’ll be able to do the job of a battleship at half the cost and twice the firepower. Then build the rest of your force out of transports and a couple of submarines. If you use this fleet right, you will have everyship being productive on every aspect, offense, defense, and logistics. Your maximizing your money and strength. Lets take a fleet of 2 AC’s, 6 destoyers, 2 subs, 4 troopships with 2 tanks, 2 artillary, and 4 infantry. You attack the phillipines with an amphibious assault. the 6 destroyers should pretty much wipe out all opposition. But if not, you have 4 fighters and all the ground units to clean up. Battle should be over without losing anything. Your fighters land for fleet defense. Basically you have a fleet that can hit hard on land and sea. Your enemy will think twice before hitting you.
Sea Zone 2
-
I’ve thought of T-J myself. It’s certainly a much easier fight. 1 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Fig vs 1 Inf. Still closes the canal, but it prevents a unified Germany fleet on G2.
-
But if you attack Trans-Jordan then UK still has a tank and a fighter which is pretty bad for japan and germany
-
You STILL attack Egypt, you just do it with FIG, BOM, and the Libya forces (you aim to kill Egypt, but probably will not take it).
You have about an 87% chance to clear Egypt that way. and about 50/50 of not losing your German AF (then you move in on G2 with the Algerian forces moved to Libya)
-
Oh … well I just don’t see the point of using your Southern Europe forces to attack T-J when you are expecting to wipe out Egypt without losing you AF when you could just take Egypt since you say 87% chance of clearing so with the extra ground pieces you could take it.
-
“You STILL attack Egypt, you just do it with FIG, BOM, and the Libya forces (you aim to kill Egypt, but probably will not take it).”
I was under the impression that the bomber was being used against the UK battleship and transport in the sea zone adjacent to London.
“Oh … well I just don’t see the point of using your Southern Europe forces to attack T-J when you are expecting to wipe out Egypt without losing you AF when you could just take Egypt since you say 87% chance of clearing so with the extra ground pieces you could take it.”
No, it’s an 87% chance to clear, and a 50/50 of losing the German airforce, or that’s the claim. It’s not an 87% chance to take with no German air lost and a German ground unit surviving.
–
I believe that attacking Trans-Jordan would be very bad, for the reasons already given for splitting the Med fleet, and for moving the Med fleet east in this scenario. It is also bad because that move allows UK to keep that infantry, tank, and fighter at Anglo-Egypt; those units can REALLY cause a problem for Japan at India, or Germany at Africa (depending on if those units are moved to India, or Indian units moved to Africa). Allowing the UK to keep that Anglo-Egyptian fighter quickly becomes extremely costly because it allows the UK navy at the Indian to become a real threat very quickly.
-
No, the attack on the Suez would be:
Fighter from Ukraine, Infantry, Artillery vs 1 Infantry in Trans-Jordan
Fighter from Balkans, Bomber from Germany, Infantry, Armor from Libya vs Inf, Arm, FigThis leaves you 3 fighters and a submarine for the BB in Sea Zone 13 still.
(I’m assuming the fighter in Ukraine is alive because you put 2 infantry there to make it even harder for Russia to take it. If it’s dead you can do it the same without the fighter in T-J and maybe have your bid in Libya instead.)
-
No, the attack on the Suez would be:
Fighter from Ukraine, Infantry, Artillery vs 1 Infantry in Trans-Jordan
Fighter from Balkans, Bomber from Germany, Infantry, Armor from Libya vs Inf, Arm, FigThis leaves you 3 fighters and a submarine for the BB in Sea Zone 13 still.
(I’m assuming the fighter in Ukraine is alive because you put 2 infantry there to make it even harder for Russia to take it. If it’s dead you can do it the same without the fighter in T-J and maybe have your bid in Libya instead.)
“As Germany, if Russia does not reinforce the Battleship/Transport in Sea Zone 2, would you attack with Fighter, Bomber, Submarine? You have about an 80% chance to kill the Battleship and Transport there, at the expense of 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 submarine (good chance the bomber would survive too, but it has to land in Finland/Norway.)”
tee heez, it’s like you jacked your own thread. I lol’d.
I think fighter/infantry/artillery against infantry at TransJordan is OK for G1, but inf tank fighter bomber vs inf armor fighter is risky, as is sub 3 fighter vs battleship. UK can counter from India to retake Anglo-Egypt next turn to slow Germany’s progress in Africa, and Germany can’t do much with one unit at TransJordan, or even two, that early - although in that scenario, there are two extra infantry in the Ukraine allowing extra pressure on the Caucasus, so it might work out, although I think that the likely Allied landing in Africa on the first two rounds will put a crimp in Germany’s plans and that dual landing at Trans-Jordan and Anglo-Egypt will therefore be minimally rewarding to Germany. The REAL concern, though, is German fighters - the last two attacks risk bad rolls and early loss of hard-to-replace German air, which is something that I generally try to avoid.
-
I didn’t jack it, the scenario changed. Now we’re talking about the viability of attacking Trans-Jordan in lieu of conquering Egypt. In that scenario you do not have forces available to attack Sea Zone 2. You also do not have forces available for a SZ 7 unification.
-
I didn’t jack it, the scenario changed. Now we’re talking about the viability of attacking Trans-Jordan in lieu of conquering Egypt. In that scenario you do not have forces available to attack Sea Zone 2. You also do not have forces available for a SZ 7 unification.
But that IS jacking the thread lolz.
I can see the point of not using the Med transport for Africa first turn, but Trans-Jordan means that you committed your Med transport east. As long as you are headed east, you should kill Anglo-Egypt without a doubt. That infantry, tank, and fighter can cause huge headaches for both Germany and Japan early game.
Even if the Ukraine fighter is dead, you can still send 2 inf 2 tank 1 bomber to Anglo-Egypt on G1, or if you are leery of losses on UK1, 2 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 bomber. That will be quite sufficient in most cases to clear Anglo-Egypt. (I assume Balkan fighter is used for safety for the German Med fleet vs UK destroyer)
-
If you consider that “jacking it” then technically Switch jacked it, I am just replying to him.
And while it is a good idea to hit Egypt, there’s no need to take it as long as you get T-J. Just kill the units there.
-
Actually there is a reason to hit Egypt instead of T-J… 2 actually.
1 ARM
1 FIG:-)
The Axis really do not want to let those forces live to be used against them.
-
Hit Egypt with 3 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Bomber (2 inf bid) and hit T-J with 2 infantry, 1 fighter
:)
G2, move your fleet out of the Med and into the Indian Ocean to go harass the Americans. snicker
-
I didn’t mention this before, but it would have to be bomber against Trans-Jordan, and fighter against Egypt. Germany can’t hit Trans-Jordan with a fighter unless that fighter has long range.
Sure, I guess it’s sound, but I would only try it if the Ukraine kept its fighter for G1. I’d rather not risk a loaded transport or battleship against the Uk destroyer.
-
Fighter from Balkans to Sea Zone 14.
Fighter from Sea Zone 14 to Trans-Jordan (((Combat)))NCM Option 1
Fighter from Trans-Jordan to Egypt
Fighter from Egypt to LibyaNCM Option 2
Fighter from Trans-Jordan to Sea Zone 14
Fighter from Sea Zone 14 to BalkansYou don’t need the bomber for T-J. :)
And the fighter from E. Europe can hit Egypt no sweat. (E. Europe to Balkans to SZ 14, to Egypt, Land in Libya)
-
What map are you looking at?
Balkans and Ukraine adjoin SZ16 not 14.
So that is ONE move to SZ16.
Then they have to enter SZ15 and then on to T-J.And on G1, Germany cannot land aircraft in Egypt or Persia, nor is there any way to get an AC to SZ15 or 34 for recovery either.
-
@ncscswitch:
What map are you looking at?
Balkans and Ukraine adjoin SZ16 not 14.
So that is ONE move to SZ16.
Then they have to enter SZ15 and then on to T-J.And on G1, Germany cannot land aircraft in Egypt or Persia, nor is there any way to get an AC to SZ15 or 34 for recovery either.
She’s looking at the map that lets you move from territory to territory when they’re kitty-cornered.
Alas, if only you could!
-
Sorry, I stand corrected. I wasn’t looking at the map, just trying to remember the board.
For some reason I was thinking the Black Sea and the Sea Zone north of Suez Canal were one…dunno why…I just was.
So you go 2 fighters to Egypt, 1 Bomber to T-J…as if you really need it, 2 infantry, 1 battleship should be plenty, if you want more assurance, 1 infantry, 1 artillery or 1 infantry, 1 armor, 1 battleship should be over kill.
-
Sorry, I stand corrected. I wasn’t looking at the map, just trying to remember the board.
For some reason I was thinking the Black Sea and the Sea Zone north of Suez Canal were one…dunno why…I just was.
So you go 2 fighters to Egypt, 1 Bomber to T-J…as if you really need it, 2 infantry, 1 battleship should be plenty, if you want more assurance, 1 infantry, 1 artillery or 1 infantry, 1 armor, 1 battleship should be over kill.
There is a UK destroyer in the sea zone adjacent to Trans-Jordan and Anglo-Egypt.
So if you send both fighters that can reach Anglo-Egypt against the UK destroyer, you risk an Allied lucky break that will kill either your loaded transport or your battleship.
Also, the battleship cannot be used against Trans-Jordan because the battleship has to fight the UK destroyer.
Also a lucky break in Trans-Jordan will stop 2 inf, inf/art, or even inf/tank, so I think bomber is probably right.
-
The BB can’t fire into TJ because of teh DST in SZ15.
-
2 inf vs 1 inf is still 1.414:1 odds of winning, Switch. That’s what I was getting at.
Also, why bother with sending fighters to the destroyer? No offense, but if 1 BB and 1 Trn cannot take out 1 measely destroyer, you’re going to loose the game no matter what, because your dice are loaded against you.
Suggested Topics
