Thank you
Deterrent to Egypt mIC on UK1 -"Ram-rod" play
-
@Marshmallow:
As for 8 IPCs vs your way of putting it, I fail to see a distinction.
Really?
You’re saying that it is an advantage to add 6IPC UK1 vs adding those 6IPC UK2. That is different to the 2IPC which are added UK1 which will not be added later if Persia is not activated UK1.
NW Persia can be activated by the Russians. The trouble comes in where there is a G3 DOW. Then you can only attack Iraq USSR4 because USSR3 you are activating NW Persia. Generally, I will soften up Iraq with the UK in this scenario. If you’re lucky, you can retreat to TransJordan which helps out Egypt.
-
Yeah, cause ANZAC is going to grab those 4 IPCs on A2.
Plus, I have those two extra infantry. If UK1 went badly because of dice, then I can kill Iraq on UK2 before the Axis can capitalize on the bad UK1 turn. I also have all those other options with those infantry, including marching infantry from Persia back to India (they make it on UK4) and having the transport continue on to Africa to kill Italians. Plus, the transport itself lives (7 more IPCs).
NW Persia can be activated by the Russians after Germany goes to war with Russia. If I activate it for them, then (let’s say Germany goes on G3) then on R3 Russia can collect Iraq IPCs. Your way, they may never collect those IPCs if that tank has to turn around. Even if they do, they can’t collect them until R4 via Caucasus and R5 via Turkmenistan, and that’s just too late to make much of a difference. If they get them R3, the tank can even make it back to Moscow.
Marsh
-
I think my way is clearly better if there is a G2 DOW. Your way is arguably better with a G3 DOW.
If there is a J2 DOW, you will usually lose the TT, granted. But it’s done its damage.
If you would jump on Sumatra A2, then if UK already have it you can jump Celebes. 1IPC. Not sure how you could do either because if the Sumatran TT is toast then so is the Java TT.
-
Well, if Japan is holding off til 3 I can always continue with those ANZAC troops onto India for defense, or move them to the Middle East, or drop them elsewhere in Asia (like Celebes). If Japan goes J1 or J2, I grabbed as much money and saved as many resources as I reasonably can.
I’m not leaving money on the table. I’m taking as much money as I can UK1 and A1, grabbing the smaller amount UK2 and A2. Yeah, there is a small loss to India, but UK as a whole is still up more cash.
In my experience, G3 is the most common. If Germany is waiting til G4 then it’s academic, because the guy from West India can walk over and activate NW Persia.
Marsh
-
You still don’t seem to accept the argument that UK_Pac money is more valuable than either UK_Europe or ANZAC money!
-
That’s correct. I do not accept that position.
Also, my way if Germany goes G2 then Russia can collect Iraq IPCs on R2 and the tank can still make it back to Moscow on R5.
Marsh
-
You mean R3. R2 you will be claiming NW Persia presumably.
-
Yeah, you’re right. But your way doesn’t get them there before R3 anyway.
Marsh
-
Perhaps I might be more inclined to accept your position on India money vs Europe money if you showed me what could be done with it other than building more units in India.
Marsh
-
More units in india are worth more than in sydney or persia, clearly.
-
Since I’ve already stated that I’m more than willing to let India fall to secure the Med, you’re going to have to do better than that. Even if I conceded your point, extra units in India would not be worth more than extra units in the Middle East and Egypt to me.
I usually choose to not lose in the Pacific and to win in Europe. ANZAC can turtle up nicely with the extra money, giving Japan a horrible logistical issue to deal with to win. India is subject to output from Japanese factories on the mainland, making it less of a pain for Japan to take. I’ll turtle Sydney and stack it with a few US reinforcements as well. That means ANZAC having extra money on A2 and A3 is good.
Now, if I were playing save India at all costs, I would probably give India the money.
Marsh
-
Marsh, what is to stop Japan from marching onto the Middle East and Africa after India falls?
If that happens, then a secure Med is no longer secure.
-
Well, in the first place its expensive for Japan to take India, even minus a couple of units from max. The victory tends to by almost-Pyrrhic, destroying a large chunk of air force and leaving only one ground unit. If UK is already established in the Middle East, with MICs in Egypt, South Africa, and possibly Persia pumping out units, Japan has a large logistical issue dealing with the output of two or three “closer” MICs while holding off the Allies in the Pacific and trying to hold onto the money islands and valuable coastal territories. Japan is trying to defend itself and build an advantage to let it push farther into the Middle East.
I’ve seen this in play and been on both sides of it – it’s like hiking uphill through mud when running Japan. Even if you try to bypass the Middle East with naval assets, you find yourself facing an equal or superior navy and air force because you’ve had to split your forces to hold off the US and ANZAC or you find your income evaporating as you hold India but find your hold on coastal China and the money islands (and your income) evaporating. Big ANZAC, with US support, is snatching money islands faster than you can retake them, and it’s cashing out decently even after India falls.
In short, I’ve never seen it be an issue if the UK cashes Italy out of the Med fast and secures Egypt/South Africa. The UK Med fleet can hold the split Japanese navy off and even push it back. Strat bombers and fighters from South Africa, fighters and tanks from Egypt, and infantry/tanks from Persia make it a really tough fight for Japan. And if Japan stops spending on India, it falls behind rapidly in firepower and will eventually have to give up India. Japan actually winds up parking a large chunk of its air force in India for defense because it is being outproduced and it takes so long for new Japanese units to arrive.
All ANZAC and the US have to do is not lose Sydney, Honolulu, and San Francisco for an entire turn and Japan eventually runs out of steam. Every fighter the US and ANZAC land in a victory city in defense requires Japan to spend 13 IPCs to retake it (7 for transport, 6 for troops), and Japan is already down in income. Every money island captured from Japan is a huge swing that Japan really can’t afford to recover from because it costs it the entire swing to reclaim the income, and then it has to defend it. All those Japanese transports have to be escorted because by now US, ANZAC, and UK each have one or more strat bombers roaming the Pacific, and a light escort means you never get that money back. Oh, and don’t forget the subs! A few subs, a strat bomber, and that transport never makes landfall even with a decent escort.
Marsh
-
Now, I hope , people see the point of Italy taking Egypt with mIC on I-2. With only the Persian factory, UK cannot hold the Middle East, with Italian African forces intact… …
Germany sacrificing part or all Luftwaffe, will make this happen
Japan will only have to squeeze mildly…Italy a little harder, India or Persia will crack. UK cannot hold both without Soviet help. USSR will have to deal with units coming up Caucuses via NW Persia…once Iraq is lost… Bonus galore for Italy.
@Marshmallow:
Well, in the first place its expensive for Japan to take India, even minus a couple of units from max. The victory tends to by almost-Pyrrhic, destroying a large chunk of air force and leaving only one ground unit. If UK is already established in the Middle East, with MICs in Egypt, goneSouth Africa, and possibly Persia pumping out units, Japan has a large logistical issue dealing with the output of two or three “closer” MICs while holding off the Allies in the Pacific and trying to hold onto the money islands and valuable coastal territories. Japan is trying to defend itself and build an advantage to let it push farther into the Middle East.
I’ve seen this in play and been on both sides of it – it’s like hiking uphill through mud when running Japan. Even if you try to bypass the Middle East with naval assets, you find yourself facing an equal or superior navy and air force because you’ve had to split your forces to hold off the US and ANZAC or you find your income evaporating as you hold India but find your hold on coastal China and the money islands (and your income) evaporating. Big ANZAC, with US support, is snatching money islands faster than you can retake them, and it’s cashing out decently even after India falls.
In short, I’ve never seen it be an issue if the UK cashes Italy out of the Med fast and secures Egypt/South Africa.
Egypt not secured.
The UK Med fleet can hold the split Japanese navy off and even push it back. Strat bombers and fighters from South Africa, fighters and tanks from Egypt, and infantry/tanks from Persia make it a really tough fight for Japan. And if Japan stops spending on India, it falls behind rapidly in firepower and will eventually have to give up India. Japan actually winds up parking a large chunk of its air force in India for defense because it is being outproduced and it takes so long for new Japanese units to arrive.
Not if Italians take Persia
All ANZAC and the US have to do is not lose Sydney, Honolulu, and San Francisco for an entire turn and Japan eventually runs out of steam. Every fighter the US and ANZAC land in a victory city in defense requires Japan to spend 13 IPCs to retake it (7 for transport, 6 for troops), and Japan is already down in income. Every money island captured from Japan is a huge swing that Japan really can’t afford to recover from because it costs it the entire swing to reclaim the income, and then it has to defend it. All those Japanese transports have to be escorted because by now US, ANZAC, and UK each have one or more strat bombers roaming the Pacific, and a light escort means you never get that money back. Oh, and don’t forget the subs! A few subs, a strat bomber, and that transport never makes landfall even with a decent escort.
I-2 …. 6 units take Egypt…2 in Alex. 4 units in Sudan
I-3 … 3 units produced in Egypt… 6 units in Transjordan, 6 units in Egypt
I-4 … 6-7 units in Iraq… unless UK defends it with 8+ units…
I-5… Next turn 9 units join existing 6 units to take Iraq…
I-6… Persian factory fallsJapan just squeezes India with mainland Inf…either with 7-8 loaded TRs…or mIC built on J3…in IndoChina. India will fall J6… no Pyrrrhic victory… Good 14 Inf from mainland and 14 units on TRS with planes from Yunnan should clean house. Navy in Phillippines and Japan… Enough Navy to keep Allied Navy in check in Pacific. JapaN builds 2 CVS on J2, more Navy each turn after that… After money Island $$$ on J3 collected, J4…mega navy build… and Hawaii operation begins J5
Marsh
-
Now, I hope , people see the point of Italy taking Egypt with mIC on I-2. With only the Persian factory, UK cannot hold the Middle East, with Italian African forces intact… …
Germany sacrificing part or all Luftwaffe, will make this happen
Japan will only have to squeeze mildly…Italy a little harder, India or Persia will crack. UK cannot hold both without Soviet help. USSR will have to deal with units coming up Caucuses via NW Persia…once Iraq is lost… Bonus galore for Italy.
When you convince us that you can take Egypt with a proper UK response to your threat (which analysis has shown to be quite empty), then I’ll listen to you about sacrificing the Luftwaffe. Show us numbers on the battle calculator that support your position.
Oh, and then convince us that you can kill Moscow with no Luftwaffe…
Marsh
-
UK has one theater it should focus on, and that is the Med/ME.
-
@Marshmallow:
Perhaps I might be more inclined to accept your position on India money vs Europe money if you showed me what could be done with it other than building more units in India.
Marsh
That is less clear than UK_Pac vs ANZAC money. It should be an axiom that UK_Pac money is better.
However, when you think about it, it is unlikely that you would not be buying out ME factories anyway - so the additional money has to be spent in London.
-
@Marshmallow:
Now, I hope , people see the point of Italy taking Egypt with mIC on I-2. With only the Persian factory, UK cannot hold the Middle East, with Italian African forces intact… …
Germany sacrificing part or all Luftwaffe, will make this happen
Japan will only have to squeeze mildly…Italy a little harder, India or Persia will crack. UK cannot hold both without Soviet help. USSR will have to deal with units coming up Caucuses via NW Persia…once Iraq is lost… Bonus galore for Italy.
When you convince us that you can take Egypt with a proper UK response to your threat (which analysis has shown to be quite empty), then I’ll listen to you about sacrificing the Luftwaffe. Show us numbers on the battle calculator that support your position.
Oh, and then convince us that you can kill Moscow with no Luftwaffe…
Marsh
I have never tried to attach the Skelly Calculator image, trying to attach it.
With NO Taranto… ie: You leave the Italian Navy in SZ 97 Alive… you can fly the TB ( from CV) and Malta FTR and use the TR to get 1 ART and 1 Inf from Malta…
Even with all that… with a 2 SBR buy, using 4 FTR, 5 TB and 4 SBR , its a 100% win - with low luckDefenders are : 1 AAA, 7 Inf , 2 Art , 1 Mech, 1 Tank , 1 TB and 1 FTR
With no low-luck , its a 74% win.
Win is achieved by I-6 take of Persia complex by Italy and J-6/7 take of India… without much loss of Air.
Germany will be camped with big army in Bryansk… and will build Art in Ukraine and Leningrad for 4 turns…, while holding off Normandy threat with Italy’s help.
By G10, it should be able to take Moscow.
Japan will begin Hawaii take operation on J4, with mega -Navy build… and on J5, Phillippines and Japanese forces combine in Carolines…, leaving smaller escort force for India/Burma/Malaya landing of TRs
Assume no mIC in FrenchIndo…
Then… J5,J6,J7,J8 will all be mega navy builds of 55-60 IPC every turn.
Hawaii will fall J9/J10
US cannot defend both Hawaii AND try to take Paris AND Try to liberate Rome/Egypt at same time.
Allies will have to concede ,mainly because the IPC of Axis with Middle East, Yunnan, Soviet far East, Scandinavia , Egype-ME - India-Leningrad-Stalingrad-DEI bonus etc will vastly exceed Allies IPC
-
With NO Taranto… ie: You leave the Italian Navy in SZ 97 Alive… you can fly the TB ( from CV) and Malta FTR and use the TR to get 1 ART and 1 Inf from Malta…
Even with all that… with a 2 SBR buy, using 4 FTR, 5 TB and 4 SBR , its a 100% win - with low luckDefenders are : 1 AAA, 7 Inf , 2 Art , 1 Mech, 1 Tank , 1 TB and 1 FTR
So you are assuming that A) the UK moves in no extra units for defense and B) that it built the factory in Egypt UK1 but does not place units at that factory on UK2?
In as friendly a way as possible, you’re being incredibly optimistic.
If you add the 2 tanks, 3 fighters, and additional tac to the defense (assuming two tanks and a fighter is the build, that the Gibraltar fighter arrives, and that the fighter and tactical bomber from India arrive) after losing the infantry on a one round strafe, your chance of successfully taking the territory seems to be around 35% and that assumes that the UK AA gun does not get a hit. If it does, your chance of success goes down to 18%. If the UK was able to two bring more infantry in from anywhere, your chances without the AA hit are 10%-ish.
That’s hardly the surefire Axis victory you have been boasting of. So you must be thinking of going full tilt on Egypt.
If the Luftwaffe engages in battle til it or the defender is dead, then it looks like on average you will wipe out the defenses or leave only a fighter (and maybe a tactical bomber) in defense. At that point there is nothing the UK can do to save Egypt, but of course you’ve destroyed the Luftwaffe.
You still have the Italian air force, but the UK still has a strong navy and strong air force. If the UK did it right on UK1 it also has forces in the Middle East from activating Persia. Since there is nothing it can do to save Egypt, at that point that UK should:
1. Kill Iraq to prevent an Italian payout of free infantry should the Italians make it that far
2. Place a strong build in South Africa to keep pressure on Egypt
3. Build a MIC in Persia (if Persia was activated UK1). Since Sea Lion is definitely off the table, there is nothing stopping the UK from spending all its money in Africa and the Middle East at this point
4. Destroy any remaining Italian navy
5. Begin convoy disruption in sea zone 97. It is imperative that Italy not be able to cash out bigThe UK still has an MIC in South Africa – Italy will need to keep that in check, leaving very little to deal with any UK forces in the Middle East. If you split your force to contain South Africa and also head into the Middle East, the UK already outnumbers you in the Middle East (again, assuming Persia was activated UK1).
If the UK builds the MIC in Persia, Italy will be outproduced 2-1 in units. By the time you get your Egypt force to Persia, you will not outnumber the UK forces (figure 3-4 aircraft, two full builds at the Persia MIC, remaining ground forces from the Iraq conquest [shall we say 2 units to be conservative?], perhaps a load of troops shipped in from South Africa, and probably a little Russian help [Russia can spare it because you have no air force!]). You and the UK will trade Iraq a time or two, but you will never break through to the entire Middle East.
Suppose you take Iraq in force on I4 with five infantry, 1 mech, 2 artillery, and five tanks (assuming you could put together 18 IPCs for a 3 tank build in Egypt, which is highly unlikely due to convoy disruption). Your planes can’t land in Iraq right now.
UK by now has stacked: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, and probably a Russian fighter to augment its defense. The UK goes first, and if they attack you on UK5 it’s 55% (unless units from South Africa participate via amphibious assault – adding another infantry and tank and bringing in a strat bomber, gets the UK attack to 95%). So, you can’t move into Iraq in force. So you grab it light to cash out, and then the UK takes it back. You probably do this a time or two.
(Keep in mind that this estimate of your Iraq force means you’ve brought your entire stack into the Middle East, counting on units produced in Egypt holding off the South African factory.) That can go any number of ways, but basically this boils down to you need every unit you have holding off the UK forces from Persia, which leaves Egypt vulnerable to South Africa builds. There are no reinforcements from Italy, because the UK owns the Med (see below) and you have no transports anyway.
Some magic might happen if Japan is pressuring India – since planes from Persia can make India in a single move, you might gain the upper hand if all those Persian planes go to India to hold off Japan.
The real magic, however, would be you holding Egypt past UK6 – with convoy disruption happening, Italy just doesn’t have the income to compete with the UK. If UK is building one transport, one infantry, one artillery in South Africa each round from UK2 on, Italy cannot hold Egypt and fight for the Middle East because those transports can hit Egypt or Iraq or reinforce Persia. (If Italy splits its forces to try to hold multiple areas, it won’t do either job.) Even if Italy holds off the UK, the slightest push from the US will force it out of Egypt.
Back to Italy’s income – the UK owns the Med (1 BB, 2 or 3 CCs, 1 AC with a couple of planes, 2-3 DDs) and Italy’s income will get massive convoy disruptions in sea zone 97, limiting income to 10-14 IPCs per round even with some Middle East income. You won’t even be able to build at your two minor ICs completely, which means that in defense of doomed Egypt you will sacrifice European defenses.
You traded on average over 100 German IPCs (all the fighters and tac bombers and a strat bomber) for 59 UK IPCs (mostly ground units).
Results:
1. Russia does the happy dance. There is no possibility of Germany taking Moscow until at least turn 10 or 11. Depending on how Russia builds, it might even be longer. Those two bombers you built G1 would be desperately helpful on the Eastern Front as infantry or artillery.
2. The US can come light in the Atlantic because the Luftwaffe is not a threat.
3. Italy will either lose Egypt to the UK again or leave Europe very lightly defended. Can opening for Germany is pretty much out.
4. Italy cannot break through and own the Middle East and also keep Egypt. Doing even one of those things will be difficult.So yeah, if you shoot Germany’s foot off by destroying the Luftwaffe, Italy can take Egypt and swap Iraq a couple of times. Woohoo. Italy will have game but it’s hardly the stellar Axis breakthrough you are promising unless the UK does dumb things or you get really good rolls consistently.
Oh, and the US does not need to worry about liberating Paris. Rome will be easy, because Italy has been spending its income in Egypt. Also, the US will not have to hold Norway too strongly, because Germany will be unable to recapture it. The US might need to do a slight push against Egypt, but probably not.
Marsh
-
OK, so lets go over the moves again.
G1 - Buy 2 SBRs .
Do the attacks - Kill CRU off Gib with 2 Subs. Kill Canada Fleet with Sub. Kill SZ 111 with 2 Subs+BB+2 SBR+FTR (Norway)….Yugo, SZ-93 etc… Land 2 FTRs in Tobruk. Land 2 FTR+5TB in RomeUK1 -
Buy mIC Egypt, block SZ 99 and SZ 96 , kill Malta Italian navy. Take Persia with India TR + Art. Grab AAA+Inf from Malta. Stack Egypt with => AAA+ 7 Inf+ 2 ART+Tank+Mech+ FTR (Malta)+TB
Buy TR + Tank + Inf in SA.Italy 1 - Buy FTR.
Kill Malta blocker and deposit 2 TR with 2 Inf+2 Tanks on Tobruk. Bring BB+2CRU+DD along. Sub+ Planes kill Greece SZ UK ship blocker.
All Tobruk forces to Alexandria. All E. African forces to Sudan.G2 - Strafe Egypt. I have only lost 3-4 planes in 3 attempts. But lets go with 1 Tac Bomber Surviving , and all Egypt UK forces gone. Land Norway FTR from W. Germany to Alexandria.
UK2 - for 33 IPC , Buys mIC in Persia. Buys 3 Tanks in Egypt. TR brings 1 Tank+ Inf from SA. TR brings 2 Inf from Persia. Gib FTR from Malta and 2 FTR from India+TB from India now land in Egypt.
Egypt UK defense - 2 Inf+4 Tanks+TB+3 FTR - total 10 units . Defensive capacity - 4+12+3+12 = 31Italy 2 - for 11 IPC - buy 3 Inf, save $2 .
Italy attacks with : 6 Inf + 2 ART+ Mech+ 3 Tanks + 3 FTR + SBR = 16 Units . Offensive capacity = 4+8+1+9+9+4 = 35.Run these numbers on Skelly Calculator - 100% with Low luck… 97% with no Low luck. IPC loss for Italy is 25… ie: 1 Mech+3 Tanks + Planes should survive for Italy
Italy should now be able to collect its No surface Ship NO and Egypt NO… total = 21 IPC + $2 saved = $23
TRs come back to Italy waters.
G3 - lands the Norway FTR from Alex into Egypt. German land units clambers aboard Italian TR.
Now, UK3 has what to attack??! 1 TR load + 1 SBR maybe?.. so … no… UK cannot attack and hope to win in Egypt on UK3.
So alternative plan is to build big in Persia and SA… correct? And hope to take Egypt on UK6.
So UK will be spending first 6 turns just on taking Egypt.
US-3 comes to Gib
Italy, lets say is not ambitious…
I3 - takes Transjordan and Tunisia. Builds 2 Inf in Egypt and CV OR 4 Inf in Italy… depending on US naval power…Collects 23 IPC. Now has the 2 Inf dropped off in Tobruk join the Libya forces…in Egypt
Egypt has - plenty of defense… 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 units + All remaining units that survived viz - 3 tanks +Mech . Italian TR drops off 1 German land unit in Egypt + 1 Italian unit.
ie: 8 Inf + Mech + 3 Tanks+ German FTR+3 Italian FTRG4 on - Germany starts getting the $5 bonus…
UK now has to build 12+ tanks to kill and take Egypt
All this time we have not talked about India.
Well, you did mention what happened in the 3rd game…
I tried an OOB theory…
where J1 buy was a Naval Base on Hainan… and Entire Japanese Navy moved there. All Air not on CVs was on Kwangsi.
J2 - buy was Airbase in Siam… and all Japanese planes in Kwangsi landed on Siam… NO DOW on J2. All Japanese Navy (with 2 Loaded TRs incl Tank), without Subs moved to SZ-39 India watersThis is J2… before UK2 …
UK2 , trust me… is in a very hard position… and has to decide whether to put the mIC in Persia… which may be taken on J4… or lose India… on J3/4…
J3 can always be SZ-77 … where it can threaten SA factory, Persian factory and India…
It can choose to commit on J3 , the amount of Navy it wishes… to that campaign.
UK navy with either be spread out in the Indian Ocean as blockers, or bunched up in SZ81… either way… Japan can decide it wants just Sumatra, Java and Malaya… it has its T1 and T2 builds enough to take PHP, Borneo and HongKong
etc…
India on UK-2 would have its 5 Inf+Art+2 Burma Inf + 10Inf/8 Mech buy sitting tight in Calcutta… holding its breath…for J3
Yunnan will be secure… the landing base for the Siam planes…
Run David Skelly calculator - Japan loses 3 Inf + 5 planes , 100% victory
So… all in all its a good strategy to take out Middle East and / or India quick… if UK wishes to play this way.
I thank you for being polite about my incredible optimism.
Suggested Topics
