Med Battleship G1



  • @GCar:

    Because you are not building an AC in the med doesn’t mean you let allies land anywhere on turn 2. You are also having planes.

    The main plan with Germany is not going “all out against Russia”, it is Fortress Europe. If Germany lets allies land in Africa/Norway without killing the allied fleet, well Germany doesn’t know what he is doing (or your Russia dices were really terrible and he decided that he could just go all in and blitz Russia).

    Fortress Europe is the proven best plan for axis and is pretty much the only thing you see at high level in leagues. AC build is fun to try sometimes but is not nearly as competitive.

    And before someone writes that Fortress Europe is not incompatible with building AC turn 1: Yes, it is 🙂

    I hear fortress Europe all the time and have seen bits and pieces of this strategy posted. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. I could be wrong but is it just basically Germany turtling with a bunch of planes and Japense air help? How do they decimate the allied naval builds if they too weren’t buying navy? With planes? How many planes would they lose to do this? How long would this take to set up? You know what I’d do as allies if Germany lost planes and killed the UK and US boats? Buy more! Germany’s pieces are irreplaceable. US and to a lesser extent, the UK’s aren’t. How does Germany fight with no planes? How passive is Russia in these scenarios? How aggresive is Germany or Japan?

    There’s no way to keep the allies out of the Atlantic or landing in Africa. Maximum delay is 3 rounds. Fortress sounds like a defensive strat and playing an axis focused on defense is the wrong way to play them.



  • @Col.Stauffenberg:

    I hear fortress Europe all the time and have seen bits and pieces of this strategy posted. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. I could be wrong but is it just basically Germany turtling with a bunch of planes and Japense air help? How do they decimate the allied naval builds if they too weren’t buying navy? With planes? How many planes would they lose to do this? How long would this take to set up? You know what I’d do as allies if Germany lost planes and killed the UK and US boats? Buy more! Germany’s pieces are irreplaceable. US and to a lesser extent, the UK’s aren’t. How does Germany fight with no planes? How passive is Russia in these scenarios? How aggresive is Germany or Japan?

    There’s no way to keep the allies out of the Atlantic or landing in Africa. Maximum delay is 3 rounds. Fortress sounds like a defensive strat and playing an axis focused on defense is the wrong way to play them.

    Sorry but I think the experience of the players in the high level leagues means something 🙂
    You are not getting completely the idea of fortress Europe, not fortress Europe and Africa. The idea is very simple, if you can keep Germany around 38 IPC (so 12-13 infantry per turn) for the time Japan need to go forward in Asia, later taking Africa or Moscow (usually around turn 7 if allies play in the Atlantic), you will win because of the economic advantage. The planes are mostly for slowing down allies in the Atlantic (obviously you can’t stop them forever from landing) and when they are ready to land (usually turn 3 for their first landing and turn 4 for their first huge landing) they have nowhere good to land because Germany as at that point build a massive amount of infantry.

    It requires experience to play it correctly and it is easy to make a mistake at some point but it is very hard to beat for allies and is definitely the best plan for an experienced player that calculates the odds of the fights and therefore as always correct amount of infantry on every territory. Beginners will have difficulties to play this plan correctly though because they will sometimes leave more infantries then necessary to block landings and see Russia go forward or they will sometimes not leave enough infantries in defense and lose a big stack to a landing (plus the hole it creates) and will lose because of it.



  • We don’t play economic victories but fair enough. Still, I don’t see how a Germany making only 38 ipcs is going to be able to do much of anything. How much will Japan have to make to get the EV? 60? We can get them up to high 40s-50 Ipcs but that takes time and in a game where Germany is being defensive, Japan is off fortune hunting, Russia is going to be a monster. In a fortress Europe scenario, I imagine it would be easy for Russia to make high 30’s, especially since they don’t have to worry about Axis air.



  • Russia won’t keep 30 IPC because Japan will take Asia and hopefully Caucasus eventually. And it is not play economic victory it is just that when axis makes more money then allies it is pretty much all the time game over (excdept is Germany is on the verge of falling).

    Obviously this strat is not winning 100 % of the time, no strat does. It is on the other hand the strat that gives axis the best odds if played correctly. Aas an exemple, it is much harder to play then just blitzing Russia with tanks 🙂



  • @GCar:

    Russia won’t keep 30 IPC because Japan will take Asia and hopefully Caucasus eventually. And it is not play economic victory it is just that when axis makes more money then allies it is pretty much all the time game over (excdept is Germany is on the verge of falling).

    Obviously this strat is not winning 100 % of the time, no strat does. It is on the other hand the strat that gives axis the best odds if played correctly. Aas an exemple, it is much harder to play then just blitzing Russia with tanks 🙂

    Well duh. Germany tank dash is the first strategy noobs come up with on their own. Also, most games are won by the Axis with Japan making a ton of money and taking down Russia, but if they are donating planes to Germany for fortress Europe they have susbtantially less attack power against Russia. I just don’t see how a divided air force is a threat to allied ship builds beyond round 2. They start with a big fat 1 tank, usually lose a plane in French Indo and if they donate planes, they have to buy more so it slows down their financial gains. This would only work against a passive Russia and an inefficient UK/US.



  • The point of the Japan planes is not to take down allies fleets. It is to stop them from splitting the fleet however they want (Since allies can’t move UK and US fleets at the same time, they have either Japan or Germany playing in between). It then forces allies to either buy way too much fleet to be able to split their transports to attack different points (like having some diesembarking in Algeria and some in Norway early for exemple) or to just attack one territory and not being able to switch without buying more fleet. So the axis plan becomes stoping allies to disembark in Paris and:

    • If allies as their one disembarking point in the north (Norway, Archangel or Leningrad), Japan will swarm Africa easily with no reinforcements coming and the game axis will soon have 90 IPC per turn and win at some point because they will just build more units then allies.
    • If allies as their one disembarking point in Algeria, take down Moscow since it won’t have any UK/US reinforcements beside planes
    • if allies builds a lot of fleets to be able to disembark everywhere, well they have to spend a LOT of IPC to do so and usually hopefully they won’t be able to disembark anywhere relevant (Paris, Berlin, Eastern Europe) since the double attack (UK followed by US disembark) as to take into account 4-5 Japan fighters that can add their forces in between (this is obviously also a move usefull in the two previous points)

    I hope I explained a bit better then previously why those Japan planes are so strong against KGF.



  • Still not convinced. UK only has to by a couple destroyers and an AC to defend against let’s say, 4 Jap planes and a Bomber. An equel number of hits but the defender has the advantage. US can donate say, 1 loaded carrier. If the japanese want to lose planes shooting that down when they seperate, fine. Their loss.

    You keep assuming Japan can do everything- donate several planes, pressure Russia, make money in the pacific, & take all of Africa now. This would take at least 8 rounds. What the hell are the Allies doing all this time?

    That said, the strat has merit. It would be good to use in a team game with 5 players since the allies will have problems co-ordinating but in a two player game with seasoned players, I don’t see how it would work. We’ve experimented with defensive German strategies and they never work. Germany is built for aggression and that’s how they should play.


  • '12

    You say the US can donate say, 1 loaded carrier.  Just when does the US move this carrier to join the British Fleet?  That would be AFTER the Japanese do their turn.  Do you see the problem with counting on US fleet support for a moving British Navy in the face of Japanese air threats?

    So now all you need is a few Brit fully loaded carriers and destroyers and a few US fully loaded carriers with destroyers.  So now either countries fleet can survive as an independent fleet in the face of Japanese air threats.  The moment you think this occurs, Japan could add 1 more air unit that TWO independent fleets must defend against.

    Do you ever plan on having the US and Brit fleet move?  If you do, then you must invest more in fleet defense in the face of a Jap air threat that moves between when the US and Brit does.

    You keep ASS U ME ing that the Germans just sit back and turtle.  With Fortress Europe, Germany can be more aggressive as the allies have spent more on fleet defense and less on land units that actually are what get you territory and more IPCs.  With 4+ Jap fighers on WEu PLUS whatever Germany can spare on defense and allied transports and landing units in smaller numbers as they invested more in ACs, Fighters and destroyers it becomes easier for Germany to lean forward.

    If you  have an allied fleet which cannot operate independantly in the face of a Jap air threat then the axis is more free to to manuever knowing you cannot split your fleet in two.

    Perhaps you ought to challenge an experienced Fortress Europe user to a game to see how well it works.  Trust me, I’ve been playing since the 80s.  I was gloating at first when I saw that Jap airforce in WEu.  I thought, what a waste of Jap power.  Then when I wanted to drop some forces of in Algeria and some in Norway and purchase new fleet and move up last rounds builds of fleet I realized what a balancing act was required.  It constrained what I wanted to do.  You might never need 4 loaded carriers in the face of only German air.  You might need 4 loaded carriers if you wish to move the allied fleet in the face of a decent German and Jap air threat.

    The premises of Fortress Europe is to cause the allies to invest far more in fleet due to the Japs being able to hit either fleet as they more independently of each other.  It has gotten to the point my friends feel the allies need a bid to overcome fortress europe.  I think they and myself just need to see an example of somebody beating fortress europe.  I am told it occurs, just never in this forum.  TripleA is apparently where the ‘professional’ games occur, I have yet to play there or even review games played there with/against fortress europe.



  • As an exemple of this month of my games in championship division of the aa42 league (all games with no bid obv) :
    with axis : 3 wins (2 Fortress Europe, 1 Moscow Blitz)
    with allies : 2 wins (1 against Fortress Europe with quite good rolls for me, 1 against AC bulid in Med)
                    1 loss (against Fortress Europe)

    Allies needs 8 transports disembarking, that is 56 IPC, plus quite a bunch of sea units on both side, if they lose a juse sea fight it will be a pain to build back mostly if they trade against Japan.

    As for your question on Japan in Asia, you don’t need air to get to Moscow, past turn 1, If there is no IC in Asia.

    As for Germany aggressivity, it is just the “normal” way to make an attack, build infantry first then aggressive units.

    There are 3 fronts in KGF games: Asia/Russia, Germany/Russia and Africa. Fortress Europe stops allies from spreading their units as they need between Africa and G/R fronts (from around turn 5 when Japan threat to invade Africa becomes real). Yes it will likely take around 8 turns (sometimes even more!) for Japan to take Africa but when they do axis superior IPC production will become decisive.

    It might seems like a very long plan, but between top level players you need good early dice to justify aggressivity or you will just get kill by a fine tuned counter-attack. To be succesful you need to be able to plan long term plans.



  • Ok I’m done talking about this as you guys seem convinced this is the way to go. I would LOVE to challenge this strat but I don’t know how to install triple A. I’ve tried numerous times and can’t figure it out. Being afraid of 4 Japanese planes is ridiculous.

    I’ve been playing almost twice a week for over ten years. My facebook record was 18-2 so I’m getting pretty tired of you assuming I have no clue what I’m talking about Cgar.



  • Think about the original topic. If the allies are so worried about only air force what do they do when Germany also has boats in the water and Japans fleet as crossed the channel? This what we always deal with in our games and we can still move. i would be relieved if air was the only threat.



  • Boats are more expensive then planes and being able to have transports for Germany doesn’t worth the difference of IPC used to build a fleet instead of using planes.

    As for the fortress europe strat maybe you should try it instead of just talking about something that you actually never tried.


  • '12

    Nobody said you won’t be able to move.  But you will HAVE to spend more on fleet defense than you otherwise would in order to move.  4 fighters is an example, of course there will always be a bomber to affect fleet moves further out.  You will have to have a balanced Brit and US fleet, no more brits concentrating on land units and transports protected by US fleet defense.  You will find the extra expense of fleet defense along with constricted moves will slow down the allied threat enough to make it difficult to beat the axis.

    I don’t usually see Japan adding to its air force to increase its presence in Western Europe, its starting airforce is usually enough, added air units are done infrequently and usually to fill a small hole in the existing mix of units in Asia.  Of course this is in the isolation of the games I play locally mainly, I haven’t seen much of how Fortress Europe is played in forums nor games played  out much past the 7th round.

    You don’t have to play on TripleA.  Play here, put out a challenge and play by forum using BattleMap.  The only reason I am convinced is that I have played many games before I knew about it and enough after it to know its a winning strategy.  I have yet to see it beat and am eager to see how its done.



  • The only way το beat Fortress Europe is to take advantage of the slow German advance in Europe. The Allies have 5-6 rounds to:a.Expell Germany from Africa, b.Kill as much Luftwaffe possible, c.Stall Japan as long as possible d.Prepare an invasion fleet.By round 6,if the Allies control Africa and are able to land in Karelia while Japan is behind the Yakut-KwangtungXinyang-Persia line and Germany cannot yet take West Russia-Caucasus,the Allies have tipped the scales.It is not the end,not even the beginning of the end.But at least it is the end of the beginning.



  • @Advosan:

    The only way το beat Fortress Europe is to take advantage of the slow German advance in Europe. The Allies have 5-6 rounds to:a.Expell Germany from Africa, b.Kill as much Luftwaffe possible, c.Stall Japan as long as possible d.Prepare an invasion fleet.By round 6,if the Allies control Africa and are able to land in Karelia while Japan is behind the Yakut-Kwangtung-Persia line and Germany cannot yet take West Russia-Caucasus,the Allies have tipped the scales.It is not the end,not even the beginning of the end.But at least it is the end of the beginning.

    A. Without a German Med navy, it’s going to be a lot easier to expel them from Africa
    B. Germany can easily lose 2-3 planes on their first attacks, and after that, only an extremely careless Germany will lose more (I think it’s impossible to win if Germany loses 3 planes round 1)
    C. A Japan without their initial starting planes is going to delay them by rounds.
    D. Something they have to do anyway.
    E. Round 6 and Japan supposed to be behind Kwangtung? That’s their coastline! That’s worse position than their starting one!



  • He meant Sinkiang I guess.



  • @coorran:

    He meant Sinkiang I guess.

    That would make a lot more sense.


  • '12

    Col.Stauffenberg, you’d be surprised how little the Japs require their airforce after the first round or two.  Sure its nice to use 4 planes and 2 infantry against 1 infantry but only if they have nothing better to do, which is often the case after round 2 with Japan.  Again, the first time I faced fortress europe as the allies I was delighted to see most of the Jap airforce in WEu.  What a waste of resources I thought!  Then when you see how the air in WEu and the few planes in Asia affect your allied fleet moves you get that sinking feeling.  Trust me, when 4-6 Jap fighters and a bomber can hit a British fleet before the US can reinforce it you truly think twice before moving it.

    Obviously, if you’re careful and plan ahead it can be dealt with.  However, the constraint and extra investment required of the allies is greater than any lost opportunity the Japanese experience using Fortress Europe, in my humble opinion.  Take what you will from one who has lost more than once as the allies facing it and as one who has used it more than once as the axis with success.



  • That may be the case. Maybe I went off the rails abit and sounded like I was trashing the strategy when my intent was to say it’s no better then Germany having a Navy and Japan crossing the channel with theirs. At least as far as extra allied ship building is concerned. Japan may not need their planes later but they need them early, to crush boats in the Pacific and get their foothold in Asia, but Fortress Europe requires that they be donated ASAP. A saavy Allied play can gain some IPCS on the Japanese coast early and use that to fund the naval builds. They might even hold on to those territories if the Japanese have no air force to help reclaim them.

    German navy also means the allies have to spend more on boats. Much more than they would if they had to face just planes. Sure Germany doesn’t have as many guys when they buy navy but they buy time by not having to defend France and Italy with as much and the extra transports make up for a lack of a front since the men you’re building can move 2 spaces.  When Japan goes through the channel, then UK still has to be careful about moving since Japan’s planes on their carriers can hit many spots.



  • Fortress Europe is the absolute answer to KGF.Imho,the Allies simply cannot outrun the Axis in a Fortress Europe vs KGF race.Moscow will fall to the Japanese before Berlin.The reason for this is that while Japan can take Caucasus,the Allies cannot permanently occupy Southern Europe.The japanese fleet crossing the Canal only adds to the problem.Fortress Europe demands the Allies to radically reconsider KGF.



  • Fortress Europe is definitely beatable, but allies needs to be willing to take some calculated risks as to be aggressive since the grinding game of just trading territories and slowly building up hoping for axis openings just leaves allies a huge underdog.

    And I would add that KGF as more chances to beat Fortress Europe then KJF as chances to win in general 🙂


  • '12

    For the most part, anytime one side builds navy/air and the other side can build land units, the land unit force wins.  Germany does not need navy to get land units in action where it matters, Europe.

    Fortress Europe works because initial starting forces of the Japs namely their airforce causes the allies to invest more in the Atlantic navy and thus less in land units that actually get you IPCs.

    Japan can only get a few air units to WEu by round 2 maybe depending on the gamestate, so they can use their airforce for combat as it migrates to WEu in the early rounds.

    While it is true that a German investment in navy causes the allies to also invest in additional navy, I think the resource diversion away from increased land forces for Germany is slightly less effective.

    If you truly need air in asia and for the islands then hold back a few planes.  If you have all your air in WEu you can easily build more in Japan if you really really need air in Asia.  But having even a few air assests in WEu constrains the allies greatly in particular the reach of just 1 bomber.  The difference between zero and one bomber is greater than the difference between one and three in my opinion.

    I would LOVE to review a game played between a decently implemented Fortress Europe and a successful overcoming of it.  If I thought I could play a decently implemented Fortress Europe AND I had time, I would put out a challenge here!  But alas, I must learn the curve of TripleA in order to review games.



  • You guys keep repeating yourselves. You keep saying Fortress Europe does this and that but not why. It forces the allies to build more navy. How? Uk can overcome a four plane + bomber in at the most, 2 rounds. By themselves. How is this a big enough delay to win? I just can’t see it. Maybe you guys aren’t aggressive enough with the allies. You do a serious hardcore KGF to the point where no matter what happens, Germany is feeling serious heat on round 3.



  • It forces allies to build more navy because usually UK doesn’t need to buy anything at all. UK can build planes early (to secure Africa and to already have a high attack force ready when they build their transports) while US builds the fleet and then build transports in SZ8 while US just bring their huge fleet to protect them. The problem is that if there are Japan fleets around this fleet of US navy + UK transports will not be able to move, so UK needs a fleet that can survive ALONE 5 fighters + 1 bomber and that means a lot of fleet ! (for exemple AC+2Fig+2DD as only 11% chances against those 6 planes)

    So UK actually needs 2 destroyer + 2 loaded aircraft carrier (can use US planes though) so 44 IPC, that is 1.5 turn production !!!

    Also, for any tentative of double disembarkments from UK ans US (typical plan to create a weakness in Germany coast) which is usually hard for Germany to defend since it requires having a lot of infantries everywhere, now Germany can have 5 fighters reinforcement between the 2 waves of attack ! This will allow Germany to defend territories with about 5 infantry less then it would usually need on every single territory he needs to defend (WesEur, Ger and EasEur), plus the 5 fighters will seriously help defending one of those permenently since the planes will be sitting there. In total effect, because of their mobility between UK and US turns, those 5 fighters will have the defense power of around 15-20 infantries, that is another 45 IPC !!!

    So not only the planes will force UK spending 44 IPC on fleets that they would not usually need. It also makes the chance of allies never being able to land in WesEur, Ger and EasEur much higher then usual, forcing them to target lowers IPC countries in the north.

    In a nutshell, those planes (actually having a “real” value of 62 IPC), have a practical worth of about 90 IPC (and I am being conservative there). With allies going KGF, there is no way you could have that kind of value with those Japanease planes in Asia/Pacific. Obviously, if allies goes KJF those planes are better in Asia/Pacific but KJF is not a losing strategy.



  • That is what I mean when I say a typicall KGF-all out against Germany just won t work most of the times.

    With japanese air in Europe, UK-US will end up creating one loaded AC (UK AC and 2 US ftr combined IPC 34) for every 3 japanese airplanes in Europe (IPC 30-32). At the same time, the Allies must stop Germany in Europe (by offloading 4 UK inf and 6 US inf=combined IPC 30), something that is doable untill Africa falls to Japan.
    This consumes all UK-US income in order to stop Germany in Europe and match the japanese air reinforcements. SO, we have Russia and the remaining Japanese forces. Russia alone cannot kill (a reinforced by japanese air) Germany. But it can make sure to hold Ukraine and garisson Novosibirsk, keeping the Japanese at bay.

    The obvious move for Japan is to go after Africa. Russia cannot reach the japanese forces landing straight in AngloEgypt Sudan. And with one blow it cripples the allies’ ability to both stop Germany and to match the japanese airforce in Europe.

    The thing is imho that while everyone else is totally reactive (Germany is all out stacking ground defences, UK and US are all out stacking gound and sea defences, Russia is all out to hold Ukraine and novosibirsk) in Fortress Europe Japan has the chance to be partially proactive. After sending the air reinforcements in Europe, the remaining IPCs can be used in a way that the Allies have nothing to respond.

    That is why most Fortress Europe games end up with Japan taking Moscow after having raided Africa, while the Allies are stuck way outside Berlin. In some cases, Moscow is traded with Berlin, meaning they both fall in the same round. In fewer cases, Berlin falls just in time before Japan takes Moscow. But there is almost never a clear Allied victory with Fortress Europe.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 5
  • 2
  • 7
  • 3
  • 8
  • 4
  • 31
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

80
Online

14.2k
Users

34.6k
Topics

1.4m
Posts