I've no clue what to do with UK in first round


  • Germany is able to completely shut out the UK’s ability to build a navy. Sure I can put boats out there, but no matter where I put them Germany will have enough planes and subs to take them out.

    How is the UK supposed to do anything?

    Factories in Africa or Australia seem like desperation manouvers at best.

    I once played against a UK who waited three rounds before he even bought anything. I now understand he did this so he could lay down a massive navy all at once. But this is a gimmick, not a strategy (isn’t it?) since a Germany who understands what is going on will match the unbought forces with bought forces of his own, ready to go once UK lays them down.

    What is UK supposed to do in R1?


  • Most common buy on UK1 is 1 carrier 2 destroyers. G should not have more than 1 fighter in Norway, and if it attacks this fleet with subs (2 or 3), 1 ftr and 1 bmb, then G likely loses. UK’s advantage is that it follows G and can alter it’s buys based on where G left it’s air.  If more than 1 ftr is in Norway, then G likely made bigger mistakes elsewhere and Allies should capitalize. You can also try the Norwegian Gambit, which removes a G ftr and removes Nor as a landing area for G.


  • @Speusippus:

    I once played against a UK who waited three rounds before he even bought anything. I now understand he did this so he could lay down a massive navy all at once.

    Well, what is going to be left for G to attack SZ2, the safest place to put your fleet in?
    As LMD said, normally (if he did mot lose any planes against the UK BB on G1): 2 SUB, 1FTR, 1BMB (the G DD will have been destroyed by either UK or US planes).

    2DD, AC, 2FTR (I suggest using the US FTR on the AC) is going to defeat that attack.

    He could have more, but then he’s crippling his G1 attacks, and crippling his options for G2.

    That being said, even if you have to wait until UK2 to put your fleet down, you’r not losing a lot.

    Why? Because you don’t have anything to do with that fleet without any Transports (TRN). You might have 1 TRN in SZ1, but that’s it. You could land in Norway, but it’ll be destroyed anyway (it’s worth it if you can capture Norway). You could also just send it to SZ 8 on UK2.

    On UK2, you can lay down your fleet in SZ8, where it’ll be joined by US 1 CRU and 1DD. At that point, G will have to pull all of its planes back to W EU. to threaten you. If it does so, don’t worry, that means the Russians are having a field day… Just build an additionnal DD with UK and you’ll be fine.


  • In a game I’m playing right now, G has a fighter and bomber on Norway, a sub in sea zone 2, two subs in sea zone 7, and a Bomber in Germany.

    (Also two fighters in Western Europe, so SZ8 is covered as well.)

    That’s in round just after Germany’s move.

    Is there something I can put in SZ2 that can’t get killed by all that? It’s 17 attack points, 6 pips.

    If I’m doing the math right the best I can do is a carrier (land the two fighters on it*) and two destroyers. But that’s not enough–not even close.

    To be clear: as is usual, UK has no navy whatsoever at this point other than a transport off the Canadian coast.

    *Is this legal? I haven’t been sure. Gametableonline’s A&A 1942 allows it, but I know they had to play a little lose with fighter landing rules because of some earlier bugs. I THINK it’s legal because the rule is I have to be able to show how my fighters could land before the end of my turn. If I put my two fighters in SZ2, I can show it’s possible for them to land before the end of my turn by pointing to my bought carrier and saying “I can put that under them during my new unit placement phase.” If it’s not legal, then things are even worse for UK!


  • @coorran:

    @Speusippus:

    I once played against a UK who waited three rounds before he even bought anything. I now understand he did this so he could lay down a massive navy all at once.

    Well, what is going to be left for G to attack SZ2, the safest place to put your fleet in?
    As LMD said, normally (if he did mot lose any planes against the UK BB on G1): 2 SUB, 1FTR, 1BMB (the G DD will have been destroyed by either UK or US planes).

    In a game I’m playing right now, he’s got three subs, two bombers and a fighter ready to go against SZ2. I don’t recall whether this is usual, but I do recall having this same feeling of “well crap, UK simply can’t build a fleet anywhere” in every game I’ve played lately.

    He could have more, but then he’s crippling his G1 attacks, and crippling his options for G2.

    I probably just don’t have enough experience to know how to take advantage of this. I guess you guys are saying that the bomber he bought is going to be a problem for him in the East?

    That being said, even if you have to wait until UK to put your fleet down, you’r not losing a lot.

    Why? Because you don’t have anything to do with that fleet without any Transports (TRN). You might have 1 TRN in SZ1, but that’s it. You could land in Norway, but it’ll be destroyed anyway (it’s worth it if you can capture Norway). You could also just send it to SZ 8 on UK2.

    On UK2, you can lay down your fleet in SZ8, where it’ll be joined by US 1 CRU and 1DD. At that point, G will have to pull all of its planes back to W EU. to threaten you. If it does so, don’t worry, that means the Russians are having a field day… Just build an additionnal DD with UK and you’ll be fine.

    So buying nothing in R1 is viable? Or are you saying buy something else in R1 then buy a fleet in R2 to be reinforced by the US?

  • '12

    I think it is somewhat unusual for G to kill the Brit fleet and russian sub which you put in Sz 2…and take no losses.  But it does happen, so worst case scenario is that he took no losses, built a bomber and stacked Norway enough so you cannot attack it by sacrificing the Brit transport.

    So perhaps buy nothing or 1 bomber and setup your existing airforce in russia to strike the german med fleet.  As previously stated, you build on Brit 2 in Sz8 which allows for US to move in the existing atlantic fleet AND his US 1 builds.  I can’t see how Germany could threaten a combined fleet consisting of 2 or more loaded carriers with a 3+ destroyers on G3, unless he builds mostly air and navy, in which case I would LOVE to play the USSR.  If you get the axis building lots of navy and air, you should be able to win.


  • @Speusippus:

    In a game I’m playing right now, G has a fighter and bomber on Norway, a sub in sea zone 2, two subs in sea zone 7, and a Bomber in Germany.

    (Also two fighters in Western Europe, so SZ8 is covered as well.)

    That’s in round just after Germany’s move.

    Is there something I can put in SZ2 that can’t get killed by all that? It’s 17 attack points, 6 pips.

    If I’m doing the math right the best I can do is a carrier (land the two fighters on it*) and two destroyers. But that’s not enough–not even close.

    To be clear: as is usual, UK has no navy whatsoever at this point other than a transport off the Canadian coast.

    *Is this legal? I haven’t been sure. Gametableonline’s A&A 1942 allows it, but I know they had to play a little lose with fighter landing rules because of some earlier bugs. I THINK it’s legal because the rule is I have to be able to show how my fighters could land before the end of my turn. If I put my two fighters in SZ2, I can show it’s possible for them to land before the end of my turn by pointing to my bought carrier and saying “I can put that under them during my new unit placement phase.” If it’s not legal, then things are even worse for UK!

    Yes, it is perfectly legal to land existing planes on a new carrier.


  • @Speusippus:

    In a game I’m playing right now, he’s got three subs, two bombers and a fighter ready to go against SZ2. I don’t recall whether this is usual, but I do recall having this same feeling of “well crap, UK simply can’t build a fleet anywhere” in every game I’ve played lately.

    In this case you could build a few subs (since no german DD’s around, these can serve as cannon fodder for a future german sub + planes attack) and/or fighters/bombers in this turn, and surface ships the next turn.

    And like others already said: add the US fleet to the fresh UK ships.

    A whole other option is to buy 2 fighters and send the existing UK air force to Africa to help out in Egypt, the Middle East and India later on.
    Then the next turn buy a CV + a DD.

    Why? Because you don’t have anything to do with that fleet without any Transports (TRN). You might have 1 TRN in SZ1, but that’s it. You could land in Norway, but it’ll be destroyed anyway (it’s worth it if you can capture Norway). You could also just send it to SZ 8 on UK2.

    Only reason i would attack Normay is if i see a good chance to destroy some expensive German units (lone fighter, bomber…)


  • Sorry, what’s a CV?


  • ah sorry, i meant an aircraft carrier (AC, don’t know why i wrote CV…)

  • '16 '15 '10

    @Speusippus:

    In a game I’m playing right now, G has a fighter and bomber on Norway, a sub in sea zone 2, two subs in sea zone 7, and a Bomber in Germany.

    (Also two fighters in Western Europe, so SZ8 is covered as well.)

    That’s in round just after Germany’s move.

    Is there something I can put in SZ2 that can’t get killed by all that? It’s 17 attack points, 6 pips.

    If I’m doing the math right the best I can do is a carrier (land the two fighters on it*) and two destroyers. But that’s not enough–not even close.

    To be clear: as is usual, UK has no navy whatsoever at this point other than a transport off the Canadian coast.

    *Is this legal? I haven’t been sure. Gametableonline’s A&A 1942 allows it, but I know they had to play a little lose with fighter landing rules because of some earlier bugs. I THINK it’s legal because the rule is I have to be able to show how my fighters could land before the end of my turn. If I put my two fighters in SZ2, I can show it’s possible for them to land before the end of my turn by pointing to my bought carrier and saying “I can put that under them during my new unit placement phase.” If it’s not legal, then things are even worse for UK!

    First off, this is not necessarily ordinary.  Usually Germany loses the sub in SZ2.  Also, you ought to have the Russian sub in SZ2 as well unless you got unlucky.

    But in the scenario you describe above, it would be kinda risky to put fleet in the water.  Not necessarily a bad move, since Germany would have to divert bombers to attack it and it would be a risky play.  But consider–those German subs don’t have much better to do than attack your fleet.  So if you drop an AC 2 dd in 2, you have fair odds of defending, but Germany might try the attack just to see if it got lucky.  If it gets unlucky, it just loses a few subs.

    I’d say wait until UK2 then drop your fleet then.  Buy fighters or bombers as needed UK1 (you may need a bomber if you haven’t killed the med fleet yet).

    But if the sub in sz2 is dead, then it’s usually safe to drop 2 dd 1 ac (plus the Russian sub for defense) in SZ2 (or better yet in SZ8 depending on how many fighters are in Western).


  • If you check the Fortress Europe thread on the Articles Submission forum you’ll see the odds for a round 2 German attack on an Allied fleet on SZ2/8, based on the possible outcomes for the first round battles.

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Buy the units anyways, and keep buying them.  So what if they die after being attacked, as long as the ratio, is “sort of” 50/50 or 1:1

    The game is won in Russia and Africa.  For every german that dies fighting the US/UK in anywhere but those 2 locations, it’s a win.  And if the Germans build units to replace the ones lost against the Western Allies,  that’s units that aren’t being replaced on the eastern front.


  • @Speusippus:

    In a game I’m playing right now, G has a fighter and bomber on Norway, a sub in sea zone 2, two subs in sea zone 7, and a Bomber in Germany.

    (Also two fighters in Western Europe, so SZ8 is covered as well.)

    That’s in round just after Germany’s move.

    Is there something I can put in SZ2 that can’t get killed by all that? It’s 17 attack points, 6 pips.

    If I’m doing the math right the best I can do is a carrier (land the two fighters on it*) and two destroyers. But that’s not enough–not even close.

    To be clear: as is usual, UK has no navy whatsoever at this point other than a transport off the Canadian coast.

    *Is this legal? I haven’t been sure. Gametableonline’s A&A 1942 allows it, but I know they had to play a little lose with fighter landing rules because of some earlier bugs. I THINK it’s legal because the rule is I have to be able to show how my fighters could land before the end of my turn. If I put my two fighters in SZ2, I can show it’s possible for them to land before the end of my turn by pointing to my bought carrier and saying “I can put that under them during my new unit placement phase.” If it’s not legal, then things are even worse for UK!

    If you insist on a KGF tactic, I would probably buy 1AC 2DD. I don’t like the figs to Russia strategy.

    I would then place 1AC + 1DD with the addition of a UK and US fighter on the AC in SZ2
    The last DD I would put in SZ8 to block the two subs - now youre odds against 2 bombers + 2 figs + 1 sub  against 1 sub (I assume you have the USSR sub otherwise you really got diced on G1) + 1DD + 1 AC + 2 fig is 63 - 37.
    I would perhaps live with these odds. Average is you take 2 subs + 2 figs with you. Next round you could merge with US fleet in SZ8 wipe out remaining subs and get a transport chain going - but this is much more difficult in 42.


  • @Speusippus:

    How is the UK supposed to do anything?

    What is UK supposed to do in R1?

    “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout” - Robert Heinlein

  • '10

    @Speusippus:

    Sorry, what’s a CV?

    CV = Carrier Vessel.  CV is the abbreviation the Navy uses for Aircraft Carriers.

    Just for educational purpose, here are some other CV designations.  Most are no longer in use.

    CV: Fleet Aircraft Carrier (1921–1975), Multi-purpose Aircraft Carrier (1975–present)
    CVA: Attack Aircraft Carrier (category merged into CV, 30 June 1975) (Conventional-Propulsion)
    CVAN: Attack Aircraft Carrier, nuclear (category merged into CVN, 30 June 1975)
    CVB: Large Aircraft Carrier (category merged into CVA, 1952)
    CVE: Escort aircraft carrier (retired)
    CVHA: Assault Helicopter Aircraft Carrier (retired in favor of several LH-series amphibious assault ship hull codes)
    CVHE: Escort Helicopter Aircraft Carrier (retired)
    CVL: Light aircraft carrier (retired)
    CV(N): Night-Operating Fleet Aircraft Carrier (Used only by the former USS Enterprise (CV-6)[5][6])
    CVN: Multi-purpose Aircraft Carrier (Nuclear-Propulsion)
    CVS: Antisubmarine Aircraft Carrier (retired)
    CVT: Training Aircraft Carrier (changed to AVT (Auxiliary))
    CVU: Utility Aircraft Carrier (Formerly CVEs) (retired)

  • 2020 '19 '18 '17

    There’s some debate about the meaning of the “V” in “CV”, actually. Quoting an explanation from http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm:

    The following is taken from “United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16:  US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations”:

    On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type “Z” and heavier-than air craft by the letter “V”.  The reference also speculates that:  “The use of the “V” designation has been a question since the 1920s.  However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter “V” was chosen.  It is generally believed the “V” was in reference to the French word volplane.  As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by “Z”) used.  The same case may be regarding the use of “Z”.  It is generally believed the “Z” was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin.  However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption.”

  • '10

    @Herr:

    There’s some debate about the meaning of the “V” in “CV”, actually. Quoting an explanation from http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm:

    The following is taken from “United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995, Appendix 16:  US Navy and Marine Corps Squadron Designations and Abbreviations”:

    On 17 July 1920, the Secretary of the Navy prescribed a standard nomenclature for types and classes of NAVAL VESSELs, including aircraft, in which lighter-than air craft were identified by the type “Z” and heavier-than air craft by the letter “V”.  The reference also speculates that:  “The use of the “V” designation has been a question since the 1920s.  However, no conclusive evidence has been found to identify why the letter “V” was chosen.  It is generally believed the “V” was in reference to the French word volplane.  As a verb, the word means to glide or soar. As a noun, it described an aeronautical device sustained in the air by lifting devices (wings), as opposed to the bag of gas that the airships (denoted by “Z”) used.  The same case may be regarding the use of “Z”.  It is generally believed the “Z” was used in deference to Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin.  However, documentation has not been located to verify this assumption.”

    When I was in the Navy and served aboard the USS Midway, there was no question about it.  I was Carrier Vessel.

    If the above statement is true, I’m sure it’s original meaning disappeared a long time ago.  My guess is because the Navy didn’t want to use a French word.  We know how the French fight.


  • @Black:

    When I was in the Navy and served aboard the USS Midway, there was no question about it.  I was Carrier Vessel.

    If the above statement is true, I’m sure it’s original meaning disappeared a long time ago.  My guess is because the Navy didn’t want to use a French word.  We know how the French fight.

    For reference vessel was originally a french word. It comes from the latin vāscellum.

    Just like 30 % of the english vocabulary which comes directly from french.

    A gift from a couple centuries ago when British aristocracy was french speaking 🙂

  • '10

    @GCar:

    @Black:

    When I was in the Navy and served aboard the USS Midway, there was no question about it.  I was Carrier Vessel.

    If the above statement is true, I’m sure it’s original meaning disappeared a long time ago.  My guess is because the Navy didn’t want to use a French word.  We know how the French fight.

    For reference vessel was originally a french word. It comes from the latin vāscellum.

    Just like 30 % of the english vocabulary which comes directly from french.

    A gift from a couple centuries ago when British aristocracy was french speaking 🙂

    What are you talking about?  It’s an English word that the British made the French think it was a French word so they could infiltrate the French 😉

    Alright, were starting to drift from the original topic.  I’ll leave it alone now.


  • vessel - Word History
    Date of Origin 13th c.
    Latin vascellum meant ‘small dish or utensil’. It was a diminutive form of vas ‘dish, vessel’ (source of English vase). It passed into English via Old French vaissel and Anglo-Norman vessel, on the way acquiring the additional meaning ‘ship’.

    And a small world history class (US schools should really put more emphasis on world history before 20th century):
    In 1066, William the Conqueror, the Duke of Normandy (part of modern France), invaded and conquered England. The new conquerors (called the Normans) brought with them a kind of French, which became the language of the Royal Court, and the ruling and business classes. For a period there was a kind of linguistic class division, where the lower classes spoke English and the upper classes spoke French. In the 14th century English became dominant in Britain again, but with many French words added. This language is called Middle English. It was the language of the great poet Chaucer (c1340-1400), but it would still be difficult for native English speakers to understand today.

    The amont of english words whose ethymology comes directly from french being about 30 %, and from old french + french 60 %.

    So even though english is a germanic language from origin, it contains more french words then anything else 🙂

  • '10

    @GCar:

    vessel - Word History
    Date of Origin 13th c.
    Latin vascellum meant ‘small dish or utensil’. It was a diminutive form of vas ‘dish, vessel’ (source of English vase). It passed into English via Old French vaissel and Anglo-Norman vessel, on the way acquiring the additional meaning ‘ship’.

    And a small world history class (US schools should really put more emphasis on world history before 20th century):
    In 1066, William the Conqueror, the Duke of Normandy (part of modern France), invaded and conquered England. The new conquerors (called the Normans) brought with them a kind of French, which became the language of the Royal Court, and the ruling and business classes. For a period there was a kind of linguistic class division, where the lower classes spoke English and the upper classes spoke French. In the 14th century English became dominant in Britain again, but with many French words added. This language is called Middle English. It was the language of the great poet Chaucer (c1340-1400), but it would still be difficult for native English speakers to understand today.

    The amont of english words whose ethymology comes directly from french being about 30 %, and from old french + french 60 %.

    So even though english is a germanic language from origin, it contains more french words then anything else 🙂

    Cgar

    You know my last comment was total bullshit right?  You should have smelled it coming off your screen.  I was joking with you. 😉 😄

    The comments are drifting way off from the original topic and was a humorous attempt to break away and get it back on track.


  • Buy a couple fighters, save 10 ipc, build navy on round 2, have US send some capitol ships to seazone 8 to protect it, . In any scenario, you should be able to do this.


  • Building AC + 2 destroyers in SZ8 landing 2 US fighters and adding the US cruiser is usually a nice option if Germany attacked SZ2 and killed the battleship (if not, just building what you would need to survive an air+sub attack and build transports if you have money left. Depending on the German odds of attack on SZ8 you bring or not the US transports, and you may sent the UK transports on Washington’s coast not to lose extra units without reason against likely German attack.  Even if Germany as better odds to win on SZ8 (depending on how many planes survived/were built), this strat is nice to lure Germany forces away from Russia and you should always be willing early to trade more UK IPC for a bit less Germany IPC (their “real” value is not the same since Russia/Germany front is ALWAYS the most important front). Also, if Germany had a very good turn 1 and kept all planes, you should be willing to take some risks to try to take the advantage out of axis’ hands.

    Also it depends on how Germany places is units, if all planes are in Paris, you can build in SZ2 for exemple.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 26
  • 7
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 6
  • 29
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

39
Online

15.1k
Users

35.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts