Germany playbook: overall strategy guide

@taamvan said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Attack Taranto with everything that can come–note that both fighters and the bomber from london can reach

This strategy is less popular than it used to be. Most players these days avoid this attack and build an airbase on Gibraltar then move all ships to SZ92. It is probably a lower risk strategy than Taranto, which can fail completely or at least cost more than it destroys.

@simon33

You’re definitely right, and while the bastion can be destroyed, it forces the Italians to take the risk of screwing up the battle (and moving away from their safe zone) which I like. It also messes up 2 of their bonuses, which makes attacking you at close odds more enticing.

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

This strategy is less popular than it used to be. Most players these days avoid this attack and build an airbase on Gibraltar then move all ships to SZ92. It is probably a lower risk strategy than Taranto, which can fail completely or at least cost more than it destroys.

I have not played enough people to know how popular or unpopular Taranto is becoming however on average it does not cost more than it destroys.

Assuming a sub bid for SZ98 the Taranto attack is SS, DD, CL, AC, 3 Ftr, Tac + Bmb. Being the success rate is 98% with a 3 fighter scramble I have never seen anyone scramble. The TUV is +$25 taking the tactical as the average loss first. Since the Italians have a negative counter attack usually they kill the French fleet in SZ93 and any remaining British units in SZ96. Thus they get convoy disrupted for an average of -$8.

The German counter attack, assuming it can go all out and does not have another target off the British Isles or Normandy and/or Holland, is +$29 with an average loss of 2.65 fighters.

Therefore, the overall average, from the Allied perspective is:
a) Taranto Attack +$25
b) Convoy Disruption +8
c) German counterattack 2.65 fighter loss -$29
d) Total average TUV is +4

Looking at it another way the most likely top two results are:
a) Taranto Attack +$25
b) Convoy Disruption +8
c) German counterattack 2 fighter loss -$36
d) Total average TUV is -3

a) Taranto Attack +$25
b) Convoy Disruption +8
c) German counterattack 2 fighter loss -$26
d) Total average TUV is +7

Destroying half the Italian fleet on UK1 and doing convoy disruption pretty much takes Italy out to the game immediately. Losing 2 UK fighters to 2 or 3 German fighters on a counter attack is a plus as it helps Russia and limits the German air threat everywhere.

From a TUV perspective it is a winner. From a strategy perspective it is even better.

@andrewaagamer

That is true, but what is more or less guaranteed is that the UK will lose their fleet, whereas gibastion they are likely to keep it.

Not all games are open bid. There are many situations where is no convoy damage (as the planes fly elsewhere like syria or cyprus), it seems pretty rare in our games. The italians may attack what air lands but after the retaliation they don’t have much left, which is good for the allies.

Italy having money is bad, Italy being broke and having no navy is really good. In that basic dynamic, gibastion may or may not cost them the navy, but it will stop them from getting the money they need. And if the UK navy is there, then it doesnt really matter what the Italian built when the USA arrives, they can smash it.

Both plans are good, so if you get a bid of subs, Taranto is probably better, but if not, gibbastion.

@taamvan said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Both plans are good, so if you get a bid of subs, Taranto is probably better, but if not, gibbastion.

My post really wasn’t about which strategy is better. My post was about replying to the comment “which can fail completely or at least cost more than it destroys.” With a sub bid Taranto is not going to fail, and as I showed, with average dice, it is cost effective. My goal was just to make sure that any information presented is accurate. Let the reader make their own decisions then.

I think both strategies have their pluses and minuses. I have used both and for a while I was a Gibastion fan and now I have come around to liking Taranto better for my own reasons. I don’t think one is a lot better than the other; they are fairly even and both reasonable strategies. I would agree with your post as long as you have a sub build Taranto is the slightly better choice.

Since any bid in OOB or BM3 is going to be at least $16 than I would, as the Allies, always do Taranto.

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Assuming a sub bid for SZ98 the Taranto attack is SS, DD, CL, AC, 3 Ftr, Tac + Bmb

I can’t remember ever seeing anyone do the attack with 2 fighters from London as well as the sub bid. Also, you can’t rely on battle calculator results because of the effect that planes can be splashed by retreating.

Even if you assume a remaining UK fleet of sub+DD+Cru+CV+2ftr, I would still attack as Italy for the reasons you outline. Even if it’s a strafe, you have likely reduced the convoying and Luftwaffe losses. It still has a realistic chance of winning and what else does the remaining Italian fleet do?

So I don’t think your scenario is very realistic. you assume max convoy damage and best case for the allies.

Now maybe you would argue that you should indeed do the Taranto attack as strongly as you suggest and I would agree that the Axis should not scramble in that scenario. You have to anticipate one defensive hit though, you could take it on a plane and keep the fleet intact but who would do that? Probably on the sub. Still leaves 2 planes on the CV with nowhere else to land.

The likely losses in that scenario for the allies are not that high, interestingly. I have never been a fan of leaving the fleet for Germany to clean up though, not least because of the 2 dice of convoying from the sub and each plane. The remaining Italian fleet has so little useful work to do that it may as well smash itself on the UK fleet. Of course, if the UK does tip the CV, retreating immediately is normally the wisest action, probably even if the planes can land on Yugo or Greece.

In some games taking those planes out of London could invite a sea lion.

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

I can’t remember ever seeing anyone do the attack with 2 fighters from London as well as the sub bid.

Really? Then you have never played me as I always do. Of course, you don’t have to. Bringing just one fighter drops it to 93% instead to 98% with a 3 fighter scramble and at those odds I doubt anyone would scramble so it works out the same.

I like having the extra fighter down there to protect Malta and to get as much firepower into the Med and Middle East ASAP so I bring 2.

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Even if you assume a remaining UK fleet of sub+DD+Cru+CV+2ftr, I would still attack as Italy for the reasons you outline. Even if it’s a strafe, you have likely reduced the convoying and Luftwaffe losses. It still has a realistic chance of winning and what else does the remaining Italian fleet do?

Yes, but any Italian counterattack means the French fleet escapes and the British fleet in SZ96 has to be dealt with by the Germans. Also, even a strafe means Italian planes are at risk. Losing the Italian fleet is bad. Losing the Italian air force is really bad.

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Also, you can’t rely on battle calculator results because of the effect that planes can be splashed by retreating.

Not sure what you mean by that? You mean when the Germans counter attack?

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

In some games taking those planes out of London could invite a sea lion.

As far as Sealion I am assuming an all-land build by Germany. If they build any ships, then that changes things and Taranto changes to Gibastion.

@simon33 said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

So I don’t think your scenario is very realistic. you assume max convoy damage and best case for the allies.

Actually, I used averages for everything.

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Not sure what you mean by that? You mean when the Germans counter attack?

I’ll try it another way. When you calculate the odds for the UK defence in SZ97 you are miscalculating. The battle calculator assigns the first hit on the UK forces against the CV which cannot be done in the actual battle because the Axis can just retreat and sink the planes.

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

ringing just one fighter drops it to 93% instead to 98% with a 3 fighter scramble and at those odds I doubt anyone would scramble so it works out the same.

I probably would. I am aware of the scenario you refer to and it is, as you outline, really, really undesirable. The downside of the no scramble is that it can cost Luftwaffe, which is not good. Although I might sometimes not scramble. Either way though, there is no way that I am not counter attacking with Italy.

I definitely scramble at anything weaker than that attack. Only costs 1 Luftwaffe when clearing out the fleet later costs more.

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Actually, I used averages for everything.

What about the casualties from Taranto, for example?

@andrewaagamer said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

Yes, but any Italian counterattack means the French fleet escapes and the British fleet in SZ96 has to be dealt with by the Germans. Also, even a strafe means Italian planes are at risk. Losing the Italian fleet is bad. Losing the Italian air force is really bad.

I think you are worrying too much about the Italian air. The Luftwaffe can reinforce. I would take that risk every time.

French ships escaping? So what. Then you don’t have to kill them. There may be a cruiser in 96 for the Luftwaffe to finish off. It can be argued that it isn’t worth half a plane. If it escapes to the Red Sea it struggles to get back in the game.

Having said all that, maybe the 2ftr from London move is worth more consideration. Especially if you use the Indian transport to claim Persia so you can use the British transport suiciding to take Greece. With the sub bid, scrambling would be insane.

@taamvan If Italy takes S-France than the entire Luftwaffe can attack gibastion and destroy it in one or two blows.
Thus leaving the Med for the italians. Do you think Gibastion is worth in (in a no bid game)?
I have been attacking the italian DD and Tpt at Malta + tobruk strafe. In NCM putting a DD at greece so Italy can’t reach Egypt. It gives the italians three SZ to attack and it safes the Carrier (retreat through Suez and combine with Pacific fleet.

@cornwallis

If the planes start with some in Holland and most in W Germany, aren’t they 1 move short to attack SZ92? Am I missing something?

More UK ships can come to SZ92 on UK2, but the gibbastion usually moves at that point.

In some of the variants we play, its not just the fleet but also the airbase that is threatented (because the axis can come in force over land to attack gibraltar) and so its fallen out of favor insteat people hide in the red sea

Italy can take Algeria to provide a landing space. So not sure what taking S France has to do with it.

I guess if the entire Luftwaffe attacks, they can indeed win 95%. The cost seems quite high though. I calculate 7 planes lost.

@simon33 Yes i meant Algeria in stead of S-France. You can defend Algeria with UK but it requires one or two fighters, which means you’re weakening your UK fleet.

Usually Ger buys one or two air units on G1, so they have more to strike. The few times the Ger did attack me at gibraltar, they sure as hell didn’t lose 7 air units:p they have 10 Fgr and Tac Bomb and at least two bombers so a lot of power if they can land on Algeria.

It can be S-Fr if Germany takes it on G1, so they can buy carriers but that’s another discussion.

@cornwallis @simon33

Good call, I didn’t see that. Italy may want to attack first and sacrifice to make the German job easier, but losing all those ships would be devastating to UK and unwind its value. Glad I wasn’t holding out hope that it was the best plan after Taranto. And, more allied weakness, thats welcome.

@simon33

Awesome to see folks discussing this great game.

My typical plans for Germany probably depart from prevailing wisdom. Would be glad to hear the counter analysis.

It sounds like folks are talking about moving UK ships that are usually destroyed by Germany turn 1. I always pile on and take out both the battleships and co.

Depending on what happens over the first turn, I like to have a plan to bum rush Soviet Union, with an option for Sea Lion. That typically means taking the hit in the pocketbook to buy a carrier out the gate.

If UK makes the wrong choices, you can buy the transports and whatnot to grab UK proper and Gibraltar on turn 3, and set a triple threat for Panama Canal on turn 4. That will mean leaving most or all of the big money islands in the Pacific alone with Japan, but can put US to a very tough decision before they are actually at war; lose the canal or Western US. For this to all work, Japan has to invest heavily in carriers.

All that said, it’s an either/or optional thing. If at the start of turn 2 sea lion and Panama triple threat don’t look promising, there’s still all the opportunity to focus everything on Soviet Union and when that happens it seems damn near unwinnable for the Russians in most cases.

The idea here is to have the option to go the other direction with things and ultimately take US after Sea Lion, or to take the path most travelled to Moscow.

We play the game with out of the box rules, no extra funds or set up provisos.

Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts. If anyone is in the inland empire/Pacific Northwest would be great to set up a game some time.

Happy holidays, go out there and roll some ones for the Gipper this Christmas.

I don’t get the advantage of taking the Panama Canal?

UK has 5 planes in SZ92 with an airbase. Normally 2 cruisers and at least 1DD. Now if Germany successfully attacks the SZ91 Cruiser then they will have at least one, maybe 2 less ships to sink but probably will have lost planes in SZ110. In fact, in this scenario it may be better to scramble SZ110 and not do the gibbastion strat, especially if they are also attacking SZ111.

@dermmanninderhochburg said in Germany playbook: overall strategy guide:

We play the game with out of the box rules, no extra funds or set up provisos.

That’s more or less an autowin for Axis. In the league there’s typically a bid for Allies of 30-60 IPC (OOB).

@trulpen @simon33

Ryan Vornick took 2022 Invitational AAA 9-0 as axis, 25 avg bid, bidding anything for axis to win, and COW J1JDOW every game. Sound familiar?

its been a long long road (almost 10 years now) for people to understand the META and address what is wrong with the OOB build. You continue to encounter people who were not part of our earlier discussions that insist that the axis are wildly overpowered and the only answer is, yes–that was conclusive in 2015.

It is always better to win a game during team selection than on the dice.

@taamvan the META is Ger is unstoppable if they push all in to Moscow.
You can hold Moscow but then you lose the Pacific or Med. We find US always coming too late.

@taamvan what is the correct allied response to J1, go for Germany?