• @Flying-Tigerz said in Trulpen's G2 DoW Analysis:

    @WindowWasher I agree that, for G1 purposes, the UK BS is meant to survive. But how would you go about killing it in G2?

    Suppose, for example, that you follow @trulpen’s strategy. Following G1, the British will still have a destroyer and transporter at both SZ109 and SZ106 as well as the cruiser on SZ91. Moreover, if the UK didn’t scramble, they will have 3 planes at the ready. UK could easily move the battleship to SZ 118 and then use those two destroyers/the cruiser to block the Germans (in SZ110 and SZ111, for example). In this way, the British save the battleship for use later on.

    It sounds like hell trying to chase all that down, imo.

    Not really. Germany got plenty of air and can get immediate use for the ac. That’s also a reason why I actually prefer the purchase of sub, des, ac in G1; you have two extra ships to clean up the broken remnants of the glorious British Navy. Especially the sub is great for this purpose.

    I’d say that the 14 IPC invested in the 2 tr has better use with the sub and des, while aiming to push mechs from Berlin instead of inf by tr.

    The 2 tr-buy is actually a signal that G might prepare for an early Sea Lion. In my world that’s not a threat, so the buy is rather silly in that aspect. The tr’s give G some flexibility, but they’re also vulnerable and carry no fighting power.

  • If UK puts the fleet by Iceland, it’s still very exposed and will be obliterated, but then the german fleet will be a bit out of place. Not tying up with tr’s makes G more flexible here as there is no strong incentive to kill of the russian ships. It can wait. Perhaps even forever. They are stuck in the Baltic Sea and won’t impact anything. Can’t even convoy disrupt.

  • Testing this mostly in Europe 40SE OOB (different dynamic than global, admittedly) WRT the G2 DOW, I am not sure that going after the whole of the UK fleet is really advantageous for Germany because of opportunity cost incurred. Germany can employ the air favorably every turn, while the UK fleet is only useful periodically…when transports give it leverage. Without transports, and without destroyers to oppose surviving subs, the UK fleet has no leverage…unless Germany is provoked to attack it within its protective air cover and trade air for sea. Later the fleet will have considerable value, but early on it is largely toothless, and time (initiative in chess parlance) is of the essence. I have warmed to the idea of taking out the UK transports and destroyers in G1 (109 and 106), along with the SZ111 fleet. This prevents any UK landings for a time, giving the UK a choice between Gibraltar and Norway on UK2 (the latter usually at heavy cost), it also often leaves multiple German subs running around, and possibly a damaged German BB which either France or the UK has to gamble on taking out before it gets away (costing something valuable 2/3 of the time.) Effectively for Germany/Italy this is usually about 2 turns of safety from UK landings in the Atlantic. This G1 also frequently tends to produce substantial convoy disruption for the UK that is worth a vessel or a ground unit or two. (Things change if the UK scrambles…but the scrambles result in unfavorable exchanges for the UK that leave it and the Med vulnerable while costing only modest German air power. At times I have lost every single UK/France fighter in such scrambles…which produces all sorts of problems.)

    If I am pushing for Moscow on the ground, I really don’t care what the surviving UK 110 cruiser/battleship fleet is up to if they can’t land anywhere without suffering disproportionate casualties to do so, or can only strike one place without weakening others too much. Taking out the UK transports and destroyers while retaining some subs creates a favorable dynamic for Germany. The UK has to be able to build for trouncing Italy in Africa, reinforcing Russia via Persia, reinforcing Gibraltar, and/or threatening Norway, and later supporting US amphib attacks. Taking out UK transports slows them dramatically, similar to the way the UK taking out Italy’s transports does to the latter.

    For Germany, this is combined with mech/armor builds on G1 &G2 (plus a DD to deal with the Russian subs) that force the early Russian infantry withdrawal from the north or risk losing the race to Moscow on G5/G6. German infantry will play catch up, but if Russia tries to hold somewhere other than opposing the primary Russian stack, the Germany infantry arrives in time to make the difference and kill pockets.

  • You certainly have some valid ideas there, @Red-Harvest.

    I’d say the point of heavily reducing the UKN is rather long-term. If UK has a strong fleet, it means US won’t have to bother to bolster the defensive capabilities of the combined allied fleet, but may only build tr’s and land units. It’s a huge advantage for the Allies, since then US can push more in the Pac and more easily get the upper hand against Japan until it’s too late.

    UK will have difficulties rebuilding the fleet quickly because of the situation in Africa and ME.

    If the Allies get domination in the Atlantic too easily, it means all kinds of pressure on the western front, something which Germany will have to pay dearly for later on. I’d say a solid landing in Norway is the biggest threat, thereafter comes Normandie and least dangerous, but still with a lot of bite, is Greece.

    I’d say the z109 is too heavily guarded to bother with. Germany really don’t want to lose even parts of its precious Luftwaffe. If you really want to take out a trannie (which certainly is a very good thing), then go with 2 subs against z106.

  • Trulpen,

    The long term trades are real as you say. However, I doubt the US can get away without building substantial air cover. It needs that to threaten Italy vs. being DD blocked into Normandy attacks instead. I like to build a few SB’s as Germany after the initial mech/armor are sent away. The SB’s are for supporting the final attack on Moscow, primarily. Sometimes I will SBR Moscow with forward (the initial SB’s) a round or two, but I almost always get terrible dice when I do…33% to 60% losses vs. 1/6 expected is not in the least bit unusual for me vs various AA whether for SBR or big stack attacks, so the conversion rate for “last hit bomber” supporting infantry/mech/arty/tanks for 3 or 4 rounds is a much better value rather than preventing a few 1-2 being placed for a turn. If the US goes thin…those SBR’s in West Germany will sink the transports first. If the surviving UK fleet is sent to Gibraltar then it exposes other areas or might even be engaged earlier (surviving subs, SB’s, even a DD build since I like to clear Russian subs, but will engage targets of opportunity.)

    For G1:
    2 subs vs. 106, 2 vs. 109 (with loads of air support to crush any scramble–the surviving air will land in Holland with 2 or 3AA to protect them), only 1 sub and the BB (plus air vs. 111). The UK has to commit a lot of air to 109 and is likely to lose all of that…which is not good. Again, using chess parlance, it is a sharp position but a favorable one for the attacker so the defender must be wary. In 109 having the initiative: two sub hits are good for killing both destroyer and transport (subs can’t hit air), and a subsequent “retreat” of the air rather than further trades. The subs, even if they miss, soak up early air hits from the UK in the first round with the UK DD alive, while likely costing the UK some air as well from Luftwaffe attack. The second sub in 111 is overkill (and not employed, used in 106) since the German BB can be engaged along with sufficient air that a UK scramble will not help much. Without a scramble, I usually take a fighter hit just to keep that annoying BB in UK waters…again as we say (or more specifically, Nimkovich) “in chess the threat is often stronger than the execution.” Tac bombers will support my armor at 4 attack in Russia. I don’t need fighters as much and they are cheaper to replace.

    Letting 110’s fleet live gives Germany trouble later since it is nearly impossible to kill without heavy losses if withdrawn to cover and with the bulk of the Luftwaffe in the East, but bypassing it gives advantage to other German interests at a critical time during the push toward Moscow. It is more of a trade than a sacrifice since neither UK transport is likely to survive and the trades are likely in Germany’s favor even with scrambles. There is some risk to the Luftwaffe, but more to the UK’s limited air from what I have tried thus far.

    If you ask me what I fear more as the UK: it is the above attack as it makes things more difficult for several turns. It is semi-analogous to the Taranto problem for Italy although not as severe (assuming the UK’s SZ 96 attack succeeds in killing the second IT transport…otherwise it is close. Transports carry the real threat of capturing territory. Fleets are just ways of projecting this power.

  • It’s true indeed. However, 1 des, 2 bs, 3 cr is a lot of defensive force. With that on the board I’m sure the US won’t have to build a single warship in the Atlantic. Maybe some air, as you say, but that air is very versatile, so they’re eminent buys. UK may build one or two carriers, and Germany will have their hands full very soon.

  • Rebuilding a tr in Canada is kind of easier than 1 des, 2 bs, 3 cr. Wouldn’t you agree? :)

  • @trulpen

    Where are the extra ships coming from? SZ 111 is dead and might have a wounded German BB in it as well (when favorable I like taking the fighter hit as Germany just to create this problem…since it gives me fits as allies/dividing later movement/attacks.) The UK is left with a single BB and cruiser in SZ 110 after G1, assuming the SZ 91 cruiser is sent to the Med.(SZ 96). Most probably, the UK has no DD’s left in the Atlantic, no transports, some German subs to contend with depending on where they survive (based mostly on scramble and dice), and a turn or two wait to inflict any counterattack.

    The French have a cruiser in 110 (and a fighter if not scrambled and lost). But they can’t fully coordinate with the UK, which means piecemeal attack on the damaged BB in 111. This French attack will usually win…although not always…I have lost both in the counterattack on F1 (dice fun) which really hurts. More importantly, the disjointed command means that simultaneous attack can’t happen, so the UK has 1 BB and 1 cruiser for attacking, independent of builds, and you don’t want to expose them in front of 110 even if they win without loss–the counterstrike by 2 SB’s and 3+ fighters from W. Germany is ugly. Anything put there is a write-off with insufficient compensation. It will reduce Russian strike forces somewhat statistically, but the economics seem poor in most situations since UK moves before France.

    The UK1 transport build in Canada doesn’t have an impact on the game until turn 2 or 3. It likely requires a UK1 DD as well since it will likely face 1 or 2 surviving subs–building the DD and transport are half the UK IPC’s for the round, ignoring convoy losses, which will likely reduce it even more. And then the transport only threatens Gibraltar on UK2 (and can be destroyed without loss unless supported), which might have been held by Italy as early as IT1 and might not be so easy to take (dice again). Doesn’t do anything to reinforce UK for G2, which is anemic…I am not a Sea Lion player, but a stripped UK would be hard to pass up even if I thought I was going to target Russia initially. Air units can be diverted rapidly, ground and naval not as quickly.

    The UK’s lack of TT’s is a problem, but so is the lack of DD’s to clear the German subs. Germany gets an extra round of initiative as a result. Again, resorting to chess parlance, the extra round of freedom/initiative might be worth a tempo or at minimum several tempi.

    UK building carriers is expensive. It means they can’t reinforce Africa, etc. A carrier costs slightly more than a transport/inf/art for South Africa. Spending early money on a carrier makes Italy more viable and a potential threat rather than readily subdued. In later rounds after Italy is neutralized UK carriers are very useful. Early on, they would seem to give Italy a reprieve and threaten little vs. the Axis. Again, the Italy/UK game in the Med is “sharp” so it is hard to predict outcomes there even if the UK is favored initially, but things often shift rapidly based on a single combat result. (That is part of the game I enjoy…the wide range of results in the Med. is one of the things I like about the game because I have seen it turn back and forth at random with what appears to be solid play…but the dice say otherwise.)

    And I like the G1 sub attack on the cruiser in SZ 91 as well to weaken the UK SZ 96 and/or Taranto attacks as well. Two subs in 91 usually doom the cruiser, often with zero loss. But they leave that pesky transport/DD combo as a counterstrike (with air support tipping odds against subs), with troops landing in NCM to reinforce Gibraltar if the zone is cleared. That can deny Italy Gibraltar if 1 TT survives.

  • '20

    @trulpen I agree with you 100%. I think the destroyer and sub are a better purchase, but I worry that the UK will be able to adequately flee with the remnant of their navy. As you rightly mentioned, even if you could hunt them down, it might not be worthwhile for the German navy to go on that goose chase. I think this is a major risk of leaving that battleship alive, but war is about risks :)

  • @Red-Harvest Ah, yes, you wrote that, of course. Take out the z111 as well. Yes, that’s a valid option.

Suggested Topics

  • 33
  • 16
  • 25
  • 78
  • 17
  • 9
  • 12
  • 8
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures