Fighter in the mainland

@LT04:

ncscswitch, not to sound like a smart a** but I wasn’t talking about the INF.  This topic is about the FTR.

The quote I was responding to was

Push all US forces to India to support the UK IC (this would be more likely if Japan built an IC in FIC)

emphasis added

And in Classic that can happen very quickly.  But in Revised “All” is 4 INF, 1 FIG, and the 4 INF are all 2-4 turns away from India.  And 4 turns is an eternity when discussing something like this.

Had you said “Send the FIG to India” it would not have been an issue and I would not have mentioned it at all.  It was the “all” that involved the 4 INF which are pretty time consuming in getting to India that made me point out the barrier territories for the benefit of others reading this thread.

@OLver:

Thanks for the input guys. My oponent should really have landed in Africa with UK on the first turn.

I also thought that sending a Russian fighter in Anglo Egypt was a big mistake made by my oponent, so was it to not leave Leningrad completly empty.

My bad I said 1 inf and one art from Africa but of course it was 1 tank and 1 inf. I also forgot to say that my two subs in the baltic were moved in  seazone 7. I knew my navy was going to be destroyed, but it forced my oponent to split his airforce, and I saved a sub and killed one fighter with my transport/dest fleet.

There are two approaches to a non-Baltic fleet buy that I’ve seen and use.

1.  Stay put.  If the UK attacks with its air, the Germans kill UK air.  The Germans lose a lot of navy which they weren’t using a lot (they would have used the Baltic transport), and the UK loses its valuable and hard-to-replace air.

2.  Split into four groups.  If the UK splits its air up, German subs can surrender and German destroyer and/or transport have a better chance of bringing down some UK air.  If the UK doesn’t split its air up, then at least three German units survive.  Note that the US bomber will probably knock out another German naval unit.

I guess my oponent did not play really well  with Russia because even thought I had few land units on the Russian front, my fighters always allowed me to trade territories and to keep UK and US navy at bay for a while.

Yes, trading territories is - after a fashion - a strength of the German fighter buy, but REALLY, you should have been bled dry, especially with having to transport units to Africa.

Now I have to explain what were, in my opinion the advantages of such a move. UK and USA had to buy much more navy to protect their transports, so even thought my russian front was some kind of weak, Germany was almost never threatened, and the Allies coult not build any fleet in the Pacific. On UK1, my oponent send his Indian SZ Fighter to destroy my tank in Anglo-Egypt along with the Transjordan inf. He succeded, but my lonely Japan transport stayed alive, so I only had to buy one on J1 and could already build a factory in Mandchuria. On J1 I took China and Buryatia. Two turn later a factory was build in French Indochina, and another one in India a turn later.

German fighters have nothing to do with a fleet in the Pacific.  Nothing you have yet described prevents the Allies from building a fleet in Atlantic OR Pacific.  (Of course, if they build in the Atlantic, they’ll have to overcome that German air force, but I digress)

The UK can still send their carrier and destroyer against the Japanese transport at Kwangtung - and they should, too, in view of the fact they used the Indian fighter against Anglo-Egypt.  More weak play.  :wink:

I think you spent way too many IPCs on industrial complexes.  If you purchase 16 IPC of transports, you can move up to four units from Japan to the mainland, and vary between anywhere from Soviet Far East to French Indochina; furthermore, those transports can be used as naval fodder and to pick up Japanese infantry from isolated islands where they are doing no good.  Compare with a 15 IPC industrial complex that produces three units, cannot switch where units are placed, cannot be used as naval fodder, and do not solve the problem of wasted Japanese infantry resources sitting on isolated islands.  I know Caspian Sub states 2 transports 1 industrial complex is good, but I think I would prefer 3 transports 1 tank on J1 regardless of bid - if I can claim India and put an IC there with Japan, the positional advantage is huge.

–

In practice, those German fighters have limited range, exactly as I previously mentioned; you will probably end up having to split the German fighters between eastern territories and Western Europe.  This isn’t too bad in practice.  What you will probably see is the Allies building up a fleet off Eastern Canada; when the Allies feel like it, they will unite newly built naval units from Eastern US with the existing fleet off Eastern Canada and land at Algeria, where with no surviving Baltic fleet elements and your German Mediterranean fleet probably not in a position to counter, and insufficient German fighters at Western Europe (considering that you have to split between Western Europe and eastern territories), you can do nothing THAT TURN.

On the next turn, though, you can land 10 fighter 1 bomber (possibly 9 fighter 1 bomber) at Western Europe.  If the Allied navy stay off Algeria, you beat them up, if the Allied navy retreats from Algeria, you may have a problem.  Why a problem?  Because even a pretty tame Allied fleet will land 6 US and 4 UK ground units (2 starting UK transports and 2 starting US transports plus 1 US transport bought on US1); you may easily have to deal with a lot more.  And although you have air at Western Europe that can hit Algeria, you need cheap German ground units to act as fodder; you can get 2 German infantry in with the Mediterranean transport, but otherwise - well, you can see that you might have a problem to deal with.

So let us say that is what happens.  On the German turn, you fly all your fighters to Western Europe, and the Allies respond by pulling their navy back to Eastern Canada and buying another US carrier at Eastern US (I assume they bought one already on US1 after seeing the German fighter build).  Germany does nothing about the Allied forces in Algeria.

Germany’s next turn, you can only trade off Karelia and one other territory easily (that other territory being the one your German bomber can hit).  BUT now what?  If you fly away from Western Europe, the Allies will land MORE units at Algeria.  And if you do NOT fly away from Western Europe, the Allies STILL land at Algeria, with probable 6 transports (up to 7 or 8 easily), 2 destroyers, 2 carriers, 4 fighters, 1 battleship.  EVEN with that mighty air force, there is nothing you can do.  So let us say you GIVE UP Algeria and start harassing Russia with your mighty air force.  The Allies have sunk 32 IPC in carriers, and are just making their landing at Africa; they are out of position to help Russia.

So as you can see, what have you gained at best?  Nothing but TIME.  Time for Japan to push on Russia.  Time for the Germans to keep the IPCs they gained in Africa.  And that is EXACTLY why I recommend using African bid units instead of Ukraine.  You need to control Africa early while you still can; you WILL lose Africa eventually.

–

And remember these things too:

1.  The Allies can still go KJF (if they do, Germany has to try to control and keep control of Africa.)

2.  By buying so many fighters early, you lock yourself into a certain line of German play.  You may do better to stagger your fighter buys out (say 1 German fighter a turn or even 2 German fighters on G1) so you can have some early infantry to trade with Russia sooner.

In short - yes, if the Allies go KGF, German fighters are useful - however, I do not think that 4 fighters RIGHT AWAY is necessary or proper; I think 2 fighters is the most that the Germans can afford on G1.

@ncscswitch:

3.  There are 100 enemy SUBs in SZ28.

jenforces!  w00t

@Craig:

Krieghund- Your sooooo smooth!!! :-D :-D

Get a room!  :wink:

Seriously, though, Kreighund is gettin it on with those answers.

Thank you Axis for answering that.

@rjclayton:

…
Which is better?  Which is more fair?  I suppose it depends on your perspective.  For me, I think of the 4 movement for fighters as being the hard and fast rule unless long range aircraft, then it’s 6 movement (I played classic for many years).  In OOB Revised, this quirky new rule bent the old rules that I had become accustomed to, so definitely seemed odd.  The LHTR Revised ruleset seems to intuitively make more sense to me, and doesn’t bend that rule.  So for me I like this rule change made in LHTR.

I think about it like this: If I wanted to send my fighter to combat, with the intention of landing it on a carrier that was not yet fully launched, when it returned from it’s mission would it return to the shipyard, or would it land on the carrier once it was launched?  I think the answer would be to the carrier once it was launched.  And that’s how I justify this rule change.

Rob

Personally, having seen the pain of trying to get a bunch of fly boys onto a real live ship, I prefer the requirement that the planes land at the airbase closest to the shipyard(IC) and embark on the carrier when it launches (is built).  I find it ridiculously unrealistic to have those planes “meet” and land on a CV that is still trying to figure out if all the bilge level alarms work and why they get seawater out of number 3 A/C refueling station instead of JP5.

Heck, if I really wanted to argue this I would say that CVs can only embark new aircraft if the aircraft are built on a CV.  No carrier next to the IC?  No new naval avaiation units.  Your naval aviators get waxed far from home?  Don’t go expecting those Army Air guys to figure out how to land on a bouncing postage stamp after they have gotten so used to 1500’ long runways that don’t move and are wider than a carrier is long.  I might be convinced that land based air can convert to sea based air in a Non Combat Move but during Combat???  I can see it now, the FTR pulls up next to the refueling plane, fills up his tanks after combat and orders a side of tailhooks.  Of course, all of this is trading playability for complexity.  If I really wanted to do that, I would would not be playing A&A.

Give me OOB rules of FTR at the IC can move to the fresh built CV and stop giving the FTR an extra range of space during the combat move if they happen to grow tailhooks and figure out how to land on new carriers on their way back from the fight.

It goes along with teh special mid-battle retreat that FIGs can do, and also the fact that they can NOT remain in a combat zone after a batle (except by landign on an AC after a naval battle).

You HAVE to be able to MOVE in NCM to land in every type of battle EXCEPT a Naval Battle, and then you can ONLY stay there if you WIN.

Well I realize you don’t just use fighters alone, you use them in conjunction with inf as powerful back up. :wink: