Sea Zone 2

I think I wouldn´t do it because you can easily loose your sub+fig. in the fight and the bomber in a possible counterattack.
Besides that you are weakening your Egypt attack and (maybe?) loose the chance to take out a Uk BB in the Med.

On the other side it slows down the Uk navy a little bit and creates some chaos in the plan of the Uk player.

If I still have the Ukraine Fig, I would consider it.  But there are easier and cheaper ways to counter the UK fleet, with a higher ROI for the Germans…

If you had enough for a SUB, put it in SZ8, and THEN do the attack on SZ2 :-D

I gave up on the SZ1 attack after losign 3 straight subs.

And I am about ready to give up on Egypt since I ALWAYS take 3+ hits there…

I am thinking T-J :-)

@Jennifer:

As Germany, if Russia does not reinforce the Battleship/Transport in Sea Zone 2, would you attack with Fighter, Bomber, Submarine?  You have about an 80% chance to kill the Battleship and Transport there, at the expense of 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 submarine (good chance the bomber would survive too, but it has to land in Finland/Norway.)

In a game without a bid, I would never try it.  In a game with a German African bid, I might.

By destroying the UK battleship and transport, the UK will be significantly slowed in any attack on Europe and/or Africa.  Killing the UK battleship also helps cut down on UK battleship bombardments.  But I still think the loss of submarine, fighter, and very possibly bomber is too much.  The loss of either bomber or submarine are very significant.

First - what if you have no bid?  You must send the German Med fleet east or west.  Sending it east means taking Anglo-Egypt, but then, without the Atlantic sub or German bomber, destroying the UK battleship at Gibraltar becomes a very expensive proposition.  Sending the German Med fleet west and taking Gibraltar means loss of air at Anglo-Egypt (assuming Germany still attacks it) and risky but very possible UK attack of 1 destroyer and 1 bomber against the German battleship and transport; if Germany loses its Med fleet early, it will be a horrible disaster.  (Even the loss of the German transport means that Germany will almost certainly not be able to do anything in Africa.)

If you have a bid, even then still probably not.  You could use an African bid to take Anglo-Egypt AND move the German Med fleet west, (so you don’t run into the problem of losing valuable air against the UK battleship at Gibraltar) but then you run into another problem.  If you use the Atlantic sub to help attack the UK battleship at Gibraltar, the UK counter of 1 destroyer 1 bomber is not favorable against 1 transport, 1 sub, 1 battleship.  But if you use the Atlantic sub to attack the UK battleship, you open yourself to the counter of 1 destroyer 1 bomber vs 1 transport 1 battleship again - risky considering how much Germany has to lose.

Apart from the possible disastrous UK counterattack on the Med fleet, and the possible disastrous loss of the sub/fighter/bomber vs transport/battleship, it’s fine.  You will have to keep infantry at Norway and fly fighters there to help protect the bomber against the UK counter of 1 inf 1 tank 2 fig 1 bom, but those fighters can be used to attack any UK navy in the northwest zone, which is often where UK builds its navy.  The W. Europe fighter threat will necessarily be weakened, but with the loss of the UK battleship and transport, and the German Med fleet at Gibraltar, an Alllied landing at Algeria is probably a bad idea for the Allies for the early game.  The US will be forced to build 1+ carriers on its turn (I think probable 1 carrier 2 transports), which will in turn mean a further delay in any African invasion.  Combine with the fact that the German Baltic and Mediterranean transports plus German air threaten London, so the UK will probably be forced to do a defensive build; the Allies will be significantly slowed.

Of course - that UK counterattack IS a very real risk and the German attack is a bit chancy, so I think I would have to think a lot before attempting it.  I have never seen the USSR player not move the sub to join the UK fleet, though, so I’ve never had to worry about it.  :lol:

@ncscswitch:

If you had enough for a SUB, put it in SZ8, and THEN do the attack on SZ2 :-D

Nix just did this bid and move against me in a game in the games forum. We’re at R4 now and no German navy left anywhere. Allied fleets in sz3, sz12 and sz16. He certainly wiped out my UK fleet on G1 but where we are now I can’t tell if it made such a large speed bump as you’d think.

Personally I would not attack SZ2, it diverts to many resources on G1, plus germany needs to keep as much of it’s Air Force intact as possible.

@ncscswitch:

I am thinking T-J :-)

Tijuana???  :-o

But if you attack Trans-Jordan then UK still has a tank and a fighter which is pretty bad for japan and germany

You STILL attack Egypt, you just do it with FIG, BOM, and the Libya forces (you aim to kill Egypt, but probably will not take it).

You have about an 87% chance to clear Egypt that way. and about 50/50 of not losing your German AF (then you move in on G2 with the Algerian forces moved to Libya)

Oh … well I just don’t see the point of using your Southern Europe forces to attack T-J when you are expecting to wipe out Egypt without losing you AF when you could just take Egypt since you say 87% chance of clearing so with the extra ground pieces you could take it.

“You STILL attack Egypt, you just do it with FIG, BOM, and the Libya forces (you aim to kill Egypt, but probably will not take it).”

I was under the impression that the bomber was being used against the UK battleship and transport in the sea zone adjacent to London.

“Oh … well I just don’t see the point of using your Southern Europe forces to attack T-J when you are expecting to wipe out Egypt without losing you AF when you could just take Egypt since you say 87% chance of clearing so with the extra ground pieces you could take it.”

No, it’s an 87% chance to clear, and a 50/50 of losing the German airforce, or that’s the claim.  It’s not an 87% chance to take with no German air lost and a German ground unit surviving.

–

I believe that attacking Trans-Jordan would be very bad, for the reasons already given for splitting the Med fleet, and for moving the Med fleet east in this scenario.  It is also bad because that move allows UK to keep that infantry, tank, and fighter at Anglo-Egypt; those units can REALLY cause a problem for Japan at India, or Germany at Africa (depending on if those units are moved to India, or Indian units moved to Africa).  Allowing the UK to keep that Anglo-Egyptian fighter quickly becomes extremely costly because it allows the UK navy at the Indian to become a real threat very quickly.

@Jennifer:

No, the attack on the Suez would be:

Fighter from Ukraine, Infantry, Artillery vs 1 Infantry in Trans-Jordan
Fighter from Balkans, Bomber from Germany, Infantry, Armor from Libya vs Inf, Arm, Fig

This leaves you 3 fighters and a submarine for the BB in Sea Zone 13 still.

(I’m assuming the fighter in Ukraine is alive because you put 2 infantry there to make it even harder for Russia to take it.  If it’s dead you can do it the same without the fighter in T-J and maybe have your bid in Libya instead.)

“As Germany, if Russia does not reinforce the Battleship/Transport in Sea Zone 2, would you attack with Fighter, Bomber, Submarine?  You have about an 80% chance to kill the Battleship and Transport there, at the expense of 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 submarine (good chance the bomber would survive too, but it has to land in Finland/Norway.)”

tee heez, it’s like you jacked your own thread.  I lol’d.

I think fighter/infantry/artillery against infantry at TransJordan is OK for G1, but inf tank fighter bomber vs inf armor fighter is risky, as is sub 3 fighter vs battleship.  UK can counter from India to retake Anglo-Egypt next turn to slow Germany’s progress in Africa, and Germany can’t do much with one unit at TransJordan, or even two, that early - although in that scenario, there are two extra infantry in the Ukraine allowing extra pressure on the Caucasus, so it might work out, although I think that the likely Allied landing in Africa on the first two rounds will put a crimp in Germany’s plans and that dual landing at Trans-Jordan and Anglo-Egypt will therefore be minimally rewarding to Germany.  The REAL concern, though, is German fighters - the last two attacks risk bad rolls and early loss of hard-to-replace German air, which is something that I generally try to avoid.