Overbuilding Transports with UK



  • Another small strategical question. Please explain your answer for a better discussion  :mrgreen:

    As for the basics, the reasoning is as follows:

    1. No extra tranports (total of 4 transports) –> with 4 transports, you are already transporting the maximum number of units off the UK every turn. Save the extra IPCs for a rainy day in Africa, for extra planes, or for the day when you finally capture S. Europe and now can churn out 14 units!

    2. One or more extra transports (5+ transports total) --> with more than 5 transports, you have some interesting effects. Although you won’t be making use of them most of the time, it’s the ghost of the threat that counts. First obviously is that you have a better naval defense. Second is that you can lose a tp or 2 and your shuck still continues at maximum strength. The third and scariest is force multiplication; now you can land 10-12 units in W. Europe or the capital, which means Germany has to commit some extra defenses in both territories, which means they may have to step back from their Eastern front on that turn.

    If you think building extra transports is the best case, please detail how many extra you think is reasonable.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Well since 2 of the original 4 Transports are in the Pacific/Indian Ocean and sometimes depending on how  you play never even get to the Atlantic I usually build enough so that I have 4 pretty early and then by the time I get the other 1 or 2 into the N Atlantic I will use them for other places such as Africa or something.



  • I think 6 transport is optimal, because 12 units hitting Western og Berlin is a serious threat and it also tend to discourage an attack from german airforce.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    4 Transports, don’t build any.  Don’t lose any.

    At game start you really want to be focusing on RAF and Royal Navy until you secure the Atlantic anyway.  Meanwhile, you can land 4 units at will iwth the two transports you have.

    After you have secured the Atlantic, your other two transports are present and accounted for bringing your total to 8 units a round (max England can make anyway) and 4 transports.  By this point, Germany’s no threat to your fleet anyway, so why have extras?

    As for “threat” to Europe.  8 Units from England + 8 Units from America is not a threat?



  • As for “threat” to Europe.  8 Units from England + 8 Units from America is not a threat?

    Always straw men it is with you.  😮 Who said 8 units from UK and US each is not a threat?

    But you would have to agree that 12 units from UK and 8 units from US is a bigger threat - and it’s also coming a lot earlier instead of waiting til like UK4 to get your 8 units off.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    It’s not a stawman.  You said you needed 12 units with England to be a threat.  Yes, it’s a bigger threat, but not really that huge a deal.  Especially since you have 2 wasted transports for most of the game to get that one turn to have 12 units landing at once.

    Why not just convert your 4X4 America to an 8X1 then?  16 units + 8 from England is surely a bigger threat then 12 units just from England, right?

    Seriously though, since England it’self is limited to 8 units per round, then extra transports are a waste.  Even if you need fodder for somereason, I’d rather buy a destroyer or submarines for fodder (depending what you need fodder FOR.  If you’re worried about the Kriegsmarine then submarines.  If Luftwaffe, then a destroyer is better - it gets to shoot back. :P)

    Meanwhile, America and Russia can provide your threat threshhold.



  • 2 extra UK TRN means that any Luftwaffe attack on the UK fleet is a complete waste.  1 hit goes to BB, 2 to “extra” TRN.  That means the Royal Navy is safe from the German Airforce.

    Now add in a 2-stage landing… units to Norway, then Norway and UK units to Western, Germany, or Eastern and it quite honestly is too much for Germany to defend.



  • now you can land 10-12 units in W. Europe or the capital, which means Germany has to commit some extra defenses in both territories

    I quote myself here, and I don’t understand where you got your strawman

    You said you needed 12 units with England to be a threat.

    Simply no, I never said nor would I say that you need 12 units to be a threat with England. I said from the beginning it’s a force multiplier that increases the threat, which forces Germany to put more defenses in multiple territories.

    It would be reasonable for you to argue that the threat of 8 units is enough, but instead you argue that I said 8 units presents no threat at all because you think I said I must have 12 units in order to be a threat.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    You’re not making any sense, Bean.

    I specifically stated that it was a waste of resources to build more transports.  That the 8 units from England was plenty of a “threat” to Germany.  12 is useless.  You cannot build 12 in England a round, so why build transports to move phantom units?  Stack Karelia and then use the 4 transports, 8 units from England with battleship shot plus the karelian stack in E. Europe.

    Then, I infered, that if that wasn’t enough, for some weird reason, you have the Americans that can attack it again. (Technically the Russians too.)

    6 Transports = Waste of 16 IPC from a nation that can ill afford waste.

    And I even disagree with Switch.  I doubt the Luftwaffe is going to attack the 4 Transports, Battleship, Carrier, 2 Fighters, Destroyer and Submarine that England starts with anyway.  So even with Switch’s defense, the two extra transports are a waste.

    Now, if you build an IC in E. Canada and want two more transports so you can land 10 units a round, that’s a different story.  But you didn’t mention another IC that needs units transfered from.



  • 12 is useless.  You cannot build 12 in England a round, so why build transports to move phantom units?

    There are units in Norway/Karelia. The point is you can offload 12 units into W. Europe or the capital (8 from the capital, 4 from a European territory). There are no phantom units, there are real units. That is why, as I said before, it forces Germany to throw more units into multiple territories. Can Germany afford to throw an additional 3 inf into 3-4 territories for defense and still throw out 3-4 infantry per 3 territories on the Russian front?

    Germany can no longer simply build 10 inf in Germany and call it a day, they have to overstack it much earlier. The US adds additional threat, but it takes round 5 or so before it has a credible 8 units to throw around (not like 8 inf or something).



  • Folks, please bear in mind that by her own admission Jen is a second tier gamer.

    As a result, her strategies and ideas are NOT guaranteed to win against the best players here.

    :mrgreen:

    Signed NCSCSwitch, who is 4-0 against Jennifer…
    :evil:


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    2 and 0, technically.  3 and 0 since you like to claim the game even you said was a bad game and offered to allow a restart on.  We havn’t played a 4th game to my memory.

    And my theory stands.  Wasting 16 IPC on useless transports just for some imagined “threat” of landing 12 units somewhere is just that, a waste.  You are much better off spending that money on infantry, artillery and tanks and using America’s second wave as your “threat” to other territories.



  • 3 and 0.

    The first game you surrendered on 18 NOV 2006

    The second game you surrendered on 10 December 2006

    The third game you surrendered on 9 September 2007.

    Until you beat me in a game, may i suggest that folks evaluate your moves accordingly…  :mrgreen:


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Just because you’ve been lucky doesn’t mean my strategy’s bad.  I’ve beaten some darn good players, just because you’ve had time to play 3 games in 7 years with me doesn’t mean you’re a good person to get advise from.

    “Be ware those at the top, they do not like company.”

    Besides, I have NEVER seen you waste 16 IPC building unnecessary transports with England.  Perhaps people should look at your games, not what you post?  Maybe you are posting bad advise so you can stay in the top 10 of the league? eh?

    I have, on the other hand, seen you throw your entire air force with Germany away attacking Libya for no real significant gain there.



  • you’ve had time to play 3 games in 7 years with me

    Dang you guys go back a long way… O_O Since classic I imagine?



  • I have been a member of this website for just under TWO years.

    Keep back peddling Jen…  :mrgreen:


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I don’t know when you joined, just sayin, I’ve been here a long time and 3 games isn’t exactly the world’s best results over a LONG time.  And two years is a LONG time.  That means you are averaging one game every 8 Months.

    Some players are averaging closer to 1 game a week.

    And I see you back peddling on the whole giving bad advice so you can maintain your superiority complex. 😛



  • People with superiority complexes are fun to trash talk with, don’t take switch for granted =P

    Which by the way, leads me to the following:

    First surrender offer on the table, Ike!



  • I usually buy an AC to protect the fleet together with the BB, and aiming to have 4 TRNs.
    Having 6 TRNs is a big advantage for UK. Maybe those 2 addictional TRNs may be built instead of the AC.

    So the objective of 6 TRNs is feasible but maybe not always achievable, it depends by the overall situation.
    For sure an England Home Fleet with 6 TRNs is really powerful and more dangerous than the ordinary fleet based on 4 TRNs.
    We should identify the situation in which it is suitable to aim for 6 TRNs.

    I usually buy 1 AC+4inf in UK1 (saving 2), land in Algeria, together with the US. Then in UK2 land in Norway, building 2 more TRNs and deploying them in sz6.

    Maybe UK may build 2 TRNs in UK1 and 2 more UK2, aiming to have 6 TRN for UK3-UK, and landing in Africa for one more turn.


  • Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    I have been a member of this website for just under TWO years.

    Pffft. Two years, that’s nothing.  😄

    As for the question at hand, for me it depends.  Obviously UK’s income comes into play and if you’re earning 24, it doesn’t make sense to me to add a 5th trn and have a big shortfall one turn, just so you can transport 10 the next.  Also, when did you move to Sz 5?  If I already moved there with 4, I doubt I’ll buy a 5th or 6th since I now have to protect it when I place it, unless you have a Nor IC, but if you bought that then you don’t need more than 4 trns as it is.
    It also depends on the German naval and air threat and what I’m doing with the US.  If I keep the US in Sz 12 to threaten SE, and UK has near 30 income, I’ll probably buy a 5th at some point for the fodder and the ability to at least threaten a 10 unit attack.

    I view it as a luxury item, I focus on getting just 4, but if I have the income and the oppotunity arises I may add a 5th or 6th, but chances are if that happens the Allies are probably already winning and it may only be a matter of time.



  • @Bean:

    Another small strategical question. Please explain your answer for a better discussion  :mrgreen:

    It’s a bad question.  You should build according to board position, so in some situations no transports are OK, in some situations you want seven or eight.

    As for the basics, the reasoning is as follows:

    1. No extra tranports (total of 4 transports) –> with 4 transports, you are already transporting the maximum number of units off the UK every turn. Save the extra IPCs for a rainy day in Africa, for extra planes, or for the day when you finally capture S. Europe and now can churn out 14 units!

    Depends on the stage of the game.  If it’s early, and Western Europe can’t be seriously threatened, four transports is fine.

    2. One or more extra transports (5+ transports total) –> with more than 5 transports, you have some interesting effects. Although you won’t be making use of them most of the time, it’s the ghost of the threat that counts. First obviously is that you have a better naval defense. Second is that you can lose a tp or 2 and your shuck still continues at maximum strength. The third and scariest is force multiplication; now you can land 10-12 units in W. Europe or the capital, which means Germany has to commit some extra defenses in both territories, which means they may have to step back from their Eastern front on that turn.

    Again, depends on the stage of the game.  You’ll hit 5 transports about midgame anyways without even buying one, as the UK transport off Australia reaches Africa - if it survived, of course, see what I mean about board position?  And you can’t threaten “force multiplication” if you don’t have the units, though, obviously.  So again you can see what I mean; you will certainly not want 5 transports on UK2, for example.

    If you think building extra transports is the best case, please detail how many extra you think is reasonable.

    Depends on the stage of the game, and how Germany has responded to Allied moves, and the Japanese position - among other factors.  If Moscow is secure and Germany is turtling with infantry, UK should hit 7-8 transports.  Otherwise, UK will have less.

    This of course assumes a KGF; KJF is entirely different.



  • I think building 1 extra is enough, but not in the UK1, but after that.

    As said before you should focus on the RAF, Royal Navy and of course the infantry.
    You do not gain respect with transports, respect can be a good key to victory, having your enemy fear you, it’s all psychological, they fear you, they retreat quicker, and do not attack you that hard. 😉

    So those 5 transports will do just fine, and letting you lose one if needed (while you never want to lose any)



  • @Cmdr:

    And two years is a LONG time.

    In a way it is…

    In just under 2 years I have played 59 games (excluding four 2-on-2 matches and several Classic matches).  Considering it is only in the past month that I have downloaded TripleA and have been limited to 1 game at a time for almost that entire 2 years, one game every 12 days is not exactly being “sluggish” in my gaming.  :roll:

    As for only playing you 3 times…I think 4 games is the most I have played against any single opponent.  There are more than 4,000 members of this site, and we have about 30-40 active gamers.  If I were being fair to everyone, at this point I would have played you 1 1/2 times.  😛



  • If I may say my opinion: IMHO Switch competence emerges from his posts, not from the number of games played.

    In my country we say: “There is not need of having been an horse for being a good horse rider.”

    I would mean that for sure the number of game played is a measure of the experience of a player and experience is a fundamental gaming abilities.
    However for discussing strategies it is needed an open mind, abstraction skills and also the ability to go over the personal episodes in the games. Other than the player abilities.
    Thanks to the discussion on this forum my gaming skill is improving. There are a lots of interesting posts and opinion form many people. Comparison of different approaches to the strategic problems.

    I have personally tested several idea from Switch posts and the outcome is positive!

    Karma +1 for Switch!



  • Thank you.  I am glad that you find my posts worthwhile 🙂


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 7
  • 12
  • 34
  • 20
  • 15
  • 60
  • 14
  • 54
I Will Never Grow Up Games

36
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts