UK destroyer attacks Jap Kwangtung transport
[…]
My turn with Japan is buy 3 transport
[…]
Note that Japanese noncombat move typically results in two carriers one battleship (from East Indies) at Solomons
[…]
Japanese battleship east of Japan stays there, […] simply acting as escort to Japanese transports, which can be threatened typically either by UK bomber in China, or US bomber in case the Japanese attack on Burytia does not succeed.
[…]
On UK2, UK is looking at a Japanese fleet east of Japan and another at Solomons, with air at Solomons. Remaining UK fleet is forced to run directly west or die.I don’t agree to let the UK destroyer live.
Different situations call for different measures. There have been times that I hunt the UK navy on Jap1.
When the UK bomber is stationated somewhere in siberia (a very common option, I think)
I typically see the UK bomber in Africa following a UK retake of Anglo-Egypt. And instead of seeing the UK bomber in Siberia, when I or other Allied players I see send the UK bomber east, it’s usually to China. But, I understand your point, yes. Although I don’t personally see it a lot, it is tactically sound, particularly if the Germans didn’t offer UK a target for the UK bomber (Anglo-Egypt stacked and Baltic sea build), but even then sometimes UK may choose to do it regardless of German move.
and Buryatia is a possible landing place (also common, I think)
Not so much. Because with 1 batttleship 4 transport east of Japan, any Allied attack first has to overcome that free hit on the Jap battleship, then hose the transports, and that means any particular Allied attack will probably fail at the cost of 1 or perhaps 2 Jap transports. This applies to both the US1 and the UK2 attack, and after that, Japan has considerable freedom of movement with its fleet. In other words, yes you can land there, but why would you carry out such an attack in the first place?
then the US player can attack at SZ 60 with fighter and bomber. The survivors will be attacked again from the UK destroyer and UK bomber, perhaps assisted from UK sub (in very rare cases, but it could happened).
As previously mentioned in this post, you CAN attack the Jap battleship and 4 transports east of Japan that I advocate with US1 fighter and bomber, and you CAN attack the surviving Jap battleship and 2-3 transports with UK2 destroyer and bomber, but it’s a pretty bad attack. The UK destroyer doesn’t count for much, but you’re trading two Allied fighters and a bomber for 2-3 Jap transports that Japan just builds next round. And the UK sub should not be able to hit the Jap fleet on UK2 barring extraordinary circumstances. (It is likely that UK sub attacked Japanese Solomon sub and possibly survived, but Jap1’s move combined with light Pearl has a good probability of seeing that UK sub sunk, barring a UK Australia transport block or other such move - which granted, you do see, but I think rarely due to its quick weakening of the UK Pacific fleet). In other words, yes - you can THEORETICALLY come up with some nasty Allied attacks, but I think in practice the Japs have sufficient resources and flexibility to counter, barring extraordinary Allied measures (in which case I think Germany would benefit from the diversion of Allied resources against Japan).
After both attacks the japanese transport navy should be found many feets below the surface of the ocean, and the japanese will have a very slow start in asia. Combined with an aggressive US player that sounds like a quick game over …
Japs always have a slow start in Asia; all you’ve done is postpone the Japs by about half a turn by costing them two, PERHAPS three transports that they build next turn. It IS inconvenient for Japan, but I think it far worse for the Allies.
If you want to go aggro with a US Pacific fleet, by all means, go ahead. You’ve already killed off a US fighter and bomber and hence reduced your hitting power, while knocking off a few Jap transports that Japan can easily afford to lose - PLUS, remember that after the US1 Pacific build, Japan can see the US coming and can start with its 1 fighter a turn build. With 2 trns 1 fighter 2 infantry (Japanese income on J1 will probably be 32 after it probably takes China), Japan’s on its way both to expansion in Asia and on its way to defense of the Pacific. You can be just as aggressive as you want with US, but if you try to force the issue in the face of Japan’s two battleships and two carriers, you WILL see the awesome power of the Japanese air force and navy; it is hardly “game over” for the Japs.
[…]
Japs always have a slow start in Asia; all you’ve done is postpone the Japs by about half a turn by costing them two, PERHAPS three transports that they build next turn. It IS inconvenient for Japan, but I think it far worse for the Allies.
[…]
Ok, I haven’t play so much games that I could be sure, but I think that one turn delay of japanese roll in in asia give US and UK the time to build up fleets that, if united, will be not successfully attacked by japanese navy and air in the first turns. We are talking about three fully loaded CV, one BB, one DD, and some trannys. No need to attack the japanese navy. All what the US need is move to Borneo or New Guinea and build an IC there. Combined with a FIG overbuild (one CV could bring four FIGs to a battle) and some sub could that enough to nail the japanese navy in SZ 60 or 61. UK factory in India seem possible now.
I think the fleet unification of US and UK in SZ 45 is the critical point. If the japanese have to build up the tranny fleet again, then they are short of IPC for FIGs and SUBs that they need for stop the combined UK/US navy for the raid to the 4-point islands. :-|
And UK and Russia should be able to hold Germany long enough until Asia is in allied hands.
Unfortunately most of my losing games involved some mismanagement of Africa, for either side !
What I think:
Controlling it with not too much investment is the true key. A balance of IPC’s invested vs. IPC income flow between all theaters of action: Africa, Europe, Asia and everywhere…
I think a whole “treatise” may describe the possible complexities here… land, sea, air, ally cooperation…
[…]
Japs always have a slow start in Asia; all you’ve done is postpone the Japs by about half a turn by costing them two, PERHAPS three transports that they build next turn. It IS inconvenient for Japan, but I think it far worse for the Allies.
[…]Ok, I haven’t play so much games that I could be sure
I’ve played plenty of games, and I’m sure enough for both of us.
but I think that one turn delay of japanese roll in in asia give US and UK the time to build up fleets that, if united, will be not successfully attacked by japanese navy and air in the first turns.
UK doesn’t have a Pacific fleet without giving up stuff to do it, and can’t unite that UK fleet with the US fleet without giving up even more stuff. In other words, you have this great plan about how US and UK are going to go together and bring justice to the people, hand in hand. Unfortunately, Japan has this plan too, and it involves kicking the Allies in the 'nads.
We are talking about three fully loaded CV, one BB, one DD, and some trannys. No need to attack the japanese navy. All what the US need is move to Borneo or New Guinea and build an IC there. Combined with a FIG overbuild (one CV could bring four FIGs to a battle) and some sub could that enough to nail the japanese navy in SZ 60 or 61. UK factory in India seem possible now.
Jenforces much?
Unless the Jap player sucks balls, it isn’t going to be all that easy. Moving that UK fleet around to join the US fleet is a pain in the ass. Try it in a game, and you’ll see what I mean. And then you want to just drop an IC in Borneo or New Guinea? Fighter overbuild? Suddenly popping a UK factory in India? Just what the hell are Germany and Japan doing all this time? Sitting around staring at the wall? Because if they are, your plan is going to rock their socks.
Planning on your opponents being super retarded is - well, let’s just say that maybe that ain’t such a great plan.
I think the fleet unification of US and UK in SZ 45 is the critical point. If the japanese have to build up the tranny fleet again, then they are short of IPC for FIGs and SUBs that they need for stop the combined UK/US navy for the raid to the 4-point islands. :-|
And UK and Russia should be able to hold Germany long enough until Asia is in allied hands.
I have no problems with the goals you put forth. But I get the distinct impression that you expect all this to happen very quickly - unification of the Allied fleet, invasion of Borneo/New Guinea, then UK5ish setup of IC at india. I’m saying it just isn’t going to happen like that. The US eventually muscles over Japan, but it takes a fair amount of time to secure a 4 IPC island, especially if the Jap player knows what he/she is doing.
Uniting the American and British fleets isn’t as hard as NPB suggests. He hates dealing with KJF because he’s not used too it and it makes him think instead of following one of the more established counters to Allied dominance.
First, unification in SZ 30. Switch has shown it is possible to sink the British fleet in SZ 30, but he’s also been too chicken to do it himself. Reason is, it also destroys most of the Japanese fleet and almost the entire Japanese Air Force to do it by the time America counters you may as well have started the game with no Japanese ships at all.
Second, sail UNDER Australia while building up the Americans.
Third, unify at will. Though, I’d recommend using the British submarine as a block against the Japanese fleet which will most likely have put in a 3rd carrier at the least, maybe even some more submarines.
That said, unless you get A LOT of practice, I would NOT recommend KJF tactics for league or tournament games. It is very unforgiving for the allies and you have to really KNOW what you are doing with Russia and England to pull it off. Not to mention, it all kind of hinges on what Germany does and how well it does it.
After all, you are not going to see a lot of KJF if Germany has 40 tanks in Egypt on Round 1. (Using ridiculous numbers on purpose.)
Likewise, if Russia takes out Ukraine and W. Russia without loss and England sees a soft target in W. Europe that can kill off another 2 fighters reducing the German air force in half, then you wouldn’t want to go KJF either.
But, if Germany got stomped in Egypt and Japan screwed up Pearl, BAD, so that America can kill off a Japanese carrier and a battleship along with another fighter. Then KJF is the only INTELLIGENT thing to do!
@Cmdr:
Uniting the American and British fleets isn’t as hard as NPB suggests.
We shall see . . . using your own post! :evil:
He hates dealing with KJF because he’s not used too it and it makes him think instead of following one of the more established counters to Allied dominance.
THNK?!! Let’s not be spreadin those four letter words around here, missy! I don’t hold with no such truck. And KJF is fairly well documented and used, particularly on the tournament scene with all them “speshul rulz” with the extra victory thingies and the this and the that and the time limits, oy. Fairly familiar with KJF, thank you very much.
First, unification in SZ 30. Switch has shown it is possible to sink the British fleet in SZ 30, but he’s also been too chicken to do it himself. Reason is, it also destroys most of the Japanese fleet and almost the entire Japanese Air Force to do it by the time America counters you may as well have started the game with no Japanese ships at all.
EXACTLY as I said before. If you unify the UK fleet at SZ 30, west-southwest of Australia, you WILL pay elsewhere. You have not recaptured Anglo-Egypt (regardless of not whether you COULD, it is certain you didn’t if you unified the fleet). You left Japan with its Kwangtung transport. The Jap sub at Solomons lives. The UK gives up small but real gains on UK1 for more power down the line, and that’s what I’m talking about - nothing is free, and the Japs can capitalize on the openings left by UK. Which is NOT to say that KJF and fleet unification doesn’t work. It does. But it is not going to be a walk in the park, especially if Germany and Japan know what they’re about.
Second, sail UNDER Australia while building up the Americans.
EXACTLY as I said before. If you’re going to unify on UK1, then sail east under Australia on UK2, then unite with the US fleet at Solomons on US3, then just what have you gained in terms of early attack? By US3 in a KJF, Solomons should be controlled by the Allies anyways. (disclaimer - I don’t say the UK move is POINTLESS, because it isn’t, and the Allied KJF does gain a good bit on US4+ because of it)
Early Japanese expansion (J2+) is not so much a matter of sheer manpower as it is Japan’s ability to attack different points with intelligent use of transports and air. KJF isn’t really that easy. I have seen some pretty nasty and fairly effective KJF plans, but I’ve never seen one that reinvents the wheel.
Third, unify at will. Though, I’d recommend using the British submarine as a block against the Japanese fleet which will most likely have put in a 3rd carrier at the least, maybe even some more submarines.
Japs shouldn’t respond to a carrier-heavy Allied build with Jap carriers. Jap carriers aren’t effective against ground in Asia, Jap carriers aren’t effective to attack the Allied fleet. What carriers do well is defend, and Japan just doesn’t need a whole lot of that beyond its existing 2 battleships and 2 carriers. Japan itself can be defended by Japanese ground and air, leaving the Japanese navy free to roam the Indian Ocean, and the Borneo / East Indies split can’t be defended anyways (because if the Japs bulk up at one, the Allies can just hit the other). Again, not to say Jap carriers are a BAD idea, but they shouldn’t be necessary that early.
That said, unless you get A LOT of practice, I would NOT recommend KJF tactics for league or tournament games. It is very unforgiving for the allies and you have to really KNOW what you are doing with Russia and England to pull it off. Not to mention, it all kind of hinges on what Germany does and how well it does it.
Yey. That’s wat I said. It is NOT easy, it is NOT fast. Then again, neither is KGF.
After all, you are not going to see a lot of KJF if Germany has 40 tanks in Egypt on Round 1. (Using ridiculous numbers on purpose.) Jenforces!
Likewise, if Russia takes out Ukraine and W. Russia without loss Orly, “and”? Without losses? I guess my armada of 100 flying battleships and transports will support shot Ukr and WRus into oblivion without taking any losses. Jenforces!and England sees a soft target in W. Europe that can kill off another 2 fighters reducing the German air force in half, Ah yes, teh clever plan of arranging for your opponent to be dum. This is clever plan that I much like. Alas, I am not clever enough to figure out how to arrange this.then you wouldn’t want to go KJF either.
But, if Germany got stomped in Egypt and Japan screwed up Pearl, BAD, so that America can kill off a Japanese carrier and a battleship along with another fighter. Then KJF is the only INTELLIGENT thing to do!
UK1, you have a few choices.
Commit to KGF, in which case you can transpose to KJF on UK2+, but at greatly reduced efficiency, since whatever you built is in UK, you don’t have a secure IC in Asia, and your entire Pacific fleet is probably destroyed because you dispersed it to hunt various Japanese/German targets.
Make a noncommittal move, in which case you’re not going to do well initially for KGF or KJF.
Or commit to KJF, from where you can transpose to KGF on UK2+, but at supremely reduced efficiency if you put an IC up somewhere else on the board and unified the Pacific fleet.
That is to say, although you CAN change your mind about pursuing KGF or KJF, switching IS going to hurt you.
So . . . WAT does a discriminating JENFORCES commander do?
It’s teh JENFORCES TIME MACHINE, foo!
Peer ahead through the mists of time and SEE wat Japan will do.
THEN!
DEATH FROM THE SKY with FLYING RUSSIAN BATTLESHIPS AND TRANSPORTS!
Also, steal Hitler’s lollypops as a child, traumatizing him to becoming . . . WILLY WONKA!
WILL THE OOMPA-LOOMPAS DREAM OF THE FOURTH REICH FLOURISH?
Tanks are STRONG! I got 40 tanks in Anglo-Egypt! One time, I built a tank out of an Everlasting Gobstopper and a bar of chocolate!
@Cmdr:
But, if Germany got stomped in Egypt and Japan screwed up Pearl, BAD, so that America can kill off a Japanese carrier and a battleship along with another fighter. Then KJF is the only INTELLIGENT thing to do!
By stomped, do you mean didn’t take AE on G1, took it weakly, or was wiped out UK1?
To answer General_D.Fox’s original questions: One of the first times I’d ever sent the Med fleet west on G1, I forgot to unload the inf into Gib. That fleet went down in a hurry, and the US proceeded to suicide itself into SEu while the UK did the same into WEu. I’m usually pretty good about defending (or at least being able to retake) WEu/SEu in the early and middle game, but that time they were under immense pressure from very early on. So if you get kicked out of Africa that early, yes, I think it can mean curtains. Don’t get me wrong, I took AE on G1 like a good little Germany, but the loss of the Med fleet was just too much for my African campaign.
I really don’t have enough games under my belt to give a good answer on how long Germany should look to be in Africa. It used to be the UK and then US would land in Alg round 1, and then the US would send troops through Africa for maybe a few more rounds. In that case I’d say Germany just wants to shuttle troops over there until AE falls, and then they turn around and defend the heart of Africa until they’re dead or victorious. Free run of the place for 2-4 rounds and then you’re on defense.
But now, especially with the UnBaltic policy paper, everybody and their grandmother knows the benefits of bringing out the Baltic fleet. This means no UK1/US1 landings in Alg. In fact, it might mean the UK never lands. The US will be likely be landing on US2-5. I guess the same principle applies, though: Gain as much ground as you can and then defend it. If the US is really late getting to Africa, then at some point it might not be worth sending more troops over. Africa is only cool because tanks can get down there and go “wheeee!” as they blitz through unoccupied territory. If you have most/all of Africa and the US is marching over in force, fighting them ain’t gonna help. Usually the US is gonna be pretty efficient about getting over there, though, and you’re gonna want every Med fleet landing you can get. If you have 2trns in the Med, then you’ll probably only want to land in Africa 2-3 times (4-6 units) and then look at other targets.
My favorite Africa-defense tactic is to bring over the G or J airforces. The US slogs through Alg and Lib and is just ready to smack AE when all of the sudden 5 or more German ftrs land there. Nuts, says America. This is even funnier when the US forces must then retreat from Lib for fear of being demolished by 5ftr plus whatever was already mustered in AE. This can wreak havoc on Germany’s ability to trade territory for that turn, but places like Ukr will still be in reach. And if it means turning a US move of Lib > AE into Lib > Alg, I mean, come on, how can you pass that up!
This works in a similar way if the J airforce is just passing through on its way to reinforce the G stack and doesn’t want to get hit by AA fire (why does TripleA default to always-on AA anyway?). It might not send the Allies fleeing to Alg, but J ftrs might be able to hang around for a bit longer, too.
Also, the Axis are blessed with three battleships. If they happen to be around Africa (and they all tend to make their way there at some point), put them to good use.
I’ve played plenty of games, and I’m sure enough for both of us.
:-)
Jenforces much?
Not much. Two new build US CV, one BB, one DD, two tranny, one of them build. One CV from UK, two trannys too. All UK forces are in the area. US can build additional FIG for the UK carrier, perhaps the two UK fighter can fly down via Canada.
All available at Solomons at turn three.
Unless the Jap player sucks balls, it isn’t going to be all that easy.
I know. If it would be easy, much more KJF would be seen. KJF results in long play, and as allied player you need carefully planned movement.
Moving that UK fleet around to join the US fleet is a pain in the a**. Try it in a game, and you’ll see what I mean.
I have done it before. Ok, my enemy perhaps was not the best player (same to me), but it has work.
And then you want to just drop an IC in Borneo or New Guinea? Fighter overbuild?
Let’s see the numbers: US has 42 IPC in the first round to spend, 40 in the second, 38 in the third. First turn purchase: 2 CV, one FIG. Second turn: one or two tranny, two additional FIG, some INF. Third turn could be additional FIG, follow the fleet via Hawai. If the japanese attack those FIGs, the japanese navy would be out of position to protect or reattack Borneo/New Guinea. Could build some more tranny and infantry to etablish a supply line, but then there is the need of additional protection too. I tend to a FIG overbuild and get to Borneo with that two trannys only. Perhaps the UK can bring in some INF from australia to solomon to have a (lightly) protected landing place for US fighters.
Suddenly popping a UK factory in India?
Must be a misunderstanding. Perhaps I not make my point clear. Sorry for that, but english isn’t my first language. :-|
I doesn’t mean to build an UK factory that early on. I would only buy after I drive japanese back from southeast asia with the US forces. But perhaps at this point there is no need for an additional factory there. I think I have to see the board after six, seven turns to decide that. No strategy survives the first contact with enemy forces intact …
Just what the hell are Germany and Japan doing all this time? Sitting around staring at the wall? Because if they are, your plan is going to rock their socks.
I know that Germany can be a monster very fast. But without need of invest UK money in the asia theatre before turn seven/eight both the UK and Russia should be able to hold Germany back some time. With the landing UK and US forces in africa first turn should germany not have much money there, or not for long.
And with an additional US factory on Borneo the japanese need to invest in navy to protect their tranny fleet which means that there are lesser ground units in asia.
I have no problems with the goals you put forth. But I get the distinct impression that you expect all this to happen very quickly - unification of the Allied fleet, invasion of Borneo/New Guinea, then UK5ish setup of IC at india. I’m saying it just isn’t going to happen like that. The US eventually muscles over Japan, but it takes a fair amount of time to secure a 4 IPC island, especially if the Jap player knows what he/she is doing.
I know that a KJF game will last. And I doesn’t mean to build an UK IC in India on turn five. Three turns later seems to be very early. Ok for that? ;-)
OK, back to Africa ! Let’s discuss when each of these choices are better:
-German bid: tnk/art in Algeria/Libya, or tnk/inf, or tra with Med fleet, or “half” (tnk Algeria, arty Japan) or elsewhere that may still have indirect effect on Africa (sub sz8, tra Japan) ? or just troops in Russia ?
-G1: fleet west (inf to Gibraltar) or east ? how much air support to land and fleet ? when it can be meaningful to NOT attack Egypt ?
I really don’t have enough games under my belt to give a good answer on how long Germany should look to be in Africa. It used to be the UK and then US would land in Alg round 1, and then the US would send troops through Africa for maybe a few more rounds. In that case I’d say Germany just wants to shuttle troops over there until AE falls, and then they turn around and defend the heart of Africa until they’re dead or victorious. Free run of the place for 2-4 rounds and then you’re on defense.
I’ll give you a good answer. The answer is - Germany should be there as long as the going is good. Wow, very cryptic. Just what does this mean?
Okay, you have to remember that when you’re dropping stuff into Anglo-Egypt, you’re bleeding out Europe, in a few different ways. First, when you use your battleship/transport to move to Africa, that’s a load that COULD have been dropped, say, in Ukraine, Balkans, or Caucasus, with accompanying battleship support shot.
Second, you ideally want to drop early tanks in Africa because of the tank blitz ability. But bleeding tanks out of Europe gets pretty expensive pretty fast, especially if Anglo-Egypt kills the two tanks you can bring to Anglo-Egypt on G1. What are you going to do - drop in a tank a turn piecemeal over the next two turns? Ew. Maybe it’s your best choice, but it’s still ugly.
Third, the less you have in Europe, the less you have in Europe.
Keeping all this in mind, here’s what you’re looking at.
1. Germany has to choose between dumping units into Anglo-Egypt and Libya.
If Germany dumps to Anglo-Egypt/Trans-Jordan, Germany can take more territory faster, particularly as UK can counterattack into Africa with its Indian forces. However, if Germany commits its forces to the east Med, the Allies can easily dump loads of stuff into Algeria. Fighters based at Western Europe may not be enough to destroy any incoming Allies.
If Germany dumps to Libya, Germany can’t rip through Africa that quickly. However, the German fleet is in place to counterattack any Allied dump to Algeria, attacking navy with its Med fleet plus W. Europe fighters (note this is usually NOT a good idea, as if the Med fleet wins, it gets blown up by Allied air/navy, and if the Med fleet retreats, it gets blown by Allied air/navy), or attacking landed units at Algeria with units dropped to Libya last turn plus W. Europe fighters.
There’s something to be said for both sides, but if I had a unified German fleet in the Med, I would seriously think about dumping to Libya.
2. Allies have easy time of dumping to Algeria.
There are two Atlantic routes that are easy and convenient. One is US troops produced at Eastern US march to Eastern Canada. From there, they ride a transport to Algeria or the UK. If they go to the UK, they can offload to Europe with another transport.
But to get to Europe, US troops need TWO transports per transport load. To get to Algeria, the US only needs ONE. And to get to points in eastern Europe, the Allies often have to bypass the Baltic fleet. So really - considering that the Allies have to build protective navy plus additional transports, the quick easy path to power is through Algeria.
3. Tanks are STRONG.
One US build you see sometimes is US1 3 transport 3 tanks 1 infantry, noncombat moves Central US infantry to Eastern US. This means on US2, there’s probably 2 inf 1 art 1 tank in Libya, 3 inf 3 tanks in Algeria (plus assorted UK forces in both), allowing US to hit Anglo-Egypt on US3 with assorted ground fodder plus four tanks and some air. From there, US tanks can blitz right through Anglo-Egypt, reclaiming it quickly. So if you see that sort of US build, take precautions and build accordingly. Remember, the MORE you put in Anglo-Egypt, the LESS you have in Europe - but the LESS you put in Anglo-Egypt, the MORE IPCs the Allies have and the LESS you have.
In other words - look at the situation and figure out your best move. Your best move will be different as the board position is different.
But now, especially with the UnBaltic policy paper, everybody and their grandmother knows the benefits of bringing out the Baltic fleet.
Hoboes! Beware teh Caspian Sub. They are filled with yummy-looking cookies. But maybe they only LOOK yummy. You have been warned. Santa is watching.
This means no UK1/US1 landings in Alg. In fact, it might mean the UK never lands. The US will be likely be landing on US2-5. I guess the same principle applies, though: Gain as much ground as you can and then defend it. If the US is really late getting to Africa, then at some point it might not be worth sending more troops over. Africa is only cool because tanks can get down there and go “wheeee!” as they blitz through unoccupied territory. If you have most/all of Africa and the US is marching over in force, fighting them ain’t gonna help. Usually the US is gonna be pretty efficient about getting over there, though, and you’re gonna want every Med fleet landing you can get. If you have 2trns in the Med, then you’ll probably only want to land in Africa 2-3 times (4-6 units) and then look at other targets.
My favorite Africa-defense tactic is to bring over the G or J airforces. The US slogs through Alg and Lib and is just ready to smack AE when all of the sudden 5 or more German ftrs land there. Nuts, says America.
This is even funnier when the US forces must then retreat from Lib for fear of being demolished by 5ftr plus whatever was already mustered in AE. This can wreak havoc on Germany’s ability to trade territory for that turn, but places like Ukr will still be in reach. And if it means turning a US move of Lib > AE into Lib > Alg, I mean, come on, how can you pass that up!
Retreat? Naw, US and UK forces should probably just sit there. There should be a whole mass of UK/US units, far too much for Germany to really attack without losing some air.
This works in a similar way if the J airforce is just passing through on its way to reinforce the G stack and doesn’t want to get hit by AA fire (why does TripleA default to always-on AA anyway?). It might not send the Allies fleeing to Alg, but J ftrs might be able to hang around for a bit longer, too.
Also, the Axis are blessed with three battleships. If they happen to be around Africa (and they all tend to make their way there at some point), put them to good use.
And that’s my opinion on the matter.
I just want to thank the people on this page for getting back on topic. Not that the other stuff wasn’t entertaining b/w Jen and her OMG itz D jenforcez crew vs everyone else, but I it kinda got off topic there. Anyway, kudos to the rest of you. It helps immensely. And thanks for the tips. Kudos!
OK, back to Africa ! Let’s discuss when each of these choices are better:
-German bid: tnk/art in Algeria/Libya, or tnk/inf, or tra with Med fleet, or “half” (tnk Algeria, arty Japan) or elsewhere that may still have indirect effect on Africa (sub sz8, tra Japan) ? or just troops in Russia ?
Man, that ain’t really an Africa question now is it? Or maybe it is an Africa question. Because people aren’t really concerned with Africa for Africa’s sake, they’re concerned with Africa for its sake in the larger scope of things. Therefore, I conclude that teh Jenforces are supreme in all things. You may bow.
In TripleA, I favor inf/tank in Algeria/Libya with 1 IPC to Japan, OR a French Indochina bid for Turbo India (you know, you threaten to crack India on J1 and watch the Allies pee their pants trying to stop it from happening. Or they let it happen, and maybe you have an India IC on J2, wooty woot.
But I digress. If you build a Med transport with bid, yeah, it’s generally more maneuverable than a later-game transport (what? don’t they both move two spaces? By manueverable, I mean that if you build a transport at S. Europe, you will probably NEED to put the Med battleship and transport at S. Europe that turn too, so the newly built German transport isn’t blown up by Allied air.)
However, you are still stuck with moving your Baltic fleet east to attack Anglo-Egypt. And how useful is that Med transport going to be? Usually pretty useful - but in some rare cases, not so useful.
If you put a bid in Africa, you can take Anglo-Egypt AND move the Baltic fleet west to threaten all sorts of shenanigans. Problem is, though, “shenanigans” often involve a G1 Baltic carrier followed by unification of the German fleet off the coast, all during which Africa may not be held after a UK1 counter to Anglo-Egypt.
So what’s the best choice? Well, sh*t, it’s gotta be troops in Russia, because if you capture Russia, on G1, you’re like the dog’s balls, the cat’s nipples (as Zaphod Beeblebrox might say). But if you’re debating the bid, I would say . . . sometimes Africa bid, sometimes Med transport bid, sometimes French Indochina bid. Depends on your mood. Do you wanna threaten shenanigans?
(at this point, you are probably guessing I like the Africa bid because you knoes how I like dem shenanigans. Hoo boy. But I give the others a healthy run once in a while)
-G1: fleet west (inf to Gibraltar) or east ? how much air support to land and fleet ? when it can be meaningful to NOT attack Egypt ?
Ah, meaningz0rz. “But do u wuv me? Where are we going with this relationship?” And I hold her close, and say “Baby, you’re a sandwich. Ain’t nothin comin between u and me.” And isn’t that wat life is really all about? Sandwiches? (Arthur Dent, Sandwich Maker . . . suddenly it’s all making sense . . . )
Well, lemme tell ya. NOT taking Egypt can get real ugly real fast. You got that extra Brit fighter and a potential UK fleet coming through the Suez. If you don’t even ATTACK Anglo-Egypt, that infantry and tank can be a real problem - Japan doesn’t have a lot of forces to spread around J1, so those guys can really mess things up in the Indian/Pacific.
But SOMETIMES, Russia will be like super dumbass. When this happens, the Med fleet can be used to land in Caucasus. Combined with other threats, Russia can be put in a real bind. Granted, this usually requires horrible luck AND horrible planning on R1. But it SOMETIMES happens. And then it’s time to make with the gloating and rubbing of hands and maniacal laughter and cat petting.
- UK1: counterattack Egypt or not ? where to land planes surviving: bmb+ftr ? bmb alone ? [Looks dead, as it used 5 moves to attack, and any neighbor of Egypt is in range of German bmb from Libya] or lose bmb and land ftr ?
Wups, looks like my data’s merging, so I gotta cut this love-fest short. UK1 Anglo-Egypt depends - if Germany’s got four or more units in Anglo, and/or two fighters and a bomber on Libya, you gotta think. If you attempt to retake Anglo with 3 inf 1 fig 1 bomber, you risk failure, and that hurts a lot, especially since your fighter and bomber will have to land in Africa and are vulnerable to the German air from Libya as well as potentially any ground units from Anglo that survive. Even if you can recapture Anglo-Egypt with high probability (1 or 2 German units at Anglo), sending UK air may or may not be a good idea. If there’s just ONE German fighter and bomber in Libya which is more often the case than not, you might risk defending 1 fig 1 bom against German air attack (land both the UK fighter and bomber in the same territory) - it’s not great odds for defending UK, but it has a chance of knocking out that very difficult to kill German air. But 2 German fig 1 bomber attacking is just too much; your UK air WILL get clobbered at good odds of just a single German fighter to counter that loss (as opposed to good chances of getting a fighter and possibly that juicy juicy German bomber)
- If UK1 counterattack, G2 to re-attack Egypt ?
Problem is, Germany has to dump tanks into Egypt to retake; if you’ve got one Med transport you can only get one tank over, and if you move to Egypt with the Med fleet, and move the Germans in Libya to hit Anglo-Egypt, the Allies have a free route into Algeria. So it really depends. If the Allies don’t have anything to dump in Africa soon, sure, why not; take Africa as long as it’s there. If the Allies look like they’re gearing up for some major Atlantic operations, though, AND the Russians look really weak, then you might just want to forget about Africa and concentrate on Russia. Maybe, sometimes, you understand.
- Can the panzer run be stopped before South Africa (with the inf+ftr or more troops) ?
Yeah, that’s the point of UK1 retake of Anglo-Egypt. Once there are tanks at Anglo-Egypt, you get a tank hitting Italian East Africa and moving away from the coast, or goign to French West Africa. Or something like that, I don’t have a map in front of me. Thing is, you probably won’t be able to reach the German tanks if you don’t hit them at Anglo-Egypt; the German tanks will just stay away from the coast.
- What Allies to liberate Africa: UK+US or US alone ?
UK and US. It takes too long to get a Baltic-area Allied fleet going in most cases, even without the German Baltic fleet to contend with (You still have to worry about German air). The US needs a lot of transports to reach Europe, and it needs time to build them. If JUST the US goes into Africa, the Germans just might be able to whack the Americans - after all, the Germans have around 5 fighters and a bomber at least, plus a battleship and transport to play around with.
starting how fast ? from Algeria alone, or a separate landing vs tank in French Equatorial ?
Generally, you don’t mess around with French Equatorial unless the German player lets you. That is - if there’s a lone German tank in French Equatorial, nothing else German in Africa, then sure, blast French Equatorial and tank your way back through Africa. Yey. Usually, though, that German tank will have buddies close by.
If you build ground units at E. US and move to E. Canada, they can be transported to Algeria at the cost of one transport per transport load. That’s a pretty sweet deal. If the US concentrates on massing infantry, the US/UK forces might reach Persia before the Japs can take it, which means that the Japs will have to run a dedicated transport to take African territory (but the Allies are marching through, so Japanese gains will be limited) - it also means the Japs can’t move ground units to threaten Caucasus, which can help Russia a fair bit.
Allied effort to stop at some time, or continue to Caucasus/India etc ? [I’ve found massive Japanese/German fighters defending Egypt useful mostly if the Allied flow stopped]
Continuing to Caucasus lets the Japs move through Persia. If you attack Persia, you’re open to the Jap counter from India. As far as moving the Allies from Africa into India, it’s great IF you can do it, but the Japs can build up pretty quick in French Indochina, and it’s difficult to get to India in time to prevent its falling to Japan. Anyways, Persia’s a pretty good stopping point - if Japan redirects from India to the China/Ssinkiang or Yakut routes, even Japanese tanks can’t move fast enough to prevent Allied infantry from moving from Persia to Caucasus or Kazakh, then to Russia.
- Axis strive to control the Suez - how hard ? then move Italian ships east, or Japanese west ?
I don’t screw with the Suez. If I have a German Med fleet mid to late game, I use it to dump infantry into Balkans/Caucasus, or to reinforce Africa / attack Trans-Jordan - lots of targets, really. If I have a Jap fleet, then moving into the Suez is risky. You can just SEE the U.S. player watching the board and saying “tee heez, one transport in Western U.S. to rule them all! one transport to find them! one transport to bring them all and in the darkness bind them! in the South Pacific where the U.S. infantry and fighters fly!” Well, maybe you won’t really see that, but you can see that a very light U.S. naval buildup in the Pacific can mess with Japan REAL fast, and Japan can’t get back fast enough to do much about it.
- Build more Italian fleet ? what use for ?
Dump infantry into Balkans/Caucasus. What, do the Germans have to march from Germany to Eastern Europe to Ukraine to Caucasus/West Russia? Better to just drop 'em from S. Europe straight to Ukraine or Caucasus if you can.
- Second US fleet to continue advancing in Med ? what’s the deadliest threat ?
Naw, once you start trying to push Allies into the Med, you have to deal with nasty logistic problems. Takes two transports per transport load to get to Western Europe or Southern Europe, and there’s the whole German infantry counter thing, and the German air/naval attack on Allied navy thing, and the ew and the ah, and the I’m going to run away before those guys steal my boots.
Wups, gotta go. Work work.
:-o
wow NPB you sure got a lot to say on this subject. And you say it so elequently! Even a numbnut like me can almost understand it all. :|
My veiws on this, (as if anyone cares) is that Germany has to grab as much as possible for two or three turns, while building mostly infantry and some atillery, wit ha tank or two thrown in for good measure. Then, unless Russia has bleed itself whit, Turtle up and wait for Japan to save their Nazi butts.
You got to roll with the punches, there is no hard fast rule to victory.
Just keep playing and learning from mistakes, both yours and theirs.
Good luck and good hunting
Off topic, NPB, do you ever play on the tripleA ladder anymore?
Look, the simple fact is, with bids as they are today, there is NO WAY ENGLAND IS LIBERATING EGYPT ON ROUND 1 unless Germany REALLY took a pounding.
Why? Germany should be attacking Egypt with 3 Infantry, 3 Armor, Fighter and Bomber. That’s plenty to be relatively sure of a one combat round victory, meaning the WORST you could expect is to lose three infantry. However, the defender only has a punch of 9, odds are you are only losing 1 or MAYBE 2 infantry.
England cannot counter 1 or 2 infantry + 3 armor on UK 1 in Egypt. Thus, you not only get to keep Egypt anyway, but you’ll be set up to blitz all of Africa and reinforce Egypt with Germany.
So, given that, what SHOULD England do?
I submit SZ 30 unification is not that bad. I almost NEVER kill the Japanese submarine in SZ 45 anyway, most of the time missing entirely without getting hit myself, the rest of the time losing MY submarine AND missing entirely. Rarely I kill the enemy as well as lose my submarine and even then, it’s usually not that important. The Japanese submarine is a non-issue after Pearl.
Secondly, the transport kill has killed my destroyer and carrier more times then I’ve kill it. Again, it’s an 8 IPC unit, it gives Japan a slight leg up, but in the over all scheme of things, it’s not a huge shift.
Lastly, a Carrier, Fighter, Destroyer, 2 Transports and a Submarine moved into the Atlantic from England, that is not lost killing a very replaceable transport and a worthless submarine in the Pacific is HUGE!
On the KJF side, I have seen games (when I was the Axis) where I lost 3 infantry, 2 armor attacking Egypt and lost the submarine, destroyer and 2 fighters attacking SZ 52. Given BOTH occurrences, I think my opponents were complete morons NOT to go KJF.
KJF is very easy when you can sink half the Japanese flagships with America in round 1 without even risking your own Battleship.
@Crazy:
:-o
wow NPB you sure got a lot to say on this subject. And you say it so elequently! Even a numbnut like me can almost understand it all. :|For numb nuts, I use lotion. Ah. It’s Icy Hot.
My veiws on this, (as if anyone cares) is that Germany has to grab as much as possible for two or three turns, while building mostly infantry and some atillery, wit ha tank or two thrown in for good measure.
Tanks are STRONG! I mean, ok, you all read that policy paper, but I’m really serious.
Tanks have more movement, and they stay in the territory they hit. If you produce two tanks on G1, and use those tanks to secure a 2 IPC territory that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to secure, that Russia can’t afford to retake on G2, then what have you done? You’ve denied the Allies 2 IPC and gained yourself 2 IPC in the bank. You can use that 2 IPC to upgrade an infantry into a tank, so you’ve gained back the cost difference between one infantry and one tank right there. And you’ve denied the enemy 2 IPC which potentially means the difference between an enemy tank and an enemy infantry - just a bit more, and it’s like you killed an enemy infantry right there.
Effectively, there’s some tradeoff, because the German attack can grind to a halt if Germany produces nothing but tanks, and the Allies can use Germany’s lack of numbers to press the attack from the Atlantic. But a FEW tanks is pretty reasonable for Germany - in some board situations, at least.
Then, unless Russia has bleed itself whit, Turtle up and wait for Japan to save their Nazi butts.
You got to roll with the punches, there is no hard fast rule to victory.
Just keep playing and learning from mistakes, both yours and theirs.
Good luck and good hunting
Off topic, NPB, do you ever play on the tripleA ladder anymore?
Ya, on and off. I forgot my old account’s password, so I’m on a new account now. ^.^
Naw, once you start trying to push Allies into the Med, you have to deal with nasty logistic problems. Takes two transports per transport load to get to Western Europe or Southern Europe, and there’s the whole German infantry counter thing, and the German air/naval attack on Allied navy thing, and the ew and the ah, and the I’m going to run away before those guys steal my boots.
Wups, gotta go. Work work.
I dunno. I’ve never been able to pull it off, oddly, but I’ve always wanted to get a US fleet into the Med. And it’s not some whacked-out idea. US units take four turns to march from Lib > AE > TJ > Per (if they can even get through) > Cau. A US fleet can pick up units from Lib and drop them in Cau, which is huge.
The problem is pulling it off, but if you can, the German player should pretty much be crying. Seriously, like tears and stuff. It takes some nifty Allied transport fleet movement, but that’s half of what good US/UK play is all about anyway, right?
A US Med fleet hinges on two things: holding or trading WEu and Kar. The UK can be very very safe in sz3 if WEu and Kar are clear of G ftrs, and sz12 is only susceptible to G bmbs once WEu is ftr-free. Luckily, those two territories fall pretty quickly. Germany might might might be throwing its weight around in Kar for a few turns, but Russia can make this very temporary (or non-existent). And once Kar is taken even once, ftrs won’t be landing there–the UK fleet would be safe to keep landing in Nor and any US des or other cover can go to sz12. Once Germany starts shifting east to march on Russia, the UK will be able to start trading WEu, which is around UK4-5–sometimes later, sometimes even earlier.
Right then the US should have its 1bb 2des 1ac 2ftr 4-5 trn fleet lurch into the Med. Heck, that might even be the landing that takes SEu for good or sets it up to be taken a few turns later.
Not only is the Med fleet powerful because it can drop troops right into Cau, but also because it threatens SEu/WEu/Bal/Ukr constantly without mucking up the US’s supply line. With a little preparation and an ac, the US can put ridiculous amounts of pressure on German territory while still having the option of quickly reinforcing Russia.
Frankly, marching the US through Africa just doesn’t cut it. Unless you can pull off some funky combination of Nor/Ukr ICs with a 2x2 or 3x3 fleet chain (and/or get lucky and secure WEu/SEu early on), you’re gonna have to have like 8-10 transports. So why not invest in one ac and instead of landing in WEu, take your pick of WEu/SEu/Bal/Ukr/Cau/TJ.
If Germany’s airforce is depleted, for instance from a G2 UnBaltic attack that destroys the UK fleet but leaves Germany with something like 3ftr 2bmb, the US can move into the Med with just 1bb 2des as cover. You just gotta sink the G Med fleet first, and then you rule the seas.
All that being said, I see three problems–each involving my beloved, but in this case just plain annoying, Axis air: two German bombers, Germany building more ftrs, and Japan’s airforce.
2bmb vs 4trn in sz12 means G can gamble its bmbs against those trns, with each side having a 50/50 chance of being wiped out. But if the Russian sub is still alive or the Aus trn, a US trn, or any other naval piece can sit in sz12, that fleet becomes much more secure. Sink 12ipcs into a US des and you’re golden.
If Germany keeps building ftrs, both US and UK fleets have to respond. It’s the classic fork, like WRu threatening Cau and Rus or Sol threatening both Bor and EInd. And I don’t really have an answer for it :x.
The problem with Japan’s airforce is that Germany could throw its air at the US Med fleet, probably wiping out transport cover, and then Japan could follow up and wipe out the capitals. Japan would have to have its air in place, but that wouldn’t take much effort. The Allied upside is that this would leave either G’s or J’s airforce almost assuredly dead and the other one darn close to it. And really it would just stop the US for one turn. You just do nothing, builds 4-5 trns, and next turn it’s back to business as usual, except you land in WEu/Nor. Meanwhile Axis air is virtually gone.
I dunno, I forgot about the Germany ftr build strategy until like the end of this post. I think that might be the one out of the three that could really deter a US Med fleet. Anyone have success with separate US and UK fleets against a cuh-razy Luftwaffe?
I dunno. I’ve never been able to pull it off, oddly, but I’ve always wanted to get a US fleet into the Med. And it’s not some whacked-out idea.
Who said it’s whacked out? If it was me, I musta been on my crack pipe. But you can’t prove anything . . . I did not have secksual relations with that woman . . .
US units take four turns to march from Lib > AE > TJ > Per (if they can even get through) > Cau. A US fleet can pick up units from Lib and drop them in Cau, which is huge.
Very true that bit. If the Allies bulk up with infantry in Africa, Japan may well have secured Persia by the time the Allies reach it. And if the Allies sent tanks to race to Persia, Japan may just be able to punch through the tanks. It’s a very tight race that I think favors Japan.
There’s nothing wrong, theoretically, with putting a fleet in the Mediterranean. It does take some time, but it’s a reasonable venture, depending on the board position.
The problem is pulling it off, but if you can, the German player should pretty much be crying. Seriously, like tears and stuff. It takes some nifty Allied transport fleet movement, but that’s half of what good US/UK play is all about anyway, right?
The German player doesn’t need to cry.
What you’re proposing requires a two transports per transport load plus defensive escort fleet. No more than is required for any US-Europe offload, and admittedly Caucasus has a superior position.
But the UK, too, will require two transports per transport load, which the UK does NOT need if the Allies are feeding in troops via the UK-Archangel/Karelia/Norway/Eastern Europe route.
Furthermore, there are TWO Allied fleets that need protection - the Allied transport fleet landing off Algeria needs an escort against fighters in Western Europe, and the Allied transport fleet within the Med needs another escort against the same threat, as well as the possible addition of a suicide German Med navy. (The last can be destroyed by Allied air, but this delays the naval buildup).
Add to this the fact that the Allied Baltic Sea route is generally safer against German air (German fighters often won’t be able to reach the Allied transport fleet and land) - and add in the fact that the Baltic route usually lets the Allies cut off Norway from the Germans, denying them those 3 IPC and giving the Allies those 3 IPC - and what you get is that the Med is a pretty costly option. Viable in some instances, sure. But not always.
A US Med fleet hinges on two things: holding or trading WEu and Kar. The UK can be very very safe in sz3 if WEu and Kar are clear of G ftrs, and sz12 is only susceptible to G bmbs once WEu is ftr-free. Luckily, those two territories fall pretty quickly. Germany might might might be throwing its weight around in Kar for a few turns, but Russia can make this very temporary (or non-existent). And once Kar is taken even once, ftrs won’t be landing there–the UK fleet would be safe to keep landing in Nor and any US des or other cover can go to sz12. Once Germany starts shifting east to march on Russia, the UK will be able to start trading WEu, which is around UK4-5–sometimes later, sometimes even earlier.
I don’t have the map in front of me, but I think if you offload UK into Norway, you ARE vulnerable to fighters from W. Europe. Not a major concern; you can just dump to Karelia instead to avoid W. Europe fighters. Of course, the Germans could move their air around - but I digress.
I think you’re talking about the setup in which the UK runs one fleet through Europe, and the US operates in the Med. This addresses all the concerns I just mentioned above about the inefficiency of a Med setup. But the Germans SHOULD have started buying fighters once they saw the Allied Atlantic buildup, and it can be pretty hard to defend all the three Allied fleets.
You have to be particularly careful about Long Range Aircraft dice in non-LHTR games. You can say “Golly, those fighters can’t reach me!” But if Germany rolls a couple dice and gets Long Range Aircraft, you could get your whole fleet wasted at the cost of just a couple of German fighters - well worth 5-10 IPC on taking a chance, and Germany can KEEP taking a chance until it gets it. Normally this is just stupid for Germany, because the united Allied fleet is too large for any German air force, but once the US is committed to the Med, and UK committed to the Baltic, and if Germany’s been building a few fighters up, well, better watch your a**.
Right then the US should have its 1bb 2des 1ac 2ftr 4-5 trn fleet lurch into the Med. Heck, that might even be the landing that takes SEu for good or sets it up to be taken a few turns later.
Take SEu for good early? It’s a pipe dream. You can drop a bunch of units in, but Germany can take it right back, and unless you have a followup wave right after, Germany is going to keep SEu. The moment you don’t have a followup wave, you lose SEu.
Sure, SEu is worth 6 IPC. And sure, you are preventing the Germans from making a run on Russia. But concentrating on the Germans so hard means you’re not messing with Japan, and you can bet Japan is going to be messing with Russia real hard.
Now, I’m not saying that a Med fleet is a BAD idea. I am saying it requires the right circumstances to be of use.
Not only is the Med fleet powerful because it can drop troops right into Cau, but also because it threatens SEu/WEu/Bal/Ukr constantly without mucking up the US’s supply line. With a little preparation and an ac, the US can put ridiculous amounts of pressure on German territory while still having the option of quickly reinforcing Russia.
It sure looks that way, doesn’t it? But it doesn’t really work out that way a lot of times, because the SEurope and WEurope attacks require followup waves and reinforcement, and Russian units from West Russia should be contesting Ukraine anyways. If the Germans are already weak - perhaps their air hasn’t grown any, or let’s say they don’t have a horde of ground units - then the Med fleet can be a killing blow. But if the Germans do have a fair number of ground units, then the invasion threat is much less of a concern for Germany, so the Med fleet won’t really accomplish much more than trading the Balkans - well, it can help secure Africa as well, which is not inconsiderable, and it can drop units to Caucasus in an emergency - but what I said before about defending the water west of Algeria, defending the Med fleet, defending the Baltic fleet, and worrying about German Long Range Aircraft fighters hitting one of those fleets compensates.
Frankly, marching the US through Africa just doesn’t cut it. Unless you can pull off some funky combination of Nor/Ukr ICs with a 2x2 or 3x3 fleet chain (and/or get lucky and secure WEu/SEu early on), you’re gonna have to have like 8-10 transports. So why not invest in one ac and instead of landing in WEu, take your pick of WEu/SEu/Bal/Ukr/Cau/TJ.
(menacing leer) yes, why not . . .
Okay, first off. You see why landing in Africa early is a good thing to do. First, you probably need to reclaim Africa from Germany. Second, you can’t reach Europe very well yet anyways.
You’re right about the US marching through Africa in a lot of games, but once you’re feeding 8 US infantry and 6 UK infantry in through Algeria, those relentless numbers keep coming, and you haven’t even spent a lot - you’ve got 4 transports with US, 3 transports with UK, and both countries still have leftover income to ramp up production into air/navy, or more transports to increase the feed to 10-12 US ground and 8 UK ground per turn. The masses mean Germany just can’t punch into the Allies in Africa; even the almost minimal 14 ground units a turn that you hit quickly is way too much for Germany to make a dent in without some serious sacrifices elsewhere. So don’t dismiss the feed through Africa.
BTW, your one AC - remember what I wrote. Either you concentrate on Mediterranean in the midgame when you’ve built up the Allied fleet and sacrifice the lucrative Norway route, or you split your fleet between west of Algeria, the Mediterranean, and the Baltic, and risk the Germans whacking one of your fleets out with Long Range Aircraft. It’s a problem.
If Germany’s airforce is depleted, for instance from a G2 UnBaltic attack that destroys the UK fleet but leaves Germany with something like 3ftr 2bmb, the US can move into the Med with just 1bb 2des as cover. You just gotta sink the G Med fleet first, and then you rule the seas.
Yeah, IF the Germans decide to deplete their air, and IF they don’t build more, which they probably should when they see the KGF coming. And note you have to build Allied air up to hit the German Med fleet; if you venture in with a strong fleet, the Germans can whack it with German navy/air. You either need a really healthy navy, or air, and air is more generally useful.
All that being said, I see three problems–each involving my beloved, but in this case just plain annoying, Axis air: two German bombers, Germany building more ftrs, and Japan’s airforce.
2bmb vs 4trn in sz12 means G can gamble its bmbs against those trns, with each side having a 50/50 chance of being wiped out. But if the Russian sub is still alive or the Aus trn, a US trn, or any other naval piece can sit in sz12, that fleet becomes much more secure. Sink 12ipcs into a US des and you’re golden.
But by the time you’re buying that US destroyer, don’t you think the Axis are doing something to? Like maybe buying another German fighter, expanding in Asia?
If Germany keeps building ftrs, both US and UK fleets have to respond. It’s the classic fork, like WRu threatening Cau and Rus or Sol threatening both Bor and EInd. And I don’t really have an answer for it :x.
OMG, why didn’t you just say so earlier and save me all my writing? There are answers . . . not great ones, not simple ones, not undefeatable ones, but answers. Which I would elaborate on more if my data wasn’t about to come up.
The problem with Japan’s airforce is that Germany could throw its air at the US Med fleet, probably wiping out transport cover, and then Japan could follow up and wipe out the capitals. Japan would have to have its air in place, but that wouldn’t take much effort. The Allied upside is that this would leave either G’s or J’s airforce almost assuredly dead and the other one darn close to it. And really it would just stop the US for one turn. You just do nothing, builds 4-5 trns, and next turn it’s back to business as usual, except you land in WEu/Nor. Meanwhile Axis air is virtually gone.
Axis don’t HAVE to blow up their air. They CAN. The Axis may just as well send their air against Russia. In a situation in which the Allies have landed in Western Europe, the Germans are not necessarily dead. They can move their E. Europe infantry stack to Germany, and use their Germany infantry stack plus E. Europe tanks to hit W. Europe. A GOOD German player will have infantry and fighters and preserve his/her starting tanks, so you will run into that situation. Now, that doesn’t mean that a good German player can’t get reamed by a W. Europe landing, but it does mean that landing in W. Europe/Norway isn’t necesssarily the be all and end all.
I dunno, I forgot about the Germany ftr build strategy until like the end of this post. I think that might be the one out of the three that could really deter a US Med fleet. Anyone have success with separate US and UK fleets against a cuh-razy Luftwaffe?
Wupps back to work . . . I gotta go oh noez.
You will NOT see me argue against the American North African Campaign. I used too. I used to think it took “too long.” Then I learned that with intelligent moves, and strong purchases, Russia can pretty much single handedly give Germany back it’s buttocks after they chew it off with machine gun fire in the field of glory. (In other words, if you are in a KGF situation, Russia can very easily have a few rounds where E. Europe and Balkans are the dead zone, giving them much more firepower for later in the game.)
What I like doing is to have the American fleet +1 Battleship (that’s 2 Battleships, 2 Destroyers + Transports) in the Med or maybe with an extra carrier in SZ 12 if you need it. (If W. Europe is a dead zone, then you won’t need the carrier, since the German FIGHTERs cannot hit the transports there. Yes, I realize that the bomber CAN, but I don’t think it’s wise for the Germans to send a bomber against 5 transports and a Russian submarine.)
Then you can have the British fleet in SZ 4.
Now you can off load units into Algeria and use a couple of extra transports (not from the 5 you have shuttling 10 ground units a round into Africa) bringing troops from Libya to Caucasus each round while the rest of your army ensures Africa stays liberated and moves on Persia to threaten the Japanese industrial production.
Top that off with the British driving down through Archangelsk to Russia to Novosibirsk to take on the British advance forces to preserve the Russian army from over extension and I think you have a winning play.
The idea that lead to this was that Russia really cannot handle trading territories in Karelia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Kazakh, Novosibirsk and Evenki every round. Especially with only two fighters and especially because Japan’s taking half the force and Germany the other half.
But if England takes German lands and Russia liberates their own lands, the Russian army will eventually be eclipsed by the Japanese who will, almost assuredly, be making twice as much as the Russians!
So how can Russia take German lands to fill it’s treasury while still preserving their army against a two front assault?
Oh yea! England will have America keeping Africa alive, so they’ll be able to fill at least 3 transports a round, and that’s 6 units, roughly the amount Japan will be bringing into Russia each round, and at least enough to attack Kazakh and Novosibirsk each round, maybe even Evenki. Add in the English fighters and bomber, and this is even more achievable, especially when Japan finds itself confronted with American Sherman Tanks and Army Rangers.
Meanwhile, Russia’s losing 4 infantry a round trading E. Europe and Balkans (6 IPC, so the cost of 2 Infantry) but also able to keep and hold Ukraine, Belorussia and W. Russia (the cost of 2 more infantry and a profit) that they would have lost if they had to turn back to prevent Russia from falling to the Japanese.
I remember when AAR first came out and Don Rae said the US should send tanks tanks tanks through Africa to reinforce Russian positions. I’ve tried that, and I think I’ve also tried inf/arm, and I’ve never seen much success.
Someone doing an UnBaltic (or similar) opening will delay an Algeria landing until at least US2. It’s just not worth losing 1des 2trn to land 2inf 1art 1arm. US1 Alg units could optimally reach Per on their own by US5. With UnBaltic that’s probably arm in Per by US6 (because the 2inf 1art will be killed trying to retake Africa from G). So whoop-dee-doo. Japan will be in Per or seriously pressuring it with battleships, infantry, armor, and 6ftr 1bmb, and a stack of US arm just won’t cut it. It wouldn’t matter so much that Germany will be much stronger without serious US threat of landing in WEu/SEu, except that the US probably won’t be able to make it to Cau/Rus to turn the tables. Per could certainly be sandwiched between TJ and Cau–and get slammed, but it’s unlikely. At that point Russia can’t afford to trade its stack for G’s or J’s because then the other will take Rus. The Allies need to be taking ground around either Rus or Ber, and Operation Torch doesn’t seem to do either.
If you can pull off a US Med fleet, then Torch gets a serious leg up, and I think would likely work. But after looking at the pros and cons of that strategy, I really don’t see a way around a G ftr buildup.
I remember when AAR first came out and Don Rae said the US should send tanks tanks tanks through Africa to reinforce Russian positions. I’ve tried that, and I think I’ve also tried inf/arm, and I’ve never seen much success.
There’s a good reason for this. Marching through Africa is not a magic bullet. It is not an undefeatable game plan. In games in which Japan moves towards India decisively, Japan should get to India and Persia before the Allies, and Japan should be able to keep up a good amount of pressure. that can potentially stop the Allied reinforcement route.
Yet, “success” need not be measured in terms of the bulk of Allied units moving through Africa into Caucasus. “Success” can also be measured in keeping the Germans and Japanese out of Africa.
And besides those points, there is another even more important. An Atlantic buildup in many cases simply does not allow early Allied reinforcement to Europe. In such cases, Africa is the only easy dropoff point, and the Allies may as well reclaim those IPCs from Germany.
Someone doing an UnBaltic (or similar) opening will delay an Algeria landing until at least US2. It’s just not worth losing 1des 2trn to land 2inf 1art 1arm.
If you’re going to lose the destroyer, there is no need to move it. In fact, it would be better not to. As far as losing 2 trn to land 2 inf 1 art 1 arm, there are times and cases in which the loss is worthwhile, particularly when reinforcing London (that reinforcement giving the UK the option of building up their air force or navy on UK1). Generally, I would agree with your assessment that it is not worthwhile to land troops in Africa that early, though.
US1 Alg units could optimally reach Per on their own by US5. With UnBaltic that’s probably arm in Per by US6 (because the 2inf 1art will be killed trying to retake Africa from G).
US reinforcements to Persia are often delayed until around US6 anyways, even if US chooses not to aid in claiming Africa. The exception is if the US sends early tanks to Africa.
Hence why Don Rae said “tanks” instead of “infantry”. US1 potentially places 1 tank in Africa; US2 places up to 3 tanks in Africa (with a US1 build of 3 transport 3 tank 1 infantry and moving 2 infantry to Eastern US from Central US). Germany can delay an Allied landing in Algeria through various means, but typically the US should have landed by US2, with US3 seeing 8 units in Libya (tanks may very w ell be prevented from blitzing to Anglo-Egypt), US4 seeing those units moving through to Anglo-Egypt (again a blitz may be prevented), with a US5 tank blitz to Persia receiving Russian reinforcements from Caucasus before the next Japanese turn.
It’s not just the 4 US tanks landing on US2; infantry backup makes German reinforcements to Africa unlikely, so the US3 tank landing is free to blitz on US4 and US5 to join the other tanks in Persia. 7 tanks cannot easily be stopped by Japan even as late as that time (note that the 2 US infantry from China plus US air can be useful in this attack), and US infantry moves up in time to reinforce the position. The Japanese CAN stop a tank rush reinforcement through Africa, but it is not a simple proposition.
Remember that the US attack force should be 2 inf 7 tanks 2 fighter 1 bomber.
J1 should see a build of 3 transports, with J2, J3 each seeing 4 infantry moved to French Indochina. J4 sees eight infantry in India, with a J4 drop of 2 inf 2 tanks to French Indochina for a J5 move of 8 inf 2 tanks to Persia. Of course, some of those Japanese infantry will have been destroyed in route, and Japan can move additional tanks in from their J2 and J3 drops to Asia - which really means about 6 inf 5 tanks to Persia (2 aforementioned, 1 starting, 2 more built)
This causes Japan a few different problems - first, having to build early tanks instead of early infantry; second, having to run through resistance in India and Persia (very possibly costing more than the 2 infantry listed previously), and so on and so forth. These problems can be overcome, but at the very least with some inconvenience by Japan.
So, I say that reinforcement through Africa isn’t a magic bullet, but it CAN be practical given the right circumstances.
So whoop-dee-doo. Japan will be in Per or seriously pressuring it with battleships, infantry, armor, and 6ftr 1bmb, and a stack of US arm just won’t cut it.
Of course not. The US armor MUST be reinforced by Russian infantry. An AA gun can be afforded as well. It is initially very difficult for the Allies, and remains so, because the Japanese in India cannot be dislodged (the defending force at Persia will initially not have enough infantry to attack without severe losses, and later as the US infantry in Africa catch up, so will more Japanese infantry at India, making for a standoff. Still, the Caucasus should be secured - assuming that the Allied goal of defending Persia for a round or two is met.
It wouldn’t matter so much that Germany will be much stronger without serious US threat of landing in WEu/SEu, except that the US probably won’t be able to make it to Cau/Rus to turn the tables. Per could certainly be sandwiched between TJ and Cau–and get slammed, but it’s unlikely. At that point Russia can’t afford to trade its stack for G’s or J’s because then the other will take Rus. The Allies need to be taking ground around either Rus or Ber, and Operation Torch doesn’t seem to do either.
IF the Allies are unsuccessful in claiming Persia, then the Allies can still use those forces in Africa to secure Africa, threaten the Japanese in India, or move back west to be offloaded to Europe.
If the Allies SUCCEED in claiming Persia, then either the Allies continue their feed through Africa, or the Allies can switch to the E.Can-London, London-Europe transport route. The first option takes a long time to bring to fruition, and allows the Germans more IPCs in northern Europe (particularly Norway and Karelia), but at the worst, the UK and US forces can retreat to Caucasus then Moscow.
If you can pull off a US Med fleet, then Torch gets a serious leg up, and I think would likely work. But after looking at the pros and cons of that strategy, I really don’t see a way around a G ftr buildup.
The US doesn’t need a Med fleet to move in through Africa. It only needs to protect its transports that are offloading to Algeria.
Moving reinforcements through Africa and having a Mediterranean fleet are not the same thing.
