Egypt SZ 12 and the Med



  • Actually from a tactical point of view those ships are more important. However it’s a moot point, since both the ships and the ftr will die on J1.



  • @rockrobinoff:

    A UK bomber+fighter+cruiser+destroyer versus an Italian battleship+2 cruisers is about a 55% UK win  (netting a transport as well) and 65% to kill just the warships…

    Our group noticed this too.

    @rockrobinoff:

    …The only problem with option a is that it fails 25% of the time. Not a brilliant prospect, especially if you are better than your opponent, and hope to grind out a long and sure win.

    But we concluded the probability of actually losing the fleet in this case is only 15.125 per cent (65% x 25%).  Although I am new to A&A:50, my experience with A&A games is that playing too cautiously can be folly.  Sometimes you have to give your opponent a fifteen per cent chance for a lucky break - often a much better chance than that.  If you wait only for plays with more than an 85 per cant success rate, you’re probably never going to grind anything out.  It would be like playing Texas Hold 'em and waiting for pocket aces.

    Furthermore, if you are so much better than your opponent that you don’t even want to give them a 15 per cent shot, you can probably win even if they do sink the Mediterranean fleet (should they even make that play).

    That said, although I think 84.875 per cent is enough to make option a sound, a higher probability would of course be better.  Italian fleet aside, I’m not sure how much worse attacking sea zone twelve is versus your next best option.  Basically, I recommend you attack Egypt no matter what, but that you don’t sacrifice much for sea zone twelve.  If you think sea zone twelve is almost as good a target as sea zones two or nine anyway, go for it!



  • Well, the Allies are strong, it’s just about how to crush the Axis…

    Here’s what I’m going to try next game;

    R1, move 4 infantry from Caucaus to Persia.
    (counterattack the foolish Germans if they attacked Karelia in G1)
    Japan goes…
    E1, move the 2 fighters and infanty and tank to Karelia.
    E1, build IC on India (still haven’t decided about Africa)
    R2, move 4 infantry from Persia to India.
    J2 … if they attack India they will lose (I think)
    E2, build stuff on India.

    Next I’m sure people will say I’ll lose Caucaus if I do that G2, well… I don’t think so…

    Karelia will be safe with the extra English 2 fighters, infantry and tank.
    Caucaus will have 6 infantry on it (2 from Kazakh and 4 production) for G2, I think it will hold, if not then Russia will be able to counterattack, and will still have the tank from England helping out in Karelia if they had to counterattack a Karelia G1 move.

    Ta-dah!  All is right in the world, the allies should fare better now.

    I want to test it out.



  • @Alair:

    Well, the Allies are strong, it’s just about how to crush the Axis…

    Here’s what I’m going to try next game;

    R1, move 4 infantry from Caucaus to Persia.
    (counterattack the foolish Germans if they attacked Karelia in G1)
    Japan goes…
    E1, move the 2 fighters and infanty and tank to Karelia.
    E1, build IC on India (still haven’t decided about Africa)
    R2, move 4 infantry from Persia to India.
    J2 … if they attack India they will lose (I think)
    E2, build stuff on India.

    Yeah, I considered that strategy too for UK and Russia. The extra 4 infantry from Russia will not be enough however if Japan commits fully to the attack on India.

    Japan’s India invasion force on J2 could consist of:

    9 infantry
    1 artillery
    4 fighters
    1 tank
    1 cruiser (off shore bombardment)

    That’s from memory though so don’t hold me to that. I’d have to re-examine the board to be sure.

    If I’m playing UK I like the idea of an Indian IC but pulling it off is tough. I think you can build an Australian IC (on E2) after Japan takes India however. Japan would likely have to pull it’s entire invasion army off India to have a shot at capturing Australia reinforced by American fighters on J3.



  • This discussion has gone from the Med to the Pacific!  🙂

    Anyone ever contemplate a Russian bomber R1?

    Keeps Japan honest with having to protect a transport (only) grab in east indies
    or projects power into Manchuria in conjunction with a 7 inf stack in buryatia.



  • @allies_fly:

    Anyone ever contemplate a Russian bomber R1?

    Soviets should buy 1 figh for both R1 and R2, so I guess you can spend 2 more IPCs for a bomber instead. I prefer convert 1 inf into a tank, but that’s a matter of tastes


  • Moderator

    Has anyone tried to take out all the UK ships?

    Sz 2 - bb, trn vs. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom
    Sz 9 - dd, trn vs. 1 sub
    Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs

    You can still take out the Sz 6 ship and I don’t think this messes up Egy, if you were going to do that and sz 2 anyway.  Obviously sz 9 and 12 are a bit dicey but you could really cripple the UK interms of transporting units for a rd or 2.  Just wondering if anyone has seen this.



  • I think I prefer secure z2 and z12, but agreed, killing all is powerful. A thing about z6: if germans kill the dd but uk makes 1 hit, I think I would kill the cruiser, becuase the sub cannot be hit by aircraft (or course, It would be needed rolling z12 first for being sure of this). A alive sub in z6 makes any naval purchase with UK1 very dangerous.

    Oh, long range aircraft can give you a additional fig. Then, you could try kill everything, or even making a try in z10



  • @DarthMaximus:

    Has anyone tried to take out all the UK ships?

    Sz 2 - bb, trn vs. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom
    Sz 9 - dd, trn vs. 1 sub
    Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs

    You can still take out the Sz 6 ship and I don’t think this messes up Egy, if you were going to do that and sz 2 anyway.  Obviously sz 9 and 12 are a bit dicey but you could really cripple the UK interms of transporting units for a rd or 2.  Just wondering if anyone has seen this.

    If you open like that in every Axis game I don’t see one getting high up in a ladder. In other words, it’s fun to try but don’t expect consistent good results. SZ9 and SZ 12 are risky, plus I do think this messes up Egypt since you can’t bring the bmb in to Egypt like this.



  • @DarthMaximus:

    Has anyone tried to take out all the UK ships?

    Sz 2 - bb, trn vs. 1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom
    Sz 9 - dd, trn vs. 1 sub
    Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs

    You can still take out the Sz 6 ship and I don’t think this messes up Egy, if you were going to do that and sz 2 anyway.  Obviously sz 9 and 12 are a bit dicey but you could really cripple the UK interms of transporting units for a rd or 2.  Just wondering if anyone has seen this.

    Assuming you get good dice



  • and what about using the german ca from Sz5 to take out the dd in Sz6, that leaves you with an extra fighter for Sz12



  • i really don’t think pulling the German fleet out of the their fjord is such a good idea. if they do get destroyed (either by losing the first battle, or being sunk by UK’s airforce once they’re split-up) then Germany’s just made a lot more territory that needs to be defended

    i know i wouldn’t want a UK fleet parking at Germany’s door-step



  • Managed to kill most of the UK fleet and kept my ca in Sz6 but then lost the ca to the russian sub. First strike is just to much…
    The first thought was to divert the UK air to Sz6 so my transport would live another turn. Did not work… 😞



  • Again I still just do not see the need for Egypt G1. I think this is just more of a hold over from the older AA games.

    My personal preference is to send 2 SS 1 FGT 1 BMB to SZ12, subs for fodder. I use the med Transport to reinforce Libya. So what if the UK fighter and tank in Egypt live. It isn’t like this can’t be taken care of either on Italy 1, Germany 2, or Italy 2.

    So what if the UK builds an IC in India and flies the fighter there and sends the Egypt tank that way. I also do not see where Japan has to bust its guts just to take it out on J2. Yes the UK may take Burma, so what? After J2 China should be unable to produce infantry, the Pacific money islands (except New Zealand) should be yours, and Australia should be as well, to give you your 3rd NO and take away 1 of the UK’s. Once all this has been done, on J2 mind you, Japan can set its sights on comfortably taking India when it is dang good and ready to with the proper resources.



  • @a44bigdog:

    Once all this has been done, on J2 mind you, Japan can set its sights on comfortably taking
    India when it is dang good and ready to with the proper resources.

    Well, I wont go so far to say that Egypt is a must, but that tank and fighter with a little bit of Russian help could easily translate into an India stays allied on J2. To my mind, that is a disaster - meaning a whole extra turn that the Russians get to build guys. Protracted wars dont favour the axis - speed speed speed.



  • I don’t even advocate attacking the Indian IC in J2.

    If the Russians are reinforcing it, great! That is less units they have elsewhere. India can produce 3 units and with Improved ICs or whatever the Tech is called at most 5. Japan can match this without even breaking a sweat. Know what that means? Standoff. And I do not think it helps the Allies one bit. This is merely UK units tied down in one territory or maybe dead zoning and trading Burma. So what? It is no threat at all to Japan and again just a drain on Allied resources. As brutally nasty as Japan gets in the '41 scenario I don’t even feel like they have to take the Indian IC, merely contain it. Japan can produce enough units to take the central or northern route to Moscow or go kick the snot out of the US.

    Again I see more of the old answers being given. Has it been proved that a long game in '41 benefits the Allies? I think the verdict is still out on that one and I suspect the opposite is true.



  • @a44bigdog:

    Again I see more of the old answers being given. Has it been proved that a long game in '41 benefits the Allies? I think the verdict is still out on that one and I suspect the opposite is true.

    I think a long 1941 game beneficts axis (they will get economic advantage soon  😛 ). Still, I have to discover how allies can make a quick game in 1941… or even win …



  • Well I played it again and yea, G1 taking Egypt with the bomber is the right move.  Let England keep some fleet.

    At the same time J1 move 1 AC off Burma to take out the fleet off of India and setup J2 to take India.

    It’s a strong move, the only downside is when I did it I didn’t take the Phillipines J1, only the fleet, so the USA was stronger.

    There was a player who heard the Axies have the advantage so we tried some ‘house rules’ that were, imo, terrible.  Non-aggression between Japan and Russia and China gets 1 army per territory instead of one per 2.  All the non-aggression did was free up more troops to take India and China while the freed up Russian troops never made it to the Russian front.

    The allies can win with no mods, I think I’ve pretty much figured it out but my buddies have soured on the game already.  In A&A skill level plays a big factor so it’s just not as fun if you’re not as good.



  • @Funcioneta:

    @a44bigdog:

    Again I see more of the old answers being given. Has it been proved that a long game in '41 benefits the Allies? I think the verdict is still out on that one and I suspect the opposite is true.

    I think a long 1941 game beneficts axis (they will get economic advantage soon  😛 ). Still, I have to discover how allies can make a quick game in 1941… or even win …

    a long game definitely favours the allies. the more time it takes the axis to achieve their goals, the more time the allies have to build up their forces and win by a simple war of attrition

    if Germany takes too long to capture Moscow, then UK gets in with the helping Russia defend, and/or invading German territory. if Japan fails to get a large enough foot-hold, then USA sends wave after wave of fleet/airforce

    not saying this is for certain. it’s just the odds of the game



  • @tin_snips:

    a long game definitely favours the allies. the more time it takes the axis to achieve their goals, the more time the allies have to build up their forces and win by a simple war of attrition

    But, how can allies win a war of attrition if they collect less income than axis? Maybe you are talking about not using NOs?



  • they collect more income than the axis at the start, do they not? if the allies can keep this advantage long enough, or play to get it back, then they win through attrition

    i’m speaking from experience, with NO’s as well. germany didn’t push through russia’s defence in time, and uk and usa landed reinforcement in russia. japan pushed into russia and was stopped by these reinforcement as well, and due to the fact that the usa built a substantial fleet to hound japan with



  • @tin_snips:

    they collect more income than the axis at the start, do they not? if the allies can keep this advantage long enough, or play to get it back, then they win through attrition

    Allies have a hard time even conserving the economic parity and they can do only if they fight Japan. Allies have economic advantage the first two rounds, but then axis can have advantage or at least parity.


  • Moderator

    But it is still cheaper to defend, so you don’t really need parity if you are playing defense.  Also the Axis have much more land to protect, pretty much all of Northern Europe (WE, Ger, Pol) and of course Southern Europe (Ita and Balk).  There will be a gap somewhere for the Allies to exploit with Inf only and maybe planes or bombardment shots.  Then it just becomes a matter of keeping Mos which can usually be done (previous versions) with Russian units and Allied planes or armor coming in from Kar.

    The Axis also have a Factory production cap that must be addressed, at the start:

    Germany - 10
    Italy - 6
    Japan - 8

    Total = 24

    Russia - 12
    UK - 8
    US - 20 (it is 20 right?)

    Total = 40

    Even if Ger takes Kar it is still a 38 to 26 Allied Adv.  In order for Japan to make use of its income it really needs 2 ICs, that is 30 ipc not spent on units and still only gets you to 32-33 (depending on location and if Ger takes Kar) units able to be placed.  Now the US doesn’t really place 20 units per turn, but they can still either support Europe 10-12 units per turn or try to tie up Japan with ships.

    Also by round 3, 4, or 5 Kar becomes very difficult for Ger to hold since UK can directly drop 8 units there per turn if needed.

    This assumes No Tech.



  • I think to be fair you also need to add the value of the starting units.

    For example if Germany only started with 1 IPC worth of spaces and the Allies started with 100 IPC’s worth would that matter if Germany had 1,000 IPC of starting units and the allies had 100?

    (This example was embelished for effect  😉)

    LT


  • Moderator

    True.
    I don’t have Abattlemap infront of me, but does anyone have the starting IPC values for the units of each country?


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 20
  • 124
  • 17
  • 34
  • 4
  • 44
  • 4
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts