Posts made by Count_Zeppelin

anyone tried a 1 inf + transporter build round one with italy?

then  perhaps supplementing it with a carrier and a fighter later one

The problem about this one is, that at the end of the italian turn there is two cruisers and one transport in a seazone (that is if you dont want to leave the tranny alone). Any british player with one or two bombers left would seize this opportunity to sink a good part of the italian fleet (OK, there might be even better moves - still this is a good one). Even sinking one cruiser and loosing one bomber is a major blow to the italian fleet.

I agree.  The use of subs with aircraft is a gret combo for naval combat  (even better if you have super subs).  You can even make it cheaper if you have long range aircraft and jet fighter, transforming your fighters in better weapon than the original bomber.

I’m sorry to disagree, but long range aircraft benefits bombers so much it would be a waste to switch to fighters. Although saving 2 IPC per unit is nice, being able to bombard any territory or sea zone on the map at will is much too good to give up on - and thats what long range bombers do!

industrial complex:
building an industrial complex is alway a very important decision. Industrial complexes should only be built in two instances: you cant place enough units or the IC is overseas. Building an IC makes you invest 15 IPC without affecting the game the current and next round. Compare that with 5 inf that defend your factory this round and can be used the next. Therefore only build an IC if absolutely neccesary. I’ve more than once seen a factory that was more a burden than a boost.

fortress europe theory:
putting the focus on ground units is the strategy with the best cost/combat potential tradeoff. However, this strategy forces you to eighter defend every coastal terrain by putting units there or always keeping a backstrike force at hand. Here arises the question, if it wouldnt have been cheaper to sink his navy than keeping land units in reserve.

First:
Face it, bombers, not subs are the main weapon of naval combat. They have far superiour theatre flexibility and combat range and thats it.

Cut your losses:
You normaly cant afford to lose your limited number of bombers in fleet actions. And thats where the sub comes into play. 2-3 subs together with 2-3 bombers are enough to wreak havoc on most fleets and with a rising number of aircraft this equation gets even better, as you can absolutely afford to lose your subs and then decide to continue the action or to retreat.

Superiour opposing air force:
If the opponents air is too strong, subs can repel small fleets and hunt the lone transport. This tactic has been discussed before.

The problem about building a carrier in G1 is that its a purely defensive move. It doesnt make any sense to try to protect the single transport. German naval strategy has to be aggressive to keep oposing transports away. Therefore its best to concentrate on some subs to take combat losses and a strong airforce that delivers the main punch. As subs cannot be attacked by air only and aircraft land on mainland territories, they are in no danger from opposing aircraft. Let your opponent build expensive ships!

Its ok to lose tanks - just make sure you can afford it.

Look at it the other way - if you have multiple territories with a single tank in each, Germany probably cannot kill all, and tanks as the last line of defense behind inf are a hard nut.

Planes on the other hand are so expensive that you just cant afford to lose them. That means that they are totally lost on the defense. Now if i put 2 tanks in a frontline territory its a wave breaker. But if i put 2 planes in, its an invitation.

Hell yes I would!

30 IPC: 6 Armor

Nothing less would do!

Sorry, I’m too chicken for that built! But two tanks, two art and 4 inf would be nice.
Caucasus is a potential weak spot, and i like to reinforce it and retain the possibility of a backstrike!

But I like the 6 tank strategy - it really takes on the german

Has anyone ever had the UK send there destroyer to SZ 48 to block forcing Japan to choose between India and Australia?  Would it slow you down in the Pacific?

No, and i would not recommend it, as it would remove a threat to the 4 IPC islands from the area. and a destroyer is not exactly block for the japanese ambition for australia. Better to keep the transport out of combat range but make sure the japanese has to keep ships / aircraft in the area.

Also, how likely would you be to strike the US carrier/ destroyer if they took position in SZ 46 or 53 assuming a large US naval purchase? Would you be more likely to attack them if they also landed there two bombers on the respective islands?

Thats a more difficult question. First, from japanese view i like the american to build ships, as it takes up large amounts of IPCs and does not directly threaten the mainland or fleets, as they require time to utilize. It also frees up the german. On the other hand, if no measures are to be taken to deal with it, it will become a problem earlier or later. Therefore I suggest the following: If the american only builds a token force, attack it and free up your IPCs for a land campaign; if the american goes all out fleet, reinforce yours so that the american has to build another round. Then decide how to deal with it accordingly.

German Attack plan Z: Peace in the west

Development: none
Purchase new units: 2 subs, 1 Bomber, 1 Inf, 1 Art
Combat moves:

Attack on UK BB and Transport in Sz 2 Bomber from Germany, Fighter from Norway, Sub from Sz 7
Attack on UK Destr in Sz 6 Cruiser from Sz5, Fighter form Poland
Attack on UK Cruiser and Destr in Sz 12 Fighter from Ger, Fighter from Northw., Sub from Sz 7
Attack on Egypt move Transport to Sz 15 1 Tank 1 Inf France, 1 Tank 1 Art 1 Inf Libya
Attack on Baltic States
Attack on East Poland
Attack on Ukraine

Noncombat moves:
2 Fighters land in France, 1 Fighter lands in Moroco, 1 Fighter 1 Bomber land in Norway
some minor force redeployment in Europe

Disadvantages: Fighter in Moroco out of combat range to russia; little reinforcements for the russian front, Egypt not conquered.
Advantages: UK out of european waters, german air force remains extremely strong, italian navy save

UK 2: Build 4 bombers (with the 8 IPCs you saved from turn one you should be able to do this)

UK starts with 43 IPC; 3 Bombers is 36 IPC, 7 IPC remain.
UK loses 10 to 13 IPC on its first round, depending on egypt; remaining IPC (loss = 10) 33 + 7 = 40 IPC
(Borneo, East Indies, Burma, Egypt, Trans-Jordan)

Q. On page 29 it says that your aircraft may hit enemy submarines if you have a destroyer in the sea zone, but it doesn’t say anywhere in the rules that aircraft can’t hit submarines without a destroyer present. Do you always need a destroyer in a battle in order for your air units to hit enemy subs?
A. Yes. Air units can only hit subs if there is a friendly destroyer on the battle board, otherwise hits made by air units must be applied to units other than submarines. If you’re the attacker, destroyers in the same sea zone belonging to your ally don’t count, since they’re not involved in the battle.

THX Kriegshund, you are right!

I apologize to all readers of my previous posts for having answered without this important information.

In this case the subs would sink the transport without interference of the fighters.

Additionally, your aircraft may hit enemy submarines if you have a destroyer on the battle board."

I’m sorry, but this line from the FAQ is nonsense!

There is no single line in the Rulebook that says, that aircraft can’t attack subs that aren’t submerged.

Of course aircraft can hit submarines if a destroyer is present, as they no longer can submerge.
But in the instance that subs attack carriers, the fighters may shoot back as long as the subs remain surfaced.

The submersible rule says that anytime a a submarine would otherwise roll a die to attack or defend, it can submerge instead. This removes it from combat - it can no longer attack or take hits in that combat. Whenever a round of combat starts and a submarine is in combat with only aircraft, it can submerge (before aircraft fire).

This clearly means, that subs cannot dive before the combat round because a transport is left. Also, the planes may fire on the subs / the subs may take the hits.

The chosen last rule says that transports may only be chosen as a casualty if there are no other eligible units. Normally, this will occur when only transports are left, but it may also occur under other circumstances. For example, fighters attacking transports and submerged submarines will hit the transports because they cannot hit the submarines.

As in this case the submarines cannot hit the fighters, as long as they do not submerge, they kill the transports.

submarines

• cannot be attacked as long as you are not in an enclosed space of water as subs are as fast as every other ship and cannot be attacked by airpower alone
• submarines are the cheapest available naval units, so losing some doesnt hurt you the same as losing other ships or aircraft; therefore they are expendable

now if the other side is too strong, you just retreat into aircraft operations range.

• if the oponent should follow, you attack without losing valuable units
• if the oponent doesnt follow, you have won another round and can build more subs / aircraft
• if even by retreating back to your IC and building more units there the opponent would have the upper hand, concentrate on land warfare - at least you haven’t built any expensive units that cannot also fight on land. Earlier or later you will have the chance to strike back again - the opponent wont catch you.

Normally, if you have a submarine, you only have it and maybe one other and they’re usually running away from the enemy fleet, not towards it!

Exactly! But if you have only two submarines, you invested only 12 IPC in naval units. The optimal combination is one bomber supporting every submarine. Try out some fleet building. The most potent defense against this combination is destroyers only.

5 destr = 40 IPC
2 subs + 2 bomb = 36 IPC

even in this worst case scenario, with the destroyers scoring two hits in turn 1 the bombers can return home having sunk 2 destroyers and lost 2 subs

Rockets:  These are not quite as useful in AA50 as they were in AAR.  Mostly this is due to the range between European and Russian Industrial Complexes coupled with the fact Germany only has the one Industrial Complex to be hit anyway.

I disagree. Rockets is still a killer technology. There is just no real use in it for japan and limited use for the USA.

Super Submarines:  Again, the most useless technology in the game.  Does Larry have a Jones for Submarines or something???  Honestly, submarines are already pretty much useless, all this technology does is make the couple you might have slightly stronger on attack. (Does not effect defense, so all your hundreds of super submarines still die to one destroyer and a few dozen heavy bombers doing nothing but sinking the destroyer, if you’re lucky.)

Super Submarines is one of the strongest technologies ever if rolled by Japan, the USA or GB. Its of limited use for Germany, Italy and Russia.

Submarines when deployed in an offensive role are up till now the strongest units in naval warfare and super submarines destroy every fleet in this game. There is nothing that can stop them. The problem about submarines is building them without being preemptively attacked. Can you imagine what pain in the ass 4 super subs are in striking distance to western united states?

Finally, don't forget that Submarines are almost completely worthless in Anniversary.  They cannot stop ships from moving through sea zones.  They cannot defend for squat and they subtract IPC you could be spending on real naval units.  The only thing submarines are good for is slipping through enemy lines to hit transports if the enemy doesn't put a destroyer in the way.  I wouldn't worry about getting "trapped" down in Australia.  You can just drive right on past those submarines, no questions asked! (BTW, they don't stop transport from loading or unloading, they don't stop ships from bombarding.  In other words, they may as well not even exist as far as the game is concerned.)

Submarines are IMHO the best naval attack vessel in the game and not so bad in defence too. Every fleet should have its share of them, even if its just to soak up enemy hits. The only exception is if you do not ever expect to attack - in this case the destroyer should take the role of cannon foder.

If it weren’t for defending transport units, i would even recommend building only subs.

But compared with an Egypt suicide attack you trade Egypt for two planes

The main problem i see with this force deployment is that you are trading 2 fighters vs the cruiser and destroyer. Sure, if you succeed you got a clean sweep at the cost of probably loosing 2 fighters.

But now imagine that in sz 12 during the first cycle of combat you dont hit  while the ca + dd hit once. Would you still attack? The ca and dd could together with the british bomber probably sink both italian cruisers or form the core of the new british fleet together with the dd and transport.

To sum it up: even if it works as planned you lose 1 to 2 aircraft, but if it fails i see great problems arise. Its a gamble hoping to lose no aircraft against the ca + dd. In this case the strategy is great.

Look at it this way, lets say Germany ignores Egypt on G1, Britain then moves its 2 inf from Trans-jordan to Egypt and takes their two fighters in England to Africa where they can arrive on egypt by UK2

Thats two fighters spending two rounds doing nothing? No attack on the german fleet, no manning a carrier, no support for Karelia?

Just to make it even worse America and take its West coast bomber to Australia on US1 and threaten any Japanese tranports who sail alone, and then on US 2 land in Egypt to threaten Italy with SBR raids further knocking them out of the war.

Now the west coast bomber also spends two turns doing nothing? And you are aware that japan can take australia on j2? At least fly your west coast bomber into the UK and start SBR on U2. And if by some miracle there still are troops in Egypt, you can also land there.

Well if you G1 Egypt what you bring, and how do you now allocate the attacks on the uk navy?

I guess off the bat the UK BB and Transport are to be ignored, or is their a way to still kill them plus the UK CA/DD?

you got 4 fighters and 2 subs

I think there has been enough talk about optimal attack allocation in this event in this forum. 1 sub and two fighters vs. the cruiser and destroyer and 1 sub takes on the destroyer and the transport. There is not much what you can do wrong with these.

Ok, I’ve applied your statistics created a diagramme going up to ten passes (attachment)

Now the most interresting point I’ve found is, that the effectivity of SBR should indeed rise with higher numbers of participating aircraft. That is because with each additional aircraft the number of bombers that might survive multiple turns
rises. Just watch yourselves

Hit Probability.pdf

Can any of you guy explain some mathematical basics to me?

I would like to know in which round a bomber would be statistically shot down on normal AA-rolls and radar-improved AA-rolls? How do you calculate this?

THX!

Ok, here is my opionion

Just don’t do it!

IMHO the russian western front is hard pressed as it is - There just are no points to spend on backjard fights. Leave your normal token force which the japanese will kill anyway in the east and the rest has to go west. Japan has more than enough firepower to overwhelm 2 aditional infantry - no point in guarding the japanese back door while germany pounds down front door.

@Cmdr:

I think that Russia building infantry in Round 1 is asking for problems.  You have no ability to take land.  If you send that armor to Karelia and you didn’t buy any, Germany’s basically free to stack the front lines iwth armor all day long because odds are, each one is going to take out 2 infantry if you attack them.

Just my opinion of the original post on that aspect.

Next aspect:  America cannot ignore Japan.  If they do, japan will come knock on California’s door and as if Mr. Roosevelt can come out and play.

I  basically agree with the above said.

Russia building only infantry in round 1 is asking for problems -
Russia has to develop offensive capabilities as well as retain the advantages of numerical solid defense - what IMHO calls for a mixed infantry-artillery-tank buy. I also like aircraft, but i belive that mobile (tank-) forces wich can conquer territories have a better early- and mid-game payof than aircraft.

America cannot ignore Japan -
I believe that japan should never try to attack the american continent - it just is not economical and there is no gain in it. Better conquer all the islands and force the american to invest in expensive naval units. The USA do not have to be afraid of some land units landed in alaska. Thats units transported in expensive transports occupying expensive fleet operation time only to be destroyed by cheap US land forces and aircraft the US will have to build to deal with the japanese navy anyway - killing of landed units is just not a problem. I prefer taking every british IP island and mainland territory.

The general problem i face with germany in G1 is, that i dont just want to destroy a major proportion of the british forces, but also narrow down his builts. If the battleship and the transport dont go down, with no naval built a single aircraft carrier is enough to secure his fleet and the uk still has 29 IPCs to spend on other projects. That doesnt stop the general british plan of harrasing germany and securing africa and maybe even threatening the asian islands. With its BB alive, its not  fleet or bombers or IC but all together.

But as i play without NOs, maybe the additional 5 italian IPCs are worth weaking the attack on his majestys navy.

Of course its a suicide mission!

Still, i’ve seen this suicide mission suceed. But thats not the point. The only reason for the attack is to kill a good number of british units, so that italy can kill the rest - and up until now it always worked with a surviving british fighter at most.
The attack is not meant to win something, only to open up opportunities. Italy can decide after the british turn and attack the most attractive target. Still, if you prefer to use your bomber in egypt so that italy can take trans-jordan i cant disagree with you - its just not my prefered strategy.