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!
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.
One of the benefits of the south african IC is that you do not need to care about the italian fleet. Let the bad boys with their 10 IPCs bombard egypt or caucasus - so what? As long as the United Kingdom can occupy the italians in egypt all is well. If you sink the italian fleet you still have no additional fleet that helps in the mediteranean. The bombardment doesnt kill you and the U.S. world bombing tour can start in asia, where it can wear down the japs. Remenber, the seazone japan lies in is 4 seazones away from western united states and has 3 adjacent russian airfields. That means that the lone presence of bombers in WUS can tie down a whole fleet in front of japan. By the way, how many ICs does Japan build in J1 and J2 in your games?
IMHO the 41 scenario (Tech / no NOs) is balanced with neighter the axis nor the allies having the advantage. Sure, the first round germany and japan are almost unstoppable, but in turn 2 and 3 the tides turn. Earlier or later the germans stick in russian mud with his royal navy bombarding the western territories and the japanese forces wear thin in China while the United States Navy regains combat strengt. I played about 6 games in the 41 scenario, and both sides had equal wins.
The question of a german naval build arises only in the context of the british naval built. The problem is not, that germany has a navy but rather that the UK has none. As pointswise bombers are the most potent naval attack vehicle and can also be deployed at land, I advocate the buildup of a strong bomber force.
Still this requires the commitment of resources germany does not have at the start of game. As IMHO the optimal attack plan is to whipe out the whole royal navy, only sparing the destroyer and transport in front of the american coast (SZ9) there should be no problem - but there is. With only one carrier, one destroyer, one transport and one sub, the UK has a fleet that could start attacking germany directly where with no german fleet built the cruiser and transport have been whiped out.
Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one bomber.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 44333.
The british fleet defence would be 44222 plus 1 additional livepoint.
So in the event of an german attack, the whole! german airforce would be lost, and the brits would still retain their
transports.
This leaves you with only two options (if you at least want to be able to contest the british fleet): Build more aircraft or build more ships.
Now the building of 3! fighters will keep your coasts free of british transports but can you really afford to spend 30 of your 31 IPCs in G1 on aircraft alone? Or are you prefering a two bomber 24 IPC solution, where one! lucky additional british hit in round one could ruin your attack? Still the building of one additional destroyer or two instead of a transport and its load would further reverse the equations.
With the base of only one cruiser (i assume the germans used the sub to kill the destroyer together with one fighter) the germans have a better base than the brit who only starts with one destroyer but who can afford to spend his whole budget on naval units.
This places the german in a peculiar place. Clearly the strategy must be to delay the attack on the german navy until B2 to conserve resources for round 1. Therefore a naval built is needed that is cheap, but that also is enough to repel the bomber and the two fighters and at best also has an attack potential that helps destroying the british fleet in combination with aircraft. That means, germany needs another surface anti-air vessel that helps keep the british aircraft away and probably some submarines - driving the price further up. Now lets test some german builts:
The british strikeforce would therefore consist of 433.
The german fleet defence:
Cruiser, destroyer, 2 subs: 32 and 2 livepoints. (20 IPC)(too weak)
Cruiser, aircraft carrier, 1 sub: 432 and 1 livepoint (20 IPC)(one fighter landed)
Crusier, battleship: 43 and 1 livepoint (20 IPC)(too weak - but might work)
Cruiser, 2 Destroyer, 1 sub: 322 and 1 livepoint. (22 IPC)(too weak - but might work)
Cruiser, 2 Destroyer, 2 subs: 322 and 2 livepoints (28 IPC)(too expensive)
(Only the fighter that attacked seazone 6 together with the submarine can land on the carrier. Other attack pattern will only allow more british ships to survive)
Only the carrier submarine combo or the battleship can survive a british air attack.
Now lets assume the british didnt attack affraid of loosing too many aircraft (although the cruiser battleship combo is still a little bit weak)
Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one carrier and one submarine.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 4333321.
The british fleet defence would be 442221.
Probably one german bomber would survive
Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one battleship.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 443333 plus 1 additional livepoint.
The british fleet defence would be 442221.
Probably the german battleship and one bomber or one bomber and one fighter would survive
Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built two destroyers and one submarine.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 43333222.
The british fleet defence would be 442221.
Probably the german bomber and one or two fighters would survive
Under these circumstances attacking the lone battleship / destroyers and sub and building one additonal fighter instead of the sub should be the british course of action. For those who love the risk, the battleship is the best offensive opportunity against the british fleet with least losses in counterattack.
For hardcore gaming I recommend the two destroyers and sub or the carrier sub combo as its weaker on the offence but better on defense. The carrier sub combo ist the real defence monster, but the destroyers and the sub has more offensive potential. The real question is where to draw the line in cost cutting.
Now i will try these builts against the max british fleet defence with no landing force or transports:
UK built: 1 Carrier, 2 destroyers, 2 submarines
Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one carrier and one submarine.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 4333321.
The british fleet defence would be 44222211.
Total whipeout / the lone transport survives
Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built one battleship.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 443333 plus 1 additional livepoint.
The british fleet defence would be 44222211.
Total whipeout / the lone transport survives
Now lets assume that germany lost one fighter in G1 and built two destroyers and one submarine.
The german strikeforce would therefore consist of 43333222.
The british fleet defence would be 44222211.
Probably the german bomber would survive
SUMMARY
The german battleship should it survive B1 will totally establish total german dominance over the french coasts at the risk of losing it in B1 whereas the carrier sub combo forces the british to go all out on ships to stop. The two destroyer one sub built is a more expensive but balanced built. Eighter built ist a severe theat to any british ships and will probably force the UK to move its ships away and hide them behind GB for a B2 built preventing B1 landings I also like the 2 sub strategy of Funcionetta as an even cheaper built. Depending on UK airforce further german built of 1 submarine and solid airforce should continue keep the royal navy at bay. - But rotten luck cant be calculated.
You focus too much on russia! I think the race to moscow strategy is totaly nuts. With germany only building tanks and inf in B1 the german fleet will be sunk and the landings in france and norway will start. The United Kingdom will start the strategic bombardment of berlin and the United States might join in. The german tanks will be needed to reconquer france every turn. The key to victory is a balanced strategy on both sides!
I comply with uncle joe.
The brit IC in south africa totally negates any italian attacks in africa and may even threaten the japanese. But you can also do without. I still like the african factory as it reduces the number of high cost units used in the african and asian theatre. The indian factory can only be built if russia starts sending units round one and that is a luxury russia normaly cannot afford. The australian factory is not as risky as the indian one - i still advocate against it. Thats 15 IPCs that commit the american.
Should Germany take Egypt first turn?
Yes, of course!
Without an attack of the german africa-korps, the italians will never be able to take Cairo - at least not in Round 1.
Additionaly, you place your transport in a good spot for further attacks in russia or africa should it survive. There is a good chance of destroying all british forces in Egypt and even the possibility of conquering it. Furthermore it opens up opportunities for Italy in africa - even though italian assistance may be better applied in russia.
Should germany commit planes in Egypt?
No! germanys 1st turn is the most important turn of the whole game. Commiting the german bomber just to destroy one plane is a misplacement of forces. The german airforce should IMHO be commited to destroy the royal navy.
1. Send 1 submarine, 1 fighter, one bomber to seazone 2 to sink the Hood and its transport
2. Send 1 submarine, 2 fighters to seazone 12 to sink 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer
3. Send 1 submarine, 1 fighter to seazone 6 to sink 1 destroyer
The germans should build an aircraft carrier. With these attacks, the british player has to rebuild the navy from space one without the royal air force being able to sink the german fleet.
(Side note - building a destroyer and subs might also repel the royal air force bringing losses to the RAF and the subs diving after losing the surface ships. Building a battleship and a submarine is extremely expensive. I still propose building the carrier as it will allow the transport to survive.)
British 3 bomber built. (and sinking the italian navy in B2)
Sinking the italian navy does not threaten the german. If the german built one additional transport in his second turn the second british built will have to fortify the United Kingdom. The italian will start putting out infantry and relieve the german forces from defending France further increasing the pressure for russia. Nothing has been done to stop japan from taking africa. His majestys navy will never
Pros - Italy will stop threatening africa and never get major IPC.
Cons - GB will not have a navy and Germany can withdraw its forces from the western theatre.