The fighter heavy initial purchase of this thread is an interesting twist to the initial game

Think you’re mixing threads.

No fighter heavy purchase here, no fighters purchased at all.  Second transport isn’t really necessary, except to increase the cost of taking out the Atlantic fleet when/if the allies go after it, and to beef up any attempt to remove a few Allied transports from the Atlantic.

Atlantic blockade is just on turn one, and minimal with the sub, to as a contingency opportunity to potentially prevent the allies from diverting ships to the med fleet on R2.  The US is then committing its bomber to that attack, if they want to take a swing at the submarine.

The Med fleet if anything is a deterrent to allies breaking off a transport and landing in Africa on the next turn
Infantry aren’t likely being transported past round 2, if any can afford to be moved at that point.

It will be a while before the Allies can divert troops to Africa, unless they make a special effort in that regard.
If they wait until turn 6, thats Axis +41/Allies -41 (roughly).  Thats a swing of around 26 infantry on the European continent over that timeframe.  Obviously somewhat variable.  The swing is not as big if the Axis aren’t trading as much land on the Soviet border.

IF Japanese is coming inland hard, especially on the southern route, they may have a carrier (potentially with fighters) and a transport in the region relatively quickly.  Very much depends on US tactics and Allied aircraft activity, as well as the initial Pearl Harbor decision.  Potentially landing reinforcements, of limited number on turn 2, although circumstances and priorities may vary.

I never suggested that concentrating on Africa was a particularly strong strategy, just a way that has a high probability of securing Africa for the Axis in the early game, and generally very quickly.  I am presuming that the intent of keeping the fleet alive is to get the IPCs from Africa.  Any fleet survival from that point is just a bonus, more likely it will be an elimination of some Allied air assets that could otherwise be protecting Karalia or wreaking havoc elsewhere.

Eastern Europe can be reinforced with fighters in the second round, barring a full English counter attack from India.  In the first round they will have to make do with perhaps 2-3  fighters unless only one is used in Africa, or fighters are desired elsewhere.  Obviously any casualties from the naval attack, won’t be returning to base.

Can’t figure out how to edit, using the cd version.  First round anyhow, just easier to restart at that point anyhow.
Just playing around for fun, not really testing, more freeform study.  Testing responses to different scenarios.

The tanks had plans for the Japanese, with an option of switching fronts later if they could knock them back for an extra round.  Had some intent of driving them back later by increasing offense ratios, as I recall.  Armor buy had other, not very tactically sound reasons.  Mostly just felt like it.  The tank buy negated the normal hit on the Ukraine, Caucusus went sideways.  Just rolled with it.

Reminded me of some games from when we had a group that played.  Every once in a while things like that would happen, where a mistake by one player snowballed into a very quick game.

Apparently no one here ever remembers something like that happening in a live or test game?

Another option

Crush the Atlantic fleet and Egypt with airpower and your libyan troops.  Bomb out the US transport and blockade the Atlantic.

Build a second transport (optional) to expedite troop movements, but mostly to insulate your fleet.  Take out Egypt while you’re at it.  Shuttle a tank to speed up the conquest of the remaining African continent and minimize loss of defensive units in the Euro zone.  Leave an infantry man in Libya to reinforce the landing zone so any planes that can’t make the return trip this turn aren’t tempting targets.

Brittain will get a jumpstart on its campaign (since you’ve ignored their North Sea fleet) against Europe because they can transport a bit faster into that zone.  The US could bomb your blockade, but the sub has a chance of submerging, and England will probably take the opportunity to start shoveling troops into the main battle zone.  If the allies pursue with the assistance of their navy they are giving up position although they could land in Algeria (at the expense of an initial Europe onslaught).  If the allies go this route, the Germans have more time to build defenses/counter attack ability.

Even if England commits ground troops from India you will probably get Africa under German boots rather quickly.

The initial IPC advantage of Brittain will swing to Germany pretty quickly, which means less incoming British units later and more German defenders.

If you go this route you are conceding the North Sea early and the Allies won’t have to spend time/money replacing ships.  The upside is you probably aren’t losing much  airpower and Brittish builds will slow rapidly,  leaving America to do much of the heavy lifting.    You won’t need to hold the seazone for long as your troop advantage in the first round or two, and somewhat stronger fleet will probably deter a quick allied landing of reinforcements.  Allies may have other priortities anyhow.  If your fleet survives the Allies are more likely to go for a Finland landing than WE, which while effective at reinforcing the Soviets, also takes longer.  More net IPCs for Germany.

The IPCs are all coming from the UK, which not only means you are gaining a fair number of IPCs, Brittain is losing them at the same time.   This creates a huge swing.  (If you are +9 IPCs in africa thats essentially a six infantry man swing in the overall situation)  Your airforce will mostly land in German territory, and any that have to land in Africa can get back the next turn unless you leave one behind to expedite the mopup of Africa.  You also have the option of driving a tank to Syria on R2, creating an incentive for the Soviets to divert troops from the front lines.  If its ignored it can take advantage of potential openings or move to assist the Japanese.  Africa and Syria will probably be in complete control by round 3, and mostly controlled in round 2.  Even in round one, you are +3 to +4, depending on how you execute the attack. (so you’ve essentially recovered a 2 infantry man transport deficit).  At the end of round 2 you should have everything but South Africa.  Obviously Madagascar is a different animal, but isn’t key to the regions control anyhow.

The later round reinforcements can make a big difference on the Euro front and those IPCs will come faster than they usually do.  With more surviving land Units in Africa you should have it secured faster and locked up more decisively than a typical North Sea opening will do.

Unless the English commit India its going to very quick to eradicate their presence in Africa. If they do commit the Indian Army and airforce you will be tied up a bit longer, but the Japanese will move faster and with lest resistance.
Since Egypt and possibly Syria have fallen in round 1 they may consider this.   You may or may not be able to hold an aircraft back to assist with taking the fresh troops out, but they are going to have a tough time if your tanks are on the ground, even more so since you will have a fighter and a bomber parked in Libya, if you can justify leaving them in the African region.  Depending on the location of the landing, your bomber may be able to make it back to Europe anyhow.

The real trick to manage is holding back the initial rush of Allied forces that may try and capitalize on your slightly reduced manpower and their initial troop burst in the second round.  Germany will probably want a defensive pure infantry buy on R1.  The Russians may try to force the issue now that they are getting more defensive replacements.

Transport may or may not be desired, depending on what the ultimate goal really is.

After the initial assault, your fleet won’t matter too much anyhow, and it can either send a couple of infantry men (assuming your transport survives), simply present a counterthreat to allied shipping or presumably assist in the Pacific if needed due to game developments.

The allies can send their bombers, but they aren’t going to be able to land safely.

This can also work well with a heavy Pearl Harbor assault complete with a loaded landing craft (taking hawaii is optional, but you will want to keep the transport alive if at all feasible).   The allies will probably not be able to escape ships from the Pac and may choose to invest assets (ships and airpower) or even buys in that Theater to try and quickly scuttle the Japanese fleet, since there is not much chance of an unassisted escape.  If they ignore the fleet then they have to be prepared for a round 2 landing, which will slow them down slightly.

If you get a fast jump on Africa, the allies may choose to ignore the fleet.  The canal will fall in round 1/2, potentially opening up three additional points in India (if desired), which the Germans need more than the Japanese do.  The Japanese can still do the grunt work of clearing out any stragglers there, if they do a full/primarily air attack.  This works better with a light pearl harbor strategy (which I usually prefer) as Japan can’t be everywhere and Asia offers significantly more in the way of tangible gains.  They are more likely to be in a position to clear out India, if this is your goal.  Bonus points if Japan decides to hunt down the Indian Sea transport.  The Allies may choose to land reinforcements in Africa if you remove the threat of the fleet entirely however.

Its a method.  It has drawbacks and advantages like most do.  It does however, almost always result in complete and early domination of Africa… for a price.

Thats a far saner plan.

Either way, you will probably be outbuilt in the fleet department and Germany can’t really afford to direct much effort towards a ship building plan unless the Allies are more interested in taking down Japan.  The Soviets can usually capitalize on the fewer land units.

Since the allies are “determined” to knock out your fleet, they can if they desire.  If they have higher priorities, you might be able to maintain a fleet for a while, but the choice is pretty much up to the allies.  Both the US/UK have the luxury of building a naval campaign and combined have far more IPCs to work with than Germany, which almost always has to buy ground troops.

Knocking out the UK in round 1, gives the Germans enough to work with to do this, or anything else they want to.  Unfortunately, any attempt to do is such a longshot that its not worth doing even if the Soviets manage to get their fleet scuttled or leave it out of play.  18% is the best odds that the axis have in round 1.  If round 2 opens up a better opportunity then its Germany’s lucky day.

221B Baker street is correct, as far as I can tell.  In a practical sense, the Allies should have Naval superiority in the Atlantic if they want it and if determined can take out the med fleet.  There’s nothing Germany can really do about it.  At least nothing that won’t make Europe very hard to hold.

Huddling the ships and buying a transport in the Med as you suggested and transferring to Libya means that you have to use air to get the sub and the battleship (41%) AND (67%), both which have to succeed (only 27% chance).  Either of these can support a  UK bomber run.  Bomber+Sub will usually get one transport, and with Bomber+Battleship they are 50/50 of taking out everything and will usually kill both transports.  In round 2 they will probably try and finish the job.  The axis have a chance doing this, but its not very good.  A two transport or (sub+trans) buy increases the odds but is usually two expensive to do.

The upside of your plan is if the axis are somewhat lucky they can get three transport moves in two rounds.

Alternately
A fleet build in the Med, killing the North sea fleet, killing the sub (50-75%), knocking out the battleship  and limiting landing access by taking Gibralter and the two western African Assets can buy some time and limit the allies to just the bomber in the first round, but also costs Germany the ability to do a first round landing in Africa.  Additionally the axis have to get lucky in Libya’s one infantry man (10%/48% if they just send a tank)  or the American bomber can land there as well (and probably get torched next round anyhow).  If the transport is tied up in the first round taking Gibralter the first extra transport gives them zero units on R1/ and 4 on R2.

Either way,
The allies can stage a followup attack for round 2 or 3, even if either of the axis keeps their fleet intact, although they may choose not to.

Even if the Germans get some transport capability for a while, they still have to divert units from Europe, which makes Europe harder to hold.  A 16 point fleet buy and pulling that many land troops from Europe is costly and sets the axis for a hard fight in Europe although it probably secures Africa and makes the fleet more likely to survive.

If the Axis want Africa, they are usually better off going directly after the forces there and sending some air power to assist whatever units they can land on round 1 (either assisting in egypt, or providing security for an airbase in Libya).  This creates a tradeoff in other areas, but is generally more cost effective and has a higher success chance.  Air units can return to Europe relatively easily once the main opposition in Africa taken down.

There is only one way to save the fleet.  
Talk your opponent out of killing it.

This plan involves the following elements (as modified)
It can work.  Maybe.

1. Kill North Sea fleet
2. Kill British Bomber and potentially fighter(s) and maybe England
3. All or mostly fleet build
4. Blocking all potential allied landing points (gibralter and africa)
5. Kill the British Battleship, if you are feeling super lucky get the sub and the Battleship

Its pretty sketchy.  I think it can be done with the mid-atlantic submarine assisting in the Med without changing the odds too much.  If it doesn’t work, Germany probably dies quick.  If it does work, somewhat, Germany may well die anyhow.   Africa however, is potentially well in the German clutches in a round or two.

[EDIT]

Pretty much this becomes operation Sea Lion if you send a loaded transport along to assist in taking down the British airforce, which on review seems to be the best way to go about this.

By Going to sealion with 2 infantry and using 3 fighters in north sea, you have the side benefit of a 10-15% of instantly capturing England.  See below for rough odds to win both battles completely and taking England on R1. The naval win does increase your chances of damaging the British airpower, in particular the bomber.  You can use less fighters in the north sea if you want to take chances and go for the med submarine.

The real goal of the sealion attack, here, is to kill the bomber rather than take England.

The Basic Plan
i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/FutureTechnology/games/sealion.jpg
The image shows a badly executed sealion approach that has only an 11% chance to win the sea battle (at best)
Maximizes the Battleship kill chance and shuts off access from Gibralter and takes the risk of leaving an intact sub,
forcing Germany to build 2 ships and hope for the best.  Africa is a tank sweep with infantry covering the blitz route and the third bomber landing zone

You could bring more fighters into the North Sea if you were serious about taking down England and wanted to maximize your chance at making a landing, since you are halfway there already.  The real goal is to kill the bomber along with the fleet.

Naval battle air force impact: 3 ftr=87% 2 Ftr = 56%, 1 Ftr=11%, assume lower actual numbers because you want the transport to stay alive.

Actually taking England by happy coincidence using sealion with all ships in play (russia restricted, soviets moving to north sea) (lower as transport must survive the sea battle, reducing all odds by whatever percentage that adjusts to)
3 fighter 15%
2 fighter 10%
1 fighter  6%
Chances of getting the bomber are pretty high, I think it will tend to die early when England is in a live or die situation and casualty selection could decide the game.
[/END EDIT]

[[i]originally wrote this with thnking Germans had 3 fighters that could get in, with two its only 1% win chance if the amphibious landing isn’t attempted. Assume Germans have an extra fighter to work with outside of England, adjust accordingly]

Three Two fighters and one bomber can attack Brittain in round one.  7% 1% chance of success if you get by the Anti-aircraft guns.  Partial victory not even likely.

If the battle gets close the brits will usually give up the bomber, because they will need the fighters to defend with, somewhat better % of that happening. This can buy you some time and you might be able to withdraw your fighters for next round, particularly if you’re shutting down Gibralter.

That leaves you a battleship and two three planes to attack the British atlantic fleet with. Your sub is probably blocking the atlantic ocean (unless you have a plausible north sea attack).    If you go to the western med with ships you need both Gibralter and Western Africa via French Equitorial Africa to prevent the US bomber and/or surviving british fighters from coming in on the first round.

CONSIDERATIONS:

MED
If your boats go towards the canal to deal with the sub you need to get lucky and take both sides of the canal.  This prevents the fighter in India or the Russian fighters from having a response.   An advantage of taking the canal side is that it makes a longer trip for the allied fleet and allows you to use blockers if you don’t have enough power to take it on directly.  It also keeps the british transport from getting in as a casualty absorber, as well as discouraging the Allies from landing the Indian troops in Africa

If you want to improve the odds of the sub not being able to submerge, you’ll probably have to commit your battleship and a fighter to take it out.

BRITISH FLEET
Stopping the British fleet from responding.  
Your sub will have to stay in the atlantic to block.  Stands 1/3 chance of diving assuming the US tries to clear the shipping lane.

If the Soviets haven’t reinforced the navy in the north Sea, you might be able to send the baltic sea transport and the other two fighters into the North Sea.   Sending fighters precludes their use in the Med, so you will have to slug it out ship to ship.

The sub will probably have to be used to take down the atlantic battleship if you go that route not very easy, you’ll need a lucky torpedo if it goes in alone, if you send the transport you get two or three shots.  Since all of your fighters are committed the battleship will have to hunt the submarines.   Any attempt to do all of things is going to spread you very thin and increases the already significant risk you are taking.

If the soviets do reinforce the North Sea you have around a 25% good chance of winning a direct attack if you send everything that can reach (sub(s), transport, last 23 fighters), better off simply blocking unless you want to go full on kamikaze longshot.

Going after this target means that you will have to leave the battleship or the sub alive in the Med, which means you will need to build at least sub+trans or two transports to stand a chance against the sub. (up to 4 small ships max)  The upside is it makes your fleet stronger, the downside is that they could still die and you have less to work with on the continent.  That and the fact that you will probably get smoked in the North sea by airpower next round.

IMPACTS AND FOLLOW UPS
If this works, you can now build anything you want in the Med that turn and its completely safe.
You have possibly discouraged the Allies with contesting your build, particularly if you’ve been lucky enough to trash the British airforce.   On R2 and possibly R3 you can consolidate your fleet with a new build, although your probably busy with the Soviets by then.

If you get a partial success, you may be able to hold out.  If you are insanely aggressive and lucky and manage to kill the british navy at the same time and disable the bulk of the allied airforce, or if the allies stay out of reach… you might get immunity in round 3 as well.  If you take England, the allies are going to have a hard time.

If the allies have taken this as some form of determined personal mission to destroy your fleet they could sail to the atlantic and redeploy air power. (that won’t work if you managed to get a carrier built in R1 and have enough planes left to protect it.  If you’re in the Western Med, and your sub can’t stop them the fleet can hit you directly.  The russian sub could also be in striking range.

If you’ve gone this far and you have any airpower left, you can attack any pursuing fleets.   If not, they may very likely elect to leave your fleet alone for a while and concentrate on other plans.

IF you really want to push things, and can clear the path for it, Germany could target India in R2 with the longterm intent of building new naval forces there.  You may need help from Japan to clear India for you.  Japan has to kill the british fighter to even consider this, unless you want to relocate  your entire Navy to the Indian ocean.  It would be helpful if the British were really foolish and decided to go ahead with a factory in India type plan, but I don’t think that’s likely.  You’d probably have to build your own.

Germany is going to be playing catchup after this, even with the big IPC swing that will be coming your way fairly soon, if you can afford the ground troops needed to collect it.

The luftwaffe is pretty much trashed, ships are being built at the expense of defenses and the main British fleet is potentially being rebuilt.  The chances of actually pulling this off successfully are pretty low and the cost of failure is high.

You are going to have to be lucky with your attack on the UK, need hot dice.  You still have to win the ship battles, although you have the advantage there.   To survive someone that is deadset on knocking out that fleet you may have to pour more resources into ships on R2 to counter there builds/adjusted deployments.

For insurance purposes you probably want to try and take out both Sinkiang and China in R1.   Thats two less aircraft that could eventually engage your ships.

WARNING
I’ve never actually tried this with the goal of saving the fleet, but if I felt that it was imperitive to take Africa… or got obsessed with building a German Navy… was really tired of seeing my atlantic fleet bombed out and wanted revenge… or had a US player that liked to fight in the Pacific… or just wanted to see what happened…  … well maybe.

I’d also probably have to feel that  I could handle the other players invasion skills without an airforce.  Might be a fun gamble against a weak player to increase the challenge level…    I doubt its something you can build a solid strategy around, but I’ve never explored it.  I’m pretty sure that Germany would be unable to hold Europe.   I also don’t know what the critical mass is of damage that you would have to inflict to keep the Allies at bay.

If you go all out on this program and pull a super houdini with the dice you could end up with control of the seas, at least for  long enough and maybe even grab England.  I wouldn’t count on it or bet on it.   Probably the best that can be hoped for is control of the Atlantic, and even that won’t be easy.

If you try this, good luck.  You’ll probably need it.

Note:  If its not a russia restricted game, your assets may be different and you may have to make some modifications, especially if the soviets attacked your sub and have theirs parked in that zone.

If you do the sealion thing to damage the air force, which makes more sense now that I’ve recounted the fighters; the british are probably building mainland defenses on their first buy, and/or the Americans are moving into the West Atlantic so you can’t try again on R2 (if you did Gibralter/Africa). The allies will probably assume that your goal was to take England and react accordingly.

Season accordign to tastes.

---

What successful results may look like… no idea about the end results.

Modified Plan after a mostly successful mission and generally poor unit placement… (post build screenshot)  Units cut and pasted so they can actually be seen.

i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/FutureTechnology/games/sealion2.jpg

Germany had gotten all Navy happy and decided to spread them out after the build.  Brittain still has two fighters, but the bomber is gone, all landing points are insulated and more naval forces placed to either facilitate a credible R2 sealion threat and to simply create more targets.   The sub is alive, and anything in the north sea will get trashed as allies have 1 bomber, 4 fighters.  SE ships are favored to win against the allied submarine.

Germany probably spent too much on its navy and didn’t place them particularly well. They could have placed entirely in the med (32pts navy) where they are completely safe for a while… a carrier could have time to get jets loaded, although at the expense of even more continental defense.

alternately an aggressive force could be placed in the baltic although it would probably sink.  Land placements weren’t really thought about both fighters should probably be in WE with more land troops.

Fending of the Soviets is going to be very challenging for Germany and every unit siphoned off the mainland is trouble.

Brittain will have to build at least a couple of infantry unless the US sacrifices their transport to block a potential invasion.  If the ships were placed in a way that allowed them to consolidate (MED), they’d be tough to take down and only the North sea transport would be likely to die.

Got thinking about games where there were really serious game deciding tactical mistakes were made or a routine operation  went sideways?

This one was brutal.

…
Was testing the luftwaffe start trying some different responses, mixing it up a little.

Russia parks infantry in Karalia goes 19/2.

Pretty standard opening for Germany, Does a  Decided to send two infantry into the caucasus and leaves a picket in the Ukraine.  The infantry win without casualty.  Some tanks held in reserve to protect the German build.  Almost everything goes to Eastern Europe including all of the fighters which can reach. 2Ftr/1inf/1tank placed.

England saves, manages to miss the baltic transport, unlucky bomber.

Japanese buy a tank and chase down the Aussie transport, open up Mongolia and Go heavy into China.  Land their tank on the coast.

America builds and I decide to mix it up and put pressure on Japan, since their carrier is out of position.  Built a couple ships and a bomber on WC and move some airpower to Alaska. So far so good.

_Russia decides to try an armor build, to see if it can get strike capability against EE, or maybe get aggressive later with japan now that there is a sizeable core in Sinkiang.  Russia reinforces Sinkiang.

Soviets decide to send a couple of fighters and a couple infantry to dispatch the German presence in the caucusus. 98% win chance overall.    Passed on the Ukraine because wanted to keep a large infantry buffer in Karalia and the fighters were busy.

In tactical mode just looking at the battle board.  Both soviet infantry die, both German infantry standing. Complete soviet miss., like hmm. 2 fighters vs 2 infantry.  can’t afford to lose a fighter or two…  Retreat them to Karalia. _

Non-combat.  Russia retreats fighters and hits the button.  Next phase.

Place units… look at the board and see trouble.
Russia empty with two infantry right next door.  Look at the stack of fighters in EE and drop 4 the tanks and an infantry in Russia. No choice at this point.  Obviously should have seen that in non-combat, but was button happy…  See what’s coming and decide to see how it plays out.

Would have been bad enough if it had been an infantry buy, but with 4 tanks and an infantry the russians are going to need great dice to hold Moscow.

Germany.
A few things  have become become obvious.
Russia has a huge bullseye painted on it.  Karalia is understaffed because they had to place in Moscow.  All reinforcements that can easily liberate Moscow are in Karalia.

Eastern Europe assisted by three fresh tanks in germany, and a western europe tank hitching a ride on the transport.
Slam Karalia.  Eight airplanes and the two infantry go for Moscow.

Long story short. 
Russians obliterated in R2.  Karalia falls, Moscow falls brutally.  Potential counter attackers are mostly out of Reach in Sinkiang.  Germans are thin on troops but the West can’t respond yet.  New game. 
Forgot about the tank in Sinkiang, only unit that was in reach, might have saved the day, for a minute.

Won’t make that mistake again, either of them, although I did decide that I like the Caucusus attack if that board situation happens.

Thought it was kind of funny.

Anyone else got stories?

@221B:

That’s pretty much a summary of any non-bid game.

I want to test play this myself when I get some more time but I have a couple ideas on things the Allies could do which you might want to consider.

1. As Germany purchased fighters instead of inf., what would happen if the Allies pursued a KJF (Kill Japan First) strategy instead?  You can do a search on this topic if you are unsure of the general strategy of KJF.

2. What if, instead of building an allied superfleet consisting of a BB, the allies built three transports instead?  The defensive potential (three dice rolling a one vs. one dice rolling a four) isn’t terribly different.  But this permits the allies to land more force more quickly to Karelia, or elsewhere…

3. Such as Spain.  At a cost of only three ipcs, a placement of a few forces here (say on R2 or R3) now means the allies could bring much more to a WE attack on the following round.  To respond, does Germany strafe spain?  Build up WE at the cost to EE?  Consider the “rolling” defense, where Germany alternates holding WE and EE by tank moves (and purchased inf in Germany) from one to the other?  Granted this wouldn’t happen until later in the game when it would be hoped Japan is making serious inroads in Asia.

4. What if, when Germany builds the planes then sinks the allied navy, the UK rolls for tech and builds bombers until the US builds a navy sufficiently large to hold the N. Sea?  Strategic bombing, especially if the UK gets Heavy bombers would starve the German war effort.  If the UK gets industrial technology, expect lots of UK infantry in the mid game…

I also still think Russia is going to be able to take (and maybe even hold) EE (and I would consider doing so even at the cost of the Russian tanks especially if it takes out German planes), but I haven’t played this scenario out.

KJF
Considered it.  Normally tough to execute, at least for me, definitely don’t know the ins and outs of it.  I should study it more.  Just got wrapped up in exploring the superfleet KGF response.

Been several instances where even a bit of presence in the Pacific would have been useful in disrupting the Japanese plans.  Just having a bomber in range is enough to possibly force the Japanese to hold back a fighter to protect the fleet.

Even a more balanced response might work
since the entire fleet doesnt need to be taken out, necessarily to slow down the Japanese.

Post pearl harbor, particularly if its a close battle,  if the US moved into Hawaii and killed the fleet with the PacCoast battleship and some air support (since hawaii isn’t taken, per se) they could probably finish the job without too much damage.  A battleship a bomber, a temporary fighter escort and possibly a transport in range of Japan, could present a pretty serious pretty serious threat of disruption to the Japanese shipping lanes.

Not sure if the fighter if the fighter is needed to guarantee the safety of an atlantic fleet though, and its definitely useful on the other side.  The bomber landing in Hawaii might be safe or at least costly to remove.

Three transports
thought about it during a couple of the games, but wanted to work out the details of the suggested  allied setup first.  Havent’ run the survival numbers, but I suspect it would be better.  Main advantage is speed of British deployments and flexibility.  Could be very good a bit later if the allies decided it was opportune to switch targets.  Also a side benefit in that would be easier to slip allied troops into Africa without disrupting the troop flow significantly.  The battleship is nice if for some reason the British absolutely have to split their fleet but want to make it somewhat expensive to do so,  maybe sending emergency replacements to Karalia, maybe deliberately trying to entice the Germans to hit it the ships.

Spain
By the end of round 3 Japan has to be adjacent to Moscow, so they better be making inroads.

In testing haven’t had much luck with a western based or dual front invasion.  Not to say that I executed it well or understood either sides strategy as well at that time.  I’m definitely better at keeping a steady flow of units going than I used to be, so it might work better.

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE SPANISH INQUISITION
The problem with the allies splitting their fleet is that the Luftwaffe can crush individual task forces in one round, limiting return fire.  Allies can easily find themselves in a spot where either the Americans or the British are without a fleet if they aren’t careful, which creates issues for them.

1 bomber and 7 fighters kills 4 ships/round on average and can easily get more without much statistical variation.  Small task forces are riskier though in some ways because they may force the Germans to bleed off air units if they aren’t lucky and lose some of the power in their knockout punch.

If the fleets are split and the first fleet goes down fast, the second fleet stands a good chance of being shut down as well, which creates a major delay in allied deployment.  Germany will probably lose most/all of their airpower if it plays out like that, but their ground forces started strong and have been getting stronger while the allies were building ships.  Japan should have enough momentum going at this point to have the Russians under pressure at the minimum.

If the Allies go for a western invasion they have a much harder time supporting the balance needed to keep the Soviets alive.  The Soviets are not on very sturdy ground even with a pipeline supporting their army and are going to have a hard time staying in the game long enough for the Allies to get Germany down and a strong enough force to stop whatever comes rolling out of Eurasia at them.

Thats the theory anyways…
but its based on minimal practical experience in that matchup, since this strats only been around for a few days, at least as a serious discussion, as far as I know.  The majority of the games I’ve played have been live play and they’ve been years ago, with a periodic immersion in the computer game when I get bored, but even thats been a while, seem to remember buying the cd a decade or so ago.  I pretty much have to sort things out as I go and relearn a lot of stuff.

BRITISH BOMBERS AND REBUILT NAVIES
Strat bombing doesn’t gain much in general, at least until you get heavies.  I’ve got the game set to 2d HBs, but thats just a personal preference.  Always an option, as long as they’ve got enough infantry built to make the bomber stack look like target practice, although at this point the luftwaffe is probably toast.

I think they might be building fighters just to keep Russia in the game as long as possible, also works good with supporting the US navy if they want.  Navy won’t need as much protection the second time its built, main problem is the opportunity cost in doing so.

TECH ROLLS
In general I’m not thinking about tech rolls too much and not using them in test games, just too much of a wildcard and I’ve got enough variable factors in this already.

After I’ve got the strategy where I feel its solid, if that turns out to be the case… might turn out to be more of a gambit to catch someone by surprise,  don’t know yet, pretty sure it would crush someone that didn’t know about it on the first go around.  Couple pretty nasty surprises that the Axis can spring that would be difficult to spot if you hadn’t run into it before.  Anyhow, after I got it wired to my satisfaction then I’ll see how tech influences it.

EE
Hmm, Maybe.  Doesnt’ work on the calculator though, although you might  get an outside shot at Berlin if the Axis get careless.  Tried actually running the Eastern front battle at different stages, just to see how it played out.  Its pretty much a serious loss for whichever side attacks, at least if both sides are playing that front as heavily as they were when I was testing.

Germany has enough infantry to absorb some damage and enough firepower to inflict a lot of casualties, regardless of which battle round.  Either side could win on a lucky dice run, of course.

The biggest threat to the Axis is in letting the soviets get ahead far enough to try some kind of Crazy Ivan attack.  Its a bigger threat than anything the Western powers can throw.  The biggest advantage for the axis is if the Russians let the advantage flip to the axis side.  If you are running this strat you are watching that balance very very closely and doing your best not to screw it up.

Eastern Europe has to be built heavily and early.  Units are pulled from Norway and Southern Europe and WE is lite.
Mostly infantry is usually the second build, unless there’s a good reason not to.  With all the big units on the line, they need a buffer, the axis already have counterstrike power.  There is no naval threat to Berlin on R1 except whatever the Canada transport  and three airplanes can bring, if its not blockaded in the North Sea, which it is often. Western Europe has some threat level and is usually protected in R1, after round 2 and the infantry buffer is in place, its more vulnerable.

The east stack is heavy and lately its been going to six/seven fighters as soon as safe to do so.  WE is still in counter attack range, if need be, the bomber is out of there early, especially if there aren’t any reasonable targets, but its going to be a bit before the Allies can mount a serious invasion that can entrench without being demolished.
If the allies really want it, they can take it at a fairly low cost, holding its another issue.  Germany has a pretty big stack that can steamroll it if they need to, although it might cost them position.

Since WE isn’t a real threat until round three or four, if Germany falls back and Russia pursues they will almost definitely forfiet Moscow. 
If Russia splits forces, the Russians get crushed and then the Western powers, while Japan takes the remaining Soviets head on.    At least thats how I see it. 
If its a diversion, it better be one strong enough to unbalance the defense in EE.

Some fresh infantry, and airpower are going to hit it.  If I see it coming, the AA gun is in SE and the other is in East Europe so my aircraft can hit safely.  Pretty good chance they are already moved.  Might just move the SE one if the allies are low on bombers or can only land in Gibralter.  Depends on which side I think benefits from the WE AAgun the most.

TESTING IT

Its pretty complex as far as strats go, so its pretty easy for either side to make a serious mistake.  Lots of moving parts.  Even little things like the raider transport (assuming a pure KGF where it actually presents an unobstructed threat) can make a significant difference in the supply chain.  At times it is very possible for a piece or two to swing the Eastern front odds by several percentage points, particularly the fighters.  The Axis numbers can really take a big shift if the AA guns roll well.  If you try and crack the fleet, let me know how that shapes up.

IF the axis screws up in Asia, or gets extremely bad dice in the North Sea they are in for an uphill fight.

If they miss completely in the north sea and lose their casualty absorbers they may well be better off aborting the mission rather than take the damage (?)  Don’t know, its not highly probable and they can absorb one and still have a decent shot.  They lose a second fighter they are probably going to have to go into high risk mode and start taking some big chances.  If 3+ get blown out then they probably should have considered getting out while the getting was good.  Haven’t had to drop the attack yet, but it seems like it could be a rough ride.

If Asia goes sideways, I’m pretty sure they have to go full force through Yakutsk and/or Mongolia. They really need to be in position to attack even if it means giving up ground elsewhere. If you find a way that they can buy time, that would be useful as well.

Some allied strats might give them enough time where the Japanese could afford to attack on R5, but they can’t afford to do that against anything which effectively reinforces Karalia, as far as I can tell.

I suppose its theoretically possible for Japan to try a R3 attack by going through Mongolia or maybe the army at Yakutsk.  R1 buy trans+tanks, R2 buy a bomber R3 win a 1% dice throw to survive the counterattack at the gates of moscow ….

Anyhow, run it when you get a chance and see how it works out.  Curious about your impressions when you run it.
If you run a different allied strat, let me know what adjustments were made and what the effects were.  If you see improvements to the strategy or something that will definitively stop it in its tracks, like to know as well.

@SpartanJD01:

I agree that spain is a devastating split of german defenses.  I always thought that the neutral rules were ridiculous (3 ipcs to take a territory that doesn’t even defend itself) because it would have been unrealistic in the war.  I always played house rule of no invading neutrals.

(If spain would have been invaded, they probably would have outright joined the Axis.  Not that it would have been a huge blow, but they had some battle-tested troops and pilots.)

I always figured the 3 IPC was the cost to mop up the national forces and get the local populace under control.  Not so much that it doesn’t defend itself, just that its defenses aren’t on scale or skill with the attacking troops.   Maybe the cost of paying off the locals to tolerate you having an army there if they are more amicable, possibly whatever costs are involved in getting them to “join your side”, not that they really have a choice…

Most of the Neutral countries don’t matter much.  There are a few that do.   I like being able to invade them, open up the front, increases gameplay diversity.  I’ve also played house rules that just put a couple of troops on each of them.

At any rate, two neutrals have a strong chance of getting dragged into the war in this strat.  Mongolia, almost always, just too convenient for merging attack lanes.  And Venzuala, just because it keeps the transport in range of the West coast and gives a shot to grab Brazil.

[EDIT]
221B Baker
Responded to your post, got flagged as spam, no apparent reason?  Too many consecutive posts?
Anyhow, will show when a Mod approves it.

[EDIT 2]
RE:  221B Baker Street
This was a long post which I spent quite a bit of time thinking about and writing.  It still hasn’t been approved by the mods yet.  Not going to rewrite it.   I posted it as a seperate post because its long,  addressed a seperate post and systematically discussed each of the points made.   I’m assuming there is a consecutive post limit, but since its flagged for review the mods probably have a copy of it that they can approve and post.   Guess that its up to them. [/END EDIT]

TANK ROUTE CLEARING/AIRSTRIKE OPTIONS

I don’t think the tank clearing is a gambit, although its a potential tactic.

Whether the Moscow plane strike is used depends on the Allied play at the border.  Most of the time, they won’t be used to clear a tank path, but its an additional option.  If the Allies overplay Asia then its a straightforward German assault at the weakpoint.    Japanese troop placement varies with the Allied response, but Manchuria seems to work better overall.  Mongolia is important in most runs and usually worth the 3IPC cost.

The Japanese may need multiple roads, depending on what Brittain can land to stop it.  Usually its easier to just get the borders.    The entire Moscow airstrike thing is  a gamble, but so is any power move in a game, such as going after the fleet.  12-14 axis planes, with only brittain in between moves,  can drop a hammer on a pretty good size holding force.  If the forces in Moscow try and block access they have to be certain that they can get every one.  If even one route stays open, they will need enough troops to survive the air raid.  This means they need to send enough units to lock a victory over the course of two or three seperate battles.  These generally aren’t favorable trades for them.  They also have to cover any tank blitz routes.  US/UK can commit airpower to assist, but thats expensive as well and may make the fleet vulnerable.

Japan can frequently open up more fronts than the Allies can safely shut down, even working quickly.  Been able to manage it most games.  Not saying that it can’t be stopped, but its not as easy as it seems.  Russia is going to be hard pressed to keep its tanks in reserve.

The preferred use is to have Japan open multiple infantry fronts, likely holding at least one.  The tank is kept in reserve if possible, as it represents another access path.  Allies must react and close those gaps, possibly losing the balance against Germany.  Its actually pretty hard to stop from happening, at least without conceding Karalia to the Germans.

In this particular game Japan chased down the British transport, and carried a fighter.  Actually lost the fighter, but the Japanese were able to make it work.  Bomber tried to finish the job unsuccessfully, could have been a major issue.  Transports stayed out of enemy air range; in the sea of Japan except the landing on the Soviet beaches on R2.

TACTICS SUGGESTED
Fleet Strike
You may have something with chewing up the British Transports.  They can rebuild, but it buys time.  It also really weakens EE.  Worth exploring.  Been meaning to do that, but wanted to run the other a few times.  Was the original plan to just setup a favorable point exchange and get the groundtroops later.  After actually trying it got into this conversation and facing the superfleet, I started looking at the potentials in later usage of the luftwaffe.  Some good possibilities in creating a delay by knocking out the transports and withdrawing.

Extremely risky move, could break either way significantly if there is a big swing in the opening roll.  Could leave crippled or could be facing a pretty even fight against whats left of the superfleet.  Easily as risky as trying to strafe in EE.  Still, all options are on the table.  One of those places where you want to see an average attack/defense or better on that first roll.  That said, if survivors make it they can always boost the Japanese efforts, even a couple could help.

Heavy China
I’ll look at heavy China, but I think it opens less fronts and will be easier to defend against when the perimeter is reached.  Also gives the allies 2 more infantry and a fighter  2/2/4 to the stack later to defend with and saves the Japanese three one point attackers.  Sinkiang also becomes another hole for the Allies to plug, they can’t really afford to let Japan keep it. Worth a look though, might be misreading the value of that approach as I haven’t tried that move for Japan in about fifteen years.  I agree Russia can’t hit Manchuria without getting massacred and losing valuable units they will need at the gates of Moscow.

London Strat Bomb
Strat Bombing London is risky, obviously, likely worth it if the British IPC count drops too far though, often enough.
I think the bomber is a free agent.  Add that option to the list of choices:

Stratbomb (83%) avg IPCs 3.5, but notably variable
Try for the sub (66%) zero risk
Hit the British transport in Canada – also affects british fleet total, (75%)
Support an Egypt Strike (probably needs a fighter escort as well.  Could change Africa a lot. Lands in libya with the tank)
Stratbomb Karalia (every unit there counts too)
Support the Battleship Hit (Increases survival chance 10%, I think the bomber is the more valuable piece there)
Support the Fleet strike in North Sea (moderately increases chance of two ships surviving, insulates fighters and increases chances of getting the fleet in one shot).
Fly it to Manchuria (30% chance of being shot down) potentially useful in that theater.

Moscow using infantry. 
Pretty much what I’ve tried to do.  Usually the only viable option unless Asia goes really sideways for the Japanese.  Might be able to build a wall/counter attack source  in Novosibirsk, with some other troops, but I don’t think that works.  The picket helps, but Japan has a lot of ability to concentrate force.

Pearl
ya I’m happy with it.  For this strat anyhow.  If a battleship ends up surviving all the way thru Panama, it makes a nice boost to the US coast raider, increases the threat level on the West coast as well as giving it the ability to hop.
The transport can also grab New Zealand and the abandoned Australia instead of the West coast or Venzuala.  If the battleship lives, Panama is another option for the transport to hit.  Creates another element that the allies have to track and respond to, if nothing else.  The BB isn’t a huge asset, even if it lives, but it will eventually get into play somewhere and might serve midgame fleet protection duties.

The Med Move
Western Med in 2, North Sea on 3.  This one is interesting and has interesting implications.

PROS
Upside is that the allies have to consider that grouping a target, and its going to cost them some planes most likely, which will be in high demand in a couple of turns.  Allies could potentially commit a lot of airpower to this battlegroup.

If ignored, might make Axis able to cripple the superfleet.

Allies have less certainty about where the planes will strike, forces more fighters to protect the ships.  Significantly disrupts the allied supply chain into Russia.  Its late enough that an allied factory in finland isn’t an option, especially if the US is holding it.

CONS
Ties up an infantryman in Gibralter.  Spain isn’t a likely allied target, so its stuck unless you pay its cost to get it out of there or hold out for the Japanese.  Spain is better left closed for the Axis as it tends to benefit the allies positionally.  Upshot is the infantry man there is dead unless the game takes a highly unexpected turn.

Also less force in Africa which is already marginal and won’t get reinforcements until turn 3 at best, probably quite a bit later.  Puts a lot of IPCs in the hands of the allies that the Germans could be using; 26 points/turn swing for the whole continent, pretty important and midgame may hinge on that jump.  More luck needed in Africa, although the Brit bomber (if present) may decide it has more important things to do than chase down tanks.

Allied BB 
Don’t like this part of the plan.  Taking it down unsupported with fighters is probably going to cost you one, frequently its going to cost you both of them.  Don’t think its a good trade, potential disaster for a small unit battle.  Rather lose the bomber than a fighter anyhow, as defense outweighs range in this strat.  Germany can afford to lose one fighter, maybe. Losing two means without a very good exchange means they’ve wasted their first round buy.

Fleet Strike
Doing the fleet strike might or might not be a good trade for the loss of troops in EE.  Have to play it out to see.
The balance on the Eastern front is situational, but it keeps the Soviets from putting too much into the Japanese and offers a secondary punch to secure Russia if it plays out well.

EE stack
I think the Germans need a very big stack there.  Every unit has to be responded too, if its not on the line, the Soviets can safely siphon troops towards Japan.  Its also may be the support force for Japan or present a direct threat to the Soviets if needed.  There’s a large stack of units that are fast enough and large enough to reach any of Germany’s holdings from that position.    If the Soviets go light on that front, the Axis could draw down, but I don’t think that benefits them particularly, except that it may let Germany place tanks in reserve protecting the Capitol better.  On the balance, I don’t think reducing the forces there is a particularly good plan without a very good reason.  Maybe, possibly to try and lure the Soviets out of position when Japan comes, but thats probably a weak ruse.

Since new buys are probably going in Berlin, and South Europe is almost always safe.  The western front can’t get hit hard until turn 4 at the earliest.  A turn 3 strike should be easy to repell, but may also be optional, depending on the circumstances.  Even if lightly held, its a death trap for at least the first wave that lands, if Germany chooses to make it one.  Allies moving on Western Europe disrupts the Finland supply chain and changes the game dynamic quite a bit, favored the Axis when I tried it.  Later an allied position there  can be a problem, but since the big action should be on round 3 or 4, I don’t see a light hold as that much of a liability.  If done and responded to it displaces forces for both sides.  Given the overall situation for the allies, Finland seems to play much better.

DEAD ZONE MANAGEMENT
However with that in mind.  I’ve been expirimenting with using larger deadzone task forces.

With the Luftwaffe giving air support the infantry tend to fare well and get a favorable exchange rate.  Obviously you can’t overextend doing this or leave your heavy units without too much fodder, unless you want to try and encourage  the soviets to overextend right before Japan hits them.

If the soviets respond to the deadzone, they are taking a bigger risk per unit as the volatility is higher and they have limited air support.  They have to be careful not to over allocate, and increase the chances of being hit hard by a direct German Strike.  As the stack size increases the relative impact of the two Soviet fighters decreases and the exhange rate overall weakens for the Soviets.  If they have mixed builds, it strips away some of the shielding for the main stack.  The situation is more dangerous because the Germans negotiate a better exchange rate overall than the Soviets do and creates bleeding that can tip the balance.

If they fail to take or choose to ignore  the deadzone then Germany gets a favorable IPC swing as well as gaining the potential to send a stack of tanks with a bit of infantry cover right next to Moscow.

Obviously this could be very expensive and may require the Germans to open up EE significantly.  The upside should force a counter that doesn’t have the benefit of finland based units or sea units, possibly when the Soviets can least afford to do so.  May force the airforce back to Germany, where an airstrike has to cross a second AA gun to be exercised.  Obviously this isn’t a move to be taken lightly by Germany as it may set up Southern Europe to get taken as well as putting a large army of mostly tanks in peril and without aircover.  That said, it could be a good play in some circumstances.

Germans have to be careful doing this so that they don’t make a strike on EE favorable.  A lot of how that works out depends on whether the soviets are making mixed force buys or strictly defensive buys and the overall force commitment situation.

ALLIED FACTORY?
A US turn 2 factory would put tanks/airpower on the line faster and free up some transport slots for infantry, not sure whether its a good idea for the allies though in terms of the opportunity cost.  Another use would be that they could reinforce the superfleet if needed by using it as a shipyard.  Of course if f Karalia goes then the factory probably goes soon thereafter.

JAPANESE BUYS

Infantry hits the ground in round 1 because its already there and is probably needed.  Any tank bought in Round 1 can reach Moscow and presents a blitz option. Not sure that its justified, have been just buying the usual 2 trans, 3 infantry, but maybe is a good option.  Problem is that its a blind buy as asia hasn’t started yet.  Might try it at some point.

Any round 2 tanks can provide some mop up ability and may be able to give a second wave at Moscow, especially if the Germans are in a position to mix it up in Karalia, of course they are also less boots on the ground and you very likely will need some infantry unless the Allies completely collapsed on the first round for some reason.

Japanese usually want to buy a bomber in round 3, for additional punch as its the only unit that can reach the front line in one move.  The ground troops can be made up for later, the place will be swarming with them starting round 5 if the Moscow hit is successsful.  An additonal transport is another option.

Infantry is favored over tanks because you need troops that can hold factories if you are planning on building them.  That and the tanks you are churning out later will need shock troops and position holders.  If you hit Moscow even once, you can likely build tank assembly lines later.  Japan should have enough transports to move infantry from Japan in the later portion of the game.  Replacement/additional air power might be worth considering instead of factories if Moscow goes down, but I’m leaning towards a tank funnel.  India and the FIC make a nice combination if Moscow is still being disputed.  India is close to Africa by tread and somewhat close to Germany.  India is also close to any existing allied forces, so don’t build there unless it can be held.

If Japan had enough airpower to survive, a Bomber squadron and the existing fighters might be able to give the Axis another shot at a fleet strike and buy enough time for Germany.  Assuming it can get there before the Allies get a mainland factory of their own in Europe.

Thanks, interesting variants and some maybe better, will take a look at that, in practice.  Next post has comments about the specific suggestions.

Basically what I’ve been trying to determine, is if its a gambit or a viable strategy.   I’m inclined to think its viable in the sense that it gives the Axis a decent shot at winning.   If it can be easily shut down  consistently or the requisite require above average luck,  then its just a gambit.  I’m not sure yet that it can.  Both sides probably need tuning, will definitely look at your suggestions for modification.   Hopefully its at least a strategy… I’ve practically written a book on it so far

Whether it ultimately is a winning strategy or not, I’m not sure.  Definitely a lot of variants and interesting dynamics going on and deeper than it looks at first glance. Probably could get very dangerous with a bid involved, whether it works without one, is maybe.   Regardless, more interesting than turtling.

HIT AND RUN ON MOSCOW
_[A short hit on Moscow is not an automatic game winner, but it can be very helpful and a good trade.[/i]

I just wrapped up a 12 turn game that played out that way.   Soviet forces had to conced Karalia and everything it anchors.   The round 4 air attack was combined with a strafe on Karalia, further weakening the allied position… well I remember considering it at any rate, might have waited until the Soviets moved to retake Russia.   Between Karalia and Moscow, most of the allied planes went down in flames.

Russia went with infantry from the start, as I was now aware that they had no real chance of doing more than maintaining defensive parity on the Eastern front.  This resulted in them having a few more pieces available to protect Moscow.

Germany had a tough fight ahead of it, without the airpower.  Japan had a couple of aircraft left.  The bulk of the allied airforce went down with Moscow.   Japan took with what was available and tried to set up a secondary attack.

Japan used the war spoils from its Russian hit to place two factories, one in Manchuria and one in FIC.  Prefere FIC and India but didn’t work in that game.  Factories produced armor and the ships kept bringing infantry across.   Germany was weakened and had to fend for itself.

After Moscow fell it was anybody’s game.  Allies ended up winning, but it wasn’t even close to a sure thing.
US hit western Europe as they couldn’t get Karalia yet.   Germany had to choose between driving back the invasion and turtling or turning up the heat on Asia.   They didn’t have quite enough to close the deal for the Japanese so went into homeland defense mode.  If I remember correctly they did strafe the Soviet stack at Moscow, to make it easier for Japans follow up.   They countered the invasion with mainland forces and started drawing down trying to hold both positions.

Allies were able to get a grip on Karalia.  Japanese made a couple of runs at Russia but weren’t able to secure it.  
Eventually Karalia/Moscow was reasonably secured (took a while and was in question quite a few times), and the Allies eventually got through on the weak side and were able to secure Western Europe.  The factory came online and Germany went down about the same time Japan finally broke through in Russia.

Was quite interesting, and after the factory build, had no idea which side would win.  I’m certain it could have gone either way._