I don’t see why you continue to think a navy block is a good counter. Then the Baltic fleet is traded in for a ton of Allied equipment, with no loss to German airforce, so you have to rebuild quite a bit of defense and transports when you lose that stuff. The point of the 3 transport buy is not that you can invade UK, but that you threaten to do so, and if it makes the UK player do something (silly I think) like a naval block then that’s great for Germany. Still this strategy hinges on a bid in Africa so you can take Egypt on the first turn as well as Gibraltar.
Posts made by trihero
-
RE: Africa Folly for Germany?
-
RE: Africa Folly for Germany?
caspian sub talks about 2-3 trannies g1 for a link, they think it will deter uk from hitting fleet, i think i would still do it even knowing my air is toast to trim that fleet down so i could handle it the next round
Well, if you buy 2 transports the Baltic fleet has a 70% chance of winning, and all you’d be shaving off if submarines if you strafed. If you buy 3 transports, even strafing begins to get risky. Subs for planes is not a good deal. I think you’d have a hard time “handling” the linked fleet next round without any airforce from round 1, plus you have to defend your capital well enough vs ~5 tran and some planes
-
RE: What to do With Britian in the East?
KJF strategies are really fun if you have NAs. In addition to the free complex, you can use Enigma Decoded to save the tank/fighter from Egypt to do some major harrassing against the Japanese. Throw in Chinese divisions, as well as Nonaggression treaty and you can box Japan in while the navies grow. Problem is though the Germans can get some nice advantages too…
-
RE: Japanese IC
but it seems to me that you can get troops there just as quickly and effectively, for cheaper, and with extra transports to use later if you go the transport route.
I see what you’re saying, but how is 4 units every 2 rounds “just as” quick and effective as 3 units every round from a complex? How is 2 transports cheaper than 1 complex? The only advantage in your way is use of transports later, which is ok, but not nearly what you’re advertising, and might not even be an issue in a KJF game which is the only case in which I’m defending the Brazilian complex.
-
RE: Africa Folly for Germany?
I know your move looks clever, but any UK player worth his salt can defend his capital easily. What do you do with that little med fleet after taking Gibraltar? You aren’t going back to Africa because now there’s a carrier, destroyer, and transport off of Egypt, and going up to the Baltic is worthless since that fleet is dead unless you reinforced it.
-
RE: Japanese IC
Transports going to Algeria are susceptible to fighters stationed in Western Europe, that’s why.
-
RE: Africa Folly for Germany?
Err use the Atlantic sub + some fighters to take out the battleship.
-
RE: Axis Powers out of Control
Shift the thinking. Do not think of Germany as the aggressor as most would think it would be with all the armor units. Think of Germany as a Fortress that is under siege from the start. Play Germany as many would think they would play Russia (on the defensive from beginning). Absorb the impact, and when it is time to exhale, you take a step toward Russia. This works for this game and the original Axis and Allies.
The problem is that you say one thing, then do another. You say play Germany like a Fortress, then you defend Western Europe with minimal forces.
-
RE: Africa Folly for Germany?
I will always attack the Kwangtung transport with the Indian destroyer. But not taking Egypt lets the carrier and transport to go throught the canal, which creates problems. You don’t have to send the whole fleet through…
The Britsh fleet in the med will consist of a destroyer (which you didn’t kill), a carrier, 2 fighters, and a transport. This threatens Southern Europe so you’re actually forced to deploy units there, which is very annoying as they can’t be sent to Eastern Europe in one turn if thye’re infantry. This also threatens Western Europe, and also gives the British more material with which to destroy your Baltic and Med navies as they try to link up.
Going into Africa also forces the Allies to do something about it, either a landing in Algeria or some troops from India. If they let Germany run free with whatever units invade Egypt, then the Allies will probably lose. You don’t have to send more than the first turn’s worth of units if you don’t want to, but it’s a cheap price to pay to make them do something about it.
It seems that Africa is simply a distraction which deviates G from it’s ultimate goal, overrunning USSR. I look forward to anyone’s comments.
Africa happens to be your only valid way of expanding IPCs. Germany will not be able to go offensively against Russia if the Allies are played well. You need to delay/distract the Allies, that is your main goal as Germany, and a turn 1 invasion of Egypt will do that quite nicely. You save a sub, an infantry, and an artillery, but give the British a carrier, transport, fighter, tank, and infantry to work with? I don’t think so.
The extra 2 land units you save by not going into Africa on turn 1 is not worth the advantage you’re giving the British. I can see you making arguments for not further reinforcing Africa, but I have yet to hear a logical, convincing argument to skip a turn 1 Egypt attack.
by the way if you must tran G1 units to Africa send 1 inf & 1 arm not 1 inf & 1 art but that’s another discussion
Bad plan by the way. Sending a tank there rewards the British even more if they counterattack with Indian troops.
-
RE: Taking Africa…
Any British player who doesn’t attempt to blow the extra & undefended med tranny out of the water on B1 (regardless of the G baltic fleet) is a fool.
Any British player who tries to blow it out of the water with just 1 bomber and 1 fighter is a fool, which is all you can bring if Egypt is seized on turn 1. You have about 40% total chance to knock out both units if mutual destruction is ok….
-
RE: Africa Folly for Germany?
I think attacking Egypt is too vital to pass up on turn 1. If you don’t get rid of the equipment there, it will be used against you to devastating effect, not to mention some of the Indian navy can pass through the canal to make your life difficult should you wish to return to Africa at a later date. Past that, I don’t really know if it’s worth the resources you spend to take Africa once the Allies land a sizeable number of troops there.
-
RE: Japanese IC
I think the Brazilian complex, like I mentioned before, is fine if you’re mainly gunning after Japan but need to keep the Germans out of Africa so the Germans don’t defeat the UK/Russia. The US is usually relegated to retaking Africa in any case, so you spend a small number of IPCs along with some airforce to duel with the Germans in Africa while you’re building a large navy to screw up the Japanese plans. If you simply rely on a normal Algerian shuck, you risk losing transports to fighters in Western Europe.
But like everyone’s been saying, the Brazilian complex is not optimal if you’re going KGF, since the US will have enough protection in the waters against fighters and you want every IPC spent to be useful to you in the future.
-
RE: Stopping japan
Another good move to slow Japan down was to destroy the Transport off the coast of Kwangtung.
Hehe I don’t mean to be mean but this is a pretty standard move. It looks like you are a little impressed by it?
-
RE: Stopping japan
It was a mistake to build 2 complexes AND skip Pearl Harbor, as well. This let the US build an effective navy too early.
-
RE: Axis Powers out of Control
I’m still waiting to see your secret strategy, Octo. I’ve done double complex start builds like you are trying against Switch, and it hardly gives the Axis an overwhelming advantage.
-
RE: Axis Powers out of Control
The Axis kicks major butt at low levels of play. But I have yet to see a single high-skilled level game, barring terrifically bad dice, that shows the Axis have the advantage at all. In fact it’s the reverse from everything I’ve seen - the Allies win most games without a bid. It’s not overwhelming like 75% to 25%, but probably like at least 60% to 40%.
-
RE: Can Germany invade the UK first and win?
So can we just all agree that, baring a person playing without LHTR and without a bid for Germany, this is an incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed and will most likely (though, since dice are involved, nothing is final) result in a speedy defeat for Germany?
Who here has done the math?
With 8 dice tech rolls, you have a 76% of getting the tech.
With 1 inf 1 tank 6 fighters + 1 bomber, you have a 72% of winning against 2 inf 1 art 1 arm 1 bomber 2 fighters 1 aa gun.
Thus, you have a composite chance of 54% to take the UK. That’s not 30% like the guy a few posts up was saying, nor is it an “incredibly risky move that has almost a nil chance to succeed.” In fact, if I could win 54% of the games with the Axis without a bid I’d be really happy.
It is indeed moot because of LHTR, but it was precisely this move that inspired LHTR. It’s dumb for a game to be decided in less time it takes to set it up, and it’s also dumb to lose your capital before you even made a move.
-
RE: Thoughts on Japan
Don’t keep us waiting too long Octo. I’ve personally already tried a few variations on Japan (double complex start, complex/tran split start, full tran start), all pushing hard for Russia, and it’s more common that I’m too late to win the game for the Axis than it is this huge advantage you speak of : O
-
RE: Rule Clarification (Sub vs. BB)
I don’t see anyone building battleships, destroyers, or bombers, so I don’t see why you’d pick on subs as the unused unit. Subs are the unit of choice if you’re going navy; I would be hard pressed to choose battleships or destroyers over subs. The improvement to battleships just makes the existing ones scarier and tends to help the Axis because they start with more of them.