I was victorious. The UK’s navy was destroyed very early in the game, and my Japanese counterpart did very well. Moscow was taken!!!
Nit picky German Economizer
-
I got 26% chance of all air power lost if it was a battle to the death, on your simulator, Dan.
Still, in your list to maintain at least one aircraft, the Germans appear to have a 75% (or 3 out of 4 attempts) chance of killing two British fighters and, you stated that there was a 55% chance (close to 1 in 2) that the Germans will NOT be exterminated.
It just sounds more and more to me like my original impression that this is a bone headed maneuver was right. Sure, it could pay off big, just like I always take a chance to attack a capitol if I have 60% odds, but it could really hurt (like if you fall in that 40%.)
-
It’s not a bad idea to strafe what you can before a carrier sprouts up and now you have to figure out how to bypass it.
I still haven’t heard any arguments as to why this is wrong. Of course your chances to wipe out the entire Baltic go down if you run away with 1 bomber left, but you don’t need to kill the whole thing in order to neutralize the threat.
Sure, it could pay off big, just like I always take a chance to attack a capitol if I have 60% odds, but it could really hurt (like if you fall in that 40%.)
It seems to me like it hurts more if you don’t do anything to it, then a carrier pops up after Germany had a full G1 full of land purchases to shore up any weaknesses. I’d rather lose 2 figs now than 5+ figs later, wouldn’t you?
-
I have been finding that a UK1 strike on the Baltic fleet is in general a bad trade. If you succeed, great. You have a BOM left maybe, and the Baltic Fleet is dead. But now you lack FIGs to send to Moscow, to land on AC’s, or to support amphibs.
If you fail, you are looking at 2-3 turns to make up for the loss, AND possibly diversion of the US form their intended target(s). That makes for a major Axis advantage.
-
If you fail, you are looking at 2-3 turns to make up for the loss, AND possibly diversion of the US form their intended target(s). That makes for a major Axis advantage.
First, the odds are in the UK’s favor. Second, I’m going to repeat my argument again and hope someone directly addresses it:
you don’t need to kill the whole thing in order to neutralize the threat.
It seems to me like it hurts more if you don’t do anything to it, then a carrier pops up after Germany had a full G1 full of land purchases to shore up any weaknesses. I’d rather lose 2 figs now than 5+ figs later, wouldn’t you?
It makes for a major Axis advantage if Germany can spend its first round on land units, then pop a carrier up on G2. It sounds exactly to me like the UK will be spending the next 1-2 rounds trying to toe around the carrier and the US will be distracted with it as well, which is what you think the problem would be if you attacked it immediately.
-
We’re trying to address it, Bean. 2 Fighters for England are worth more then 2 Submarines, Transport and Destroyer in SZ 5. I’ll give you the bomber, great. So you have a defensive punch 1 unit left that you’ll never be able to use to defend your fleet. In exchange you sunk a fleet Germany was going to lose eventually anyway, and probably would have done nothing offensively. Probably, it may have moved into SZ 3 forcing America to sink it or it may have tried for a channel dash, against forcing America to sink it. The operative word here is AMERICA SINKS IT. America can afford to buy a navy and army at the same time to recoup losses sinking it. England cannot, at least not in the first few rounds of the game.
-
America can afford to buy a navy and army at the same time to recoup losses sinking it.
America can’t afford to deal with a carrier-reinforced Baltic, which is then reinforced by another carrier or two once they’re actually within range to try to threaten it. It delays the US too long to be distracted by such things. I would rather sac the 2 british fighters now than force the US to construct 6+ fighters and have my landing zones disabled for a good long while.
Maybe you’re looking at it from the angle as if the Baltic is a benign, easy to kill thing later on. But I’m looking at carrier reinforcements on it, which any single nation will take too much time to try to undo. I lost 1 bb 2 dest 8 fig 1 bomb to kill 3 car 5 fig 2 sub 1 tran 1 dest. Yes, America sunk it, but it took way longer than it needed to, and at great cost.
-
The idea of attacking the Baltic fleet sans CV is to remove the German subs which can’t be blocked by the Russian sub. You can strafe the fleet to remove the subs and position the UK fleet in sz3 to hit what’s left next round with BB support while at the same time blocking a German air+fleet fodder attack with the Russian sub in sz6.
-
I do not feel “safe” to land in Norway with UK if German Baltic Fleet is intact.
I have still to build FIGs, for 2-3 rounds, while landing in Algeria with USA, and then strike sz5, losing a couple of figs.
So I am starting to think that it could be also worthy to strike Baltic in UK1, even losing fighters.
I still buy figs to replace the losses but I am not forced to buy AC and DD if I do not want. Eliminating the Baltic Fleet threat is possible to consider UK fleet composed only of 1 BB and TRNs. -
For the record, I have rarely seen Germany build anything in the Baltic after G1. In my experience Germany gets pretty pre-occupied with the land battle to start spending a lot of money in the water. That’s not to say that it’s a bad move, might have to try it.
-
@Bean:
I lost 1 bb 2 dest 8 fig 1 bomb to kill 3 car 5 fig 2 sub 1 tran 1 dest. Yes, America sunk it, but it took way longer than it needed to, and at great cost.
But you had the British fleet that could easily defend the transports now. You obliterated all of Germany’s fighters (if they had 6, they would have all been in SZ 5, not just 5 of them) reducing Germany to having to use tanks to trade land and you lost what, exactly? Ships that are now worthless and fighters that are easily replaced for america and easily moved into range again.
However, the transport systems are both in place, the Germans have lost all their high powered defensive units, they have nothing to attack Russia with meaning Russia can probably go fight the Japanese and America and England can easily keep Germany contained.
I think, with just the snap shot you gave us, that it was a good trade.
If Germany had only hte carriers in SZ 5, and the fighters on land, and you had something better to do with your 8 fighters, bomber, I may have done the something else. But to kill 5 defensive fighters, it was worth it!
-
I think 3 UK fighters is a purchase that is appropriate in some circumstances.
There are a few problems with that, of course - 1) you probably won’t be able to send units to Africa for fear of German invasion of London, 2) UK development is held back a turn. However, it does give UK the opportunity of destroying the entire Baltic fleet at the cost of a single fighter.
-
I’ve done the 3 fighter build with England before. I switched, but not because it was a bad build, but rather because I got tired of it.
-
ok so we can say that most players in this tread dosen think that a bliz to arc is an favor of germany.
there is a point were it is a god ide, if u stack kar and bliz to arc, u can retake arc round 2.
it also take 2 uints away from the west russian stack. Then can take back bele arc an ukraine, there is a good chance that taking back all 3 will make the west russian stack to thin. So russia will only atack ukraine and arc. Russia can alwayes leave west russia, but i woud love that. The bliz to arc can be uset but only if u gain something.
Just to bliz arc and leave kar whith no units ore 1 inf is bad for germany, i wont even try to put some math into it, 19 page of it, is enougf.
Are ther other moves out there that makes an arc bliz worth it?
-
I rarely see German move in Karelia in G1.
Usually German army is assembled in EE, with fig. cover. For sure stacking in KAR has the advantages that you say, and it is a move worthy to be considered.However Ger Army in KAR it is one turn away from infantry reinforcements. Eastern Front Infantry may not stack in KAR, because GER have to counter in BEL or UKR, and BAL inf is out of reach. Moreover in EE the German Eastern Army may be protected by fig in KAR this is not possible. The move is more viable if Russia attack Ukraine, but if BEL is attacked in R1 there is too few inf at hand to advance in KAR.
So usually the KAR is taken with 1 single inf or is blitzed with 1 tank. The of discussion was about this question. Only after it has been considered the option to blitz through KAR to ARK. This is a move that economically is not worthy to do, but may give positional advantages to Germany.
-
i alwayes stack kar, and if the russian atack bele it can be a problem. If the stack cant holde il consider atackning west russia, so i can stack kar safely.
I play warclub rules, whih is 9 icp bid. and that usal goes to 1 inf in ukra, bele and west russia. So an atack on west russia can be done.
but ofcourse u will alwayse adapt.
My point in the post was that is not alwayes a bad move to bliz arc.
-
I think so too. Economically there is a loss. But it is still possible to achieve positional and tactical gains.
One of the case is to advance the GER Army to KAR. With standard setuo, which I considered it is a riscky move. With the 9 IPC bid and the warclub rules it is really more feasible.
-
German blitz to Archangelsk with a major stack in Karelia. :P Go ahead, send the Russia armor to Archangelsk to liberate, I dare you!
-
@Cmdr:
German blitz to Archangelsk with a major stack in Karelia. :P Go ahead, send the Russia armor to Archangelsk to liberate, I dare you!
Glad to see my earlier qualifier being echoed :-)
-
@ncscswitch:
@Cmdr:
German blitz to Archangelsk with a major stack in Karelia. :P Go ahead, send the Russia armor to Archangelsk to liberate, I dare you!
Glad to see my earlier qualifier being echoed :-)
No problem. :P
I just don’t NORMALLY stack Karelia because that usually leaves Ukraine unpressured.
-
@Cmdr:
German blitz to Archangelsk with a major stack in Karelia. :P Go ahead, send the Russia armor to Archangelsk to liberate, I dare you!
Here’s how I would respond in light of that:
1 - UK1, I attack Arc with 2 Inf 1 BB and possibly air units. That kills the tank, about 5/6 chance of doing it without any loss whatsoever.If UK does not kill the tank, it’s still a priority target for Russia, so the tank dies, prolly at the hand of 1 Ftr + 2 Inf from Moscow. All you have done is let the Allies kill one of your tanks.
Then all Russia has left to do is trade Ukraine and Belo using all of its remaining forces. Belo gets a fighter + Inf as needed, and Ukraine maybe Inf/Art.
Even if then Russia somehow does not have enough to trade all the territories in range, it still benefits because it gets to choose to kill a lone tank rather than a lone Inf. That is, it might forgo retaking Belo (-2 IPCs) but kill a tank instead of an Inf (+2 IPCs). And since units are more immediately useful than land, I’d rather take enemy IPC units.
Depending on how Germany did NCM, Russia might even be able to take Ukraine in force.
Suggested Topics
