Why do you assume that you HAVE to take out the German Baltic fleet? If you continue funneling troops into Europe via Norway, and play aggressively with Russia, you will eventually wear Germany down to the point where she will have no choice but to retreat the fighters from the Baltic to protect her capital.
I was waiting for someone to bring this up, but if you don’t take out the Baltic fleet, your funnel is potentially 2 turns weaker than it could normally be. Without the Baltic fleet both the US and UK can have their European troops stacked all together in Karelia or E. Europe with a quick move into SZ5. If the German Baltic fleet is there, let’s say you want to move into E. Europe; well now you’re 2 turns behind the ball since you have 1 turn of troops in Norway and 1 turn of troops in Karelia that can’t help out, whereas without a Baltic those troops would all be nicely in E. Europe. 2 turns of troops from UK and US each is a lot of units! Going via Norway is slow and you won’t be threatening the capital as quickly. I think this delays the Allies no matter how you look at it; either they spend a turn churning out mass fighters to dislodge the navy, or they waste turns funneling slowly from Norway.
I don’t find that Germany comes often to the point where they have to use their fighters to defend the capital. You might if you lurched out your extra units towards Russia, but otherwise Germany has enough units for a long while.
meanwhile, you’ve gotten the Germans to waste 32 IPC on Carriers and tie up 4 fighters that are now not protecting landing zones for the Allied armies.
Meanwhile, stepping into E. Europe is 2 turns slower than normal. That’s 2 turns of UK and US each, 128 IPCs of units if not more.
What if Germany supports the fortification of Baltic with a mass in Karelia strong enough to counterattack any UK+US Allied landing in Norway ?
Would then Allies want to knock the German fleet ?
or just ship to Archangel (with some Russians added to survive all 3 powers together).
I wouldn’t like to do that Magister because then Russia is coming in strong across Balkans/Ukraine/E. Europe, and it’s also hard to supply Karelia with lots of units while the Allies are staging massive defenses in Norway.
Not that way Bean… I’m thinking of a German mass in Karelia that grows strong enough with the Allied threat, so that Allied landings are deterred on each turn: 1, 2, … so there never can be a mass in Norway.
But true, there remains the 3-power Archangel and Russian threat from Caucasus to Ukraine.
But if Russia manages to hold Ukraine solidly then this position unravels: the Germans in transit to Karelia may be not enough to hold EEU; Balkans MUST be swapped (else Russian tanks may reach Italy) etc.
But if Russia manages to hold Ukraine solidly then this position unravels: the Germans in transit to Karelia may be not enough to hold EEU; Balkans MUST be swapped (else Russian tanks may reach Italy) etc.
Yes, exactly. That’s why I think it’s hard to supply Karelia with German units, because Russia can threaten the supply through E. Europe and it’s also a couple turns of marching whereas the Allies dump straight into Norway with big defenses (and even an aa gun to snipe out a fighter if you try to strafe).
I am a big fan of the “Karelia Stack” combined with a major build up of the Baltic Fleet.
Plays havoc with the UK… :-D
I agree, the threat to the Germans is less if they cannot land directly in E. Europe.
I disagree that it is a bad thing for the allies though. I’d rather land in Archangelsk then E. Europe. Safer. Faster to get to Moscow anyway.
Also, staging in SZ 3 is BAD idea. Why land in Norway? So the German fleet can be fodder while the Luftwaffe sinks you? And if the SZ 5 fleet chases you, you can always 1 - 2 punch them iwth the British and Americans and sink them in SZ 3.
In other words, the SZ 5 fleet is safe until it becomes a nuissance then it is Unter-See Haus’ :P
I agree, the threat to the Germans is less if they cannot land directly in E. Europe.
I disagree that it is a bad thing for the allies though. I’d rather land in Archangelsk then E. Europe. Safer. Faster to get to Moscow anyway.
No matter whether you prefer Norway vs Archangel, there is a point at which you want to occupy E. Europe, because you want the Germans to stop gaining on that territory. If there is a bigass Baltic fleet, you can’t land directly there, which slows you by very arguably 2 turns of units, since you have a trail of 2 territories with units that can’t be in E. Europe (norway/kar or Archangel/kar). Being behind 2 turns of units each with US and UK means the Germans are quite happy for a while trading E. Europe. Yes, they’ll be behind the ball against Russia for a bit, but I’d rather delay the big death blow for 2 turns than just mediocrely trade territories with Russia.
I think this is a bad thing for the Allies. Landing in Archangel isn’t any faster to get to E. Europe. The benefit of Archangel is reinforcing Moscow, which is good in itself, but what we’re focusing on here is whether Germany should spend the IPCs to delay the Allies. I think it’s very much worth it; it’s an efficient use of IPCs since you already have the fighters that costs the Allies a lot more than the amount you spent in it. Although of course you will be light against Russia when you’re busy reconfiguring for the lower amount of inf and fighters for land defense.
It is a matter of when the Allies switch from “defense” (landing in Archangel) to “offense” (landing in Eastern).
So long as the Allies are playing defensive, the Axis has a chance. But once the Allies establish offense securely, it is over for the Axis.
It is a matter of when the Allies switch from “defense” (landing in Archangel) to “offense” (landing in Eastern).
So long as the Allies are playing defensive, the Axis has a chance. But once the Allies establish offense securely, it is over for the Axis.
I’m gonna go slightly off topic here, that’s a good point Switch. Now, do you think there is a “turning point” for the Axis to win? I would think that once the Axis are producing more IPCs than the Allies then it’s over the Allies, but it seems very difficult to achieve this turning point.
When Moscow is immune to a 1-2 Axis punch it is over for the Axis.
When Eastern, Southern, or Western remain in Allied hands for a full turn it is over for the Axis.
When Germany builds in Caucuses, and Japan has Novo and Persia it is over for the Allies.
General rules…
Bean, I think you’re making too much of this two-turn delay thing. If Germany buys two carriers, I frankly don’t care that it takes an extra turn or two to get there, because when I get there, Germany will be VERY THIN on defense. 32 IPCs on carriers = 9 infantry and an armor, almost a full turn of builds for Germany. That lack of troops has the secondary effect of preventing Germany from trading Karelia-Belo-Ukraine with Russia, and thus costs Germany even more income and, hence, troops. Unless Germany gets lucky in Africa, Germany will be sucking wind by turn 3 at the latest, and RUSSIA will be in Eastern Europe (or trading it with Germany), instead of Germany securely holding Eastern Europe with a massive stack. If you don’t think that creates a deep hole for Germany, then please sign up for the League and play me – I’ll show you.
@ncscswitch:
When Moscow is immune to a 1-2 Axis punch it is over for the Axis.
When Eastern, Southern, or Western remain in Allied hands for a full turn it is over for the Axis.
When Germany builds in Caucuses, and Japan has Novo and Persia it is over for the Allies.
General rules…
I don’t necessarily agree with Eastern, Southern or Western – it’s depends on the situation elsewhere on the board. If Moscow is about to fall, then Germany only needs to hold on long enough to let Japan leverage her massive economy. At that point, Eastern-Western-Southern is irrelevant.
Southern is NEVER irrelevant.
Let the US build there, with their TRN shuck extavlihsed, and Germany is in trouble, with ot without Russia.
Bean, I think you’re making too much of this two-turn delay thing. If Germany buys two carriers, I frankly don’t care that it takes an extra turn or two to get there, because when I get there, Germany will be VERY THIN on defense. 32 IPCs on carriers = 9 infantry and an armor, almost a full turn of builds for Germany. That lack of troops has the secondary effect of preventing Germany from trading Karelia-Belo-Ukraine with Russia, and thus costs Germany even more income and, hence, troops. Unless Germany gets lucky in Africa, Germany will be sucking wind by turn 3 at the latest, and RUSSIA will be in Eastern Europe (or trading it with Germany), instead of Germany securely holding Eastern Europe with a massive stack. If you don’t think that creates a deep hole for Germany, then please sign up for the League and play me – I’ll show you.
Hmm no I’m not trying to make too much of it, it’s just that the initial responses skipped right over any benefit of having the Baltic navy intact. I had to point out that there is a benefit to it, which was completely ignored and not fairly analyzed vs the costs. I do like your argument now that it has some flesh to it.
But also remember that I’m not going to purchase a second carrier until I feel that the Allies have presented a credible threat to the single carrier. I’m not buying 2 carriers at once, but over a few turns.
As for a League Game, I think I’ll be ready to jump back into the pirranha-infested waters after next week, I have a lot of tests coming up and I also want to get some practice in, I’m not exactly flying at full sail after a year’s hiatus (was I even flying at full sail back then? :wink: ). You’ll be my first opponent though once I’m ready, but don’t hold me to using a multiple carrier buy if I don’t think it’s warranted by that time =P
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia. Now, if the battle goes badly, you can retreat. If you amphibious it, you have to fight to the death. I don’t like being locked in like that if I can avoid it.
Also, I agree. The instant the allies can build in Southern or Western Europe the game is over for the axis. I disagree that hte game is over when Germany builds in Caucasus. Probably is, might not be.
I think Russia’s dead when they start earning less then 12 IPC a round. 2 good SBRs and they earn nothing. Furthermore, that means the Axis have 12 IPC of Russian lands!
Likewise, once England is reduced to 12 IPC, the game’s over for England.
Once the Allies cannot defeat either caucasus or novosibirsk, the game is over for the allies.
Once the axis lose Africa and cannot hold Karelia or Caucauss, the game is over for the axis.
Once the Japanese lose their fleet (roughly Round 7) the game is over for the Axis.
Sorry Jen.
What Makes eastern dangerous for Germany is when UK can land units direct from UK to Eastern AND pull their previous landings from Norway and karelia into the fray. It is generally more than Germany can handle…
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia.
Who said you need SZ5? Another strawman you created.
Of course you can invade from Karelia, but you’ll be 2 turns low on units (one turn is the units that can’t come straight from London, the other turn is the units just placed in Archangel/Norway last turn which can’t make it to E. Europe either). Being 2 turns low on units for both UK and US in E. Europe gives Germany breathing time.
@ncscswitch:
Southern is NEVER irrelevant.
Let the US build there, with their TRN shuck extavlihsed, and Germany is in trouble, with ot without Russia.
Well, all I will say is that I am currently building in Southern right now as the US in my game with No Mercy, and the outcome of the game is still very much in doubt. I will probably take Germany in a couple of turns, but whether I can withstand the Japanese onslaught (he has somewhere around 50 tanks, at least pre-Moscow invasion) remains to be seen.
@Bean:
Even if you want to go offensive in E. Europe, you don’t NEED SZ 5 or to sink the SZ 5 fleet. Just invade from Karelia.
Who said you need SZ5? Another strawman you created.
You did. That’s why you said to build two carriers. Are you so daft you are forgetting your own arguments? No wonder you think I am inventing strawmen! You don’t even have your own argument straight anymore! :-D
And Switch, I’m not arguing that it is “nice” to have SZ 5 clear of enemy ships. I’m saying it’s not needed and that if Germany puts 4 fighters and two carriers in SZ 5 then why not just let them sit there, wasted? I can easily invade E. Europe, Belorussia and W. Russia from Karelia and I’d rather land in Archangelsk/Karelia anyway. That way I can shift to Moscow to defend against the Japanese because after that kind of expenditure, Germany’s a footnote in history, they’re definitely no threat to the Russians anymore!
