This might be a bit crazy, but I’ll throw it out there anyways……
How about landing those UK ftrs in french west africa?what is germany going to do… take 2 tanks and a bomber on them?
You could put three UK ftrs there (from the sz 35 a/c).
If the US lands in Algeria… the German africa korps will have lots to do besides take such a risky battle.
Hell yeah I would do that. I trade tanks for fighters? Where do I sign up?
I know, it’s a bit crazy.
If there were only 2 tanks, it might be worth it for UK
personally I might attack AES trying to get Germany to zero ground units, then land in FWA :)
I did say it was a bit crazy, but if you give germany multiple targets, they often times can not hit them all.
The only issue that I would have is that the best chance for the SAF IC’s survival(I think) is to position the UK aircraft and navy to threaten the Med fleet on UK2. Having the UK aircraft in FWA gives the Med fleet safe havens in sz14 and sz16.
As opposed to those UK ftrs landing…. where?
SZ14 is safe regardless of where they land.
Think Germany would go to sz16?
Then they’re not adding to Africa… wasn’t that you’re goal?
The only issue that I would have is that the best chance for the SAF IC’s survival(I think) is to position the UK aircraft and navy to threaten the Med fleet on UK2. Having the UK aircraft in FWA gives the Med fleet safe havens in sz14 and sz16.
As opposed to those UK ftrs landing…. where?
SZ14 is safe regardless of where they land.
Think Germany would go to sz16?Then they’re not adding to Africa… wasn’t that you’re goal?
With the UK fighters in West Russia, the bomber in Persia, the IO fleet in sz33, and the UK/US fleets in sz12 on UK1, all of the Med sea zones are threatened. sz13 and sz14 are threatened by the sz12 fleets and the Persian bomber, sz15 is threatened by the bomber and the WR fighters which can land on the IO CV moved to sz34, and sz16 is threatened by the bomber and the WR fighters which can land in Caucasus.
That’s the biggest part of the strategy. Threaten the Med fleet on UK2 no matter where it’s positioned. And even if a UK fighter(s) survives an attack on sz15 and the UK is forced to move the CV(plus the rest of the IO fleet) to sz34 putting it at risk by the Japanese, 1 CV, 1 DD, 2 fig(Kenya fighter can be added if only 1 fig survives) 1 TP is a pretty solid fleet for the Japanese to attack.
What would you think Japan would have available for an attack there, anyway. I’m thinking not enough to risk high value navy or aircraft when faced with a KJF. And if the Japanese have significant enough naval and air units to destroy sz34 without decent enough losses then the UK can use the DD or the TP to block them in sz35 and force an ill advised air only attack to do it.
I think the original idea of W. Russia is superior to landing them in Africa, IMHO.
They help defend the Russians and then can attack almost any place Germany puts ships on UK 2. If no attack available, they can always land on the British Carrier in the IO and add threat to Japan.
I think WR is best, too. Anything short of Germany moving to sz14 and buying a CV for defense should likely result in the Med fleet sunk on UK2. But then the UK/US can just move the sz12 fleets up to sz6, build a CV for defense and neutralize the Baltic fleet with their aircraft and they are positioned to start landing UK units into Norway with the US DD, 2 TP used as defensive fodder and to move UK units as well without having to build more TP’s. The SAF IC can just be used to contest Africa while the main focus of the UK is shifted to landing in Europe. Down Norway, getting less than maximum income from Africa, and having to divert at least 2 inf toward Africa every turn, Germany’s income devoted to Europe should be easily covered by Russia and the few units UK is able to add through Norway every turn.
Well, if Germany DOES buy an AC in SZ 14, that probably means they’ve just bought an AC in both Germany 1 (SZ 5) and Germany 2 (SZ 14) and now have 4 out of 5 fighters defending fleets, not defending land against Russians.
That almost sounds ideal for the Allies. (Ideal would really be just the sinking of both German fleets by UK 2, but let’s not have wet dreams, eh?)
NPB,
I don’t think Germany can get into Ukraine all that fast, though. By G3 at best, and even then it seems a bit fast. I’ll go along with that just for the sake of a “what if” scenario. If the German fleet had landed in T-J on G2, it should be sunk on UK2 with the IO fleet moving from sz33 to sz34 to pick up any surviving fighters and the Kenya fighter to fill an empty spot on the CV.
You also have 4 fig on CV’s in the Solomans and 1 fig on Wake after the sz52 attack. That leaves 1 bmb, 1 fig, 1 BB, 2 TP maximum against 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 TP, 2 fig in sz34. I doubt that you would attack that fleet on J2 because it’s not that certain of a battle and if it goes wrong, you can’t retreat because the BB would be subject to counterattack by what’s left over and with bomber support from the mainland before you could reinforce it. Even if the UK loses both fighters in sz14, I won’t have to leave sz33 with the UK fleet then. The Japanese BB/2 TP in sz36 have no real defensive support so I don’t think that Japan would be interested in advancing within range of the sz33 fleet+air any more than the UK fleet would be to move closer to Japan so it becomes a standoff. But the UK can afford to be patient. Eventually, that BB/TP fleet will have to move back toward the growing US fleet and with the Med fleet sunk the UK can immediately begin building to bolster the fleet and prepare to start walking units north from the IC or landing units directly into Persia from Kenya to be used to beef up the Caucasus defenses or help fight off the Japanese coming out of India.
And that is not even taking up half of the UK’s income or considering the sz12 units. I’d have to see what kind of opening Germany would be allowing the UK up north before I would be able to say for certain where I’d be allocating the remaining income or those extra forces.
@Cmdr:
Well, if Germany DOES buy an AC in SZ 14, that probably means they’ve just bought an AC in both Germany 1 (SZ 5) and Germany 2 (SZ 14) and now have 4 out of 5 fighters defending fleets, not defending land against Russians.
That almost sounds ideal for the Allies. (Ideal would really be just the sinking of both German fleets by UK 2, but let’s not have wet dreams, eh?)
I’m not sure if I would try this strat if Germany builds a Baltic CV on G1 but I suppose it could work.
If Germany built 2 CV’s though, the fact that Germany has 4 of it’s fighters not defending the land is not nearly as significant as that they would have just purchased 32 IPC’s in navy in the first 2 turns. Seems Germany would be kind of lean in ground units in that case.
@Cmdr:
Well, if Germany DOES buy an AC in SZ 14, that probably means they’ve just bought an AC in both Germany 1 (SZ 5) and Germany 2 (SZ 14) and now have 4 out of 5 fighters defending fleets, not defending land against Russians.
That almost sounds ideal for the Allies. (Ideal would really be just the sinking of both German fleets by UK 2, but let’s not have wet dreams, eh?)
I’m not sure if I would try this strat if Germany builds a Baltic CV on G1 but I suppose it could work.
If Germany built 2 CV’s though, the fact that Germany has 4 of it’s fighters not defending the land is not nearly as significant as that they would have just purchased 32 IPC’s in navy in the first 2 turns. Seems Germany would be kind of lean in ground units in that case.
Hence the statement, that it almost sounds ideal for the allies.
Germany’s out 32 IPC from it’s collection of 82 IPC (I’m assuming Ukraine was liberated, Karelia and Egypt were taken on Germany 1.)
That leaves a mere 50 IPC for ground units instead of 66 IPC. Add to that the fact that 67-80% of your fighters are now sitting on the water instead of as anchors in W. Europe, Germany and E. Europe against invasion (if Ukraine was lost, it’s 80% if not, then 67%) and that’s a rather large chunk of the German forces not present.
NPB,
I don’t think Germany can get into Ukraine all that fast, though. By G3 at best, and even then it seems a bit fast. I’ll go along with that just for the sake of a “what if” scenario. If the German fleet had landed in T-J on G2, it should be sunk on UK2 with the IO fleet moving from sz33 to sz34 to pick up any surviving fighters and the Kenya fighter to fill an empty spot on the CV.
G1 10 infantry 2 tanks buy. G2 10 infantry into Eastern Europe. G3 10 infantry plus German Med transport infantry into Ukraine. Also by G3, Japanese fighters can land in Ukraine. Realistically, Germany shouldn’t be able to take and hold Ukraine until G4, but I don’t see it NOT happening.
(edit) - That is, I think it’s feasible that Germany may be able to take and hold Ukraine on G3. However, I think it very likely that Germany will be able to take and hold Ukraine on G4.
Right, I forgot about the UK carrier being able to pick up UK fighters. Thanks for that correction.
Still, there are any number of ways for Germany to prevent the loss of the Med fleet, easiest being to stay in Southern Europe’s sea zone.
You also have 4 fig on CV’s in the Solomans and 1 fig on Wake after the sz52 attack. That leaves 1 bmb, 1 fig, 1 BB, 2 TP maximum against 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 TP, 2 fig in sz34.
Damn, lad, would you reference islands instead of sea zones? It sure would make life a lot easier for a certain crotchety poster that can’t remember sea zone names . . .
I don’t know where sz 34 is offhand, but I imagine you’re talking about either the sea zone east of Kenya or the sea zone east of Anglo-Egypt. If that’s the case, keep in mind that I’m not thinking about attacking there that early. What I’m concerned with is the Japanese threat to the waters off India. (On J2, you can bring all sorts of Japanese air there; 5 fighters 1 bomber 1 battleship 1 transport at least, even if Japan did take Burytia).
I doubt that you would attack that fleet
Well, I attack ANYTHING on the slightest provocation. Got to keep up that berzerker reputation. But probably I wouldn’t attack . . . yeah . . . See above.
on J2 because it’s not that certain of a battle and if it goes wrong, you can’t retreat because the BB would be subject to counterattack by what’s left over and with bomber support from the mainland before you could reinforce it. Even if the UK loses both fighters in sz14, I won’t have to leave sz33 with the UK fleet then. The Japanese BB/2 TP in sz36 have no real defensive support so I don’t think that Japan would be interested in advancing within range of the sz33 fleet+air any more than the UK fleet would be to move closer to Japan so it becomes a standoff. But the UK can afford to be patient. Eventually, that BB/TP fleet will have to move back toward the growing US fleet and with the Med fleet sunk the UK can immediately begin building to bolster the fleet and prepare to start walking units north from the IC or landing units directly into Persia from Kenya to be used to beef up the Caucasus defenses or help fight off the Japanese coming out of India.
And that is not even taking up half of the UK’s income or considering the sz12 units. I’d have to see what kind of opening Germany would be allowing the UK up north before I would be able to say for certain where I’d be allocating the remaining income or those extra forces.
I haven’t changed my mind about what I wrote earlier. Doesn’t mean I’m right, just mean I haven’t changed my mind. :lol:
I haven’t changed my mind about what I wrote earlier. Doesn’t mean I’m right, just mean I haven’t changed my mind. :lol:
I can accept that. It’s certainly your prerogative, Bobby Brown.
I actually feel the same way since I have no real game evidence to back up my theories.
An IC in SAF is an interesting idea. I usually have more important investments with UK than IC. I sometimes
buy IC in Norway if UK gets nearly 40 ipc during severeal rnds.
I have still not met a real KJF. Maybe someone actually tried a KJF but it didn’t seem like KJF, only some US pac
movements which probably have helped allies stop an axis fleet merge in med.
My first 1vs1 victory in the lobby was actually against a player who is (still) generally better than me, he build some stuff in sz 55 :lol:
What you are saying now is that SAF IC will help allies in KJF. Ok, go ahead, beat me with it.
KJF usually takes a while to build up. If you distract America, then you might be okay. Though, KJF itself seems to grow out of a distraction into a full force assault.
An IC in SAF is an interesting idea. I usually have more important investments with UK than IC. I sometimes
buy IC in Norway if UK gets nearly 40 ipc during severeal rnds.
I have still not met a real KJF. Maybe someone actually tried a KJF but it didn’t seem like KJF, only some US pac
movements which probably have helped allies stop an axis fleet merge in med.
My first 1vs1 victory in the lobby was actually against a player who is (still) generally better than me, he build some stuff in sz 55 :lol:
What you are saying now is that SAF IC will help allies in KJF. Ok, go ahead, beat me with it.
As soon as I’m done with the test game against the Commander, I would be more than happy to test my theories against you.
As soon as I’m done with the test game against the Commander, I would be more than happy to test my theories against you.
A KJF test or a SA IC test, or both?
As soon as I’m done with the test game against the Commander, I would be more than happy to test my theories against you.
A KJF test or a SA IC test, or both?
I predict a South Africa IC - KJF test. I don’t see South Africa IC working well in a KGF regardless of tweaks.
Of course, the proposed test is dependent on the German move. In any proposed test game, neither side should be locked into a line of play.
Remember that the Allies shouldn’t be locked into a South Africa IC and that the OP mentioned no Baltic buys, and German Med fleet moving east. If you have any objections to that, then you and U-505 should talk it out before the game.
Hey guys.
NewPaintBrush, as usual, makes some astute observations. The no-Baltic-transport-purchase is critical to this move since cascade dice failure can occur in the Med if you attack the boats and lose the planes.
U-505, I thought you had some good points too. In particular, the 3inf KEN and 3inf PER can be a nice defensive play if Germany is too large to attack in Anglo. But I’m left with a couple of questions:
1. If the goal is to protect African money, why not just land the Allies in Algeria R2 with a massive load of Allies and march through Africa? You engage the Germans early and you maintain a threat to land in WEU. You even have the option of pulling out the gear in ALG if Germany pulls back. Plus, transports on the coast can move and attack the Germans directly. “But,” says you, “then you’ve wasted transports!” “Sure,” says me, “but you could ‘waste’ two transports and still be ahead of the SAF financially because the transports are more flexible and can return to UK waters.” Not to mention that 2tra can ship 4 units to Africa per round whereas the SAF can only build 2 units per round.
2. If the SAF really ISN’T about keeping Africa from Germany and it’s about KJF, won’t the SAF always be treatened by a German attack that relieves pressure on Japan?
I’m not saying this setup doesn’t have some merit, I’m just saying it seems to me to be less optimal than a north African gambit or an IIC if you’re serious about KJF (and I’m not ever serious about KJF myself).
Peace
The way I view it, the underlying strategy of a SAF IC is to present the Axis with 2 choices.
Move to take it out, which requires the diversion of significant assets.
Ignore it, in which case the UK can funnel troops up through Africa or build Naval units in the IO
I don’t really consider it a KJF or KGF strategy, it’s a bit of both.
What needs to be refined is how the allies respond once the axis has made their choice.
I usually don’t buy any navy with G in sz5. Usually not in the med either.
As for my G1, I usually move BB to Gib, with trans + inf, lands inf in Gib, this way I use one less ftr to kill the
UK med BB. The G sub in sz 8, moves to sz 13 or to sz 1.
This is my standard G1 move with 9 bid, one unit pr. TT. With other premise, I think I would do
something different. I might be tempted to place tank+inf in Ukr.
Then I would move BB+trans to AE. AE is perhaps the most important G1 attack.
And I almost always take all bids to G. Sometimes 1 ipc to Jap, but I prefer G with 9.
If someone told me they gonna do a KJF on me, I still take 8-9 ipc to Germany.
As for a test game, I suggest LL, because of less variation, and no tech.
@Mazer:
1. If the goal is to protect African money, why not just land the Allies in Algeria R2 with a massive load of Allies and march through Africa? You engage the Germans early and you maintain a threat to land in WEU. You even have the option of pulling out the gear in ALG if Germany pulls back. Plus, transports on the coast can move and attack the Germans directly. “But,” says you, “then you’ve wasted transports!” “Sure,” says me, “but you could ‘waste’ two transports and still be ahead of the SAF financially because the transports are more flexible and can return to UK waters.” Not to mention that 2tra can ship 4 units to Africa per round whereas the SAF can only build 2 units per round.
Because in a KJF, you are building Pacific air and navy with America. Hence, you don’t have a good buildup for the Atlantic and Africa; you have less transports and less ground units moving into Africa. This means that instead of 3 US tanks hitting Algeria on US2, you may have 0 tanks. Without early US tanks in Africa, and Anglo-Egypt allowed to stay in German hands past UK1, the only way for the UK to reclaim Africa with any sort of speed is units produced from that South African industrial complex.
2. If the SAF really ISN’T about keeping Africa from Germany and it’s about KJF, won’t the SAF always be treatened by a German attack that relieves pressure on Japan?
My opinion is no. I believe that after UK1 and the South Africa IC, Germany can afford to play shenanigans in Africa and Southern Europe, given that UK is 15 IPC down and must now split its expenditure between Atlantic transports and its South African industrial complex. IF the UK builds units at South Africa, then diverting forces to attack South Africa is a mistake for both Germany and Japan because it takes so long for Axis units to get to South Africa (I think three transport distances from Japan that can be shortened to two with some land marching, but still too far, and transport plus march for Germany), meaning those Axis units cannot be used in Europe and/or Asia, as well as allowing the Allies time to reposition for defense. (Note if the UK doesn’t build at South Africa constantly, then Japan can overwhelm them and claim Africa for good, though, so the UK is forced to build to protect its investment). India is weakened, allowing Japan to make early gains in south Asia before it has to divert its attention to defense. The US needs time to advance into the western part of the Pacific where the higher IPC islands are, and needs more time to build up a fleet that can challenge Japan’s two battleships, two carriers, six fighters, bomber, and five transports (which Japan should have).
Short version - with a South African IC and a KJF, the Axis have time to attack in Europe and Asia. The IPCs the Allies save by retaining control of Africa are offset by the cost of defending South Africa and the inability of the Allies to support Russia with ground units. Hence I do not find that a South African IC is necessarily a superior play (although I do not strictly state it is a poor play either)
I’m not saying this setup doesn’t have some merit, I’m just saying it seems to me to be less optimal than a north African gambit or an IIC if you’re serious about KJF (and I’m not ever serious about KJF myself).
Peace
The first thing you have to do in a serious KJF is to introduce Coca-Cola. After that comes Westernization and the degradation of Japan’s youth culture and work ethic, then come the hos and the rap videos.
Regrettably, Japan has retaliated by attacking the West’s youth culture with “Pokemon” and “Hello Kitty”, diverting young American minds from industrious study and work to vapid consumerism that not incidentally boosts Japan’s economy.
KJF is so difficult . . .
