OK, back to Africa ! Let’s discuss when each of these choices are better:
-German bid: tnk/art in Algeria/Libya, or tnk/inf, or tra with Med fleet, or “half” (tnk Algeria, arty Japan) or elsewhere that may still have indirect effect on Africa (sub sz8, tra Japan) ? or just troops in Russia ?
Man, that ain’t really an Africa question now is it? Or maybe it is an Africa question. Because people aren’t really concerned with Africa for Africa’s sake, they’re concerned with Africa for its sake in the larger scope of things. Therefore, I conclude that teh Jenforces are supreme in all things. You may bow.
In TripleA, I favor inf/tank in Algeria/Libya with 1 IPC to Japan, OR a French Indochina bid for Turbo India (you know, you threaten to crack India on J1 and watch the Allies pee their pants trying to stop it from happening. Or they let it happen, and maybe you have an India IC on J2, wooty woot.
But I digress. If you build a Med transport with bid, yeah, it’s generally more maneuverable than a later-game transport (what? don’t they both move two spaces? By manueverable, I mean that if you build a transport at S. Europe, you will probably NEED to put the Med battleship and transport at S. Europe that turn too, so the newly built German transport isn’t blown up by Allied air.)
However, you are still stuck with moving your Baltic fleet east to attack Anglo-Egypt. And how useful is that Med transport going to be? Usually pretty useful - but in some rare cases, not so useful.
If you put a bid in Africa, you can take Anglo-Egypt AND move the Baltic fleet west to threaten all sorts of shenanigans. Problem is, though, “shenanigans” often involve a G1 Baltic carrier followed by unification of the German fleet off the coast, all during which Africa may not be held after a UK1 counter to Anglo-Egypt.
So what’s the best choice? Well, sh*t, it’s gotta be troops in Russia, because if you capture Russia, on G1, you’re like the dog’s balls, the cat’s nipples (as Zaphod Beeblebrox might say). But if you’re debating the bid, I would say . . . sometimes Africa bid, sometimes Med transport bid, sometimes French Indochina bid. Depends on your mood. Do you wanna threaten shenanigans?
(at this point, you are probably guessing I like the Africa bid because you knoes how I like dem shenanigans. Hoo boy. But I give the others a healthy run once in a while)
-G1: fleet west (inf to Gibraltar) or east ? how much air support to land and fleet ? when it can be meaningful to NOT attack Egypt ?
Ah, meaningz0rz. “But do u wuv me? Where are we going with this relationship?” And I hold her close, and say “Baby, you’re a sandwich. Ain’t nothin comin between u and me.” And isn’t that wat life is really all about? Sandwiches? (Arthur Dent, Sandwich Maker . . . suddenly it’s all making sense . . . )
Well, lemme tell ya. NOT taking Egypt can get real ugly real fast. You got that extra Brit fighter and a potential UK fleet coming through the Suez. If you don’t even ATTACK Anglo-Egypt, that infantry and tank can be a real problem - Japan doesn’t have a lot of forces to spread around J1, so those guys can really mess things up in the Indian/Pacific.
But SOMETIMES, Russia will be like super dumbass. When this happens, the Med fleet can be used to land in Caucasus. Combined with other threats, Russia can be put in a real bind. Granted, this usually requires horrible luck AND horrible planning on R1. But it SOMETIMES happens. And then it’s time to make with the gloating and rubbing of hands and maniacal laughter and cat petting.
- UK1: counterattack Egypt or not ? where to land planes surviving: bmb+ftr ? bmb alone ? [Looks dead, as it used 5 moves to attack, and any neighbor of Egypt is in range of German bmb from Libya] or lose bmb and land ftr ?
Wups, looks like my data’s merging, so I gotta cut this love-fest short. UK1 Anglo-Egypt depends - if Germany’s got four or more units in Anglo, and/or two fighters and a bomber on Libya, you gotta think. If you attempt to retake Anglo with 3 inf 1 fig 1 bomber, you risk failure, and that hurts a lot, especially since your fighter and bomber will have to land in Africa and are vulnerable to the German air from Libya as well as potentially any ground units from Anglo that survive. Even if you can recapture Anglo-Egypt with high probability (1 or 2 German units at Anglo), sending UK air may or may not be a good idea. If there’s just ONE German fighter and bomber in Libya which is more often the case than not, you might risk defending 1 fig 1 bom against German air attack (land both the UK fighter and bomber in the same territory) - it’s not great odds for defending UK, but it has a chance of knocking out that very difficult to kill German air. But 2 German fig 1 bomber attacking is just too much; your UK air WILL get clobbered at good odds of just a single German fighter to counter that loss (as opposed to good chances of getting a fighter and possibly that juicy juicy German bomber)
- If UK1 counterattack, G2 to re-attack Egypt ?
Problem is, Germany has to dump tanks into Egypt to retake; if you’ve got one Med transport you can only get one tank over, and if you move to Egypt with the Med fleet, and move the Germans in Libya to hit Anglo-Egypt, the Allies have a free route into Algeria. So it really depends. If the Allies don’t have anything to dump in Africa soon, sure, why not; take Africa as long as it’s there. If the Allies look like they’re gearing up for some major Atlantic operations, though, AND the Russians look really weak, then you might just want to forget about Africa and concentrate on Russia. Maybe, sometimes, you understand.
- Can the panzer run be stopped before South Africa (with the inf+ftr or more troops) ?
Yeah, that’s the point of UK1 retake of Anglo-Egypt. Once there are tanks at Anglo-Egypt, you get a tank hitting Italian East Africa and moving away from the coast, or goign to French West Africa. Or something like that, I don’t have a map in front of me. Thing is, you probably won’t be able to reach the German tanks if you don’t hit them at Anglo-Egypt; the German tanks will just stay away from the coast.
- What Allies to liberate Africa: UK+US or US alone ?
UK and US. It takes too long to get a Baltic-area Allied fleet going in most cases, even without the German Baltic fleet to contend with (You still have to worry about German air). The US needs a lot of transports to reach Europe, and it needs time to build them. If JUST the US goes into Africa, the Germans just might be able to whack the Americans - after all, the Germans have around 5 fighters and a bomber at least, plus a battleship and transport to play around with.
starting how fast ? from Algeria alone, or a separate landing vs tank in French Equatorial ?
Generally, you don’t mess around with French Equatorial unless the German player lets you. That is - if there’s a lone German tank in French Equatorial, nothing else German in Africa, then sure, blast French Equatorial and tank your way back through Africa. Yey. Usually, though, that German tank will have buddies close by.
If you build ground units at E. US and move to E. Canada, they can be transported to Algeria at the cost of one transport per transport load. That’s a pretty sweet deal. If the US concentrates on massing infantry, the US/UK forces might reach Persia before the Japs can take it, which means that the Japs will have to run a dedicated transport to take African territory (but the Allies are marching through, so Japanese gains will be limited) - it also means the Japs can’t move ground units to threaten Caucasus, which can help Russia a fair bit.
Allied effort to stop at some time, or continue to Caucasus/India etc ? [I’ve found massive Japanese/German fighters defending Egypt useful mostly if the Allied flow stopped]
Continuing to Caucasus lets the Japs move through Persia. If you attack Persia, you’re open to the Jap counter from India. As far as moving the Allies from Africa into India, it’s great IF you can do it, but the Japs can build up pretty quick in French Indochina, and it’s difficult to get to India in time to prevent its falling to Japan. Anyways, Persia’s a pretty good stopping point - if Japan redirects from India to the China/Ssinkiang or Yakut routes, even Japanese tanks can’t move fast enough to prevent Allied infantry from moving from Persia to Caucasus or Kazakh, then to Russia.
- Axis strive to control the Suez - how hard ? then move Italian ships east, or Japanese west ?
I don’t screw with the Suez. If I have a German Med fleet mid to late game, I use it to dump infantry into Balkans/Caucasus, or to reinforce Africa / attack Trans-Jordan - lots of targets, really. If I have a Jap fleet, then moving into the Suez is risky. You can just SEE the U.S. player watching the board and saying “tee heez, one transport in Western U.S. to rule them all! one transport to find them! one transport to bring them all and in the darkness bind them! in the South Pacific where the U.S. infantry and fighters fly!” Well, maybe you won’t really see that, but you can see that a very light U.S. naval buildup in the Pacific can mess with Japan REAL fast, and Japan can’t get back fast enough to do much about it.
- Build more Italian fleet ? what use for ?
Dump infantry into Balkans/Caucasus. What, do the Germans have to march from Germany to Eastern Europe to Ukraine to Caucasus/West Russia? Better to just drop 'em from S. Europe straight to Ukraine or Caucasus if you can.
- Second US fleet to continue advancing in Med ? what’s the deadliest threat ?
Naw, once you start trying to push Allies into the Med, you have to deal with nasty logistic problems. Takes two transports per transport load to get to Western Europe or Southern Europe, and there’s the whole German infantry counter thing, and the German air/naval attack on Allied navy thing, and the ew and the ah, and the I’m going to run away before those guys steal my boots.
Wups, gotta go. Work work.
:-o
wow NPB you sure got a lot to say on this subject. And you say it so elequently! Even a numbnut like me can almost understand it all. :|
My veiws on this, (as if anyone cares) is that Germany has to grab as much as possible for two or three turns, while building mostly infantry and some atillery, wit ha tank or two thrown in for good measure. Then, unless Russia has bleed itself whit, Turtle up and wait for Japan to save their Nazi butts.
You got to roll with the punches, there is no hard fast rule to victory.
Just keep playing and learning from mistakes, both yours and theirs.
Good luck and good hunting
Off topic, NPB, do you ever play on the tripleA ladder anymore?
Look, the simple fact is, with bids as they are today, there is NO WAY ENGLAND IS LIBERATING EGYPT ON ROUND 1 unless Germany REALLY took a pounding.
Why? Germany should be attacking Egypt with 3 Infantry, 3 Armor, Fighter and Bomber. That’s plenty to be relatively sure of a one combat round victory, meaning the WORST you could expect is to lose three infantry. However, the defender only has a punch of 9, odds are you are only losing 1 or MAYBE 2 infantry.
England cannot counter 1 or 2 infantry + 3 armor on UK 1 in Egypt. Thus, you not only get to keep Egypt anyway, but you’ll be set up to blitz all of Africa and reinforce Egypt with Germany.
So, given that, what SHOULD England do?
I submit SZ 30 unification is not that bad. I almost NEVER kill the Japanese submarine in SZ 45 anyway, most of the time missing entirely without getting hit myself, the rest of the time losing MY submarine AND missing entirely. Rarely I kill the enemy as well as lose my submarine and even then, it’s usually not that important. The Japanese submarine is a non-issue after Pearl.
Secondly, the transport kill has killed my destroyer and carrier more times then I’ve kill it. Again, it’s an 8 IPC unit, it gives Japan a slight leg up, but in the over all scheme of things, it’s not a huge shift.
Lastly, a Carrier, Fighter, Destroyer, 2 Transports and a Submarine moved into the Atlantic from England, that is not lost killing a very replaceable transport and a worthless submarine in the Pacific is HUGE!
On the KJF side, I have seen games (when I was the Axis) where I lost 3 infantry, 2 armor attacking Egypt and lost the submarine, destroyer and 2 fighters attacking SZ 52. Given BOTH occurrences, I think my opponents were complete morons NOT to go KJF.
KJF is very easy when you can sink half the Japanese flagships with America in round 1 without even risking your own Battleship.
@Crazy:
:-o
wow NPB you sure got a lot to say on this subject. And you say it so elequently! Even a numbnut like me can almost understand it all. :|For numb nuts, I use lotion. Ah. It’s Icy Hot.
My veiws on this, (as if anyone cares) is that Germany has to grab as much as possible for two or three turns, while building mostly infantry and some atillery, wit ha tank or two thrown in for good measure.
Tanks are STRONG! I mean, ok, you all read that policy paper, but I’m really serious.
Tanks have more movement, and they stay in the territory they hit. If you produce two tanks on G1, and use those tanks to secure a 2 IPC territory that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to secure, that Russia can’t afford to retake on G2, then what have you done? You’ve denied the Allies 2 IPC and gained yourself 2 IPC in the bank. You can use that 2 IPC to upgrade an infantry into a tank, so you’ve gained back the cost difference between one infantry and one tank right there. And you’ve denied the enemy 2 IPC which potentially means the difference between an enemy tank and an enemy infantry - just a bit more, and it’s like you killed an enemy infantry right there.
Effectively, there’s some tradeoff, because the German attack can grind to a halt if Germany produces nothing but tanks, and the Allies can use Germany’s lack of numbers to press the attack from the Atlantic. But a FEW tanks is pretty reasonable for Germany - in some board situations, at least.
Then, unless Russia has bleed itself whit, Turtle up and wait for Japan to save their Nazi butts.
You got to roll with the punches, there is no hard fast rule to victory.
Just keep playing and learning from mistakes, both yours and theirs.
Good luck and good hunting
Off topic, NPB, do you ever play on the tripleA ladder anymore?
Ya, on and off. I forgot my old account’s password, so I’m on a new account now. ^.^
Naw, once you start trying to push Allies into the Med, you have to deal with nasty logistic problems. Takes two transports per transport load to get to Western Europe or Southern Europe, and there’s the whole German infantry counter thing, and the German air/naval attack on Allied navy thing, and the ew and the ah, and the I’m going to run away before those guys steal my boots.
Wups, gotta go. Work work.
I dunno. I’ve never been able to pull it off, oddly, but I’ve always wanted to get a US fleet into the Med. And it’s not some whacked-out idea. US units take four turns to march from Lib > AE > TJ > Per (if they can even get through) > Cau. A US fleet can pick up units from Lib and drop them in Cau, which is huge.
The problem is pulling it off, but if you can, the German player should pretty much be crying. Seriously, like tears and stuff. It takes some nifty Allied transport fleet movement, but that’s half of what good US/UK play is all about anyway, right?
A US Med fleet hinges on two things: holding or trading WEu and Kar. The UK can be very very safe in sz3 if WEu and Kar are clear of G ftrs, and sz12 is only susceptible to G bmbs once WEu is ftr-free. Luckily, those two territories fall pretty quickly. Germany might might might be throwing its weight around in Kar for a few turns, but Russia can make this very temporary (or non-existent). And once Kar is taken even once, ftrs won’t be landing there–the UK fleet would be safe to keep landing in Nor and any US des or other cover can go to sz12. Once Germany starts shifting east to march on Russia, the UK will be able to start trading WEu, which is around UK4-5–sometimes later, sometimes even earlier.
Right then the US should have its 1bb 2des 1ac 2ftr 4-5 trn fleet lurch into the Med. Heck, that might even be the landing that takes SEu for good or sets it up to be taken a few turns later.
Not only is the Med fleet powerful because it can drop troops right into Cau, but also because it threatens SEu/WEu/Bal/Ukr constantly without mucking up the US’s supply line. With a little preparation and an ac, the US can put ridiculous amounts of pressure on German territory while still having the option of quickly reinforcing Russia.
Frankly, marching the US through Africa just doesn’t cut it. Unless you can pull off some funky combination of Nor/Ukr ICs with a 2x2 or 3x3 fleet chain (and/or get lucky and secure WEu/SEu early on), you’re gonna have to have like 8-10 transports. So why not invest in one ac and instead of landing in WEu, take your pick of WEu/SEu/Bal/Ukr/Cau/TJ.
If Germany’s airforce is depleted, for instance from a G2 UnBaltic attack that destroys the UK fleet but leaves Germany with something like 3ftr 2bmb, the US can move into the Med with just 1bb 2des as cover. You just gotta sink the G Med fleet first, and then you rule the seas.
All that being said, I see three problems–each involving my beloved, but in this case just plain annoying, Axis air: two German bombers, Germany building more ftrs, and Japan’s airforce.
2bmb vs 4trn in sz12 means G can gamble its bmbs against those trns, with each side having a 50/50 chance of being wiped out. But if the Russian sub is still alive or the Aus trn, a US trn, or any other naval piece can sit in sz12, that fleet becomes much more secure. Sink 12ipcs into a US des and you’re golden.
If Germany keeps building ftrs, both US and UK fleets have to respond. It’s the classic fork, like WRu threatening Cau and Rus or Sol threatening both Bor and EInd. And I don’t really have an answer for it :x.
The problem with Japan’s airforce is that Germany could throw its air at the US Med fleet, probably wiping out transport cover, and then Japan could follow up and wipe out the capitals. Japan would have to have its air in place, but that wouldn’t take much effort. The Allied upside is that this would leave either G’s or J’s airforce almost assuredly dead and the other one darn close to it. And really it would just stop the US for one turn. You just do nothing, builds 4-5 trns, and next turn it’s back to business as usual, except you land in WEu/Nor. Meanwhile Axis air is virtually gone.
I dunno, I forgot about the Germany ftr build strategy until like the end of this post. I think that might be the one out of the three that could really deter a US Med fleet. Anyone have success with separate US and UK fleets against a cuh-razy Luftwaffe?
I dunno. I’ve never been able to pull it off, oddly, but I’ve always wanted to get a US fleet into the Med. And it’s not some whacked-out idea.
Who said it’s whacked out? If it was me, I musta been on my crack pipe. But you can’t prove anything . . . I did not have secksual relations with that woman . . .
US units take four turns to march from Lib > AE > TJ > Per (if they can even get through) > Cau. A US fleet can pick up units from Lib and drop them in Cau, which is huge.
Very true that bit. If the Allies bulk up with infantry in Africa, Japan may well have secured Persia by the time the Allies reach it. And if the Allies sent tanks to race to Persia, Japan may just be able to punch through the tanks. It’s a very tight race that I think favors Japan.
There’s nothing wrong, theoretically, with putting a fleet in the Mediterranean. It does take some time, but it’s a reasonable venture, depending on the board position.
The problem is pulling it off, but if you can, the German player should pretty much be crying. Seriously, like tears and stuff. It takes some nifty Allied transport fleet movement, but that’s half of what good US/UK play is all about anyway, right?
The German player doesn’t need to cry.
What you’re proposing requires a two transports per transport load plus defensive escort fleet. No more than is required for any US-Europe offload, and admittedly Caucasus has a superior position.
But the UK, too, will require two transports per transport load, which the UK does NOT need if the Allies are feeding in troops via the UK-Archangel/Karelia/Norway/Eastern Europe route.
Furthermore, there are TWO Allied fleets that need protection - the Allied transport fleet landing off Algeria needs an escort against fighters in Western Europe, and the Allied transport fleet within the Med needs another escort against the same threat, as well as the possible addition of a suicide German Med navy. (The last can be destroyed by Allied air, but this delays the naval buildup).
Add to this the fact that the Allied Baltic Sea route is generally safer against German air (German fighters often won’t be able to reach the Allied transport fleet and land) - and add in the fact that the Baltic route usually lets the Allies cut off Norway from the Germans, denying them those 3 IPC and giving the Allies those 3 IPC - and what you get is that the Med is a pretty costly option. Viable in some instances, sure. But not always.
A US Med fleet hinges on two things: holding or trading WEu and Kar. The UK can be very very safe in sz3 if WEu and Kar are clear of G ftrs, and sz12 is only susceptible to G bmbs once WEu is ftr-free. Luckily, those two territories fall pretty quickly. Germany might might might be throwing its weight around in Kar for a few turns, but Russia can make this very temporary (or non-existent). And once Kar is taken even once, ftrs won’t be landing there–the UK fleet would be safe to keep landing in Nor and any US des or other cover can go to sz12. Once Germany starts shifting east to march on Russia, the UK will be able to start trading WEu, which is around UK4-5–sometimes later, sometimes even earlier.
I don’t have the map in front of me, but I think if you offload UK into Norway, you ARE vulnerable to fighters from W. Europe. Not a major concern; you can just dump to Karelia instead to avoid W. Europe fighters. Of course, the Germans could move their air around - but I digress.
I think you’re talking about the setup in which the UK runs one fleet through Europe, and the US operates in the Med. This addresses all the concerns I just mentioned above about the inefficiency of a Med setup. But the Germans SHOULD have started buying fighters once they saw the Allied Atlantic buildup, and it can be pretty hard to defend all the three Allied fleets.
You have to be particularly careful about Long Range Aircraft dice in non-LHTR games. You can say “Golly, those fighters can’t reach me!” But if Germany rolls a couple dice and gets Long Range Aircraft, you could get your whole fleet wasted at the cost of just a couple of German fighters - well worth 5-10 IPC on taking a chance, and Germany can KEEP taking a chance until it gets it. Normally this is just stupid for Germany, because the united Allied fleet is too large for any German air force, but once the US is committed to the Med, and UK committed to the Baltic, and if Germany’s been building a few fighters up, well, better watch your a**.
Right then the US should have its 1bb 2des 1ac 2ftr 4-5 trn fleet lurch into the Med. Heck, that might even be the landing that takes SEu for good or sets it up to be taken a few turns later.
Take SEu for good early? It’s a pipe dream. You can drop a bunch of units in, but Germany can take it right back, and unless you have a followup wave right after, Germany is going to keep SEu. The moment you don’t have a followup wave, you lose SEu.
Sure, SEu is worth 6 IPC. And sure, you are preventing the Germans from making a run on Russia. But concentrating on the Germans so hard means you’re not messing with Japan, and you can bet Japan is going to be messing with Russia real hard.
Now, I’m not saying that a Med fleet is a BAD idea. I am saying it requires the right circumstances to be of use.
Not only is the Med fleet powerful because it can drop troops right into Cau, but also because it threatens SEu/WEu/Bal/Ukr constantly without mucking up the US’s supply line. With a little preparation and an ac, the US can put ridiculous amounts of pressure on German territory while still having the option of quickly reinforcing Russia.
It sure looks that way, doesn’t it? But it doesn’t really work out that way a lot of times, because the SEurope and WEurope attacks require followup waves and reinforcement, and Russian units from West Russia should be contesting Ukraine anyways. If the Germans are already weak - perhaps their air hasn’t grown any, or let’s say they don’t have a horde of ground units - then the Med fleet can be a killing blow. But if the Germans do have a fair number of ground units, then the invasion threat is much less of a concern for Germany, so the Med fleet won’t really accomplish much more than trading the Balkans - well, it can help secure Africa as well, which is not inconsiderable, and it can drop units to Caucasus in an emergency - but what I said before about defending the water west of Algeria, defending the Med fleet, defending the Baltic fleet, and worrying about German Long Range Aircraft fighters hitting one of those fleets compensates.
Frankly, marching the US through Africa just doesn’t cut it. Unless you can pull off some funky combination of Nor/Ukr ICs with a 2x2 or 3x3 fleet chain (and/or get lucky and secure WEu/SEu early on), you’re gonna have to have like 8-10 transports. So why not invest in one ac and instead of landing in WEu, take your pick of WEu/SEu/Bal/Ukr/Cau/TJ.
(menacing leer) yes, why not . . .
Okay, first off. You see why landing in Africa early is a good thing to do. First, you probably need to reclaim Africa from Germany. Second, you can’t reach Europe very well yet anyways.
You’re right about the US marching through Africa in a lot of games, but once you’re feeding 8 US infantry and 6 UK infantry in through Algeria, those relentless numbers keep coming, and you haven’t even spent a lot - you’ve got 4 transports with US, 3 transports with UK, and both countries still have leftover income to ramp up production into air/navy, or more transports to increase the feed to 10-12 US ground and 8 UK ground per turn. The masses mean Germany just can’t punch into the Allies in Africa; even the almost minimal 14 ground units a turn that you hit quickly is way too much for Germany to make a dent in without some serious sacrifices elsewhere. So don’t dismiss the feed through Africa.
BTW, your one AC - remember what I wrote. Either you concentrate on Mediterranean in the midgame when you’ve built up the Allied fleet and sacrifice the lucrative Norway route, or you split your fleet between west of Algeria, the Mediterranean, and the Baltic, and risk the Germans whacking one of your fleets out with Long Range Aircraft. It’s a problem.
If Germany’s airforce is depleted, for instance from a G2 UnBaltic attack that destroys the UK fleet but leaves Germany with something like 3ftr 2bmb, the US can move into the Med with just 1bb 2des as cover. You just gotta sink the G Med fleet first, and then you rule the seas.
Yeah, IF the Germans decide to deplete their air, and IF they don’t build more, which they probably should when they see the KGF coming. And note you have to build Allied air up to hit the German Med fleet; if you venture in with a strong fleet, the Germans can whack it with German navy/air. You either need a really healthy navy, or air, and air is more generally useful.
All that being said, I see three problems–each involving my beloved, but in this case just plain annoying, Axis air: two German bombers, Germany building more ftrs, and Japan’s airforce.
2bmb vs 4trn in sz12 means G can gamble its bmbs against those trns, with each side having a 50/50 chance of being wiped out. But if the Russian sub is still alive or the Aus trn, a US trn, or any other naval piece can sit in sz12, that fleet becomes much more secure. Sink 12ipcs into a US des and you’re golden.
But by the time you’re buying that US destroyer, don’t you think the Axis are doing something to? Like maybe buying another German fighter, expanding in Asia?
If Germany keeps building ftrs, both US and UK fleets have to respond. It’s the classic fork, like WRu threatening Cau and Rus or Sol threatening both Bor and EInd. And I don’t really have an answer for it :x.
OMG, why didn’t you just say so earlier and save me all my writing? There are answers . . . not great ones, not simple ones, not undefeatable ones, but answers. Which I would elaborate on more if my data wasn’t about to come up.
The problem with Japan’s airforce is that Germany could throw its air at the US Med fleet, probably wiping out transport cover, and then Japan could follow up and wipe out the capitals. Japan would have to have its air in place, but that wouldn’t take much effort. The Allied upside is that this would leave either G’s or J’s airforce almost assuredly dead and the other one darn close to it. And really it would just stop the US for one turn. You just do nothing, builds 4-5 trns, and next turn it’s back to business as usual, except you land in WEu/Nor. Meanwhile Axis air is virtually gone.
Axis don’t HAVE to blow up their air. They CAN. The Axis may just as well send their air against Russia. In a situation in which the Allies have landed in Western Europe, the Germans are not necessarily dead. They can move their E. Europe infantry stack to Germany, and use their Germany infantry stack plus E. Europe tanks to hit W. Europe. A GOOD German player will have infantry and fighters and preserve his/her starting tanks, so you will run into that situation. Now, that doesn’t mean that a good German player can’t get reamed by a W. Europe landing, but it does mean that landing in W. Europe/Norway isn’t necesssarily the be all and end all.
I dunno, I forgot about the Germany ftr build strategy until like the end of this post. I think that might be the one out of the three that could really deter a US Med fleet. Anyone have success with separate US and UK fleets against a cuh-razy Luftwaffe?
Wupps back to work . . . I gotta go oh noez.
You will NOT see me argue against the American North African Campaign. I used too. I used to think it took “too long.” Then I learned that with intelligent moves, and strong purchases, Russia can pretty much single handedly give Germany back it’s buttocks after they chew it off with machine gun fire in the field of glory. (In other words, if you are in a KGF situation, Russia can very easily have a few rounds where E. Europe and Balkans are the dead zone, giving them much more firepower for later in the game.)
What I like doing is to have the American fleet +1 Battleship (that’s 2 Battleships, 2 Destroyers + Transports) in the Med or maybe with an extra carrier in SZ 12 if you need it. (If W. Europe is a dead zone, then you won’t need the carrier, since the German FIGHTERs cannot hit the transports there. Yes, I realize that the bomber CAN, but I don’t think it’s wise for the Germans to send a bomber against 5 transports and a Russian submarine.)
Then you can have the British fleet in SZ 4.
Now you can off load units into Algeria and use a couple of extra transports (not from the 5 you have shuttling 10 ground units a round into Africa) bringing troops from Libya to Caucasus each round while the rest of your army ensures Africa stays liberated and moves on Persia to threaten the Japanese industrial production.
Top that off with the British driving down through Archangelsk to Russia to Novosibirsk to take on the British advance forces to preserve the Russian army from over extension and I think you have a winning play.
The idea that lead to this was that Russia really cannot handle trading territories in Karelia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Kazakh, Novosibirsk and Evenki every round. Especially with only two fighters and especially because Japan’s taking half the force and Germany the other half.
But if England takes German lands and Russia liberates their own lands, the Russian army will eventually be eclipsed by the Japanese who will, almost assuredly, be making twice as much as the Russians!
So how can Russia take German lands to fill it’s treasury while still preserving their army against a two front assault?
Oh yea! England will have America keeping Africa alive, so they’ll be able to fill at least 3 transports a round, and that’s 6 units, roughly the amount Japan will be bringing into Russia each round, and at least enough to attack Kazakh and Novosibirsk each round, maybe even Evenki. Add in the English fighters and bomber, and this is even more achievable, especially when Japan finds itself confronted with American Sherman Tanks and Army Rangers.
Meanwhile, Russia’s losing 4 infantry a round trading E. Europe and Balkans (6 IPC, so the cost of 2 Infantry) but also able to keep and hold Ukraine, Belorussia and W. Russia (the cost of 2 more infantry and a profit) that they would have lost if they had to turn back to prevent Russia from falling to the Japanese.
I remember when AAR first came out and Don Rae said the US should send tanks tanks tanks through Africa to reinforce Russian positions. I’ve tried that, and I think I’ve also tried inf/arm, and I’ve never seen much success.
Someone doing an UnBaltic (or similar) opening will delay an Algeria landing until at least US2. It’s just not worth losing 1des 2trn to land 2inf 1art 1arm. US1 Alg units could optimally reach Per on their own by US5. With UnBaltic that’s probably arm in Per by US6 (because the 2inf 1art will be killed trying to retake Africa from G). So whoop-dee-doo. Japan will be in Per or seriously pressuring it with battleships, infantry, armor, and 6ftr 1bmb, and a stack of US arm just won’t cut it. It wouldn’t matter so much that Germany will be much stronger without serious US threat of landing in WEu/SEu, except that the US probably won’t be able to make it to Cau/Rus to turn the tables. Per could certainly be sandwiched between TJ and Cau–and get slammed, but it’s unlikely. At that point Russia can’t afford to trade its stack for G’s or J’s because then the other will take Rus. The Allies need to be taking ground around either Rus or Ber, and Operation Torch doesn’t seem to do either.
If you can pull off a US Med fleet, then Torch gets a serious leg up, and I think would likely work. But after looking at the pros and cons of that strategy, I really don’t see a way around a G ftr buildup.
I remember when AAR first came out and Don Rae said the US should send tanks tanks tanks through Africa to reinforce Russian positions. I’ve tried that, and I think I’ve also tried inf/arm, and I’ve never seen much success.
There’s a good reason for this. Marching through Africa is not a magic bullet. It is not an undefeatable game plan. In games in which Japan moves towards India decisively, Japan should get to India and Persia before the Allies, and Japan should be able to keep up a good amount of pressure. that can potentially stop the Allied reinforcement route.
Yet, “success” need not be measured in terms of the bulk of Allied units moving through Africa into Caucasus. “Success” can also be measured in keeping the Germans and Japanese out of Africa.
And besides those points, there is another even more important. An Atlantic buildup in many cases simply does not allow early Allied reinforcement to Europe. In such cases, Africa is the only easy dropoff point, and the Allies may as well reclaim those IPCs from Germany.
Someone doing an UnBaltic (or similar) opening will delay an Algeria landing until at least US2. It’s just not worth losing 1des 2trn to land 2inf 1art 1arm.
If you’re going to lose the destroyer, there is no need to move it. In fact, it would be better not to. As far as losing 2 trn to land 2 inf 1 art 1 arm, there are times and cases in which the loss is worthwhile, particularly when reinforcing London (that reinforcement giving the UK the option of building up their air force or navy on UK1). Generally, I would agree with your assessment that it is not worthwhile to land troops in Africa that early, though.
US1 Alg units could optimally reach Per on their own by US5. With UnBaltic that’s probably arm in Per by US6 (because the 2inf 1art will be killed trying to retake Africa from G).
US reinforcements to Persia are often delayed until around US6 anyways, even if US chooses not to aid in claiming Africa. The exception is if the US sends early tanks to Africa.
Hence why Don Rae said “tanks” instead of “infantry”. US1 potentially places 1 tank in Africa; US2 places up to 3 tanks in Africa (with a US1 build of 3 transport 3 tank 1 infantry and moving 2 infantry to Eastern US from Central US). Germany can delay an Allied landing in Algeria through various means, but typically the US should have landed by US2, with US3 seeing 8 units in Libya (tanks may very w ell be prevented from blitzing to Anglo-Egypt), US4 seeing those units moving through to Anglo-Egypt (again a blitz may be prevented), with a US5 tank blitz to Persia receiving Russian reinforcements from Caucasus before the next Japanese turn.
It’s not just the 4 US tanks landing on US2; infantry backup makes German reinforcements to Africa unlikely, so the US3 tank landing is free to blitz on US4 and US5 to join the other tanks in Persia. 7 tanks cannot easily be stopped by Japan even as late as that time (note that the 2 US infantry from China plus US air can be useful in this attack), and US infantry moves up in time to reinforce the position. The Japanese CAN stop a tank rush reinforcement through Africa, but it is not a simple proposition.
Remember that the US attack force should be 2 inf 7 tanks 2 fighter 1 bomber.
J1 should see a build of 3 transports, with J2, J3 each seeing 4 infantry moved to French Indochina. J4 sees eight infantry in India, with a J4 drop of 2 inf 2 tanks to French Indochina for a J5 move of 8 inf 2 tanks to Persia. Of course, some of those Japanese infantry will have been destroyed in route, and Japan can move additional tanks in from their J2 and J3 drops to Asia - which really means about 6 inf 5 tanks to Persia (2 aforementioned, 1 starting, 2 more built)
This causes Japan a few different problems - first, having to build early tanks instead of early infantry; second, having to run through resistance in India and Persia (very possibly costing more than the 2 infantry listed previously), and so on and so forth. These problems can be overcome, but at the very least with some inconvenience by Japan.
So, I say that reinforcement through Africa isn’t a magic bullet, but it CAN be practical given the right circumstances.
So whoop-dee-doo. Japan will be in Per or seriously pressuring it with battleships, infantry, armor, and 6ftr 1bmb, and a stack of US arm just won’t cut it.
Of course not. The US armor MUST be reinforced by Russian infantry. An AA gun can be afforded as well. It is initially very difficult for the Allies, and remains so, because the Japanese in India cannot be dislodged (the defending force at Persia will initially not have enough infantry to attack without severe losses, and later as the US infantry in Africa catch up, so will more Japanese infantry at India, making for a standoff. Still, the Caucasus should be secured - assuming that the Allied goal of defending Persia for a round or two is met.
It wouldn’t matter so much that Germany will be much stronger without serious US threat of landing in WEu/SEu, except that the US probably won’t be able to make it to Cau/Rus to turn the tables. Per could certainly be sandwiched between TJ and Cau–and get slammed, but it’s unlikely. At that point Russia can’t afford to trade its stack for G’s or J’s because then the other will take Rus. The Allies need to be taking ground around either Rus or Ber, and Operation Torch doesn’t seem to do either.
IF the Allies are unsuccessful in claiming Persia, then the Allies can still use those forces in Africa to secure Africa, threaten the Japanese in India, or move back west to be offloaded to Europe.
If the Allies SUCCEED in claiming Persia, then either the Allies continue their feed through Africa, or the Allies can switch to the E.Can-London, London-Europe transport route. The first option takes a long time to bring to fruition, and allows the Germans more IPCs in northern Europe (particularly Norway and Karelia), but at the worst, the UK and US forces can retreat to Caucasus then Moscow.
If you can pull off a US Med fleet, then Torch gets a serious leg up, and I think would likely work. But after looking at the pros and cons of that strategy, I really don’t see a way around a G ftr buildup.
The US doesn’t need a Med fleet to move in through Africa. It only needs to protect its transports that are offloading to Algeria.
Moving reinforcements through Africa and having a Mediterranean fleet are not the same thing.
Newpaintbrush>>
Maybe it can be constructive for this argument to look at a real game.
I want you (if you have the time) to analyze what went wrong for the allies concerning africa in my tournament game.
I have not won yet, but i beliave the game will be mine.
Then you have something to argue abouot in a “constructive” way that people can follow.
Ya know, I’ve been using the UNbaltic a bit here and there and it seems to work almost every time it is tried. (Though, my UnBaltic is only the SZ 5 fleet to SZ 7, the SZ 8 submarine goes to Gibraltar as usual.)
By work, I mean it pulls the British fleet out where I can sink it with the Luftwaffe. Just something to be said about England with no battleships.
@Nix:
Newpaintbrush>>
Maybe it can be constructive for this argument to look at a real game.
What, 08S1-Dragoon (Allies) vs. Nix 2 (Axis), 8 bid ? Well, you know, Nix - first, it isn’t in TripleA, which is how I prefer to read game histories (download the .tsvg, then review history). Second - you’re NIX, baby! You don’t have to listen to wat I say. In fact, you prolly shouldn’t, lol.
I want you (if you have the time) to analyze what went wrong for the allies concerning africa in my tournament game.
Ah, time. It’s tricky. I’ll do it if I can.
I have not won yet, but i beliave the game will be mine.
yayz0rz!
Then you have something to argue abouot in a “constructive” way that people can follow.
OOOO, I think that was a shot. Was that a shot?
:-D <– can’t make me care either way!
Second - you’re NIX, baby! You don’t have to listen to wat I say. In fact, you prolly shouldn’t, lol.
lol.
:wink:
I have played as Germany several times on the A&A Revised and found the following strategy to work for me when taking Africa:
-Use the fighter from the Balkans and Ukraine to take out the UK destroyer lurking near the Suez Canal.
-I use the battle ship off the coast of Italy, with the bomber from Germany, transport from Italy (loaded with 1 infantry & 1 tank) and both units from Libya to Sack Anglo-Egypt. The battleship should knock out one unit without any problems, leaving just two to contend with. I then land the bomber back in Italy for the campaign against the Causcasus.
-On Germany T2, I purchase one Industrial Complex and place it in Anglo-Egypt. This might be financially risky, but it allows me to dominate Africa without having to constantly transport troops & armor from Europe.
-You won’t be able to place new units until T3, but there should still be enough units in Africa to hold out until the Panzer cavalry arrives.
-I also realize diverting two fighters and a bomber from Europe can also be risky. However, you should have plenty of units to reinforce the line against the Russians and to take Karrelia.
That is my strategy for taking Africa thus far. Let me know what you think and if it is helpful to anyone.
Your battleship can’t bombard in Egy on G1, the UK DD prevents that. All the attacks happen at the same time so you don’t get to knock off one of the Egy troops.
Also, you are likely to see UK counter attack Egy on UK 1 with up to 3 inf, 1 ftr, 1 bom which means you won’t be able to place an IC on G2 since you’ll have to attack it again.
My mistake, I misinterpreted the rules on Combat Movement, thinking that each unit(s) that you attack with get their on combat movement. I did not realize all are put together, no matter where you move.
I’m assuming your getting the other 2 infantry from India, via way of the transport docked there. However, the bomber coming from mainland UK will have to fly through two fields of AA fire. I wonder if most UK players would risk their bomber to get into the fray of the North Africa campaign.
-Instead of the two fighters from the Balkans & Ukraine attacking the UK destroyer, they could assault Anglo-Egypt with the units from Libya and the bomber could still participate.
-Either one or two fighters from Gemany could instead assist in the attack on the UK destroyer.
-The transport could still be moved in to assault Anglo-Egypt, provided there are other units to take a hit, in case the UK destoyer has a successful roll.
Thank you for clearing up some of the rules for me. I am pretty new to the game and I am still getting used to all the processes.
I’m assuming your getting the other 2 infantry from India, via way of the transport docked there. However, the bomber coming from mainland UK will have to fly through two fields of AA fire. I wonder if most UK players would risk their bomber to get into the fray of the North Africa campaign.
Look at the map again
The UK bomber can fly to sz8, sz12, algeria, libya, anglo-egypt to travel 5 into the UK1 counter attack.
no AAA flak.
Apparently I need to study the map a little better. I don’t own a copy of Revised and was trying to guess the distance from memory. I thought we were just talking about striking Anglo-Egypt and so I thought the shortest distance for the UK bomber would be over mainland Europe. Thank you for pointing it out though, as I need practice with the game and want to gleen as much info from the forum as I can.
