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.
