40% to kill the Egyptian Fighter
30% to take Egypt
you mean the % of failure is 60% to kill the fighter and 70% to fail at Egypt?
Thats a horrible opening move. If you fail you not only lose Egypt but still lost the Italian fleet.
What is wrong with landing and taking Jordan on G1 with either Italy or Germany, and the other stocks up in Libya
ON G2 Germany takes Egypt ( before UKs turn) and UK with 3 bombers cant land?
you still kill a few units, making Egypt weaker , then hit it again before the bombers are in play?
Actually, IL, it’s only Egypt that would fail, NOT a loss of the Italian fleet.
You still need something that can hit SZ 14. Right now England only has 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber. That’s not enough to take 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers.
well G1 must contain really good attacks and not marginal ones. What is wrong with Jordan on G1 and Egypt on G2?
it gets the same thing and does not risk failure.
The problem with Jordan on G1 is that Italy cannot take Egypt on round 1. It just does not have the firepower.
I guess if you bring the bomber from Germany to Egypt your odds are significantly better, it would be:
2 Infantry, Artillery, 2 Armor, Bomber
vs
2 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter
It gives you a 75% chance to clear it with your bomber surviving.
Problem is, your odds dropped significantly in SZ 12, which I think is the more important of the two battles! (No one is attacking SZ 14 with 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, I don’t care how crazy you are!)
SZ 12 with the bomber is 88% chance to win and do so with probably one submarine and the bomber
Without the bomber it drops too 30% with odds of only killing the destroyer, not the cruiser.
Fighter, Bomber, Cruiser vs 2 Cruisers and a Battleship is worth the risk to me. At the least, you should get one or two of his cruisers before going down in flames.
I’d even consider Destroyer, Cruiser, Bomber to SZ 14 just for a shot at killing his fleet, as small a shot as it is.
But for many players, that means England would bring the Cruiser up with the Battleship and have 2 shore bombardments of France each round isntead of them attacking SZ 14. (I’m a risk taker, sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires.)
The problem with Jordan on G1 is that Italy cannot take Egypt on round 1. It just does not have the firepower.
Germany takes Jordan on G1, Italy backs it up by landing in Jordan.
On G2 Germany with planes wipes out Egypt with combined attack, UK wont hit Italian fleet with bombers because Italy built a destroyer and the combined German and Italian attack on the bombers would basically exchange all the uk assets. and this exchange is a net loss for UK and added with its fleet loses, UK is in a huge hole to replace all its lost ships and its lost air units…i dont think they will risk it for the Italian fleet.
4,3,3,2 vs. 4,4,4,3 is not really a done deal either.
The problem with that IL is that England will use the Egypt forces against Trans-Jordan BEFORE Italy goes. I agree with Jenn on Egypt, as a matter of fact I think it is the only G1 attack we do the same way. IF England buys all bombers on UK 1, Japan can and should position itself on J2 so that whatever survives Against the Italian fleet goes bye-bye. With my Japan opening they could be looking at 3 loaded CVs in the Indian Ocean just dying to mop up some bombers.
So losing Anglo-Egypt round 1 dooms the axis?
@Cmdr:
No it does not. But it makes life really hard on the Axis.
I think what U-505 is saying is that losing the Italian Fleet before even getting a chance to use it once dooms the Axis. (Notice I am not saying I agree or disagree, only that I think that is what he was saying.)
No, it doesn’t doom the Axis. But, it puts them behind the eight ball. The Axis relies a good deal on Italy making more than just the 9 European IPC’s and distracting the Allies with their fleet so if most or all of the fleet is sunk on UK2 then the Allies can leave just a token fleet in sz12 [maybe 1 loaded CV, 1 or 2 TP] to mop up what’s left in Africa and provide a defensive force against the Japanese and then begin the 1-2 UK/US punch in NWE or France.
The Italian fleet keeps the Allies honest. It forces them to have 2 separate fully funcional fleets [1 for Europe, usually UK, 1 for Africa, usually US] because Italy cannot be allowed to devour all of the UK’s African assets. Without the Italian fleet, the Allies are able to spend much less on their navy because they won’t have to worry about contesting Africa early so they can combine their fleets in the English Channel and concentrate on Germany.
I’d say that if the Italian fleet goes down early, you should expect to lose the game if you are playing even a moderately competent opponent.
@Imperious:
The problem with Jordan on G1 is that Italy cannot take Egypt on round 1. It just does not have the firepower.
Germany takes Jordan on G1, Italy backs it up by landing in Jordan.
On G2 Germany with planes wipes out Egypt with combined attack, UK wont hit Italian fleet with bombers because Italy built a destroyer and the combined German and Italian attack on the bombers would basically exchange all the uk assets. and this exchange is a net loss for UK and added with its fleet loses, UK is in a huge hole to replace all its lost ships and its lost air units…i dont think they will risk it for the Italian fleet.4,3,3,2 vs. 4,4,4,3 is not really a done deal either.
A44bigdog is right, IL. UK goes after Germany so they have the luxury of deciding what is easiest for them to accomplish before the Italians move.
Here’s the problem I see with attacking T-J with Germany. Let’s assume that T-J is taken with an armor surviving for Germany. On the UK turn, they attack with 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig and if the armor hits they take the fighter as a casualty and if the armor misses they land the fighter in Caucasus. Either way, Trans-Jordan has 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm left.
That leaves the Italians to attack Trans-Jordan with 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 inf, 1 arm. The big problem with this is that it would take them away from the added defense of a sz14 DD build. Second, you can pretty much expect that the UK will have 2 units left [1 art, 1 arm] after that attack.
That leaves Germany to blitz an Armor from Libya and the bomber for support. [1 bmb, 1 arm v. 1 art, 1 arm] is only around 50/50 to take and 1 hit by the defenders requires the loss of the bomber. And to be honest, if I see Germany attack T-J on G1 instead of Egypt and I can spare it, I’m going to position 2 armor in Caucasus to attempt to retake T-J on R2 and provide the UK bombers with their necessary landing grounds.
Here’s the truncated step by step layout.
Axis1. (G1) German attack on T-J [1 inf, 1 arm, 1 bmb v. 2 inf]
Allies1. (UK1) UK counterattack on T-J [ 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig v. approximately 1 arm]
Axis2. (Ita1) Italy softens up UK forces in T-J [1 inf, 1 arm, 1 CA, 1 BB v. approximately 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm]
Axis3 (G2) Germany finishing attack on T-J [1 arm, 1 bmb v. approximately 1 art, 1 arm]
Possible Allies2. Russian counterattack on T-J [2 arm v. 1 arm]
There are a lot of steps in that layout. 3 of them for the Axis and only 1 definite one for the Allies(the Russian attack on T-J is optional). All 3 of the Axis attacks have a smaller measure of success than the lone Allied one and on the last Axis attack you’re probably going to lose the German bomber anyway so in the long run you might as well just attack Egypt with Germany on G1 with bomber support because the odds of killing the fighter go up to about 80%.
And assuming that the UK fighter dies in the UK attack on T-J you could just abandon the rest of the Axis attacks and hole up in sz14 with the Italian fleet and a DD build, but 4 bmb v. 1 BB, 2 CA, 1 DD is 50/50 which means that the odds are high that the Italians would lose all but the BB and the US could then commence the final cleanup.
There is one safety valve that I saw and a44bigdog hit upon it. However, it’s really a temporary waste of a lot of Axis firepower that is really needed elsewhere. If something goes wrong with an attack on Egypt or T-J by Germany then the only way to save the Italian fleet would be to probably move the entire Japanese sz61 fleet, including at least one of the TP’s, if not both, to sz37 and use them to attack Burma with the threat of landing in Egypt and/or T-J on J2.
The reason I said it’s a temporary waste of firepower is because the bulk of the sz61 navy usually goes toward Philippines so depending on how you manage the Japanese turn, you could be shortchanging the Japanese on income or allowing Allied units that usually die to end up surviving. And it all happens before the UK moves. So as soon as the Japanese player does it, the UK player could just revert to their normal opening build without missing a step and they would be subjecting the Axis to a weaker than normal opening without actually having done anything at all.
And lastly, here is my reasoning. As the Allies, I know that the Italian fleet will cost me in lost UK money, extra Axis units from Italian NO’s gained and territories conquered, extra shipping purchased to bottle them up, and lost Allied units in eventually sinking them. And I also know that all of that added up will cost me more in the long run than it would for me to throw away a UK bomber, fighter, all of UK’s first turn income, and maybe a few US units and a portion of their first turn income.
So why wouldn’t I do it? If the Axis player is going to offer me the destruction of the Italian fleet not only early in the game but also at a long run discount, then I’m going to take it every single time.
I’d say that if the Italian fleet goes down early, you should expect to lose the game if you are playing even a moderately competent opponent.
What do you define as early? Round 2 is definitely early, is Round 3 early?
I have a way to eliminate the italian fleet by US 3.
It involves a UK1 buy of a/c, 2 CA (assuming UK loses sz2 and sz12 fleet G1).
Also, USA buys 2 bombers, ftrs (& sub?)
Round 2 UK can focus on an atlantic fleet, US can spend cash on units elsewhere.
USA3 has 2 ftr (or maybe even 4 ftr), 4 bombers on the Italian Fleet.
Yes, I mean UK2 when the UK bombers attack or at the very latest US2 when the US aircraft cleans up what the UK bombers leave behind, which would, at worst, probably just be the Italian BB.
That leaves the Italians to attack Trans-Jordan with 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 inf, 1 arm. The big problem with this is that it would take them away from the added defense of a sz14 DD build. Second, you can pretty much expect that the UK will have 2 units left [1 art, 1 arm] after that attack.
Italy has a fighter and 2 CA so add two threes.
Germany lands a tank and inf in Libya
So lets say Italy lands a tank and inf in Libya and builds a DD
Uk builds 3 bombers ( in 41)
Germany takes out egypt on G2 ( this includes landing another tank and inf and all planes in range. UK does not survive this no matter what.
Uk takes its bombers (thats all they have left) and hits italian fleet. Italian fleet is 4,3,3,2, and another hit from bb, so 5 hit fleet.
UK has 4 bombers: 4,4,4,4
This is basically an exchange at best, with japan taking care of strangler bombers. , but also remind you I will keep each transport in a seperate sea zone so that UK cant sink some ships.
Now because i have wiped out UK in egypt with great odds i have most of my forces.
If uk, does a thing where they leave a token force in Egypt and backs up to Jordan on UK1, then Italy will kill egypt on I1 and Germany will still hit jordan on G2 but with what basically amounts to a somewhat equal outcome than a G1 attempt
Japan mops up the trash if they fail
loses: 48 IPC for UK air plus the allocation of G1 alternative German attacks gets 20+7+12+8=47 off uk naval and loses 2-3 subs
20+24+8+7=59 for Italy naval lost
95 UK loses compared to 59+18=77 lost for axis forces.
This does not include land combats, but the exchange is still in the axis favor
now compare that to a 30% success rate for a G1 Egypt attack.
now also consider, if you take Egypt on G1 at 30% ratio, and you also managed to take Jordan, you only bought another turn for the Medd fleet because the determined UK player will reload bombers and send it to Caucasus and wipe you out not matter what. Plus as A. Roll has point out USA will bring 3 bombers in US3 So your trading a very risky attack for the potential of saving the Italians for one extra turn, when you could be taking out 4 naval units on G1 with minimal loses and stocking up for a better attack on Egypt for turn 2, because no matter what Egypt will fall on G2 and you can also spread out your Italian fleet as follows:
sz14- 1 AP-1CA
sz15- 1 BB- AP
sz16- 1 DD
sz17- 1 CA
now the spread can mess up UK
also you can consider a japanese attack on Jordan on J2 ( also played before UK 2)
Japan goes before the UK so I don’t know what you are talking about as far as CVs needed at the Philippines and such. that is under the banner of the Rising Sun J1. At the end of J1 I have 2 CVs in SZ51 and 1 in 37 no problem to move these to 38 and 34 for the 1 in 37. The Italian Fleet may not last long anyway. If the UK wants to trade their 1 IPC heavy build for the luxury of saying they sank it it is fine by me.
And I will let you put token fleets into SZ12 just as fast as the Luftwaffe can sink them also. And the Italian Navy will not even be included in that consideration.
@Imperious:
Italy has a fighter and 2 CA so add two threes.
You are only transporting 2 units so only 2 ships can bombard (1 BB, 1 CA) and the Italian fighter can’t reach Trans-Jordan unless Egypt is taken by Germany on G1 which it wouldn’t be if Germany attacked Trans-Jordan on G1 and UK counterattacked T-J on UK1. UK would still own both T-J and Egypt at the beginning of Ita1 so the Italian fighter couldn’t participate in any battle for T-J.
Germany lands a tank and inf in Libya
So lets say Italy lands a tank and inf in Libya and builds a DD
Uk builds 3 bombers ( in 41)
Germany takes out egypt on G2 ( this includes landing another tank and inf and all planes in range. UK does not survive this no matter what.
Uk takes its bombers (thats all they have left) and hits italian fleet. Italian fleet is 4,3,3,2, and another hit from bb, so 5 hit fleet.
UK has 4 bombers: 4,4,4,4
This is basically an exchange at best, with japan taking care of strangler bombers. , but also remind you I will keep each transport in a seperate sea zone so that UK cant sink some ships.
Now because i have wiped out UK in egypt with great odds i have most of my forces.
If uk, does a thing where they leave a token force in Egypt and backs up to Jordan on UK1, then Italy will kill egypt on I1 and Germany will still hit jordan on G2 but with what basically amounts to a somewhat equal outcome than a G1 attempt
Japan mops up the trash if they fail
Yes, Germany can take T-J with that large British stack on G2 if the Italians soften them up first and the bulk of the Luftwaffe is positioned on G1 to be in range of T-J. And yes again, Japan can also deter the UK from stacking in T-J if they move their sz61 fleet to sz37 to threaten an amphibious landing on J2.
My point is that the UK turn is not static, it’s fluid. If I see Germany move the bulk of their aircraft within range of T-J or Japan moves their sz61 fleet to sz37 then UK can do something else.
Neither one of those moves are the best they can make so I’m not going to argue if the Germans and the Japanese don’t make the best possible opening they can because of a perceived threat that I can act on or not at my discretion.
loses: 48 IPC for UK air plus the allocation of G1 alternative German attacks gets 20+7+12+8=47 off uk naval and loses 2-3 subs
20+24+8+7=59 for Italy naval lost
95 UK loses compared to 59+18=77 lost for axis forces.
I understand that the initial cost is high for the UK. But 95 for 77 isn’t very much difference. That’s only 18 IPC’s. But what you aren’t calculating is how much is the Italian fleet is worth if it is allowed to live those 2 extra turns by not sinking it on UK2.
Can I, as the Allies, save myself the 18 IPC difference by sinking the Italian fleet on UK2 instead of giving it at least 2 turns of continued action before the US sinks it on US3 at the absolute earliest?
Is the Italian fleet operating for 2 extra turns going to make the cost imbalance to sink it higher than the 18 IPC’s it would take for the UK to sink it on UK2? I think it would. Just in the fact that being able to transport 4 more units to Africa will allow them to hold onto their NO’s and conquered territories for a lot longer, enabling them to not only earn more money but also taking money away from the UK for a longer period of time. In addition, the Allies can spend more early game money on ground units and less on navy since they won’t have to blockade the Italian navy in the Med until they can sink it. It also allows the Allies to focus much more attention on Germany because they don’t have to divert nearly as many resources to deal with the extra Italian units in Africa. That is where the real value is, not in the up front cost imbalance.
This does not include land combats, but the exchange is still in the axis favor
now compare that to a 30% success rate for a G1 Egypt attack.
I compare all exchanges to the 80% success rate that a G1 attack on Egypt gives me when I bring the bomber for support because I think that it is the best option for the Axis.
now also consider, if you take Egypt on G1 at 30% ratio, and you also managed to take Jordan, you only bought another turn for the Medd fleet because the determined UK player will reload bombers and send it to Caucasus and wipe you out not matter what. Plus as A. Roll has point out USA will bring 3 bombers in US3 So your trading a very risky attack for the potential of saving the Italians for one extra turn, when you could be taking out 4 naval units on G1 with minimal loses and stocking up for a better attack on Egypt for turn 2, because no matter what Egypt will fall on G2 and you can also spread out your Italian fleet as follows:
sz14- 1 AP-1CA
sz15- 1 BB- AP
sz16- 1 DD
sz17- 1 CA
I think you made a mistake. sz17 is west of FWA. I think you are thinking of sz13.
If Italy spreads out it’s navy, I would go after the ships protecting the transports and ignore the others because the transports are most important.
Japan goes before the UK so I don’t know what you are talking about as far as CVs needed at the Philippines and such. that is under the banner of the Rising Sun J1. At the end of J1 I have 2 CVs in SZ51 and 1 in 37 no problem to move these to 38 and 34 for the 1 in 37. The Italian Fleet may not last long anyway. If the UK wants to trade their 1 IPC heavy build for the luxury of saying they sank it it is fine by me.
And I will let you put token fleets into SZ12 just as fast as the Luftwaffe can sink them also. And the Italian Navy will not even be included in that consideration.
When did I say that CV’s were needed at the Philippines? I said that most of the sz61 navy usually goes to sz50 and the Philippines attacks on J1 and by moving even a few of them to sz37 instead of participating in the Philippines attacks it may allow some Allied units that otherwise die to survive.
There is only 1 CV capable of reaching T-J with it’s aircraft on J2 and that is the one in sz61. But that isn’t even what I was referring to. I was saying that if you want to be able to threaten the UK from stacking in Trans-Jordan, then you would have to bring the sz61 TP’s to sz37, and since those TP’s don’t usually move to sz37 on J1 then you would be adjusting J1 into a weaker opening than Japan would normally make. I didn’t say Japan had to make this opening, I didn’t even say that Japan must move anything to sz37. All I said was that if Germany doesn’t attack Egypt on G1, the Axis would need to have Japan move navy and units into sz37 to threaten a landing if you want to prevent the Italian fleet from being sunk.
If you think that the Italian fleet getting sunk in trade for UK bombers on UK2 is advantageous to the Axis, then you are entitled to that opinion. I don’t share it. Clearly I value the Italian navy more than you do because I think that it needs to be protected in the initial few turns whether the Allies make a concerted effort to sink it or not.
And just for the record, I would never put an inadequate navy in sz12 for the Luftwaffe to sink. I would put just enough navy in sz12 to make it a 50/50 battle and judging by your previous posts you seem to be fast and loose with your German air force so I’m pretty sure you’d take that bait. And you may even get lucky dice and walk away with a bomber or 2, but the Allies, and the US in particular, can produce navy a lot faster than Germany can produce aircraft so you wouldn’t be making too many of those air raids on Allied shipping after that initial one. In addition, Germany throwing away the Luftwaffe for Allied shipping makes Russia very happy.
Look if you want to play a game so I can prove how much it would hurt the Axis to lose the Italian fleet on UK2, then we can do that. I rarely turn down a challenge.
I’m starting to lean towards a Destroyer buy for Italy early on. A second transport eventually won’t hurt since now you can fire all three broadsides at enemy combatants, but the destroyer at least protects you from Sub-stalling! (About the ONLY thing that Russian submarine is good for!)
@Cmdr:
I’m starting to lean towards a Destroyer buy for Italy early on. A second transport eventually won’t hurt since now you can fire all three broadsides at enemy combatants, but the destroyer at least protects you from Sub-stalling! (About the ONLY thing that Russian submarine is good for!)
There is NO substalling in this game
You can always ignore the sub just like you can ignore a transport
Really, the russian sub is pretty worthless in this game now.
Really? The submarine doesn’t even stop the transport from moving into the sea zone, picking up units and moving out?
@Cmdr:
Really? The submarine doesn’t even stop the transport from moving into the sea zone, picking up units and moving out?
nope.
You can only block this activity with a DD, a/c, CA, or BB
Wish I had known that a bit earlier….coulda saved me some headaches I have now…oh well.
@Cmdr:
Wish I had known that a bit earlier….coulda saved me some headaches I have now…oh well.
Old habits are hard to break…
I’ve read many a player admit to leave unescorted tpts on mistake as well
I do believe the new naval rules make it a much better game.
Oh I agree! Navy is more fun now, and I’ve always been a big navy girl! (Hence my title as Fleet Killer.) The new sea zones in the Pacific really help too.
U-505 I would welcome the chance to play you but at the moment I have 6 games going on with another one probably about to start. Perhaps soon as some of these games finish up we can play a game. I honestly think you are making too many assumptions of Axis troop dispositions and positions.
