It seems to me that if Germany does not take out Egypt on G1 then it is very easy for UK to prevent Germany/Italy from taking it out Africa altogether. Simply build three bombers on UK1, leave one inf behind in Egypt and then put everything else that you can on Trans-Jordan (except your original bomber that is needed to attack the German cruiser in the Baltic Sea). If Italy then attacks Egypt in force then you still own the Trans-Jordan and your four bombers and fighter take out their fleet and then your remaining bombers and two inf from South Africa will finish off the rest of their troops (not to mention you could land troops in Morocco). About the only thing Italy could do to try to stop it is do a suicide run against Trans-Jordan and hope that both of his bombardments and both of his land units get hits, softening up Trans-Jordan for an attack by Germany. But that would really be counting on a lot of luck.
Now of course, all of the above assumes that Germany did not send any air units to Libya on G1. But I think that would be a huge mistake on Germany’s part. Those air units are desperately needed to take out most of the UK navy. That UK transport in SZ 9 is already most likely to survive. If you land air units in Libya after they’ve attacked the destroyer and cruiser in SZ 12 then there is a very good chance that the battleship and/or transport in SZ 2 survived. Your not going to get a second chance to take out those transports and now UK is able to invade either France or NW Europe with four land units on UK 1. If I were the UK player in that situation, I would build two more transports and six land units and be ready to invade Europe even more forcibly on UK 2. The USA player could also build transports and by turn 3 reinforce the UK player with land and air units Sure, Germany and Italy might actually take out a large part of Africa then but the allies landing troops in Europe every turn takes a huge burden off of Russia by forcing Germany to keep any builds made in Germany attacking/defending in the West. So any gains made in Africa will be lost by Germany losing Norway, Finland and any territories that Russia manages to retake.
So in summary, I guess it’s probably best for Germany and Italy to not even try to take out Africa. Perhaps their best bet is to put just enough pressure in Africa to try to tie up the allied units long enough to where Japan could take it out.
Should Germany take Egypt first turn?
Yes, of course!
Without an attack of the german africa-korps, the italians will never be able to take Cairo - at least not in Round 1.
Additionaly, you place your transport in a good spot for further attacks in russia or africa should it survive. There is a good chance of destroying all british forces in Egypt and even the possibility of conquering it. Furthermore it opens up opportunities for Italy in africa - even though italian assistance may be better applied in russia.
Should germany commit planes in Egypt?
No! germanys 1st turn is the most important turn of the whole game. Commiting the german bomber just to destroy one plane is a misplacement of forces. The german airforce should IMHO be commited to destroy the royal navy.
1. Send 1 submarine, 1 fighter, one bomber to seazone 2 to sink the Hood and its transport
2. Send 1 submarine, 2 fighters to seazone 12 to sink 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer
3. Send 1 submarine, 1 fighter to seazone 6 to sink 1 destroyer
The germans should build an aircraft carrier. With these attacks, the british player has to rebuild the navy from space one without the royal air force being able to sink the german fleet.
(Side note - building a destroyer and subs might also repel the royal air force bringing losses to the RAF and the subs diving after losing the surface ships. Building a battleship and a submarine is extremely expensive. I still propose building the carrier as it will allow the transport to survive.)
British 3 bomber built. (and sinking the italian navy in B2)
Sinking the italian navy does not threaten the german. If the german built one additional transport in his second turn the second british built will have to fortify the United Kingdom. The italian will start putting out infantry and relieve the german forces from defending France further increasing the pressure for russia. Nothing has been done to stop japan from taking africa. His majestys navy will never
Pros - Italy will stop threatening africa and never get major IPC.
Cons - GB will not have a navy and Germany can withdraw its forces from the western theatre.
Should germany commit planes in Egypt?
No! germanys 1st turn is the most important turn of the whole game. Commiting the german bomber just to destroy one plane is a misplacement of forces. The german airforce should IMHO be commited to destroy the royal navy.1. Send 1 submarine, 1 fighter, one bomber to seazone 2 to sink the Hood and its transport
2. Send 1 submarine, 2 fighters to seazone 12 to sink 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer
3. Send 1 submarine, 1 fighter to seazone 6 to sink 1 destroyer
did you look at the ratio of victory in G1 egypt with no planes?
its a suicide mission and with planes its 30% success according to others.
If i was the allies i would say this as well.
The question is whether Italy needs to be in Russia or Africa.
Of course its a suicide mission!
Still, i’ve seen this suicide mission suceed. But thats not the point. The only reason for the attack is to kill a good number of british units, so that italy can kill the rest - and up until now it always worked with a surviving british fighter at most.
The attack is not meant to win something, only to open up opportunities. Italy can decide after the british turn and attack the most attractive target. Still, if you prefer to use your bomber in egypt so that italy can take trans-jordan i cant disagree with you - its just not my prefered strategy.
As far as I have heard the chance of victory when the bomber is brought in to Egypt goes up from about 30% to 75% (and the chance of a tie is changed from 40% to about 80%. If this is incorrect I stand corrected but as for my opinions that is the numbers I use. I’m also assuming playing with NO’s.
After reading the posts here I’m still in favor of attacking Egypt on G1 with the bomber included. In real IPC values only counting lost units and change in income, yes, attacking the navy is better. There are a few things however that has to be considered.
First of all, Italy badly needs their NO’s, probably more so than any other power. Getting Italy on the move early will most likely win an extra bunch of IPC later turns, a change that can’t be calculated like lost units in G1. The effect of the invasion isn’t supposed to show on round one but to improve Axis positions for future turns.
Attacking Egypt does not make attacks against the royal navy impossible, you just have to be either selective or take a few risks. The only real mandatory attack is to remove the destroyer off Gibraltar to remove the UK chance of hitting the Italian navy.
UK has a few options now, if they reinforce africa the rest of their navy will be sunk. Attacking anywhere in europe will also make a non-reinforced british navy vulnerable to German planes (especially if they added a bomber in the purchase on G1). So they buy navy? Ok, then we probably are where we would be on UK1 anyway, a UK navy that Germany does not want to hit unless desperate. They buy bombers? Fine, I welcome them to “waste” an entire round of production. Africa would be up for grabs for the Axis for a few more turns. Italy will most likely be quite close to UK on round 3 and all of a sudden you got quite a lot of IPC helping either against a european invasion or at the east front.
I can see trouble coming Axis way but that is due to other imbalances in the game and not due to the fact that a UK BB is super-important to strike round 1 (not saying I wouldn’t though).
The general problem i face with germany in G1 is, that i dont just want to destroy a major proportion of the british forces, but also narrow down his builts. If the battleship and the transport dont go down, with no naval built a single aircraft carrier is enough to secure his fleet and the uk still has 29 IPCs to spend on other projects. That doesnt stop the general british plan of harrasing germany and securing africa and maybe even threatening the asian islands. With its BB alive, its not fleet or bombers or IC but all together.
But as i play without NOs, maybe the additional 5 italian IPCs are worth weaking the attack on his majestys navy.
Let me re-iterate, I feel it is a good idea for Germany, in 1941 setup (not in the 1942 setup) to attack Egypt on round 1. I do not feel it important to bring fighters to this engagement, nor bombers. I realize that this is most likely a suicide run resulting in either two enemy units surviving, no units surviving or as many as two friendly units surviving depending on how the dice land.
That said. I think just the act of weakening Egypt is important. Would you like an Egypt with a Fighter, 4 Infantry, Artillery, Armor and an Industrial Complex on it?
Remember, you most likely do not have the equipment set up to hit it with Germany anyway. Not with that much on there. If you do, England could always retreat to Sudan/Persia and set up a counter strike on anything you put in Egypt instead.
I’m afraid Germany must commit to Egypt on G1 and bring the bomber along becuase if he does not then the UK with little effort can deny Italy any chance in Africa and becuase of that any income in the game. Look at it this way, lets say Germany ignores Egypt on G1, Britain then moves its 2 inf from Trans-jordan to Egypt and takes their two fighters in England to Africa where they can arrive on egypt by UK2. Also, if Japan does not take out the India transport the UK can move an extra inf to Egypt of UK1. Either way you deny any hope of Italy taking out Egypt, and honestly what resources can Germany actually use on G2 to take out Egypt with those forces in place. By UK 3 Italy is out of Africa unless they spend every IPC to put a stack of inf on Libya.
Just to make it even worse America and take its West coast bomber to Australia on US1 and threaten any Japanese tranports who sail alone, and then on US 2 land in Egypt to threaten Italy with SBR raids further knocking them out of the war.
Or, you could just take Egypt on G1 and remove this entire threat for several turns and allow Italy to expand and threaten South Africa and India.
Well if you G1 Egypt what you bring, and how do you now allocate the attacks on the uk navy?
I guess off the bat the UK BB and Transport are to be ignored, or is their a way to still kill them plus the UK CA/DD?
you got 4 fighters and 2 subs
Look at it this way, lets say Germany ignores Egypt on G1, Britain then moves its 2 inf from Trans-jordan to Egypt and takes their two fighters in England to Africa where they can arrive on egypt by UK2
Thats two fighters spending two rounds doing nothing? No attack on the german fleet, no manning a carrier, no support for Karelia?
Just to make it even worse America and take its West coast bomber to Australia on US1 and threaten any Japanese tranports who sail alone, and then on US 2 land in Egypt to threaten Italy with SBR raids further knocking them out of the war.
Now the west coast bomber also spends two turns doing nothing? And you are aware that japan can take australia on j2? At least fly your west coast bomber into the UK and start SBR on U2. And if by some miracle there still are troops in Egypt, you can also land there.
Well if you G1 Egypt what you bring, and how do you now allocate the attacks on the uk navy?
I guess off the bat the UK BB and Transport are to be ignored, or is their a way to still kill them plus the UK CA/DD?
you got 4 fighters and 2 subs
I think there has been enough talk about optimal attack allocation in this event in this forum. 1 sub and two fighters vs. the cruiser and destroyer and 1 sub takes on the destroyer and the transport. There is not much what you can do wrong with these.
I think there has been enough talk about optimal attack allocation in this event in this forum. 1 sub and two fighters vs. the cruiser and destroyer and 1 sub takes on the destroyer and the transport. There is not much what you can do wrong with these.
Except loose the German fighter that has to land in Algeria US 1. And while it may be long odds for 1 INF and 1 ART I think it would be well worth it to deprive Germany of a fighter.
What about this:
Sz 2 - trn, bb vs. 2 subs, 1 ftr
Sz 6 - dd vs. sub, ftr
Sz 12 - dd, ca vs. 2 ftrs
Egy - 2 inf, 1 rt, 1 arm, 1 ftr vs. 2 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm, 1 bom
Now, in Sz 2 you should get 1 hit in rd 1 between your subs and ftr and in rd 2 you may even sink the BB without it even firing back if your sub hits.
Sz 12 is risky with only the 2 ftrs, but the price is a beefed up Egy attack. Otherwise, the bom to Sz 2 and 1 sub to sz 12.
In my first game as Axis I did:
1 sub, 1 ftr, 1 bom to Sz 2
1 sub, 1 ftr to sz 6
1 sub, 2 ftrs to sz 12
2 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm to Egy
And while I won all of them, I was not at all comfortable with the Egy Attack (I took with 1 tank leftover). I think I’d rather risk the Sz 12 battle then not taking out Egy. So I may try the bom to Egy in my next game.
Looks okay to me, DM. But then, I like to obliterate the Russian army between me and Moscow before I worry about england’s navy.
The main problem i see with this force deployment is that you are trading 2 fighters vs the cruiser and destroyer. Sure, if you succeed you got a clean sweep at the cost of probably loosing 2 fighters.
But now imagine that in sz 12 during the first cycle of combat you dont hit while the ca + dd hit once. Would you still attack? The ca and dd could together with the british bomber probably sink both italian cruisers or form the core of the new british fleet together with the dd and transport.
To sum it up: even if it works as planned you lose 1 to 2 aircraft, but if it fails i see great problems arise. Its a gamble hoping to lose no aircraft against the ca + dd. In this case the strategy is great.
So? With England without a navy, you can spend some of your hard earned money each round on fighters and bombers. I do anyway, personally. I think Air Force > Navy in this game.
But compared with an Egypt suicide attack you trade Egypt for two planes
My suggestion would be the moves in DM’s reply with one small change, I would probably go with the cruiser to Sz 6 as well. If they want to strike it they have to divide their forces between the lone transport and the cruiser. The transport should be toast anyway and the crusier will have the same amount of defense except that it will face fewer possible attackers.
When it comes to Sz 12 I want to point something out again, it is only important to sink one of those ships (probably the DD). There is a small chance of not hitting anything at all while loosing both planes but that’s is a risk I am willing to take.
Sz 2 has one upside, there can be no freak of nature-rolls here. UK can get 1 hit each turn maximum, Ger player always knows what he puts on the line each round of battle and is quite likely to win the battle with at least the Fig still flying.
@Imperious:
Well if you G1 Egypt what you bring, and how do you now allocate the attacks on the uk navy?
I guess off the bat the UK BB and Transport are to be ignored, or is their a way to still kill them plus the UK CA/DD?
you got 4 fighters and 2 subs
Ok here is what germany has to live with as far as taking out the UK fleet on G1:
1 sub, sea zone 5 to sea zone 6
1 ftr , Poland to sea zone 6 - land in Norway
2 subs, sea zone 7 to sea zone 9
1 ftr, Norway to sea zone 12 - land in Algeria
1 ftr, Germany to sea zone 12 - land in Algeria
1 ftr, Northwestern Europe to sea zone 12 - land in Algeria
I’m afraid the battleship and transport in sea zone 2 have to be left out for G1 attacks. The simple fact that no G1 attack on Egypt means no real Italian expansion in the game is too great a cost for 27 IPC’s of equipment. England loses 24 IPCs worth of men and equipment in Egypt alone which then leaves the door open to Italian expansion in Africa and possibly the mid-east.
On G2 the remaining fighters from the sea zone 12 attack can now either return to Europe from Algeria or continue to attack targets in the atlantic in coordination with whatever subs you have left. Also, use that German transport to then take Gibraltar to deny Allied planes from landing their and you have secured the Med for Italy in 2 turns, and forced the Allies to either take notice of Italy or let them eat the British empire territory by territory.
Look at it this way, lets say Germany ignores Egypt on G1, Britain then moves its 2 inf from Trans-jordan to Egypt and takes their two fighters in England to Africa where they can arrive on egypt by UK2
Thats two fighters spending two rounds doing nothing? No attack on the german fleet, no manning a carrier, no support for Karelia?
Just to make it even worse America and take its West coast bomber to Australia on US1 and threaten any Japanese tranports who sail alone, and then on US 2 land in Egypt to threaten Italy with SBR raids further knocking them out of the war.
Now the west coast bomber also spends two turns doing nothing? And you are aware that japan can take australia on j2? At least fly your west coast bomber into the UK and start SBR on U2. And if by some miracle there still are troops in Egypt, you can also land there.
1. They may not be attacking something each turn but instead are forcing the Axis to alter their strategy to respond to their movements. If Germany does not take Egypt on G1 then these 2 fighters spending a turn in the desert tip the balance of power in Africa in Britains favor and they can eventually go to India or land in Europe when they invade.
2. Once again the Bomber is not “doing nothing” it’s placement in Australia is a threat to any lone Jap transports and yes Japan might invade. So, you fly the American fighter from the US Carrier to Australia and force Japan to expend even more resources taking it.
Just becuase something is not attacking every single turn during the game does not mean it is wasted, or else in a couple turns the entire Jap navy is a huge waste? Are the two UK inf in South Africa a waste until the Axis come to wipe them out or they make it to Egypt so they can attack somewhere else? Their posistion in the game is a threat that forces the other side to change their strategy becuase they exist not just becuase they killed something last turn.
I do understand the frustration, but sometimes you have think longterm rather than shorterm. Which is why Germany must take Egypt on G1 and why some units do not get to attack every turn in the game.
I dunno, I’d feel bad if I left SZ 12 and there was a British boat afloat.
And the purpose of the Egypt attack is to stop England from having the Jordanians and Egyptians in the same zone, IMHO. Gives Italy a shot at taking both Jordan and Egypt and getting the NO
