Should Germany take Egypt first turn?

[Ó Ruanaidh]

I suppose they could go that route. I wasn’t aware that planes from the U.K. could be put on a newly created carrier. I always remembered that in the Original Axis and Allies for the PC, a newly created carrier would have no planes on it, and that is how I always played. Now, if there were two planes and an aircraft carrier along with 2 cruisers and a battleship, then the situation changes completely. Though you have to decide what’s more important, knocking England out of Egypt, and crippling their position in Africa, and threatening their position in India for awhile, or taking out that battleship. Priority is the key to this it would seem, and I personally believe taking out Egypt is a higher priority, since Italy cannot do it alone, and the chance will most likely never present itself again, since there are reinforcements close at hand.

[Uncle_Joe]

I dont believe Egypt and the BB in Sz2 are mutually exclusive. You can still get odds on both targets. It does prevent you from taking Karelia and it does make you have to more of a risky shot at the 2 Brits off of Gibraltar, but I think that is more than acceptable considering the payoff potential.

[Bardoly]

@axis_roll:

@Ó:

As for leaving the British Battleship there on turn one, why not? I mean, the U.K. is not in any real position to do anything with it on turn one, since they have few transports and troops.

I disagree.

UK can build a fleet and move into SZ3, taking norway (what does Germany leave there G1 anyways?)

I NCM the 2 Infantry to Finland along with 1 Art from Germany and 1 Inf from Poland to Finland also, making a total of 5 Inf and 1 Art, setting up to take Karelia on G2, so if UK wants Norway, of course he can have it, but he’s not getting any free Shore Bombard hits.

Even if Germany built a bomber (and the sz6 sub is around after sinking the UK DD on G1), (UK buys 2 cruisers (24), A/C (14), save $5, giving a fleet of tpt, A/C, 2 Cruisers, BB and 2 ftrs.  That is more than a match for a german sub, 4 ftrs and a bomber

UK 2 ftrs and bomber take out baltic cruiser, losing the bomber if Germany gets two hits.

72% chance of Allies winning that battle, typically survive with BB and a/c (maybe a ftr).

Note this is not even the max fleet UK could muster.  If they REALLY wanted to max out, they could buy 2 a/c, Cruiser.  The US ftr from EUS can make it onto the SZ3 A/C, giving tpt, 2 A/C, cruiser, BB, 3 ftrs.

only a suicidal Germany player would attack that G2.

Germany could easily spare the cash for a few Subs.  I’ve really given thought to dropping 2 Subs along with a Bomber purchase.  I know that this buy keeps the German land forces thin, but because the Mediteranean Transport is still alive, it can transport the tank from Egypt to Romania or Ukraine on G2.  Also, if the UK fleet is taken out, then France doesn’t need to be defended so heavily.  And since Italy has more IPCs to spend, he can help on the mainland as well.

Its not even really what it can do on turn 1 that concerns me. But its a chance to kill 27 IPCs while risking mostly just the subs which are likely going to die anyways since Britain and the US have DDs and aircraft in range almost anywhere in the Atlantic. Unless the Brit player is nearly brain-dead you will never get a good opportunity to kill that thing again and it will be a thorn in your side the rest of the game. Once Britain’s money starts downhill they can likely not afford to replace that BB again. But if they already HAVE it, it will make every attack you make with aircraft more expensive.

I guess it’s just a matter of deciding what will bring you the greatest return on your investment.  Personally I feel that Germany’s helping Italy out at the beginning while possibly getting off to a slightly slower start will rebound to the Axis’ advantage.

I dont believe Egypt and the BB in Sz2 are mutually exclusive. You can still get odds on both targets. It does prevent you from taking Karelia and it does make you have to more of a risky shot at the 2 Brits off of Gibraltar, but I think that is more than acceptable considering the payoff potential.

I agree with you, but I guess that I’m just more of a conservative player, because usually when I have 2+ battles with only 50-60% odds, inevitably I lose the 1 or 2 most important ones.

[atarihuana]

heres my current favourite.
buy 1 bomb, 5inf 1 art

sz5 DD sub > sz6 DD
sz7 sub + bomber > sz9 DD tran         land morocco
sz7 sub +2ftr nor/NWE > sz12 CA DD  land morocco

5inf 2 art 2 tanks > baltic
1inf  1art  4 tanks > east poland
2inf 2 ftr > ukraine, land bulgaria

2 inf  norway > fin
arm,inf france libya
4 inf left in france

assume russia buy 6 arm or something ( at least2)
then have in karelia  9 inf 1 atr 3 arm max. mot enough to stop german without 2 uk ftr.
even then, if i feel like it i can send 2 ftr from bulgaria 1 bomb from germany

anyway. now uk buys 3 bombers to sink italians uk2.

option 1  move 2 inf to egypt.
then italy takes transjordan
G2 strike egypt now with

4 inf 1 atr 1 arm 1 ftr
vs
4 inf  1 atr  2 arm r + as much air as u want

option 2

leave TJ/egypt as it is, then IT1 attack egypt as preparative attack to let the germans take out the rest .

or attack t-j in hopes of suriving with one land unit there. i prefer hit egypt.

then, yes italian navy down uk 2 (but can only attack with 4 bombers as  egypt is down  G2 and must land in TJ.

exchange + egypt taken

option 3: move out of  egypt/ move bombers to caucasus( he cant SBR and move them there :) wastes a turn of hitting with four 4´s  :) - 2 extra turns of russian NO. still egypt taken.

and still no navy. only the BB. germany has 3 bomb 4 ftr in the air at G3 … and they have been fighting every round :)

so my answer is G1 no. IT1 yes unless TJ emptied by UK.

up to you to find the flaws in this plan  :-)

[Bardoly]

According to your plan, how do you hold France on UK1?  You only left 4 INf there, and UK can bring 1 Shore Bombard @4, 1 Inf, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, and 1 Bomber if he wishes.  Then UK may want to build up the navy to take France every turn and eventually hold it.  He just buys 1 Carrier, 2 Destroyers, 1 Transport, and 2 Inf.  Remember that for UK, France is worth 11 IPCs, and if Italy doesn’t get his money up there, then if he doesn’t take it back, then US also gets +5 IPCs.  Now Germany has to send all or most of those G1 Inf to France which keeps your eastern front weak.

Also, there is a decent chance that Morrocco will only have 1 Fighter, so with only 1 Inf, 1(or 2) Fighter(s), and 1 Bomber for defense, UK or US could try to take it out, and you lose your Bomber.

[atarihuana]

italy will liberate it. italy can send 1 inf to morocco before us moves.

if he send 1atr 1 inf shore bombardement and what? he wants to kill / lone german tran sz5.
he wants to kill sz 6 DD with a possible sub left but he has no destroyers.

id welcome dday UK1 here :)

[questioneer]

I have tried this and been on the winning end and the losing end of this.  The move is risky, but not sound strategically.  Holding off is the better way to do this.  If you risk all to get Egypt for Italy on G1 you will be giving up something else on another front (Russian front, France, naval or air support).  Don’t get me wrong, winning this battle is awesome but risky- definitely, a gambit.  The question to ask yourself is whether or not you can live with losing the battle!!!- especially in a forceful KGF game.

:|

Questioneer

[atarihuana]

my reasoning too. i dont like hitting it G1 :)

[Bardoly]

@questioneer:

I have tried this and been on the winning end and the losing end of this.  The move is risky, but not sound strategically.  Holding off is the better way to do this.  If you risk all to get Egypt for Italy on G1 you will be giving up something else on another front (Russian front, France, naval or air support).  Don’t get me wrong, winning this battle is awesome but risky- definitely, a gambit.  The question to ask yourself is whether or not you can live with losing the battle!!!- especially in a forceful KGF game.

:|

Questioneer

How can you say that this move is too risky or a gambit?

2 Inf, 1 Art, 2 Arm, 1 Bomber vs. 2 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm, and 1 Fighter

That’s 15 Attack with 6 units vs. 13 Defense with only 5 units.  You should win every time.  Of course, sometimes the dice go against you, but one can’t help that.  Someone could say that one should never attack unless one has double the attack and number of units, but that won’t win the game.  Yes, one must take some risks, (When playing with die rolls, you are forced to do so.)  but if you look at the rest of the moves I laid out, the odds are in your favor pretty well.  Also, if the first round goes badly, then you can always cut your losses and retreat to Algeria with whatever is left.

With this move, you are still taking your NO from Russia, France is still defended well enough to hold, Your Air units are in okay positions, and UK’s Navy is decimated.  They only have 1 Battleship and 1 Transport left.

So my answer is, of course one can live if one loses this battle, but one shouldn’t lose this battle.

[GoekaWar]

It’s 15 vs 13 by the way, 1 inf, attacks with a 2 with art. :-D

Axisgreetings,GoekaWar

[captainjack]

@questioneer:

I have tried this and been on the winning end and the losing end of this.  The move is risky, but not sound strategically.  Holding off is the better way to do this.  If you risk all to get Egypt for Italy on G1 you will be giving up something else on another front (Russian front, France, naval or air support).  Don’t get me wrong, winning this battle is awesome but risky- definitely, a gambit.  The question to ask yourself is whether or not you can live with losing the battle!!!- especially in a forceful KGF game.
:|
Questioneer

I think you can live with losing this battle.  If nothing else, it weakens the UK enough that they can’t hold TJ, Egypt, and advance to Libya.  If UK takes Libya, then Italy must retake it, or they don’t get their NO; AND that means that they can’t work on Egypt & TJ for another round which prevents them from getting their second NO.
Actually, on G1 when I attack Egypt, I don’t use my bomber (I use the bomber to take out UK navy).  I just attack with my Libya troops and an inf/arm on the transport.  I know these odds aren’t even close to winning, but I guess I look at it as an investment into Italy, that will (hopefully) pay off later.
Thanks.

[Jennifer]

I once made the mistake of not even TRYING to hit Egypt with Germany.

The result was 4 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter, Bomber, Industrial Complex on UK 1.  It was not pretty.  Would be worse if the SZ 35 fleet was not sunk since they could bring two more units from India to help.

Needless to say, it’s a nightmare for Italy/Germany at that point. (Algeria should have been taken as well, showing English forces on both sides of Libya.)

[a44bigdog]

I attack the Egypt the same as captainjack, and there are two things I have noticed. In most battles after round 1 you have a good idea which way it is headed. This means taking the transported infantry and armor as casualties and retreating the Libyan forces is always an option if things do not look good. I know what the odds calculators say but I would say that I have seen Germany win this probably a bit over half the time, and interestingly enough when Germany wins probably 90% of those times it has 2 armor left. Which is no where near what the odds show to be the expected results.

To me Egypt is worth taking a crack at. If I win great. If I don’t it isn’t the end of the world. If the UK does manage to sink the Italian navy that also is not the end of the world either.

[allies_fly]

@a44bigdog:

I attack the Egypt the same as captainjack, and there are two things I have noticed. In most battles after round 1 you have a good idea which way it is headed. This means taking the transported infantry and armor as casualties and retreating the Libyan forces is always an option if things do not look good. I know what the odds calculators say but I would say that I have seen Germany win this probably a bit over half the time, and interestingly enough when Germany wins probably 90% of those times it has 2 armor left. Which is no where near what the odds show to be the expected results.

To me Egypt is worth taking a crack at. If I win great. If I don’t it isn’t the end of the world. If the UK does manage to sink the Italian navy that also is not the end of the world either.

I am coming to think that’s a wise move too.

I prefer to take out the UK fleet in sz2 with the bomber G1.  This allows the G1 5 tank buy to be acceptable as UK can not really try to take France and if they do, there navy would likely lost as well.  Actually, France is like cheese to the mouse…. bait :)

[Richter von Manthofen]

YES

[captainjack]

@a44bigdog:

I attack the Egypt the same as captainjack, and there are two things I have noticed. In most battles after round 1 you have a good idea which way it is headed. This means taking the transported infantry and armor as casualties and retreating the Libyan forces is always an option if things do not look good. I know what the odds calculators say but I would say that I have seen Germany win this probably a bit over half the time, and interestingly enough when Germany wins probably 90% of those times it has 2 armor left. Which is no where near what the odds show to be the expected results.

To me Egypt is worth taking a crack at. If I win great. If I don’t it isn’t the end of the world. If the UK does manage to sink the Italian navy that also is not the end of the world either.

Yeah, that’s similiar to my results also; of the times I’ve won Egypt as Germany in round 1 I’ve had 1 tank left about half of the time and 2 tanks left the other half of the times.

[Jennifer]

I think the point is, Germany should always ATTEMPT Egypt, especially since you can retreat from an amphibious assault now. (Not the units coming by transport, but the rest can and that makes life easier on all fronts!)

[atarihuana]

hm, what u guys think…  is a factory in egypt for italy a good idea?

[Jennifer]

A factory in Egypt for England seems to be working out nicely.

If Italy is strong enough to afford a complex in Egypt, the game is pretty much lost anyway.

[Ó Ruanaidh]

That is assuming that England is even in possession of Egypt, which this thread hopefully has limited the chances of. Being a British player primarily, I would not dare make a complex in Egypt, it is much to close to Italy and Southern Europe, and it only has 2 ipc’s, so South Africa has the same benefits without the risks, I’d throw on there instead of risking losing Egypt to the Italians anyday, for what happens when the Italians take Egypt? You might as well give up dreams of holding Africa.