Sahara express

[Cornwallis]

Has anyone ever tried shipping US troops via the West of Africa to the Middle east.
The goal we all want is to have as much US forces helping in the struggle.
If you built up tpt on US 1 in Washington and gather all your fast movers you can dropp them in West Africa on US2. So they can be in Middle east in US5. This off course in case of J1 DOW.

[taamvan]

@Cornwallis

Even air via this direction is way out of position. Control of SZ 91 remains key.

[Cornwallis]

@taamvan sz91 is not always safe and thus requiers huge naval investments.

[AndrewAAGamer]

If you want to send American troops to the Middle East via Africa I would suggest French Equatorial Africa instead. A Naval Base in Brazil and Nigeria allows a two move shuck-shuck from the US. Figure 12 transports gets 6 troops in every Turn and does not require many capitol ships to protect them.

This works best if Japan is weak and Germany is pushing for Egypt.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@Cornwallis

Feels way too far. I’ve never committed fully, but sending 2 units usually results in a too little too late scenario.

Maybe I’m just not imaginative enough and doesn’t understand the merits fully compared to a big naval investment in sea zone 91 (my go to move)

@AndrewAAGamer Very helpful suggestion! Thank you!

[Cornwallis]

@SuperbattleshipYamato who is talking about 2 units? Often you can´t go to Gibraltar safely until turn 4. This allows you to send fast movers sooner. The accompanying infantry can be united and move to Gibraltar the next turn.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@Cornwallis

I meant I never tried this in full. Just when I did, only with 2 slow movers.

In my solo games the Axis never declare war on the Allies, so the US can only move to the Old World by turn 4 anyways.

[shadowhawk]

Its just 2 slow, SZ91 is the key because not only does it threathen more and forces germany and italy to divert forces but its also quicker.

If you need naval forces to protect that means that germany needs air and naval forces to attack. Those forces are not available for russia so you are helping by proxy.
Every sub germany buys is 1 less tank going to russia.

You dont need that much forces to protect your fleet SZ91.
If you add 1 carrier + destroyer round 1 you are already pretty well of with the starting cruiser. Unless germany invest into naval units it can attack with 2 bombers.
If they buy bombers just built and airbase @gibraltar and put 3 fighters there.
5 fighters will deter most attacks. Uk can block a naval attack with a destroyer in SZ110

[Cornwallis]

@shadowhawk that seems logic but in the recent games germany invests 40 of its 55 average income (when they take leningrad) into land units to slowly march on moscow. The rest they buy a carrier, DD and sub on G1 and a sub and bomber every other turn so there is quite some built up.
It´s feasible to go there but yet again from there on, if you move to norway for exemple your follow-up forces in Gibraltar are vulnerable if you send your protection along with your big tpt fleet.

Maybe the Sahara expres can provide some early forces and pressure While you built up your Gibraltar fleet.

[shadowhawk]

@Cornwallis said in Sahara express:

@shadowhawk that seems logic but in the recent games germany invests 40 of its 55 average income (when they take leningrad) into land units to slowly march on moscow. The rest they buy a carrier, DD and sub on G1 and a sub and bomber every other turn so there is quite some built up.
It´s feasible to go there but yet again from there on, if you move to norway for exemple your follow-up forces in Gibraltar are vulnerable if you send your protection along with your big tpt fleet.

Maybe the Sahara expres can provide some early forces and pressure While you built up your Gibraltar fleet.

Your fleet might be volnerable but germany has to defend against it anyway.
Also you can just add another full carrier and a few subs-dd and you easy match their buys.
Their fleet wont be able to reach everywhere, you can attack from norway to greece, thats a long coastline. You can even just transport fast movers and inf and move the fast movers through north afrika into the ME, while still keeping the threat of landing.

The subs can be neutralized with 1 destroyer in SZ110. A full carrier counters about 3 bombers. The airbase counters another 3. So just having 2 full carriers and 3 fighters on gibraltar with an airbase means they need 9 bombers. If you add a few DDs germany needs a lot more.
Those bomber-sub combinations =6 less infantry or 3 less tanks against russia. Or 4 mechs.
My fleet @gibraltar will build up you have to defend your bombers as well. What if suddenly 7 transports worth of land units park next to W-ger. Will you be able to defend your bomber stack with only 10 extra infantry you can buy?

[Galendae]

@Cornwallis
Mistake…Ya, it is easier and you will get little resistance, but it is not efficient use of the USA troops.

Pressure Germany proper, or Norway or Normandy. Heck, even a DOW on the neutrals and landing in Spain is better use.

[TheDesertFox]

@Galendae

I find the most success shocking troops from Gibraltar into Southern France as America. Gets the troops there the fastest

[shadowhawk]

@TheDesertFox
South france, normandy, Rome, Netherlands, Western-germany, Norway.

All good options to drop troops if you can take it. Especially Western germany as it will really be annoying to drop a factory to only 3 production

[TheDesertFox]

@shadowhawk

Northern /Southern Italy would require more transports but honestly I think it could be worth it if you could take Rome or better yet shuck units into Rome every single turn because eventually it’ll fall.

[shadowhawk]

@TheDesertFox
It takes the same number of transports as both can be reached from gibraltar in 1 turn.
And its 2 steps from rome to gibraltar or the other way around so the transport can always return the next round.

But it isnt only about where you land but where you can land.
If they defend Rome you can take north italy. If they defend both then south france of normandy are weak.
Or possible even Western Germany.

If they defend all those spaces then norway might be undefended and uncounterable.

And if they defend everything then they are not winning in russia.

[TheDesertFox]

@shadowhawk

Precisely. As for Norway though, I always make it a goal as the U.K to take that and Finland to strip Germany of ten whole IPC’s.

[MarshmallowofWar]

@TheDesertFox said in Sahara express:

@shadowhawk

Precisely. As for Norway though, I always make it a goal as the U.K to take that and Finland to strip Germany of ten whole IPC’s.

Fully agree with depriving Germany of Norway, though typically I would let the US invade Norway and possibly Finland, as the US typically has more funds and can if necessary product an airbase and MIC on Norway if there’s enough leeway after producing what’s necessary in the Pacific. This can relieve some of the stress on Moscow if it’s still holding by forcing Germany to spend more defending Germany proper and Denmark but also might spur Germany to produce and expend forces to try to recapture those ten IPCs.

Marsh

[Cornwallis]

@MarshmallowofWar the problem is the luftwaffe forces you to buy a lot of naval protection so that demands a lot of money and thus time. Time for thd Jap to expand.

[TheDesertFox]

@Cornwallis

I’m still trying to implement a way for the UK to invade Norway by turn 3. If they can get 2 carriers in Europe then I’d say its feasible enough to ward off the Luftwaffe unless the German player added to it.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@TheDesertFox you can get Norway if you devote all of your spending on UK1 and 2 and get some help from Russia.

However that leaves the Middle East so defenseless that Germany can sweep down there with a bit of Italian assistance. The value of the oil fields far exceeds the benefit of Norway.

I think a turn 4 Norway capture would be the earliest viable strategy.