Really? You have to be very unlucky, and, to me that’s not reason enough to abandon this tactic.
I don’t have my battle calculator with me, but it must have something like 95% chances of success.
And the odds of not losing a signle Russian FTR must be close to 50%…
That’s as good a deal you’re gonna get to sink a BB…
well just tried it for one game, and sure enough, the BB ran out to the pacific (where it was eventually sunk) and G failed to take egypt. helluva deal, i’ll keep trying it to see what results i can get.
well just tried it for one game, and sure enough, the BB ran out to the pacific (where it was eventually sunk) and G failed to take egypt. helluva deal, i’ll keep trying it to see what results i can get.
If they failed to take Egypt, how did they get out of the channel?
excuse me. i meant atlantic. i have this really bad habit of writing the opposite of what i’m thinking. :|
i’ve done the R1 sub buy twice more since then, and i have to say that i’m sold.
excuse me. i meant atlantic. i have this really bad habit of writing the opposite of what i’m thinking. :|
i’ve done the R1 sub buy twice more since then, and i have to say that i’m sold.
I do that all the time here too. So many specific details to keep straight when talking strats it’s easy to mess up.
I hear a lot of people saying that the R1 sub buy is a good way to go. But I’ve also heard a lot of people talk about taking Finland in R1 to save the UK battleship. Any thoughts on which one is a better way to go?
Each has its pros and cons.
The Norway attack saves the SZ2 fleet if successful. However Russia will also attack WRus or try its luck with a Nor-WR-Ukraine attack. Even with regular odds those units will be likely destroyed by the Germans (eliminating a large part of the Russian army), and there’s a risk that WRus or Caucasus become vulnerable to a German counterattack. If Ukraine isn’t attacked then that German fighter will be available to attack Egypt.
The sub buy allows for the German Med fleet to be sunk R2, unless it has pulled back towards SZ13 (and landing Gibraltar) instead of attacking Egypt. On the last situation the Russia can still attack the fleet if the UK/US take Algeria. However, either situation will require for the 2 Russian fighters not to be available for ground combat, forcing Russia to use armor to retake Kar/Belo/Ukr.
I said Finland, but I meant Norway. I do think Finland should be a separate territory that automatically switches sides depending on who is winning.
Anyway, I guess it comes down to what the Allies think will be more economical: Save the battleship, or save AE (and by extension, all of Africa).
I also hear a lot of people talk about sending Japan towards Africa. When (what round) do they usually do this? If you save Africa from Germany, does it just compel Japan to move faster? And if so, is it worth it (or even possible) to hold Japan off? I would think the earliest Japan could get to Africa would be J4 or J5(assuming the UK sinks the Japanees transport UK1).
It sounds like some people say they can save and hold Africa long enough that an R1 sub buy is better than saving the UK battleship. And now that I wrote it out, I’m inclined to believe that.
I also hear a lot of people talk about sending Japan towards Africa. When (what round) do they usually do this? If you save Africa from Germany, does it just compel Japan to move faster? And if so, is it worth it (or even possible) to hold Japan off? I would think the earliest Japan could get to Africa would be J4 or J5(assuming the UK sinks the Japanees transport UK1).
In a KGF game (without a substantial Pacific push by USA), Japan can and normally does take Africa eventually. They can land there as early as J2. The rub is this requires diverting transports, which are a limited resource. If Japan is focusing on Africa, then it might be ignoring the Pacific islands, or they might be getting less boots from Japan onto the mainland.
Allies can hold Africa, but this requires shucking land units into Africa (typically via sz12, which tends to be vulnerable to air attack). Whether they should is a tricky question–Africa contains many key swing ipcs, but concentrating on Africa means less boots to Europe.
If Japan is focusing on Africa, then it might be ignoring the Pacific islands, or they might be getting less boots from Japan onto the mainland.
well now that’s interesting. i’ve literally never bothered with the pacific islands as japan, is this a bad thing? especially hawaii. always seemed like it wasn’t worth tying up the transports and troops for the 4 rounds or whatever it would take to get them all. not that i wouldn’t mind the extra income, but i felt it was more urgent to pressure russia.
well now that’s interesting. i’ve literally never bothered with the pacific islands as japan, is this a bad thing? especially hawaii. always seemed like it wasn’t worth tying up the transports and troops for the 4 rounds or whatever it would take to get them all. not that i wouldn’t mind the extra income, but i felt it was more urgent to pressure russia.
Hawaii, Australia, and New Zealand, are worth 4 IPCs. If Japan gets them fast, then that can add up. Also, If the UK gets Borneo, then Japan has to send the transports anyway.
Tell me what you think…
:-o Operation Iron Horde :-o
-----------USSR–-------------
Buy: 8I
Attack: WR- 2I & 1F from Karelia; 3I from Arch; 1A from Cauc; 1A & 1F from Rus
Move: 2I SFE to Bury; 2I Yakut to Bury; 2I ENU to Novo; 2I Novo to Sink; 2T Rus to Sink; 1T Arch to Novo; 2I Kaz to Cauc; 3I Rus to Cauc; 2F WR to India
Place: 4I in Cauc; 4I in Rus
–---------UK–----------------
Buy: IC, 1B
Attack: JP SS w/ Aussie SS; NG w/ 2I from Aus; JP TS w/ F from CV; plus whatever’s clever in Atlantic
Move: India Ocean Fleet out of range of JP Southern fleet; 1I Persia to India; 1I Jordan to Persia; B to Rus; 1F to China
Place: IC in India
–-----------US–-------------
Buy: IC, 1B, 1CV
Attack: as possible (esp. Kwang)
Move: 1F HI to Aus; 1F WUS to HI; 1F EUS to UK; 1B ESU to HI; CZ 10 Fleet to CZ 20; 1DD CZ20 to CZ55; 2I Sink to China.
Place: IC in Sink; 1CV in CZ55
The USSR forces in East Asia will evict Japanese Asian forces plus all those Allied fighters force the Japanese Navy to contract and defend xports. Germany is allowed to run wild but US and UK fighters from new IC’s can defend Russia before it’s overrun.
Nomarclegs I think you will win the game quickly with that strategy if Japan or Germany play suboptimally. Japan in particular has to be very careful not to lose its fleet or its bastion on the mainland.
However an experienced Axis player will try to conserve the Jap fleet, and then bide his time and advance the Germans to West Russia or Cauc (Russia most likely won’t have the numbers to counterattack). Germany can put its entire might into Barbarossa since there is no UK fleet to threaten its rear. From Cauc, Germany either waits until it has enough force to attack Russia, or it conquers Sink and India, allowing Axis to dominate mainland Asia.
Tell me what you think…
I say India/Sinkiang ICs as you mentioned them fail. With IPCs going towards ICs, not units, plus additional IPCs drained to support those ICs, Germany has a easier time holding territory in Africa and Europe. Japan puts infantry to China and French Indochina, then stocks tanks at French Indochina. Jap tanks at French Indochina threaten both Allied ICs. One IC falls, then the other, then the Allies have nothing.
You can maybe pull something interesting off if Japan is stupid and loses a couple of carriers and/or battleships, but a UK1 IC predicting a stupid Japan move is not solid strategy. Japan should see the IC build at India plus all the Sinkiang reinforcement, and play appropriately.
You could also try heavy US fleet to pull Japan away from hitting the ICs, but I did not see mention of heavy US fleet in your post.
BTW, your abbreviations made your post a lot harder to read. Really, I didn’t bother trying to read into the d*** thing too much.
I think the attack on Norway by Rus is overrated because we usually focus on what it saves (UK BB). But you have to remember what it costs: 1 if not 2 Rus FTR. That’s a heavy toll. 10-20 Rus IPC is certainly worth at least 20 UK IPC.
Also, keep in mind that the G sub you usually commit to this attack is freed to take a 50/50 shot at the US fleet. Not a bad tradeoff. The BMB can put its heavy weight in another fight, like AE, to make sure more units survive the attack.
So, I say “No-Way to NorWay”.
My last night bold move R1
I’m not 100% on numbers, so you may have to use imagination.
Buy: 1 sub, 6 I
Attacks:
3 I 1 T 1 F to Norway
3 I 2 T 1 A 1 F to Ukraine
6 I 1 A 1 T to West Russia
Went into Ukraine and West Russia figuring heavy losses but good odds on taking (We play a homemade low luck variant. Not sure on what actual low luck rules are, but we just give the option of taking any six die points as a hit or you can roll). Norway I didn’t figure on taking, just wanted to be sure to kill the plane.
Results
Heavy losses in West Russia but took, Got reasonably lucky in Ukraine, Lost everything but fighter in Norway. I chose to keep my fighter alive instead of taking Norway. The territory wasn’t important, just getting the fighter.
Overall: Crippled Germany’s fighter squads and opened the door for R1 UK into Norway. Left Russia weak and spread thin, but with Ukraine and west Russia taken, had multiple rounds to reinforce the line while Allies stormed in. Landed fighters in Caucasus for R2 kill German BB and T.
My last night bold move R1
I’m not 100% on numbers, so you may have to use imagination.
Buy: 1 sub, 6 I
Attacks:
3 I 1 T 1 F to Norway
3 I 2 T 1 A 1 F to Ukraine
6 I 1 A 1 T to West RussiaWent into Ukraine and West Russia figuring heavy losses but good odds on taking (We play a homemade low luck variant. Not sure on what actual low luck rules are, but we just give the option of taking any six die points as a hit or you can roll). Norway I didn’t figure on taking, just wanted to be sure to kill the plane.
Results
Heavy losses in West Russia but took, Got reasonably lucky in Ukraine, Lost everything but fighter in Norway. I chose to keep my fighter alive instead of taking Norway. The territory wasn’t important, just getting the fighter.Overall: Crippled Germany’s fighter squads and opened the door for R1 UK into Norway. Left Russia weak and spread thin, but with Ukraine and west Russia taken, had multiple rounds to reinforce the line while Allies stormed in. Landed fighters in Caucasus for R2 kill German BB and T.
Actually now that I think about it R1 buy was 1 Sub 3 inf 1 A 1 T
What are the consequences to only hitting Norway and the Ukraine on R1? Generally, I like to be aggressive with Russia, but a failed triple often leads to the loss of the game. If Russia only hit Norway and Ukraine, what would be threatened? If Russia won in the Ukraine, I would think that Russia could fortify Moscow and the Caucasus enough to protect both.
A loss in the Ukraine could lead to a fight over the Caucasus and would be catastrophic to Russia. It might trade hands every round, and Germany might not be able to build there for a while, but it would take Russia’s attention away from every other fight.
I’m trying to remember, does Germany have 3 inf and 1 fighter in Norway, and 3 inf, 1 art, and 1 tank in West Russia?
What would Germany do if it lost both fights? Reinforce West Russia? Pull back? Drive to Moscow or the Caucasus? The West Russia troops could be supported by the bomber and a fighter (or 2?). I would think losing two fighters in round 1 would make quite a difference in rounds 3+.
I know this isn’t going to be a popular strategy, but I’m hoping you guys can help me think it through.
What are the consequences to only hitting Norway and the Ukraine on R1? Generally, I like to be aggressive with Russia, but a failed triple often leads to the loss of the game. If Russia only hit Norway and Ukraine, what would be threatened? If Russia won in the Ukraine, I would think that Russia could fortify Moscow and the Caucasus enough to protect both.
A loss in the Ukraine could lead to a fight over the Caucasus and would be catastrophic to Russia. It might trade hands every round, and Germany might not be able to build there for a while, but it would take Russia’s attention away from every other fight.
I’m trying to remember, does Germany have 3 inf and 1 fighter in Norway, and 3 inf, 1 art, and 1 tank in West Russia?
What would Germany do if it lost both fights? Reinforce West Russia? Pull back? Drive to Moscow or the Caucasus? The West Russia troops could be supported by the bomber and a fighter (or 2?). I would think losing two fighters in round 1 would make quite a difference in rounds 3+.
I know this isn’t going to be a popular strategy, but I’m hoping you guys can help me think it through.
If G doesn’t want to go after Russia or Caucasus then it can always retake Ukraine and Norway, blitz through Archangel and fortify Karelia, allowing it some 46 IPCs. The Russians will destroy 2 fighters but will be pushed back on territories and lose income on turn 2 because of the loss of Karelia and not being able to take Belorussia.
It’s really a choice between killing those 2 G fighters and helping the UK defend its fleet, but at the cost of a less powerful Russia and allowing the Germans control of the Russian front.
I think Karelia and the Ukraine would fall anyway. Russia could put a troop in Archangel to prevent a blitz, and in any case, Russia could easily take it back. Even if Germany takes Norway, I don’t think it’s the end of the world.
Depending on where Germany’s fighters and subs are, the Allies would have a couple of options. 1) The UK could take Norway back on UK1 depending on German troop locations . Or 2) The US could take Norway on US2. The Allies would run into problems in Africa, but the US could still be in Africa by US2 anyway. It just depends on what Germany does with its air force and subs. If the bomber fights in Egypt, it would likely land in Libya. If that were the case, then Germany would likely only have two or three fighters in Western Europe. If that were the case, the UK could do its naval build in SZ8, and by the end of US1, the allies could have 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, and 1 aircraft carrier with two fighters in SZ8 to protect the US transports. If Germany consolidated its whole air force and all its subs within range of SZ8, the Allies would obviously have to go with a different strategy.
What are your thoughts on a US IC in Norway on round 3? There could be some use for that. And if Germany wanted to fight over it, well, the Allies would build their invasion force up until they could take and hold it. And, if Germany is sending units north, then those units aren’t going east, and that’s good for Russia. Also, with Ally forces in Norway, it would put a serious dent in the Axis’ ability to hold Karelia, which is vital in order for them to get 9 victory cities.
Again, there are a lot of ifs here, but it’s a scenario that could play out.
