Is the G1 Egypt Attack a Good Move?

[axis_roll]

@a44bigdog:

2. Failure in Egypt on G1 is debilitating for Germany. It allows the UK Fighter to survive and guarantees the sinking of the Germany Mediterranean transport. It can also put SZ14 of Libya at risk for Italy. While a non-attack G1 does allow the UK fighter to survive it does not open up the other possible Allied moves.

what other allied moves are you referring to?  I know that UK consolidating in TRJ UK1 and buying 3 bombers could signal the death knell of the italian navy on UK2.  Little brother Italy now becomes a mere infantry producer.

@a44bigdog:

4. AA50 is not Classic or Revised. The Axis or under much less pressure to win before the Allies can get mobilized or they are doomed. As a matter of fact in AA50 the Axis can quite easily play a long game if they start from the beginning.

Perhaps, but a slow start, especially for Germany, gives the allies the option of running a KJF, which I am seeing can be very effective in the right situation (like when Russia is not under pressure for several rounds).

@a44bigdog:

Sometimes I will still make a G1 attack against Egypt but I much prefer a more certain approach with the Axis then trying to win (or LOSE) the game in round 1.

So you feel it’s a do or die type of situation.

I have to disagree.  Losing SZ2 (BB is alive) can be pretty bad (< 8% of that happening), but winning Egypt could offset that SZ2 loss.  I don’t think when I am running SZ2 and Egypt that I am putting all my chips into the middle on a long range gamble.

Seems like it’s down to a matter of playing style.

[axis_roll]

Nothing proves theory like practical results.

What we could do is look at game play results from this years league.

Assuming no bid in egypt, see how the axis fare if the G1 egypt battle is run (store outcome of battle too).

After a full year of league play, we should get a decent number of outcomes.

[a44bigdog]

axis_roll I was referring to the options that could be available due to Axis failures due to attacking Egypt. SZ12 surviving and opening up an attack on SZ14 (although that is a bad move for UK in my mind, too much risk not enough reward). An attack on Libya using the surviving Egypt forces and the UK bomber. Those are the biggest 2, but there are some others.

I agree with your point on the slow start, but at the same time I do not think it is conducive for Germany to risk breaking its back on round 1. I do not consider not taking Egypt G1 and setting up a take G2 a slow start.

I do not think it is necessarily a do or die situation. That was more true of Classic and Revised. In those the Axis had to get the job done quickly before the Allies could gang up on Germany in most cases. In those games the Axis had the pieces and positions but did not have the economy. In AA50 the Axis can meet or exceed the Allies economically very quickly, certainly by say round 3, so I do not see the pressing need for the Axis to pursue every possible attack they can make on round 1.

Keep in my mind that I am not saying that a G1 attack on Egypt is a horrible move, I am more stating that it is not really necessary. The Axis can reinforce in Africa on round 1 and be more or less assured of the outcome on round 2. I base this on my experiences. Initially I attacked Egypt on G1, however if things go badly the Axis is suddenly in bad shape as far as Africa and possibly the Atlantic. Delaying the attack and putting some more troops in Africa while preserving the German transport puts the Axis in a better position as far as Africa down the road. They should loose less troops taking Africa since they will have a better odds attack and the UK fighter will most likely be gone. Also the Germans will have the Med transport that can send a few more troops to Africa if needed or send some troops to Ukraine, or if things go really good go off and take Madagascar or such. Again more options for Axis.

[axis_roll]

@a44bigdog:

Also the Germans will have the Med transport that can send a few more troops to Africa if needed or send some troops to Ukraine, or if things go really good go off and take Madagascar or such. Again more options for Axis.

Yes, sure G2, another boat load.  Then the Med Fleet can be sunk on UK2 if so desired.

Is this not a desirable move by the allies anymore (sink Italian/Med navy UK2)?
Should I start another thread  :-D ?

[Zhukov44]

@a44bigdog:

OK I am going to offer another opinion that seems to be 100% against the current consensus. I used to be a proponent of a G1 attack on Egypt but I changed my mind months ago for several reasons.

1. Attacking Egypt G1 weakens 2 other battles SZ2 and SZ12. I feel both of these battles are more important for the Axis as the eliminate UK ships before they can be consolidated and also a lack of success here not only allows the UK to buy less ships it will eliminate some German fighters, which will be needed for an attack against the UK navy. That right there equates to a double negative outcome for the Axis if things go less than optimally.

2. Failure in Egypt on G1 is debilitating for Germany. It allows the UK Fighter to survive and guarantees the sinking of the Germany Mediterranean transport. It can also put SZ14 of Libya at risk for Italy. While a non-attack G1 does allow the UK fighter to survive it does not open up the other possible Allied moves.

3. By reinforcing Libya the Axis put themselves in a better position in the long range view as far as Africa is concerned. The UK will most likely evacuate the fighter allowing either Italy or Germany on G2 to make a solid take of Egypt. Also by reinforcing Libya Germany will retain the Mediterranean transport and have more troops in Africa for latter when the real fight for Africa will take place.

4. AA50 is not Classic or Revised. The Axis or under much less pressure to win before the Allies can get mobilized or they are doomed. As a matter of fact in AA50 the Axis can quite easily play a long game if they start from the beginning.

Sometimes I will still make a G1 attack against Egypt but I much prefer a more certain approach with the Axis then trying to win (or LOSE) the game in round 1.

Good summary; I agree with all 4 points.

[Zhukov44]

@axis_roll:

Is this not a desirable move by the allies anymore (sink Italian/Med navy UK2)?

I don’t face this often.  If a UK2 attack on the Italy navy works, that’s an excellent outcome for Allies.  However, Trj can be a risky spot for a UK1 stack (particularly if there is no Africa bid), especially if the Japs are bringing it in the Indian Ocean region.  If UK buys 3 bmbs Axis might risk the 1-2-3 attack to disrupt UK and take out those units.

There’s also the possibility that even a 4 bmb 1 fig attk on the Italy navy could fail.  Or that it could succeed, but UK loses all 4 bombers, either during the battle or afterwards if they are left on Trj.  Even if it works there is a trade-off…by this time Axis has dumped enough forces into Africa to make it competitive, while UK will be a step behind building up Atlantic navy and securing early objectives.

[axis_roll]

@Zhukov44:

@axis_roll:

Is this not a desirable move by the allies anymore (sink Italian/Med navy UK2)?

I don’t face this often.  If a UK2 attack on the Italy navy works, that’s an excellent outcome for Allies.  However, Trj can be a risky spot for a UK1 stack (particularly if there is no Africa bid), especially if the Japs are bringing it in the Indian Ocean region.  If UK buys 3 bmbs Axis might risk the 1-2-3 attack to disrupt UK and take out those units.

Are you suggesting a round two 1-2-3?

If so, I would move some russians in R1 to Persia to help protect between Germanys G2 attack (#1 in your description) and Japans’ J2 attack (#2 in your description).  The third attack would be Italy with 2 inf, tank, ftr + another ftr if they bought one I1.  (since the Med navy is sunk UK2)

@Zhukov44:

There’s also the possibility that even a 4 bmb 1 fig attk on the Italy navy could fail.  Or that it could succeed, but UK loses all 4 bombers, either during the battle or afterwards if they are left on Trj.  Even if it works there is a trade-off…by this time Axis has dumped enough forces into Africa to make it competitive, while UK will be a step behind building up Atlantic navy and securing early objectives.

only 1 UK ftr?  Hmm.  I think IF I were going with a UK 2 attack, I would be landing in Gibralter with some allied units to cover my two additional UK ftrs to bring into the battle on UK2.

Now I see a 3 ftr, 4 bmr attack.  on a bad outcome, UK would lose 3 ftrs then.  or lose 1 ftr, 2 bombers to enable 2 more ftrs to help the defense of TRJ on UK2.

Sure, UK or USA would be sacrificing (most likely) a transport to support gibralter, but that’s a pretty fair trade for the med fleet, IMHO, ESPECIALLY so early in the game.

@Zhukov44:

… by this time Axis has dumped enough forces into Africa to make it competitive, while UK will be a step behind building up Atlantic navy and securing early objectives.

OK, so you think +4 German units (2 inf, 2 tanks) and + 2 italian units (inf,tank) from the starting units offsets the addition of + 5 UK  (2 inf, art, tank, ftr) units: egypt is not attacked, and these units survive.  That’s only +1 more Axis unit that the allied units.

you neglect to consider the Allied landings (mostly US) on round 2 to offset some of those axis units as well.

[Zhukov44]

If UK goes to Trj UK1 the 123 i meant is I-1, G2, J2.  Theoretically its possible to hold it with the Russian support, but tough if Japan has 3 transports.

I think the Gibralter gambit you speak of has potential. There’s a good deal of sacrifice involved but if it comes off and UK survives with a lot of air it could set up an Allied edge.  But it depends…even if everything works out, the air on TRJ has to survive a possible 2nd rounds of attacks on I-2, G3, J3.  Would like to see it in action and see how the long game plays out.

[a44bigdog]

If you are staging those FGTs in Gibraltar on UK 1, the UK did not use them against SZ5. If the UK uses the SZ9 TN to bring anything to Gibraltar it is gone on G2 to German air. Also as Italy since I may feel the fleet is doomed anyway I may take a crack at whatever the UK puts in Gibraltar with a supported invasion. I can always leave one CA in SZ14 to cover the German TN and force the UK to divide its air resources.

I would also have to think about a German Navy at this point on G2 with UK not attacking SZ5 and diverting its assets early to Africa.

As far as the Italian fleet goes I see no need as the Allies to make any early attacks on it at all. Italy is a bet a minor nuisance and its fleet is not of much importance anyway. I tend to deal with the Italian fleet latter with a sizable UK navy on my terms.

[axis_roll]

@a44bigdog:

If you are staging those FGTs in Gibraltar on UK 1, the UK did not use them against SZ5. If the UK uses the SZ9 TN to bring anything to Gibraltar it is gone on G2 to German air. Also as Italy since I may feel the fleet is doomed anyway I may take a crack at whatever the UK puts in Gibraltar with a supported invasion. I can always leave one CA in SZ14 to cover the German TN and force the UK to divide its air resources.

I was proposing possible maximum attacks on a Med navy that are available as a result of not attacking Egypt G1.

I would weigh how many Germany units are left in what positions on R1 to set-up a possible UK2 attack.  Also, where did Japan go J1, or how well did she do (what units/where).  I never said I would ALWAYS do a UK2 Med fleet kill.

@a44bigdog:

I would also have to think about a German Navy at this point on G2 with UK not attacking SZ5 and diverting its assets early to Africa.

Most of the time, I would welcome a German expenditure in it’s navy as the allies.

@a44bigdog:

As far as the Italian fleet goes I see no need as the Allies to make any early attacks on it at all. Italy is a bet a minor nuisance and its fleet is not of much importance anyway. I tend to deal with the Italian fleet latter with a sizable UK navy on my terms.

There’s two schools of thought around the Med navy:  Sink it fast as a component of a KIF allied move, or deal with it later in a less costly fashion (as you advocate).

My point was that when Egypt is not attacked on G1, it opens up a possible UK2 med fleet kill / KIF allied move.

As the Axis, you may not care about Italy/Africa.  Others deem that vital to the axis chances to win the game.

My contention is that if taken out before it gets to be used on it’s second turn, trading some UK planes (and a transport or two) for the italian navy is worth it (again, depends alot on what Germany has bought and how Japan is staged).

[akreider2]

These figures are based on 10,000 simulations using AACalc (as modified and running at www.campusactivism.org/aacalc).  The IPC figures are all approximate - with an accuracy of around 0.1 to 0.4.

Now of course some of these units aren’t worth as much as their IPC cost (German subs) and others are worth more (any land unit in Africa).

If the German transport isn’t worth $7 then the attack on EGY is more lucrative.  I think the transport is useful and shouldn’t be thrown away.

–------------------------------
Scenario 1 - no Egypt attack

Z2  (sub, fig, bom vs bat/tra)
IPC gain of 18.3
(11.7 for the loss of bat vs the loss of fig/bom/sub + 6.6 for the loss of the tra)

Z12 (sub, 2 fig vs des, cru)
IPC gain of 8.8

Total IPC gain 27.1

---

Scenario 2 - Egypt Attack

EGY (assumes 2 inf, art, 2 arm, bom vs 2 inf, art, arm, fig)
I assume that G is willing to take the bomber casualty to take EGY (in practice, I don’t think this decision has much of an impact on the IPCs).

IPC gain (for the units, not including taking the bomber casualty) is 5.3

If you take EGY with a bomber and armor or better - you gain 9 (5 NO, 2 for G getting EGY, 2 for UK losing EGY).  This is a 60%.

If you take EGY with a single armor, by losing the bom - you gain 2 (5+2+2 - 12 +5 (for the armor)). This is a 15%.

Total value of the attack on EGY
5.3 + 0.6 * 9 + 0.15 * 2=10.9

Z2 (fig, 2 sub vs bat, tra)
IPC gain of 10.4 (loss of bat vs loss of 2 sub, fig) + 5.8 (loss UK tra) = 16.2

Z12 attack (2 fig vs des, cru)
IPC gain of 1.7

Loss of German transport
I assume that UK will only attack the bomber if they cannot attack a single armor on EGY.
-7 * 0.66 = -4.6

Probability UK takes back EGY by attacking it with 2 inf, bom
arm (34% chance G has a single armor - assumes they were willing to sacrifice a bomber) - then UK has a 93% chance of winning

0.340.93-7 (UK gets NO + EGY money)= -2.2

if there is 2 arm left (21% chance) - I assume UK goes for killing the GER transport instead of having a 45% chance of taking EGY.

UK chance of retaking EGY with IND transport (UK: 3 inf, art, bom vs EGY)
Note: UK has a 5% chance of a tra surviving an attack on Z35 (2 fig vs des, tra) and this gives it a great chance of retaking EGY.

ITA gets NO
(0.75 (Germany chance of taking EGY) * 0.58 (ITA chance of taking TRJ with 2 inf, fig, cru/bat vs 2 inf)) - (UK chance of retaking EGY)  * 5 =2.2

Scenario 2 total
10.9+16.2+1.7-4.6-2.2+2.2=24.2

---

Conclusion: Who knows!  Tentatively the decision looks very close. I’ve got the non-Egypt attack having a 3 IPC advantage, but there are a lot of factors that I didn’t include.

[akreider2]

Oops, I already see that I didn’t include the UK chance of retaking EGY and that causing ITA to not get the NO.  That is worth around 0.6 IPC.  Making the overall gap between the two strategies around 3.5 IPC.

[akreider2]

I didn’t include the probability that Germany would take and hold EGY, and then the value that it (and/or Italy) would get from being able to blitz/march into the rest of the Africa one turn earlier.  If the Axis takes 2 IPCs away from UK, that is a swing of 4 IPC and it might be multiplied by three or more turns.  They might get SUD and EAF on G2, CNG and RHO on G3, and SAF on G4 - all one turn ahead of schedule.

[akreider2]

I also didn’t include the probability of an Italian fleet wipeout (if the G attack on Z12 kills nothing (10%) AND a fighter survives the attack on EGY fails (19%)).

That’s a 1.9% chance.  Expected loss of 6.5 IPCs.  So it subtracts about 0.1 IPCs (more like 0.13, but who is counting) from the expected gains for Scenario 2.

[Nix]

atm my standard G opening is:

Attack egypt without bomber, to soften it up for italy
attack SZ2 with 2 subs
SZ9: with bomber
SZ12 with 3 fig.

absically you want to hit everywhere where you have 50/50 or better vs UK navy on G1.

[axis_roll]

@Nix:

atm my standard G opening is:

Attack egypt without bomber, to soften it up for italy
attack SZ2 with 2 subs
SZ9: with bomber
SZ12 with 3 fig.

absically you want to hit everywhere where you have 50/50 or better vs UK navy on G1.

very aggressive, but very strong to keep the Allied navy off Europe’s back door for a while.

[axis_roll]

@akreider2:

I also didn’t include the probability of an Italian fleet wipeout (if the G attack on Z12 kills nothing (10%) AND a fighter survives the attack on EGY fails (19%)).

That’s a 1.9% chance.  Expected loss of 6.5 IPCs.  So it subtracts about 0.1 IPCs (more like 0.13, but who is counting) from the expected gains for Scenario 2.

Certainly, IPC Gain / Loss is something that is important in the game, but really could / should be tossed aside for other aspects in a decision to attack or not to attack.

The AXIS has the military advantage early on, and SHOULD trade them for IPCs lost/gained.  Diminishing the already scarce allied units is a larger consideration in the context of battle decisions for the axis in the early rounds.  The axis needs to press their military advantage.  If they do not, you give the allies those units and the time to consolidate and use them against the axis.

In my view, the axis are winning the war at the beginning of the game.  Taking some risks to increase the lead is worth it because the lead can become so great that the allies can never overcome that lead.

It’s a fine balance that I have found:  the allies seem to be just one round too late for a well oiled axis war machine.  This is the ‘lead’ of which I speak.  A slow expanding Axis war effort (ESPECIALLY early rounds) can shrink this lead at a small gain of being ‘more efficient’.  The Axis has a larger level of acceptable losses compared to the allies (again, especially early).

[akreider2]

While numbers are limited, an advantage of quantifying strategies in terms of average IPC gain/loss is that you can compare two strategies.  If you try comparing with arguments that aren’t based in numbers, it is much harder to come to an agreement.

Ideally we’d want to have games played by the same sets of people - where you try the Egypt attack once and another time where you don’t (against the same opponent).  Then you could compare win percentages.  My guess is that there would be so little impact that you’d need to play 20-50 games to see a statistically significant difference (95% confidence level).

In practice, a lot of people like to put the Allies bid in Egypt (I always do), so it is hard to get solid statistics on this.

[axis_roll]

@akreider2:

While numbers are limited, an advantage of quantifying strategies in terms of average IPC gain/loss is that you can compare two strategies.  If you try comparing with arguments that aren’t based in numbers, it is much harder to come to an agreement.

Certainly, but you also can not boil all decisions to strictly IPC differences (a.k.a. numbers).  There are many times in a game where I will sacrifice high price units to achieve a desired goal or bait in an opponent.

Also, as you pointed out, while battle win percentages are based on several samples, each game has many battles with only ONE sample, and with such a small sample size, ANYTHING can happen.  So we based decisions on ‘the odds’, and most of the battles do fall in the few standard deviations from the norm, but it only takes an odd battle or two to make strategy discussions based strictly on ‘numbers’ as incomplete in my opinion.

[Zhukov44]

Interesting analysis Akreider and AxisRoll.

Agree that to some extent the discussion is moot, because Egypt is the most popular place for a bid placement.  However maybe people will stop placing in Egypt, hoping to lure the Axis into a more ambitious G1 with greater risks, or simply thinking their bid is better placed elsewhere.

I hit Egy in low luck games if there’s no bid there, but have stopped doing it in dice games.  My perspective is that if the overall cost-benefit tally between the 2 approaches is close, then I gotta prefer the more conservative approach.  AA44 already made this point well above, and I agree–-a cautious approach to Axis in AA50 is smart because map dynamics and national objectives are favorable over the long game, UNLESS Allies can hit a major break and shut Axis out of Africa or dominate the Pacific.

But these variables could easily change if Allied strategies improve or average bids go up, which would make an early game 67% risk more attractive for Axis.