Once again, thank you so much! You really helped me a lot there!
Thank you! :-D :wink:
R1 moves in Low Luck '42, fig to Egypt
-
R1 Russian Fighter to Egypt + take Ukraine?
Here are the stats for G1 attempt on Egypt:
German odds to win with 1 land unit left in low-luck. All moves assume moving BB to SZ15, transporting inf+arm to Egypt, and moving in inf+arm from Libya. Possible loss of transport taken into account where applicable.SZ15; Egypt = Defending Rus. FIG / no Rus. FIG
-; FIG + BMB = .97 / 1*^
-; FIG = .63 / .98^
-; BMB = .77 / .99*^
FIG; BMB = .81 / 1*
FIG; - = .04 /.68*Prevent G attack on sz 2 (uk BB + TR)
^6% chance G loses BBThe way I see it in LL is you are letting G make the choice between taking Egypt at 63% and keeping SZ2 option, or passing on SZ2 to take Egypt at a more comfortable .97 (and taking a Rus FIG to boot). What do you think? Is this a viable strategy for Allied player?
(Edit, here are the dice probabilities, for those interested)
-; FIG + BMB = .87 / .99*^
-; FIG = .52 / .88^
-; BMB = .60 / .92*^
FIG; BMB = .61 / .93*
FIG; - = .18 /.59 -
The way I see it in LL is you are letting G make the choice between taking Egypt at 63% and keeping SZ2 option, or passing on SZ2 to take Egypt at a more comfortable .97 (and taking a Rus FIG to boot). What do you think? Is this a viable strategy for Allied player?
Instead of G being able to secure attack SZ2 and Egypt, now it forces it to choose between either, so I’d say yes. I’d consider the Egypt attack more important than the SZ2, even more if you can kill that pesky Russian fighter. The SZ2 attack is never a sure thing, since Russia can hit Norway and/or G can sink the UK transport on SZ1 and still retain the sub, which makes it not as very good as killing the SZ2 fleet but still a good move.
-
If you send the Russian fighter to Egypt, then the most Russia has to take Ukraine is 3 inf, 3 tanks and 1 fighter, against G’s 3 inf, 1 tank and 1 fighter. If R fails in Ukraine, the surviving G fighter now supports the Egy attack, basically ensuring the lost of the R fighter and maybe also allowing G to use the bomber in SZ 2. Seems too risky … or does R still have high probability of taking Ukraine without the extra fighter?
-
@LMD:
If you send the Russian fighter to Egypt, then the most Russia has to take Ukraine is 3 inf, 3 tanks and 1 fighter, against G’s 3 inf, 1 tank and 1 fighter. If R fails in Ukraine, the surviving G fighter now supports the Egy attack, basically ensuring the lost of the R fighter and maybe also allowing G to use the bomber in SZ 2. Seems too risky … or does R still have high probability of taking Ukraine without the extra fighter?
I was just going to write the same post. It feels a bit akward to lose the russian fig without even using it. You most likely save SZ2 – which I adore, no doubt – but you have taken ukr more lightly and with higher a risk of failure. Moreover there is the risk you run into someone who decides to take his chance and kills both SZ2 and AES. You than stand empty-handed and the R fig down after R1.
-
Good idea comparing it to the other common way of protecting SZ5:
Norwegian gambit w/1FIG –> successful? --Yes–> G can take Egypt easily, not SZ5
_No__–> G comfortably takes Egypt and SZ5FIG to Egypt –> force G to choose –—> take Egypt easily, SZ5 impossible
_–> take SZ5 comfortably, avoid Egypt
_–>take both, but G risks catastropheIn the case G does try for both, the best it can muster is 63% win in LL and 52% in dice, both of which carry a 6% chance of losing the BB.
Also remember, failure to take Egypt almost guarantees a sunk German BB on UK1 (in my book at least), as Suez is open and/or there is another UK FIG hanging around (G going for Trans Jordan doesn’t save it of this fate).
I don’t know, maybe it’s playing risky to put a Russian FIG in harm’s way, but Russia can build another? And the potential gain for Allies is very large. What I would be interested to know is as an Axis player, what would your response be to an extra FIG in Egypt?
-
Good idea comparing it to the other common way of protecting SZ5:
Norwegian gambit w/1FIG –> successful? --Yes–> G can take Egypt easily, not SZ5
_No__–> G comfortably takes Egypt and SZ5FIG to Egypt –> force G to choose –—> take Egypt easily, SZ5 impossible
_–> take SZ5 comfortably, avoid Egypt
_–>take both, but G risks catastropheIn the case G does try for both, the best it can muster is 63% win in LL and 52% in dice, both of which carry a 6% chance of losing the BB.
Also remember, failure to take Egypt almost guarantees a sunk German BB on UK1 (in my book at least), as Suez is open and/or there is another UK FIG hanging around (G going for Trans Jordan doesn’t save it of this fate).
I don’t know, maybe it’s playing risky to put a Russian FIG in harm’s way, but Russia can build another? And the potential gain for Allies is very large. What I would be interested to know is as an Axis player, what would your response be to an extra FIG in Egypt?
Edit: by SZ5 you mean SZ2 I think.
There is one more thing to add to the analyzes, and that is the way Russia fights went on R1. Approximately every fourth game Russia would have some serious problems either on WR or UKR. Either it will suffer exceptionally high loses taking WR, or it might not take ukraine (this would happen approx. every fifth game unless Russia is willing to take the last hit on the second fig). So please note that the likelihood of failed ukraine is about as high as the likelihood of failing the Norway cancelling the assumed advantage of AE gambit exactly the same way.
My answer as the Germany player would differ according to the outcome of R1. In cases Russia came weak I might go full speed after it ignoring Egypt. In cases it comes stronger I would perhaps bite the bullet and ignored SZ2 and went for the juicy prize in AE.
I have seen people taking AES heavy only R2 and I think it is viable option too. You would use the bb to go SZ13, took Gibraltar, killed SZ2, build some heavy air stationed 3-4 figs on SEU. Allies are UK bb down, cannot use SZ8 for building and if they try to fortify AES with everything they have, they would still most likely lose it R2. As AES is succesfully countered on UK1 most of the times it would not slow Germans down. I know it opens some other interesting options for uk, especially in Asia but at least you have not caused Germans the problems you were hoping for.
Now why I would not prefer this opening to Norwegian Gambit. Two reasons:
1. As much as I’d enjoy playing against the 50 % unlucky players who failed AES while attempting for SZ2 at the same time, I’d really hate to play against the 50 % of lucky players who would kill SZ2 and AES at the same time. And I really don’t want to live with that flip of a coin situation after R1. On a top of that if I have decided I want to preserve the UK BB SZ2 i really do not want to give Germans the choice.
2. I like my Russian tanks. One of the reasons I am not doing Ukraine is I really hate losing three of my starting tanks. And ukr can be most of the times retaken just with some inf supported by one fig, so you have traded three of your starting tanks for a tnk and a fig while in NG only one tnk goes to trades and many times it will do a great job for you defending Norway where Germany can send only 2 ground units.
-
There was a thread about that issue some time ago, the Anglo Egypt Sudan Gambit :-D. Imho it is essential to pair this strategy with killing the UKR ftr R1.
-
Just to clarify….the OP is referring to the AE gambit in low luck. So he’s not really risking much by taking one less fig to UKR…he will still take it 100% but just with higher than av. losses.
It’s difficult to judge the efficacy of the gambit because whether it works or not depends on dice and the German player’s reaction. If Germany ends up skipping SZ2…then it worked. Or if Germany fails to actually take Egy, it worked. The main risk is if Germany goes to both 2 and Egy and succeeds… On the other hand, sometimes Germany will go to both 2 and Egy and get diced up…even 2 is not a sure thing in low luck because of the Russian sub.
Suggested Topics
