I have a question regarding this strategy.
If you’re buying a new aircraft carrier and a transport in SZ14 on G1, is the idea then, to still attack SZ15 and Egypt that round? So that if Russia has indeed built that submarine in SZ16, the original German mediterranean fleet will die on R2, but you’ve built a new one beforehand?
Or is the idea, to keep the entire fleet in SZ14 in order to have a pretty strong med fleet on G2 and be able to transport more units to Africa?
@Herr:
I have a question regarding this strategy.
If you’re buying a new aircraft carrier and a transport in SZ14 on G1, is the idea then, to still attack SZ15 and Egypt that round? So that if Russia has indeed built that submarine in SZ16, the original German mediterranean fleet will die on R2, but you’ve built a new one beforehand?
Or is the idea, to keep the entire fleet in SZ14 in order to have a pretty strong med fleet on G2 and be able to transport more units to Africa?
If Russia bought a sub to SZ16 then you need to consolidate the carrier, BB and transport(s) on SZ14, and land 2 units on Libya, giving you 3 inf, 1 art and 2 arm there. Just the land units on Libya should be enough to take most of Africa since the UK will most likely disperse its units rather than to try to defend Egypt. Which allows you to divert those transports to landings on Ukraine/Caucasus.
If there’s no Russian sub then you can and should attack SZ15 and Egypt on G1. The quicker you get rid of that UK armor and fighter the better and the UK either retakes Egypt or goes after Japan.
Thank you! Following up on that, my reasoning would be:
(a) If there’s no Russian sub in SZ16 and Germany does the Egypt attack, I can’t see a very good reason for the AC + transport buy on G1. The AC won’t protect the battleship, and the battleship itself can only be attacked by the UK with one bomber and one fighter, when any surviving UK planes need to land in Transjordan. That’s a risky attack anyway, and if the battleship kills one of the planes, the UK would need to let the bomber go, because if the fighter dies and the bomber lands, Transjordan may be a tempting target for a G2 attack from Egypt supported by a fighter or two. In that case, the only benefit of having an extra German transport in SZ14 would be to further reinforce that attack on Transjordan - so it seems like a costly measure to counter a UK move that doesn’t look very good anyway.
So without the Russian sub I wouldn’t buy any German navy on G1 because it wouldn’t really contribute to the safety of the German med fleet anyway - and if the fleet is still around on G2 and looks like being in danger by then, I can always move it back to SZ14 and do the AC buy on G2.
(b) If there is a Russian sub in SZ16, then I’d be inclined to buy an AC and a destroyer rather than another transport in SZ14, because I don’t understand why I’d need two transports there. In that case, suppose that Russia has taken the Ukraine and killed a German fighter, Germany can still send three fighters after the UK destroyer in SZ15, and land two of them on the new AC. I’d prefer to kill the SZ15 destroyer rather than the SZ13 cruiser, because the cruiser has a bigger chance of downing one of the German planes, and also, if the destroyer lives, the UK may sail its SZ35 fleet to SZ15, and with the Russian sub added, it will be too strong to effectively kill it on G2 - and leaving it there allows the UK to attack the German fleet with the fleet plus land based planes.
So in that case I suppose Germany could take Egypt on G2 overland, and possibly Transjordan amphibiously unless the UK reinforces it heavily, in which it can still be attacked on G3. After the work in the East Mediterranean is done, the German fleet could move to SZ13, reunite with whatever is left of the Baltic fleet if that moves to SZ7 on G1, and be reinforced by Japan. That won’t be enough to match the combined UK/US naval buying power of course, but at least it forces them to pour some money into buying enough capital ships to protect the Atlantic from a German air/naval raid.
Does all of that make any sense?
Building aircraft carrier + destroyer in the med is way too much. This is 22 IPC not spent in much needed land units and the wins you will make in Africa won’t compensate the losts in Europe + 7 land units missing.
If you really want to play this strategy, never buy more then 1 aircraft carrier on the sea, any extra units is useless safety since it is already doubtfull that allies will be able to take out carrier + 2 fighters + battleship in the early turns without giving away too much in terms of needing to get carriers putting UK/US units in Europe as fast as possible.
I also agree that the second transport is not needed.
This strategy is mostly a decoy to lure allies out of their only real plan which is taking Germany down. On the other hand, the early 14 IPC (which is almost 5 Infantries) is HUGE if allies follow their plan and attack Germany.
Hmm, I suppose you’re right about that. I got into thinking that I should buy something “better” than the extra transport that was mentioned earlier in the thread, without considering that it could just be skipped.
I would only consider the strategy against the Russian sub buy anyway - after all, that sub also costs Russia a few land units.
Saying naval units take away from units that could be going after Russia is misleading. That’s why the extra trans build is a good idea. Russia always has to make sure Caucus is well defended, which means less units coming after Germany. It also increases the movement of units so you can get them to the front quicker. The trick is to not get trapped in the med. If Japan can get through, milk that as long as possible but if you can move your naval build through the channel while still having enough to defend Southern, then there’s money to be made in the pacific.
If Germany decides to go all out for Russia with land and air units, then nothing is stopping the allies from going all out for Germany. They can shut down Germany round by round. Round 1- control Atlantic, destroy Baltic Navy, Round 2 land in Africa/Norway, Destory German Med navy, by round 3 all those land units you were planning on sending against Russia had to come back to defend France. You’re going to need at least ten units there - 30 ipcs and you aren’t making Africa money and Japan is not that fast.
If Germany decides to go all out for Russia with land and air units, then nothing is stopping the allies from going all out for Germany. They can shut down Germany round by round. Round 1- control Atlantic, destroy Baltic Navy, Round 2 land in Africa/Norway, Destory German Med navy, by round 3 all those land units you were planning on sending against Russia had to come back to defend France.
I think this might be a little too optimistic for the Allies…
If Germany decides to go all out for Russia with land and air units, then nothing is stopping the allies from going all out for Germany. They can shut down Germany round by round. Round 1- control Atlantic, destroy Baltic Navy, Round 2 land in Africa/Norway, Destory German Med navy, by round 3 all those land units you were planning on sending against Russia had to come back to defend France. You’re going to need at least ten units there - 30 ipcs and you aren’t making Africa money and Japan is not that fast.
Because you are not building an AC in the med doesn’t mean you let allies land anywhere on turn 2. You are also having planes.
The main plan with Germany is not going “all out against Russia”, it is Fortress Europe. If Germany lets allies land in Africa/Norway without killing the allied fleet, well Germany doesn’t know what he is doing (or your Russia dices were really terrible and he decided that he could just go all in and blitz Russia).
Fortress Europe is the proven best plan for axis and is pretty much the only thing you see at high level in leagues. AC build is fun to try sometimes but is not nearly as competitive.
And before someone writes that Fortress Europe is not incompatible with building AC turn 1: Yes, it is :)
Because you are not building an AC in the med doesn’t mean you let allies land anywhere on turn 2. You are also having planes.
The main plan with Germany is not going “all out against Russia”, it is Fortress Europe. If Germany lets allies land in Africa/Norway without killing the allied fleet, well Germany doesn’t know what he is doing (or your Russia dices were really terrible and he decided that he could just go all in and blitz Russia).
Fortress Europe is the proven best plan for axis and is pretty much the only thing you see at high level in leagues. AC build is fun to try sometimes but is not nearly as competitive.
And before someone writes that Fortress Europe is not incompatible with building AC turn 1: Yes, it is :)
I hear fortress Europe all the time and have seen bits and pieces of this strategy posted. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. I could be wrong but is it just basically Germany turtling with a bunch of planes and Japense air help? How do they decimate the allied naval builds if they too weren’t buying navy? With planes? How many planes would they lose to do this? How long would this take to set up? You know what I’d do as allies if Germany lost planes and killed the UK and US boats? Buy more! Germany’s pieces are irreplaceable. US and to a lesser extent, the UK’s aren’t. How does Germany fight with no planes? How passive is Russia in these scenarios? How aggresive is Germany or Japan?
There’s no way to keep the allies out of the Atlantic or landing in Africa. Maximum delay is 3 rounds. Fortress sounds like a defensive strat and playing an axis focused on defense is the wrong way to play them.
I hear fortress Europe all the time and have seen bits and pieces of this strategy posted. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. I could be wrong but is it just basically Germany turtling with a bunch of planes and Japense air help? How do they decimate the allied naval builds if they too weren’t buying navy? With planes? How many planes would they lose to do this? How long would this take to set up? You know what I’d do as allies if Germany lost planes and killed the UK and US boats? Buy more! Germany’s pieces are irreplaceable. US and to a lesser extent, the UK’s aren’t. How does Germany fight with no planes? How passive is Russia in these scenarios? How aggresive is Germany or Japan?
There’s no way to keep the allies out of the Atlantic or landing in Africa. Maximum delay is 3 rounds. Fortress sounds like a defensive strat and playing an axis focused on defense is the wrong way to play them.
Sorry but I think the experience of the players in the high level leagues means something :)
You are not getting completely the idea of fortress Europe, not fortress Europe and Africa. The idea is very simple, if you can keep Germany around 38 IPC (so 12-13 infantry per turn) for the time Japan need to go forward in Asia, later taking Africa or Moscow (usually around turn 7 if allies play in the Atlantic), you will win because of the economic advantage. The planes are mostly for slowing down allies in the Atlantic (obviously you can’t stop them forever from landing) and when they are ready to land (usually turn 3 for their first landing and turn 4 for their first huge landing) they have nowhere good to land because Germany as at that point build a massive amount of infantry.
It requires experience to play it correctly and it is easy to make a mistake at some point but it is very hard to beat for allies and is definitely the best plan for an experienced player that calculates the odds of the fights and therefore as always correct amount of infantry on every territory. Beginners will have difficulties to play this plan correctly though because they will sometimes leave more infantries then necessary to block landings and see Russia go forward or they will sometimes not leave enough infantries in defense and lose a big stack to a landing (plus the hole it creates) and will lose because of it.
We don’t play economic victories but fair enough. Still, I don’t see how a Germany making only 38 ipcs is going to be able to do much of anything. How much will Japan have to make to get the EV? 60? We can get them up to high 40s-50 Ipcs but that takes time and in a game where Germany is being defensive, Japan is off fortune hunting, Russia is going to be a monster. In a fortress Europe scenario, I imagine it would be easy for Russia to make high 30’s, especially since they don’t have to worry about Axis air.
Russia won’t keep 30 IPC because Japan will take Asia and hopefully Caucasus eventually. And it is not play economic victory it is just that when axis makes more money then allies it is pretty much all the time game over (excdept is Germany is on the verge of falling).
Obviously this strat is not winning 100 % of the time, no strat does. It is on the other hand the strat that gives axis the best odds if played correctly. Aas an exemple, it is much harder to play then just blitzing Russia with tanks :)
Russia won’t keep 30 IPC because Japan will take Asia and hopefully Caucasus eventually. And it is not play economic victory it is just that when axis makes more money then allies it is pretty much all the time game over (excdept is Germany is on the verge of falling).
Obviously this strat is not winning 100 % of the time, no strat does. It is on the other hand the strat that gives axis the best odds if played correctly. Aas an exemple, it is much harder to play then just blitzing Russia with tanks :)
Well duh. Germany tank dash is the first strategy noobs come up with on their own. Also, most games are won by the Axis with Japan making a ton of money and taking down Russia, but if they are donating planes to Germany for fortress Europe they have susbtantially less attack power against Russia. I just don’t see how a divided air force is a threat to allied ship builds beyond round 2. They start with a big fat 1 tank, usually lose a plane in French Indo and if they donate planes, they have to buy more so it slows down their financial gains. This would only work against a passive Russia and an inefficient UK/US.
The point of the Japan planes is not to take down allies fleets. It is to stop them from splitting the fleet however they want (Since allies can’t move UK and US fleets at the same time, they have either Japan or Germany playing in between). It then forces allies to either buy way too much fleet to be able to split their transports to attack different points (like having some diesembarking in Algeria and some in Norway early for exemple) or to just attack one territory and not being able to switch without buying more fleet. So the axis plan becomes stoping allies to disembark in Paris and:
I hope I explained a bit better then previously why those Japan planes are so strong against KGF.
Still not convinced. UK only has to by a couple destroyers and an AC to defend against let’s say, 4 Jap planes and a Bomber. An equel number of hits but the defender has the advantage. US can donate say, 1 loaded carrier. If the japanese want to lose planes shooting that down when they seperate, fine. Their loss.
You keep assuming Japan can do everything- donate several planes, pressure Russia, make money in the pacific, & take all of Africa now. This would take at least 8 rounds. What the hell are the Allies doing all this time?
That said, the strat has merit. It would be good to use in a team game with 5 players since the allies will have problems co-ordinating but in a two player game with seasoned players, I don’t see how it would work. We’ve experimented with defensive German strategies and they never work. Germany is built for aggression and that’s how they should play.
You say the US can donate say, 1 loaded carrier. Just when does the US move this carrier to join the British Fleet? That would be AFTER the Japanese do their turn. Do you see the problem with counting on US fleet support for a moving British Navy in the face of Japanese air threats?
So now all you need is a few Brit fully loaded carriers and destroyers and a few US fully loaded carriers with destroyers. So now either countries fleet can survive as an independent fleet in the face of Japanese air threats. The moment you think this occurs, Japan could add 1 more air unit that TWO independent fleets must defend against.
Do you ever plan on having the US and Brit fleet move? If you do, then you must invest more in fleet defense in the face of a Jap air threat that moves between when the US and Brit does.
You keep ASS U ME ing that the Germans just sit back and turtle. With Fortress Europe, Germany can be more aggressive as the allies have spent more on fleet defense and less on land units that actually are what get you territory and more IPCs. With 4+ Jap fighers on WEu PLUS whatever Germany can spare on defense and allied transports and landing units in smaller numbers as they invested more in ACs, Fighters and destroyers it becomes easier for Germany to lean forward.
If you have an allied fleet which cannot operate independantly in the face of a Jap air threat then the axis is more free to to manuever knowing you cannot split your fleet in two.
Perhaps you ought to challenge an experienced Fortress Europe user to a game to see how well it works. Trust me, I’ve been playing since the 80s. I was gloating at first when I saw that Jap airforce in WEu. I thought, what a waste of Jap power. Then when I wanted to drop some forces of in Algeria and some in Norway and purchase new fleet and move up last rounds builds of fleet I realized what a balancing act was required. It constrained what I wanted to do. You might never need 4 loaded carriers in the face of only German air. You might need 4 loaded carriers if you wish to move the allied fleet in the face of a decent German and Jap air threat.
The premises of Fortress Europe is to cause the allies to invest far more in fleet due to the Japs being able to hit either fleet as they more independently of each other. It has gotten to the point my friends feel the allies need a bid to overcome fortress europe. I think they and myself just need to see an example of somebody beating fortress europe. I am told it occurs, just never in this forum. TripleA is apparently where the ‘professional’ games occur, I have yet to play there or even review games played there with/against fortress europe.
As an exemple of this month of my games in championship division of the aa42 league (all games with no bid obv) :
with axis : 3 wins (2 Fortress Europe, 1 Moscow Blitz)
with allies : 2 wins (1 against Fortress Europe with quite good rolls for me, 1 against AC bulid in Med)
1 loss (against Fortress Europe)
Allies needs 8 transports disembarking, that is 56 IPC, plus quite a bunch of sea units on both side, if they lose a juse sea fight it will be a pain to build back mostly if they trade against Japan.
As for your question on Japan in Asia, you don’t need air to get to Moscow, past turn 1, If there is no IC in Asia.
As for Germany aggressivity, it is just the “normal” way to make an attack, build infantry first then aggressive units.
There are 3 fronts in KGF games: Asia/Russia, Germany/Russia and Africa. Fortress Europe stops allies from spreading their units as they need between Africa and G/R fronts (from around turn 5 when Japan threat to invade Africa becomes real). Yes it will likely take around 8 turns (sometimes even more!) for Japan to take Africa but when they do axis superior IPC production will become decisive.
It might seems like a very long plan, but between top level players you need good early dice to justify aggressivity or you will just get kill by a fine tuned counter-attack. To be succesful you need to be able to plan long term plans.
Ok I’m done talking about this as you guys seem convinced this is the way to go. I would LOVE to challenge this strat but I don’t know how to install triple A. I’ve tried numerous times and can’t figure it out. Being afraid of 4 Japanese planes is ridiculous.
I’ve been playing almost twice a week for over ten years. My facebook record was 18-2 so I’m getting pretty tired of you assuming I have no clue what I’m talking about Cgar.
Think about the original topic. If the allies are so worried about only air force what do they do when Germany also has boats in the water and Japans fleet as crossed the channel? This what we always deal with in our games and we can still move. i would be relieved if air was the only threat.
Boats are more expensive then planes and being able to have transports for Germany doesn’t worth the difference of IPC used to build a fleet instead of using planes.
As for the fortress europe strat maybe you should try it instead of just talking about something that you actually never tried.
