Med Battleship G1

[Hobbes]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

If Malachi doesn’t want to do it I’ll challenge any Fortress Europe axis player.

One question: are you assuming 100% that the Axis player will use Fortress Europe? Or is it a condition for playing?

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Hobbes has a point, probably a bit deeper than I am seeing.  That being said, if there is US navy being  (more than a sub say) built in the Pacific then Fortress Europe probably isn’t going to happen.  In a KGF, if Germany is not being threatened significantly I also don’t see a need for Fortress Europe.

If nobody is up for the challenge then I’ll play you a game if you wish to start the thread and do Russia 1.  I’d prefer to just watch the game but……

[Hobbes]

The issue is Russia - if they know that the Axis player will follow a Fortress Europe strategy then they can make things very hard for Germany from the beginning.

The US turn is not so critical - it can go Pacific but in that case G can and should still harass the UK on the Atlantic as much as possible, although the focus will be to take out Russia.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Hey Hobbes.  What are Russia’s choices on R1, vis-a-vis how can they make it harder on the Germans knowing fortress europe is in store?  Ukr and Wru are the two targets from what I understand, the only question is 2 or 3 tanks in Ukr and to leave the Inf Kar or not from my limited play experience.  I’ve read about the Norwegian Gambit but it seems like a high risk ‘Pray to the Gods’ kind of strategy that I am uncomfortable with.  Is Russia pushing Japan harder knowing FE is coming?

[Hobbes]

The Norwegian Gambit saves the UK battleship and makes sure that the Brits can build ships on UK1. However, it does not  prevent the Axis from using Fortress Europe - Japan can still bring all those fighters and a G1 bomber buy will add that additional punch needed.

The most danger from Russia is not the R1 attacks (which should be WRus + Ukr/Nor) but the R1 and subsequent buys. If you see Russia buying 4 arm + 1 art on R1, then 4 arm and 3 inf on R2, etc., then the Russians may be able to stack Ukraine/Karelia by R3. Or just imagine what Russia can do with 10+ armor against Japan…

[Col.Stauffenberg]

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

If Malachi doesn’t want to do it I’ll challenge any Fortress Europe axis player.

One question: are you assuming 100% that the Axis player will use Fortress Europe? Or is it a condition for playing?

yes, it’s a condition on playing. This fortress Europe debate got started because people where saying it’s better than a Med Navy, to which I disagree. I’m not going to do anything crazy with Russia or build in the pacific with the US (maybe a sub or two).

In our games we have often have 3 loaded Japanese carriers in the med by round 4 or 5 and a bomber usually in Egypt so the allies always have to buy massive navy anyway, that’s why I think it’s going to be easier to beat than Med Navy.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Hmmm, Japan adding a CV to their navy and hanging out in the Med.  It would seem they would be light in Asia then.  Add to that a small bit of navy to fend off a brit and 1-2 US subs in the pacific combined with a purchase of a capital ship….

With FE you wouldn’t need much Jap navy in the Med.  I like the idea of being able to move Jap land units from Asia to europe, but only to help defend the Atlantic wall.  You would need defense from bombers going from England to Caucus and air units from Caucus/Rus.  However, I don’t think you need a jap navy in the med to deny africa from the allies at latter stages of the game, nor do you need it to help defend Germany.  Air units shift position faster than navy so their threat is more dynamic and less predictable.

If the Allies just shuck along the north atlantic the Med navy would have to come out to do something.  Coming out of the med to sail to the North Atlantic seems risky in that its a lot of capital tied up in a very long journey towards enemy ICs that can react at the last second to the threat.

It would be interesting to see how a Jap navy in the Med would work, I understand that it is not that unusual.  But better than FE?  I thought most non-users of FE insist the axis needs a bid.  I am not sure if I ever lost using FE, but I have yet to be schooled by elite players so…

Hobbes would know much much better in how to foil FE than I.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

By the way Col, the weekend is over, although I am still playing a game, its in the end game so I await you starting a thread and doing R1.

[Hobbes]

@Col.Stauffenberg:

In our games we have often have 3 loaded Japanese carriers in the med by round 4 or 5 and a bomber usually in Egypt so the allies always have to buy massive navy anyway, that’s why I think it’s going to be easier to beat than Med Navy.

Interesting.

Moving the Japanese fleet to the Med is a good strategy on Revised because of the pressure it poses on the Atlantic. The drawback is that if the Allies retake Egypt and close the Suez then that fleet will become trapped and can be destroyed by the Allies, unless Germany buys 1 carrier to support it.

I tried it on Spring 1942 a few times but the advantages are less than on Revised, in my opinion, due to the new rules. The Allied subs on the Pacific require that Japan keeps back some of the fleet to protect against them and with the defenseless transports you only have the Japanese carriers as fodder in a battle (and the battleships, if they tag along), instead of the 1-2 transports that Japan can bring to the Med on Revised.

The key point though is that the Axis need to control the Suez channel on turns 3-4 in order for the Japanese navy to pass through. That might not be so easy to achieve - on my games the German Med fleet is sunk on turns 2-3, unless there’s some very bad dice. It is still possible, but Japan would have to rush its transports south for them to hit Egypt on turn 3.

[Hobbes]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Hobbes would know much much better in how to foil FE than I.

Check the notes I wrote above about Russia - the most sound defeat I had while using FE was against a very aggressive Russia.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Hobbes, any way you can post that AAA game save file?  I appreciated the other ones you posted, thanks again.

[Hobbes]

Just checked, don’t have that game. I usually finish my online games on TripleA without needing to save them. :(

[Advosan]

The problem imho with jap navy in the Med is that Japan can no longer amphibious safely in the Persian Gulf,either in order to deny Africa or to pressure Persia.The obvious allied answer would be a powerfull counter to Persia,threatening the whole southern flank of the japanese order of battle,something that would eventually compromise the entire japanese effort.Meanwhile,the imperial navy will be trapped in the Med,risking a deadly double US-Brit punch if dared exit to the Atlantic.The Japanese need the Persian Gulf,but risk everything if they cross the Canal.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

I’m not so sure the Jap navy gets trapped in the Med that easily.  Then again, I am not familiar with how 1942 plays out in other peoples games.  There are frustratingly few examples of a 1942 game to dissect here.

Japan needs to apply pressure against Russia, so they can flow forces North, South or Middle China.

The Northern route seems to hinder options.

Sitting large in Sin is better than in Yak I would think.

By the same token being large in Persia would be better.  So maybe not right away, a bit tough to park early next to the Russian IC.

At some point, doesn’t Germany with help from Fortress Europe park a large force in WRu to force Russia to defend Rus or Cau?

At some point the Japs ought to be able to OWN the India to Trans-Jorden corridor no?  Maybe deadzoning Persia for a bit, but it ought to be easy to control the suez and deadzoning Lib.

Tanks sitting in TrJ, a transport or two in Sz34 combined with lots of air in WEu ought to make Lib a dangerous place to sit in force as the allies.  The control ought to be so complete as to eliminate the need for a Jap navy parked in the Med.

Of course just when you think you have it all figured out, you get clobbered out of left field……  Didn’t see that coming!

[Col.Stauffenberg]

German does add navy as well. Usually an AC and an extra transport. This helps keep the channel open because the only ones that have the forces to move there is Russia, and with the extra German transport buy, they always have to guard Caucus and fight off the Germans on the front.

Germany doesn’t have to build in Southern and they keep making mid to high forties because of Africa. It is still walking a tight rope because Germany has a thin front against Russia for two rounds but they can reach the front faster.

This doesn’t always work with a standard game. We give Germany several advantages, but it would still work if they take Egypt and UK fails to take it back, or Japan focuses on opening the channel. But we’ve come to the conclusion that it’s totally hopeless for Germany in out of the box, KGF games.

I don’t know how to start a game by email. I’ve never done it. Do I have to start it if I’m going to play the allies?

[MrMalachiCrunch]

When I first started playing 1942 we always did the german Med navy.  I recall a game where I had two german ACs in the Med, Germany was a power house.  Then I started playing a wider field of players.  I think you ought to try your german navy in the med game against some players here.  I think you will find with an aggresive Russia and allied player that you will be fighting for you life as Germany in Europe for the first few turns.  Your eventual increased income will come into play onlly after Russia has experienced increased income as well.  Combine this with your lost income in Europe and you are close to a zero-sum game while anchored in the Med.

I’m not saying that can’t or won’t work, I just have not seen it used outside my circle.  I think the counter would be massive british air builds combined with a few subs.  The axis would HAVE to build a destroyer.  I would see your massive investment in navy in the Med and think a few subs and air units is my counter.  You would have to build destroyers and then send them off to attrit subs while having to build more destroyers.  Again, it could work, but it would be a tight dance and only the Germans can build navy locally.

I tried a double bomber build against Fleetwood Dan, the game was never finished but as I recall he was eating my lunch as Russia, I don’t think I could have won that game.  That’s about as much investment as your navy roughly and I was not diverting forces away from europe.  I found I was too thin against russia and was being pushed back.  Mind you the bombers were more to keep the allied fleet at bay and that doesn’t work for long.

In any event, playing out a game is the best way to prove a strategy.

If you are the allies, you kinda have to go first.

Review the format of how others lay out there moves and duplicate the style you like best.  Play with the dice roller then do russia 1 when you feel you are ready.  Probably less stress to just create a new thread with a title like “Just testing out how to do a PBEM game”, do a few rolls, upload/download a few maps.  When you feel good about it, do Russia 1.  Good luck but not too much luck.

[Hobbes]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Your eventual increased income will come into play onlly after Russia has experienced increased income as well.  Combine this with your lost income in Europe and you are close to a zero-sum game while anchored in the Med.

Can’t escape the math:

• G starts with a total of 20 inf, 3 art and 8 arm that can be deployed against the Russians (excluding units on Africa and W. Europe). Total unit value: 112 IPCs
• Russia starts with 18 inf, 2 art and 4 arm against Germany (excluding the 6 inf on the Far East). TUV: 84 IPCs
• With a Ukraine-WR attack, Russians should lose 6 inf + 1 art while the Germans lose 6 inf, 2 art and 2 arm
• The German counter on the Ukraine will destroy the 3 arm there but G will lose 2-3 inf on the process
• After all combats, Russians have 12 inf, 1 art, 1 arm remaining. Germans: 12 inf, 1 art, 6 arm. Total losses: Russia 6 inf, 1 art, 3 arm, 37 IPCs; Germany, 9 inf, 2 art, 2 arm (45 IPCs + 10 for fighter)
• R spends 24 to replace the losses, giving it a 15 inf, 1 art, 4 arm force. TUV: 69 IPC
• G spends 40. Just buying a bomber leaves it with 28 IPCs. With the rest it buys 6 inf, 2 arm, but 2 of those units will be assigned to Africa, so it ends with 17 inf, 1 art, 7 arm force. TUV: 90 IPC

At the end the balance of land forces after the first round will remain the same, with a bomber buy. If G buys instead a carrier and a transport (21 IPCs) it will start cutting down on the slight German advantage (1.3 IPC to every 1 IPC of Russian hardware).

But now we have round 2! And Russia now has 29 IPC to spend while G has 42. Of those German 42 IPCs, 8 will be assigned to Africa and some will have to be moved to W. Europe on round 3. Assuming 3 inf + 1 arm earmarked elsewhere, that leaves 28 IPC to spend against the Russians. But if you got that AC and transport, you’ll need 2 extra units for Africa so effectively the Russians have outproduced the Germans on round 2.

And for round 3 the money available should be about the same, 28-30 IPC for Russia and 42-43 IPC for Germany. It will take round 4 for Germany to finally use the extra money from Africa - until then it will be a net loss.

Note: this description assumes certain moves (UK retaking Egypt on UK1, etc.) and doesn’t account for other factors/moves.

[Advosan]

All this german med navy is making me seasick.14(AC)+7(TT)+8(inf,arm)=29 G1 IPCs not heading eastwards but south??By R3 Ukraine is forever lost.The Med fleet actually forces the Axis to adopt voluntarily the biggest Allied problem: surface fleet protection.The differences though are huge:The Allies can easily merge fleets in the Atlantic;the Axis has to do bizarre schemes like japs in the Med.The Allies use all their airforce in their fleet;the Axis need all the airplanes they can muster in WE.By surface fleet protection the Allies pursue their main goal:KGF;the Axis pursue a secondary goal (Africa).With Russia all over Europe,Uk and Us can focus on the Med fleet,merge in SZ12 and either scare the Axis out of the Med or sink them altogether.

[flipper]

All I can say is I would love to play someone who didn’t use Fortress Europe & was building navy as Germany.

[Col.Stauffenberg]

Keep in mind, we play a germany that has bonuses in the Med. We think retaking Egypt with UK as well as G losing 2-3 planes is enough to pretty much ensure an allied win. We give them a sub with the battleship, an extra guy on libya, we switch the tank with the art in algeria AND we move the Ukraine plane to Italy. It’s no so much that Germany is wasting money buying Navy it’s that it makes them money, pressures Russia deep and most importantly forces the allies to concentrate on Africa or else G will make 50 ipcs round after round.

Those transports don’t have to drop off in Africa, they can drop off in UKR or Cauc if it’s weak. We usually make between 46-50 ipcs on round 2. We also build navy in the baltic on round 1. This keeps the door open to Karelia, Norway and with two transports, Uk has to worry about getting invaded come their turn. For the first two rounds G is only buying 5 inf plus art for two rounds in addition to their navy buys but from round 3 on it’s Inf, art & tanks.

That said, G is walking a tightrope but they still have the attack advantage, they just can’t get diced, but when can they? Without the IPC’s they just fold quicker.

Despite all these advantages we give to Germany, we can still win as the allies. That’s why I think I can beat a no advantage Axis opponent. I don’t care about fortress Europe because we are already buying massive navies as US/UK. By the same token, I doubt I could beat any of you if I had to play a no-advantage Axis. I would need 3 rounds of miracle roles.