New German Opening?

[Gerbilkit]

Not sure if this has been tried before. Assume no NAs in this game, and Germany has a pair of bid units in Africa. (tank in Algeria, inf in Libya). Yes I hate bids, but most people here seem to hate NAs so I though I’d try a strategy that uses the bid to balance instead of NAs which seems more popular to people on this forum.

Germany purchases are:
2 ftr
5 inf
1 art

Germany moves their Baltic Fleet to SZ 7, joining with the Sub from SZ 8.  The battleship will attack the UK BB off Gibraltar, and the transport will load up with one inf to take Gibraltar to prevent the UK fighters from being able to counterattack. The fighter from Norway, the Fighter from Western, and the fighter from Germany join in this battle.

In Anglo you will have two tanks, two inf, the bomber, and the fighter from the Balkans.  Troops can then rally in East Europe, leaving a picket line behind in Ukraine and Belorussia. The fighter in Ukraine and the fighter in Eastern can join in a counter on Belorussia and still make it back to Western on non-combat move.

The three infantry from Norway move into Karelia, which was hopefully abandoned. If not you probably can use a plane or two to clear it if Belo was skipped, if not maybe an art will be necessary.

Now your turn is over. Let’s look at the ramifications of this move.  By moving the fleet to SZ 7, you force the UK to contend with it immediately. As it can now slip into the Mediterranean.  The UK have 3 options, none of them particularly enticing.

1. Ignore the fleet. I think this could be a disaster as Germany could now have a fleet of one Battleship, 3 subs, a destroyer, and 2 transports.  Combined with the airforce in Western which will consist now of 8 fighters and a bomber, the Allies are not going to be landing in Africa for some time, and those transports will give both Africa and the Russians a lot of pain. Or they could come out and cause problems for allied shipping.

2. Attack the fleet with Air + Navy.  At first this looks like a win for the UK. They can bring a battleship, a transport (two if they foregoe the tank in East Canada), 2 ftrs, and a bomber.  However this battle turns ugly really fast. As the subs can only shoot at naval units, the German player stands a very good chance of sinking your battleship, and because of opening fire they will know before they choose their casualties whether they want to stick around or submerge. With two hits they will obviously be sticking around, and the UK will be in serious trouble, with less they can simply submerge and let the transport and destroyer die. Now the Battleship is sitting alone in a seazone with 2-3 submerged subs. Likely the UK player thought in advance that he would need naval defense, and bought a carrier. But it should be obvious very quickly that one battleship, and one AC is not sufficient defense against 2-3 subs, 7 ftrs, and the bomber from Libya. Let’s say the UK also bought a destroyer. Even with this purchase the battle swings in the German player’s favour.  Even if the Med fleet never comes in they stand a very strong chance of pounding down that whole fleet without losing a single plane. Even if they do lose a couple fighters, remember those were fighters you opted for instead of a naval purchase. So blasting the entire UK navy and most of her airforce (including the entire UK1 purchase) is a very acceptable use for that money.

3. Risk an air only attack on the fleet. This is inherently risky.  The UK stands a good chance of losing both their fighters, and even their entire airforce. And the German player didn’t spend a penny in the water.

I think the 3rd option is the only real option the UK player has. As illustrated the other two give the UK player too many problems, so as the UK I’d be hoping for lucky dice.  :-P

Those two fighters will be a blessing all game. Karelia is a deathtrap for the allies, as 8 fighters + 1 bomber can hit it and still return to Western.  Allied shipping will be more difficult and may necessitate more money spent on defense. The allies cannot just build planes, as they could against a German navy, this threat can only be countered by defensive naval builds. Once again by building not a single boat, but building multipurpose units that can aid in the last defense of Berlin.

My biggest issue at the moment is the defense of Anglo. If the UK want to they can hit it with 3 inf + 1 ftr. (not the bomber unless they let the SZ 7 fleet slip into the med).  Which generally means they will probably take it back unless the Germans got real lucky in the battle they probably only have two tanks left.  Is this worth it? After all to do so the UK opens India up very early and Japan could capatalize on that and have an IC in India on J2.

Further thoughts?

[newpaintbrush]

Hmph, that’s Bayder’s opening, from the 2 fighters plus assorted ground to the Baltic fleet unification/dash, although I think German fighters might supposed to be split between W. Europe and Norway at end of G1 (to prevent UK from building navy at SZ 2 with German naval and air threat), and I think maybe he saved 2 IPC or bought a tank on G1.  Been a while.

@Gerbilkit:

Those two fighters will be a blessing all game. Karelia is a deathtrap for the allies, as 8 fighters + 1 bomber can hit it and still return to Western.  Allied shipping will be more difficult and may necessitate more money spent on defense. The allies cannot just build planes, as they could against a German navy, this threat can only be countered by defensive naval builds. Once again by building not a single boat, but building multipurpose units that can aid in the last defense of Berlin.

My biggest issue at the moment is the defense of Anglo. If the UK want to they can hit it with 3 inf + 1 ftr. (not the bomber unless they let the SZ 7 fleet slip into the med).  Which generally means they will probably take it back unless the Germans got real lucky in the battle they probably only have two tanks left.  Is this worth it? After all to do so the UK opens India up very early and Japan could capatalize on that and have an IC in India on J2.

Further thoughts?

UK can hit Anglo with the UK bomber on UK1 and that’s what they would usually do.  On UK1, you take the remaining UK infantry and move it to Persia; if Japan takes India on J1, UK counters and takes it right back.  Japan probably won’t be able to recapture on J2 (that would require a J1 drop to French Indochina, which is probably not feasible given the UK navy plus probable UK bomber in the China-ish area.  Far safer to stay east of Japan).  Japan will of course capture India on J3, but Japan captures India on J3 anyways unless UK does a costly stall.

The real issue is Africa and Europe, and where to put the German navy - and the progress of Japan, of course.

You’ve bought time in Africa and Europe with your German fighters, but at the cost of starting G2 tanks in Africa, and the cost of far fewer ground units.  So this means, first, that you’re not going to tank blitz through Africa on G2 to boost Germany’s income quickly.  Second, this means you have to bleed Europe into Africa - and you have to bleed out Germany’s valuable valuable tanks so you can gain territory quickly.  The upshot is that Russia is far stronger for the beginning of the game - it takes UK/US a bit longer to get into Europe, but Russia is stronger for that time.  Of course, this doesn’t take Japan into account, and that’s the idea if you’re playing against a KGF fiend - if you can stall the Allies longer in Europe, that gives Japan more time to build up - and against KGF, Germany wants to defend the Karelia/Archangel reinforcement route, which German fighters can do very well.  Note that of course you’ll probably have to switch the German air to 1/2 1/2 Western-Eastern Europe pretty quickly for trading purposes - but I digress.

Again, you make slower progress in Africa, but with more fighters and a menacing German fleet, you’re trying to KEEP Africa for a good while - again, the Axis powers are playing for the mid-long game.

One problem you can face against a KGF is that eventually the German fleet has to retreat or attack.  If the German fleet stays posted west off Western Europe, Allies can buy air and consolidate fleet at sea zone 1 northeast of Eastern Canada.  Now, if the German fleet stays put, the Allies use navy and air to whack the German fleet.  If the German fleet attacks the Allied navy, the Allies use their air and second navy wave to kill the German fleet.  If the German fleet retreats, if they retreat to Baltic, Allies drop to Africa; if retreat to Med, Allies drop to Archangel.

You can also run into some problems if UK and USSR coordinate to stall out Germany in Atlantic while US goes whole hog in the Pacific - particularly since the UK turn is AFTER Germany’s turn so they can do Solomon split (UK transport goes to New Guinea to block and UK sub goes to Solomons) - this lets US have an easier time of countering the J1 naval attack.

My thought - yeah, maybe you could go with 2 fig German opening.  I don’t see any glaring weaknesses offhand, but then, I never use the 2 fig German opening, so I wouldn’t be the guy to talk to about the Axis detailed plan.  Personally, I don’t think it’s significantly better, but then I’ve never played against Bayder, or anyone that used that opening, so I don’t really know for sure.

[Gerbilkit]

Hmmm perhaps I did not make myself clear, or perhaps you disagree with my conclusion. If the UK bomber goes to Anglo it cannot attack the reinforced Baltic fleet in SZ7.  So I will be able to unify my fleet. Sure you got Anglo back, but now I have two transports instead of one for pounding the Russians and holding Africa, and I have enough fleet to keep the Allies out of Africa for a good long while. Anglo will not survive the G2 counter. And now Africa is in German hands for the duration of the game until the Allies can overpower the combined might of the enhanced Luftwaffe + German unified fleet.

Also a UK2 counter on Japan is not that great an idea. It can be done but sending 2 inf and a fighter vs 2 inf + AA gun doesn’t seem very attractive to me.  Especially when that fighter could prove crucial elsewhere (i.e. Moscow).

The tank blitz across Africa was not halted by the purchase of 2 ftrs, but by the movement of the battleship to Gibraltar instead of Anglo Unfortunately I don’t see a way around this. That sub must join the fleet in SZ 7 for this to work, and sending naked fighters against the battleship is very unattractive to any Germany player. Is losing a 10 IPC fighter worth delaying your blitz across Africa by one turn? On the other hand this way you don’t lose 2 tanks, which equals 10 IPC.  It still feels wrong somehow, but I suppose if it works well within an overall strategy sacrificial risks are ok?

[newpaintbrush]

@Gerbilkit:

Hmmm perhaps I did not make myself clear, or perhaps you disagree with my conclusion. If the UK bomber goes to Anglo it cannot attack the reinforced Baltic fleet in SZ7.  So I will be able to unify my fleet. Sure you got Anglo back, but now I have two transports instead of one for pounding the Russians and holding Africa, and I have enough fleet to keep the Allies out of Africa for a good long while. Anglo will not survive the G2 counter. And now Africa is in German hands for the duration of the game until the Allies can overpower the combined might of the enhanced Luftwaffe + German unified fleet.

**I outlined what I believed would happen in my previous posts.

To respond to your reply, sure, the UK bomber hits Anglo, Germany unites its fleet, no prob.  Sure Anglo doesn’t survive the G2 counter.  However, these are problems that the Allies can overcome.

Exactly as I wrote previously, I believe the Germans will soon either have to withdraw into the Mediterranean or the Baltic.  Probably they will retreat to the Mediterranean, at which point the Allies can set up an infantry drop into Karelia/Archangel; even with 8 fighters and a bomber, the Germans will have to trade fighters for transports, and the Allies can rebuild quickly.

Even should the Germans retreat to the Mediterranean, for best effect, the German fleet will have to stay at S. Europe, and the German fighters at W. Europe.  This is not good for the early game; Germany should ideally use fighters for trading with Russia, and Germany’s fleet is better used to drop to Trans-Jordan or Anglo-Egypt on G2 following UK1 recapture.  Of course, this is not good for late game either; if Germany has forces in Africa and the Allies don’t, the German Med fleet should be used to transport units to Ukr/Caucasus; similarly, German fighters stuck at W. Europe cannot trade.

SUPPOSING Germany does NOT move Med fleet east and split fighters between W and E Europe, that still lets Allies set up transport chain to Karelia/Archangel, and with Germany relatively passive, Russia gains more time.  But if Germany DOES move the Med fleet east, if the Allies went KGF, the Allies drop into Algeria with up to 10 units (3 US transports 2 UK transports), which Germany’s 2 transports plus existing forces in Africa just can’t match.  Sure, the German W. Europe fighters could blast those forces along with German transported units and/or units from Libya, but all this takes time and takes pressure off Russia.

So pick what you want to happen.  Keep fighters at W. Europe and the German fleet at S. Europe, or don’t.  Either way, you’re not going to get off scot-free.**

Also a UK2 counter on Japan is not that great an idea. It can be done but sending 2 inf and a fighter vs 2 inf + AA gun doesn’t seem very attractive to me.  Especially when that fighter could prove crucial elsewhere (i.e. Moscow).

Christ, lad, UK shouldn’t be shoving fighters into Moscow on UK2 unless the Russia and/or UK players are total dumbasses.  I just can’t even imagine it would be necessary.  And UK moves the AA gun out of India on UK1, of course, and Japan probably doesn’t have 2 infantry to spare for India, and even if Japan DID, 2 inf 1 fighter is still favorable odds - especially with the bomber around.

The tank blitz across Africa was not halted by the purchase of 2 ftrs, but by the movement of the battleship to Gibraltar instead of Anglo Unfortunately I don’t see a way around this. That sub must join the fleet in SZ 7 for this to work, and sending naked fighters against the battleship is very unattractive to any Germany player. Is losing a 10 IPC fighter worth delaying your blitz across Africa by one turn? On the other hand this way you don’t lose 2 tanks, which equals 10 IPC.  It still feels wrong somehow, but I suppose if it works well within an overall strategy sacrificial risks are ok?

Yeah, well, even when hitting Anglo-Egypt with 3 inf 3 tank 1 fig 1 bomber, Germany loses some units on the attack, then UK counter of 3 inf 1 fig 1 bom is pretty strong.  But if you hit Anglo with 2 inf 2 tank, UK will smash the hell outta it UK1 for sure.  The way I figure it:

PLAN A:  Germany HOLDS ANGLO

End of UK1:  2+ German tanks in Anglo-Egypt.  UK down 2 IPC (Anglo)
End of G2:  German tanks in Anglo-Egypt blitz.  Germany up 6 IPC (Anglo, 4 other territories)
End of UK2:  UK down 6 IPC (Anglo, 4 other territories)
End of G3:  German tanks in Anglo-Egypt either retreat to Anglo-Egypt leaving Union of South Africa in UK hands, or they don’t.  Germany up at least 6 IPC.

Net:  UK down 8 IPC, Germany up 12 IPC.  Germany might have to rebuild a tank, but if it did, then Germany should have Union of South Africa.  Overall IPC difference 20 IPC.

–

Plan B:  Germany LOSES ANGLO

End of UK1:  UK recaptures Anglo-Egypt.
End of G2:  Germany recaptures Anglo-Egypt with 1 tank (that’s all that can reach unless you have a Med transport bid).  Germany up 2 IPC (Anglo)
End of UK2:  UK down 2 IPC (Anglo)
End of G3:  German tank in Anglo-Egypt blitz.  Germany up 5 IPC (Anglo, 3 other territories (2 tank blitz 1 other reachable)).  Germany has to rebuild tanks.

Net:  UK down 2 IPC, Germany up 7 IPC, Germany has to rebuild 2 tanks.  Overall IPC difference 9 IPC, but Germany has to rebuild 2 tanks, so IPC difference -1 IPC.

–

I mean, OK, maybe UK could do something in India with the infantry it blew trading, but like I wrote earlier, if Japan wants India on J3, it’s pretty tough to stop them without bleeding Russia some.  (J1 Japan runs around a bit and builds transports and flies fighters east to Pearl, J2 Japan drops 4 units into French Indochina and flies fighters back from Pearl, J3 Japan hits India with 6-7 ground plus air - (One of the Japanese transports that made the drop to French Indochina on J2 picks up 2 infantry from East Indies on J3 and drops them in India; if Japan dropped tanks in north Asian coast, if India looks to be a problem, Japan tanks head south).

You could move those UK infantry into Europe instead to start trading UK blood for German blood (instead of your precious, precious Russian blood for German blood).  But by UK3, you ought to have a transport chain into Karelia/Archangel anyways, so the UK blood for German blood can begin anyways.

Now I’m not saying that this is a refutation of Germany 2 fighter G1 build, but I am saying you’re going to pay the price.

[axis_roll]

I’ve toyed around lately with a German bomber buy G1 (I know, it’s not an original idea), and even though it is 1.5 times the cost of a fighter, it’s range is very helpful to Germany, especially early on.  Later it can be used to do SBRs too, when ftrs sometimes are merely added to battles as ‘overkill’.

I only throw this out there as a different option to the 2 ftr buy.

[Gerbilkit]

Actually I had been toying with some idea with the idea of a German airforce expansion on G1, instead of a naval buy.  I had wondered at times how 2 fighters would be used. The Caspian Sub Paper on the Baltic fleet (the fourth one) does call for a Bomber, but while I found the paper interesting, I disagreed with the strategy. The extra range on the bomber is nice, but I’d rather be able to split up and roll two 3s rather than one 4. The extra 7 points of defense are also crucial, and you will be hitting yourself when Germany needs that defense and you are rolling a one for the bomber instead of two fours.

Bunnies, I feel that we are dancing around several different issues so I will try to address each one.

Anglo: Clearly this is a sore spot for Germany, and a crucial element of any strategy. Taking Africa is essential, it’s free IPCs for you and less for UK once you get past Anglo. Unfortunately I’m not seeing how this strategy is working out very well if you send in the BB + tran with another 1 inf and tank. Realistically, you should expect to end that battle with 3 tank and 1 inf on Anglo.  The UK counters with the Fighter, Bomber, and 3 infantry.  Best Germany can hope for without just hoping for good dice ( a bad strategy  :-P) is to kill all the infantry and stop the UK from getting the land. But then you just lost 3 tanks, and one of those was one of your “valuable valuable tanks from Europe”. Now if you want to do any blitzing you’ll have to rebuild at least one.

Also if you really want an IC in India on J2 it’s not that hard to manage. The German fighter from Libya can hit Anglo on G2, and land in India on a NCM. How do you feel on the odds of 2 inf + 1 ftr vs 2 inf + ftr + aa gun?

So I think I have come to the conclusion that if the UK wants it bad enough, Germany cannot realistically stop a UK recapture of Anglo. And I don’t really feel like leaving more tanks exposed than I have to there. Perhaps this means Germany should just hit Anglo harder with Artillery/infantry and hold off on the tanks.  Personally I’m starting to opt for this strategy. Darn now I want to reposition that tank and artillery in Africa (flip them around). And hit Anglo with 2 inf, 2 art, 1 fig, 1 bmr. Odds are good, you’ll still take the land. No precious tanks exposed. ;)

TEH GERMAN FLEET! The problem is that if you still want the baltic fleet out, that sub from SZ8 is kind of crucial.  Without it the airforce wins the battle far too easily.  Of course if you don’t take Anglo as strongly, the bomber is then not needed, and is free to take the fleet on. Then again this has a good chance of decimating the British airforce, at no cost to Britain, as these are not any units that you bought but rather units that you started with.

The only issue remaining is that stupid British Battleship. By sending the German battleship to Anglo, and the SZ8 sub to SZ7 the fighters will be hitting it with no cover. I really really don’t like this and I’m beginning to wonder if this plan is even worth it considering that.

It’s obviously not the ultimate ownage strategy, but I still like having an expanded airforce, restricting some UK options, potentially aiding Japanese aggression towards the Caucus early on, and not spending any money on expensive boats that won’t be used against Russia ever.

[Jennifer]

There’s a difference between no cost units and valuable units.

Every unit you have on the board at the start of the game is no cost.  However, England has a dire need for its air force, any early hits you can give them on their RAF is a far more significant gain then 10 IPCs to Germany.  Likewise, any German armor you can knock out early in the game makes Russia’s life easier. (Armor routinely ends up being THE anchor for the advancing Germans.  Therefore, if they have LESS armor, then Russia is BETTER able to counter attack.)

Meanwhile, the Baltic fleet is no cost and no value other then the opportunity to kill some British planes in the first round of warfare.  I’ll trade you 2 submarines, transport and destroyer from the Baltic fleet for 2 British fighters in round 1 any day!

[Guest]

While many folks disagree with the G1 AC purchase, I have found that it is a solid G1 buy that gains Germany significant TIME before they are forced back into Berlin in a KGF game.

It prevents the UK destruction of the Baltic Fleet on UK1, and makes UK spend cash early on in the defense of London, as well as possibly drawing US forces that otherwise would be bound for Africa to London.

In the next rounds, it forces UK to go “the long way around” to get to Eastern instead of direct landings via SZ5.

Also, as far as a fleet move to SZ7…
Not sure if anyone posted the odds on this or not…
UK1 attack on German Fleet in SZ7:
UK Forces:  2 TRN, 1 BB, 2 FIG, 1 BOM
German forces:  1 TRN, 3 SUB, 1 DST
97.1% chance of UK winning, with an average of 1 BB, 2 FIG, 1 BOM remaining

Combine with a UK purchase of 1 AC (placed in SZ7 and 2 FIGs land on it), 1 TRN (also in SZ7), and BOM flying back to London.

Now on G2 the Germans can counter using 1 BB, 1 TRN, 4 FIG, 1 BOM… IF the US does not sacrifice 1 TRN to SZ12 to block the BB and TRN.

UK forces is 1 USSR SUB, 1 TRN, 1 AC, 2 FIG, 1 BB
With the Med Fleet engaged the odds are 72.9% to win w/ BB and BOM remaining (German Navy and Air Force are effectively eliminated for the remainder of the game)
With the Med Fleet blocked by a USA TRN the odds are 10% for a German win, with an average of FIG, AC, BB remaining for UK.

The odds just are NOT good for a Germany Fleet Unification unless the Allies play poorly; or unless Germany goes balls-to-the-wall to support it (massive fleet purchase on G1 that can be used in the G2 SZ7 counter, or giving up all FIG support on G1 against Russia to get 5 or 6 FIGs in range of SZ7).

And while the attempt may destroy the UK Fleet, and a USA TRN as well as the USSR Sub… What is Germany going to use for defense against the USA Fleet that is not only intact, but now unopposed as it sails to land in Africa and take control of the Med?

And then there is the UK Fleet that will be rebuilt in just 2 turns…

[Gerbilkit]

Not to sound offensive Mr. Switch but if you had actually bothered to spend the time reading my original post you could have saved yourself the trouble of writing a counter to a false premise.  :wink:

I bought 2 fighters on G1, and apart from the one in Libya all the others should be in range. I will not go into all the details, as I already explained this in my original post. But the UK fleet of 1BB, 1 loaded AC, and 1 DD will be facing 2-3 subs, 7 figs, and a bomber, resulting in an overwhelming win for Germany. With a very likely chance of losing no fighters.  Even if you do drop two fighters, those were fighters that you opted for instead of the G1 AC buy. So instead of an easily countered restrictive AC buy you get to pound down the entire UK navy, most of the UK airforce, and the entire UK1 purchases. This looks like a win-win-win for Germany.

And how the heck is an AC threatening London? Transports threaten london, aircraft carriers just annoy the allies and force them to spend more time, shooting down your boats. But those boats are units not working against the russians, cater the allies strength, unlike fighters which are flexible dual use units usable to the end of the game.

[newpaintbrush]

@Gerbilkit:

Bunnies, I feel that we are dancing around several different issues so I will try to address each one.

**You are the dancing queen, young and sweet, only seventeen
Dancing queen, feel the beat from the tambourine
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life
See that girl, watch that scene, dig in the dancing queen.

A dress, huh?  What else are you wearing?  hehehehe**

Anglo: Clearly this is a sore spot for Germany, and a crucial element of any strategy. Taking Africa is essential, it’s free IPCs for you and less for UK once you get past Anglo. Unfortunately I’m not seeing how this strategy is working out very well if you send in the BB + tran with another 1 inf and tank. Realistically, you should expect to end that battle with 3 tank and 1 inf on Anglo.  The UK counters with the Fighter, Bomber, and 3 infantry.  Best Germany can hope for without just hoping for good dice ( a bad strategy  :-P) is to kill all the infantry and stop the UK from getting the land. But then you just lost 3 tanks, and one of those was one of your “valuable valuable tanks from Europe”. Now if you want to do any blitzing you’ll have to rebuild at least one.

**First off, it is not “valuable valuable tanks from Europe”.  It is “valuable valuable tanks PERIOD”.  German tanks are reaaaal good, and if the G1 tanks in Anglo-Egypt survived UK1, I move them back on G4 (G2 blitz, G3 return, G4 transport).

Assuming an Africa bid and Med fleet going east, the odds are good that at least German: 1 inf 3 tank survive in Anglo-Egypt, which leads to UK1 counter 3 inf 1 fig 1 bomber possibility.  But, there IS the expensive and nasty possibility of less than German: 1 inf 3 tank surviving opening the door for a UK1 counter.  So Germany should probably actually take the artillery from S. Europe instead of a third tank.  There’s still something like a 80% chance of 4 German units in Anglo-Egypt at end of G1, with the important 2 German tanks for blitzing, if Germany uses a fighter and bomber in Anglo-Egypt.  Of course, if Russia took out Ukraine, then there won’t be a safety fighter for the Anglo-Egypt naval battle which opens up a nasty can of worms 1/12 of the time (I think it was).  Maybe a bit more than that, actually.

Anyways, with 4 German units on beginning of G1, UK has counter 3 inf 1 fig 1 bomber, with the really nice payoff of delaying German progress in Africa as described in my previous post.  But if there’s a German fighter and bomber parked in Libya, then what?  Well, I’ll tell you; I think it’s about a 40% chance that the UK loses at least one air in the process of a 1 bomber-1 fighter-3infantry clearing 4 units at Anglo-Egypt, and if an air does bite it, it has to be the UK bomber (if the UK fighter bites it, the UK bomber has to land in a territory adjacent to Anglo-Egypt which means the UK bomber dies G2.)

So.  You are QUITE RIGHT in saying that UK can still counter and often does.  Very right - and yet, I think it is STILL a worthy German attack to hit Anglo-Egypt with 3 inf 1 art 2 tank 1 fighter 1 bomber, particularly if there’s a safety fighter for the Anglo-Egypt battle.

Why?

Consider first the vast IPC differential between a UK1 clear of German-held Anglo-Egypt and UK leaving Anglo-Egypt alone on UK1 (as outlined in my previous post).  Consider then that going into the attack, Germany has a 30% plus expectation of UK dropping its bomber in the battle (80% chance of Germany holding with 4 or more units followed by 40% chance of UK needing to drop at least one air unit to clear out Anglo-Egypt.).  Then consider that Germany built no defense for the Baltic fleet (I typically go heavy inf/art purchase on G1 instead of fighters, but this still holds), and that if UK does send the UK bomber to Africa, the Baltic fleet is relatively safe against a UK attack of just 2 fighters, so will be able to either split, channel dash, or stay put to give Germany some added momentum into Karelia on G2 (since it survives UK1).

Contrast with the expected 2 German ground units in Anglo-Egypt at end of UK1 which can be counter/cleared with 3 inf 1 fighter with at least 1 UK fighter surviving 60% or so of the time, leaving the UK bomber free to fly east to mess with Japan if the UK unites its fleet, or harass Japan shipping if the UK splits its fleet, or to strafe the Baltic fleet with 2 UK fighters  (Germany of course doesn’t know what UK is going to do yet - but in any event that UK bomber is going to be useful.)**

Also if you really want an IC in India on J2 it’s not that hard to manage. The German fighter from Libya can hit Anglo on G2, and land in India on a NCM. How do you feel on the odds of 2 inf + 1 ftr vs 2 inf + ftr + aa gun?

**First, as I said, if UK pulls out of India, they take the AA gun with them.

Second, in MOST games, the UK bomber will also be in range at beginning of UK2. How do you feel about 2 inf 1 ftr 1 bomber vs 2 inf 1 ftr?**

The way it works out, there are few clear-cut definitively “correct” moves in Axis and Allies.  If you do one thing, you have to pull forces from another thing.

(edit) - seriously, if you move the UK infantry out of India, why would you NOT move out the AA gun?  It’s not like the AA gun is going to stop a Japanese tank blitz to Persia.

[Gerbilkit]

Heh heh doh, I am a noob. Never bother moving those AA guns cause I always forget about them.  :-P Course two in and a fighter on offense is still a really bad battle against 2 inf and a fighter on defense. So Japan still keeps India. If your bomber moves in, as you said there is a chance of the bomber dying, Germany will know whether defending India is smart or not.

Why did I somehow think you were going to come up with something witty for that dancing comment? Anyways…

I think there is no situation that Anglo can be held by Germany (barring good luck) if the UK really wants it back.  However taking it strongly as you said forces the bomber to come in, which allows a German fleet unification in the med.  The UK should be just about finished, after UK2, the vast majority of their infantry spent. So after G2 no opposition for the Germans.

So to be honest I think my strategy now will be to take Anglo hard, and use that SZ8 sub for fodder against the BB, hopefully forcing the UK player to choose between Anglo and my fleet.  Either way I win something with no cost to me, apart from the already unavoidable UK counter on Anglo. Another transport would be helpful here, but there’s already a bid in Africa so no luck.  Well it all comes down to luck it seems, who gets luckier in Africa. Can’t say I like that but meh there it is.

Now that my strategy is getting ripped down to same old same old German standard moves it’s time to go think of something else interesting to think about. So if no one else wants to ponder some more I think I’ll call this quits. (and go back to games with NAs  :-P)

[newpaintbrush]

@Gerbilkit:

Heh heh doh, I am a noob. Never bother moving those AA guns cause I always forget about them.  :-P Course two in and a fighter on offense is still a really bad battle against 2 inf and a fighter on defense. So Japan still keeps India.

cough UK BOMBER cough

Why did I somehow think you were going to come up with something witty for that dancing comment? Anyways…

(innocent look) I have no idea.

I think there is no situation that Anglo can be held by Germany (barring good luck) if the UK really wants it back.  However taking it strongly as you said forces the bomber to come in, which allows a German fleet unification in the med.  The UK should be just about finished, after UK2, the vast majority of their infantry spent. So after G2 no opposition for the Germans.

Yeah, there is generally no opposition to the Germans after G2 in Anglo-Egypt from the direction of India.  But the Allies plan to party in Algeria, and they’re bringing US tanks to race right back through Africa.  Takes a while, of course, but as I wrote, even with additional German fighters on G1, you’re still going to run into positional problems with Germany’s Med fleet and fighters - keep them posted west where they’re not helping a lot, or move them east and let the Allies move in.

So to be honest I think my strategy now will be to take Anglo hard, and use that SZ8 sub for fodder against the BB, hopefully forcing the UK player to choose between Anglo and my fleet.  Either way I win something with no cost to me, apart from the already unavoidable UK counter on Anglo. Another transport would be helpful here, but there’s already a bid in Africa so no luck.  Well it all comes down to luck it seems, who gets luckier in Africa. Can’t say I like that but meh there it is.

**Most dice games don’t come down to just luck, but how you manage with the luck you get.  What contingency plans did you have if things went badly, and what contingency plans did you have if things went better than expected?

Anyways, I didn’t say G1 2 fig build and/or taking G1 Anglo-Egypt light were wrong.  As far as I think, they aren’t “wrong”, they aren’t “right”, they’re just a different game plan.  (Maybe one or the other really ARE “wrong” or “right”, in the sense that, say . . . leaving an unattended AA gun in India at the end of UK1 is “wrong”, but I don’t know that they are or are not.)**

Now that my strategy is getting ripped down to same old same old German standard moves it’s time to go think of something else interesting to think about. So if no one else wants to ponder some more I think I’ll call this quits. (and go back to games with NAs  :-P)

NAs, “eeurgh!”.  At least say you’re using LHTR 2.0 NAs.

[Zero Pilot]

@ncscswitch:

While many folks disagree with the G1 AC purchase, I have found that it is a solid G1 buy that gains Germany significant TIME before they are forced back into Berlin in a KGF game.

It prevents the UK destruction of the Baltic Fleet on UK1, and makes UK spend cash early on in the defense of London, as well as possibly drawing US forces that otherwise would be bound for Africa to London.

Agreed. I know the G1 AC purchase is hotly contested one way or the other and I can’t say if it’s right or wrong for other peeps. I will say that my gaming group knows exaaaactly how to exploit this one if you don’t. So it’s basically: “pity the fool who doesn’t AC G1… pity the fool!” It won’t last forever, but it buys you that much needed time.

I always go with the UK1 AC and TRN too. Funny to see a couple early game moves I always make posted here. That almost never happens. ~ZP

[Jennifer]

@Bunnies:

(edit) - seriously, if you move the UK infantry out of India, why would you NOT move out the AA gun?  It’s not like the AA gun is going to stop a Japanese tank blitz to Persia.

Actually it would stop a tank blitz.

However, it costs MORE and has more utility then just leaving an infantry there instead and pulling the AA gun out.  Many players like to have the gun in Caucasus freeing up a Russian gun.

[newpaintbrush]

@Cmdr:

@Bunnies:

(edit) - seriously, if you move the UK infantry out of India, why would you NOT move out the AA gun?  It’s not like the AA gun is going to stop a Japanese tank blitz to Persia.

Actually it would stop a tank blitz.

However, it costs MORE and has more utility then just leaving an infantry there instead and pulling the AA gun out.  Many players like to have the gun in Caucasus freeing up a Russian gun.

In context, we were talking about a J1 attack on India.  Japan doesn’t have a tank in French Indochina J1, so the Japs won’t blitz through India to Persia on J1.

Therefore, if the UK retreats from India on UK1, UK should bring its AA gun with it.

[Jennifer]

Correct.  However there is a good debate on whether or not England should leave 1 infantry as a picket in India.  If you leave 1 guy, then Japan has to dedicate 2 infantry and maybe some air power to take India, which means less forces in China.  If you pull the guy Japan can just walk in.

On the other hand, a full retreat might entice Japan to go hard into China leaving only one guy in India and thus allowing England to have two rounds of owning India (one round reclaiming it, one round before Japan can attack it again.)