@cernel That’s quite a loophole you’ve discovered. It’s things like this that made LHTR necessary. You are correct about point 1. Regarding point 2, I see nothing in the rules that would disallow attacking an unoccupied enemy-controlled territory with only air units.
-
But Nix… you are the ONLY player who can pull that particular move off :-)
-
Correction: Im the only player who have tried it…
And i have yet to win a game here…
-
let me say this, the 10 figs nix had stationed in w europe gave me fits until he split the air force and left a slim opening in w europe in our game, im gonna try the fig strat one day…… as a matter of fact in my game vs oct my g 3 purchase after plundering uk was going to be 13 inf and 3 fig, with 10 ipc left over for a fig the next round
-
The US does NOT land in Europe. They stage for out-and-back in one move offloading from WCan to Algeria, using a smaller number of TRNs than is required for European landings and still getting the same number of troops against Germany. This decimates any chance Germany has in Africa since the US is sending 8-12 divisions per turn into Africa. And with having to buy fewer TRNs, the US builds up ground forces in north Africa MUCH faster…
That’s interesting…how does it work precisely? I can see how you would need less tran, you could build just 4 and have them shuck every turn from E. Canada to Algeria, but how does this gets the same number of troops against Germany? If you use those tran to do anything but shuck to Algeria, such as land in Southern/Western/Balkans, then your transport system is broken for a couple turns getting back into place. It seems like to me you’d end up needing additional tran anyways to shuck across the underbelly of Germany if you wanted to be able to do it consistently.
I believe Africa can become much more profitable for Germany if the UK fails to re-take Egypt in UK1.
I would say it with more certainty, but you’re right - Africa is profitable if the UK fails to retake Egypt in UK1. I think the key is just to grab whatever IPCs you can in Africa without spending any more troops into it except the bid and what you start with and maybe an inf/tank from Southern Europe. I’m going to go out on a limb here and just say that it’s not worth sending any units from Europe on G2+ into Africa if the UK successfully retakes Egypt. The gains you get are very temporary if the Allies come knocking, and as a result doesn’t end up paying for itself.
For an African input to be successful, it would not only have to pay for itself just in terms of IPCs per units, but also in opportunities that you lost with those troops when they could have been in Europe, which is hard to calculate.
Doing Egypt on G1 is pretty clear to me for a few reasons:
1. You do not want the Indian fleet going into the Med. You expose your underbelly to an annoying little transport.
2. You get rid of a number of units conclusively that would otherwise be put to use against you (inf/fighter/tank)
3. You open a small chance to gain more IPCs in Africa. Against newer players you will for certain nail Africa since just about none of them realize that they can counter from India, but even against experienced players sometimes your dice will fly and you can seal up a few more IPCs. -
Tri,
The way it works is that, once you send troops to Algeria for a few rounds, and they fan out across north Africa (and a few ARM have cleared any remaining German forces), the existing TRN fleet from SZ10 moves into the Med and moves the North Africa forces to Europe. Meanwhile, the US build new loaded TRNs to reinforce, or AF to fly in, or ships in the Pacific to scare the crap out of Japan after he has pulled his fleet into the Indian Ocean to prevent possible Suez passage of the US fleet from the Med.
:-D
-
That’s funny haha! Gotta try that sometime.
Congrats on your tournament win Switch :evil:
-
TY, TY. The re-match of the Championship game is underway though… and Bebo has been using a version of that North Africa strat, if you want to see how it looks in a real game (we are in Turn 6, Germany has Germany, Southern and Balkans left, with 1 INF in Balkans). So you can judge how effective that move can be :-)
And good to have you back Tri!
-
ah ha so bebo II is bebo I. i knew it. and yes good to have tri back, get a partner for the fall doubles tourney.
-
Unless you destroy the German AF the threat to Southern is min.
Planes in Western will hit open transports either in southern or off the coast of Algeria. Unless you build enough ships to protect both sea squares, which is great… a lot of IPC for very little effect IMO. The one off move into Southern will net you a few IPC for that turn, at which time the German ground forces will smash whatever you land in Southern, while the AF will be destroying transports you can not protect. It does Divert (not destroy) a turns worth of buying against the Russians, but does little else to hurt Germany. Further this disrupts the US flow of troops into Africa and somewhere in the future Japan can look forward to a turn of no US reinforcements.
-
But when all attacks against Germany come at once? Sync up a southern attack with a push from Russia and the Brits in Western? Can you throw them all back? Any troops diverted from the march on Moscow is a victory for the Allies. And Germany can’t afford to Garrison both Southern and Western and they can’t afford to just hand them over. Ships in the Atlantic are a better deal for the US than their Pacific counterparts. Japan has a lot of Navy. Often Germany doesn’t have one. And the G1 AC purchase is just four INF and an ART that aren’t going to Moscow. Every turn Moscow stays in Allied hands is another nail in the Axis coffin. Africa is a distraction. Get to Moscow.
-
I have played this game since 85 and not in one game have the Axis lost while still holding Africa. They have had Africa, than lost it to the allies, than lost. But there has been no game where the Axis lose still holding onto (and 99% even just fighting in) Africa.
If all 3 powers hit Germany and ignore Japan the game turns into one of surivival and delay for Germany, until the Japs can take out Russia.
The best buy for Germany are planes. They can give you strength on both land and sea. They allow you to hit the allies where they are weakest, and that is the key for Axis victory in this game.
-
The best buy for Germany are planes.
Hmm I disagree here. I say the best buy for Germany is infantry, since they are the most efficient defense, and you also need lots of pieces to keep up with the Russian trading. The Germans already start with tons of offensive pieces, so you do not need to make more until you are sure you are pushing.
The US/UK usually hang out together, and a simple force of 2 destroyers + 1 carrier + 2 fighters + 8 transports + 1 battleship + 1 russian sub is going to scare away even a mighty airforce. Transports are easily rebuilt, or another carrier can be thrown into the mix if really needed. The West Coast US battleship can shimmy over and protect the SZ1/2 fleet from wayward bombers.
-
I’m not sure I understand the point of the carrier/transport in the med. I hardly claim to have tried it many times, but I have experimented with a couple of strange naval builds there and I find them ineffective (carrier/trans, bb/trans, dd/trans). An extra transport there is essentially to shove your foot down Africa’s throat, but I remember this becoming extremely expensive; you lack pieces both against Russia and against UK naval assaults along the coast when 4 of your units are going on an expedition to the Congo every turn. I can’t get the IPCs to pay for themselves, plus all the Allies need to do is really land one bigass force on round 2 by both UK and US (4 inf/4 arm apiece, + airforce), and also throw in the transport from Australia which sneaks its way eastwards. You stretch your fronts to include Africa as well, and the payout has never worked for me.
Well I guess it could maybe work if you do the legendary Japanese airforce backup in Egypt which I keep proposing but no one comments on even to say it’s crazy :roll:
The carrier in the med also awkardly means you have an additional “territory” to defend with planes. Sometimes this puts planes out of positions to attack certain areas and/or land in the space you want them to in order to defend on land.
When I said Russia moving the bulk of it’s 12 infantry toward Japan I meant the ones east of Russia and Caucasus just for clarity.
That’s an assumption I cannot imagine happening. I almost always see 6 infantry going towards Germany (kazakh/novo/evenki) while the other 6 mess around with Japan (bury/far east/yakut).
-
Personally i belive it to be the beggining of the end for German players whitout Airforce (ie it has been destroyed)
-
I’m not sure I understand the point of the carrier/transport in the med. I hardly claim to have tried it many times, but I have experimented with a couple of strange naval builds there and I find them ineffective (carrier/trans, bb/trans, dd/trans). An extra transport there is essentially to shove your foot down Africa’s throat, but I remember this becoming extremely expensive; you lack pieces both against Russia and against UK naval assaults along the coast when 4 of your units are going on an expedition to the Congo every turn. I can’t get the IPCs to pay for themselves, plus all the Allies need to do is really land one bigass force on round 2 by both UK and US (4 inf/4 arm apiece, + airforce), and also throw in the transport from Australia which sneaks its way eastwards. You stretch your fronts to include Africa as well, and the payout has never worked for me.
Well I guess it could maybe work if you do the legendary Japanese airforce backup in Egypt which I keep proposing but no one comments on even to say it’s crazy :roll:
The carrier in the med also awkardly means you have an additional “territory” to defend with planes. Sometimes this puts planes out of positions to attack certain areas and/or land in the space you want them to in order to defend on land.
When I said Russia moving the bulk of it’s 12 infantry toward Japan I meant the ones east of Russia and Caucasus just for clarity.
That’s an assumption I cannot imagine happening. I almost always see 6 infantry going towards Germany (kazakh/novo/evenki) while the other 6 mess around with Japan (bury/far east/yakut).
Well I think moving the Japanese AF to Egypt IS crazy. I don’t think a few German inf with Jap fighters is enough to stop the allies.
You will probaly just lose your figters, but you may delay the allies a little.
I am a little curious, when would you send the figters down there, and how many? -
Well I think moving the Japanese AF to Egypt IS crazy. I don’t think a few German inf with Jap fighters is enough to stop the allies.
You will probaly just lose your figters, but you may delay the allies a little.
I am a little curious, when would you send the figters down there, and how many?Well, I usually try to land the fighters there on the turn after I’ve seen the Allies land their gear into Africa. This gives me a good idea of how many troops I have to fight and if it’s worth it or not. Fighters can land in Egypt if they start in Indochina, which is possible as early as J2 if there’s no resistance in the East, and probably J3-4 if there is resistance.
From what I’ve seen the Allies don’t land in Africa twice, beacuse they have to get to Europe after that first landing. If they land a force that’s just a little bit weak (i.e. just the Americans drop 4 inf 3 arm 1 art), then they’ll be seeing 6 fighters backed by some inf and stuff which holds Egypt while a tank or something goes through the rest of Africa.
You don’t have to lose your fighters, either. Once you see the attack force is too big in Libya, then run the hell away =) It’s more of an intimidation tactic that takes advantage of a weaker Africa landing than it is a strat I use in every game.
I also have couple questions for U-505:
What is it you’re sending against the UK BB on G1? Just planes? It seems like that since you’re using the SZ8 sub to link with the escaping Baltic navy.
Do you still start with carrier/trans if you see 6 inf from east of russia/caucasus going west against the Germans?
-
What I find hilarious is the game I had last week where Africa was the center point for almost all the combat post round 10. We had a helluva time holding it with the German’s dumping infantry in through Egypt, the Japs driving tanks and planes in and USA/UK shuffling troops like crazy into Africa.
It was almost as if we forgot the purpose of the game was capture the flag! (Almost, until I brought in 12 transports iwth inf, 6 transports iwth arm, 2 ACs with fighters and 3 BBs to France knocking out 4 fighters and 7 infantry. Finally convinced UK to ignore Africa and dump their 4 infantry into France too.)
The morale of the story is this: Never forget the ultimate goal. Having the land helps, but don’t make it the focus point of the war. Also, strike at the enemy for strategically important land that is lightly defended. (Aka, hit Caucasus, not Karelia on G1.)
And yes, if Japan can take Africa it helps. However, this isn’t feasible until after Russia falls. Then it’s a matter of taking Africa to make a decisive attack on USA. Otherwise, let Germany retake it so they can hit Brition. (Worse target IMHO since Germany and Japan can bear down on USA equally well, but some just like Op Sea Lion.)
-
The morale of the story is this: Never forget the ultimate goal. Having the land helps, but don’t make it the focus point of the war. Also, strike at the enemy for strategically important land that is lightly defended. (Aka, hit Caucasus, not Karelia on G1.)
Are you talking about Classic here? Since attacking caucasus on G1 in revised takes quite a bit of effort and a great deal of luck to achieve anything at all.
Africa in Classic is probably not worth it in the long run for the axis.
Africa in Revised is a moneybooster for the axis.In the beginning the german navy is closer to Africa than the US. Exploit that.
Later in the game Japan can easily put forces into Africa, especially if they control Caucasus.Egypt is a key territory that favors the axis, it blocks the allied troops taking the northern route.(which should be plan A for the allies as it also threatens s.europe, w.europe and eventually ukraine/balkans) If the allies are sending troops south of Sahara it’s good even still as it ties up more ships in a longer route. It would also free up the s.europe defense for other fronts. When the allies eventually overpower the axis the troops can be easily retreated through the middle-east and set up choke-points for the rest of Africa delaying the liberation and tying up allied troops/planes. And if the allies send that much IPCs into Africa Germany will have an easy time on the eastern front.
What I’m saying is that in Revised the allies need to put considerably more IPCs into the Africa campaign to be successful than what the axis do. And when the delaying tactic for either side fails pulling the troops out is a far easier task for the axis than for the allies.
-
Actually, I meant in both.
I’ve found that great risk can, at times, give extremely good rewards, almost disporportionately so.
For instance, I’ve seen UK fall in Classic A&A on G1. It isn’t held, but imagine how much benefit you get from the 38 IPC influx and by denying the allies 30 IPCs for the entire round AND rerouting a majority of their available forces away from Africa and to Brition to liberate it.
-
The attack on Egypt is strategic more than tactical. Not closing down the suez canal on G1 is almost always nearly fatal, the UK will move their indian fleet into the med adding a destroyer and fighter to that fleet re-enforcing egypt with indian inf and preserving travel through the suez canal to counter japanese naval forces attacking in the indian ocean. With the UK fleet off the coast of egypt germany can’t possibly hope to mount an invasion of egypt on G2
Suggested Topics
