@krieghund yes, that is what I meant
-
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
-
I respect that you want to/need to have some battle experience to see how your plan goes. Everything I’ve learned, I’ve learned by losing to.
Some things to chew on if you want though, anyways:
1. I find against hardcore KGFers, the UK will always go west. It just doesn’t matter to me if I abandon India on UK1; I will do it regardless whether or not Egypt is attacked. Knowing that, I don’t know if it’s worth it to build navy in the med if I’m not going to be able as Germany to deal with that. So I don’t see it as you forcing the UK to go west or east, if I’m already committed to going west. Building a navy in the med is not going to scare me from going west, because I can deal with you there.
2. I find that the shortage of land troop purchase on G1 to be just about fatal. The way you play it, you will need to defend Western Europe harshly on G2, yet you also need to pony up more troops on the Russian front to keep up with the fiercing trading of 6-7 inf every turn. You only bought 5 inf on G1; you’re going to have to use some of your tanks to defend Western Europe, which gives the chance for Russia to push hard without the fear of your tanks being able to counterattack in Ukraine for instance.
And moving the British fleet into the Med means that the Japanese save their Kwang tranny and get to move immediately into India. Not a bad trade off as far as I’m concerned.
Hmm I would destroy the kwang tranny anyways, and just send the carrier/tran west and land 2 figs on it. That makes for an Egypt fleet of 1 dest 1 tran 1 car 2 figs, and an Egypt land force of 4 inf 1 tank. You would be ill-advised to strike at the Egypt fleet with your fleet/planes unless willing to lose the carrier and maybe even bb to preserve the transport (not to mention lacking the AF against Russia), and while you can take out Egypt with your 4 units in Libya + airforce, you’re liable to a counterattack there since you lose at least 2 of your ground units in the assault, and the US is probably landing on US2 in Algeria with 4 inf 3 tank 1 art anyways to chase you down.
I know against a KGF that I can’t expect to make any significant headway in Russia beyond the first few turns no matter what I build so I attempt to be flexible enough to more rapidly shift my forces to either meet or avoid growing allied threats wherever they appear while at the same time being able to reliably threaten opportunistic targets. I believe the extra Med tranny accomplishes this and the carrier is only there to keep it alive long enough to make it worthwhile.
Hmm I would urge you to be cautious! While you would not be able to make headway against Russia no matter what you build, you can make negative headway if you don’t build enough landtroops. I’m not sure what flexibility the med option gives you. Flexibility lies in having the land units available to strike where you want to, and building 24 worth of navy, 16 of which is entirely defensive in nature, doesn’t spell flexibility to me.
You will be locked up if you attempt to ram down Africa (closed in by navy on both sides of the med and large quantities of American troops chasing yours down if you can afford to land any more), and if you don’t ram down Africa, instead using your navy to ship back to Europe, then I have to wonder if you’d be better served simply building land units in Europe.
Just be careful, I think you might see sometimes that not having enough land units built on the first turn results in increasingly bad things for the Germans, as you let the Russians take land they shouldn’t and finding yourself unable to push back very early on.
-
IMHO, Africa is a fluid coninent. You just need to take a look at it and decide if you should send more troops. I think of it as a balancing act, if the allies put too many forces in Africa then Russia could be in some deep S***, however if they don’t put enough into Africa then Germany is making some BIG BUCKS, and then Europe is in some depp S***. The same goes for Germany if they put too much in then they will lose in Europe, but not enough in and they won’t be making many IPCs (not too mention UK will be a beast).
Suggested Topics
