@ShadowHAwk Those units are essential to defend your capital, as well as France’s capital. There is no way around having a substantial defensive force if you want to win the game as the axis. Ideally all of those units could attack Moscow, but that is literally not an option. Germany can lose its capital turn 4 if you don’t have enough units to defend, and Paris can be lost to the allies turn 5 if you aren’t deploying enough units to prevent that.
Keys to Allied Success
-
Going back to the OP, doesn’t the airbase on Gibraltar make Sea Lion too easy? It does nothing to deter it, and SBR (assuming it happens) will make unit purchases in London difficult G2 and virtually stop it G3.
The reason the AB on Gib stops Sealion in its tracks is because if need be all of your air force and navy that you had in sz 92 can now be used to defend against Sealion. Germany does not have enough to break through all of that. This means Germany will not be able to hit london r3 and by that time a good German player will have turned their eyes on the real prize which is Russia.
You’ve lost me here. How does an AB defend against Sea Lion? Planes can just fly back to London or Scotland without it, and it wastes 15IPC on something which does nothing to defend London.
-
You’ve lost me here. How does an AB defend against Sea Lion? Planes can just fly back to London or Scotland without it, and it wastes 15IPC on something which does nothing to defend London.
I suppose you are correct in that it does nothing to directly defend London since all of the planes that can land on Gib or in sz 92 could get back to London with out one. However one of the reasons I like the buy is that it makes an attack on your navy in 92 a suicide mission, where as without it the Italians could hit it with a comparable force.
The main reason I like the buy though has to do with the options it then opens up in Round 2. With Sea lion now off the table, since Germany would not have committed another buy to it, the AB can be used to fly planes to Egypt/Trans-Jordan that would not be able to reach with one.
So you are correct in that it does not help defend London but I can not think of a better buy R1 in terms of getting the right troops in the right places from R2 onward.
-
Re AB in Gib UK1: The AB in Gib is only advisable if any planes there protect a fleet in 91 or 92.
Protection against sea lion would occur in case UK does not attack 97 and wants to put her fleet to 92. Usually an AB is required then in order to not invite G/I to make an 1,2 attack on 92. -
It would be nice if AldoRaine could post a Triple A save of how things should look like at end of round 4. Interesting ideas, and also easier to follow if you can look at it with the computer
-
An AB at Gib gives the US a fleet staging post to the Channel and the Med. Those 3 fighters do both, so 15 ipcs is very well spent.
It will minimise the navy required to the east of Gib to deny Italy its NO and gain control of sz97 as a convoy disruption opportunity that takes Italy out as an effective force.
It will minimise the navy required to the west of Gib to protect landings in north Africa and reinforce an allied fleet in the Channel, enabling landings in Normandy & Holland, thereby helping Russia.
-
It would be nice if AldoRaine could post a Triple A save of how things should look like at end of round 4. Interesting ideas, and also easier to follow if you can look at it with the computer
I will definitely try and do that. Hopefully I can find some time in the next few days.
-
I think the allies need to do more of what helps them win in classic 2nd ed Axis & Allies. Russia build all inf and send some to China, USA build some capital ships and then all inf and trn, and, since London is vulnerable in this game, all inf for the first couple of turns as well.
I think India should also build all inf with the occasional artillery.
-
1)The first objective for the allies should be protecting against sea lion. �
Protecting against sea lion is not an essential goal as sea lion is good for the Allies unless it’s ridiculously cheap. However your suggestion is ok as air and AB Gib makes sense in the most cases. but it’s not an essential Allies objective to protect against sea lion. If Germans to it, Allies are good in most cases.
I can see why you believe that defending against Sealion is not a critical goal but I must disagree with you on this one. �Losing London, even if costly to the Germans, is still a severe blow to the allies. The most likely result is that Italy is now in control of Africa and the Middle East. �This is offset by the fact that Russia is most likely now pushing into German territory but it is unlikely that Germany will fall to Russia with out help from the US. �This will greatly increase the ability for Japan to win the game in the pacific. �
I just feel that not securing London early is a mistake as it is far to much of a risk. As soon as London is captured the production advantage the Allies need to keep is now gone. �3)The UK needs to hold Egypt. �This can be done by spending mos if not all of your bid on land units in Africa. �Only 2 inf are needed but obviously more should be placed. I like to spend 12 on land units with 2 inf and 1 tank.
Egypt is overrated and spending the entire bid in Africa is a bad idea. Allies need to squeeze the Germans with Russia and by Dday. Liberating africa is not a major objective. Supply lines are too long from Africa to hurt the Axis, that’s why dday is perferable as UK can reinforce every turn.
I agree completely with your assessment that the Allies need to squeeze the Germans with Russia and US/UK. �I just disagree wholeheartedly with you in your stance that Africa is not worth the bid or that the supply lines are to long from Africa. �The UK can have factories in Egypt and Persia before the attack on the True Neutrals takes place and Saudi Arabia and Turkey after.
This is more than enough production capability for a formidable third front. �I am a firm believer in the idea that the area stretching from Egypt through the Middle East all the way to India is where UK needs to project its power. �
Now the not so obvious ones. �
4)Russia should try to get 25+ art by round 5.�
The goal is not to get a certain amount of Arty but look for an opportunity to stop the German army to progress for one turn by having enough fire power. However this also heavily depends on what the Germans have. In some cases there is no way to put attack power on Russia because surviving is everything Russia can do. In other cases buying 6 tanks Round 1 or 2 can be the best buy if this keeps the Germans from progressing.The only thing I will add to this is that the main reason I like getting the artillery early has to do with the fact that once the other two fronts are opened up by the US and UK, Russia should now have the ability to strafe whatever stack the Germans have in Russia. �Since the Germans now have two other fronts to worry about Russia can now focus on just replacing the infantry it is now loosing in the strafing / skirmishing. �
-
Here are a couple of shots of how the Middle east/ Africa should look like for UK after round 2 and 3. In this game I declared war on the true neutrals round 5 and I was able to go on the offensive with Russia by round 7.
I have been playing on Triple A lately and I will say that my strategy has been having a lot of success. I realize that the level of competition varies a lot on when playing over their servers but I have not lost with this strategy in the last 4 games.
Most of my bids ranged from 9-12. (It seems the bids are lower when playing over their servers.
I am not sure the best way to post the images so I just attached them.
-
Hmm, does this assume that the Germans don’t hammer SZ110 G1 and you stack much of the UK navy in SZ92? Ignoring that violating a local rule/interpretation I play, that is only possible because of a poor (IMO) choice G1.
My G1 opening is to hit SZ111, 110 and 91. That doesn’t leave much room for an SZ92 stack - would be 2DD, 1CV, 1 Cruiser. Easily taken down I1. Even with the Gibraltar airbase, a 1-2 punch is possible before the Naval Base can repair the CV.
The contrary opening of hitting SZ111 & 109, the stack would be 1DD, 1CV, 1BB and 2 Cruisers. The Italians can only hit this with a BB, DD, Sub, SB and 2 Cruisers. Not quite enough, assuming 2ftrs are on the CV.
-
My G1 opening is to hit SZ111, 110 and 91. That doesn’t leave much room for an SZ92 stack - would be 2DD, 1CV, 1 Cruiser. Easily taken down I1. Even with the Gibraltar airbase, a 1-2 punch is possible before the Naval Base can repair the CV.
Lets say you as UK buy the AB and stack SZ92 with 2DD, 1CV and 1 Cruiser. At this point I would welcome a 1-2 punch from Italy and Germany. As a defender UK can bring the 2DD, 1CV, 1 Cruiser and 5 fighters against Italy’s 1 sub, 1 DD, 2 Cruisers, 1 BB 2 fighters and 1 Bomber. This gives the UK and 81% chance of victory (with no bid towards a navy).
This has higher chance of victory than Taranto attack even with a bid of a sub. Not to mention the added bonus of almost certainly closing off sealion and forcing Italy to commit its entire navy to a decisive battle that is unfavorable to them in R1.
Also most games i play i don’t see an attack on sz 91 due to the fact most people seem to feel the subs are better used in sz110 and sz106.
That being said. If I were playing as Italy and I saw the UK stack sz 92 like that I would be very tempted attack it R1. It should be recognized that if the axis let the UK navies in the pacific and the Med meet up in R2 then the Italian navy will never be able to move from sz97. The attack on sz 92 is the best chance Italy would have of establishing dominance in the Med. Although i feel Italy should more concerned with establishing the can opener and defense.
-
I’m in two minds about what I’d do as Axis against that gambit.
Option 1:
Hammer SZ92 fleet and retreat once the carrier’s damaged, take Algeria, find something to do with the other transport. Germany finishes off the fleet, landings its ftrs/TBs on Algeria. If I’ve used subs to take down the SZ91 cruiser G1 and they’ve both survived, as they do 5 in 7, they could support the attack but more likely a UK DD stood outside in SZ91 to finish these off with air support. So realistic combat losses after one round of combat are:
Italy - dent on BB, ftr, sub & DD.
UK from Italy: dent on CV, Cruiser, DD, ftr. Or perhaps they’re hip to your jive and lose another ftr instead of the Cruiser.The remaining UK force can be taken down quite easily by 1tb 2sb 3ftr (80%) at the cost of 3ftr 1tb
One funny addition to this assault would be an amphibious on Gibraltar, assuming it has no land troops and no extra planes. If the UK scrambles to meet it, that strips the SZ92 fleet of plane(s). If the US isn’t at war, this is conceivably not a suicide mission.
In fact, the Italian fighters can only come in if Germany has taken down Southern France, which is not a move I greatly like.
Option 2:
Amphibiously assault Gibraltar. Problem seems to be that you can’t in any way provide plane support unless you send in a CV.Option 3:
Put down destroyer blockers SZ91. I guess this costs you 8 per turn and is only useful if you’re determined to do a Sea Lion.Let’s scrub option 3. I can see how Sea Lion is less attractive if you have to do that.
-
Italy strat bomb the air base at gib in I1, German planes kill the British fleet in G2
-
Italy strat bomb the air base at gib in I1, German planes kill the British fleet in G2
Great move, but with 3 ftrs on Gibraltar, you need to get through 4 defensive dice to realise it. I guess with a German take down of Sth France, you can escort then you really only need to get through 1.
Bigger problem - the Italian SB doesn’t have the range. It doesn’t start on the Airbase.
-
oh right! SZ 93 is in the way and spain is neutral
-
It’s still a pretty useful idea for later Italy turns.
-
I had a look at a February game from AldoRaine. Interesting move including no Taranto. I’d have to say I dislike this aspect. If you want to keep the UK CV alive, you can still do Taranto at a lower odds with a sub bid and 2ftrs. The major risk is if there is no scramble, you have a 1/6 chance of the Italians missing and you therefore needing to move the CV to SZ97 to catch the fighter. With a full scramble, it’s a 50/50 attack if you lose the sub last but in that instance you are almost guaranteed to kill the BB and therefore the TT even if you lose all your air in the process, providing the Italian player isn’t clever enough to lose a fighter to keep the Cruiser which could preserve the BB though. Low luck eliminates these risks.
I have pondered moves to keep the UK CV alive and in the Med, but perhaps the latter isn’t the important qualification. If you do end UK Combat with surface warships in SZ96 & 97, you probably can achieve it, but that pretty much relies on no scramble. Otherwise there seems a real issue with an amphibious assault on Trans Jordan I1 closing the Suez for UK2.
The other question is what does keeping the UK CV alive actually achieve? If it’s stuck south of the Suez, not much.
-
The reason I do not like to do Taranto stems from my belief that in doing the attack the UK plays it cards to early. In my mind it is easy for the Italians to establish dominance in Med with help from German air even after Taranto. Against a good axis player this spells disaster as the allies all ready have enough to worry about.
If UK can converge their navy into sz 98 by R2, the Italian navy is rendered all but useless with out even having to roll a dice. At that point the UK can buy subs and use them as fodder to destroy the Italians when it is far more favorable.
The best advantage of no Taranto is the fact that by R3 the UK can have 6 fighters and 2 tacs 1 turn away from India if need be. When you add to that the 3 Anzac fighters this makes India a very difficult battle for Japan.
At the end of the day I just don’t believe that Taranto is the most efficient use of Allied resources early game. It commits to much to a battle that does not have decisive results.
-
Without Taranto, you need to do something to block an Egypt take down I2. Ethiopia crush only helps Italy here. Tobruk crush maybe?
-
Italy strat bomb the air base at gib in I1, German planes kill the British fleet in G2
Doesn’t matter.
1. Valuable Italian bomber has to dodge 4 shots then (3 interceptors + AA)
2. Let the German air strike and dilute their air.I personally prefer Taranto and it is NO option to make that attack with low odds. Everything below 90% is inacceptable.
The key is to keep the remaining fleet intact to give Italians very bad odds on attacking 97 then. Means: If Axis don’t scramble and get 1 average hit in defense, take the tac off and keep the fleet + sub intact. The sub makes a HUGE difference for the Italian odds on 97.
And if Italians waive to attack let the Germans air strike. the loss of German air will greatly help the Russians to not being pushed back to Moscow too quickly.
Skipping Taranto is an option too though. Important: Do NOT worry too much about losing Egypt if you e.g. get an early beachhead in Normandy or Norway instead thanks to the extra fleet. Egypt is overrated. Everything what counts is to weaken the Germans during their invasion of Russia.
And remeber: If you don’t get the early beachhead because Germans invest massively in defense, then Stalin is happy because those defending units to not March east.The key is and always was to overstretch the Axis powers. That’s why a middle east strategy with facilities is usually not a good option if this means no pressure from 110. Germans, that have a one front war (Russia + middle east is one front) are happy and unstoppable Germans!
Alternatively the Allies could make a combined push later with US and UK to suffocate the Italian fleet. Setting up for an relentless and undefendable attack in UK3/4 is another option, but it must be well executed.
Suggested Topics
