Again you make bad assumptions. UK doesn’t defend Egypt if you blow up everything there on G2. It moves back to the next line of defense.
The UK has more than enough naval presence to destroy your Italian navy. Heck, the UK might go ahead and position the naval build in sea zone 98 knowing that you are even worse off! The Italian navy is not strong enough to take on the UK navy and win. If it is, the UK can deploy its own blockers….if you fall back to sea zone 97, you are in a kill box with aircraft from London and the UK med fleet converging on you. And remember, Sea Lion is off the table because you blew the Luftwaffe up. There’s no reason for the UK to hold any of that aircraft back.
Not sure why you are putting a definition into your message. You might deter UK from placing a factory in Egypt on UK1, at the cost of leaving the sea zone 110 fleet alive. Woopdeedoo. Now the UK holds off, doesn’t build the IC, and builds the IC in Persia UK2 after placing a strong build on South Africa on UK1. If you don’t do the strafe, you left the sea zone 110 fleet alive for no reason – remember, you are positioning your air force before the UK decides what to build.
This in no way deters the UK from doing Taranto, which as I recall was your original position.
If you sacrifice the Luftwaffe, you can absolutely take the Egypt complex on I2. It’s what happens after that is problematic. If you sacrifice the Luftwaffe and there is no factory, Italy doesn’t gain that much. To do this though, you have to let of lot of UK units go….it’s worth not building the factory just to frustrate you!
Marsh
How would you work the Italian strategy you speak of assuming Taranto and attack on 96 is successful? I’m thinking of a few counters of my own and would like your opinion. I’m not sure if I want the Luftwaffe out of position for the Barbarossa open on G3 which is when we normally do it because our group likes to get the position on USSR before we go in.
One more question and I’m done.
What does Italy do when the jolly green giant (USA) arrives at Gibraltar on round 4, at the latest with no DOW from Japan an earlier DOW would only speed the process up, with 10 fully loaded transports, 2 bombers and 4 fully loaded AC’s, 2 CR, 1 sub, 1 BB and 1DD to screen this, not counting any UK help that has come for the party?
To put it lightly, I think about now the Italian player is having some bowel control issues. Germany is probably going to turn some of its air power around and the USA has an option to attack Rome, Normandy if ready, or Norway.
If USA has to absolutely get it done (bad position mind you after this move) they go to Tobruk unload and transports start the trip home, all the while Italy is SBR’d into the stone age if they move any planes from Rome. Italy will have a hard time holding that off (Germans will pay for it), and while the TT’s go home. USA pours all the IPC’s it makes on the Pacific side until the TT’s get back. In addition the US air power can get to Moscow in time for the real party on G7. 96 to NW Persia to Moscow.
Allies simply have to not lose in the Pacific by building sub and destroyer screens and taking whatever they can when they can. USA will be around 72 IPC’s with the Brazil money and maybe they go to the old French land in North Africa for a few more cheap bucks.
Thoughts?
One more question and I’m done.
What does Italy do when the jolly green giant (USA) arrives at Gibraltar on round 4, at the latest with no DOW from Japan an earlier DOW would only speed the process up, with 10 fully loaded transports, 2 bombers and 4 fully loaded AC’s, 2 CR, 1 sub, 1 BB and 1DD to screen this, not counting any UK help that has come for the party?To put it lightly, I think about now the Italian player is having some bowel control issues. Germany is probably going to turn some of its air power around and the USA has an option to attack Rome, Normandy if ready, or Norway.
If USA has to absolutely get it done (bad position mind you after this move) they go to Tobruk unload and transports start the trip home, all the while Italy is SBR’d into the stone age if they move any planes from Rome. Italy will have a hard time holding that off (Germans will pay for it), and while the TT’s go home. USA pours all the IPC’s it makes on the Pacific side until the TT’s get back. In addition the US air power can get to Moscow in time for the real party on G7. 96 to NW Persia to Moscow.
Allies simply have to not lose in the Pacific by building sub and destroyer screens and taking whatever they can when they can. USA will be around 72 IPC’s with the Brazil money and maybe they go to the old French land in North Africa for a few more cheap bucks.
Thoughts?
I think we’re on the same page Seancb.
Except that Germany blew up most of the Luftwaffe so that Italy could take Egypt, remember? And Germany can’t take Moscow til at least turn ten now…
Heck, with no Luftwaffe, the US fleet doesn’t have to be that big either. AND Moscow doesn’t really need much Allied air to help it.
Marsh
How would you work the Italian strategy you speak of assuming Taranto and attack on 96 is successful? I’m thinking of a few counters of my own and would like your opinion. I’m not sure if I want the Luftwaffe out of position for the Barbarossa open on G3 which is when we normally do it because our group likes to get the position on USSR before we go in.
Just to point out you really don’t need the Luftwaffe to push into Russia on G3. You will have plenty of ground units to force the Russians to back down (unless you split your Germans into multiple stacks at the front). Generally the German air is used in N Africa to protect Italian gains in the first couple turns, or to project power in the Atlantic or Med keeping the Western Allies from making early landings. At some point you will need the Luftwaffe as you get closer to Moscow (have Italy mech and bmr “can open” take land so you can move German ground/air in).
Edit: You will of course need the German air for the final assault on Moscow.
No argument – you don’t need the Luftwaffe to push in Russia G3.
You do need it to take Moscow by G7. That’s the issue where I think we all disagree with Meinherr – he is going to do Moscow plane-free!
Marsh
@Marshmallow:
No argument – you don’t need the Luftwaffe to push in Russia G3.
You do need it to take Moscow by G7. That’s the issue where I think we all disagree with Meinherr – he is going to do Moscow plane-free!
Marsh
So Moscow is a “No fly zone for the Luftwaffe”
Maybe Meinherr should re-name his strat “Crash and Burn”
Quick question Marsh, I have heard you say a couple times that if you buy an IC for the UK you can delay a turn to place it. I believe you said that Krieghund had ruled on that.
I know that if you over buy and have nowhere to place a unit due to miscalculation or maybe not buying out damage to an IC you have that option. My understanding is that if you can place it you must, even if it puts you in a bad position.
Yeah, that was wrong on my part. You can’t buy it and not place it. The only way for that to happen would be for you to lose a territory during your turn.
However, if you buy too many units and can’t place them, you don’t save them – you get your money back and the units go back into the bin.
Marsh
Ok, that’s what I thought.
Looking at this, Sea Lion should be off the table even if Meinherr doesn’t do the G2 strafe of Egypt. He left two cruisers and a battleship alive in sea zone 110, in addition to the sea zone 109 destroyer. Only two of those ships are required to block sea lion, or they could all be parked in sea zone 112. With the air force and navy available to the UK and given the lack of ground units in Meinherr’s G1 build, a UK1 invasion of West Germany might even be possible…
Am I missing anything here?
EDIT: Let’s not forget the sea zone 91 cruiser that Meinherr leaves alive as well.
EDIT: Well, it looks viable. West Germany has one fighter, 4 strat bombers. If he left the AA guns, 3 AA guns. If he moved infantry in from Germany, well, those aren’t going to make G3 Russia attack. UK can invade with two ground units, three fighters, and a strat bomber in addition to two support shots. If Germany didn’t move infantry in, is it worth sacrificing one ground unit and 3-4 UK planes to kill German strat bombers on the ground? And if you do real well, you burn the factory to an MIC as well. Looks like an almost certain thing as long as he leaves no AA guns and no ground units.
Marsh
I can’t see him not leaving the AAA guns in W Germany, they can’t really do anything else. Like you said earlier you can’t really rely on your opponent to mess up that bad lol. With that said if he leaves it weak you got to hit that s**t
IDK, I just can’t get behind a strat that involves decimating the Luftwaffe in the 2nd turn. First it was a strafe that would probably kill like 4-5 planes. Then it was an all out fight to the death which takes out like 10 planes or more. I have played Germany and gotten diced bad in the opening round against UK navy a couple times losing just 3-4 planes and it is an uphill battle.
If the Germans placed all their ftrs and tacs in Rome on G1, the UK has to see the the potential of either an attack on the UK navy, or an ill advised air strike against Cairo. The UK has some options to protect the navy and block out the Italians for a turn. They can also make it hurt if the Germans go through with the air strike on Cairo by pulling in all available units into Egypt. The UK has too many assets, and so many options in the Med, Africa, and Mid East (which would include some Indian units) that they will recover as long as the UK player isn’t asleep at the wheel. As pointed out if the Germans air sweep Egypt it will fall to the Italians. However the Italian navy will end up getting sunk when they come over, and the UK will take it back. The Italians just won’t have the income to compete once it loses the Med.
Add to that a big part of the Atlantic navy surviving, and Germany not having the air power to hold off an invasion fleet (or kill the units when they land) the Western Allies will be making landings in Europe while Italy is still in a death match fighting for Egypt.
It would be like doing Sea Lion, losing the balk of the Luftwaffe and not getting London for the payday. And just like a Sea lion attempt the Russians are breathing much better.
I can almost see a Japanese air sweep against a China stack on J2, because the Japanese have over 20 planes. I still don’t like losing planes to inf, but at least the ground battle would be pretty much over and it would save you ground units and time in the long run. The Japanese are still going to miss those air units later though IMO.
Agreed.
Also, the Egypt Luftwaffe battle goes very differently if the UK places bid units in Alexandria, Egypt, and Ethiopia. With three more units there, the Luftwaffe decimation is complete and the UK might even be able to hold off the Italian attack…
And heck, just to address the concern about not taking Sumatra with India, might as well put a bid transport there or in South Africa so that India can get Sumatra AND the UK can activate Persia. Or the transport can drop two units in Egypt to make it five more. Die Luftwaffe die!
(EDIT: With five extra units available because of the bid, the Luftwaffe now has a 10% chance to clear Egypt. Only three extra units would make it 25%.)
And of course because Sea Lion is off the table, no units are required in London on UK1.
Marsh
@Marshmallow:
Again you make bad assumptions. UK doesn’t defend Egypt if you blow up everything there on G2. It moves back to the next line of defense.
The UK has more than enough naval presence to destroy your Italian navy. Heck, the UK might go ahead and position the naval build in sea zone 98 knowing that you are even worse off! The Italian navy is not strong enough to take on the UK navy and win. If it is, the UK can deploy its own blockers….if you fall back to sea zone 97, you are in a kill box with aircraft from London and the UK med fleet converging on you. And remember, Sea Lion is off the table because you blew the Luftwaffe up. There’s no reason for the UK to hold any of that aircraft back.
Not sure why you are putting a definition into your message. You might deter UK from placing a factory in Egypt on UK1, at the cost of leaving the sea zone 110 fleet alive. Woopdeedoo. Now the UK holds off, doesn’t build the IC, and builds the IC in Persia UK2 after placing a strong build on South Africa on UK1. If you don’t do the strafe, you left the sea zone 110 fleet alive for no reason – remember, you are positioning your air force before the UK decides what to build.
This in no way deters the UK from doing Taranto, which as I recall was your original position.
If you sacrifice the Luftwaffe, you can absolutely take the Egypt complex on I2. It’s what happens after that is problematic. If you sacrifice the Luftwaffe and there is no factory, Italy doesn’t gain that much. To do this though, you have to let of lot of UK units go….it’s worth not building the factory just to frustrate you!
Marsh
Could you please state the location of the forces of SZ110 at the end of UK1… given buy of 2 SBR…given that CRU of Germany is in SZ 112 at the end of G1
Back from hiatus… work and social responsibilities last couple of days. Replies in color.
@Marshmallow:
Again you make bad assumptions. UK doesn’t defend Egypt if you blow up everything there on G2. It moves back to the next line of defense.
**By “not defending Egypt”, do you then mean you will not place the mIC there on UK1 . In that case, Germany has achieved its goal of deterring UK from placing the mIC in Egypt on UK-1 !!! Was that not the goal of Ram-Rod in the first place?! I mean its there on the Title/Subject. **
The UK has more than enough naval presence to destroy your Italian navy. Heck, the UK might go ahead and position the naval build in sea zone 98 knowing that you are even worse off!
How in the world is UK going to place the build in SZ98 without a mIC ? Iam confused please clarify.
The Italian navy is not strong enough to take on the UK navy and win. If it is, the UK can deploy its own blockers….if you fall back to sea zone 97, you are in a kill box with aircraft from London and the UK med fleet converging on you. And remember, Sea Lion is off the table because you blew the Luftwaffe up. There’s no reason for the UK to hold any of that aircraft back.
**My point is this:
A) Either UK-1 puts mIC on Egypt . If so… Ram-Rod is on… and the fate of Italian navy is SECONDARY to conquest of the mIC .
B) If no mIC is placed on Egypt on UK1, then Italian navy has a variety of options… as mentioned before…
A) kill off the blockers… put the DD blocker on SZ 98 and build a TR… or just build a DD instead…
and invite UK to attack the COMBINED navy (SZ95+97+DD)… this is a losing preposition for UK. Its one thing to just kill SZ97… But once the navies are combined… its a very different issue!
The combined fleet with air-base, is enough to win that battle… or make it very bloody for the UK.B) kill SZ92, take Gib and Morocco… (and Tunisia and Kenya) this is great because it protects the Navy now.
C) Stay put, take Greece etc…etc… **Not sure why you are putting a definition into your message. You might deter UK from placing a factory in Egypt on UK1, at the cost of leaving the sea zone 110 fleet alive. Woopdeedoo. Now the UK holds off, doesn’t build the IC, and builds the IC in Persia UK2 after placing a strong build on South Africa on UK1. If you don’t do the strafe, you left the sea zone 110 fleet alive for no reason – remember, you are positioning your air force before the UK decides what to build.
Depends where the ships of SZ110 go. There is a CRU and maybe a U-Boat on SZ 112…. now, if the UK Navy from SZ110 sits on the WEST side of Gib… and the French Ship is the blocker in the channel… and no mIC in Egypt… then… the CV+UBoat and a few planes kill off the French Cruiser. The 4 SBRS and the planes off the ROME can take out the BB+CRU+2 DD… if Gib or Morocco is Italian!
This in no way deters the UK from doing Taranto, which as I recall was your original position.
If you sacrifice the Luftwaffe, you can absolutely take the Egypt complex on I2. It’s what happens after that is problematic. If you sacrifice the Luftwaffe and there is no factory, Italy doesn’t gain that much. To do this though, you have to let of lot of UK units go….it’s worth not building the factory just to frustrate you!
**As I said before, Once the mIC is in Egypt, then it becomes a Strategic Objective. Important enough to sacrifice the Luftwaffe if needed. But without the mIC , there is no need for such a sacrifice. **
Marsh
**By “not defending Egypt”, do you then mean you will not place the mIC there on UK1 . In that case, Germany has achieved its goal of deterring UK from placing the mIC in Egypt on UK-1 !!! Was that not the goal of Ram-Rod in the first place?! I mean its there on the Title/Subject. **
Ok, so in that event you won’t attack Egypt and expend the Luftwaffe? Sounds wise. But you’ve still put yourself behind the 8 ball by not taking down the SZ110 fleet.
If they do build the IC, you’ll hammer it as much as necessary to be confident that you’ll clean up the survivors as Italy.
Why wouldn’t the UK do a Taranto raid? I notice that you commented in Reply #2 that you want Taranto. Why? Unless there is an unlikely failure, you can’t use any fleet to support an attack. If one Italian TT survives UK1 as it usually does, perhaps you can keep it out of combat movement/combat and land some additional troops in Alexandria. Most likely this would be combined with an Ehtiopian crush.
Let’s look at where the scenario of Taranto, Ethiopia, TT used to assault Greece and IC placed on Egypt leaves things G2:
Alexandria: 3inf 1art 1mec 1arm. German planes coming to land.
Egypt: 2ANZAC inf, 2UK inf, 1art, 1arm.
Malta: Fighter, Tac, Strat Bomber.
Ethiopia: Mec and art probably.
Let’s say that the German planes attack Egypt until everything is dead, losing an average 2 1/6 planes on the first round. Probably acceptable if overwhelming enough force is applied.
UK2: Mec drives back. 3inf are placed in Egypt, minimum. ftr and tac land on Egypt. Perhaps strat for fodder. Perhaps Ethiopia survivors are carried back by TT but let’s assume not. DD moves up to prevent bombardment.
I2, amphibious+land assault on Egypt is:
Attackers: 4inf 1mec 1art 2arm 1strat 3ftrs
Defenders: 3inf 1mec 1arm 1ftr 1tac
Well over 90% of taking the IC and with enough left over to defend Egypt.
All of this assumes no additional support from anywhere else such as the SZ110 fleet.
If you remove the amphibious troops, it’s 75% to take the territory without losing planes first.
Perhaps this is the scenario MeinHerr is referring to?
Note: They might not do Tobruk if there are 2 fighters but if they don’t do Taranto I don’t see why they wouldn’t. It’s a 57% attack. Perhaps this is what you mean by you want a Taranto because it largely precludes a Tobruk. Tobruk with no planes vs 2 planes likely leaves 1art 1arm 2ftr.
If you don’t do the Ethiopia crush or the Tobruk crush, the Ethiopian force will walk up to Sudan and Tobruk to Alexandria. The Ethiopia force in Sudan will be attacked by a reasonable player, probably with 1inf 1art 1strat bomber. 75% to the UK.
That leaves an I2 attack of Egypt, without amphibious troops
Attacker: 3inf 1mec 1art 1arm 3ftr 1sb
Defender: 1inf 1mec 1ftr 1tac 1sb.
So it seems that MeinHerr’s strategy is plausible, although at what cost? Perhaps the UK will move most of their troops to Sudan when they notice the Luftwaffe gathering. Or move most of the troops into Alexandria. Let’s look at the second possibility and the Italian attack on Alexandria I1; assuming the inf and AAA on Malta is also collected:
Attacker: 3inf 1mec 1art 1arm 2ftr 1sb
Defender: 4inf 1mec 2art 1arm 1aaa
That attack is 74% to the Italians but will only leave land units alive if planes are taken as casualties or rolls are more than a bit above average. This also leaves the Italians in Sudan for UK2.
With a determined defence, it seems that the IC can be defended for the first couple of rounds with a Taranto so long as things go to plan for the UK, although it requires some sacrifice.
Meinherr,
There is no point in responding to you anymore because you don’t actually read responses and understand. For example, of course the UK can place a naval build on UK2 because they still have the MIC.
Marsh
@Marshmallow:
You might deter UK from placing a factory in Egypt on UK1, at the cost of leaving the sea zone 110 fleet alive. Woopdeedoo. Now the UK holds off, doesn’t build the IC, and builds the IC in Persia UK2 after placing a strong build on South Africa on UK1. If you don’t do the strafe, you left the sea zone 110 fleet alive for no reason – remember, you are positioning your air force before the UK decides what to build.
After thinking about this, I’ve decided that this threat does not deter me from placing the MIC in Egypt on UK1, as I’m more than willing to trade a 12 IPC investment for the entire Luftwaffe. I don’t believe that Germany will ever be able to win without its air force. By the time it can afford to rebuild it, the Allies will be knocking on the door of Berlin every round until they get through and Moscow will be hanging tough (unless they do something stupid like one of those “defenses” where they don’t build 95%+ infantry).
Marsh
**By “not defending Egypt”, do you then mean you will not place the mIC there on UK1 . In that case, Germany has achieved its goal of deterring UK from placing the mIC in Egypt on UK-1 !!! Was that not the goal of Ram-Rod in the first place?! I mean its there on the Title/Subject. **
Ok, so in that event you won’t attack Egypt and expend the Luftwaffe? Sounds wise. But you’ve still put yourself behind the 8 ball by not taking down the SZ110 fleet.
If they do build the IC, you’ll hammer it as much as necessary to be confident that you’ll clean up the survivors as Italy.
Why wouldn’t the UK do a Taranto raid? I notice that you commented in Reply #2 that you want Taranto. Why? Unless there is an unlikely failure, you can’t use any fleet to support an attack. If one Italian TT survives UK1 as it usually does, perhaps you can keep it out of combat movement/combat and land some additional troops in Alexandria. Most likely this would be combined with an Ehtiopian crush.
Let’s look at where the scenario of Taranto, Ethiopia, TT used to assault Greece and IC placed on Egypt leaves things G2:
Alexandria: 3inf 1art 1mec 1arm. German planes coming to land.
Egypt: 2ANZAC inf, 2UK inf, 1art, 1arm.
Malta: Fighter, Tac, Strat Bomber.
Ethiopia: Mec and art probably.Let’s say that the German planes attack Egypt until everything is dead, losing an average 2 1/6 planes on the first round. Probably acceptable if overwhelming enough force is applied.
UK2: Mec drives back. 3inf are placed in Egypt, minimum. ftr and tac land on Egypt. Perhaps strat for fodder. Perhaps Ethiopia survivors are carried back by TT but let’s assume not. DD moves up to prevent bombardment.
I2, amphibious+land assault on Egypt is:
Attackers: 4inf 1mec 1art 2arm 1strat 3ftrs
Defenders: 3inf 1mec 1arm 1ftr 1tacWell over 90% of taking the IC and with enough left over to defend Egypt.
All of this assumes no additional support from anywhere else such as the SZ110 fleet.
If you remove the amphibious troops, it’s 75% to take the territory without losing planes first.
Perhaps this is the scenario MeinHerr is referring to?
Note: They might not do Tobruk if there are 2 fighters but if they don’t do Taranto I don’t see why they wouldn’t. It’s a 57% attack. Perhaps this is what you mean by you want a Taranto because it largely precludes a Tobruk. Tobruk with no planes vs 2 planes likely leaves 1art 1arm 2ftr.
If you don’t do the Ethiopia crush or the Tobruk crush, the Ethiopian force will walk up to Sudan and Tobruk to Alexandria. The Ethiopia force in Sudan will be attacked by a reasonable player, probably with 1inf 1art 1strat bomber. 75% to the UK.
That leaves an I2 attack of Egypt, without amphibious troops
Attacker: 3inf 1mec 1art 1arm 3ftr 1sb
Defender: 1inf 1mec 1ftr 1tac 1sb.So it seems that MeinHerr’s strategy is plausible, although at what cost? Perhaps the UK will move most of their troops to Sudan when they notice the Luftwaffe gathering. Or move most of the troops into Alexandria. Let’s look at the second possibility and the Italian attack on Alexandria I1; assuming the inf and AAA on Malta is also collected:
Attacker: 3inf 1mec 1art 1arm 2ftr 1sb
Defender: 4inf 1mec 2art 1arm 1aaaThat attack is 74% to the Italians but will only leave land units alive if planes are taken as casualties or rolls are more than a bit above average. This also leaves the Italians in Sudan for UK2.
With a determined defence, it seems that the IC can be defended for the first couple of rounds with a Taranto so long as things go to plan for the UK, although it requires some sacrifice.
Hello Simon33,
In reply #2 , i mentioned that I love to see a Taranto ( with the mIC in Egypt) , when RamRod is in place for 2 reasons:
A) Because there is 1 FTR (Malta) and 1 TB ( CV) , that cannot land in Egypt. Hence Egypt is left weaker , when the “Rod” - German Airstrafe on G2 with 12-13 planes happens. More Luftwaffe would survive.
B) If the G2 survivors are substantial… then on G3 , they could take out the UK Med fleet (with a possible I-2 hit on it)
[[color=navy]b]But the important point is… if Taranto is done, when the RamRod play has been set-up, Egypt (with or without) an mIC WILL FALL! With mIC is always better!!
Without mIC, is upto the German player, whether it is worth it or not to airstrafe Egypt (ie: Sometimes Egypt TR takes Greece or hits Ethiopia etc…. which means even weaker Egypt) and maybe a good deal.
If the Egypt force is moves to Transjordan and Egypt is abandoned… then Syria can be taken by Italians… and the Luftwaffe will hit the Transjordan force and land in Syria.
Italy will still take Egypt on I2
If you place the UK forces in Alexandria on UK1 (enough that Italy cannot kill it) and block Greece and Malta SZ , then Italy kills blockers on I1, then Germany will just kill the Alexandria forces on G2 and land in Tobruk… , Italy marches into Alexandria on I2 , and takes Egypt on I3 .
There are other possibilities too… but … folks will get there, when they try and play it.
