**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.
@Marshmallow:
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
Yes, you are correct. My mistake.
@Marshmallow:
@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
**Dear MOW,
RamRod was precisely conceived because there is more than the 12 IPC investment at stake!!! **
Why would Germany willing to sacrifice $60 - $80 in trying to take it …???
Because the value of Egypt is substantially more !
**Lets break it down into FIVE categories…. (and its 3 added Operational Objectives)
Category 1 ) one time fixed investment of $12 … but which can produce!
Italy’s income is $10…so a $12 mIC is equivalent to Germany with starting income of $30…getting a Major factory in Romania for free on G2 …
Category 2 ) Income every turn … $2
For Italy… with starting with 10 IPC… is equal to Germany getting a $6 territory
Category 3) Bonuses every turn … $5 for Italy and $5 for German unit there = $10
Category 4) Bonus denied to UK every turn … $5
Category 5) Adjacent territory control power … $1 for TransJordan OR Sudan… This is because the UK force has to hit via One or the Other territory… usually cannot do both at same time.**
**Operational Objectives :
So the reason Italy has to try to get Egypt ASAP is that each turn the Income value = $ 2+$5 (italian No) +$5 ( UK no denial) = $ 12
IPC swing of $24 - Every TURN! This is very important.
The German unit NO increases it by $5 to - - - > $17
The Naval base already in it increases it by $15 - - - > $ 32
The adjacent territory control of $1 - - - > $ 33
The access to operational objectives that Italy can potentially get => $18…. added to $33 = $ 51
Oh… but wait … there is more… we have forgotten the mIC = $12 !
So actual potential worth of Egypt = $63 !!!
** Unless Italy gets Egypt , none of this is possible **
Hence…. unless Luftwaffe is willing to sacrifice itself … part or whole… Italy cannot get Egypt.
And I did forget one last - but not the least - crucial point , that all the veterens of Axis and Allies Global can attest to……
**Egypt is a victory city!
European victory for Axis hinges on getting London or Egypt - before OR after Moscow falls.**
Lots of mediocre players focus on getting to Moscow early…. and they may end up getting it… but the game is lost by the time they get Egypt…
If Axis bags Egypt early enough, obliterating the standing Allied army there… and getting a mIC in the bargain… even at the cost of 8 planes… they have a high probability of winning the game.
The pressure will be on the US and UK to play very accurately.
Too much US in the Atlantic… Japan could win.
The fall of Egypt , puts inordinate pressure on India and Middle East… that is the unique point of this play.
Every play has its counter… there is no single " silver bullet " solution… and iam sure RamRod will also have its counter.
Its a play that , IMHO is still worth playing as it forces Allies to play with little room for error.
Hope folks try it out.
And I did forget one last - but not the least - crucial point , that all the veterens of Axis and Allies Global can attest to……
**Egypt is a victory city!European victory for Axis hinges on getting London or Egypt - before OR after Moscow falls.**
Lots of mediocre players focus on getting to Moscow early…. and they may end up getting it… but the game is lost by the time they get Egypt…
If Axis bags Egypt early enough, obliterating the standing Allied army there… and getting a mIC in the bargain… even at the cost of 8 planes… they have a high probability of winning the game.
The pressure will be on the US and UK to play very accurately.
Too much US in the Atlantic… Japan could win.
The fall of Egypt , puts inordinate pressure on India and Middle East… that is the unique point of this play.
Every play has its counter… there is no single " silver bullet " solution… and iam sure RamRod will also have its counter.
Its a play that , IMHO is still worth playing as it forces Allies to play with little room for error.
Hope folks try it out.
- Ramdas Vaidyanathan aka Mein Herr
Sorry but I have heard enough of this garbage. Marsh has already proven that you cannot take Egypt without sacrificing all of the German Airforce. And any sane person would choose to have the airforce rather than Egypt. I would gratefully trade Egypt for the luftwaffa and I am sure most people would. You have been proven wrong so at this point the only resin I read this thread is because of your outrageous posts. This debate has already been won by Marsh.
And I did forget one last - but not the least - crucial point , that all the veterens of Axis and Allies Global can attest to……
**Egypt is a victory city!European victory for Axis hinges on getting London or Egypt - before OR after Moscow falls.**
Lots of mediocre players focus on getting to Moscow early…. and they may end up getting it… but the game is lost by the time they get Egypt…
If Axis bags Egypt early enough, obliterating the standing Allied army there… and getting a mIC in the bargain… even at the cost of 8 planes… they have a high probability of winning the game.
The pressure will be on the US and UK to play very accurately.
Too much US in the Atlantic… Japan could win.
The fall of Egypt , puts inordinate pressure on India and Middle East… that is the unique point of this play.
Every play has its counter… there is no single " silver bullet " solution… and iam sure RamRod will also have its counter.
Its a play that , IMHO is still worth playing as it forces Allies to play with little room for error.
Hope folks try it out.
- Ramdas Vaidyanathan aka Mein Herr
Sorry but I have heard enough of this garbage. Marsh has already proven that you cannot take Egypt without sacrificing all of the German Airforce. And any sane person would choose to have the airforce rather than Egypt. I would gratefully trade Egypt for the luftwaffa and I am sure most people would. You have been proven wrong so at this point the only resin I read this thread is because of your outrageous posts. This debate has already been won by Marsh.
As previously mentioned, planes lost were 3-4. Not all of Luftwaffe. There is a difference. A loss of 8 planes is an even trade.
The Option to either go for Egypt or Not , depending on how well it is defended on UK1 , is upto the Axis players. This should be decided on Italy Turn 1.
If Taranto is not done, as this would have to be the case for the best defense of Egypt, there are lots of things Italy can do…as mentioned in my previous posts… as it has a combined navy to work with… with 2 TRs… that it otherwise would not have.
If Taranto is done, Egypt is in the hands of Axis.
As Italy, having to choose between having a navy, or having Egypt with a freebie mIC on I-2… the latter is always the better choice.
I thank you for your compliment. You have seen 2 months of action having joined may 2016. Do hope in the future you do present your mainstream-acceptable novel ideas to help add new twists to this nice game.
And I did forget one last - but not the least - crucial point , that all the veterens of Axis and Allies Global can attest to……
**Egypt is a victory city!European victory for Axis hinges on getting London or Egypt - before OR after Moscow falls.**
Lots of mediocre players focus on getting to Moscow early…. and they may end up getting it… but the game is lost by the time they get Egypt…
If Axis bags Egypt early enough, obliterating the standing Allied army there… and getting a mIC in the bargain… even at the cost of 8 planes… they have a high probability of winning the game.
The pressure will be on the US and UK to play very accurately.
Too much US in the Atlantic… Japan could win.
The fall of Egypt , puts inordinate pressure on India and Middle East… that is the unique point of this play.
Every play has its counter… there is no single " silver bullet " solution… and iam sure RamRod will also have its counter.
Its a play that , IMHO is still worth playing as it forces Allies to play with little room for error.
Hope folks try it out.
- Ramdas Vaidyanathan aka Mein Herr
Sorry but I have heard enough of this garbage. Marsh has already proven that you cannot take Egypt without sacrificing all of the German Airforce. And any sane person would choose to have the airforce rather than Egypt. I would gratefully trade Egypt for the luftwaffa and I am sure most people would. You have been proven wrong so at this point the only resin I read this thread is because of your outrageous posts. This debate has already been won by Marsh.
As previously mentioned, planes lost were 3-4. Not all of Luftwaffe. There is a difference. A loss of 8 planes is an even trade.
The Option to either go for Egypt or Not , depending on how well it is defended on UK1 , is upto the Axis players. This should be decided on Italy Turn 1.
If Taranto is not done, as this would have to be the case for the best defense of Egypt, there are lots of things Italy can do…as mentioned in my previous posts… as it has a combined navy to work with… with 2 TRs… that it otherwise would not have.
If Taranto is done, Egypt is in the hands of Axis.
As Italy, having to choose between having a navy, or having Egypt with a freebie mIC on I-2… the latter is always the better choice.
I thank you for your compliment. You have seen 2 months of action having joined may 2016. Do hope in the future you do present your mainstream-acceptable novel ideas to help add new twists to this nice game.
I may have joined in may but even with my limited experience I don’t agree with your strategy. And the strange thing is I actually do enjoy radical strategy’s but your strategy is just a glorified Egypt strafe which has been discussed before. And I have shared my ideas but the only reason there not as popular is because it’s not controversial, most people think it’s ok. You can check out my Allied Strategy thread. Its just basic effective strategy’s that have worked for me.
As a Trekkie fan… I know some moves I write are despised by those who view and play the game like Mr. Spock.
Me, I love to play as Captain Kirk. I do like to roll the dice!
Here is are two good quotes to sum RamRod gambit arguments…
Spock: I can not allow you to do this. It is my function aboard the ship to advise you in making the wisest decisions possible, something I firmly believe you are incapable of doing in this moment.
James Kirk: I don’t know what I supposed to do, but I know what I can do!!!
The worth of Egypt is 63+ IPC … giving at least a 24 IPC swing - Each turn. With a German land unit… it makes it a 34 IPC swing Each Turn in the favor of Axis!.
Trust in yourself and roll the dice!!!
How will it proceed… well… no one can say. So many avenues of action and counter-play.
Should Germany lose just 4-5 planes, awesome!
Italy will be able to defend herself against the US-UK invasion.
The remainder of the German planes will kill more shipping on their way back to Romania on G3 or maybe not.
With no men…the UK fleet can only convoy… while the Italians steadily eat into MiddleEast Bonuses.
At a particular point, this will be the situation…probably about G5-J5-I5
Germany camped in Bryansk… Japan on the doorstep of India… Italy on Iraq… US-UK fleet either in SZ95 , off Egypt or SZ112
If UK did not send FTRs to Moscow… and India FTRs are not in India… and US does not balance its spending…between Atlantic and Pacific… or sells out one side for the other… it might end quickly.
But… if Allies play correctly… or… the dice rolls their way… they may win.
Just as a J1 DOW… Ramrod makes the game more exciting.
If the German player loses the entire Luftwaffe on G2… and UK rolls hot… and Germany feels ticked off… barely 30 minutes would have passed since the beginning of the game… heck , start a new one!
Use another strategy.
Although I don’t particularly agree with all of MeinHerr’s ideas. I won’t bash them until I’ve tried them. You bring up some pretty solid points about stuff but it is hard to predicate future moves when you don’t really know what the other guy is doing. I do like the idea of sending more German air force to Africa, either for coastal patrol (targets of opportunity) or just helping defend advancing Italians. I’ve personally not experimented with it due to the fact that I prefer to bomb England strategically and tactically on round 2 as well as round 3. I want to thank you MeinHerr for opening up the discussion and giving me some new Axis ideas for our South Texas game next week.
It’s great that we’re able to have a discussion about ideas, and it’s great that Meinherr is sharing his ideas.
That being said, I do question many of his assumptions about the opportunities his strategy will afford him – for example, simple math shows that even with sufficient income, Italy will be outproduced 2-1 after it captures Egypt with an MIC if the UK has an MIC in Persia to complement the South Africa MIC unless Italy controls the Med and can use at least two transports with naval support each turn to bring in reinforcements. That is just to hold Egypt, not to expand into the Middle East! The economic numbers just don’t add up – 14 IPCs for two more transports (assuming two Italian transports actually survive til I2 and if not it’s 7 more IPCs per transport), 15 IPCs for an airbase for Egypt or more IPCs than that for sufficient fleet coverage – where will Italy get the money to buy troops?
I also question Meinherr’s calculations. My calculations show that using the Luftwaffe to completely clean out Egypt costs Germany over 100 IPCs, but Meinherr says it will only cost Germany four planes. There’s also the matter of using planes to kill the French fleet in sea zone 93 on G1, which Meinherr seems to be assuming will not cost him a plane (general odds on this do not agree with this assumption).
We may be debating but frankly it’s not about winning vs losing the debate in my opinion. I did take some interesting ideas away from Meinherr’s side of the debate, even if overall I disagree with his position. These discussions enable us all to see things from a different perspective, and that’s always a useful thing.
Marsh
The standard theory is that US and UK help each other in Atlantic, while they help each other with China and Anzac’s help in the Pacific.
UK helps USSR too. USSR helps China. France helps anyone it can.
All is is true about Allies.
For an Axis win, Germany has to help Italy. This happens occassionally.
But what we rarely see is Japan helping Italy.
RamRod is one of the few places that this Japanese to Italian help is crucial in securing Axis victory!
The counter as MOW and others have rightly said is the Persian and SA factory.
The UK transports are critical in the defense/offense role.
However, the Navy protecting them is weak….and there are really no airbases… or the planes in these Airbases are gone.
So, to make the Italian threat potent, the Japanese Navy (IJN) must help out.
This can be done in 3 ways:
A) By just sallying forth with the combat ships, 2 Subs, BB+ DD, 2CRU . There can be some additions or subtractions done here.
The point is… that the UK Navy with the TRs sunk… should make it much much more expensive for UK to attack Egypt AND - DEFEND- the Persian complex at the same time.
There is a potential for a 1-2 punch, wherein the Italian Navy could hit the UK navy in Red Sea first… and then withdraw… and the Japanese fleet off India mops up the survivors.
B) Using a CV+FTR+TB in addition to A) but removing the BB
C) Adding a LOADED TR to A or B
This when done on J4 or J5 will really mess up Allied efforts to get back Egypt.
How the US fleet build is on US1 and US2 and the fleet positioning is of paramount importance for this to succeed.
IJN Build on J2 and J3 are important too.
But if pulled off… correctly… or the UK Botches its play… by J5-I5 or J6-I6, Persia can be Italian or Japanese… and S. Africa could be Axis too.
Just a point i had not mentioned earlier.
MeinHerr
