Med Battleship G1

@coorran:

He meant Sinkiang I guess.

That would make a lot more sense.

Col.Stauffenberg, you’d be surprised how little the Japs require their airforce after the first round or two.  Sure its nice to use 4 planes and 2 infantry against 1 infantry but only if they have nothing better to do, which is often the case after round 2 with Japan.  Again, the first time I faced fortress europe as the allies I was delighted to see most of the Jap airforce in WEu.  What a waste of resources I thought!  Then when you see how the air in WEu and the few planes in Asia affect your allied fleet moves you get that sinking feeling.  Trust me, when 4-6 Jap fighters and a bomber can hit a British fleet before the US can reinforce it you truly think twice before moving it.

Obviously, if you’re careful and plan ahead it can be dealt with.  However, the constraint and extra investment required of the allies is greater than any lost opportunity the Japanese experience using Fortress Europe, in my humble opinion.  Take what you will from one who has lost more than once as the allies facing it and as one who has used it more than once as the axis with success.

That may be the case. Maybe I went off the rails abit and sounded like I was trashing the strategy when my intent was to say it’s no better then Germany having a Navy and Japan crossing the channel with theirs. At least as far as extra allied ship building is concerned. Japan may not need their planes later but they need them early, to crush boats in the Pacific and get their foothold in Asia, but Fortress Europe requires that they be donated ASAP. A saavy Allied play can gain some IPCS on the Japanese coast early and use that to fund the naval builds. They might even hold on to those territories if the Japanese have no air force to help reclaim them.

German navy also means the allies have to spend more on boats. Much more than they would if they had to face just planes. Sure Germany doesn’t have as many guys when they buy navy but they buy time by not having to defend France and Italy with as much and the extra transports make up for a lack of a front since the men you’re building can move 2 spaces.  When Japan goes through the channel, then UK still has to be careful about moving since Japan’s planes on their carriers can hit many spots.

Fortress Europe is the absolute answer to KGF.Imho,the Allies simply cannot outrun the Axis in a Fortress Europe vs KGF race.Moscow will fall to the Japanese before Berlin.The reason for this is that while Japan can take Caucasus,the Allies cannot permanently occupy Southern Europe.The japanese fleet crossing the Canal only adds to the problem.Fortress Europe demands the Allies to radically reconsider KGF.

Fortress Europe is definitely beatable, but allies needs to be willing to take some calculated risks as to be aggressive since the grinding game of just trading territories and slowly building up hoping for axis openings just leaves allies a huge underdog.

And I would add that KGF as more chances to beat Fortress Europe then KJF as chances to win in general :)

For the most part, anytime one side builds navy/air and the other side can build land units, the land unit force wins.  Germany does not need navy to get land units in action where it matters, Europe.

Fortress Europe works because initial starting forces of the Japs namely their airforce causes the allies to invest more in the Atlantic navy and thus less in land units that actually get you IPCs.

Japan can only get a few air units to WEu by round 2 maybe depending on the gamestate, so they can use their airforce for combat as it migrates to WEu in the early rounds.

While it is true that a German investment in navy causes the allies to also invest in additional navy, I think the resource diversion away from increased land forces for Germany is slightly less effective.

If you truly need air in asia and for the islands then hold back a few planes.  If you have all your air in WEu you can easily build more in Japan if you really really need air in Asia.  But having even a few air assests in WEu constrains the allies greatly in particular the reach of just 1 bomber.  The difference between zero and one bomber is greater than the difference between one and three in my opinion.

I would LOVE to review a game played between a decently implemented Fortress Europe and a successful overcoming of it.  If I thought I could play a decently implemented Fortress Europe AND I had time, I would put out a challenge here!  But alas, I must learn the curve of TripleA in order to review games.

You guys keep repeating yourselves. You keep saying Fortress Europe does this and that but not why. It forces the allies to build more navy. How? Uk can overcome a four plane + bomber in at the most, 2 rounds. By themselves. How is this a big enough delay to win? I just can’t see it. Maybe you guys aren’t aggressive enough with the allies. You do a serious hardcore KGF to the point where no matter what happens, Germany is feeling serious heat on round 3.

It forces allies to build more navy because usually UK doesn’t need to buy anything at all. UK can build planes early (to secure Africa and to already have a high attack force ready when they build their transports) while US builds the fleet and then build transports in SZ8 while US just bring their huge fleet to protect them. The problem is that if there are Japan fleets around this fleet of US navy + UK transports will not be able to move, so UK needs a fleet that can survive ALONE 5 fighters + 1 bomber and that means a lot of fleet ! (for exemple AC+2Fig+2DD as only 11% chances against those 6 planes)

So UK actually needs 2 destroyer + 2 loaded aircraft carrier (can use US planes though) so 44 IPC, that is 1.5 turn production !!!

Also, for any tentative of double disembarkments from UK ans US (typical plan to create a weakness in Germany coast) which is usually hard for Germany to defend since it requires having a lot of infantries everywhere, now Germany can have 5 fighters reinforcement between the 2 waves of attack ! This will allow Germany to defend territories with about 5 infantry less then it would usually need on every single territory he needs to defend (WesEur, Ger and EasEur), plus the 5 fighters will seriously help defending one of those permenently since the planes will be sitting there. In total effect, because of their mobility between UK and US turns, those 5 fighters will have the defense power of around 15-20 infantries, that is another 45 IPC !!!

So not only the planes will force UK spending 44 IPC on fleets that they would not usually need. It also makes the chance of allies never being able to land in WesEur, Ger and EasEur much higher then usual, forcing them to target lowers IPC countries in the north.

In a nutshell, those planes (actually having a “real” value of 62 IPC), have a practical worth of about 90 IPC (and I am being conservative there). With allies going KGF, there is no way you could have that kind of value with those Japanease planes in Asia/Pacific. Obviously, if allies goes KJF those planes are better in Asia/Pacific but KJF is not a losing strategy.

That is what I mean when I say a typicall KGF-all out against Germany just won t work most of the times.

With japanese air in Europe, UK-US will end up creating one loaded AC (UK AC and 2 US ftr combined IPC 34) for every 3 japanese airplanes in Europe (IPC 30-32). At the same time, the Allies must stop Germany in Europe (by offloading 4 UK inf and 6 US inf=combined IPC 30), something that is doable untill Africa falls to Japan.
This consumes all UK-US income in order to stop Germany in Europe and match the japanese air reinforcements. SO, we have Russia and the remaining Japanese forces. Russia alone cannot kill (a reinforced by japanese air) Germany. But it can make sure to hold Ukraine and garisson Novosibirsk, keeping the Japanese at bay.

The obvious move for Japan is to go after Africa. Russia cannot reach the japanese forces landing straight in AngloEgypt Sudan. And with one blow it cripples the allies’ ability to both stop Germany and to match the japanese airforce in Europe.

The thing is imho that while everyone else is totally reactive (Germany is all out stacking ground defences, UK and US are all out stacking gound and sea defences, Russia is all out to hold Ukraine and novosibirsk) in Fortress Europe Japan has the chance to be partially proactive. After sending the air reinforcements in Europe, the remaining IPCs can be used in a way that the Allies have nothing to respond.

That is why most Fortress Europe games end up with Japan taking Moscow after having raided Africa, while the Allies are stuck way outside Berlin. In some cases, Moscow is traded with Berlin, meaning they both fall in the same round. In fewer cases, Berlin falls just in time before Japan takes Moscow. But there is almost never a clear Allied victory with Fortress Europe.

Stauffenberg, I wonder if you are thinking in Revised terms.  In Revised, the Jap planes in Europe were not near as much of a threat to navies as in Spring 42.  But since Allies cannot take transports as casualties, the threat from the Japanese air force is considerably greater.

What makes Fortress Europe (as Hobbes conceived it) so damn hard to beat is Axis puts a premium on holding Western Europe.  Ideally, in a KGF Allies want to be landing in 7 and get control of Western if at all possible.  But up against Fortress Europe, Allies’ best shot at victory is getting control of Eastern Europe and setting up your siege there.  With effective Russia play it is possible, if you pressure well, and if Axis plays less than perfectly.

The problem is that to do this the Allied navy needs to be in SZ5, which is an awkward place for the Allied navy to be if Japan has been building planes all game.  Allies can’t reinforce their navy in 5 without building a factory in Norway or Eastern Europe, and building such a factory tends to sap momentum from the KGF.  It’s even harder if Axis has multiple bombers in Western, making it tricky to build ACs in SZ3 to reinforce 5.  Still harder is if the Jap fleet sails into the Atlantic and starts threatening your secondary fleet in sz2, while your main fleet is stuck in 5 and may not be able to split up because of the threat from large enemy air fleets.

It may be worthwhile in this context to consider the risky R1 Nor attack, in order to preserve the UK BB and thus take the sting out of Axis’ ability to launch 1-2 air attacks on Allied navies in SZ5.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

You guys keep repeating yourselves. You keep saying Fortress Europe does this and that but not why. It forces the allies to build more navy. How? Uk can overcome a four plane + bomber in at the most, 2 rounds. By themselves. How is this a big enough delay to win? I just can’t see it. Maybe you guys aren’t aggressive enough with the allies. You do a serious hardcore KGF to the point where no matter what happens, Germany is feeling serious heat on round 3.

It’s a matter of what you consider by the expression ‘serious heat’.

UK builds 1 AC + 2 DDs on UK1. Those are joined by the US cruiser and Russian sub. Germany can set 2 subs plus the rest of the planes on G2 on Western Europe to counter any landing. You’ll have 7 Allied units against 2 German subs + 2 bombers and 3-5 fighters. So the UK either needs to buy more ships for defense or the US buys an AC on US1 and sends it to SZ8 to join the UK fleet on US2. That will be enough to defend against the Germans but it will prevent any UK takeover of Norway on UK2, unless the UK buys more ships to defend the fleet against the Germans.
So the UK gets 1 more DD and 2 transports and infantry and gets Norway, uses 1 destroyer to block the German subs on SZ5. Now what?

The US can get 1 carrier to SZ8 on US2, but even with the destroyer from the Pacific the US fleet will be unable to move to SZ8 without being destroyed by the Germans. It can get move to SZ1 to hit Western Europe on US3 but even if the UK fleet stayed on SZ8 (letting Germany keep Norway for another round) Germany can easily reinforce W. Eur to prevent any Allied landing (even if the UK bought 3 transports on UK2 those units can’t beat a stack of 12 infantry reinforced by the German and Japanese fighters (which start landing on W. Europe by J3) and the US follow attack consist of only 4 land units plus planes.

It forces the Germans to move most of their inf to Western Europe, but until the US is able to build its landing force to 4 transports the Germans can keep up with that Allied landing buildup until they can prevent any Allied landings on W.Eur and stop the Allies from creating the 2nd front. When that happens nearly all of G’s income can be switched to the Eastern front to put the pressure back on the Russians.

Meanwhile the starting 6 fighters and 1 bomber of the Japanese arrive at W. Eur, reinforcing its defense, and if the Allies have tried to get the 4 UK and 4 US transports ready they will be limited on their moves because now the Axis can coordinate 2 naval attacks on the Atlantic.

And there’s the problem of SZ8 - the Axis airforces on W. Eur can attack it and SZ5/6, forcing the Allies to either create a 2nd defense fleet, or to switch the US shuck shuck transports through SZ1, delaying their arrival in Europe.

And what all that expense in ships costs to the Axis? Just 1 bomber for Germany on G1, if you don’t want to buy more planes for Japan and simply use its 7 starting ones. And as long as you keep W. Eur fortified, all of the rest can go to land units against Russia.

It can place some heat on Germany to defend W. Europe from after turn 3 and onwards (getting on turn 3 depends above all on luck regarding German losses on G1), I agree with you there. But that’s exactly what the Axis want that the Allies do.

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway. So the UK has to buy more boats, great, then they buy them. The UK and US capitols are only in danger in noob games so everything they buy is expendable. If the axis want to lose planes to kill US/UK boats, it’s a better trade for the allies. UK can save IPCS and buy their two loaded carriers and 4 destroyers if they want on round 2. I dunno. There’s a million ways around it.

As soon as I finish my test in mid August I’m getting AAA and making it a priority to test this strat (ie end this charade).

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway. So the UK has to buy more boats, great, then they buy them. The UK and US capitols are only in danger in noob games so everything they buy is expendable. If the axis want to lose planes to kill US/UK boats, it’s a better trade for the allies. UK can save IPCS and buy their two loaded carriers and 4 destroyers if they want on round 2. I dunno. There’s a million ways around it.

As soon as I finish my test in mid August I’m getting AAA and making it a priority to test this strat (ie end this charade).

There are ways around it. But after having played with this strategy a lot of times and even losing to it, I’ll just say that I disagree with it being a ‘charade’.

Battles are fought two ways, one way uses dice, the other way is to dictate to the enemy what they will purchase.  The Jap airforce might never attack the allied navy.  A shrewd allied player will never make it an easy choice and do what it takes so as not to give the Japanese an easy victory.  But just because the allies never suffer an air attack by the Japanese does not imply a victory by the allies.  The lost opportunity costs of IPCs spent on additional navy is in itself a victory that doesn’t cost the Japanese much.

It’s already been said but I will repeat it….It makes it much easier for the Germans to defend knowing that 4-6 Jap fighters are HERE, and if the Brits land THERE instead as part of a 1-2 Brit-US punch, the Jap fighters can then easily move to THERE so in effect, they are in two places at once when considering a 1-2 Brit/US punch.

Jap air does much more in WEu than doing escort duty and making the US wary of a prick-shot landing on the US west coast/alaska/mexico.  You know in a KGF that the Jap airforce is looking for targets by Japan 3 onwards, unless you play against people that leave 4-5 land units just waiting to get jumped by 4-5 infantry backed by 5-7 Jap planes…

In any event Col.Stauffenberg, until you play against a decently implemented version of Fortress Europe you’ll never see its strengths.

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway. So the UK has to buy more boats, great, then they buy them. The UK and US capitols are only in danger in noob games so everything they buy is expendable. If the axis want to lose planes to kill US/UK boats, it’s a better trade for the allies. UK can save IPCS and buy their two loaded carriers and 4 destroyers if they want on round 2. I dunno. There’s a million ways around it.

As soon as I finish my test in mid August I’m getting AAA and making it a priority to test this strat (ie end this charade).

There are ways around it. But after having played with this strategy a lot of times and even losing to it, I’ll just say that I disagree with it being a ‘charade’.

Heh. So do I actually. I was just talking trash.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway.

It’s exactly the point, axis doesn’t really want to kill allies fleet (although it will if they have the opportunity) axis might buy 1-2 planes early with Germany but after that they won’t buy any more planes. The main objective for axis is to force allies to sink 3 rounds of IPC in building a fleet and even there they might need to buy a bid more on turn 4. During that time Japan goes forwards and by the time allies actually starts getting boots in Norway, Karelia of Archangel, axis already as almost the same IPC production then allies (around 78-80 IPC). At that point there are three fronts:
-Germany vs allies on the karelia-bielorussia-ukraine line (WesEur is impossible to attack for allies as Hobbes explained since it is Germany #1 priority), it’s the only front where allies are actually attacking, they need a lot of units since Germany built essentially infantries and have huge amounts of grounds units now.
-Japan vs allies, Russia needs help there, they have been trading with Germany for a while and even though they likely built a small stack, they can’t hold alone against Japan much higher IPC production in that area (the IPC drain for both Russia and Germany on the previously mentionned line should be around 15-21 IPC/turn, this leaves somewhere between 7-15 IPC for Russia against Japan)
-Japan vs Africa, this is were the was is usually won: if Japan takes Africa they will get over 50 IPC/turn and axis will win because they have an higher IPC production and that they should already have numeric advantage of ground units on the main land (allies having less IPC they will never recover from losing Africa if they are not in a situation where they actually went through already on the Germany vs allies front. Let’s note also that if allies defends that front, Japan will attack Moscow instead.

The winner of the war will usually be the side winning one of those 3 fronts. The problem is that when Japan will have a unit stack in Persia they will be having a way too strong double threat on Moscow/Africa and that with all the IPC drained early for UK/US to build fleets, they won’t be able to protect those 2 fronts. So basically it’s all about Germany holding their front while the inevitable happens on one of the other 2 fronts, hence the huge infantries spending for Germany.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

@Hobbes:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway. So the UK has to buy more boats, great, then they buy them. The UK and US capitols are only in danger in noob games so everything they buy is expendable. If the axis want to lose planes to kill US/UK boats, it’s a better trade for the allies. UK can save IPCS and buy their two loaded carriers and 4 destroyers if they want on round 2. I dunno. There’s a million ways around it.

As soon as I finish my test in mid August I’m getting AAA and making it a priority to test this strat (ie end this charade).

There are ways around it. But after having played with this strategy a lot of times and even losing to it, I’ll just say that I disagree with it being a ‘charade’.

Heh. So do I actually. I was just talking trash.

Apologies then.

@GCar:

@Col.Stauffenberg:

So say the planes sink the ships. What round does this usually happen? What have the allies been spending on? Because we usually spend 3 rounds on mostly ships as US/UK anyway.

-The winner of the war will usually be the side winning one of those 3 fronts. The problem is that when Japan will have a unit stack in Persia they will be having a way too strong double threat on Moscow/Africa and that with all the IPC drained early for UK/US to build fleets, they won’t be able to protect those 2 fronts. So basically it’s all about Germany holding their front while the inevitable happens on one of the other 2 fronts, hence the huge infantries spending for Germany.

That’s usually how every game goes if the Axis wins. Germany hangs in and waits for relatively unopposed Japan to become montrously huge but as far as them taking Africa, why is the US letting that happen? I get the UK has to worry about the Japanese planes but the US doesn’t. They can build up a big enough navy to move out as early as round 2. From there they can drop off in Africa round after round. It’s the safest, albiet slowest and most boring way for the allies to win. Just a massive march through africa.

I just don’t get how Japan is supposed to donate planes early and still spread globally with no problems. What do they do against Pearl? If New Guinea is taken? If French Indo is taken (meaning they lost a plane), what do they do against the Russian stack in Bury, the American forces in China? With only the resources we have on round one, we can do a good job of stalling Japan. I still see this as causing a greater delay for the axis then it does the allies.

@Col.Stauffenberg:

That’s usually how every game goes if the Axis wins. Germany hangs in and waits for relatively unopposed Japan to become montrously huge but as far as them taking Africa, why is the US letting that happen? I get the UK has to worry about the Japanese planes but the US doesn’t. They can build up a big enough navy to move out as early as round 2. From there they can drop off in Africa round after round. It’s the safest, albiet slowest and most boring way for the allies to win. Just a massive march through africa.

I just don’t get how Japan is supposed to donate planes early and still spread globally with no problems. What do they do against Pearl? If New Guinea is taken? If French Indo is taken (meaning they lost a plane), what do they do against the Russian stack in Bury, the American forces in China? With only the resources we have on round one, we can do a good job of stalling Japan. I still see this as causing a greater delay for the axis then it does the allies.

For your first question, yes it is a possible and viable plan for US against Fortress Europe. Against that, Japan will forget Africa and go to Moscow while Germany (facing no disembark at all beside WesEur and SouEur, that last one being mostly a trap for US) will slowly try to get to have a small stack going froward to create a 1-2 punch against Moscow. US as the risk to be too late (the infantries takes too long to walk through Africa) but if US starts putting Infantries in Persia and Moscow is not fallen, well they are winning. The upside of this plan (in comparison to sending US in Europe by Norway, Karelia or Archangel) is the you save a lot of IPC on the navy and that you cover the 3 important fronts in a more split way then usual. The downside is that UK as trouble getting involved and that US help in Russia comes about 2 turns later then usual, giving 2 more turns for Japan to build units for the attack.

For your second question, we already mentionned that Fortress Europe is a plan against KGF (kill Germany first), it doesn’t beat every single ally strategy. If US goes after Japan instead of going after Germany this is not KGF anymore and obviously you keep the planes in Japan viscinity since you don’t need them in Europe anymore (Germany can handle UK + Russia alone) and you really need those in the Pacific to slow down the US attack. It is a bit like chess. 1…e7-e5 is a very fine move against 1.e2-e4 but it is quite bad against 1.d2-d4 :)

@GCar:

For your second question, we already mentionned that Fortress Europe is a plan against KGF (kill Germany first), it doesn’t beat every single ally strategy. If US goes after Japan instead of going after Germany this is not KGF anymore and obviously you keep the planes in Japan viscinity since you don’t need them in Europe anymore (Germany can handle UK + Russia alone) and you really need those in the Pacific to slow down the US attack. It is a bit like chess. 1…e7-e5 is a very fine move against 1.e2-e4 but it is quite bad against 1.d2-d4 :)

I wasn’t even talking about the US going for Japan. I meant, what does Japan do with America’s starting pieces, like the ones in China and Pearl? To fight them, you need planes, to not fight them would give US a massive headstart either against Japan or Germany. There’s too many fights for them to send planes to Egypt in non-combat on round 1 is what I’m saying, and what I understand is important for Fortress Europe.