Alpha +3 Observations

@Cmdr:

@cts17:

Without a Sealion build, Great Britain can threaten France as early as turn 3… not very strongly, but by turn 5, the British can be landing in strength on the French and Scandinavian coasts.

I don’t think so.

England should have 1 Cruiser SZ 91, 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport in SZ 109 on England 1.  Germany will have 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Submarines, 1 Cruiser and 5 Fighters, 5 Tactical Bombers and 1 Strategic Bomber that can hit the British fleet if it builds one.  That means they have to pull out until the Med fleet can get there, and even then, with a few extra submarines or perhaps some more aircraft, that British fleet is going to have to remain away for quite a while until it is safe to come close to Europe.  Best guess, British units are not threatening France until Round 6 earliest, and then only with American ships helping to defend.  Even then, we’re talking 1 or 2 transports, nothing serious.  The Italians should be plenty strong enough to push any landings off France again.

??  Jenn why do you confuse yourself so often?  In the previous post that you put in here you said Germany would have 30+19+45 or whatever to get 70ipcs G2.  And you were adding up all those totals to show how much more money Germany has than Russia…and here you are spending 16 of those IPCS on a CV against UK?  Which is it?  Why do your ideas change from one post to the other?

Face it, your ‘math’ is wrong because you use blanket statements and then when you try and define them find out your blanket statement was all wrong…or rather we find out…

16 IPC for a Carrier is just a good investment.  You dont need to use it against England, you are using it to make your fleet more defensible, thus, keeping the British fleet away from England and making it so you dont have to defend France as much.

England is NOT going to put a fleet in SZ 109 when Germany has:
5 Fighters
5 Tactical Bombers
1 Strategic Bomber
3 or 4 Submarines (assuming all starting submarines were lost)
1 Cruiser
1 Battleship
1 Carrier

In range to attack it.  They dont have enough cash to support a fleet there without it being slaughtered.  So essentially, there will be no British fleet in the North Atlantic for the first 3 or 4 rounds, until they ahve enough cash to defend a fleet.  By then, Russia should be on it’s knees and Germany can look to self-defense in the West.

I just build my fleet in Canada and send it to the Med if Germany builds naval.  Let Germany build fleet, it’s easier for Russia to defend itself then.  That carrier could be 4 ART on the Eastern front, amounting to 12 attack value against the Russians.

@Cmdr:

16 IPC for a Carrier is just a good investment.  You dont need to use it against England, you are using it to make your fleet more defensible, thus, keeping the British fleet away from England and making it so you dont have to defend France as much.

England is NOT going to put a fleet in SZ 109 when Germany has:
5 Fighters
5 Tactical Bombers
1 Strategic Bomber
3 or 4 Submarines (assuming all starting submarines were lost)
1 Cruiser
1 Battleship
1 Carrier

In range to attack it.  They dont have enough cash to support a fleet there without it being slaughtered.  So essentially, there will be no British fleet in the North Atlantic for the first 3 or 4 rounds, until they ahve enough cash to defend a fleet.  By then, Russia should be on it’s knees and Germany can look to self-defense in the West.

I got what you were saying, but I was pointing out you were adding Ipcs and not subtracting for the 16ipc CV you usually buy.  I always buy it anyways.  I think you should go back and edit your posts then, subtract the 16 ipcs for the G1 carrier…and any other ships.  This is about Russia vs Germany and although Russia has 3 boats German ships are seen as a counter to UK and not russia.

Ah, yes.  It is 16 IPC in Russia’s favor, but I did not really consider it that big of an impact. You are correct, the numbers should be reflected downward by at least 16 IPC, more accurately 28 IPC since I go Carrier, 2 Submarines on R1.

Jenn, your IPC count is wrong, 'cause you know, both Germany and Italy needs to spend some points in ships, in order to fight England.

It’s a 2v2 where Germany averages 50ipcs, Italy averages 15ipcs, England averages 30, Russia averages 35, that’s 65 vs 65. And that’s without taking in consideration USA.

WOW  he’s going deep now

It’s the Allied IPC total because generally the other Allies don’t contribute to the Russian front.  They often make periodic attacks on Germany/Italy, though.

@Ruanek:

It’s the Allied IPC total because generally the other Allies don’t contribute to the Russian front.  They often make periodic attacks on Germany/Italy, though.

Because there are no British, Australian or American units in Russia prior to round 4.

Yes.  1 Aircraft Carrier costs 16 IPC.  What is your point?  I don’t see it.  Russia is still out numbered 2 to 1 for a LONG time before America and England can do squat about it.  Probably closer to 3 to 1 if you count in Japan.  And no, you won’t be getting ANY of those infantry from Mongolia.  Don’t worry about it.

Mantle, where in the world did I say Germany had any major complexes in Russia?  This is a perfect example of why your posts get deleted.  Straight up lies and slander.

@mantlefan:

@Ruanek:

It’s the Allied IPC total because generally the other Allies don’t contribute to the Russian front.  They often make periodic attacks on Germany/Italy, though.

Regardless, it’s a meaningless stat. How many buys does Russia get before most of those units get to moscow? It’s not like Germany’s industrial heartland is bryansk. It’s a misrepresentation to the max.

They get 8, max before Japan, Italy and Germany are taking turns destroying Moscow.

Well I picked apart Jen’s post about Allied and Axis IPC counts….  if that’s baiting…  what are we doing here?

@Gargantua:

Well I picked apart Jen’s post about Allied and Axis IPC counts….  if that’s baiting…  what are we doing here?

I dont know.  I didn’t do it.  I try not to delete entire posts unless it is literally nothing but slander and trolling with absolutely nothing redeaming about it.  That is exceptionally rare on the most part.  If it is part trolling, I’ll go in and delete the parts that are trolling and send a PM to the person to let them know what I did.  I always PM the person if I do something to their posts, the stealth deletions by Switch still grate in my craw.

Yes, Russia can do this, as can Germany when America and England invade France.  I fail to see how Russia being able to purchase 6 or 7 guys for Moscow defense while Japan is bringing in 3 or 4 more tanks a round and Germany is bringing in 19 infantry and tanks each round.  (3 Infantry Novgorod, 3 Infantry S. Ukraine, 3 Infatnry N. Ukraine + tanks speed up from Germany proper.)

Very simply, Russia CANNOT survive the focused efforts of Germany, Italy and Japan because it takes the Americans 7 rounds to even GET to Russia.  4 Rounds of Neutrality + 1 Round to get to Quebec’s Naval base, 1 round to get to London’s naval base and 1 round to land reinforcements in Arkhangelsk/Karelia/Novgorod/Nentesia.  Landing in England or Norway is irrelevant, the naval base is in London, not Norway.

German units can get from Germany to Moscow in 1 round.  1 Strategic Bomber moves from Germany to Russia and lands in Bryansk.  2 Rounds for Fighters/Tactical Bombers.  3 Rounds for Armor.  So the real goal is to get all the infantry you need for the attack and get them in position by round 3, or they wont have time to get to Russia before it falls.

Germany and Italy needs to involve part of their IPCs in defending against UK and then US. That’s why they can’t commit all their IPCs to Russia.
Even if you don’t do sealion, you too admitted you like to buy submarines and bomb raid London. That’s quite an IPC investment Jennifer, so the whole point of the thread is that Germany doesn’t have that big advantage you think they have.

Russia will instead invest all their economy in defending their land, Germany can’t do that, cause they have to deal with other powers. Same can be said with Italy. How are you supposed to help Germany if you get your entire fleet crushed UK1 ?

Noll:

All Italy needs are 14-20 IPC sent to Russia.  We’re really only talking about 3-5 Infantry and a Tank to pop a territory closer to Moscow and allow the Germans to reinforce it.  That gives Germany the OPTION to move their aircraft over to defend as well.  I say OPTION because Germany also has the OPTION to leave them in range of any British fleet that might suddenly appear.

Other than an initial investment for a carrier, Germany is sending all of their resources at Russia.  I am not holding anything back.  (Planes can zoom over as soon as they are needed, so leaving them behind in W. Germany is not really holding them back.)  Italy is working on Africa and then once England can actually do anything to Europe, reinforcing France to stop them.

America, as we have already outlined, is useless until Round 6 at the absolute earliest and are the easiest to slow down if you wanted too. (Because England cannot open the route for them, so a destroyer WILL block America where as it might not block England.)  If you really wanted too.  I do not think you do, but if you do, you can.

As for submarines, if you are going that route, you need 4 submarines total.  You start with 5, so this should not be an impossibility.  You want 3 or 4 in SZ 109, 1 in SZ 106 and if you went 3 in SZ 109, the the last one can go off the gold coast of Africa in that convoy zone.  Will they be killed?  Eventually.  But that’s not something to worry about for quite some time, at least 3 or 4 rounds, probably 6 or 7 rounds and at that point, you’re already in position to start three hitting the Russians in Moscow.

Mantle:

When you go to war you outline your objectives, then figure out a way to attain them.

Germany’s objectives (in order):

1. Get Paris
2. Get Novgorod
3. Get Volgograd
4. Get Muskva
5. Get Cairo

How do you attain this?

You can either go slow and get the three minors as outlined, or go quickly and fore go the complexes and make a hard push for Muskva.  I am not certain which path is correct, but I know that by round 5 Germany should be in prime position to have 3 minor complexes in Russia.  If they cannot attain that goal, they are probably moving too slow and the Americans will become a problem before Muskva falls.  IMHO.

The math holds, the game board situation holds and the rules hold.  If Russia cannot be taken in short order (prior to round 10) than either your opponent is more skilled than you are, or you made a fundamental flaw in your strategy or you got diced.

Did I read this right? AAguns have effectively been nerfed?

Let me get this right. You get to fire 3 times per aagun, but you are maxed out on rolls by the number of aircraft correct?

So unless you buy and build stacks of aaguns, it takes 2 aaguns to give you a likely hit on 1 air unit?

As an added bonus, the air units can now destroy the aaguns and thus have no fear later rounds?

Riddle me this:

Whats to stop the US from building bombers only, obtain a stack of 15 bombers and start clearing land units?
Once you have 15 bombers, you will clear 10 units a combat round on average:) Imagine what one UK transport and 1 inf can do, if the US clears all the land units that can counter attack in Europe.

Typically, 1 old fashioned aa gun prevented this approach, 15 bombers would lose 2-3 plus land unit hits and the aagun never goes away.

15 bombers gives you 10 hits a round-enough to clear a factory’s builds. Continue with a round 2 and you clear the factories aaguns. This is sub par, however you just cleared 30 IPCs for 36….US has the money to burn. Imagine Germany trying to build units in Russia only to see their reinforcements cleared in the rear by US bomber forces.

Never bomb factories in mass, directly assault the land units built out of those factories; aaguns are worthless in Alpha 3 now (they have to spend 10-12 ipcs-are they 5 or 6 ipcs each?-to kill one bomber a turn and now they can be destroyed by the bombers themselves…bonus). Plus bombing factories kills potential units and is capped, bombing units: kill units and their current position (turn is wasted) and is unlimited.

So: At 52 IPCs the US can build 4.3 bombers a turn while neutral….in 3 rounds (13+1starting), you have an air force able to clear stacks of 10 when you enter war, using your newly built bombers as replacements to fuel the fire. In addition, not desirable, but you can defend key areas with the bombers as casualties for London in a pinch.

If you get that force, and supplement it with starting navy or you build 3 bombers a round and other pieces, you should be ok in Europe…Now Japan is another story, maybe you still have to hit them first and only do bombers when Germany leaves London alive.

Italy and Germany could never build a navy:
15 bombers=10 navy hits
carrier, 2 fighters, Battleship, Cruiser, 3 Destroyers, 3 transports-a reasonable Italian fleet.
1 combat round: Italy hits 4 times, US hits 10 combat ends
Italy lost 113 IPC’s, US 48 IPC’s or 60 if they hit 5 times.

In reality, US can amass only 14 bombers by turn 3 (start with 1, build 13)

To clear Japan’s starting fleet, 2 BB, 3 carriers, 6 ftrs, 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers= 22 hits you would need 21 bombers and 2 combat rounds:
US 21 units= 14 hits, Japan 17 units/22 hit taking to die = 9 hits
US 12 units = 8 hits, Japan 8 units = 6 hits

Total bombers lost=9+6=15=180 ipcs for Japan’s 204…21 is the minimum size you would need and that assumes 6 hits instead of 5 round 2 for Japan’s 8 units.

You could use that force in China to clear Japan’s land units (or air units when they land away from a stack of 14 or more) if they hide their fleet.

Is this crazy?

For USA to sustain a bomber campaign they will need to purchase consistent replacements.  This would drain their economy to the point of only being able to fight on one side of the board.  The bombers also need a place to land and it’s hard to take territory without land units.  If I were axis and saw USA doing this I would have a heyday.

On the surface that makes sense, but why wouldn’t your opponent start leaving some fighters behind to murder your bombers?

And yes, AA Guns were nerfed heavily, so that they made more sense to have mutliple stacks to save England from falling so easily.  (Not easy, easily.)  I love it though.  I slaughter the Russians with my German guns.  They either risk losing a precious plane, use tanks to reclaim land or give it up to me forever!

Has anyone tried this to help out Russia?

On the first turn of Ger invasion of Russia, UK flies 1-2 fighters to Leningrad or Archangel (if somehow Ger took Len.). If Japan goes after Russia, UK India (helped by the Aussies) starts pounding away at Japs Southern Pacific tt’s. Should this not impeed Japan and boost India’s strength? And can not the UK forces in India actually move to help in Russia? Yes I know Russia loses their NO, but who cares when its traded for a plane or 2 each turn. Once America comes in, they can also help shift units to Russia, even to SFE tt’s to offset Japan (US builds factory and NB on Alaska).
Doesn’t this seem viable as I have read here that Russia will last at least until R8?