Deterrent to Egypt mIC on UK1 -"Ram-rod" play

MeinHerr,

The bid system is solidly in place at tournaments, on TripleA, and for friendly face to face games. Everyone is welcome to have house rules, we do with the Mongolian rule. But when discussing strategy, there are few seasoned players that wouldn’t drop a sub or destroyer in the med following a bid for the allies. It makes one of the largest pro allies impacts on the game. The allies are clearly disadvantaged in G40. Based on your rule I doubt many seasoned players would agree to take the allies without a very high bid for Russia.

I have to agree with Simon and Marsh regarding the exchange of German fighters for Egypt. The cost of those units just aren’t worth it.

I’d be happy to play test the theory on TripleA. I could be wrong. Maybe it is a crippling blow for the allies. If it is a crippling blow, then it goes back to my previous argument regarding the bid placement of a UK naval unit in the med.

Healthy debate is great for this game. Thank you for your contribution.

I’ve been watching this thread from the side lines.

I’m not a fan of placing bid units in the Med either, although I do feel the allies need some help. I think that the Med is one of the theaters that plays out pretty well for the allies, and Italy generally starts off at a disadvantage anyway by time their turn rolls around. Much depends on how much help the Germans want to give to Italy. Either by allowing them to grab more territory to prop up their income, or loaning them some air for a couple turns.

With that said, I’m probably not going to use the Luftwaffe to strafe Egypt. Then in addition you would also forgo the sz110 attack, and probably not hit the UK Med fleet if they did Taranto I’m defiantly not going to sacrifice 1/2 the German air force. On top of that there is the sack of Moscow that will surly be delayed w/o the extra punch of those lost planes.

Leaving the sz110 fleet alive gives the allies a pretty good starting navy in the Atlantic. Add to that the Luftwaffe can’t project the same threat because it was cut in half means the allies don’t need as much navy as normal to come across either. The US will need less warships, so they build more transports, or maybe just spend more in the Pac. Either way I think this “Ram Rod” would help the allies in the long run, and the axis are toast if the Italians don’t win that battle for Egypt which sounds like a close one.

@simon33:

How many UK players would use the TT to bring the AA gun and inf from Malta rather than crush Ethiopia? I’m assuming the Tobruk crush is out due to the Luftwaffe.

If there is no Taranto, why wouldn’t the Italians proceed as they did before we discovered Taranto? i.e. land on Trans-Jordan to block the fleet in the Red Sea, land on Alexandria and move the Ethiopian force to Sudan, if they’re still alive. I guess the answer to that would be the fleet in SZ92, if it moves there as it should.

Like Marsh, I also don’t see the merit of the no SZ110 crush and Luftwaffe strafe of Egypt. Why not go more mainstream and block the Tobruk crush with the Luftwaffe G1, although a significant bid can still overcome one fighter flown to Tobruk. Perhaps use a 2nd or even a 3rd plane and still hit SZ110? You could do that with a more acceptable risk than leaving the SZ110 like this:
SZ111 - 2subs, 1ftr, 1tac, BB
SZ110 - 2subs, 2ftr, 2tacs, 2SBs.
SZ106 - 1sub

Perhaps they will scramble into 110 with that but I’d still rather that than leaving the fleet alive. A bid tends to telegraph the intention to crush Tobruk.

That leaves 2ftrs and a tac which can fly to Tobruk. With an bid of an artillery in Alexandria and a ftr and a tac, that attack is 54% to take the territory. But is it worth it for the UK? You’ve passed up Taranto or stripped some planes out of it. You have to do a stripped Taranto or put down a blocker to keep Egypt then most likely.

There is no need to do Tobruk or Taranto, but that is a different thread. The Italians can’t land on Trans-Jordan, even with no Tobruk, if the UK deploys blockers on UK1 and moves back into the Med on UK2.

I’m not sure I’m ok with taking all that force to Tobruk and hitting sea zone 110 light. The UK player would be right to scramble then, and it would be disastrous for the Luftwaffe.

Any UK player who wants to secure Egypt as fast as possible should bring the infantry and the AA gun from Malta to Egypt on UK1.

Marsh

@MeinHerr:

Did a comparative chart to see if losing 5 planes is wOrth it for Germany to help get Egypt for Italy. This is if Taranto is done by UK.

Took into account convoying.

Over 4 turns, the Axis net gain and Allies net loss is 60 IPC

It also makes UK pay about $40 -$ 48 to get back it’s territories.

All this with Original Italian units in Africa alone.

Do not wanT to go into details… every one can figure it out themselves…besides writing from work on cell phone.

So Axis gain twice for each IPC lost initially.

At same time over first 4 turns Italy makes 44 IPC… enough to defend itself

You make bold statements and do not present any detailed arguments to support them. You then ignore refutations of your bold statements that are backed up by detailed analysis.

I’ve presented battle calculator results for Egypt strafes followed by an Italian overland attack with and without Taranto. Each way shows that Italy has a poor chance of taking Egypt if UK defends properly. You are counting on your opponent making a mistake, and if they do you do well. However, if you are counting on your opponent shooting themselves in the foot before the battle, what do you do when they don’t?

As Siparo says healthy debate is good. But debate is a discussion, and you are not discussing. You should show your calculations and tell me where mine are wrong.

Marsh

@Marshmallow:

There is no need to do Tobruk or Taranto, but that is a different thread. The Italians can’t land on Trans-Jordan, even with no Tobruk, if the UK deploys blockers on UK1 and moves back into the Med on UK2.

Strictly speaking this is true. A no Tobruk no Taranto scenario means you’ve sacrificed two ships as blockers - a sizeable portion of your navy in the Med. I much prefer a crush on SZs 96 & 97. That way, you will generally leave blockers as survivors of these battles. The trouble comes when the attacks fail I guess. Generally, you can bring back survivors from Ethiopia although in one of my first league games, that attacked failed as well as SZ96. Still can likely hold or retake Egypt if you use a blocker in Alexandria. Still the slight risk of enough going bad UK1 is normally enough to deter me from investing in an IC in Egypt UK1. It’s not likely that it will be taken UK2 because you can land your planes and bring back your Mech but even if it is, you have presumably positioned your TT back in South Africa and bought some troops.

I don’t accept your assertion on the Malta AAA. I consider that there are better uses for that TT. I expect you’re bringing across the India TT to hit Ethiopia - a move I hate because it makes India’s fall largely imminent.

Nope, I would not hit Ethiopia either. I use the India transport to activate Persia. The Ethiopian forces are a nuisance to the UK, not a threat. Plus, Persia is worth eight IPCs (two for the territory, plus two free infantry) and if the Italians roll average in Ethiopia I actually wind up losing money.

Also, activating Persia lets me kill Iraq on UK2, negating any free unit payday the Axis might get from landing there later.

As for the AA gun, it is definitely useful if there’s an air factor to the attack. Aside from the fear factor for the attacker because AA guns are so unpredictable, it also gives you better odds for winning the battle.

Marsh

Hmm, I used to do that with the Med TT but then I realised that the West Indian inf can do it one turn later so it’s really only a 2IPC difference. Versus a 4IPC difference per turn in stepping on Sumatra and to the more valuable UK Pac. Attacking Ethiopia can make the difference between collecting the UK Europe bonus UK2, at least potentially.

Yeah, if Japan is holding off you can make a lot of money with Sumatra. Java I usually give to ANZAC, and if Japan is holding off I usually give Sumatra to ANZAC as well.

So, it’s not that I’m not getting the IPCs, I’m just getting them somewhere other than India.

Marsh

@Marshmallow:

Yeah, if Japan is holding off you can make a lot of money with Sumatra. Java I usually give to ANZAC, and if Japan is holding off I usually give Sumatra to ANZAC as well.

So, it’s not that I’m not getting the IPCs, I’m just getting them somewhere other than India.

Marsh

ANZAC IPCs are about 1/3 as useful as Calcutta ones. You also can’t get it until ANZ2 at best and even then it requires you to take units off Java. I like to fortify Sumatra from Calcutta, believe it or not and Java from NT. I don’t worry about Celebes until after I’ve bothered to take Dutch New Guinea, war or not.

Well, keep in mind I am willing to sacrifice India to secure the Med, Africa, and the Middle East. If I give IPCs to India they are not going to be around long, whereas ANZAC IPCs can be around for a long time and can allow me to build higher price units faster.

It’s all opinion really. I value Persia and Iraq’s 4 IPCs plus two bonus infantry more than I value Java and Sumatra’s 8 IPCs for India.

Marsh

@Marshmallow:

Well, keep in mind I am willing to sacrifice India to secure the Med, Africa, and the Middle East. If I give IPCs to India they are not going to be around long, whereas ANZAC IPCs can be around for a long time and can allow me to build higher price units faster.

It’s all opinion really. I value Persia and Iraq’s 4 IPCs plus two bonus infantry more than I value Java and Sumatra’s 8 IPCs for India.

Marsh

Probably why you feel so strongly about the weakness of the Indian economy.

@simon33:

@Marshmallow:

Well, keep in mind I am willing to sacrifice India to secure the Med, Africa, and the Middle East. If I give IPCs to India they are not going to be around long, whereas ANZAC IPCs can be around for a long time and can allow me to build higher price units faster.

It’s all opinion really. I value Persia and Iraq’s 4 IPCs plus two bonus infantry more than I value Java and Sumatra’s 8 IPCs for India.

Probably why you feel so strongly about the weakness of the Indian economy.

Well, let’s see. I can pick up four IPCs for India by taking Sumatra, or I can pick up 8 IPCs (2 IPCs and two free infantry units) for UK proper by activating Persia. So from a money perspective, Persia is better. Plus, six of those IPCs are in play immediately – I don’t necessarily need to wait a turn to actually have them participate in combat. Plus, the unit from West India can actually go to India rather than activating East Persia (which gives me nothing).

On UK2 from Persia I can take Iraq, take Ethiopia, take Somaliland, retake British Somaliland, retake Kenya, retake Anglo-Egypt Sudan, reinforce Egypt/Trans-Jordan, reinforce India, activate East Persia, or activate Northwest Persia. So in addition to making more money I also have more options.

Furthermore, my transport tends to live longer (if Japan goes J2 my transport is toast and my infantry that took the island is paralyzed or dead) meaning that it can be used in the Med early and then be used in the Pacific again later if I need it, the IPC gains tend to stick around longer, and despite a slightly weaker India my overall position globally is stronger.

I do see your side of it – India might not fall if I grab Sumatra, or it might hold out a turn longer. That is true, but while getting money for India is good, India by itself is not the sole focus. Looking at it from a global perspective, securing the Med and the Middle East early lets me reinforce India in the long term and keep pressure on Japan if India falls, preventing Japan’s capture of India from letting it fight a single-front war in the Pacific. It also secures Russia’s southern flank, allowing Russia to concentrate on the German threat. Finally, with Italy reduced to exactly one option (building ground troops to defend Europe) UK resources are freed up to back up the US forces.

Marsh

The thing is that it’s not 8IPC. It’s 2IPC and 6IPC 1 turn earlier. If you count getting into Iraq one turn earlier, it might become 4IPC. I don’t see how that 1inf makes much difference to India but going into East Persia can make a difference to USSR. If you get a G2 DOW, Russia can run a tank into Persia from Turkmenistan and then take Iraq USSR3 with a plane preferably, which is giving it 7IPC per turn. If not, you still get the 5IPC per turn for USSR taking Iraq which I feel is worthwhile.

So you only get the 4IPC to the UK if you give up some USSR potential income. I know what I would rather.

If I activate NW Persia one turn earlier, that means Russia can be prepositioned in Caucasus to take Iraq and still be able to turn those forces around to deal with Germany if necessary. If Russia sends the tank through Turkmenistan and NW Persia is not activated, the tank cannot be turned around.

As for 8 IPCs vs your way of putting it, I fail to see a distinction.

Marsh

@Marshmallow:

As for 8 IPCs vs your way of putting it, I fail to see a distinction.

Really?

You’re saying that it is an advantage to add 6IPC UK1 vs adding those 6IPC UK2. That is different to the 2IPC which are added UK1 which will not be added later if Persia is not activated UK1.

NW Persia can be activated by the Russians. The trouble comes in where there is a G3 DOW. Then you can only attack Iraq USSR4 because USSR3 you are activating NW Persia. Generally, I will soften up Iraq with the UK in this scenario. If you’re lucky, you can retreat to TransJordan which helps out Egypt.

Yeah, cause ANZAC is going to grab those 4 IPCs on A2.

Plus, I have those two extra infantry. If UK1 went badly because of dice, then I can kill Iraq on UK2 before the Axis can capitalize on the bad UK1 turn.  I also have all those other options with those infantry, including marching infantry from Persia back to India (they make it on UK4) and having the transport continue on to Africa to kill Italians. Plus, the transport itself lives (7 more IPCs).

NW Persia can be activated by the Russians after Germany goes to war with Russia. If I activate it for them, then (let’s say Germany goes on G3) then on R3 Russia can collect Iraq IPCs. Your way, they may never collect those IPCs if that tank has to turn around. Even if they do, they can’t collect them until R4 via Caucasus and R5 via Turkmenistan, and that’s just too late to make much of a difference. If they get them R3, the tank can even make it back to Moscow.

Marsh

I think my way is clearly better if there is a G2 DOW. Your way is arguably better with a G3 DOW.

If there is a J2 DOW, you will usually lose the TT, granted. But it’s done its damage.

If you would jump on Sumatra A2, then if UK already have it you can jump Celebes. 1IPC. Not sure how you could do either because if the Sumatran TT is toast then so is the Java TT.

Well, if Japan is holding off til 3 I can always continue with those ANZAC troops onto India for defense, or move them to the Middle East, or drop them elsewhere in Asia (like Celebes). If Japan goes J1 or J2, I grabbed as much money and saved as many resources as I reasonably can.

I’m not leaving money on the table. I’m taking as much money as I can UK1 and A1, grabbing the smaller amount UK2 and A2. Yeah, there is a small loss to India, but UK as a whole is still up more cash.

In my experience, G3 is the most common. If Germany is waiting til G4 then it’s academic, because the guy from West India can walk over and activate NW Persia.

Marsh

You still don’t seem to accept the argument that UK_Pac money is more valuable than either UK_Europe or ANZAC money!