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

That’s correct. I do not accept that position.

Also, my way if Germany goes G2 then Russia can collect Iraq IPCs on R2 and the tank can still make it back to Moscow on R5.

Marsh

You mean R3. R2 you will be claiming NW Persia presumably.

Yeah, you’re right. But your way doesn’t get them there before R3 anyway.

Marsh

Perhaps I might be more inclined to accept your position on India money vs Europe money if you showed me what could be done with it other than building more units in India.

Marsh

More units in india are worth more than in sydney or persia, clearly.

Since I’ve already stated that I’m more than willing to let India fall to secure the Med, you’re going to have to do better than that. Even if I conceded your point, extra units in India would not be worth more than extra units in the Middle East and Egypt to me.

I usually choose to not lose in the Pacific and to win in Europe. ANZAC can turtle up nicely with the extra money, giving Japan a horrible logistical issue to deal with to win. India is subject to output from Japanese factories on the mainland, making it less of a pain for Japan to take. I’ll turtle Sydney and stack it with a few US reinforcements as well. That means ANZAC having extra money on A2 and A3 is good.

Now, if I were playing save India at all costs, I would probably give India the money.

Marsh

Marsh, what is to stop Japan from marching onto the Middle East and Africa after India falls?

If that happens, then a secure Med is no longer secure.

Well, in the first place its expensive for Japan to take India, even minus a couple of units from max. The victory tends to by almost-Pyrrhic, destroying a large chunk of air force and leaving only one ground unit. If UK is already established in the Middle East, with MICs in Egypt, South Africa, and possibly Persia pumping out units, Japan has a large logistical issue dealing with the output of two or three “closer” MICs while holding off the Allies in the Pacific and trying to hold onto the money islands and valuable coastal territories. Japan is trying to defend itself and build an advantage to let it push farther into the Middle East.

I’ve seen this in play and been on both sides of it – it’s like hiking uphill through mud when running Japan. Even if you try to bypass the Middle East with naval assets, you find yourself facing an equal or superior navy and air force because you’ve had to split your forces to hold off the US and ANZAC or you find your income evaporating as you hold India but find your hold on coastal China and the money islands (and your income) evaporating. Big ANZAC, with US support, is snatching money islands faster than you can retake them, and it’s cashing out decently even after India falls.

In short, I’ve never seen it be an issue if the UK cashes Italy out of the Med fast and secures Egypt/South Africa. The UK Med fleet can hold the split Japanese navy off and even push it back. Strat bombers and fighters from South Africa, fighters and tanks from Egypt, and infantry/tanks from Persia make it a really tough fight for Japan. And if Japan stops spending on India, it falls behind rapidly in firepower and will eventually have to give up India. Japan actually winds up parking a large chunk of its air force in India for defense because it is being outproduced and it takes so long for new Japanese units to arrive.

All ANZAC and the US have to do is not lose Sydney, Honolulu, and San Francisco for an entire turn and Japan eventually runs out of steam. Every fighter the US and ANZAC land in a victory city in defense requires Japan to spend 13 IPCs to retake it (7 for transport, 6 for troops), and Japan is already down in income. Every money island captured from Japan is a huge swing that Japan really can’t afford to recover from because it costs it the entire swing to reclaim the income, and then it has to defend it. All those Japanese transports have to be escorted because by now US, ANZAC, and UK each have one or more strat bombers roaming the Pacific, and a light escort means you never get that money back. Oh, and don’t forget the subs! A few subs, a strat bomber, and that transport never makes landfall even with a decent escort.

Marsh

@MeinHerr:

Now, I hope , people see the point of Italy taking Egypt with mIC on I-2.  With only the Persian factory, UK cannot hold the Middle East, with Italian African forces intact… …

Germany sacrificing part or all Luftwaffe,  will make this happen

Japan will only have to squeeze mildly…Italy a little harder, India or Persia will crack.  UK cannot hold both without Soviet help. USSR will have to deal with units coming up Caucuses via NW Persia…once Iraq is lost…  Bonus galore for Italy.

When you convince us that you can take Egypt with a proper UK response to your threat (which analysis has shown to be quite empty), then I’ll listen to you about sacrificing the Luftwaffe. Show us numbers on the battle calculator that support your position.

Oh, and then convince us that you can kill Moscow with no Luftwaffe…

Marsh

UK has one theater it should focus on, and that is the Med/ME.

@Marshmallow:

Perhaps I might be more inclined to accept your position on India money vs Europe money if you showed me what could be done with it other than building more units in India.

Marsh

That is less clear than UK_Pac vs ANZAC money. It should be an axiom that UK_Pac money is better.

However, when you think about it, it is unlikely that you would not be buying out ME factories anyway - so the additional money has to be spent in London.

@MeinHerr:

With NO Taranto… ie: You leave the Italian Navy in SZ 97 Alive…  you can fly the TB ( from CV) and Malta FTR  and use the TR to get 1 ART and 1 Inf from Malta…
Even with all that… with a 2 SBR buy, using 4 FTR, 5 TB and 4 SBR , its a 100% win - with low luck

Defenders are : 1 AAA, 7 Inf , 2 Art , 1 Mech, 1 Tank , 1 TB and 1 FTR

So you are assuming that A) the UK moves in no extra units for defense and B) that it built the factory in Egypt UK1 but does not place units at that factory on UK2?

In as friendly a way as possible, you’re being incredibly optimistic.

If you add the 2 tanks, 3 fighters, and additional tac to the defense (assuming two tanks and a fighter is the build, that the Gibraltar fighter arrives, and that the fighter and tactical bomber from India arrive) after losing the infantry on a one round strafe, your chance of successfully taking the territory seems to be around 35% and that assumes that the UK AA gun does not get a hit. If it does, your chance of success goes down to 18%. If the UK was able to two bring more infantry in from anywhere, your chances without the AA hit are 10%-ish.

That’s hardly the surefire Axis victory you have been boasting of. So you must be thinking of going full tilt on Egypt.

If the Luftwaffe engages in battle til it or the defender is dead, then it looks like on average you will wipe out the defenses or leave only a fighter (and maybe a tactical bomber) in defense. At that point there is nothing the UK can do to save Egypt, but of course you’ve destroyed the Luftwaffe.

You still have the Italian air force, but the UK still has a strong navy and strong air force. If the UK did it right on UK1 it also has forces in the Middle East from activating Persia. Since there is nothing it can do to save Egypt, at that point that UK should:

1. Kill Iraq to prevent an Italian payout of free infantry should the Italians make it that far
2. Place a strong build in South Africa to keep pressure on Egypt
3. Build a MIC in Persia (if Persia was activated UK1). Since Sea Lion is definitely off the table, there is nothing stopping the UK from spending all its money in Africa and the Middle East at this point
4. Destroy any remaining Italian navy
5. Begin convoy disruption in sea zone 97. It is imperative that Italy not be able to cash out big

The UK still has an MIC in South Africa – Italy will need to keep that in check, leaving very little to deal with any UK forces in the Middle East. If you split your force to contain South Africa and also head into the Middle East, the UK already outnumbers you in the Middle East (again, assuming Persia was activated UK1).

If the UK builds the MIC in Persia, Italy will be outproduced 2-1 in units. By the time you get your Egypt force to Persia, you will not outnumber the UK forces (figure 3-4 aircraft, two full builds at the Persia MIC, remaining ground forces from the Iraq conquest [shall we say 2 units to be conservative?], perhaps a load of troops shipped in from South Africa, and probably a little Russian help [Russia can spare it because you have no air force!]). You and the UK will trade Iraq a time or two, but you will never break through to the entire Middle East.

Suppose you take Iraq in force on I4 with five infantry, 1 mech, 2 artillery, and five tanks (assuming you could put together 18 IPCs for a 3 tank build in Egypt, which is highly unlikely due to convoy disruption). Your planes can’t land in Iraq right now.

UK by now has stacked: 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 6 tanks, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, and probably a Russian fighter to augment its defense. The UK goes first, and if they attack you on UK5 it’s 55% (unless units from South Africa participate via amphibious assault – adding another infantry and tank and bringing in a strat bomber, gets the UK attack to 95%). So, you can’t move into Iraq in force. So you grab it light to cash out, and then the UK takes it back. You probably do this a time or two.

(Keep in mind that this estimate of your Iraq force means you’ve brought your entire stack into the Middle East, counting on units produced in Egypt holding off the South African factory.) That can go any number of ways, but basically this boils down to you need every unit you have holding off the UK forces from Persia, which leaves Egypt vulnerable to South Africa builds. There are no reinforcements from Italy, because the UK owns the Med (see below) and you have no transports anyway.

Some magic might happen if Japan is pressuring India – since planes from Persia can make India in a single move, you might gain the upper hand if all those Persian planes go to India to hold off Japan.

The real magic, however, would be you holding Egypt past UK6 – with convoy disruption happening, Italy just doesn’t have the income to compete with the UK. If UK is building one transport, one infantry, one artillery in South Africa each round from UK2 on, Italy cannot hold Egypt and fight for the Middle East because those transports can hit Egypt or Iraq or reinforce Persia. (If Italy splits its forces to try to hold multiple areas, it won’t do either job.) Even if Italy holds off the UK, the slightest push from the US will force it out of Egypt.

Back to Italy’s income – the UK owns the Med (1 BB, 2 or 3 CCs, 1 AC with a couple of planes, 2-3 DDs) and Italy’s income will get massive convoy disruptions in sea zone 97, limiting income to 10-14 IPCs per round even with some Middle East income. You won’t even be able to build at your two minor ICs completely, which means that in defense of doomed Egypt you will sacrifice European defenses.

You traded on average over 100 German IPCs (all the fighters and tac bombers and a strat bomber) for 59 UK IPCs (mostly ground units).

Results:

1. Russia does the happy dance. There is no possibility of Germany taking Moscow until at least turn 10 or 11. Depending on how Russia builds, it might even be longer. Those two bombers you built G1 would be desperately helpful on the Eastern Front as infantry or artillery.
2. The US can come light in the Atlantic because the Luftwaffe is not a threat.
3. Italy will either lose Egypt to the UK again or leave Europe very lightly defended. Can opening for Germany is pretty much out.
4. Italy cannot break through and own the Middle East and also keep Egypt. Doing even one of those things will be difficult.

So yeah, if you shoot Germany’s foot off by destroying the Luftwaffe, Italy can take Egypt and swap Iraq a couple of times. Woohoo. Italy will have game but it’s hardly the stellar Axis breakthrough you are promising unless the UK does dumb things or you get really good rolls consistently.

Oh, and the US does not need to worry about liberating Paris. Rome will be easy, because Italy has been spending its income in Egypt. Also, the US will not have to hold Norway too strongly, because Germany will be unable to recapture it. The US might need to do a slight push against Egypt, but probably not.

Marsh

Quit assuming that your opponent does dumb things. Seriously

@MeinHerr:

OK, so lets go over the moves again.

Yes, let’s. You keep getting it wrong.

First, you keep assuming your opponent defends improperly. If you blow Egypt up with the Luftwaffe (killing the Luftwaffe), the UK can no longer defend Egypt and expect to hold it. It is better off moving back to the next line of defense.

@MeinHerr:

UK2 - for 33 IPC  , Buys mIC in Persia.  Buys 3 Tanks in Egypt.  TR brings 1 Tank+ Inf from SA. TR brings 2 Inf from Persia. Gib FTR from Malta and 2 FTR from India+TB from India now land in Egypt.  
Egypt UK defense - 2 Inf+4 Tanks+TB+3 FTR - total 10 units . Defensive capacity - 4+12+3+12 = 31

Nope!

UK puts the build in South Africa, places MIC in Persia, lands air in Persia, destroys all remaining Italian fleet, and kills Iraq. Italy walks into Egypt. No fleet NO for Italy.

@MeinHerr:

Italy should now be able to collect its No surface Ship NO and Egypt NO… total = 21 IPC + $2 saved  = $23

TRs come back to Italy waters.

G3 - lands the Norway FTR from Alex into Egypt. German land units clambers aboard Italian TR.

Nope, UK killed those transports. And you do not get the NO for Allied shipping in the Med, because the UK is firmly in control. Those Germans did not climb aboard a transport because UK killed the transports. Remember the BB and CC from sea zone 110 you didn’t kill? Those are in the Med. Remember that fleet that came from India? That’s back in the Med. Remember the UK carrier and possibly cruiser from sea zone 98 that went to the Red Sea? Those are back in the Med. All of it is parked in sea zone 97, convoying away Italy’s income. Your transports died to UK planes.

On I2 Italy makes about 7 IPCs. It’s a little more on I3, and a little more on I4. That pretty much caps Italy out as long as the UK fleet is sitting in sea zone 97.

Not sure why you are totally stripping Germany of air power, but now if the UK wanted to it could build transports to hit mainland Europe.

@MeinHerr:

So alternative plan is to build big in Persia and SA…  correct?  And hope to take Egypt on UK6.

So UK will be spending first 6 turns just on taking Egypt.

Actually, the UK will just continue spending on the Med and Middle East. Firmly in control of the Med, all it has to do is build in South Africa and Persia faster than Italy can while convoying away the Italian economy. Italy will be stuck building 3-4 units per turn while the UK is building six.

@MeinHerr:

Collects 23 IPC. Now has the 2 Inf dropped off in Tobruk join the Libya forces….in Egypt

You are clearly assuming some miracle happened and that the UK navy vanished. Germany didn’t kill it G1 or G2, and Italy sure as heck didn’t kill it, so where did it go?

@MeinHerr:

Egypt has - plenty of defense….  2 + 2 + 2 = 6 units + All remaining units that survived viz - 3 tanks +Mech . Italian TR drops off 1 German land unit in Egypt + 1 Italian unit.
ie: 8 Inf + Mech + 3 Tanks+ German FTR+3 Italian FTR

G4 on - Germany starts getting the $5 bonus…

Nope, no Italian transports. They all died on UK2.

Now let’s talk about Japan

@MeinHerr:

I tried an OOB theory…
where  J1 buy was a Naval Base on Hainan… and Entire Japanese Navy moved there.  All Air not on CVs was on Kwangsi.
J2 - buy was Airbase in Siam… and all Japanese planes in Kwangsi landed on Siam… NO DOW on J2.  All Japanese Navy (with 2 Loaded TRs incl Tank), without Subs moved to SZ-39  India waters

This is J2… before UK2 …

UK2 , trust me… is in a very hard position…  and has to decide whether to put the mIC in Persia… which may be taken on J4…  or lose India… on J3/4…

J3 can always be SZ-77 … where it can threaten SA factory, Persian factory and India…

It can choose to commit on J3 , the amount of Navy it wishes… to that campaign.

UK navy with either be spread out in the Indian Ocean as blockers, or bunched up in SZ81…  either way…   Japan can decide it wants just Sumatra, Java and Malaya… it has its T1 and T2 builds enough to take PHP, Borneo  and HongKong

etc…

India on UK-2 would have its 5 Inf+Art+2 Burma Inf + 10Inf/8 Mech buy sitting tight in Calcutta… holding its breath…for J3

Yunnan will be secure… the landing base for the Siam planes…

So you are assuming that China just gives up Yunnan? Exactly how do you secure Yunnan when you have two of your transports tied up sitting in sea zone 39? I think you’re making assumptions about your enemy’s play again.

Incidentally, what are you doing against the US while your entire navy is completely off in the Indian Ocean?

There is some good stuff here, but you keep assuming that your opponent is blind and/or makes bad decisions. What you are describing is only possible if China has no threat on Yunnan on C2.

With only two loaded transports and three loaded carriers, I welcome your fleet’s presence in sea zone 77. Yes, you might kill South Africa, but your fleet will be so far out of position that the you are better off sailing around Africa than back into the Pacific.

Marsh

I am very bored at work today with no new projects to work on currently so I thought I would chime in.

too many hypotheticals for me here. I’m still confused on how you “deter” someone from doing something if they play before you every single time on Round 1. You may be able to deter something if you are attempting to deter a round 2 move.

A few observations from an outsider looking in:

MeinHerr you don’t account for any type of strategic/tactical bombing that may be employed against the UK by Germany.  Often airbase/naval base is attacked on G2 in 90% of our games. Major loss of funds on round 2 repairing this stuff. Pay me now or pay me later is the way we look at it.

Most German players are going to attempt to kill the entire UK fleet on G1. I know I always try!! 106 is dicey so most times I just leave it alone. Often I feel 91 is a better target using the 108-103 subs because you can possibly help Italy a bit with the upcoming attack on 96 from UK as well as get rid of a 3 def pip and 12 TUV for 6 IPC’s. And it is possible to live to round 3 if Taranto bomber is dead and 2 destroyers miss. Again trying to help Italy. I don’t think Germans would ever want UK to have any naval units left except for maybe 106.

My group is pretty big on the Sea Lion Feint in nearly 90% of our games G1 purchase ends up being 2 transports and 1 carrier placed in 113. this offers 3 transports for next turn so you can beef up Finland for a northern front or just assist in getting as many as you can to Baltic or even Leningrad blitzing with Poland based armor and mechs if no blocker (optimism of course).

My 2 cents. I commend you on defending your strategy but it makes many assumptions and like playing the USA in this game, requires some mistakes on the part of your opponent to make the next step viable.

Good players make very few mistakes unless they have been drinking Fireball whisky!!! That’s usually when my best friend and I really start the propaganda machine and generally when the mistake is made and more follow.

Sean…

@MeinHerr:

Could you please clarify what UK1 - Buy and Moves are?

Sure! http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38295.msg1566288#msg1566288

What I think may not be there is what happens with the sea zone 110 fleet. Depending on what happened in sea zones 111 and 106, only one of those UK ships may enter the med to sit in sea zone 96.

Also, I just realized that you are assuming that Germany loses no aircraft when clearing sea zone 93 of French ships on G1. The odds are against this. That probably means you take 12 aircraft into Egypt, not 13.

Your ideas are not bad amigo. But you keep assuming that your opponent screws up and that your opponent screwing up makes your strategy good. It doesn’t work that way. If your opponent reacts properly, your strategy still has to be able to win. That means you need more force, more maneuverability, or both.

To put this in a way you can relate to very well because I know you are USCF rated – any idiot can checkmate someone who play’s Byrd’s opening in chess. Go checkmate someone who plays the Ruy Lopez well if you want me to be impressed.

Marsh

@seancb:

Good players make very few mistakes unless they have been drinking Fireball whisky!!! That’s usually when my best friend and I really start the propaganda machine and generally when the mistake is made and more follow.

I want to play the game where everyone takes a shot at the start of the turn!

Marsh