Uk R1 Egyptian counterattack

Did the UK not return to Africa via the European theater?

Did the US not land in Africa US 1 via the Atlantic Ocean?

I don’t understand how Africa became such a clean sweep. Perhaps your allied fleet in the Atlantic was not focusing on the Battle for the Med Sea. If you want to be a thorn in Germany’s side, you cut them off from Africa, logistically speaking. And this Allied push from the Atlantic allows the Forces in the Mid East/India to hassle the Japs long enough for the Allies to catch up, and take control through attrition.

I see you wrote “tried” this tactic, i just don’t understand how you let the Axis powers steam roll Africa together. If they are going to focus their fleets and troops there, then you must do the same, right?

Sounds like some very bad logistics decisions on the part of the US. Garrison the West Coast and build Atlantic fleet to get troops to Europe and Africa. I think US Pacific fleet is a waste of loot and if Japan has turned on Africa it most certainly is. If there was a US Pacific fleet it wasn’t used to properly threaten Japan and divert some of those forces from Africa.

UK has the North in Russia.
US has to protect UK income in Africa and get back up troops moving to NOR/KAR and prep for WEU or SEU invasion.

I´ve to say that I´m also not a big fan of the Eg. counter-attack.
Japan can take India easily and build an IC there, if they want to and the German Luftwaffe in Paris and sometimes the sub can sink the US fleet.

You can’t let the Gerry forces escape Africa into TJD or Persia. You can’t let them run loose in Africa. That has to be stopped.

Japan is building an IC in FIC, KWA, Man or India. UK isn’t going to keep Japan out of India. They can keep Germany out of Africa.

The problem is that many Ger. players put their bid into Africa or buy a trn in the med (if bid= 8+).
If they do that you can´t pull of a really effective counterattack with Uk, because there are too much units in Anglo.

I generally feel a British Amphibious assualt on Egypt is a waste of time and resources.  Germany’s usually way too powerful, which means you commit more forces then necessary to the battle and that reduces your capabilities later.

On average, I find Germany has 2 infantry, 2 armor left in Egypt.  You need 3 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 bomber to even have a chance, and you might not do it.  Then where do you land your bomber so it’s out of range of that fighter sitting on Libya or worse the bomber on Libya???

Much better (percentage wise, reward wise and logistics wise) is a duel invasion of New Guinea and Borneo. (5 IPC vs 2 IPC)

@Decepticon:

usually i send 4-5 russians to persia R1 so that on the Uks second round theres 8 inf 1 figh in india. if the japs want to take it they’ll have to committ a lot of ground troops that would be better used against russia. by leaving it allows the japs to take without sending more ground troops. keeping india strong keeps the jap player from going all out on russia and prevents the japs from taking africa like what happened in my game. If you do retake egypt uk1 how do you play the americans from there. i always play the americans all out against germany.Â

But attacking India with a garrison of Russian troops is going all out on Russia. And how is the eastern front holding up with that much material removed from CAU?

You ahve your choice…

lose 3 IPC as UK in India.
lose 10 IPC as UK in Africa.

That is the choice when you debate the UK1 counter-attack on Egypt.

Or lose 2 IPC on Round 1; 6 IPC on Round 2; 7 IPC on Round 3 and 9 IPC on Round 4 but be up 5 IPC for the islands of Borneo and New Guinea and maybe 3 or 6 for Norway and W. Europe.

IF going KJF, then I would agree Jen.  But not under normal KGF circumstances.

Normal KGF doesn’t exist for me anymore.  I like to move for Japanese nuetrallization, but not pacification and stall Germany.  Why?  Because it’s loads easier.  Either Japan uses the lions share of her income with naval vessels (thus being a wuss against Russian probes) or they get wiped out.  Meanwhile it’s going to take time for Germany to beat back Russian and British forces in Northern Asia.

@Decepticon:

I just lost a game as the allies where I tried taking Egypt back with the indian forces R1 and found that strategy was a disaster. Japan took India very early and staged their fleet there to pound the allies in Africa, allowing the Germans to reconquer it very quickly with little effort or money by the axis powers. Also, the Japs built an IC in India turn 4 and used it to pound Russia via kazakh. How is letting this type of situation occur better than defending India to slow down the Japs at the cost of letting the Germans have Africa a round quicker? It seems to me leaving India just lets the Axis take Africa easier.

Decepticons, boo.  Autobots rule!

The real reason why you take Anglo-Egypt back is . . . well there’s a lot of reasons.

1.  If there are 1-2 tanks in Africa, they can quickly take territory in the following turns.  Figure on 2 IPC of territories on G2, 1 IPC of territories on G3, and 1-4 or so more IPC of territories on G4.  (Tank blitz west from Anglo-Egypt G2, then more blitzing with backup from Anglo-Egypt reinforcements landed on G2 on turns G3 and G4).  So figure that on G2 you lost 2 IPC of territory (figuring that you would still have lost Anglo-Egypt), and on G3, you add another 2 for the same territories because a US recapture will make its transported forces relatively inefficient (you need two turns with transports to reach south of the Sahara), plus another 1 IPC, then on G4, you add 3 IPC for the previously captured territories plus 1-4 more depending on the South Africa UK infantry.  Combined, on G2-G4, that’s Germany up 8 IPC minimum and UK down 8 IPC minimum, a difference of 16 IPCs.  Rememeber that this can ONLY be countered quickly by using Allied transports to focus on Africa, which is going to cause severe delays in mounting any reinforcements or attacks on Europe.

Now figure that the German tanks cost 5-10 IPC, and your probable losses will be 1-2 infantry.  Even if you lose all three infantry in the attack, that’s still trading 9 IPC of units for 10 IPC of units.  What is more likely, though, is that you will destroy the 1-2 tanks at a cost of only 1-2 infantry AND get the IPC for recapturing Anglo-Egypt as well.  So that’s more IPC in the bank.

Now figure that if you land a bomber and a fighter in Africa, and Germany only has a fighter and a bomber in range (often the case), Germany CAN attack you at an advantage, but the German fighter will consquently be out of place to attack any Allied Atlantic fleet on the crucial third turn (US1 build, US2 move near London, US3 Allies combine navy in a forward position).  Also, you can deplete valuable German air.

2.  If you retake Anglo-Egypt, you could possibly threaten to push the Indian fleet into the Mediterranean.  Not a great threat because you will almost certainly want to use the Indian fleet to deplete the Japanese fleet.  You can also force Germany to use its Algerian forces (probably in Libya at the end of G1) to commit to Anglo-Egypt.  Which means that any Allied forces at Algeria will have less to worry about.

3.  If you retake Anglo-Egypt, Germany will have to move units from Southern Europe (best case scenario usually), or worse for Germany, the Ukraine, to retake.  That’s less pressure on Moscow.  Also, Germany will probably have to move some EXTREMELY valuable tanks into Anglo-Egypt to try to take Africa quickly.  But G2 is too late for an Anglo-Egypt holding because a tank blitz west is countered by UK and US landings in force there.  (It’s usually not a good idea to pull transports off the Allied transport fleet, but for a 5 IPC tank and a 1 IPC territory, and a quick reclamation of Africa . . . it’s probably worth it).

–

If the Germans had an African bid or a lot of luck on the Anglo-Egypt attack, and you’re facing 3+ or even 4 units, you have to seriously rethink trying to retake Anglo-Egypt, because in such a case, there’s a moderate chance of failure and quick disaster for the UK with the combined quick collapse of India and Africa.  Given such a situation, I would probably consolidate  at Persia to counterattack any Japanese holding of India.

If they moved their fleet off the coast of libia then moving there with your US forces is basiclay commiting suicide with them. If they put their fighters at a good spot and their sub survived ( pretty likely ) they can do that and still combine most of their fleet at G2.

Â

Humor me for a moment and let me ask, how many fighters does Gerry need to take out 4 TRN, 1 DD and 1 BB (the allied fleet)?  All of those planes would also have to be in Lybia and/or WE if they are to attack the Lybian SZ (sorry no gameboard). Any German forces in Lybia would be crushed from the back to back amphibious invasions, right? Regarding the necessary 5-7 plane Luftwaffe in WE, some of them would have to have flown straight over and missed critcal battles in Russia. In order for the German fleet to combine on G2, then the German BB and TRN can not attack the Allied fleet and still move after.

I think the Allies welcome this attack from Germany on their fleet. Worst case scenario…… the allies lose their fleet but have a pod of landlocked troops in Africa and ready for a back-door reclaim of Africa.

Furthermore, the attack has most likey claimed some, most or (most likely) all of the luftwaffe.

If the Germans just simply attack (fleet and all) and not go for the combination of their fleet, then they stand a better chance of winning the battle in strength, however it brings the german fleet into unwelcome waters that subject it to attack from allied planes. Thats only if it can get there, when it could most likely be docked off the coast of AES where many Gerry players take it G1.

I stand behind playing India out, and not bailing. I also believe an Allied assault on Africa via the Atlantic is enough to hastle the Axis Powers long enough.

Very surprised most of you did not comment on this.

Cut off germany and Africa has the best chances of survival.

@Novosibirsk:

If they moved their fleet off the coast of libia then moving there with your US forces is basiclay commiting suicide with them. If they put their fighters at a good spot and their sub survived ( pretty likely ) they can do that and still combine most of their fleet at G2.

Humor me for a moment and let me ask, how many fighters does Gerry need to take out 4 TRN, 1 DD and 1 BB (the allied fleet)?  All of those planes would also have to be in Lybia and/or WE if they are to attack the Lybian SZ (sorry no gameboard). Any German forces in Lybia would be crushed from the back to back amphibious invasions, right? Regarding the necessary 5-7 plane Luftwaffe in WE, some of them would have to have flown straight over and missed critcal battles in Russia. In order for the German fleet to combine on G2, then the German BB and TRN can not attack the Allied fleet and still move after.

I think the Allies welcome this attack from Germany on their fleet. Worst case scenario…… the allies lose their fleet but have a pod of landlocked troops in Africa and ready for a back-door reclaim of Africa.

Furthermore, the attack has most likey claimed some, most or (most likely) all of the luftwaffe.

If the Germans just simply attack (fleet and all) and not go for the combination of their fleet, then they stand a better chance of winning the battle in strength, however it brings the german fleet into unwelcome waters that subject it to attack from allied planes. Thats only if it can get there, when it could most likely be docked off the coast of AES where many Gerry players take it G1.

I stand behind playing India out, and not bailing. I also believe an Allied assault on Africa via the Atlantic is enough to hastle the Axis Powers long enough.

Very surprised most of you did not comment on this.

Cut off germany and Africa has the best chances of survival.

I think it’s off the west of Algeria, actually.

With an African bid, the German Mediterranean fleet takes Gibraltar with 1 inf.  I believe that was what ShadowHawk was referring to . . . but a lot of posters do that; assume you know what they are thinking.  My theory is that the German sub went to Gibraltar, as he said the German sub in the Atlantic survived, which is unlikely given the Allied air in that region, unless the sub went to Gibraltar and united with the German battleship there.

As far as standing at India - I think that it has to be done with UK AND Russian troops, possibly some US.  And that means a few things.  First, the defending force will have a lot of infantry.  Second, any defense will be barely adequate against Japanese aggression.  Third, because of the mostly infantry composition of the forces, any attack will be poor in strength.  Fourth, any expansion from India is risky because transports from Tokyo can drop into French Indochina in a single turn.  Fifth, infantry do not move quickly, so will be unable to respond to a Japanese threat though China/Ssinkiang/Novosibirsk or Kazakh, or against a threat to the Soviet Far East, or even to Caucasus.  Sixth, by producing units at a forward position, Japan’s logistical combat problems are largely solved with a four-transport drop from Tokyo allowing its infantry to be effective on the round following production for defense, and on the round thereafter for offense.  Seventh, the Indian IC is vulnerable to target of opportunity strategic bombing.  Eighth, building an industrial complex at India delays any UK naval build near Europe, and therefore delay of any cost-efficient transport chain.  Ninth, if Japan cracks India, it has a forward placed industrial complex.  Tenth, the loss of Africa as described in my earlier post.  To be more specific, with landings at Algeria, the Allies take a long time to reclaim Africa if Germany held Anglo-Egypt with a couple of tanks past UK1.  And if the Allies used their transports to go south, that’s less early pressure on Germany.

lose 3 IPC as UK in India.
lose 10 IPC as UK in Africa.

That is the choice when you debate the UK1 counter-attack on Egypt.

As allways i don´t agree with you here switch  :wink:

I think that if India is served on a “silver plate” to Japan Russia is in serious danger really fast.

Since Japan will have enought forces to build a factory in india on J2, that means Japan will conquer Some parts of Africa on J3 and whole africa on J4.

Im going with 2 trn, 1 IC build J1 (1 IPC bid japan) , and one IC, 3 Arm J2, and 5-6 Arm J3 etc etc.

Point is that Japan Trns goes to SZ36 on J2 and Egypt SZ on J3 and down to South africa ith one trn on J3 (probably madagascar to)

Germany will Push against Russia hard and on R5 russia will have to either amke a stand in Cauccasus or withdraw (maybe R6)

My Indian Strategy basically depends on who I play … but usually if I know someone is going to attack it anyway (and Japan can almost always take it) I will take back Egypt and then pull back into Persia and then with America also landing in Algeria on US1 Germany will be out of Africa on US2 and if they do attack Egypt again on G2 they will just have commited more forces into Africa and away from Russia and I will eventually just chase them out anyway with USA

Excellent review Paint.

I enjoy the fleet unification for Germany.  But it does have problems of it’s own.

Something equally fun, if you can do it:

Get 2 infantry 1 armor in Libya for your bid.

Attack T-J and Egypt on Round 1

Sail through and take India on Round 2. :)

Wicked having Germany set up like that, you can cause some major damage there.  If you can afford it, and I did this once, build an IC on India in R3.  (Save 5 IPC on R1, 5 on R2 this helps defray the costs.)

Now you have a BB, TRN and forces comming out of India for Germany to dump into Africa or walk into southern Russia to support European based assaults and japanese holdings.  It forces Russia to think not only of blitz blockers but something behind them to prevent free land grabs by Germany.