Destroyer on G1

@Kreuzfeld:

CVs are good. However, the reason DDs are bad, isn’t that it is a “bad” combatship if you plan on attacking. It is just that the TTs really are good combatships in the game. You will  usually have enough heavy ships surviving the first turn. Those ships combined with TTs will be enough to stop the luftwaffe. The TTs really are great combatships in this game. (seriously)

I understand that TTs are the best ship economy-wise, but I believe that a CV may be an extremely cost-efficient buy for the first turn only (because you have the two FTRs in UK that can land on the carrier no problem).  Later in the game the CV would become extremely cost-inefficient, of course (you’re paying 16 for a 1 HP 3 DEF when you could be spending that same 16 IPC for 2 HP of 1 DEF that can also transport units).

@Kreuzfeld:

I usually land in africa until my pacific fleet makes it to the atlantic. then I split and send uk into norway and start landing in the americans in europe the round after that.

Do you advocate sending the Indian Fleet south?  What do you do about the TT in SZ59?  When I used to play Revised/42/42SE I always remember going out of my way to eliminate it (as forcing Japan to buy more TTs is a good way to buy the allies precious time).

That’s kind of the point though.  I don’t do a Russian build of 8 infantry on Round 1 for that exact reason, having the extra tanks helps throughout the entire game in keeping Germany boxed in a little.

And if I am not hitting Ukraine, and sometimes I don’t, it’s because I am hitting Belorussia and W. Russia or just stacking W. Russia like a mad woman (expect 9 infantry, 2 artillery, 4 armor, AA Gun in W. Russia with Russia having lost 2 infantry in the attack) with 3 armor in Moscow to back them up. (This of course results in Caucasus being taken by Germany on G1, but that’s a minor nuisance in the game I think.)

That means Germany has to be able to repel 9 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 7 Armor, 2 Fighters in Karelia and I just don’t see them being able to do so.  I’m assuming 9 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 6 Armor (with none lost taking Karelia and two units transported from W. Europe to Karelia).

I have Russia surviving that attack with a 93% chance (6 Armor, 2 Fighters left.)  Now sure, Germany will have 8 Armor and their fighters to attack that, but do you really want to trade 8 Armor and some fighters against 6 armor, aa gun if England’s dumping troops into Norway (which you have to leave abandoned) or worse, invaded W. Europe with Americans ready to land next round again?

For the record, that assumes neither Ukraine nor Belorussia were taking on Russia 1 meeting Switch’s points 2 and 3 I am also assuming the Battleship off Gibraltar died with the loss of one German submarine (safe assumption) and that Egypt fell on Germany 1 leaving 1 armor behind (taking Infantry/Armor from S. Europe for the assault.)  That meets all 4 of Switch’s points.

I am also assuming England landed and liberated Egypt on UK 1 and that England sunk the SZ 5 fleet with 2 fighters, bomber (since the original poster mentioned he was moving a ship to SZ 3 to block England from softening Germany) surviving with 1 Fighter, Bomber at least and that Norway was invaded iwth 2 Infantry, 2 Armor. (England’s buy would probably be Aircraft Carrier, Submarine, 2 Infantry if SZ 5 was not attacked, 2 artillery in place of the submarine if it was attacked and cleared.)

With software? Are you sofware? Wait a moment, you are Smith agent from Matrix  :mrgreen:

Try a stalling tactic on G2 instead…

This is assuming a few things

On turn 2 move the Baltic fleet into SZ 7…

What is the UK/US going to do on Turn 2? probably reinforce Algeria again instead of taking Norway…
Or on the other hand the UK can trade fleet for fleet to move you out of the way (but they still didn’t grab Norway and you just hurt there fleet considerably… (i’m happy)

Assuming they leave you alone (most cases)

Depending on the non-coms in turn 2 for the allies, on turn 3 you may even be able to leave 1 German SS in SZ 7 and move the rest back to SZ 5 or something and that will stop the UK from getting Norway Again!!! (meaning them russians will have to fight a 3 front war) it’s a win-win situation for the Germans.

With no Bids G1 I buy a carrier, tranny, and 5 guys.  Carrier and tranny go in the Baltic. Land 2 existing fighters on carrier NCM after they make their attacks. Forces UK to buy land forces because I can use the carrier to bring an extra 2 fighters towards a UK main land attack plus 2 extra land pieces via G1 tranny purchase. If not 2 trannies helps to pound northern Russia or retake Norway.  I invite the UK to attack my navy with a carrier/2 fighters sitting in the water or take Norway. Germ fleet is big enough to destroy UK fleet if they move closer to attack Norway before turn 3 with no additional Germ Naval purchases. I use MED fleet/Bomber/Fighter to attack Egypt killing UK Destroyer in process to start into Africa. If you dont take egypt UK can bring India Fleet into MED UK1. Thats bad news.  Kill UK BB SZ13 using SZ8 Germ sub as fodder and 3 fighters. 5 guys get placed for G2 transport movements, 4 in Berlin 5th in Southern Europe. To address the original question I think the channel dash is a real bad Idea. It allows the UK to destroy German Navy turn 1 and link up its India-MED navy. If US and UK have free passage to Berlin with their Navies its over soon for Germany.

@Jennifer:

We’re talking Sea Lion in Round 2 now?

England has 1 Bomber, 5 Fighters, 2 Infantry, 2 Armor, 1 Artillery and 1 Fighter, 1 Bomber, 2 Infantry, 1 Armor and 1 Artillery from America vs what, 6 infantry, 6 tanks, 6 fighters, and a bomber you said? (I know you did, I copy pasted it.) . . .

So the question is, do you want to loose your entire Airforce and not take the land, or do you want to allow England to hit you with 5 fighters and a bomber next round?

Er, who are you talking to?  I wrote that G2 SeaLion WON’T work.  “No, a G1 buy of 5 transports does not guarantee taking of London.”  Even later, I mentioned “That’s an offensive punch of 46 against an AA gun and a defensive punch of 54.”, I hope you don’t think I would think those were good odds!

The only SeaLion I advocate is a 1-2 tech dice for Long Range Aircraft with OOB (and possibly FAQs), to allow Germany the 16-30% chance to attack on G1 with 1 infantry, 1 tank, 6 fighters, and bomber, against London’s existing forces, as well as leaving Germany the IPCs to buy transports to secure London on G2 or G3; and even then I only advocate it if Russia did not fly its fighters in, and if OOB/FAQ rules are being used (because, of course, LHTR delays tech from going into effect, so you couldn’t get all those fighters to hit London).

The response I’m looking for is how to counter that threat other than flying Russian fighters to London, and ncsswitch has responded with a proposal of a Russian fighter attack on the Baltic, and a Russian attack on the Ukraine, combined with a sub move to block the German attack.  I think that is too risky because it commits three Russian tanks and Russia must win the Ukraine battle to kill that German fighter, and because both Russian fighters will probably die attacking the Baltic, in which case Germany could opt not to go G1 Sea Lion at all, but build mass ground units (POSSIBLY eight tanks, although I normally think of that as insanely reckless for Germany), and try to smash Russia instead.  But that’s not to say that I think ncsswitch’s proposal is bad, because preventing a G1 Sea Lion with 2 tech dice is pretty difficult anyways; if Russian fighters just fly to London (which was what I proposed), Germany is quite strong with the Belorussian and Ukraine forces intact.  Maybe if USSR did a hit and run on Ukraine, and hit West Russia . . .

“As for the detriment to Russia in that scenario… (Russia attacks the Baltic fleet with 2 fighters)
With the Baltic Fleet toast, UK starts landing in Karelia/EE/Germany via the baltic in UK2 with 6 divisions plus air and BB shot.  That immediate reingforcement of Russia is a heck of a boos,t and mor ethan counters the lost FIGs.”

First, if Russia was attacking the Baltic fleet - and all combat moves are made “simultaneously”, so I would also see the commitment in the Ukraine, and see that Russia was going to try to prevent G1 Sealion - I would probably kill the transport before the destroyer, because I just wouldn’t need the transport; I’d be planning a quick attack against Moscow at that point.  Second, in such a case, I do not see it as clear that Russia will kill the Baltic fleet, even if both Russian fighters die.  Third, even if the Baltic fleet was cleared, and UK built AC, transport, and 2 infantry, that fleet could not threaten E. Europe or Germany that early - there are just too many ground units being built in Germany and being pushed through E. Europe.  (If UK didn’t build an AC on UK1, and tried moving units into Karelia or E. Europe on UK2, Germany just uses W. Europe fighters and the bomber at Libya to clear, which is why I assume UK WILL build an AC, and not two transports, three infantry, and a tank.)  Fourth, if UK does stay in the Baltic, the US push on Africa and the Mediterranean will be postponed, and every turn that Africa is delayed is costly to the Allies.  Fifth - do you normally attack the Baltic fleet with Russian fighters on Russ1; if you do, how does that go?

–

I actually think the UK unification is the second best scenario for Germany, because it allows 6 transports, 2 subs, destroyer, 4-5 fighters, and bomber to attack a combined fleet of 2 transports, sub, aircraft carrier, 2 fighters, and battleship.  In such a case, I wouldn’t try invading London at all.  Let me clear, though, and state that I am firmly against 5 G1 transports; you can’t count on UK to unite that fleet, and even if it does, USSR’s push is just too strong.

I think the general consensus is you can pretty easilly cripple the Royal Navy (kill the Gibraltar BB and the Egyptian DST), but killing the whole fleet, while POSSIBLE, does not yield positive net results for Germany.  UK can too quickly rebuild (a single AC and they get a defense of 11 with their starting FIGs, and it only costs 16 IPC’s) and the US can too easilly sweep in since the risk from Germany AF is basically nil.

i like the first variant of assault guns.